Next Steps with Iran

Assuming the current multi-lateral negotiations fail, which appears very likely, what are the options with Iran?

1. Give them nuclear fuel in exchange for more monitoring


2. "Heavy sanctions"


3. Do nothing


4. Encourage internal upheaval by supporting Iranian reformers/revolutionaries


5. Regime change a la Iraq

Not a lot of great choices currently. North Korea exploited choices 1,2 and 3 above to get where they are today. I don't think current policy is against negotiation with Iran, however, to be pragmatic, you have an alternative approach when negotiations won't work.

This spectrum of choices illustrates the difference between stability-oriented "realism" and the Bush doctrine. The ex-state department authors of the Foreign Affairs article you cited are classical stability-promoting realists. The summary of the article is that multilateral negotiations are good because the result has been stability even though North Korea flouted agreements and nuclear-fuel bargains made throughout the 90's. However, North Korea is not the state-sponsor of terrorism that Iran is.

The Bush doctrine promotes freedom as the driving factor in fighting terrorism and increasing safety, and implies that stability as a goal is not enough. It's not at all clear how the US can engender free societies in places like Iran, but nuclear proliferation in terrorism-sponsoring states is a good reason to think about how to do that.

Iraq, not Iran

As I read the article, Halliburton "could eventually" do $18B of business in Iraq. Iran was apparently $80M in 2003. So, no I don't think that's the conspiracy behind the quiet outlook on Iran. It's simply that politicians know that most Americans don't really want to hear about Iran at this point, even if they are the biggest source of terror money and terrorist backers for 2004.

Of course, Kerry's team bringing it up doesn't seem like a big win, since they are basically proposing giving nuclear assistance to that same regime. Odd.

What about Iran?

No one wants to see Iran with nuclear weapons:

A nuclear Iran is unacceptable for so many reasons, including the possibility that it creates a gateway and the need for other countries in the region to develop nuclear capability - John Edwards

Edwards wants to open relations with Iran and is "more explicit in suggesting the Kerry administration would actively try to reach an agreement with the Iranians." The Europeans have been negotiating with Teheran for 6 months, and have not made progress. Bush has been pretty quiet on the Iran question, letting the negotiation process continue, since he's not prepared to commit the US to anything more during the election. Kerry has proposed deals on nuclear fuel, or else "heavy sanctions".

Let's hope that someone pursues the harder questions on Iran during the rest of the election.

What are the metrics?

Who knows what the yardstick is for how well we are doing in the war on terror?
You'd think it'd be easy to find news articles which discussed how we are doing. It's not that easy. Here are the few I found which mention any kind of metrics:

1. BBC - Winning the war on terror


2. Rumsfeld's leaked memo says: "We lack metrics"



Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

When searching for articles on metrics, you realize that many journalists view the term "metrics" with suspicion, since it reminds them of the Vietnam war and McNamara's metric driven approach.
However, with the current political environment, it's impossible to have a rational discussion about how we are doing against terrorism without some kind of yardstick. Perhaps metrics is a business term that scares people, but something is needed beyond partisan rhetoric.

Israeli Homeland Security Successes

Should we look at Israel's approach as a successful model for handling homeland security? According to nationmaster.com 177 Israelis were killed in terrorist attacks in 2003

This graph shows deaths on both sides since the Intifada began - fascinating, but sobering. Clearly 2004 is turning out better for Israel than 2003.

Strategypage (August 17) cites that only 24 Israelis have died this year as a result of Palestinian suicide bomb attacks. The key techniques in reducing suicide bombings:

The Israelis used a combination of better intelligence gathering, special commando units for operating inside Palestinian territory and better security at the border and inside Israel. In other words, the Israelis set up multiple defenses against suicide bombers.

Obviously the differences in dealing with terrorism in your homeland versus fighting a global network abroad are many, but Israels multi-pronged approach is a good model for homeland security.

Comparing Approaches

Charles Krauthammer's speech on Democratic Realism compares what he calls "liberal internationalism" to "democratic realism". Those names are basically proxies for the Kerry approach and the neo-conservative Bush doctrine listed below.

Kerry's Terrorism Plan

What is the Kerry plan for the war on terror, and is it different from the Bush Doctrine currently in place? From the Kerry website:

1. Launch And Lead A New Era Of Alliances


• "we need to build real and enduring alliances."


• "... offer the UN the lead role in assisting Iraq..."


2. Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats


• "add 40,000 active-duty Army troops"


3. Deploy All That Is In America's Arsenal


• "...make the next Director of the CIA a true Director of National Intelligence with real control of intelligence personnel and budgets"


• "We will launch a 'name and shame' campaign against those that are financing terror." (specifically mentioning Saudi Arabia)


• "Create a high-level Presidential envoy empowered to bring other nations together to secure and stop the spread of [WMD]"


4. Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil


• "embark on a historic effort to create alternative fuels and the vehicles of the future"

Clarifying an important difference:
In a conference call with reporters before the speech, Kerry foreign policy advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger said those remarks were not meant to embrace Bush's doctrine of launching preemptive attacks against states the U.S. views as a threat.

Pakistan's progress

Pakistan has had an impressive run of success in catching terrorists lately. They are publicizing a most-wanted list in major newspapers along with rewards for information leading to capture.

For more on the real-politik in Pakistan, see this post on Afghanistan's and Pakistan's election planning.

Four Pillars of the Bush Doctrine

Norman Podhoretz lays out the "Bush Doctrine". The argument here is that we are in a large scale, global war on terror. The Bush Doctrine is a new approach to dealing with terrorism.

1. Rejection of "Realism". Promotion of democracy.




For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability and much oppression, so I have changed this policy.
G.W. Bush, Address to Air Force Academy, June 2, 2004




2. Remove state support for terrorist networks




...countries that gave safe haven to terrorists and refused to clean them out were asking the United States to do it for them, and the regimes ruling these countries were also asking to be overthrown in favor of new leaders with democratic aspirations.
N. Podhoretz, Commentary Magazine, Sept. 2004




3. Pre-emption




We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.
G.W. Bush, Statue of the Union Address, January 2002




4. Conditional supportfor a Palestinian state

Support for a Palestinian state, if the Palestinians elect and support a leader who doesn't support terrorist acts to advance political goals, and accepts the right of Israel to exist.

My question is: What are the alternatives to the Bush Doctrine?

9/11 Report - Browse It

It's a pre-requisite for understanding the nature of terrorism that
the US faces. I like this version of 9/11 commision report.

Terror metrics

"If you can't measure it, you can't manage it." - Peter Drucker

However, it's not clear that we measure terrorism accurately. Moreover, the organizations responsible for measuring could be stuck in an outmoded ontology.

The State Department has had to correct and re-issue annual terrorism reports. What sense do you get when you look at the actual amended "Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003"? I see a lot of emphasis on "state sponsored" terrorism. Even though Al-Qaeda and Islamic groups are readily mentioned, there's a tendency to categorize their activities within the context of a sponsoring nation.

Is part of the measurement problem the State department's model? Are they stuck on the "state-sponsored" model while the actual activities are driven by more dynamic networks?

The basic question

This blog is about the basic question: "Are we at war against terrorism?" I want to present the articles and links that help answer that question. Starting with Osama Bin Laden's declartion of war against Americans.