Four Questions for Dr. Walid Phares on the Iranian Threat Report
Posted by editor on 21 April 2010 at 4:13 pm UTC
By W. Thomas Smith Jr.
A new U.S. Defense Department report was submitted to Congress, Monday, detailing “near-term and longer-term threats posed by Iran, including Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its desire to extend its influence in the Middle East.” But the line causing the most buzz is “With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile [ICBM] capable of reaching the United States by 2015.”
Could Iran strike the continental United States in five years with a nuclear-tipped ICBM?
We ask Dr. Walid Phares, director of the Future of Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad. Phares has served both on the National Security Council’s advisory task force on nuclear terrorism (2006-2007) and as an advisor to the Anti-Terrorism Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives (a position he has held since 2008).
W. Thomas Smith Jr.: The recently released DoD report on the Iranian military threat says, Iran could potentially launch a nuclear-tipped missile against us by 2015. There is also the suggestion in many quarters that we [the U.S.] may not have an adequate strategy to stop Iran from developing and deploying nuclear weapons. Is this possible?
WALID PHARES: Not exactly. We know that the U.S. military has multiple plans in place to address a variety of warfighting scenarios, just as the various departments of our foreign policy, national security, and the intelligence community does. The issue is not about the existence of plans and strategies; rather it is about adopting one. It is about decision-makers adopting a particular strategy regarding the Iranian nuclear program. Apparently thus far – and unless we see otherwise – the administration’s primary policy is to continue to engage the Iranian regime in the hope that it will come along to our way of thinking; even the applied sanctions are a component of this, part of a carrot-and-stick approach. You see, there is a difference between a strategy to stop the program and a strategy to engage the regime, hoping it will lead to a containment of the program. That said, the report’s contention that there is no strategy to stop Iran’s program, may – I suppose – be accurate, short of a massive change in global strategies.
Smith: But the Iranian regime is moving virtually undeterred in the development of its nuclear weapons program, to include missile delivery systems, both medium-range missiles and long-range ICBMs. So if there is no comprehensive strategy to shut this development down, are we just fiddling while Rome burns between now and 2015?
PHARES: If we don’t stop Iran’s nuclear program and its weapons delivery systems before 2015, then, yes, the United States will be under direct threat from a Jihadist regime, which has declared that “a world without America is possible.” Hence, the answer is clear: American foreign policy must change to meet the challenge. U.S. strategies must be capable of countering this threat at least by 2013. There should be a reevaluation of the current direction in global strategies and a new approach must be devised. I have long called for an engagement with the people of Iran instead of betting on any rational behavior by the sitting Khomeinist regime. This seems to be the alternative direction of U.S. policy, but this is not where Washington’s foreign policy is going at this time. It is amazing how developments can be forecast at this point. If we don’t change, the other side is going to continue moving forward, unstoppable. It is a very clear equation.
Smith: Obama suggested during the recent nuclear security summit that the U.S. and its allies are putting adequate pressure on Tehran to force the regime toward a change in policy. Is this so?
PHARES: From what we see, Iran’s strategic calculus is far ahead of the calculus of the current U.S. administration. Tehran is working on producing nuclear weapons, developing delivery systems, preparing to deploy them and structuring its regional alliances. They are way ahead of us in this regard. The Iranian regime – and its allies in the region – follow the rhetoric and actions of U.S. leaders very closely. Since the last two years of the previous administration and the first two years of the current one, the calculus in Tehran has compelled them to go forward faster not slower in achieving their goals. It has caused them to reach out to Hugo Chavez’s regime in Venezuela, arm and train the insurgency in northern Yemen, incite Hamas against the Palestinian Authority, and push Hezbollah closer toward seizing Lebanon. One can see clearly that the calculus in Tehran is changing fast, but not in moderation, just the opposite. Consequently, I think we are the ones who need to change our calculus, not the other way around.
Smith: You say “American foreign policy must change” in order that we are capable of countering this threat by 2013 as opposed to 2015. You’ve also said, on Al Hurra TV and Nile TV International, that Scud missiles sent by Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon will change the strategic balance of power in the region. Why do you say these missiles change the balance of power when Hezbollah’s arsenal already includes thousands of rockets and missiles?
PHARES: The Iranian-Syrian axis is testing the international reaction by making limited moves, one-after-the-other. Since the Syrian-Lebanese border is wide open and not controlled by the UN or any multinational force, the smuggling of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon is free and uninterrupted. It has been so despite United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1701 (2006) which strictly forbids shipping weapons to Hezbollah. Yes, there are thousands of missiles and rockets in Hezbollah’s arsenal, but advanced SCUD missiles – if properly deployed – not only could provoke an Israeli action, but could threaten other parties in the region, including U.S. and allied Naval forces, American bases in Turkey and Jordan, if not beyond. We’re talking the eastern Mediterranean seaboard here. Hence, the U.S. call to Syria to stop these shipments and retrieve the weapons is correct and must be very clear. The Syrian regime should take advantage of Washington’s diplomatic protests to withdraw these missiles and refrain from sending more weapons to Hezbollah.
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.
UPDATE: Candidate for South Carolina Lt. Gov. belittles combat service
Posted by editor on 15 April 2010 at 5:44 pm UTC
By W. Thomas Smith Jr.
A few days after the utterly ridiculous suggestion by Larry Richter (candidate for Lt. Gov. of S.C.) that combat decision-making is somehow a matter of snap-judgment – or as he says “abstract,” “reflexive,” and “reactionary” (and he played a bit of “air rifle” for emphasis) – I’m reminded of this 2008 piece by Rick Amato in Townhall.com wherein retired U.S. Marine Brig. Gen. David Brahms describes a few variables that are factored into combat decision-making.
“Our soldiers are on edge 24/7,” says Brahms. “There is no front line to retreat from. There is no uniform to identify the enemy. You have layers of ROE [rules of engagement], stress, fatigue and when something goes wrong they [soldiers] face accusations that bring life sentences.”
True, and yet, that doesn’t begin to cover the reality faced by combat-commanders who must deal with the same variables Brahms mentions as well as the responsibility of the lives (sometime deaths) of the men under their command.
Richter, we know, was attempting to marginalize the combat experience of Lt. Col. Bill Conner (also a candidate for Lt. Gov.) during a public forum on Monday evening by dismissing the complexity of combat decision-making as somehow less than other forms of decision-making.
Brahms and Connor have both been to war.
Richter – who was draft-age during the Vietnam War – has not.
Veterans like Marine Gene Wilbur are calling for Richter to withdraw from the race (see here).
See our earlier story here.
– Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.
Candidate for South Carolina Lt. Gov. belittles combat service
Posted by editor on 13 April 2010 at 6:14 pm UTC
By W. Thomas Smith Jr.
COLUMBIA, S.C. — Larry Richter, a former judge and S.C. state senator now running for Lt. Gov., may have shot himself in the foot, though he was aiming – literally – for his opponent, U.S. Army Res. Lt. Col. Bill Connor.
At a meeting of the West Metro Republican Women in Lexington, Monday evening, Richter suggested his life-and-death decisions sending five people to the electric chair were “deliberate,” as opposed to a combat-commander’s decision-making which he (Richter ) said is only “abstract,” “reflexive,” and “reactionary” – a clear mocking of Connor’s combat experience in Afghanistan, and frankly a belittling and a gross misunderstanding of combat leadership.
Worse, Richter – who has never served in the military – held up his hands as if holding and pointing a weapon.
Richter’s mockery of military service – keep in mind, he was draft age during the Vietnam War but somehow managed to stay out of it – continued. “When I finished my judicial service, I went to the South Carolina senate. And that was an enlightenment. Let me just tell you in the friendliest possible way, Bill,” Richter said (while laughing). “If you think you can give those 46 egos an order and they’re gonna march, it ain’t happening.”
As of mid-day, Tuesday, the Richter comments were on YouTube and making the rounds among veterans.
“Such comments from a non-combat person are infuriating and a slam in the face,” says Terry Simmons of Enoree, S.C., a decorated veteran of the Battle of Hamburger Hill, Vietnam.
Columbia Star business editor John Temple Ligon, a former Army Ranger officer and also-decorated artillery forward observer during the Vietnam War, says, “For a person who knows absolutely nothing about combat – particularly combat leadership and decision-making – to make such statements is unconscionable.”
Connor, however, says he “forgives” Richter. “I know Larry just doesn’t understand the environment of combat decision-making,” he says.
Apparently controversy is not new to Richter.
A recent article in THE STATE newspaper (Breaking down the state’s top political fights, Apr. 4) lists six candidates running for the office of Lt. Governor: “Ashley Cooper is a Charleston Democrat; Florence’s Ken Ard, Greenville’s Krista Cogdill [who has since withdrawn], Orangeburg’s Bill Connor, and Charleston’s Larry Richter and Eleanor Kitzman all are Republicans. Ard is a Florence County councilman and Richter, a former judge, has run for office before. But the rest of the field is largely new to seeking elective office.”
But, the article adds, Richter “comes with baggage.”
– Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.
Five Questions for Dr. Walid Phares on the Nuclear Security Summit
Posted by editor on 11 April 2010 at 5:05 pm UTC
By W. Thomas Smith Jr.
On Monday, the U.S. will host the leaders of 46 countries at a two-day nuclear security summit: Many of the attending governments urging that the summit serve as a benchmark for a renewal of international focus to prevent nuclear terrorism. Ironically, the summit is taking place a few days after the Iranian regime, which constantly thumbs its nose at the international community, celebrated its so-called “National Day of Nuclear Technology.”
Beyond the obvious, what should be the focus of the summit?
We ask Dr. Walid Phares, director of the Future of Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad. Phares has served both on the National Security Council’s advisory task force on nuclear terrorism (2006-2007) and as an advisor to the Anti-Terrorism Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives (a position he has held since 2008).
Our questions and his answers follow.
W. Thomas Smith Jr.: What should be the primary topic addressed at the conference?
DR. WALID PHARES: Without any doubt it should be the looming Iranian nuclear threat. This is a regime which is rushing to build-and-deploy nuclear weapons and at the same time issuing public statements that it would actually use such terrible weapons to wipe an entire country from existence. This alone should be a red line. Also, the Iranian regime – while seeking nukes – is interfering in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has an alliance with the Syrian regime, which – like Iran – supports Hezbollah with weaponry, funding, and operational support, all of which could trigger a regional war at any moment. Moreover, the Iranian regime is backing an armed insurrection in northern Yemen. It has a presence in the Red Sea. And it has signed a treaty with Hugo Chavez’s regime in our own Hemisphere. If we allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, we may end up seeing the deployment of those weapons on three continents. Pres. Obama has a unique opportunity to gather a vast international consensus on isolating Tehran and opposing its nuclear ambitions.
Smith: India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh says the summit should focus on “nuclear terrorism and proliferation of sensitive nuclear materials and technologies.” You served on a U.S. task force on nuclear terrorism back in 2007. Explain what we mean by nuclear terrorism and touch on the specifics?
PHARES: It simply means that terrorist organizations can put their hands on nuclear material or weapons and eventually use them. The first stage in this threat is proliferation: Where can terrorist groups acquire these weapons. This is the crux of the problem. Who would give, sell, or – in any way – allow them to obtain such weapons. Then if they do indeed acquire them, how will they use or threaten to use them? How to stop them? This is our second problem. Tight international cooperation is one of the best ways to combat nuclear terrorism.
Smith: Terrorist organizations are indeed seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.
PHARES: Yes, of course. Some terrorist groups have a very focused interest in acquiring and eventually using them. Osama Bin Laden stated that he wishes to put his hands on such weapons and he also has alluded that he believes the Pakistani nukes belong to the Jihadists. On the other hand, if Iran ’s regime obtains these weapons, it goes without saying that Hezbollah could receive them. Hezbollah already has the missiles capable of delivering these weapons.
Smith: Which of the “nuclear countries” might be a source for terrorists?
PHARES: We should first be concerned about the situation in Pakistan. The government there is anti-Taliban and has assured the U.S. and the international community that these weapons are secure. However, there are concerns that those sympathetic to the Taliban might facilitate a transfer of one or more of those weapons to the Jihadists, or the Jihadists might seize them outright. Nuclear material from former Soviet republics is also a matter of concern. Obviously North Korea is another potential source of proliferation.
Smith: Israel’s Prime Minister is reportedly not going to attend, because, apparently, Turkey and Egypt are going to raise the issue of Israel’s nuclear arsenal. Explain why two American allies would focus on Israel and not on Iran?
PHARES: Good question. Traditionally, Turkey’s secular administrations have been careful not to enter the fray of nuclear debate in the region. However, it seems that the AKP [Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi] Islamic Party is now adopting an increasingly pro-Islamist position, and thus is using the issue in regional and international forums to enhance its stance with Islamist forces in the Arab world. The AKP government has declared its solidarity with Iran’s nuclear program while claiming that the latter is not a military program, and it has supported the Omar al-Bashir regime in Sudan as well as Hamas in Gaza. Turkey’s government also has been vocally critical of its former military partner, Israel. I expect the AKP is preparing to eventually declare its own intention of acquiring such technology in the not-so-distant future. As for Egypt, its government is under severe propaganda and political pressure by the Muslim Brotherhood at home and in the region and thus takes advantage of international forums to show ideological toughness.
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.
Phares describes key difference between domestic anarchists and jihadis
Posted by editor on 5 April 2010 at 9:31 pm UTC
Dr. Walid Phares clearly articulates the distinction between domestic terrorists and jihadists.
The difference, Phares tells FOX News, is that ”the Jihadists are backed internationally. There is a huge web of jihadists worldwide. They have media. They have an ideology. That is something that these isolated organizations inside the United States at this point in time do not have.”
See video segment here.
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.
NOTE: The opinions expressed in these articles are solely those of the author, and do not represent the opinions of World Defense Review and its affiliates. WDR accepts no responsibility whatsoever for the accuracy or inaccuracy of the content of this or any other story published on this website. Copyright and all rights for this story (and all other stories by the author) are held by the author.
Archives:
"Hunt for the Somali Pirates" airs soon on the National Geographic Channel.
When Somali pirates hijack the Maersk Alabama -- and international headlines -- Navy SEALs launch a sneak attack to rescue the ship's American captain. Pirate Hunters recounts the harrowing five days from hijack to final fatal shots, and reveals sophisticated Navy SEAL training methods that prepare the world's most elite reconnaissance teams for daring missions with no second chances.
J. Peter Pham, Ph.D. : 'Strategic Interests'
Ballots and Bullets: The Tale of the Two Somalias
[06 Jul 10]
Walid Phares, Ph.D.
Iran Global Terrorist Reach
[15 Jul 10]
Abigail R. Esman : 'International Desk'
Islamophobia
Is the rejection of radical Islam "anti-Muslim"?
[27 Jul 10]
Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker
The Roots of Washington's Failures in Dealing with "Rogue Regimes"
[01 Apr 10]
W. Thomas Smith Jr.
'Beyond the DropZone'
Intelligence and Analysis