Impending Iran crisis
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
January 7, 2007

The nuclear crisis boiling away under the surface for the last three years
with Iran has finally erupted. Over the next three to six months, expect
things to get much worse, with a very real possibility of a war could
spread far beyond the Persian Gulf. How we got here was entirely
predictable -- as is the path to a violent future.
Caving in to intense pressure from the CIA and the foreign policy
establishment, the White House has refused to do the one thing that could
have headed off this crisis: support the rights of the Iranian people and
their struggle for freedom against this clerical tyranny. And now, it is
almost -- almost -- too late.
The immediate trigger for the crisis occurred just two days before
Christmas, when the United Nations Security Council finally passed a
binding resolution to impose sanctions on Iran because of its illegal
nuclear program.
Many U.N. critics (and I am one), find UNSC Resolution 1737 to be a
tepid move. While on the surface it bans nuclear and missile-related trade
with Iran, Iran has already received most of the know-how it needs for its
programs, and the rogue traders it works with won't be deterred from
supplying whatever else Iran needs.
More significant than the U.N. action was the Iranian reaction. "This
resolution will not harm Iran and those who backed it will soon regret
their superficial act," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said with
typical bluster on Christmas Eve. "[W]e will celebrate our atomic
achievements in February," he added. In earlier statements, he claimed
Iran would have a big nuclear "surprise" to unveil to the world by the end
of the Persian year, March 20. Now it would appear he is accelerating the
tempo.
In early December, Mr. Ahmadinejad announced Iran had completed its
uranium enrichment experiments and was preparing to install 3,000
production centrifuges at its now-declared enrichment plant in Natanz, in
central Iran.
His announcement fell exactly within the timeline Israeli nuclear
experts have derived from Iran's public declarations to the International
Atomic Energy Agency and the on-site inspections by IAEA experts in Iran.
If this timeline holds, Iran will have the capability to make its first
bomb by September 2008 -- just in time for the U.S. presidential
elections.
A second reaction to the U.N. Security Council resolution came from
Mr. Ahmadinejad's top nuclear adviser, Ali Larijani. On Christmas Eve, he
said the regime now planned to accelerate the installation of the
production centrifuges. "From Sunday morning [Dec. 24], we will begin
activities at Natanz -- the site of 3,000-centrifuge machines -- and we
will drive it with full speed. It will be our immediate response to the
resolution," Iran's Kayhan paper quoted him as saying.
The United States and Britain have begun a quiet buildup of their
naval forces in the Persian Gulf, with the goal of keeping the Strait of
Hormuz open to international shipping if a crisis develops.
The spark point of open military confrontation could occur in many
different ways. The Iranians, for example, might escalate their current
military involvement in Iraq. (A clear sign Iran is contemplating such a
move was revealed recently when the U.S. captured four Iranian
Revolutionary Guards officers during a raid on the headquarters of an
Iraqi Shi'ite leader in Baghdad).
The U.S. could and should respond to this Iranian provocation. One
option would be to attack Revolutionary Guards bases near the Iraqi border
that are involved in aiding the Iraqi Shi'ite militias.
As further steps, Iran might choose to launch "swarming" attacks
against U.S. warships in the Persian gulf, or to attack a foreign-flagged
oil tanker carrying Iraqi or Kuwaiti oil, or to increase rocket and
missile supplies to Hezbollah in Lebanon to spark another diversionary war
against Israel.
There are scores of ways such a scenario could evolve. But we are heading
toward a direct military confrontation with Iran -- an Iran which could be
a nuclear power, and certainly will be a suspected nuclear power, in a
matter of months, if not weeks.
There is no easy way of walking this back. Even the insane
Baker-Hamilton proposal of a direct dialogue with Iran will not get them
to abandon their nuclear program, which this regime in Tehran has clearly
identified as a strategic asset it is willing to make great sacrifices to
develop and protect.
So fasten your seat belts. We are in for a rough ride.

Kenneth R. Timmerman was nominated for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize
along with John Bolton for his work on Iran. He is executive director of
the Foundation for Democracy in Iran and author of "Countdown to Crisis:
the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran" (Crown Forum: 2005).
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070106-102609-2616r.htm

Impending Iran crisis
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
January 7, 2007

The nuclear crisis boiling away under the surface for the last three years
with Iran has finally erupted. Over the next three to six months, expect
things to get much worse, with a very real possibility of a war could
spread far beyond the Persian Gulf. How we got here was entirely
predictable -- as is the path to a violent future.
Caving in to intense pressure from the CIA and the foreign policy
establishment, the White House has refused to do the one thing that could
have headed off this crisis: support the rights of the Iranian people and
their struggle for freedom against this clerical tyranny. And now, it is
almost -- almost -- too late.
The immediate trigger for the crisis occurred just two days before
Christmas, when the United Nations Security Council finally passed a
binding resolution to impose sanctions on Iran because of its illegal
nuclear program.
Many U.N. critics (and I am one), find UNSC Resolution 1737 to be a
tepid move. While on the surface it bans nuclear and missile-related trade
with Iran, Iran has already received most of the know-how it needs for its
programs, and the rogue traders it works with won't be deterred from
supplying whatever else Iran needs.
More significant than the U.N. action was the Iranian reaction. "This
resolution will not harm Iran and those who backed it will soon regret
their superficial act," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said with
typical bluster on Christmas Eve. "[W]e will celebrate our atomic
achievements in February," he added. In earlier statements, he claimed
Iran would have a big nuclear "surprise" to unveil to the world by the end
of the Persian year, March 20. Now it would appear he is accelerating the
tempo.
In early December, Mr. Ahmadinejad announced Iran had completed its
uranium enrichment experiments and was preparing to install 3,000
production centrifuges at its now-declared enrichment plant in Natanz, in
central Iran.
His announcement fell exactly within the timeline Israeli nuclear
experts have derived from Iran's public declarations to the International
Atomic Energy Agency and the on-site inspections by IAEA experts in Iran.
If this timeline holds, Iran will have the capability to make its first
bomb by September 2008 -- just in time for the U.S. presidential
elections.
A second reaction to the U.N. Security Council resolution came from
Mr. Ahmadinejad's top nuclear adviser, Ali Larijani. On Christmas Eve, he
said the regime now planned to accelerate the installation of the
production centrifuges. "From Sunday morning [Dec. 24], we will begin
activities at Natanz -- the site of 3,000-centrifuge machines -- and we
will drive it with full speed. It will be our immediate response to the
resolution," Iran's Kayhan paper quoted him as saying.
The United States and Britain have begun a quiet buildup of their
naval forces in the Persian Gulf, with the goal of keeping the Strait of
Hormuz open to international shipping if a crisis develops.
The spark point of open military confrontation could occur in many
different ways. The Iranians, for example, might escalate their current
military involvement in Iraq. (A clear sign Iran is contemplating such a
move was revealed recently when the U.S. captured four Iranian
Revolutionary Guards officers during a raid on the headquarters of an
Iraqi Shi'ite leader in Baghdad).
The U.S. could and should respond to this Iranian provocation. One
option would be to attack Revolutionary Guards bases near the Iraqi border
that are involved in aiding the Iraqi Shi'ite militias.
As further steps, Iran might choose to launch "swarming" attacks
against U.S. warships in the Persian gulf, or to attack a foreign-flagged
oil tanker carrying Iraqi or Kuwaiti oil, or to increase rocket and
missile supplies to Hezbollah in Lebanon to spark another diversionary war
against Israel.
There are scores of ways such a scenario could evolve. But we are heading
toward a direct military confrontation with Iran -- an Iran which could be
a nuclear power, and certainly will be a suspected nuclear power, in a
matter of months, if not weeks.
There is no easy way of walking this back. Even the insane
Baker-Hamilton proposal of a direct dialogue with Iran will not get them
to abandon their nuclear program, which this regime in Tehran has clearly
identified as a strategic asset it is willing to make great sacrifices to
develop and protect.
So fasten your seat belts. We are in for a rough ride.

Kenneth R. Timmerman was nominated for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize
along with John Bolton for his work on Iran. He is executive director of
the Foundation for Democracy in Iran and author of "Countdown to Crisis:
the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran" (Crown Forum: 2005).
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070106-102609-2616r.htm