Peace Or No Peace?

Posted: June 25, 2025 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

In many situations, two things can be true at the same time. Looking at the events unfolding over the last two weeks in the Middle East demonstrates how this premise applies.

Last Saturday, the United States bombed three locations in Iran that were known to be associated with Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The ability to strike with lethality and accuracy anywhere in the world was aptly demonstrated by the attacks on Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan in Iran. 125 military aircraft were involved including refueling tankers, escort fighters and seven B-2 stealth bombers that dropped fourteen GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOP) or “bunker busters” on targets. At the same time, U.S. Navy submarines launched about thirty precision guided Tomahawk missiles at Isfahan. No aircraft were lost. No Americans were killed or wounded. By every standard, there is no doubt that the American military pulled off a wildly successful surprise attack on their assigned targets. We should all be proud of their skill, persistence, fortitude and valor. It was a tactical success in every way. However, was the mission accomplished? Were the Iranian nuclear facilities destroyed and their nuclear weapons program halted or at least delayed for many years?

We do not know.

The president announced within hours of the attack that the Iranian facilities were “obliterated.” There is no way he could know that. Many in his cabinet use the same or similar words to continue to describe the success of the mission. They revile anyone that questions their conclusion by calling them un-American and disrespectful to the courageous airmen and sailors that conducted the attack. As is usually the case with this administration, they are more concerned with the drama and self-congratulations than they are with the facts, with which they often only have a passing familiarity.

General Dan Caine, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) is more cautious, professional and deliberate in his descriptions. Until a complete account of the Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) can be made, we simply do not know the extent of the damage or even whether the targets of the bombing — enriched uranium and the centrifuges used to make it — were at the sites that we attacked. The attack was successful — bombs on target and everyone came home — but we do not know if the mission was successful — no more Iranian nuclear program. The only way to be absolutely sure is to inspect the sites on the ground. That is not going to happen. The bombing certainly crushed any hope of a short term resumption of discussions to allow inspectors, such as from the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) into the area. U.S. inspectors will not be able to go there, either. Of course there are numerous other ways to feel fairly confident of the results. Spies on the ground (it appears that the Israelis had numerous people in key places prior to their own attacks), intercepts of Iranian military and government communications discussing the damage that was caused and assessing their own ability to respond to the attack and other elements of intelligence trade craft that can give a fairly robust picture of what happened. That can take days or weeks before the Intelligence Community (IC) can say with confidence that they have a comfortable assessment.

With that in mind, the revelation yesterday on CNN, and soon widely reported elsewhere, that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the intelligence agency for the Pentagon, assesses that the Iranian nuclear program was only set back about three to six months rather than years or being “obliterated”. That report caused quite the uproar. For those reading the fine print, the DIA assessment was a preliminary report of “low confidence.” Such reports are often issued soon after an operation to give decisionmakers an outline of what may be needed in the near term should follow up actions be necessary.

There have been rumors/reports that the Iranians moved significant quantities of enriched uranium and centrifuges before the attack. It is thought to be enough to keep their program going. Similarly, although the Israelis killed several top Iranian nuclear scientists in their sleep, they cannot kill everyone and they cannot kill the knowledge of methods and practices that they have learned with their program thus far. Do not discount the possibility that the Iranians are also getting technical assistance, and perhaps even material, from their friends in North Korea and Russia.

Stopping Iran from having a nuclear program is not as easy as launching one bombing attack, no matter how audacious or successful that one attack may be. Wishing it so, shouting it so, demanding that the “scum” in the media stop asking how does the administration know, doesn’t make it go away. Saying that “nothing” can survive fourteen 30,000 pound bombs does not mean it happened. (May I remind everyone that the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) shares a headquarters with the North American Aerospace Command (NORAD) in Cheyenne Mountain near Colorado Springs Colorado. Completed in 1967, the command and control facility can withstand a nuclear attack. Surely the technology and know-how to build such a complex could be accomplished by other nations sometime in the ensuing 58 years.)

To me, a great big “tell” happened yesterday. The House and Senate were to receive briefings on the Iranian program and Saturday’s attack. When the news broke about the DIA assessment, the briefings were cancelled. One can only surmise that the administration knew that their brief would not hold up under questioning since the audience would be aware of the CNN report.

There are numerous additional questions surrounding the entire state of affairs. Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard testified under oath before Congress that the Iranians did not have the capability to build a nuclear weapon (people also forget that it is not enough to have a nuclear capability — a country must be able to weaponize the material and, often forgotten in the discussions, have a means to deliver it against an adversary. Not an easy task.) Trump said she was “wrong.” Multiple times in the last few days he has made it clear that he does not believe in, or listen to, anyone that tells him something he does not want to hear, regardless of the sources or methods used. This is unbelievably dangerous. Vice President J.D. Vance on Sunday said that the president and his advisers “trust their instincts.” Holy cow. We entrust our security and safety to instincts rather than analysis and facts? I feel better already.

I also have every expectation that political appointees in the IC will start requiring intelligence reports to conform to Trump’s preconceptions or politically expedient explanations. They have already done so while rationalizing the use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to round up immigrants. I am sure people will be fired at the DIA after the leak of their report yesterday.

There are, of course, issues surrounding this attack and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (also called the War Powers Act). Many members of Congress are calling Trump’s decisions un-Constitutional because only Congress can declare war. The Resolution calls for the president to brief Congress within 48 hours of military action if he acts on his own. This administration is ignoring the law. (Again.) Traditionally, the administration briefs the Gang of Eight prior to undertaking operations such as the attack on Iran. They did not brief them. (The Gang of Eight are the leaders in the House and Senate of both political parties along with the Chair and Ranking Member of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees).

In reality, wars are only resolved through negotiations. We will see if the U.S., Israel and Iran can figure out a satisfactory settlement. I am skeptical. A cease-fire is a very tenuous thing. There is a long way to go before anything is settled. Israel still sees Iran as an existential threat and besides wanting to end Iran’s nuclear program they would also like to see the religious zealots ruling Iran disappear — regime change. Iran still has its government and is still determined to erase Israel from existence.

The Iranians responded to the U.S. attack by launching missiles against the U.S. air base near Doha Qatar. It was really just a sound and light show — the Qataris, U.S. and U.K. (at a minimum) were given a heads up and they shot down the incoming missiles with no deaths or injuries. Do not expect that face saving demonstration to be the end of it from the Iranian perspective. The Trump administration thinks in terms of news cycles and then it is on to the next shiny object. The Iranians (Persians) have a long and proud history and consider themselves to be the root of civilization in the region (Arabs are poor nomads with no culture, according to the Iranians). They will be taking the long view and have the patience to wait out their enemies. The only wild card is the internal politics of both Israel and Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu keeps himself in power (and possibly out of jail) by keeping the wars going in Gaza and elsewhere. Will he honor the cease-fire once the U.S. resupplies his military? (At the expense of Ukraine. We only have so much in our stockpiles.) Will the people of Iran leave their government in place or will they rise up and try to install a new generation of leaders? It is still a very volatile situation and will be for quite awhile.

So many questions right now. So few answers.

What about Syria? (Part Three)

Posted: September 8, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Well, here’s another nice mess you’ve gotten me into!”  — Oliver Hardy

It is hard to know where to begin as events continue to unfold concerning possible United States military action against the Syrian regime of Bashar Al-Assad.  The bottom line is getting significantly obscured in all the political rhetoric within our country and without.  To me, however, it is still necessary for the world — and as the leader of the world, for the United States — to take action against Bashar’s regime.

As I write, I think of all the things that have gone wrong in the way that we’ve approached this case and how we may be able to rectify the many mistakes.  But in the end, that is all water under the bridge.  The real question is “what happens now?”  There are many questions that cannot be answered and thus create an aura of doubt about the feasibility of taking action.   Not to be cavalier, but it is also possible to be stymied  by over-thinking all of the issues and questions.  As a mentor of mine used to say it becomes “paralysis by analysis.”  Continuing to press for every conceivable scenario and pushing to eliminate all of the risk may even be a strategy by some of those opposed to military action.  To them, too many unknowns means we should not take action.  However, if that was the basis for all decision-making, then few things would get accomplished, especially in a context such as this one.  That is not to say that planners should not be trying to answer all of those questions.  As I pointed out in my first post on this subject on 28 August, there must be a plan B — branches and sequels as they are known to planners.  These are important when the operation is a success (the need to seize the initiative and to take advantage of unexpected opportunities when they arise) and they are critical if the operation is less successful (how do we still accomplish the mission while lessening or eliminating the problems standing in the way).  Keep trying to get the answers, keep working on contingencies and “what ifs” but at some point it is time to act.

I am not sure exactly why President Obama made the choice to get Congress involved in the decision to act.  Much has been (and surely will be) written about whether or not it was necessary, supports or undermines the Constitution, or jeopardizes the chances for success.  My own view is that it was not necessary.   Significant precedence exists for the president to initiate military action without a vote from Congress.  Indeed, in his own administration he took action in Libya, and on a much larger scale than anticipated here, without it.  Clearly, a president should consult with Congressional leaders, provide them with a rationale, share intelligence leading to the decision and otherwise include the legislative branch of Congress.  A vote, however, creates an entirely different dynamic and significantly complicates the issue on many levels.

Foremost among those complications is that the nature and ramifications of what was going to be a relatively (if there is such a thing in warfare) straight forward, short duration operation achieving tactical surprise if not operational or strategic surprise have changed.  The public, our legislators, anyone discussing the issue now talk about “going to war.”  We were never going to war with Syria and the vote in Congress is not a declaration of war.  But merely talking in those terms raises the stakes to a level not in the original concept.  (At this point, let me say I do not and will not gloss over the dangers of combat.  When bullets are flying, those on the scene don’t care if we are technically at war or not, they are in danger.  I remember Beirut in 1983 where the Reagan Administration would not authorize hazardous duty pay — commonly referred to as combat pay — because of fears it would trigger the War Powers Act.  We were not amused.)

The “Goldilocks Solution” I referred to in my 31 August post becomes increasingly difficult to achieve (not too little, not too much, but just right).  However, we must still try.  Politicians that argued that President Obama does not understand or believe in “American Exceptionalism” are now arguing that the United States should not be out front in holding Bashar accountable for his violation of international law.  Really?  We are the world’s leader militarily, economically, and in this case most importantly morally or we are not.  We cannot have it both ways.  To me this case is all about demonstrating that we are serious when we say that certain actions are totally unacceptable and that we will not stand by and let them happen.  Deterrence does not work if there is no consequence for the action being deterred.  Our nation is a leader in putting a moral force behind international law and therefore we must act.

Continued references to our involvement in Iraq under President George W. Bush are not relevant in this case.  It is wholly different.  I have not heard of a single member of the House or the Senate say that the evidence of Syrian use of chemical weapons (probably Sarin) is false or shaky or insufficient.   When the president addresses the nation this Tuesday, I hope that besides laying out the moral arguments for our involvement that he also includes the facts of the case — the surety that caused him to embark on this course in the first place.

Whether or not to act and if so in what manner is not a trivial discussion.  It is a weighty decision and I appreciate that members of the public and the Congress have legitimate concerns.  They should ask the hard questions.  To me, it seems that most of the opposition to military action falls into roughly three categories.  Some merely oppose anything that this president puts forward.  Period.  Thankfully, in this case I think that number is very small.  Others oppose military action because they feel that it would not do any good or merely “make things worse.”  I appreciate this line of argument but I think it naive.  What could be worse than what is already going on and will go on.  Could things get worse?  They could.  Will they get worse if we don’t act?  They will.  A third group, and in the Congress right now I think the largest group, feel that we do need to do something, but are not convinced that we will achieve our aims by taking military action.  This is where the Obama Administration must make its case.  To be sure, I do not think that they have made it to date.  Secretary of State Kerry has been the most eloquent in delineating why now and why in this way.  So far I have been unimpressed by General Dempsey (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) and Secretary of Defense Hagel. As the experts, they should be able to make the case with a clearly stated, straight forward mission statement and define the intent.  Why are we doing it and what do we accomplish?  I haven’t seen them do it, although they are getting closer with the aim to “degrade and deter” future Syrian use of chemical weapons.

There is a lot riding on this decision, and not just for those that must go in harm’s way.  I think our credibility as a nation is at stake and non-action will come back to haunt us in the future as other bad actors feel emboldened to create mischief.  Our past history demonstrates that foreign leaders can badly miscalculate the meaning of the contentious American brand of democracy.  Should this happen again with North Korea or Iran or even Syria (again) we will rise to the occasion as we have so many times before.  But it will be at a much greater loss of lives and treasure than would have been risked had we acted now instead of later.

So what will happen?  I don’t know.  My best guess is that the House will vote down the resolution and the Senate will pass it.  If that is the case, the President will go ahead and act.  If both the House and Senate vote down the resolution, the President will not act.

Either way between now and the beginning of October with so many domestic and international issues pending for our legislators to resolve it is going to be exciting.  Or as Bette Davis said in the movie All About Eve, “Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night.”