Iggy Video: Partitioning for Failure
The Long Arm Of Iran
Wall Street Journal
By Dan Senor
“I think it would be almost inconceivable that Iran would commit suicide by launching one or two missiles of any kind against the nation of Israel.”
–Jimmy Carter, speaking at Emory University, Sept. 19, 2007
On March 17, 1992, a suicide bomber crashed an explosive-filled truck into a building filled with Israelis in Buenos Aires. The bombing was so powerful that the destruction covered several city blocks — 29 innocents were killed and hundreds more were injured. This occurred more than 8,000 miles from Tehran. Two years later, on July 18, 1994, Buenos Aires was again hit with a terror attack. This time the target was the Jewish community center in the center of the city — 85 were killed.
Argentina was, understandably, rattled. The government launched a full-scale investigation. One of the key officials assigned to it was Miguel Angel Toma (later appointed by then President Eduardo Duhalde as secretary of intelligence from 2002-2003). Mr. Toma is not a warmonger. And he did not approach his job with any ideological axe to grind. He concluded not only that Hezbollah carried out the attacks in Argentina, but that at least one of them was planned in Iran at the highest levels of the Iranian government, aided by a sophisticated sleeper-cell network in Latin America. He also concluded that the attacks were strategically aimed at punishing the Argentinean government.
Iran and Argentina had had commercial ties throughout the 1970s and ’80s valued at hundreds of millions of dollars, and had entered into agreements to jointly pursue nuclear energy and missile programs. But by 1989, a new civilian government headed by Carlos Menem had come to power and canceled its prior agreements with Iran. As far as Iran was concerned, it was time to punish Argentina for the reversal and send a warning shot to the rest of Latin America. And by focusing on soft targets in Jewish communities, the operations would serve an additional objective: demonstrating to Israel that Hezbollah could hit anywhere at anytime.
Mr. Toma says — based on Argentina’s cooperation with intelligence agencies around the world — he’s certain of the date, location and participants in the decision by the Iranian government to execute the second Buenos Aires attack. He pinpoints it to a meeting that occurred in the holy Iranian city of Mashhad on Aug. 14, 1993. It was presided over by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, then and now the Supreme Leader of Iran; and the Iranian president at the time, Ali-Akbar Rafsanjani. Following this meeting, Mr. Toma believes that Iran began working with Hezbollah in the planning, funding and staffing of the 1994 attack in Argentina. Indeed, Argentina has issued warrants for nine Hezbollah operatives and Iranian leaders, including Mr. Rafsanjani. Nobody has been arrested.
The Argentinean case reminds us of four important points.
First, we must reconsider the applicability of Cold War-style deterrence. Its central argument is this: While it would be preferable that Iran not go nuclear, the history of the Cold War demonstrates that the possession of nukes creates a balance of power, and thus makes the possibility of nuclear war extremely unlikely. Representing the pro-deterrence school, Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations says, “We’ve lived with Iran as a terror threat for a generation. Iran has a return address, and states with a return address can be retaliated against.”
This misses the point. Even if Iran never fires a nuke or transfers one to a terrorist group, its possession of nukes would enable it to escalate support for terrorist proxies, allowing it to dominate the region and threaten moderate regimes. Who would be prepared to retaliate against a future Buenos Aires terror attack if we knew that the “return address” was home to a nuclear weapon?
Second, U.S. officials are deeply concerned that Tehran would not even have to build a complete bomb to transform the balance of power. It would just have to make the case that it could complete development on short notice. “For their political needs, that would be enough,” says Gary Samore, a nonproliferation official in the Clinton administration.
Third, Mr. Rafasanjani continues to be described in the Western media as a leading Iranian “moderate.” If Mr. Toma is correct, this “moderate” was intimately involved in the planning of the Argentina bombings. And he has ambitions to succeed President Ahmadinejad.
Fourth, according to Mr. Toma, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei authorized the Buenos Aires attacks. This is important because many analysts today argue that, as scary as President Ahmadinejad sounds, he is not really in charge in Tehran — the true “decider” is the Supreme Leader. Well if he is, then we should in fact be doubly concerned.
Iran is not the Soviet Union and the post-9/11 struggle is not the Cold War. The deterrence camp is willing to stand by as Iran develops nuclear weapons, presumably on the model that Iran will eventually collapse as the Soviet Union did. But the Argentinean case demonstrates what Tehran was willing and able to do when it had no nuclear umbrella. If, as the 9/11 Commission Report argues, the U.S. suffered from a “failure of imagination” regarding how far terrorists would go, a nuclear Iran risks encouraging the terrorist imagination to take another quantum leap.
Mr. Senor, a former foreign-policy adviser to the Bush administration, is hosting “Iran: The Ticking Bomb,” a documentary airing this Saturday at 9 p.m. (EST) on Fox News.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
Iran is a bigger threat than the USSR was. The USSR, despite all their bellicosity was always willing to step back from the brink…Much credit belongs to the MADD concept, and the US and the constant allied pressure placed upon them.
We stood up to the USSr repeatly. 1948, 1963 Berlin crisis,1973 Arab-Israeli war are just some examples. The USSr knew thought that they would crush us as Krushev used to say. But he was wrong. Only it took fifty years to make it happen.
The biggest difference between the USSR and Iran, is that the USSR never wanted to be destroyed. There was no religious component in their political thinking. People who want to survive and live another day think differently than people who want to usher in an apocolypse and die in jihad.
Jihad is the only promise of Paradise that is given in the Koran. There was no such promise given in the USSR. Therefore, negotiation was possible with the USSR. This is not so with Shia Iran.
Negotiation can only take place after victory in jihad by another…In other words after their defeat…not before.
Hudna is the only negotiation possible with jihadis outside of their defeat.
People in the West need to get their heads out of their asses. The jihadi propaganda machine has two components to it. One component is directed at western audiences…the other is directed at Muslims. Pay attention to the propaganda directed at Muslims. The shit comming from Al-gizz and other Muslim apologist sites…is pure BS.
If anyone is looking to read a new book. Try the Al Queda Reader by Raymond Ibrahim. It’s an opportunity to get inside the heads of these nutcases.
Dan Senor is right on.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:45 amAs to the partitioning of Iraq here is one view:
“If Muslims themselves can be made to see the connection between say, Islamic ideas of government and the prevalence of despotism in the Muslim countries, or to point to jizya-dependence (including the disguised jizya of foreign aid) and inshallah-fatalism as the main cause of economic underperformance (an underperformance which, given the $10 trillion in unearned OPEC reveneus, can no longer be explained away), or to link, in their own minds, the scientific backwardness of Muslim societies with the habit of mental submission, and discouraging of free and skeptical inquiry, that is part of Islam as a Complete Regulation of Daily Life, and a Total Explanation of the Universe. Finally, if Muslims begin to see the mistreatment of women and of non-Muslims as the moral failure it is, then like Ataturk, more will come to realize that even within Muslim societies, in which, given the immutability of the canonical texts, Islam cannot be reformed, nor can the meaning of those immutable texts be interpreted away (no further “interpretation” is permitted in Islam; the gates of ijtihad swung shut long ago) then, just as Ataturk did, they may try to limit the social and political power of Islam, in order to improve the condition of their countries and the lives of their people, and relegate Islam which officiallly should regulate and determine everything, to a much narrower sphere in the lives of Muslims. The example of Turkey shows both that this is possible, and that at the same time, the force and appeal of Islam unchained will require the secularists to remain eternally vigilant, and at times, as ruthless as Ataturk could be but as many of his more recent beneficiaries have not been. ”
Any solution for Iraq must be in a Muslim context…not a Western one. Looking at Iraq though the eyes of a Muslim, instead of through the eyes of a Westerner, allows people in the West to think outside the box.
The guy that wrote that piece that I just quoted from is able to do that…although I disagree with many of his views
October 1st, 2007 at 4:25 amvis vis Iraq..This small piece is an example of a Westerner who has gotten inside the heads of Muslims.
Good word, Iggy. Saw a great special this weekend by Dan Senor on Fox News called “Iran” The Ticking Bomb”…
Iranian Theocracy vs Saudi Sheiks, Tribal Leaders, and Warlords (ie Sunni vs Shia) with Iraqi pawns and a sandy chessboard.
I agree with Dan on a lot of what he stated…Just one word of caution…be very wary of the guy who comes up with a plan for peace in that region that all sides agree to…
Looking forward to more from you, Iggy.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:32 pmKorea was partioned and now we have North Korea. So if we want a simular situation we can partition Iraq.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:07 pmSIR, I salute you!. Your amazing you protect and serve your country you also take time and effort to make sure that all americans and “I” have the infornmation that we need to be truly informed i’ve got your back over here. Thanks for the ammo!.. we’ll keep spreding the word. Thanks again. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
October 7th, 2007 at 10:46 am