Iran Claims the Right to Retaliate

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19753800

As a response to Melissa’s post on the Entebbe Option, Iran has made it clear that not only is it willing to retaliate to any Israeli military action, but it is also fully capable of doing so. Israel‘s prime minister told the UN that Iran might have the capability to make a nuclear bomb by the middle of next year and the only way to prevent Iran from continuing is to set a “red line”. In his eyes “red lines don’t lead to war, red lines prevent war”. This directly relates to the flow diagram Professor Klunk drew on the board today in class because now the world knows that Iran will not capitulate, but rather fight back with force if attacked. This provides America with some definitive answers that will help foreign policy advisers figure out the available options and weigh the costs of each. Obama says he has not completely ruled out military action, but that “sanctions and multilateral negotiations with Iran must still be given time to work.”

Related articles

• Iran says it reserves right to retaliate if attacked | Reuters (reuters.com)
• Iran will ‘retaliate’ if attacked (bbc.co.uk)
• Onion article cited as fact by Iran news agency (msnbc.msn.com)
• Iran vows to ‘retaliate if attacked by Israel (aljazeera.com)

Read Full Post »

Hugo Chavez’s Mega-Mausoleum

 

Statue of the Libertador of the Plaza Bolívar in Caracas (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Hugo Chávez is focusing on building an edifice for Simón Bolívar.  Instead on focusing on improving the living conditions for the people in Venezuela he chose to do this instead.  It will cost 140 million to build. There has also been a rumor that that it will be holding Hugo Chavez remains.  Bolivars remains were brought to Venezuela and Chavez ordered that his body needed to be checked because he was sure Bolivar had been murdered. “In 2011, after gathering genetic data from the exhumation of Bolívar’s remains, Chávez had a digital 3-D rendering done of El Libertador’s face. Critics have complained that the rendering has been altered to make the Caucasian Bolívar look more indigenous. Above, Chávez applauds in front of the rendering during celebrations of Bolívar’s birthday in Caracas on July 24, 2012”.  People disagree with the actions Chavez is taking and they are right. I believe a leader should care about the children the most. It’s not fair to have kids suffering, violence increasing, and a lack of focus on health. To see a leader spend money on something like this instead of spending on his people is terrible.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/17/hugo_chavez_mega_mausoleum_bolivar

Related articles

• Chavez unveils Bolivar’s 3-D face (bbc.co.uk)
• Liberator Bolivar gets a revamped face and death certificate for his birthday (miamiherald.com)
• Venezuela’s Chavez Unveils Image of Bolivar’s Face (abcnews.go.com)
• Venezuela’s ‘Hurricane Hugo’ may have slowed but still packs a punch (miamiherald.com)
• A 3-D look at Latin American liberator Bolivar (edition.cnn.com)

Read Full Post »

Nuclear Fight Club?

U.S. and USSR/Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles, 1945–2005. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I found an article that discussed the United States plan during the Cold War and during the nuclear conflict that they faced. As the article explained what they were doing to try to prevent as well as win this nuclear war, it reminded me of the process tree we went through today in class with Iran and the United States. Reading through the article, I found some key factors that would play into the decision making for the United States and for the Soviet Union. Apparently during this time the Soviet Union were considering the belief that they might be able to survive a nuclear war, and the United States tried to influence them into thinking that a nuclear war would be not winnable. Tensions were so high that Soviet leaders considered in a crisis launching nuclear forces before the United States to to reduce the threat of the United State forces. These decisions that the United States and the Soviets made prevent nuclear war from happening. Had they done anything differently, there could have potentially been a nuclear war, and this shows and is a good example of how important leaders decisions are.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/27/nuclear_fight_club

Related articles

• How to Fight a Nuclear War – By William Burr (foreignpolicy.com)
• Declassified documents from 1980 show how US planned to fight a nuclear war (dailymail.co.uk)

Read Full Post »

Do Leaders Shape Foreign Policy?

This reading focused on the impact leaders can have on policy. It began by stating that leaders have options such as resisting attack or defending their country against anything. It may depend on the leader’s interest or their personal ambition. Leaders have options but from there anything they decide to do will ultimately have an impact. Another factor to consider when viewing how leaders affect foreign policy is public opinion. The leader in some cases may have different priorities than what the public believes he should focus on which then cause’s conflict.

The influence a leader can have depends on the constraints and opportunities and the interest and decisions he wants to make in foreign policy. The personality of a leader can also influence their decision making process. It can help understand what drives a leader and depending on their personality it can affect negotiations making them easier in some cases.

To try to understand leaders psychologist and foreign policy analysis have focused on certain studies. Foreign policy analysts looked at what kind of decisions a leader was likely to take; while a psychologist focused more on them for therapeutic reasons and had directed access to them. Anything that a leader is going through can come to affect their decision making process. Emotions can affect decisions but it is still being studied. Every action that a leader makes can ultimately have some sort of negative or positive impact on foreign policy.

Related articles

• Paul Ryan: “We Are Seeing the Ugly Fruits of Obama’s Foreign Policy Unravel on Our TV Screens” (Video) (thegatewaypundit.com)
• Foreign Policy Hands Voice Disbelief At Romney Statement (politicalwire.com)

Read Full Post »

The Entebbe Option

Three USAF C-130 Hercules aircraft are parked in front of the empty “Raid on Entebbe” terminal. The building is still pockmarked from the infamous 1976 Israeli rescue operations. From Airman Magazine’s December 1994 issue article “Will You Please Pray for Us?” -Relief for Rwandan Refugees. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Iran continues to be a hot button issue this month, not only in the US Presidential elections, but also in international politics. Apart from Iran, two of the most involved countries in the debate have been the United States and Israel. Israel has been pushing for a strong military response to the program for months, escalating the international discussion to a tenser level then it has been in months. Israel has demanded a “red line” for Iran and has called for the United States to not hinder their efforts, if they aren’t going to help. The United States, on the other hand, has been trying to focus on a calmer, more multilateral approach to the issue, relying on sanctions and international condemnation to try and force change, rather than a military approach.

Because of this divergence in approaches, the United States has been left out of much of Israel’s planning in response to Iran. Although many officials believe that there will be no strike earlier than November (if there is one at all), there are still several scenarios emerging that could be the potential choice for an Israeli strike, if the situation continues to deteriorate. The first option is the “Iranian Entebbe,” where Israeli strike teams enter Iranian nuclear facilities, steal as much uranium as possible, and then plant bombs in the facilities while they escaped. Option two is a airstrike of Iranian nuclear facilities, with support from long-range Jericho missiles. Option three is the removal of the Iranian leadership.

All of the options have their drawbacks. For option two, the limited capabilities of the Iranian air force would make a bombing campaign against the Iranian facilities unsustainable — ultimately, they would only have one shot at hitting the targets and taking out the facilities. Option three would create chaos in the country and would not remove the elements in support of a nuclear program, just the figurehead. Iran would also probably create a backlash against not only Israeli interests in the region, but United States interests as well. It would be the one surefire way to involved the United States in a conflict they’ve tried to actively avoid, however.

Option one, “Iranian Entebbe,” seems to have the best chance of succeeding, though many people seem to think that Iran and the original operation “Iranian Entebbe” is based on from Uganda are too different to successfully re-purpose. However, many experts also think it could potentially be doable, and successful:

“The operation’s success would depend on speed, secrecy, simplicity and the credibility of Israeli intelligence,” Perry writes. “According to the Pentagon war planner, Israel’s access to intelligence on Iranian military and policy planning is unprecedented, as is their willingness to share it with U.S. intelligence officials.”

source

Related articles

• New intelligence reveals Iran closer to attaining nuclear weapon than previously thought (haaretz.com)
• Israel finance minister says Iran economy “on verge of collapse” (news.yahoo.com)

Read Full Post »

Corporate Sabotage? Siemens Corporation and the Iran Nuclear Program

Image via CrunchBase

It is one of those moments in international affairs where you end up scratching your head.  Iran has accused Siemens corporation, based in Munich Germany, of planting explosives on equipment that would be put towards use in the Iranian nuclear program.  On the other side, Siemens corporation not only denies this claim, but they stand firm in saying that the components of their company dealing with nuclear energy have had no ties to Iran since the revolution in 1979.  Quite a mystery, indeed.  Who can we believe?  The BBC brings up some more interesting questions as well:

• Has the Iranian MP simply got it wrong?
• Is Iran buying Siemens equipment through a third party?
• Is there something more underhand going on, with sabotaged equipment being sold with the secret approval of Western intelligence agencies?

As we delve further, we have to think about the foreign policy implications for Germany, but also the US and Israel.  If Siemens was actively sabotaging equipment being sent to Iran –and I think that it is highly unlikely that they are directly involved — that certainly forces leaders of both countries to muck some of the geopolitical cards they have been dealt.  The US or Germany may not be able to be the “moral” authority of the international community, that is if we take things like soft power seriously.  It also calls on us to extend our vision beyond executive choices to other actors that have the potential to shape foreign policy.

Here is a link to the full BBC story. It will be interesting to see if the three questions they pose in the article will ever come to light.  If they do, you can rest assured they will appear in a future blog post!

Related articles

• Iran accuses Siemens of sabotaging nuclear program – Jerusalem Post (jpost.com)
• Iran accuses Siemens of nuclear sabotage (sfgate.com)
• Siemens denies Iran sabotage link (bbc.co.uk)
• Iran Accuses Siemens of Nuclear Sabotage (abcnews.go.com)

Read Full Post »