Iranian Nukes and U.S. Middle Eastern Policy

By now everyone should be aware that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. If not, then you've been living under a rock for the past year or so, so you really need to get out more. It is Iranian long-range ICBMs that have precipitated the latest fit from Russia, after the United States decided that it would be a good idea to preemptively place anti-missile systems in Poland before Iran gets ICBM technology, after all.

Here's the problem: Iran has every right to possess nuclear weapons.

First off, Iran does not have a history of being overly belligerent in the Middle East during the modern era. Sure, they can talk a big game, but they rarely, if ever, walk the walk anyway. The last major Iranian military operation was against Iraq from 1980-1988, and that was in response to a war that Saddam Hussein started. There have been minor issues since then, but for the most part Iran has actually remained relatively peaceful militarily, with the exception of nonsensical political rantings put out by Ahmadinejad (who, in reality, has next to no real power over the government or military as he isn't a senior cleric).

As far as I'm concerned, a nuclear Iran wouldn't be the end of the world. In fact, a nuclear Iran could be turned into a valuable ally in the Middle East and force us to realign our foreign policy for that part of the world for the better. Face it, if Iran had nuclear arms, we'd have to actually engage them on some diplomatic level. It's in our best interests to foster a positive relationship with Iran.

Consider the following:

1. Iran wants nuclear power and nuclear wepaons. The USA agrees to aid Iran in the production of both, provided we are allowed to maintain on-site inspectors. This allows us to identify the characteristics of Iranian nuclear material. That way, we would be able to determine if a nuclear weapon was sourced in Iran, and if one was used against the United States, we would then detonate a nuclear device in Q'om in retaliation.

2. Nobody wants us over there, so pull all of our forces out of the Middle East, with the exception of a carrier battle group in the Gulf to ensure that the free passage of American merchant shipping and oil carriers is not interfered with. Democracy in the Middle East isn't important, the oil coming out of it is. That's the cold, hard reality of the situation. And if anyone else wants to ensure the safe passage of their own goods and oil, then they can take care of it themselves.

3. A withdrawl of US forces allows us to send them to places where it makes sense to send them, like Pakistan, to take down the corrupt regime that is harboring Al Qaeda and Taliban elements, and the US border with Mexico, to cut off the invasion of illegal noncombatants.

4. Keeping the US out of the Middle East will allow them to sort things out for themselves. We'll ensure that American oil gets through, but they can pretty much live life how they see fit otherwise. We have no real right to impose Western values or political beliefs on other nation states anyway. If Saudi Arabia wants to keep their women under wraps and deny them basic human rights, then that's their prerogative, and the responsibility of the people in their own society to effect any change they see fit, for example.

5. The big kicker: eliminate all US political and military support for the state of Israel. We get nothing from the relationship whatsoever. It's time to cut bait and let them take care of themselves, both in the Middle East and on the floor of the UN Security Council. No more free vetos, sorry. And no more wasted taxpayer dollars aiding a nation that likes to aid potential aggressors like China and Venezuela, sometimes by sharing American technology without our consent or approval. They made their bed in 1947, now let's see if they can really lie in it.

Take those actions, and our overall relationship with the governments of the oil-producing states and their Arab and Persian neighbors will, over time, improve dramatically. This will lead to an eventual lessening of the rampant Anti-Americanism that invades these societies and fuels suicide bombers and other idiots. But that leads me to the last point: blackmail. If this is going ot work, these nations need to understand that we will no longer tolerate any actions by their citizens against the United States under the banner of Islam. If we want to make a serious dent in Islamic extremism, we need to convince those nations to do something about it themselves. That requires motivation. The best way to do this? Put out a statement to the leaders of the nations in the Middle East calling for a complete end to militant Islamic attacks on American citizens and soldiers (the latter group being in the process of leaving the AOR anyway). The first time an American citizen is killed by a terrorist attack directed against the United States or it's interests such as an embassy on foreign soil (i.e. if a suicide bomber blows up a market in Tel Aviv and a vacationing American is killed, we would not be obligated to respond in this serious manner), we will put a missile into a madrassa. If it's okay for them to use religion against us, it's okay for us to use religion against them. Madrassas are where a lot of the religious education and the anti-Americanism stems from, so they are a valid target. We'd have to repeal the Laws of Armed Conflict, but that's a great idea in and of itself, as it would allow us to fight wars on the level of our enemies, transforming the US military complex into something that would actually be feared, acting as a much more credible deterrent. Really, anyone who goes into a war with one hand voluntarily tied behind their back deserves to get a beating, anyway.

And that, people, is how you get America out of the Middle East, keep the oil flowing, and put a serious dent in Islamic extremism as directed towards America and Americans. The rest of the world? They can figure it out for themselves. We're the evil Americans who aren't supposed to be interfering and imposing our will on the rest of the world, remember? All we're doing here is protecting our direct interests and our citizens, and leaving the rest of the region to handle its own affairs.

Russia vs. America, Take 2

1991: The USSR loses the Cold War, and collapses.
2007: Russia wants to start it all over again.

And you thought Ali-Frazier II was a titanic rematch.

Here's a story that doesn't get near enough play in the news (doesn't involve one missing American out of a few hundred million, I guess). Let me begin with some background info for the less-informed of you out there.

As many people know, the United States is developing a missile defense system to defend against a potential ICBM attack by a rogue state like Iran or North Korea. Sounds like a plan, right? Well, we had to pull out of the ABM Treaty to put missiles into Alaska to cover the North Korean angle, and that made the Russians kinda irate. Of course, we did pull out of the treaty legally, in accordance with Article XV (that's "fifteen"). The Russians were a little distressed, fearing that a massive ABM system buildup could lead to the United States gaining a first-strike capability. They must have forgotten that the Cold War was over and neglected to realize that the prospects of the USA ever raining an ICBM salvo down on Russia are pretty much nonexistant. They also must have forgotten that they violated the treaty back in the 70's and 80's by developing the S-225 mobile ABM system, but that's another story.

Fast forward to present day. North Korea has demonstrated, through a spectacular launch failure, that their rocket scientists are not exactly world-class. What do we do next with the ABM system? We look for other rogue states that are high on the "potential future problems" list. Number one on that list is Iran. So the next logical step was to defend against an Iranian ICBM. So, we have been discussing with Poland the idea of basing an ABM site with 10 missiles inside of Poland, to counter just that sort of threat from the Middle East. Now the Russians get REALLY testy. Why? Because they claim that the ABM system is really aimed at taking out their ICBM strike capability. And that, people, is where the flawed logic comes into play on an epic scale.

Let me start by stating that I will have an MS in Space Warfare in about three months, and that I have a professional knowledge of some of these concepts outside of that, so I am not another random American orating from his posterior. Oracles like that make ME irate. Moving on.

The system in place in Alaska and proposed for Poland is the GMD, or Ground-based Midcourse Defense system. It uses a hit-to-kill vehicle to intercept ICBMs (meaning it takes a small object and slams it really fast into the missile, leading to a large explosion) during their midcourse flight stage. This is the bulk of the missile's flightpath, where it is arcing towards the target, mostly outside of the Earth's atmosphere. Now, the GMD system is claimed to have a 3500 mile range. This is likely part of the cause of Russia's irateness. There are Russian SS-19 and SS-25 ICBM sites about 500 miles from the Polish border. Looks like they have a case, right?

Wrong.

First off, consider that a Russian ICBM fired at the United States will travel in a northwesterly direction to come in over Canada and strike its target. This means that any GMD vehicle will have to take out the ICBM with a tail-chase shot. Now, ICBMs travel around 15,000 mph. It's pretty much impossible for the GMD system to detect a launch, get a track established to compute an intercept, and successfully take down an ICBM in a tail-chase engagement due to the massive speeds involved. Yes, Mr. Skeptic, it won't be a PURE tail-chase shot, but the GMD interceptor will have to play catch-up the whole way, and that just isn't going to happen. 1. It's not physically possible for GMD to do that. 2. GMD wasn't designed to do that in the first place, it's designed for a head-on kill shot.

Secondly, the Russians and their fanboys like to state that placing GMD in Poland is obviously intended to take out Russian missiles because it is placed so close to Russian ICBM fields, and because it's just so darn far away from Iran. Wrong again. An Iranian ICBM fired from, say, the missile silos outside of Tabriz at 37 58' 18.66" N 46 10' 40.99" E (plug that into Google Earth!) and targeted on Washington, DC, will fly a distance of around 6,000 miles. And, oh wow, will likely pass within fifty miles of the Polish capital of Warsaw if it's a straight shot, give or take a little for the deviation due to the Earth's rotation. The whole GMD in Poland thing now makes a lot more sense! You can detect a launch, set up a track, and engage with the GMD system in a nice, head-on fashion, even if the Iranian weapon takes a path a few thousand miles off to one side or the other. There went that argument. As for why isn't the system placed closer to Iran, well, you want to give yourself enough time to set up an accurate track to make sure you have optimum parameters for the intercept. Putting this thing in Turkey, for example, means you get to probably deal with the whole tail-chase concept again, which we already know isn't going to work.

So, despite the logic that says otherwise, Russia has decided to view the GMD system being placed in Poland as a threat. Their response? Talk about pulling out of treaties, developing new weapons, and whatnot. They even rebuffed Bush's idea of a joint missile defense system. Looks to me like they're determined to find an enemy to justify increased defense expenditures, but that's just me. At any rate, we're likely going to head down the road to another arms race and potentially another Cold War if cooler heads don't prevail.

Now, opponents also claim that this must be directed towards Russia as Iran has no ICBM capability as of yet. The thing is, they view the United States as a threat, and probably rightfully so. They are continuing to develop longer-ranged missiles, as is their right. If they really want to hit the USA, they need an ICBM, and there is no reason to assume they won't keep going until they get one. In this case, the United States is taking a preemptive defensive action. If Poland goes for it, there is nothing wrong with the idea. Just as Iran has the right to develop weapons, we have the right to defend ourselves. And come on people, be serious for a moment. Waiting until your enemy has a new weapon to decide to defend against it is asinine. Sometimes you have no other choice but to act in that manner. This isn't one of those times, and as such, given the preponderance of evidence that the system won't work against Russian ICBMs and the fact that America has no desire to start a nuclear war with Russia, placing GMD in Poland is the right course of action.