Security
A new analysis by the Institute for Science and International Security attempts to answer that question, the Washington Post reports.
A military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would probably only delay the country’s progress toward nuclear-weapons capability, according to a study that concludes that such an attack could backfire by strengthening Tehran’s resolve to acquire the bomb. The analysis by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security found that Iran’s uranium facilities are too widely dispersed and protected — and, in some cases, concealed too well — to be effectively destroyed by warplanes. And any damage to the country’s nuclear program could be quickly repaired.
Moreover, Albright told the Post, Iran would likely emerge more intent on acquiring nuclear weapons. He said that:
an Israeli or U.S. attack would result in broader popular support for Iran’s ruling clerics and could lead Tehran to sever ties with the U.N. nuclear watchdog. “Iran would likely launch a ‘crash’ program to quickly obtain nuclear weapons,” Albright said in an interview. “An attack would likely leave Iran angry, more nationalistic, fed up with international inspectors and nonproliferation treaties, and more determined than ever to obtain nuclear weapons.”
Soldiers distributing rice in the Philippines, bread lines in Egypt, and food riots in Haiti all reinforce what some have been warning for years: the price of food may spike, and stay high, and this may drive future instability.
Current high prices are mostly due to short-term causes, but two factors could make expensive food a long-term fact:
- sustained increasing demand by China, India, and other developing countries
- high energy prices, especially if they were driven by peak oil
The upshot would be food too expensive for hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people, who might simultaneously be hit by the pressures of global warming on agriculture.
The instability that could result is one of the possible triggers for some of the darker scenarios for the 21st century.
Image: Visualpanic (Flickr)
New polling in Iran offers mixed signals to those who hope for “moderation.”
A strong majority of Iranians favors allowing all reformist candidates to contest elections, and 86% say that all leaders of their country should be elected.
At the same time, a slim majority of Iranians says that Iran should develop nuclear weapons–51% are in favor of this, with only 39% opposed.
So Iran’s potential interest in nuclear weapons is not confined to a tiny ruling group, and even the advent of full democracy might not dispel it.
Writing in Foreign Policy, Jamais Cascio writes that the geoengineering capabilities that might help the world fight climate change could also be turned into weapons.
The offensive use of geoengineering could take a variety of forms. Overproductive algae blooms can actually sterilize large stretches of ocean over time, effectively destroying fisheries and local ecosystems. Sulfur dioxide carries health risks when it cycles out of the stratosphere. One proposal would pull cooler water from the deep oceans to the surface in an explicit attempt to shift the trajectories of hurricanes. Some actors might even deploy counter-geoengineering projects to slow or alter the effects of other efforts.
Weaponized geoengineering, Cascio writes, might tempt nations by being both stealthy and fairly inexpensive.
The Washington Post recently detailed developments in synthetic life: microorganisms guided by completely artificial DNA.
While there are many upsides — artificial organisms might be able to produce cheap biofuels and high-tech chemicals — this technology also has potentially dire security implications.
A biotech watchdog organization, the ETC Group, put it this way:
Ultimately synthetic biology means cheaper and widely accessible tools to build bioweapons, virulent pathogens and artificial organisms that could pose grave threats to people and the planet.
Unlike nuclear weapons, this would not require a vast state-run program. Says the article,
the technology is quickly becoming so simple, experts say, that it will not be long before “bio hackers” working in garages will be downloading genetic programs and making them into novel life forms.
In other words, small groups and even individuals could create immensely dangerous pathogens. (See the movie “Twelve Monkeys” for one such scenario.)
Researchers say that fully artificial cells might be achieved within a year.
Image: NIH
According to a recent New York Times article, many in the US intelligence community “believe that Pakistan, not Iraq, is the place Mr. Bush should consider the ‘central front’ in the battle against terrorism,” as it threatens “political meltdown in the one country where Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and nuclear weapons are all in play.”
The article includes these forecasts:
- “If serious divisions emerge in Pakistan’s army, they could also threaten the security of Pakistan’s potent nuclear arsenal.”
- “Some experts … argue that Pakistan’s army is overwhelmingly moderate and will remain so, even without General Musharraf.”
- Instability in Pakistan “could cripple a renewed [US] effort to turn around the war against Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan.”
Despite Pakistan now constituting one of the chief threats to American security, there may be little the US can do about it: according to “recent intelligence assessments,” “American influence over events in Pakistan may be ebbing fast.”
Recent bellicose remarks by French officials underline that one of the more likely future wars for France (and most other Western military powers) is war with Iran.
It remains to be seen, however, whether there are any viable military options for those attempting to block a nuclear path by Iran.
Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for American Progress polled 108 foreign affairs experts across the political spectrum about terrorism and related issues.
Asked what country is likely to be the next al Qaeda stronghold, the experts said:
- Pakistan — 35%
- Iraq — 22%
- Somalia — 11%
- Sudan — 8%
- Afghanistan — 7%
The experts also put Pakistan at the head of the list most likely to transfer nuclear technology to terrorists by 2012:
- Pakistan — 74%
- North Korea — 42%
- Russia — 38%
- Iran — 31%
- United States — 5%
The experts were divided about how to change US policy toward Pakistan: about a third favored sanctions against the country, and a similar number advocated increasing US aid.
Pakistan likely tops both lists both because of ideological forces at work within the country, and because it is regularly cited as one of the states most likely to fall apart.
Military interest in security implications of climate change is growing, the Post reported yesterday.
As part of this interest, the Center for Naval Analyses has commissioned a report on the topic. According to the Post, the report says that:
- “global warming could destabilize vulnerable states in Africa and Asia and drive a flood of migrants to richer countries”
- “climate change ‘can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world,’ in part by causing water shortages and damaging food production”
- “‘Many developing nations do not have the government and social infrastructures in place to cope with the type of stressors that could be brought about by global climate change.’”
The generals responsible for the report also told the Post that “changing climatic conditions will make it harder for weak nation-states to address their citizens’ basic needs.”
In other words, climate change could intensify pressure on states already in danger of failing.
The Post offers credible evidence of an increasing split between Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda in Iraq.
The local insurgents have tactical, strategic, and even moral issues with the al-Qaeda approach, and clashes between the groups have grown.
This suggests increased likelihood for two outcomes:
- By peeling off the Islamist and global goals of al-Qaeda, it leaves the insurgents more focused on one goal: getting the US to leave. That makes it more possible to end the war with an American departure.
- It lowers the stakes for the US: some level of insurgent success — for instance, Sunni Arabs in charge of some or most of Iraq — is less likely to go hand in hand with al-Qaeda success, and result in a safe haven for Islamic terrorism. An insurgent leader in the article expressly blames al-Qaeda for provoking the occupation of Iraq via September 11th; his concern is clearly his own nation and people, not Caliphatist fantasies.
However, the insurgents are highly fragmented, and a Sunni politician notes that this reduces their ability to counter al-Qaeda. He warns, “If they do not unite, they will be weakened. Then al-Qaeda will manage to make their Islamic state in Iraq, and it will be a sad day for the country and the world.”