Space Solar Power and Iran: a Wild Idea

Space solar power (SSP) could be the solution to our nuclear standoff with Iran. It's a long shot, but consider:

Iran is developing nuclear energy. Unfortunately, some of the hardest problems in developing nuclear weapons can be solved by a nuclear energy program, and there is suspicion that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb. Nuclear weapons would be useful for deterring an American attack and intimidating neighbors (1).

Attempts to convince Iran to abandon their nuclear program have thus far failed, with Iran claiming they need the electric power their program could produce. Accepting enriched fuel from Russia in place of domestic supplies was rejected; Iran pointing out that when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980 America refused to supply spare parts for the Iranian's U.S.-made weapons and they don't want to be dependent on a potentially fickle great power.

What if we agreed to supply Iran with space solar power (at a price of course)? Satellites could be turned over to Iranian control eliminating foreign dependence. SSP is fairly useless as a weapon, and certainly isn't a city killer (2). Developing SSP would put America in the energy production driver's seat and would probably be a lot cheaper than war with Iran (3).

There are a lot of ways to structure the deal: Iran could suspend nuclear work while SSP development was required to meet certain milestones, Iran could continue nuclear work and agree to remove the systems when SSP power became available, or something in between. Obviously, this is a bit on the wild side, but it does indicate the sort of benefits SSP could provide internationally by providing a safe alternative to large-scale emissionless power production.

NOTES

(1) See Iran's Nuclear Program for an analysis of Iran's motives.

(2) Military lasers could be mounted on an SSP satellite but this would be a major project, is easy to detect, and could only attack relatively small targets. SSP satellites are very large, fragile, and travel in predictable orbits. Any major space power could attack them relatively easily.

(3) Depending on who you believe, the war in Iraq has cost between $500 billion and $1 trillion so far. Iran is much larger than Iraq, the terrain is much more rugged, the population is more than twice as large, and U.S. ground forces are relatively far weaker than when America invaded Iraq.

Roe v Wade and McCain

If McCain becomes president, Roe v Wade is toast. McCain favors overthrowing Roe v Wade and his choice for vice president, Sarah Palin, greatly reinforces that position. Sarah Palin is against legal abortion even in cases of rape and incest (1). The next president will almost certainly nominate one or two supreme court justices, and that's all they need to overturn Roe v Wade.

If you think the government should force a pregnant rape victim to bear her rapist's child, then vote for McCain (2) and Palin. You may well get your wish.

NOTES

(1) To be fair, Palin is willing to put her body where her mouth is. Last April she had a child with Down's Syndrome. She knew in advance and could have ended the pregnancy but didn't. Interestingly she was at work three days later. The child is about four months old today.

(2) The Republican Platform is anti-legal abortion. Period. John McCain has tried, unsuccessfully, to broaden the plank to allow exceptions for rape and incest. However, if McCain wins Palin will be well positioned to succeed him as president in 4-8 years.

Do Republicans Really Make America Stronger?

Russia has been a strong ally of Serbia for a long time (1). In the 1990s, Russia watched impotently as Democratic President Bill Clinton bombed Serbia into submission and dismembered Serbian-led Yugoslavia. Russia was weak, America was strong, and there was little Russia could do to help her ally.

America is an ally of Georgia (2). In the last few weeks, America has watched impotently as Russia invaded and dismembered Georgia. Seven years of Republican President George Bush's leadership weakened America (3) to the point that, at least in Georgia, Russia is stronger, and America did little to help her ally (4).

Remember this next time someone claims Republicans make America strong.

Notes

(1) In 1914 Russia went to war with Germany and Austro-Hungary to protect Serbia. Ultimately, millions of Russians were killed, the government collapsed, and Russia signed a humiliating treaty with Germany.

(2) America trained and equipped the Georgian military and pushed to integrate Georgia into NATO.

(3) Some of the ways in which America has been weakened in the last seven years include:

Most US ground forces are tied up in long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The federal government has added about $3.5 trillion of debt, and is looking at another half trillion dollars of borrowing next fiscal year.

America's moral authority has been severely weakened by reaction to the invasion of Iraq, torture of suspects -- particularly at Abu Ghraib, the legal black hole at Guantanamo, the secret prison system, and a failure to abide by our Constitution.

(4) Assistance was limited to flying 2,000 Georgian soldiers home from Iraq, which made no difference in the outcome, humanitarian aid, and talk.

Who's the Lightweight?

In recent weeks McCain has accused Obama of being a celebrity with little or no substance. Let's examine that claim:

In 1990, Obama was elected editor of the Harvard Law Review beating out 18 other top notch Harvard students (1).

Obama gave up a high-paying corporate job to work for peanuts organizing poor people on the south side of Chicago.

Obama has written two best selling books, one about his life and another about his political philosophy (2)

Obama writes many, if not most, of his own speeches (3).

Obama grew up without much money, no powerful relatives (4), and his wife's family was strictly middle class (5).

Obama made the right call on Iraq from the very beginning (6).

Obama got into the best schools in the country, including Harvard, strictly on merit.

This is not the biography of a lightweight. This is the biography of a self-made man who succeeded through hard work and talent.

NOTES

(1) John McCain, by contrast, was fifth from the bottom in a class of over 800 at Annapolis [reference].

(2) John McCain's book "Faith of My Fathers," was co-written by Mark Salter. You can bet Salter did most of the actual writing.

(3) Both of the Republican candidates have their speeches written by others.

(4) McCain's father and grandfather were admirals, which may explain why he kept flying after losing four military aircraft in accidents -- one by flying so low he snagged power lines.

(5) McCain's second wife was worth about $100 million when he married her.

(6) I've seen video of John McCain predicting easy victory in Iraq.

And the Winner is ... Iran

Lately, some are talking as if the 'surge' is winning the war in Iraq. While the surge, among other important factors (1), has definitely improved matters, let's see who is really winning and losing. To determine this, let's compare the condition of the major players before the run up to the war vs today. Here's the short story: the winners are Iran, the Kurds, the Shia, al Qaeda and Israel. The losers are America and the Sunnis.

WINNERS

Iran is by far the biggest winner, for several reasons:

Saddam Hussein was removed. Saddam's Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 killing half a million Iranians.

The current Iraqi government, far from being an enemy of Iran, is very close and friendly (2).

Iran is the center of Shia Islam, and Iraq is now controlled by Shia rather than Sunni

Iranian presence in Najaf, the Shiite spiritual center that actually controls the country, is very strong. Iran has even extended its power grid into southern Iraq [Engel 2008].

The Kurds were terribly oppressed by Saddam. Although Kurdistan became quasi-independent after the first Gulf War with American protection, Saddam was an ever present danger. Iraqi-Kurdistan was never occupied by American troops and is independent in all but name today.

The Shia have lived in Iraq for 1300 years under Sunni rule. Today the Shia control the central government and the southern oil producing regions.

al Qaeda had zero presence in Iraq before the run up to the American invasion, Saddam made sure of that (3). Today their presence is reduced from its peak but still significant. The Sunni Awakening leaders are keeping some al Qaeda fighters protected for future use against Iran and the Shia, or America if we don't leave [Engel 2008]. Also, al Qaeda's strategy is to goad America into spending ourselves into bankruptcy, and the Iraq war has added nearly a trillion dollars to our debt. Excessive debt leads to bankruptcy.

Israel suffered from suicide bombers subsidized by Saddam's Iraq. Iraq was also one of the strongest Arab countries committed to Israel's destruction. While this commitment doesn't seem to have really changed, there is no practical threat to Israel from Iraq today.

LOSERS

America before the Iraq invasion had an unbeatable military, a balanced budget, a strong economy and unparalleled support around the world.

Today our ground forces are bogged down and no longer considered invincible.

We have added almost four trillion dollars in debt, with a projected deficit of a half trillion next year, pushing us closer to bankruptcy.

The economy's financial sector is in deep trouble, thousands of people are losing their homes each week, and the dollar is falling like a stone.

We have lost most of our international support and many see America as the land of torture and illegal invasion. This is very bad as international support is critical to winning the war on al Qaeda.

The Sunnis have lost control of Iraq for the first time in 1300 years and about half of the pre-war Iraqi Sunnis are dead or have left the country. See Sunni Extermination?.

It is possible to salvage something from America's Iraq disaster. Dunkirk was a terrible defeat for the British in World War II, but most of the troops made it home even if their equipment did not. England went on to win the war, primarily by enlisting the support of America and Russia. Perhaps we can salvage something from the ashes of our disastrous Iraq adventure.

Notes

(1) Other factors reducing violence include:

Sunni Awakening, a movement that started about a year before the surge. Some Sunni tribes have, at least temporarily, allied themselves with the Americans and against al Qaeda in Iraq. This may be related to the huge losses Sunnis suffered when allied with al Qaeda in Iraq.

Muqtada al-Sadr, who wants the Americans to leave and leads the largest Shia militia, declared a truce in August 2007. This decision may be related to the surge and/or a belief the Americans will leave sometime reasonably soon. Why get chewed up by American firepower if they will leave anyway?

General Petraeus took command of US forces in Iraq. Petraeus was the guiding light for the new
US counter-insurgency field manual. One of the lessons therein: lose the moral high ground, lose the war.

(2) When the President of Iran recently visited Iraq, his visit was scheduled, he arrived in broad daylight to a red carpet, drove from the airport to the Green Zone, and traveled about with little or no security. Contrast this with how American VIPs visit Iraq. For security reasons, Americans arrive unannounced, usually at night, fly to the Green Zone in helicopters, and only travel with massive security.

(3) Saddam was our de facto ally in the war with al Qaeda, but just before the invasion Saddam allowed al Qaeda to establish a presence in Iraq. This was probably related to his strategy to make Iraq ungovernable for the U.S. [Scheuer 2008]. He also let thousands of prisoners out of jail, perhaps for the same reason.

References

[Engel 2008] "War journal: My Five Years in Iraq," Richard Engel, NBC News Middle East correspondent.

[Scheuer 2008] "Marching Toward Hell, America and Islam after Iraq," Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA bin Laden unit.

The Next Commander in Chief

"You cannot kill your way out of an insurgency, you have to turn them" General Petraeus, the most successful U.S. commander in Iraq. Without the support of the Muslim world, no matter how many al Qaeda operatives we kill, they will simply be replaced. If killing were decisive, John McCain might be a good commander in chief, but it isn't. Victory requires turning the Islamic world into our friends and allies, for that we need Barak Obama.

Related posts

This U.S. Military Will Surprise You: a discussion of The U.S. Army - Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual and the rather surprising lessons it has for Iraq, Afghanistan, and the struggle against al Qaeda.

Winning the War on al Qaeda.

FISA

I finally found out what the almost-never stated provisions of FISA are:

1. Wiretapping of American citizens within the US requires a warrant.

2. Wiretapping foreign nationals in foreign countries does not require a warrant. This is true even if the foreign national overseas is conversing with an American in the US.

I'm not sure about foreign nationals inside the US or US citizens in foreign nations.

Leaving aside abuse, for the moment, here are the questions: Is today's FISA the right balance between fighting al Qaeda and the privacy rights guaranteed in the Constitution? If not, what is the right balance? And finally, can reasonable people disagree on the last two questions?

My answers: Probably not. I don't know (1). Yes.

Here's the presidential question: fixing FISA will require public pressure. Is this more likely to succeed with an Obama administration or a McCain administration? (hint: starts with an O)

(1) Here's a case to consider: we know al Qaeda has bases in northern Pakistan. Technically, we could monitor all the communications out of that region (or at least those passing through the US), and send them through computers looking for key words. When the computers find something suspicious, they could pass the communication to a human for analysis. This would be enormously useful, and is probably being done as we speak.

However, it's impossible to get probable cause for an entire region of the Earth, so warrants in the current legal framework don't work. How do we craft a law that allows us to go after al Qaeda in this or similar ways and that also passes Constitutional muster?