In CIA jargon, "Aardwolf" is a label for a special genre of intelligence report from field stations abroad to headquarters in Washington. An Aardwolf conveys the Chief of Station’s formal assessment regarding the direction events are taking in his or her country of assignment – and frequently the news is bad.
An Aardwolf is relatively rare and is avidly read; it is candid — and often unwelcome. (In the 2006 book 戦争状態、 author James Risen describes two Aardwolfs sent to CIA headquarters in the latter half of 2003 by the station chief in Baghdad describing the deteriorating situation in Iraq — and angering many of his bosses.)
そこで、たとえばニューヨークのイラン国連代表部にイラン人の駐在長が組み込まれていると仮定しましょう。同氏は、イスラム共和国の高官向けにアードウルフ型の定期的な評価を作成する任務を負う可能性が非常に高い。
そして、米国および西側諸国との緊張が高まっているこの時期に、イラン政府はおそらく、ここ数か月の出来事に基づいて、次のような最前線の質問について2012年下半期に何が起こるかを評価する考察記事に興味があるだろう。核問題とイラン・米国・イスラエルの三角関係。
Putting oneself in others’ shoes is always of value but often avoided by American officials and journalists. It is especially difficult in dealing with not-so-easy-for-westerners-to-understand countries like Iran. Faux history further complicates things, as do unconscious blinders that can affect even "old-paradigm" analysts who try to have no agenda other than the pursuit of objective truth.
笑わないでください。米国の諜報アナリストたちが依然として誠実で古いパラダイムの仕事ができることは、イランが作業を中止した2007年後半の重要な推定値を変更するという強い政治的圧力に対して、これまでのところ上級管理者の全面的な支援を得て抵抗し続けていることからも分かる。 2003年秋に核兵器が投下された。
Thus, let me try to put my imagination to work and see if any useful insights can be squeezed out of an attempt to "impersonate" an Iranian Chief of Station in the following notional "Aardwolf" to Tehran. Such a message might read something like this:
核問題:米国とイスラエルは何を企んでいるのか?
2012 年も半分が過ぎ、米国大統領選挙がわずか XNUMX か月後に迫っています。私は、今後数か月でイスラム共和国が直面する危険について、率直かつ率直に語ろうと思います。以下は、中間評価の重要なポイントであり、以下の文章でさらに詳しく説明されています。
1-The Islamic Republic is viewed by most Americans as Enemy #1. How best to defeat our "nuclear ambitions" has become the main foreign policy issue in the election campaign for president. This is BIG.
2-In dealing with Iran, U.S. corporate media are behaving just as they did before the attack on Iraq. It is as though the disasters of Afghanistan and Iraq never happened. This time the Islamic Republic is in the crosshairs and some influential figures seem eager to pull the trigger. For instance, Jackson Diehl, deputy chief of the ワシントン·ポスト‘s editorial page, asked pointedly if it "would still be feasible to carry out an air attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities" if the U.S. gets involved militarily in Syria.
3-Within the "bubble" of Official Washington, the war in Iraq is often portrayed as a success and the pro-Israel neo-conservatives largely responsible for that catastrophe remain in very influential positions. The macho cry of the neocons — "Real men go to Tehran" — is again very much in vogue.
4-Cowardly politicians, especially in Congress, march "in lockstep" to Likud Lobby cadences. President Barack Obama privately may not wish to go along but he lacks the courage to break ranks.
5-Unlike the lead-up to Iraq, when Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were lusting for war, this time neither the White House nor the Pentagon wants hostilities. Yet, prevalent is an awkward, helpless kind of fear that, one way or another, Israel with succeed in provoking hostilities — with little or no prior notice to its superpower "ally."
6-As we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, the top U.S. generals are virtually all careerists, and none have forgotten what happened to Admiral "no-war-on-Iran-on-my-watch" William Fallon. He was soon a retired admiral. So, they will follow orders — legal or not — as reflexively as the Prussians of old, letting the troops and the "indigenous" people of the target countries bear the consequences. In the U.S., it is almost unheard of for a general to resign on principle, no matter how foolish the errand.
7. ここでは親イスラエル票が多いというのが通説である。 必須条件 for election to the White House. Thus, Obama is acutely sensitive to the perceived need to appear no less supportive of Israel than Mitt Romney, who told an Israeli newspaper last fall: "The actions that I will take will be actions recommended and supported by Israeli leaders."
8. イスラエルの著名な政治、軍、諜報関係者による、イランを攻撃しないよう国民に警告することにある程度の注目が集まっている。彼らの率直な発言は、ベンヤミン・ネタニヤフ首相が最終的にはイスラエル国家の破壊につながりかねない冒険に乗り出すかもしれないという危険を、彼らがどれほど真剣に考えているかを示している。しかしネタニヤフ首相は、自分にはまだ主導権があり、ハイカードを握っていると信じており、それは米国の政治システムにも確かに当てはまる。
9-As for Israel’s generals, they will obey — like their American counterparts.
10. ネタニヤフ首相がオバマには背骨の欠陥があると信じており、XNUMX月の選挙前にイランとの敵対行為が勃発すれば、オバマは積極的な軍事関与を含めイスラエルに無条件の支援を与える義務があると感じるだろうという十分な証拠がある。私の見方では、ネタニヤフ首相のその計算は正しいだろう。
11. Israel’s strategic situation has markedly deteriorated over the past year, with former Mossad chief Meir Dagan describing it as "the worst in its history." Israel can no longer depend on close ties with Egypt or Turkey, and is becoming isolated elsewhere, as well. Developments in Egypt are a huge worry, with the Egyptians already having cancelled a major deal for the delivery of gas. This might increase Israel’s incentive to have a tangible demonstration that the "sole remaining superpower," at least, remains firmly in its camp.
12-Military and intelligence ties between the U.S. and Israel are just as tight as those that enabled the successful Israeli air attack on Iraq’s nuclear installation at Osirak in 1981. Just this month, Israel’s friends in Congress beat back an effort by the Director of National Intelligence to strip the phrase "including satellite intelligence" from a list of security improvements in the U.S.-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012.
13. イランの報復に対するイスラエルの脆弱性と、戦争を誘発しないよう米国が私的に助言していることを考慮すると、イランとの敵対関係を開始、あるいは挑発することは、ネタニヤフ首相にとって運命を左右する巨大な賭けとなるだろう。しかし、いずれにせよイスラエルが強行に踏み切った場合、たとえイランが報復をイスラエルの標的に限定するよう注意していたとしても、米軍は引き込まれるだろうと私の賭けはする。
14-On the nuclear issue, after the last three rounds of talks, it seems clear that the West will not even acknowledge our right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without strict conditions. Rather, the West’s "negotiating position" is almost identical to Netanyahu’s maximal demands that we abandon our project for processing nuclear materials and dismantle key facilities.
15-The larger objective seems to be regime change by threats, sanctions, covert action and cyber attack — with the prospect of worse to come.
16. 結論として、私はいくつかの一般的なアメリカの表現を引用します。核問題については、核問題をやれば非難されますし、核をやらなかったら非難されます。今後数か月以内にいつか攻撃される可能性があるため、ハッチをしっかりと閉めて火薬を乾いた状態に保つ必要があります。少なくとも年末までは、イスラム共和国に対する米国の敵意が大幅に解消されることを期待するのは極めて愚かである。
何がイスラエルを動かすのか?
イスラエル人がこの問題を重要視しているにもかかわらず、私たちの核計画を差し迫った脅威とは考えていないと私は思います。セレブルを引き起こします、彼らの外交政策の中心であり、今日のアメリカ政治の活線です。問題はその理由です。少なくとも 5 つの目標を特定できます。
1 – Overthrow of our Islamic Republic government (shades of 1953). The euphemism now in vogue is "regime change."
2 – Create in Iran the kind of hardship, devastation or, if you prefer, obliteration that has degraded Iraq’s ability, post-invasion, to support the Palestinians. A key part of Israel’s strategy is to deplete the resources of supporters of Hezbollah and HAMAS and shut down their support systems.
Accordingly, even if hostilities resulted in something short of "regime change," Israel’s close-in enemies would be greatly weakened and Israel would be in a strong position to dictate "peace terms" to the Palestinians — and even encourage many of them to "self-deport," to use Mitt Romney’s euphemism for ethnic cleansing of unwanted "aliens."
3 – Divert attention from the stymied talks with the Palestinians, as Israeli settlers proceed apace to create more and more "facts on the ground" in the West Bank.
4 – Set back Iran’s uranium enrichment program a few years; and
5 – Take advantage of a near-term "window of opportunity" afforded by an American president worried about his reelection prospects.
第二次世界大戦後の協定の拒否
The Americans are fond of saying, "After 9/11 everything changed." And so Americans took little notice when President George W. Bush, in a June 1, 2002, graduation speech at West Point, boldly asserted the right to launch the kind of preventive war banned at Nuremberg and in the U.N. Charter.
ウェストポイントでの演説は、10ヵ月後のイラク攻撃(そして最終的に国連事務総長によって違法とされた侵略戦争)の基礎を築いた。しかし、ウェストポイントでのブッシュ大統領の言葉は、第二次世界大戦後の条約やその他の合意に拘束されないというワシントンの決意を示した。
Many in the United States and abroad gradually have grown desensitized to the principles of international law when they limit Washington’s desire to attack another sovereign state under the guise of making Americans safer. After 9/11, starting the kind of "aggressive war" that was criminalized at Nuremberg in 1945 gained gradual acceptance.
そのため、米国の攻撃を正当化する国際法や前例がないにもかかわらず、米国が核兵器を開発するのであれば、イスラエルや米国がイスラム共和国を攻撃しても間違いなく大丈夫だということを、ほとんどの米国人は当然のこととして受け入れている。
さらに、国連憲章第 2 条第 4 項は、以下のことを明示的に禁止しています。 脅威 to use force as well as the actual use of force. But that is "old paradigm" thinking. When U.S. officials, from Obama on down, repeat the mantra that "everything is on the table," including the "military option," that is a violation of the UN Charter, yet no one here seems bothered by that fact.
Recall Obama’s nonchalant response when asked in February if he thought Israel had decided to attack Iran. "I don’t think Israel has made a decision," he said simply — as though the decision were about something routine — not about whether to launch the kind of "aggressive war" banned at Nuremberg.
Bottom line: International law is, as the Americans would say, "not a problem."
The statements of senior U.S. and Israeli officials are all over the map in addressing the nuclear "ambitions" of the Islamic Republic. For example, on Jan. 8, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told a television audience: "Are they [the Iranians] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No, but we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability." ["Face the Nation", CBS, Jan. 8, 2012]
27月XNUMX日の別の日曜トーク番組での彼のコメントは次のとおりだ。
"The fundamental premise is that neither the United States or the international community is going to allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. We will do everything we can to prevent them from developing a weapon."
パネッタ首相のカウンターパートであるエフド・バラク氏の発言を含むイスラエル指導部の声明も同様に不誠実で、米国とイスラエルは両国の国防指導者がイランが行っていないことを公に認めていることを我々が行うことを阻止する義務と決意があることを強調している。これほど多くの人が混乱しているのも不思議ではありません。
予防戦争の防止
ペルシャ湾はイスラエルにとって、我が国からの報復を引き出すために挑発を仕掛けるのに理想的な場所であり、その結果、我が国の核関連施設に対するイスラエルによる全面攻撃につながる可能性がある。
Painfully aware of that possible scenario, then Joint Chiefs Chair, Admiral Mike Mullen noted at a July 2, 2008, press conference, that military-to-military dialogue could "add to a better understanding" between the U.S. and Iran. This might be an opportune time to resurrect that idea and formally propose such dialogue to the U.S.
The following two modest proposals could go a long way toward avoiding an armed confrontation — whether accidental or provoked by those who may actually wish to precipitate hostilities and involve the U.S.
1 – Establish a direct communications link between top military officials in Washington and Tehran, in order to reduce the danger of accident, miscalculation or covert attack.
2 – Launch immediate negotiations by top Iranian and American naval officers to conclude an incidents-at-sea protocol. A useful precedent is the "Incidents-at-Sea" agreement between the U.S. and the Russians, signed in Moscow in May 1972. That period was also a time of high tensions between the two countries, including several inadvertent naval encounters that could well have escalated. The agreement sharply reduced the likelihood of such incidents.
これほど理にかなった政策にアメリカ人が反対するのは難しいだろうと思います。報道によれば、ペルシャ湾における米国の最高司令官たちはそのような措置を支持している。そして、上で示したように、マレン提督は以前に軍間の対話を訴えた。
現在の状況では、米国とイスラム共和国が偶然、誤算、挑発によって始まった紛争をどのように回避できるかを真剣に議論することがますます緊急となっている。米国もイランも、海上で避けられた事故が制御不能になるのを許すわけにはいかない。
With a modicum of mutual trust, these common-sense actions might be able to win wide and prompt acceptance in the U.S. — if only as a way of reining in "Enemy #1."
これは私が提案するわけではありませんが、私が非公式に提案しているのは、ここ国連にいるロシア人の同僚が最近の動向についての議論のために私を何度も求めてきたためでもあります。そしてつい今週、ロシアのセルゲイ・ラブロフ外相は、イランに対するより強力な行動を求めるイスラエルの呼びかけに言及し、次のように述べた。
"In order to settle this [nuclear] issue, it’s necessary to refrain from constant threats of using force, abandon scenarios aimed against Iran, and stop dismissing the negotiations as a failure."
想像上のアードウルフからテヘランまでの終わり。
ZNetwork の資金は読者の寛大さによってのみ賄われています。
ご支援のお願い