Aziz and many others have posted about this story in which Scott Ritter is alleged to have alleged that the United States would attack Iran in June.

I don't buy it, particularly in light of signs that the Bush adminstration is tilting towards a more European approach. The Bush team has yet to develop a coherent policy on the nuclear question, though it seems to be gingerly moving ahead with plans to ask Congress to fund Iranian opposition groups (the House Bill--H.R. 282--still has only 75 cosponsors, however). And we continue to need high-level Iranian support for the nascent Iraqi government, even if there are some Iranian factions who are funding its opposition.

According to retired General Sam Gardiner's Power Point presentation (subscription, pdf) on Iran, which was used for the mock war gaming exercise in the December issue of the Atlantic Monthly, this is what a strategic communications plan might look like:

• Methodology: Stay Ahead of the Story
  – Strategically, criticism of Iran will come faster than argument can be made against the points.
  – Tactically, we’ll continue to dominate the 24-hour cycle but work to reduce perspective by others this time.


• Phases
  – Building the Base
  • Sub-theme: Iran is bad, but diplomacy is the best option for dealing with the problem.
  – Expanding Support at Home and Overseas
  • Sub-theme: (1) Diplomacy is failing. (2) This is not just a problem for the United States,
  – The Time Has Come
  • Sub-theme: Diplomacy has failed; we have no choice.


• Timing: Communications plan and the military plan have to be synchronized.

Until we see this kind of a drumbeat--and we know how loud and persistent this administration can be when it is pushing something--along with genuine efforts (as opposed to Senatorial mumbles) to improve friendly airbases around the region, I won't believe any rumors like Ritter's.

I think that the administration is truly undecided at the moment, and recognizes that it has a weak hand. There may be an element of "strategic ambiguity" going on that is designed to spook the Iranian government. There are certainly reports of American aircraft violating Iranian airspace and of Pentagon teams training in Karachi, but these are mostly taking place under the radar screens of most Americans. The Pentagon, in any case, denies that "U.S. military aircraft" are "flying reconnaissance missions" in Iran. That doesn't necessarily mean that other things aren't going on -- the CIA could be operating UAVs without official Pentagon knowledge, or "military aircraft" might not technically apply to drones, or Israeli drones could be doing the dirty work. Or we could be bluffing. Who knows?

In any case, until the public drumbeat happens, I'm not going to be impressed by RUMINT. I will be thrilled, however, if the adminstration decides to back the European efforts to negotiate a deal and offer some kind of "grand bargain" that recasts our relations in a more friendly light, while continuing to ask that Iran live up to its commitments on human rights. Even if such a policy fails, it would be much better than the current muddle.

UPDATE: Greg Djerejian reacts to a solid Pollack/Takeyh piece in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. Perhaps the vaunted "Triple Track" approach is not dead after all!

Proving once again that the mad mullahs konw how the game is played, Iran pretty clearly inked a gas deal with China in exchange for protection on the the nuclear issue.

In other China news, Beijing is gearing up to host the WTO in November and again in the spring (this time in Shanghai).

Truly, China has arrived on the world stage.

In my earlier look into nuclear proliferation issues (whose initially promised final two parts on state nuclear ambitions and US ballistic missile defense I'm afraid probably won't be forthcoming after all, since I don't really have the time to devote proper attention to them at the moment) I speculated that, based on its past record of support for militant jihaddis in the name of Pan-Islam, there might well have been some sort of similar encouragement coming from the Pakistani government, which makes a far more likely nexus of terrorists and nuclear weapons than Iraq ever did, towards the proliferation network of A.Q. Khan. It's something of a relief to read today that, in the estimation of the Institute for Science and International Security, that doesn't appear to have been the case:
   more »

In part one of this series of post-debate analyses I tried to assess George W. Bush's assertion that the nuclear proliferation network of A.Q. Khan, father of Pakistan's "Islamic Bomb", had been "busted". Given Khan's considerable freedom and the reluctance of the Musharaff government to challenge his high level of popular support within Pakistan, I found this claim rather dubious, as well as disconcerting considering Pakistan's attempts to expand its sway throughout the Islamic world by championing the military causes of groups such as the Afghan mujahadeen.This post, associated with the first under the issue of "How to prevent access to nuclear weapons technology from spreading to those who do not currently possess it," will swing northward to examine, the threat posed by "loose nukes" and nuclear material in the former Soviet Union; future posts will look at how the candidates propose to deal with non-status quo states who currently or may soon possess nuclear capabilities, and how to defend ourselves from the threat of a nuclear attack.   more »

Guess the date of this article by WINEP fellow Ray Takeyh, entitled "The Rogue Who Came in From the Cold":

What should the United States do when its long-standing policy toward a maverick country such as Libya starts to pay off -- and that country finally begins to clean up its act? The question has recently become a pressing one as, in a surprising twist of events, the often and justifiably maligned Libyan regime of Colonel Mu'ammar Qaddafi has started to meet international demands and redress its past crimes. How the United States responds will serve as a test of Washington's ability to reintegrate a reforming "rogue" into the community of nations.

Answer below the jump.   more »

Obviously, we’re there and all of the criticisms of it have been beaten to death at this point. Like the French and Germans in WWI, critics and proponents of the Iraq war have been chewing up the same ground for several years to no good end. I’m not interested in having the debate so much as I am concerned with thinking about why we are having that debate and where different kinds of people sort themselves out.   more »