Weekly Overview
Estimated Reading Time: 4 mins, 54 sec.
Iran’s Bluff Confirmed
In the previous [midweekly overview] I argued that Iran was bluffing - that they are no real challenge to Biden, and that the new administration must steamroll through all that posturing nonsense.
Confirmed!
Here is what Iran’s Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif said the day after I called their bluff : ‘‘The Europeans and USA can come back into compliance with the JCPOA and not only this law will not be implemented, but in fact the actions we have taken ... will be rescinded. We will go back to full compliance.’’
This is in the context of Iran quickly blaming only Israel for the assassination of their leading scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.
How could the Iranian intelligence so quickly conclude that only Israel was involved? Especially when the tool of the assassination [machine gun] was remotely controlled?
How did they so quickly determine that neither the US, nor for example, Saudi Arabia, did not have a hand in it?
They didn’t.
By not blaming the US, Iranian side relieves itself from the burden of retaliating against America.
Therefore securing another chance at repairing the relationship with the new US administration.
But back to the Iranian foreign minister’s comment:
full compliance
In diplomacy, every word matters. Each and every one. Absolutely.
This is doubly true when such statements are public [and therefore recorded for posterity].
Notice how he did not stop at the word compliance.
He sensed the need to add the term Full right next to it.
Is there a need to add that word? Absolutely not. It is rather obvious that both US and EU would expect nothing but full compliance - if they were to comply as well.
That is how deals work. Both parties comply fully.
It is implied. Always.
So why add that word?
Especially after the preceding sentence of we promise ‘‘not only this but that’’
Desperation. It is a loud signal to the incoming Biden administration that Iran wants to desperately return to the negotiation table.
Iran’s foreign minister wanted to make it 100% clear that they need this deal. I am surprised he did not add ‘‘ please sire’’.
This is some incompetent diplomacy on Iran’s behalf. Which is great news to the US. Not only did the Iranian FM confirm the trite and rather obvious good cop bad cop game when he promised to not implement the law, but his choice of words have furthermore betrayed a very weak hand.
What could have been a stronger diplomatic statement from the Iranian FM?
1) Don’t say anything at all. Let the legislation do its work and then remain ambiguous re executive branch’s intentions as to its implementation
2) If you absolutely have to say something, [presumably because your boss forced you to] then at least say something ambiguous and open to variety of interpretations - keeping your options open/creating a stronger facade of leverage
Something like ‘‘ this legislation reflects the national mood. Clearly, the domestic context for negotiations is different’’
Done. No threats. No plans revealed. Just mere restatement of the obvious. Let them come to you.
[Not that we want to train them in the arts of diplomacy]
All of this is great news for Biden. He should use this clear asymmetry of leverage, and demand some further concessions.
Commitment to reduce number of combat frigates in the Persian Gulf would be a good start for example.
We don’t want Iran retaining its ability to choke the Strait of Hormuz on a whim.
Further concessions in Syria/Iraq/Lebanon - more on that at an appropriate time
That is if Biden is certain against air strikes.
Which leads us to..
Israel’s Strategy
A lot has been said about the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.
Most in the foreign establishment bubble claim that Israel wanted to inflict a substantial blow to Iran’s nuclear program - just before the new [less friendly to Netanyahu] Biden administration was about to take over.
Others point to the second order consequences of the killing - that the chilling effect of the act will deter future [or even current] scientists from working on the Iranian nuclear program.
Both are mostly wrong assertions. I say mostly, because there might be some hope that both of the aforementioned aims could indirectly be fulfilled to at least some extent.
But those were not the primary motivations.
Here is why:
1) Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was not the main day to day operational lead of the Nuclear Program.
Sure back in the old days - way before Iran produced dozens of competent scientists - Fakhrizadeh could indeed be that important to day to day success of the program
However, today Iran is capable of pushing through without Fakhrizadeh.
Sure, it is a grievous injury
But it is not a deadly blow
2) those who hoped for the deterrence effect forgot to take into account the whole context and the national mood in Iran.
Israel is seen as the biggest threat to Iran. It is also strongly hated.
+ Iranians working in the nuclear program already know the risks associated with the job.
After all, these assassinations took place before.
Nuclear scientists are the highest IQ representatives of any nation. They are not dumb to not take into account Israel’s displeasure.
Displeasure that could cost them their lives.
Those who already work in the nuclear program are unlikely to be deterred.
On the contrary, they are probably more revengeful and are striving to do even better job!
+ a lot of Iranian scientists on the fence about joining the program, could be pulled by the newly heightened risk factor/prestige/danger/mysterious allure of the job.
+ of course patriotism
If anything, I predict that Iran will have more enthusiasm and higher volume of applications for its nuclear program.
So then, what was the point of this attack?
1) By using remote technology - a remotely operated machine gun, Israel wanted to display the technological superiority and the asymmetry of development between Israel and Iran.
Such displays could deter Iranian proxies in the middle east [that are less ideologically pure/die hard than the Quds leadership].
+ it signals to the US that Israel is ready to get creative in getting rid of the Iranian challenge.
In essence it is a display of superior competence and reminder that JCPOA must not be the only practical option when it comes to dealing with Iran.
That, it is not either full invasion, air strikes or JCPOA.
That there is another way, and Israel is ready to supply it
2) Provoke Iran into retaliating and escalating - removing the option [at least in the short - term] of JCPOA solution.
Iran so far resisted that bait though.
Some of you may wonder ‘‘what was wrong with the air strike option again?”
We can delve in deeper some other time
Briefly: not as easy as it sounds.
1) Israeli jets would need to travel through many different air spaces.
Air spaces that mostly have Iranian proxies/radars that would alert the Iranian side.
Iranian S300s could then pose a threat to the fighter jets.
Or inconvenience them enough so as not to allow them sufficient time to attack repeatedly and consistently the same spots over and over again.
Why over and over again you ask?
Because most of the sites are deep underground and would require not only precision, but also special bunker busting missiles that would need to strike the same targets repeatedly.
Israel did purchase GBU-28s from the US back in 2005. But firing them would require the bomber jets to fly directly above those bunkers.
Now, the US itself could use B-2/B52s to launch Massive Ordnance Penetrator /GBU-57s.
But Biden’s administration is unlikely to resort to that.
Israel know this, and was extremely happy at the Congressional proposed bill [back in October] to sell these to Israel.
After all. Always better to have things under your own control..
Director of National Intelligence [DNI] John Ratcliffe/ China
DNI declared China as the greatest threat to freedom and democracy in the world.
In his op-ed for the Wall Street Journal.
Same day, the Trump admin adds China's SMIC and CNOOC to Defense blacklist.
This is great.
One aspect of DNI’s op-ed is rather interesting.
Ratcliffe writes : ‘‘To address these threats and more, I have shifted resources inside the $85 billion annual intelligence budget to increase the focus on China’’
Why reveal this? This change in resource allocation/focus?
To deter China directly?
Unlikely, since it is rather expected. Not that China would be taken aback by this reallocation of priorities..
After all, they are the biggest threat to the US, and they know this.
So then why say this?
Two possibilities
1) It is rather a message to allies to get their act together and follow suit.. in concrete action.
So far only the UK is taking similar concrete action in focus/resource allocation
2) Subtle reminder to the whole world that they [China] have been getting big and assertive and threatening only because we have not been taking them seriously so far.
After all. You’ve got to explain why is it that another country - another superpower could grow so big on your watch.
If China is indeed the biggest threat.. then.. how come? how come they became that threat? how come they got that big? undeterred by the US?
Well, because so far US has not been allocating its resources fully to handle them..
Because US was not focusing on China.
And not because US is inherently not threatening to China.
Only because US was not being threatening..
That is. Until today.
This of course then creates a rhetorical trap for the future US administrations. If China continues to grow in its power and influence after this declaration of change in focus / resource reallocation….
Then.. that will look really bad for the US.