Having survived working with and routinely around the Clintons and their staffs over the years, I admit I once thought that anyone, literally ANYONE, would be preferable as President than Hillary Clinton. When she announced her long-suspected candidacy for the White House, I found myself, as a conservative Independent, looking upon her Democratic challengers as the last line of defense against another Clinton in the Oval Office, an office I on which I strongly believed her husband had left a stain, figuratively and literally. During the 2008 campaign, it was clear she would not win her party's nomination, and although I had misgivings about an Obama presidency from a tax and spend point of view, I also noted that in their head-to-head debates, Hillary Clinton was much more conversant on world affairs and expressed, courageously for the times in her party, a concern over withdrawing troops too precipitously from Iraq. She was usually hawkish on the Iraq War, much to her credit, although the pressures of trying to win a nomination in a party bent on pulling troops out and declaring the war "lost" eventually drove Hillary to echo some calls for a draw down in troop strength. I do not believe she actually favored that strategy, but it took a back seat to her immediate need to strategically fight for the Democratic nomination.
Now, a few years removed from the bravado of the campaign trail, I wonder if the Democrats made a mistake in nomination as I watch President Obama, as Commander in Chief, taking nuanced non-committal stances on most international developments, as illustrated by his administration's confusing range of responses to the uprising in Egypt. Eventually, after two weeks of protests against Hosni Mubarak, President Obama spoke in favor of the protesters, some of whom were seeking democracy, others of whom, like the Muslim Brotherhood, were seeking and end to Mubarak's tight controls over their terrorism-related ideologies and activities. President Obama called for our staunchest long-time ally in the Arab world to step down from 30 years of keeping the peace with Israel, in favor of temporary rule by the Egyptian military until "democratic" elections can be held later this year. To this day, it remains unclear whether the Egyptian uprising was solely a popular swell for democracy or something insidious organized by groups with violent goals for the region, specifically ending the treaty with Israel. One must entertain this as a possibility if for no other reason than observing the Iranian government gleefully praising the protesters and their toppling of Mubarak.
Although we have yet to hear any definitive statesmanship from President Obama on today's protests in Iran and the violent methods security forces utilized to disperse the marchers, Hillary Clinton voiced today precisely the message that the President should be delivering to the Mullahs in Tehran. Although the White House has been noticeably understated on the events in Iran, in marked contrast to the open calls for governmental change in Egypt days earlier, Hillary was front and center pointing out, in refreshingly blunt language, the utter hypocrisy of Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs for praising the Egyptian "revolution" and change of government in Egypt while simultaneously suppressing their own people attempting to march for reforms in a notoriously oppressive regime.
Listen to Hillary state, more eloquently and more forcefully than the President, what needed to be stated to the Mullahs: Iranian government is hypocritical on issue of protests against government
Capital Cloak gives credit where it is due. Hillary made the right comments today about Iran. The question that we must ask is why President Obama, who claims to champion freedom and democracy in Egypt, is mostly silent on Iran, particularly after missing the opportunity to support the Green Revolution in Iran in June 2009. Iranians who genuinely desire freedom from the oppressive Mullah rule have already experience abandonment once from the Obama White House. Now, after the events in Egypt, Tunisia, and throughout the Middle East have inspired courageous revolutionaries in Tehran to test the waters of support from the U.S., they are finding the waters tepid at best. Unless they listen to Hillary, whose message to the Mullahs today was music to Iranian revolutionary ears.
More such messages are needed, from Hillary, from President Obama, from our Congress, and from heads of state of our allies worldwide. We can only turn up the heat on the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad if we speak candidly and with unwavering support for the protesters in Iran. Unlike in Egypt, where it really DOES matter what type of government replaces Mubarak in the long-term, in Iran it DOES NOT matter what would fill the vacuum left by the Mullahs if toppled. The current regime is hotly pursuing nuclear weapons capability, funding and equipping Hezbollah, infiltrating Iraq and working to shatter fragile coalitions there, and training terrorists who routinely attack allied forces. We would be hard pressed to imagine a worse government in Tehran. Supporting any flicker of desire for democratic reform in Iran should be our highest priority. Speaking bluntly about the regime's hypocrisy is a step in the right direction.
Showing posts with label Ahmadinejad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ahmadinejad. Show all posts
Monday, February 14, 2011
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
General Thinks Mullahs Rational Enough for Nukes
Retired General John Abizaid is working hard to disprove the old adage that “Old 
generals never die, they just fade away.” Unfortunately, many otherwise astute minds are relying on the former CentCom Commander’s outdated worldview to formulate their own policy positions, particularly in our looming confrontation with Iran over that nation’s nuclear ambitions. If America follows Gen. Abizaid's advice, we may all "just fade away" much sooner than we had envisioned.
The Washington Times’ Arnaud de Borchgrave, whom we have praised previously for sound analysis on other topics, quoted Ret. Gen. Abizaid extensively in his recent column on potential conflict with Iran, “Networked and Lethal.” De Borchgrave subscribes to the view that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has aroused international scorn and sympathy in equal portions, is merely a powerless puppet whose strings are controlled by Iran’s Supreme Religious Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
This analysis, by itself, is relatively accurate and approaching diplomacy with Iran from that perspective is a somewhat prudent course to follow. However, de Borchgrave draws upon Gen. Abizaid to support his position that military action against Iran would be a mistake. According to both men, using force against Iran to eliminate uranium enrichment sites would be foolish and dangerous because, somewhere under the lecherous layers of power represented by Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, lies a trickling rivulet of revolution that seeks peace with the west and only civilian use of nuclear power for electricity.
We will set aside for the moment the fact that this optimistic view of Iran’s underlying potential for political reform requires, to borrow from Hillary Clinton’s lexicon, “the willful suspension of disbelief.” Senator Clinton used that phrase to bludgeon General David Petraeus’ report to congress on progress in Iraq, where despite abundant evidence of silver linings, critics choose to see only the dark cloud. By contrast, in evaluating Iran’s potential for peaceful coexistence with the West and its Middle East neighbors as a nuclear nation, those same critics embrace wishful thinking and cite historical references to Persian culture and traditions that they conveniently forget have long since been replaced by radical Islamic ideology.
Ret. Gen Abizaid is a strong advocate of what is, for a leader who was previously so instrumental in the War on Terror, a remarkably reckless and illogical policy toward Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Gen. Abizaid sees no reason why Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear technology, apparently including nuclear weapons, because he mistakenly equates Iran with the former Soviet Union and the current standoff with Iran as just another iteration of the Cold War. The following excerpts set forth de Borchgrave’s and Gen. Abizaid’s reasoning for choosing a nuclear Iran over military conflict to prevent that eventuality:
It is stunning that a man with the mindset that “one or two Iranian nukes should not rattle us” was ever selected as the CentCom commander. His comparison between the former Soviet Union and the current Iranian regime is frighteningly naïve, especially from one who many look to as an “expert” on Middle Eastern matters. Ret. Gen. Abizaid either conveniently or cunningly ignores the fact that during the Cold War nuclear capability belonged to only a handful of nations and was a jealously and fanatically guarded secret. There was virtually no concern within the intelligence community that the Soviets would develop a nuclear weapon, sell it to Islamic or other terrorists, and help them to smuggle it out of country to be used against the United States or its allies.
Quite simply, the Soviets feared that any nuclear weapon used against the United States would be blamed on them and retaliation would not be long in coming. Thus it was in the self-interest of the Soviets not to share nuclear technology with radicals who might strike the United States rashly. Though dangerous in its own right, the Soviet Union wielded nuclear weapons in large quantity as a demonstration of national strength. There is far more fear that a nuclear Iran would use or sell its weapons than there ever was that the Soviets would do so. The Soviets likewise did not harbor any sympathy for or ally themselves with Muslims and were understandably alarmed by the potential consequences of any nuclear Islamic nation.
Ret. Gen. Abizaid seems to think that our ability to “instantly vaporize” Iran should make us
confident that Iran would never be irrational enough to use nuclear weapons against America. In essence, the general advocates applying the strategy of deterrence, or Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) to Iran. MAD was crafted to defend against an enemy's all out assault, an attack intended to cripple America with strikes against multiple cities simultaneously. It was never meant as a deterrent against terrorists who would be perfectly satisfied with a random detonation in just one American city. To equate MAD's capacity to deter the Soviet Union with a similar effect on radical Islamic terrorists is illogical in the extreme.
It is baffling why this so-called expert would not prefer keeping nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands in the first place. Radical Islamic terrorists are not known to be reasonable, rational people. Gen. Abizaid would like to believe that the Iranian nation as a whole is not suicidal and that “they aren’t mad.” He forgets, however, that the weaponry of Iran is in the hands of a small number of religious zealots who preach loudly of their role in ushering in an apocalyptic future. The Iranian nation may not be bent on collective suicide, but its radical leaders have no such qualms about martyring themselves and their nation to fulfill prophecy.
The general’s portrait of Iran as an inherently peaceful nation fails to address what is undeniably the greatest source of concern regarding Iran: that it will provide nuclear weapons and/or technology to terrorist groups who would not hesitate to use them against America and its allies. A nuclear-armed Iran would be unlikely to engage in a tactical nuclear conflict with America, but most Americans would not share Gen. Abizaid’s opinion that we should not be rattled by “one or two Iranian nukes.” Which cities in Europe would Gen. Abizaid be so casually willing to lose? What would be left of Israel after “one or two Iranian nukes?” The nuclear devices would detonate and we would face then the same question we face today: Should we take action to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment and nuclear technology sites? The only difference would be the tragic loss of millions of lives due to a nuclear terrorist attack that would have been preventable.
Given Iran’s well-documented record of funding, equipping, training, and transporting terrorists who attack American civilians and military forces on a daily basis and who have struck at Israel for decades, it requires the willful suspension of disbelief to think Iran would not sell or give freely its future nuclear weapons to terrorist groups it already supplies with weapons. The confusion after a nuclear terrorist attack would be paralyzing to America. Some would blame it on Russians; others would insist it was a preemptive strike by an increasingly aggressive China; Al Qaeda would naturally be suspected, but in the aftermath of such an attack it would be difficult to establish who orchestrated the event and how to respond. The knee-jerk reaction would be to annihilate whatever nation produced the weapon and supplied it to terrorists.
Gen. Abizaid appears to have great respect for Iran and its Persian culture and traditions. He should recognize that the best way to preserve Iran’s people and culture is to prevent its current radical regime from ever developing nuclear weapons that, through their existence and potential use or sale, would jeopardize the future of the entire Iranian nation. Neither the world nor the Iranian people can afford to take the risk that mullahs with nuclear weapons would act responsibly in possession of nuclear weapons. Their record terror sponsorship, their stated vision of a world without Israel, and their hatred for America should rattle us out of our diplomatic course that has allowed Iran to bring over 3,000 centrifuges online and race toward sufficient uranium enrichment for weapons production.
Gen. Abizaid is a trusting soul, but trust in the intentions of Islamic radicals in pursuit of nuclear weapons may prove suicidal. This may be the only situation in recorded history where America should take the word of Ahmadinejad and his mullah puppeteers at face value and ignore the advice of one of our decorated retired generals.
Technorati Tags: General John Abizaid Iran Ayatollah Khamenei Ahmadinejad Iranian Nuclear Weapons War on Terror Cold War
generals never die, they just fade away.” Unfortunately, many otherwise astute minds are relying on the former CentCom Commander’s outdated worldview to formulate their own policy positions, particularly in our looming confrontation with Iran over that nation’s nuclear ambitions. If America follows Gen. Abizaid's advice, we may all "just fade away" much sooner than we had envisioned.The Washington Times’ Arnaud de Borchgrave, whom we have praised previously for sound analysis on other topics, quoted Ret. Gen. Abizaid extensively in his recent column on potential conflict with Iran, “Networked and Lethal.” De Borchgrave subscribes to the view that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has aroused international scorn and sympathy in equal portions, is merely a powerless puppet whose strings are controlled by Iran’s Supreme Religious Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
This analysis, by itself, is relatively accurate and approaching diplomacy with Iran from that perspective is a somewhat prudent course to follow. However, de Borchgrave draws upon Gen. Abizaid to support his position that military action against Iran would be a mistake. According to both men, using force against Iran to eliminate uranium enrichment sites would be foolish and dangerous because, somewhere under the lecherous layers of power represented by Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, lies a trickling rivulet of revolution that seeks peace with the west and only civilian use of nuclear power for electricity.
We will set aside for the moment the fact that this optimistic view of Iran’s underlying potential for political reform requires, to borrow from Hillary Clinton’s lexicon, “the willful suspension of disbelief.” Senator Clinton used that phrase to bludgeon General David Petraeus’ report to congress on progress in Iraq, where despite abundant evidence of silver linings, critics choose to see only the dark cloud. By contrast, in evaluating Iran’s potential for peaceful coexistence with the West and its Middle East neighbors as a nuclear nation, those same critics embrace wishful thinking and cite historical references to Persian culture and traditions that they conveniently forget have long since been replaced by radical Islamic ideology.
Ret. Gen Abizaid is a strong advocate of what is, for a leader who was previously so instrumental in the War on Terror, a remarkably reckless and illogical policy toward Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Gen. Abizaid sees no reason why Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear technology, apparently including nuclear weapons, because he mistakenly equates Iran with the former Soviet Union and the current standoff with Iran as just another iteration of the Cold War. The following excerpts set forth de Borchgrave’s and Gen. Abizaid’s reasoning for choosing a nuclear Iran over military conflict to prevent that eventuality:
Mr. Ahmadinejad, who today will put in his third appearance in three years before the U.N. General Assembly, has little power in Iran's theocracy. The key levers are in the hands of Supreme Religious Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Everything from media to intelligence and including the armed forces and parliament is in his hands. And former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani, who lost the presidential election to Mr. Ahmadinejad in 2005, was elected chairman of Iran's Assembly of Experts, the body that elects the supreme spiritual leader. Mr. Rafsanjani defeated a hard-line cleric who was Mr. Ahmadinejad's friend and protector.
Unlike Mr. Ahmadinejad, who would seem to welcome a military showdown with the United States, if only to force the entire Middle East to side with Iran against the U.S., both Messrs. Khamenei and Rafsanjani are apparently worried about the voices calling for the bombing of Iran's estimated 23 widely scattered underground nuclear facilities.
…Former CentCom commander Gen. Abizaid, who speaks fluent Arabic and whose command extended from Afghanistan to Iraq and the rest of the Middle East and took in a large chunk of Africa from Egypt to the Horn of Africa down to Kenya (27 countries), said bombing Iran would be catastrophic. It would set the entire Middle East ablaze and bring millions more recruits to al Qaeda's anti-U.S. bandwagon.
Gen. Abizaid, now retired, says: "We can stop Iranian expansion. We contained the Soviet Union with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads in missiles targeted against the United States. But we kept talking to Soviet leaders throughout the worst of the Cold War. And we blocked Soviet expansionism and we also learned to live with China after President Nixon restored diplomatic relations."
Iran, the general explains, is a dangerous power that seeks weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to dominate its neighbors much the way the Soviet Union developed satellite and client states. The United States should deliver clear messages. One or two Iranian nukes should not rattle us. If they fired them, Iran would be instantly vaporized.
"The ayatollahs are heirs to a great civilization," he said in a colloquy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "and they are not in the business of collective suicide. Using suicide bombers against Western or pro-Western countries is one thing, but committing national suicide quite another. They aren't mad." And we should talk turkey with Iran at the highest level as soon as possible.
It is stunning that a man with the mindset that “one or two Iranian nukes should not rattle us” was ever selected as the CentCom commander. His comparison between the former Soviet Union and the current Iranian regime is frighteningly naïve, especially from one who many look to as an “expert” on Middle Eastern matters. Ret. Gen. Abizaid either conveniently or cunningly ignores the fact that during the Cold War nuclear capability belonged to only a handful of nations and was a jealously and fanatically guarded secret. There was virtually no concern within the intelligence community that the Soviets would develop a nuclear weapon, sell it to Islamic or other terrorists, and help them to smuggle it out of country to be used against the United States or its allies.
Quite simply, the Soviets feared that any nuclear weapon used against the United States would be blamed on them and retaliation would not be long in coming. Thus it was in the self-interest of the Soviets not to share nuclear technology with radicals who might strike the United States rashly. Though dangerous in its own right, the Soviet Union wielded nuclear weapons in large quantity as a demonstration of national strength. There is far more fear that a nuclear Iran would use or sell its weapons than there ever was that the Soviets would do so. The Soviets likewise did not harbor any sympathy for or ally themselves with Muslims and were understandably alarmed by the potential consequences of any nuclear Islamic nation.
Ret. Gen. Abizaid seems to think that our ability to “instantly vaporize” Iran should make us
confident that Iran would never be irrational enough to use nuclear weapons against America. In essence, the general advocates applying the strategy of deterrence, or Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) to Iran. MAD was crafted to defend against an enemy's all out assault, an attack intended to cripple America with strikes against multiple cities simultaneously. It was never meant as a deterrent against terrorists who would be perfectly satisfied with a random detonation in just one American city. To equate MAD's capacity to deter the Soviet Union with a similar effect on radical Islamic terrorists is illogical in the extreme.It is baffling why this so-called expert would not prefer keeping nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands in the first place. Radical Islamic terrorists are not known to be reasonable, rational people. Gen. Abizaid would like to believe that the Iranian nation as a whole is not suicidal and that “they aren’t mad.” He forgets, however, that the weaponry of Iran is in the hands of a small number of religious zealots who preach loudly of their role in ushering in an apocalyptic future. The Iranian nation may not be bent on collective suicide, but its radical leaders have no such qualms about martyring themselves and their nation to fulfill prophecy.
The general’s portrait of Iran as an inherently peaceful nation fails to address what is undeniably the greatest source of concern regarding Iran: that it will provide nuclear weapons and/or technology to terrorist groups who would not hesitate to use them against America and its allies. A nuclear-armed Iran would be unlikely to engage in a tactical nuclear conflict with America, but most Americans would not share Gen. Abizaid’s opinion that we should not be rattled by “one or two Iranian nukes.” Which cities in Europe would Gen. Abizaid be so casually willing to lose? What would be left of Israel after “one or two Iranian nukes?” The nuclear devices would detonate and we would face then the same question we face today: Should we take action to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment and nuclear technology sites? The only difference would be the tragic loss of millions of lives due to a nuclear terrorist attack that would have been preventable.
Given Iran’s well-documented record of funding, equipping, training, and transporting terrorists who attack American civilians and military forces on a daily basis and who have struck at Israel for decades, it requires the willful suspension of disbelief to think Iran would not sell or give freely its future nuclear weapons to terrorist groups it already supplies with weapons. The confusion after a nuclear terrorist attack would be paralyzing to America. Some would blame it on Russians; others would insist it was a preemptive strike by an increasingly aggressive China; Al Qaeda would naturally be suspected, but in the aftermath of such an attack it would be difficult to establish who orchestrated the event and how to respond. The knee-jerk reaction would be to annihilate whatever nation produced the weapon and supplied it to terrorists.
Gen. Abizaid appears to have great respect for Iran and its Persian culture and traditions. He should recognize that the best way to preserve Iran’s people and culture is to prevent its current radical regime from ever developing nuclear weapons that, through their existence and potential use or sale, would jeopardize the future of the entire Iranian nation. Neither the world nor the Iranian people can afford to take the risk that mullahs with nuclear weapons would act responsibly in possession of nuclear weapons. Their record terror sponsorship, their stated vision of a world without Israel, and their hatred for America should rattle us out of our diplomatic course that has allowed Iran to bring over 3,000 centrifuges online and race toward sufficient uranium enrichment for weapons production.
Gen. Abizaid is a trusting soul, but trust in the intentions of Islamic radicals in pursuit of nuclear weapons may prove suicidal. This may be the only situation in recorded history where America should take the word of Ahmadinejad and his mullah puppeteers at face value and ignore the advice of one of our decorated retired generals.
Technorati Tags: General John Abizaid Iran Ayatollah Khamenei Ahmadinejad Iranian Nuclear Weapons War on Terror Cold War
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Ahmadinejad Cannot be Denied Ground Zero Visit
Americans are up in arms over the much-publicized proposed visit of 
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the Ground Zero memorial site during his stay in New York City for the annual United Nations General Assembly next week. Presidential candidates from both parties tripped over each other in the scramble to get out in front of this controversy and issue the most forceful condemnations possible, indicting everyone from Ahmadinejad himself to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly for their roles in facilitating the visit. While the visit of a radical leader who actively sponsors global terrorism to a site held by Americans to be a sacred shrine to the fallen heroes and innocents of 9/11 is obviously in poor taste and insulting to our sensibilities, the bluster by politicians, and calls by talk show hosts like Sean Hannity urging Mayor Bloomberg to prevent the visit are either craftily contrived or incredibly naive.
The New York Sun broke this story today, surprising New Yorkers with the headline, "U.S. May Escort Ahmadinejad to Ground Zero." Presidential candidates immediately seized on the "controversy" as an opportunity to flex their foreign policy issue muscles, but like the proverbial bully at the beach, reality will soon kick its sand in their outraged faces and limit the campaign mileage they hope to gain through their outspoken opposition to a visit that has not been finalized. Even if it were an established part of Ahmadinejad's itinerary during his stay in New York, there is nothing that any of the current presidential candidates or sitting politicians can do to prevent it, if in fact Ahmadinejad insists on visiting Ground Zero.
Here is how some 2008 presidential candidates reacted to news of Ahmadinejad's proposed sightseeing tour of the 9/11 site:
Struggling to reignite the flickering flame of his once roaring campaign, Romney's comments conveyed a significant lack of awareness of diplomatic and security protocol for visits of foreign
heads of state to the United States and specifically for visits that incorporate attendance at the United Nations General Assembly. Quite simply, whether Americans like it or not, Ahmadinejad is the internationally recognized elected head of state of Iran, and part of America's role as the host country for United Nations headquarters is an international agreement that America will provide protective services to any represented nation that requests such protection. For certain countries whose leaders are considered high value threat targets, their leaders are provided mandatory protection by the Secret Service. Simply stated, America will not allow high threat level foreign heads of state to visit the United States unless they accept the protective services of our government. America takes full responsibility for their safety while on our soil.
Ahmadinejad certainly would fall into that category and thus if he chooses to attend the United Nations meetings next week, he will receive Secret Service protection, with logistical assistance from NYPD and other entities. There is ample historical precedent to justify the diplomatic and security reasons for providing this mandatory protection. World War I was triggered in large part because of the assassination of a visiting foreign leader, and in today's era of increased vigilance against terrorism or retribution, nothing would be more embarrassing for Americans than to have a foreign head of state harmed while on American soil.
A successful attack on a controversial figure visiting the United States would diminish international perceptions of American strength and forever fuel accusations of an American conspiracy to effect regime change through assassination in our own backyard. Presidential candidates did not seem to give much, if any, consideration to the repercussions of not providing Ahmadinejad with the mandatory protection afforded to visiting heads of state. Thirty percent of our own citizens claim to believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy concocted by the "Bush-Cheney Axis of Evil." It stands to reason that international conspiracy buffs would number in the millions if something happened to Ahmadinejad in America after our government has spoken so openly about its desire for regime change in Iran.
Which brings us to the second fact conveniently ignored by the radio talk show hosts and politicians. There is likewise no provision in our agreement with the United Nations that allows the host country, America, to dictate to a foreign head of state where he can go and where he cannot go while visiting America, with the exception of sensitive national security or military sites. Even that exception has its exceptions, depending on the nature of the site and the stated purpose of the visit. Ground Zero rightly may be considered a shrine, and the idea of Ahmadinejad strutting around it and mocking it with his notoriously smug grin naturally outrages us. Presidential candidates are justified in their sense of anger over the contempt Ahmadinejad would show to all Americans by visiting Ground Zero. However, they have directed their outrage at the convenient targets, Mayor Bloomberg, Commissioner Kelly, the Secret Service, and the U.S. government for not preventing Ahmadinejad from making the proposed stop.
It is the job of these officials and law enforcement agencies to provide safe transit throughout Ahmadinejad's stay in America, not to dictate to him what his itinerary should or should not include. Protective agencies can warn heads of state of potential negative consequences their decisions might bring, but they cannot stop Ahmadinejad from visiting Ground Zero any more than they could stop Bill Clinton from "entertaining" Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. Ultimately the head of state must decide whether he wants to go ahead with his proposed action, and the protective accommodate the request in by providing a secure environment.
I know of no instance where a foreign head of state has expressed a desire to visit a famous site in America and was denied the opportunity regardless of his political, religious, or terror-sympathizing views. It is the job of the Secret Service, with the help of the NYPD and Port Authority Police to facilitate the secure visit of a head of state to whatever site, tourist or otherwise, he chooses. The old Secret Service motto, "You elect 'em we protect 'em" is a promise that extends to the citizens of other nations when their presidents or prime ministers visit America.
This is not Ahmadinejad's first visit to speak at the United Nations, and he has thus far not
offered any explanation as to his reasons for wanting to visit Ground Zero. He may wish to gloat internally over the terrible damage wreaked on 9/11. It may even encourage him to offer increasing support to terrorist groups in hopes they will pull off similar spectacular attacks on America or our allies. Yet at the same time, it may just as likely give him a firsthand view of our resiliency, our ability to rebuild, to move forward, to rise from the ashes of horrible carnage like a phoenix burning with new and brighter flames of resolve and patriotism. He will likely witness that crumbling our buildings will not crumble our spirit or our economy.
Part of the price we pay as the host of UN headquarters is an annual pilgrimage to New York of hundreds of foreign heads of state. Some are our allies, and some are avowed enemies who speak openly of annihilating Israel with nuclear weapons or refer to America as the "Great Satan." Hugo Chavez may have complained about the "stench" left behind by President Bush after our president spoke to the UN, but even the America-hating socialist Chavez received full diplomatic and security resources throughout his visit to New York and will again every time he returns. That is what we as a nation represent; equal treatment under the law, even for those we dislike or who openly despise us. Unless the 2008 presidential candidates specifically propose that UN headquarters be relocated to another country, the Secret Service, NYPD, and Port Authority Police will continue to perform the duties they are mandated by law to perform.
Despite being the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran's elected president will receive the full diplomatic and security resources mandated by law and expected by protocol. That is, after all, what we agreed to when we invited the UN to build its headquarters in New York. Unless we are willing to seriously consider sending the UN packing, it behooves our politicians to play the role of good hosts. Politicians and talk show hosts should remember, "someone elected them, so we'll protect them."
Technorati Tags: Ahmadinejad United Nations Visit to Ground Zero Secret Service Mitt Romney Fred Thompson NYPD Michael Bloomberg 9/11 Iran
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the Ground Zero memorial site during his stay in New York City for the annual United Nations General Assembly next week. Presidential candidates from both parties tripped over each other in the scramble to get out in front of this controversy and issue the most forceful condemnations possible, indicting everyone from Ahmadinejad himself to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly for their roles in facilitating the visit. While the visit of a radical leader who actively sponsors global terrorism to a site held by Americans to be a sacred shrine to the fallen heroes and innocents of 9/11 is obviously in poor taste and insulting to our sensibilities, the bluster by politicians, and calls by talk show hosts like Sean Hannity urging Mayor Bloomberg to prevent the visit are either craftily contrived or incredibly naive.The New York Sun broke this story today, surprising New Yorkers with the headline, "U.S. May Escort Ahmadinejad to Ground Zero." Presidential candidates immediately seized on the "controversy" as an opportunity to flex their foreign policy issue muscles, but like the proverbial bully at the beach, reality will soon kick its sand in their outraged faces and limit the campaign mileage they hope to gain through their outspoken opposition to a visit that has not been finalized. Even if it were an established part of Ahmadinejad's itinerary during his stay in New York, there is nothing that any of the current presidential candidates or sitting politicians can do to prevent it, if in fact Ahmadinejad insists on visiting Ground Zero.
Here is how some 2008 presidential candidates reacted to news of Ahmadinejad's proposed sightseeing tour of the 9/11 site:
"It is an insult to the memories of those who died on 9/11 at the hands of terrorists, and those who have fought terrorism for years, to allow the president of the world's top state sponsor of terrorism to step foot at ground zero," a spokeswoman for Senator Thompson, Karen Hanretty, said. "Iran is responsible for supplying weapons and supporting extremist who are killing U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to this very day."
A Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, called the plan "shockingly audacious."
"It's inconceivable that any consideration would be given to the idea of entertaining the leader of a state sponsor of terror at ground zero," Mr. Romney said in a statement. "This would deeply offend the sensibilities of Americans from all corners of our nation. Instead of entertaining Ahmadinejad, we should be indicting him."
Struggling to reignite the flickering flame of his once roaring campaign, Romney's comments conveyed a significant lack of awareness of diplomatic and security protocol for visits of foreign
heads of state to the United States and specifically for visits that incorporate attendance at the United Nations General Assembly. Quite simply, whether Americans like it or not, Ahmadinejad is the internationally recognized elected head of state of Iran, and part of America's role as the host country for United Nations headquarters is an international agreement that America will provide protective services to any represented nation that requests such protection. For certain countries whose leaders are considered high value threat targets, their leaders are provided mandatory protection by the Secret Service. Simply stated, America will not allow high threat level foreign heads of state to visit the United States unless they accept the protective services of our government. America takes full responsibility for their safety while on our soil.Ahmadinejad certainly would fall into that category and thus if he chooses to attend the United Nations meetings next week, he will receive Secret Service protection, with logistical assistance from NYPD and other entities. There is ample historical precedent to justify the diplomatic and security reasons for providing this mandatory protection. World War I was triggered in large part because of the assassination of a visiting foreign leader, and in today's era of increased vigilance against terrorism or retribution, nothing would be more embarrassing for Americans than to have a foreign head of state harmed while on American soil.
A successful attack on a controversial figure visiting the United States would diminish international perceptions of American strength and forever fuel accusations of an American conspiracy to effect regime change through assassination in our own backyard. Presidential candidates did not seem to give much, if any, consideration to the repercussions of not providing Ahmadinejad with the mandatory protection afforded to visiting heads of state. Thirty percent of our own citizens claim to believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy concocted by the "Bush-Cheney Axis of Evil." It stands to reason that international conspiracy buffs would number in the millions if something happened to Ahmadinejad in America after our government has spoken so openly about its desire for regime change in Iran.
Which brings us to the second fact conveniently ignored by the radio talk show hosts and politicians. There is likewise no provision in our agreement with the United Nations that allows the host country, America, to dictate to a foreign head of state where he can go and where he cannot go while visiting America, with the exception of sensitive national security or military sites. Even that exception has its exceptions, depending on the nature of the site and the stated purpose of the visit. Ground Zero rightly may be considered a shrine, and the idea of Ahmadinejad strutting around it and mocking it with his notoriously smug grin naturally outrages us. Presidential candidates are justified in their sense of anger over the contempt Ahmadinejad would show to all Americans by visiting Ground Zero. However, they have directed their outrage at the convenient targets, Mayor Bloomberg, Commissioner Kelly, the Secret Service, and the U.S. government for not preventing Ahmadinejad from making the proposed stop.
It is the job of these officials and law enforcement agencies to provide safe transit throughout Ahmadinejad's stay in America, not to dictate to him what his itinerary should or should not include. Protective agencies can warn heads of state of potential negative consequences their decisions might bring, but they cannot stop Ahmadinejad from visiting Ground Zero any more than they could stop Bill Clinton from "entertaining" Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. Ultimately the head of state must decide whether he wants to go ahead with his proposed action, and the protective accommodate the request in by providing a secure environment.
I know of no instance where a foreign head of state has expressed a desire to visit a famous site in America and was denied the opportunity regardless of his political, religious, or terror-sympathizing views. It is the job of the Secret Service, with the help of the NYPD and Port Authority Police to facilitate the secure visit of a head of state to whatever site, tourist or otherwise, he chooses. The old Secret Service motto, "You elect 'em we protect 'em" is a promise that extends to the citizens of other nations when their presidents or prime ministers visit America.
This is not Ahmadinejad's first visit to speak at the United Nations, and he has thus far not
offered any explanation as to his reasons for wanting to visit Ground Zero. He may wish to gloat internally over the terrible damage wreaked on 9/11. It may even encourage him to offer increasing support to terrorist groups in hopes they will pull off similar spectacular attacks on America or our allies. Yet at the same time, it may just as likely give him a firsthand view of our resiliency, our ability to rebuild, to move forward, to rise from the ashes of horrible carnage like a phoenix burning with new and brighter flames of resolve and patriotism. He will likely witness that crumbling our buildings will not crumble our spirit or our economy.Part of the price we pay as the host of UN headquarters is an annual pilgrimage to New York of hundreds of foreign heads of state. Some are our allies, and some are avowed enemies who speak openly of annihilating Israel with nuclear weapons or refer to America as the "Great Satan." Hugo Chavez may have complained about the "stench" left behind by President Bush after our president spoke to the UN, but even the America-hating socialist Chavez received full diplomatic and security resources throughout his visit to New York and will again every time he returns. That is what we as a nation represent; equal treatment under the law, even for those we dislike or who openly despise us. Unless the 2008 presidential candidates specifically propose that UN headquarters be relocated to another country, the Secret Service, NYPD, and Port Authority Police will continue to perform the duties they are mandated by law to perform.
Despite being the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran's elected president will receive the full diplomatic and security resources mandated by law and expected by protocol. That is, after all, what we agreed to when we invited the UN to build its headquarters in New York. Unless we are willing to seriously consider sending the UN packing, it behooves our politicians to play the role of good hosts. Politicians and talk show hosts should remember, "someone elected them, so we'll protect them."
Technorati Tags: Ahmadinejad United Nations Visit to Ground Zero Secret Service Mitt Romney Fred Thompson NYPD Michael Bloomberg 9/11 Iran
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Conservative Defends Hillary from Obama
Conservatives should rise to defend Hillary Clinton from Barack
Obama’s assault on her Iraq War authorization vote. Why, my readers will ask, should conservatives support Hillary in any way? The answer is quite simple: our nation’s survival may depend on such action. By that I do not mean that supporting Hillary in and of itself will save the nation, but rather finding common ground for agreement on that one issue, the rightfulness of a war authorization vote, will help liberals and conservatives alike to recognize that some situations require military intervention, and WMD development or concealment is one such situation.
Yes, Hillary has flip-flopped on her support for the Iraq War as her 2008 presidential campaign has advanced, and yes, her criticisms of President Bush’s handling of the war have been shrill at times. She merits the conservative disdain she has reaped through such behavior and calculated political maneuvering. However, conservatives and fair-minded liberals should consider the consequences of not defending Hillary’s vote to authorize the use of military force to enforce UN Resolution 1441 against Saddam Hussein’s reported WMD stockpiles, especially in light of the rapidly approaching showdown with Iran over its uranium enrichment efforts.
Yesterday Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated the Iran will “never abandon” its nuclear ambitions regardless of how many UN resolutions or sanctions are employed to thwart the Iranian nuclear program. In the face of such recalcitrance, strong and decisive leadership will be needed, and undoubtedly there will be future votes in the House and Senate to approve or disapprove of the use of military force against Iran. I am certainly not implying that Hillary would provide such leadership if elected president. My views on her politics and personality are known to Capital Cloak readers. Her disdain for the military is well known. However, if Barack Obama succeeds in convincing a majority of the Democratic Party, or worse, a majority of all American voters, that Hillary’s war authorization vote was “irresponsible and naïve,” as he has characterized it, it will signal that even when presented with overwhelming intelligence from every allied nation worldwide, America might likewise consider military action against future foes like Iran as “irresponsible and naïve.” That form of national paralysis could prove fatal in confrontations with determined enemies.
Specifically, Obama chastised Hillary for voting to authorize a war “without asking how we were
going to get out.” That is an opportunistic argument coming as it does from one who has never been in position to make such difficult decisions. Obama, of course, was not a senator yet when the Iraq War vote took place, and was not privy to the intelligence documents that the colleagues he now derides as naïve were briefed on prior to committing troops to Iraq. For any nation embarking upon a war effort, the way out is obvious: win, and win decisively. The eventual outcome of war is not perfectly predictable, and history proves that war strategies often change mid-course, usually after initial campaigns meet with unexpected or underestimated resistance. Perhaps Obama should study the initial battles of our own Civil War, paying particular attention to the overconfidence and short-sighted planning of the Union’s early generals. That war, which eventually ended slavery in America, was entered into by the Union army with virtually no prior planning for “how we were going to get out.” Does Obama consider Abraham Lincoln to have been “irresponsible and naïve” to enter a war with poor prior planning?
I suspect that Obama is glad today that Lincoln ignored his critics at the time and pressed forward in a just cause. Obama, despite being a senator from Illinois, is certainly no Lincoln when it comes to perseverance in wars for freedom. Or perhaps he does not consider the Iraqi right to freedom to be as inalienable as his own.
In the case of Iraq, winning the war involved more than removing Saddam Hussein, a task that was even simpler than our military planners projected. Removing Saddam and accounting for his WMD were merely the great opening battles of the war for Iraqi freedom (hence the name Operation Iraqi Freedom). The way out of Iraq, which Obama and unfortunately now Hillary as well fail to see is an Iraqi parliament capable of sustaining and defending itself from domestic and foreign efforts to topple it. In that sense, Obama and others should limit their criticism to the fact that our goals in Iraq have not been reached rather than condemn the initial decision to act against Saddam’s defiance toward the UN over his well-documented WMD programs.
It is no coincidence that former Secretary of State and retired General Colin Powell, who recently claimed in dramatic Monday morning quarterback fashion to have urged President Bush no to invade Iraq despite the overwhelming intelligence detailing Saddam’s WMD facilities and ambitions, has been advising Obama on military and foreign policy issues. Whereas criticisms of the decision to invade Iraq from Obama are truly “irresponsible and naïve,” they merely reflect the influence of General Powell.
There is clearly little common ground between conservatives and Hillary Clinton. After all, she burned whatever rickety bridges may have once existed when she blamed the “vast right wing conspiracy” for damaging her husband’s self-destructive presidency. Yet when a political opportunist like Obama criticizes Hillary for voting to remove an oppressive dictator and secure the WMD the world was convinced he possessed, we should defend her for making that decision. Despite her current efforts to cast herself as a candidate who would work to end the war, she was right to vote as she did. At least in Hillary’s case America knows that in a sobering moment with long-term consequences, she once voted to eliminate a rogue nation’s WMD programs. Obama, on the other hand, never has faced such a decision but we can conclude from his criticisms and General Powell’s influence that were Obama to be president, he would be loathe to act when facing the threat of WMD acquisition by rogue nations.
For conservatives, neither of these candidates is politically appealing, but Obama’s contagious depiction of Hillary or anyone else who voted to authorize the Iraq War as “irresponsible and naïve” must be prevented from infecting our future decisions when faced with similar or more dangerous threats, such as Iran. Liberals and conservatives can disagree on a host of social, moral, and economic issues, but on the issue of preventing radical Islamic regimes from enriching uranium and proliferating nuclear weapons or technology, there must be unity and shared determination. Regardless of her current views of the Iraq War, Hillary was right to authorize it, as was President Bush to request it, based on the intelligence available at that time. President Bush or his successor, Democrat or Republican, will face the decision to act against Iran since Iran has made it clear it will never halt its uranium enrichment. Obama’s attacks on Hillary’s war vote are irresponsibly making it more difficult for a president to make a convincing case for future military action of any kind to Americans.
Having never faced a difficult decision like a war vote, Obama can conveniently profit from hindsight and impugn the responsibility and motives of those who voted for the Iraq War. Of Obama I would ask the same question I posed to General Powell in a previous post: what further evidence would you have needed to convince you that action against Saddam was necessary given the intelligence already in hand? There is no more clear evidence of Obama’s disingenuous criticism of Hillary on this issue than the words of Obama’s consultant on foreign policy and military issues, General Powell. Powell himself made the case for war to the UN, including the following dramatic statement:
I’m still waiting to see a news headline that reads, “Obama Calls Own Adviser Powell ‘Irresponsible and Naïve’ for Launching Iraq War.” After all, the entire House and Senate voted to authorize war based on what leaders such as Powell recommended at the time. If Hillary was “irresponsible and naïve” for following Powell’s advice, Obama must by default be equally irresponsible and naïve for taking current advice from the same source.
For conservatives and liberals alike, it is important to separate the rightfulness of the decision to invade Iraq from the subsequent execution of the war or its current status. There is always room for improvement in the handling of wars, and the one constant of conflict is that human error is inescapable. However, the drive to impugn the motives of those who voted to disarm and depose Saddam Hussein will only serve to cripple our national resolve to take similar actions in the future when necessary. Taking Ahmadinejad’s words at face value, such actions will be necessary again soon.
Hillary gets a lot of things wrong, but deserves positive reinforcement when she does something that is in the best interest of America and global security. Her Iraq War vote was the right thing to do at the right time. If conservatives do not defend such action by a liberal when it is hypocritically and opportunistically attacked, then we will have only ourselves to blame if fewer liberals choose to make sound national security decisions in the future.
Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Iraq War Vote, Colin Powell, 2008 Campaign, Presidential Candidates, Conservatives, Liberals
Obama’s assault on her Iraq War authorization vote. Why, my readers will ask, should conservatives support Hillary in any way? The answer is quite simple: our nation’s survival may depend on such action. By that I do not mean that supporting Hillary in and of itself will save the nation, but rather finding common ground for agreement on that one issue, the rightfulness of a war authorization vote, will help liberals and conservatives alike to recognize that some situations require military intervention, and WMD development or concealment is one such situation.Yes, Hillary has flip-flopped on her support for the Iraq War as her 2008 presidential campaign has advanced, and yes, her criticisms of President Bush’s handling of the war have been shrill at times. She merits the conservative disdain she has reaped through such behavior and calculated political maneuvering. However, conservatives and fair-minded liberals should consider the consequences of not defending Hillary’s vote to authorize the use of military force to enforce UN Resolution 1441 against Saddam Hussein’s reported WMD stockpiles, especially in light of the rapidly approaching showdown with Iran over its uranium enrichment efforts.
Yesterday Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated the Iran will “never abandon” its nuclear ambitions regardless of how many UN resolutions or sanctions are employed to thwart the Iranian nuclear program. In the face of such recalcitrance, strong and decisive leadership will be needed, and undoubtedly there will be future votes in the House and Senate to approve or disapprove of the use of military force against Iran. I am certainly not implying that Hillary would provide such leadership if elected president. My views on her politics and personality are known to Capital Cloak readers. Her disdain for the military is well known. However, if Barack Obama succeeds in convincing a majority of the Democratic Party, or worse, a majority of all American voters, that Hillary’s war authorization vote was “irresponsible and naïve,” as he has characterized it, it will signal that even when presented with overwhelming intelligence from every allied nation worldwide, America might likewise consider military action against future foes like Iran as “irresponsible and naïve.” That form of national paralysis could prove fatal in confrontations with determined enemies.
Specifically, Obama chastised Hillary for voting to authorize a war “without asking how we were
going to get out.” That is an opportunistic argument coming as it does from one who has never been in position to make such difficult decisions. Obama, of course, was not a senator yet when the Iraq War vote took place, and was not privy to the intelligence documents that the colleagues he now derides as naïve were briefed on prior to committing troops to Iraq. For any nation embarking upon a war effort, the way out is obvious: win, and win decisively. The eventual outcome of war is not perfectly predictable, and history proves that war strategies often change mid-course, usually after initial campaigns meet with unexpected or underestimated resistance. Perhaps Obama should study the initial battles of our own Civil War, paying particular attention to the overconfidence and short-sighted planning of the Union’s early generals. That war, which eventually ended slavery in America, was entered into by the Union army with virtually no prior planning for “how we were going to get out.” Does Obama consider Abraham Lincoln to have been “irresponsible and naïve” to enter a war with poor prior planning?I suspect that Obama is glad today that Lincoln ignored his critics at the time and pressed forward in a just cause. Obama, despite being a senator from Illinois, is certainly no Lincoln when it comes to perseverance in wars for freedom. Or perhaps he does not consider the Iraqi right to freedom to be as inalienable as his own.
In the case of Iraq, winning the war involved more than removing Saddam Hussein, a task that was even simpler than our military planners projected. Removing Saddam and accounting for his WMD were merely the great opening battles of the war for Iraqi freedom (hence the name Operation Iraqi Freedom). The way out of Iraq, which Obama and unfortunately now Hillary as well fail to see is an Iraqi parliament capable of sustaining and defending itself from domestic and foreign efforts to topple it. In that sense, Obama and others should limit their criticism to the fact that our goals in Iraq have not been reached rather than condemn the initial decision to act against Saddam’s defiance toward the UN over his well-documented WMD programs.
It is no coincidence that former Secretary of State and retired General Colin Powell, who recently claimed in dramatic Monday morning quarterback fashion to have urged President Bush no to invade Iraq despite the overwhelming intelligence detailing Saddam’s WMD facilities and ambitions, has been advising Obama on military and foreign policy issues. Whereas criticisms of the decision to invade Iraq from Obama are truly “irresponsible and naïve,” they merely reflect the influence of General Powell.
There is clearly little common ground between conservatives and Hillary Clinton. After all, she burned whatever rickety bridges may have once existed when she blamed the “vast right wing conspiracy” for damaging her husband’s self-destructive presidency. Yet when a political opportunist like Obama criticizes Hillary for voting to remove an oppressive dictator and secure the WMD the world was convinced he possessed, we should defend her for making that decision. Despite her current efforts to cast herself as a candidate who would work to end the war, she was right to vote as she did. At least in Hillary’s case America knows that in a sobering moment with long-term consequences, she once voted to eliminate a rogue nation’s WMD programs. Obama, on the other hand, never has faced such a decision but we can conclude from his criticisms and General Powell’s influence that were Obama to be president, he would be loathe to act when facing the threat of WMD acquisition by rogue nations.
For conservatives, neither of these candidates is politically appealing, but Obama’s contagious depiction of Hillary or anyone else who voted to authorize the Iraq War as “irresponsible and naïve” must be prevented from infecting our future decisions when faced with similar or more dangerous threats, such as Iran. Liberals and conservatives can disagree on a host of social, moral, and economic issues, but on the issue of preventing radical Islamic regimes from enriching uranium and proliferating nuclear weapons or technology, there must be unity and shared determination. Regardless of her current views of the Iraq War, Hillary was right to authorize it, as was President Bush to request it, based on the intelligence available at that time. President Bush or his successor, Democrat or Republican, will face the decision to act against Iran since Iran has made it clear it will never halt its uranium enrichment. Obama’s attacks on Hillary’s war vote are irresponsibly making it more difficult for a president to make a convincing case for future military action of any kind to Americans.
Having never faced a difficult decision like a war vote, Obama can conveniently profit from hindsight and impugn the responsibility and motives of those who voted for the Iraq War. Of Obama I would ask the same question I posed to General Powell in a previous post: what further evidence would you have needed to convince you that action against Saddam was necessary given the intelligence already in hand? There is no more clear evidence of Obama’s disingenuous criticism of Hillary on this issue than the words of Obama’s consultant on foreign policy and military issues, General Powell. Powell himself made the case for war to the UN, including the following dramatic statement:
…We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we knowof his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?
The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.
I’m still waiting to see a news headline that reads, “Obama Calls Own Adviser Powell ‘Irresponsible and Naïve’ for Launching Iraq War.” After all, the entire House and Senate voted to authorize war based on what leaders such as Powell recommended at the time. If Hillary was “irresponsible and naïve” for following Powell’s advice, Obama must by default be equally irresponsible and naïve for taking current advice from the same source.
For conservatives and liberals alike, it is important to separate the rightfulness of the decision to invade Iraq from the subsequent execution of the war or its current status. There is always room for improvement in the handling of wars, and the one constant of conflict is that human error is inescapable. However, the drive to impugn the motives of those who voted to disarm and depose Saddam Hussein will only serve to cripple our national resolve to take similar actions in the future when necessary. Taking Ahmadinejad’s words at face value, such actions will be necessary again soon.
Hillary gets a lot of things wrong, but deserves positive reinforcement when she does something that is in the best interest of America and global security. Her Iraq War vote was the right thing to do at the right time. If conservatives do not defend such action by a liberal when it is hypocritically and opportunistically attacked, then we will have only ourselves to blame if fewer liberals choose to make sound national security decisions in the future.
Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Iraq War Vote, Colin Powell, 2008 Campaign, Presidential Candidates, Conservatives, Liberals
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Beware Iran's Left Hand if Shaking Right
No government engages in more doublespeak than the current Iranian regime. While shaking America’s right hand and agreeing to participate in a Regional Security Subcommittee with the U.S. and Iraq, Ahmadinejad’s administration holds a lethal weapon in its other hand. It is impossible to assign any credibility to Iran’s stated desire to help stabilize the security situation in Iraq while it simultaneously floods Iraq with weapons, IEDs, and terrorists using them to kil
l American troops and Iraqis. It is likewise impossible to place trust for cooperation in Iraq in a regime that flatly refuses to comply with UN resolutions and sanctions designed to halt its uranium enrichment efforts.
Iran’s offer to help broker security in Iraq is nothing more than a clever political feint clearly designed to soften international perceptions of Iran’s intentions in the region. If Iran can convince world leaders through its participation on a security subcommittee that it seeks peace and stability in the region, then its claims to a peaceful nuclear program developed only for power generation will appear less transparent. Our European allies are easily pacified by small gestures of cooperation, no matter how insincere those gestures may be, from Middle Eastern leaders. Saddam Hussein proved that conclusively by co-opting high ranking government officials in Germany, France, and Britain through cash and oil bribes. In exchange, these leaders softened their countries’ stances on enforcement of UN resolutions against Iraq’s pursuit of WMD.
Consider whether these words from a senior Iranian official, reported by the Guardian (UK) indicate any commitment to a peaceful and lawful end to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons:
There will never be a stable Iraq as long as there is a radical, nuclear weapons-seeking regime on its border, pouring arms and terrorist expertise into the country. The danger from Iran is increased by the fact, as stated by this senior official, that Iran's dignity is at stake. To a regime that thrives on projecting an image of strength, defending dignity will likely require irrational actions. The major difference between the mullahs’ quest for nuclear weapons and Saddam Hussein’s similar effort to acquire WMD is religion. Saddam was a secular leader who sought ultimate weapons for the sheer exercise of power politics. The mullahs seek them for self-proclaimed apocalyptic use on Israel and the United States.
In our determination to stabilize Iraq and assure that its government is capable of providing defending itself, we must not lose sight of the greater danger posed by Iran. Though it would be an unpleasant situation, technically the U.S. could fight al Qaeda indefinitely in Iraq on a small scale, but if Iran’s uranium enrichment is not halted and its production facilities are not rendered inoperable, we will be fighting the same war for years to come but under the danger of nuclear attack from Iraq’s neighbor. Thus our war to provide Iraq with freedom and self-determination will have been for naught.
The Bush administration is right to argue that a stable Iraq is important to our national security, particularly in the long run, because it would establish a Muslim democracy and maintain America's image of strength in an area of the world that preys on perceived weakness. However, stabilizing Iraq should be a secondary priority to eliminating Iran’s supply stream of IEDs and arms into Iraq as well as its uranium enrichment recalcitrance. Since Iraq’s stability is codependent on Iran’s, our focus should be on stabilizing the one that is months away from possessing sufficient enriched uranium to produce its first nuclear weapon. Once that genie is out of the bottle, there will be no further opportunity to recapture it. Israeli intelligence clearly shares this assessment and may be forced to act unilaterally by the end of this year. It should not be forced to act alone. The UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty should be enforced aggressively by all who signed it.
Before the U.S. places any trust in Iran, Iran must be required to demonstrate responsibility on
the world stage by immediately halting its uranium reduction efforts. Ahmadinejad is no fool. His new willingness to engage the U.S. in diplomacy over Iraq’s security is a calculated tactical move that provides him with the two most valuable things he needs to move his uranium enrichment to the point of no return: an international image of cooperation; and time.
As long as Iran appears cooperative on the issue of Iraq, it will be difficult for President Bush to make the case to the world that decisive action must be taken to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. The world will always call for new talks, further negotiations, and diplomatic solutions. At some point in coming months, while holding talks and negotiations, Iran will pass the point of no return in its uranium enrichment and the opportunity for action will have passed. Iran is counting on its Iraq cooperation smokescreen to obscure from view its true intentions, both in Iraq and in its nuclear facilities.
An Iranian gesture of “goodwill” in Iraq on the one hand must not be allowed to conceal or excuse the nuclear dagger it holds in the other. America should make no mistake as to where that dagger points.
Technorati Tags:
Iraq War, Iran, Regional Security Subcommittee, Ahmadinejad, Bush Administration, Uranium Enrichment, Diplomacy
l American troops and Iraqis. It is likewise impossible to place trust for cooperation in Iraq in a regime that flatly refuses to comply with UN resolutions and sanctions designed to halt its uranium enrichment efforts.Iran’s offer to help broker security in Iraq is nothing more than a clever political feint clearly designed to soften international perceptions of Iran’s intentions in the region. If Iran can convince world leaders through its participation on a security subcommittee that it seeks peace and stability in the region, then its claims to a peaceful nuclear program developed only for power generation will appear less transparent. Our European allies are easily pacified by small gestures of cooperation, no matter how insincere those gestures may be, from Middle Eastern leaders. Saddam Hussein proved that conclusively by co-opting high ranking government officials in Germany, France, and Britain through cash and oil bribes. In exchange, these leaders softened their countries’ stances on enforcement of UN resolutions against Iraq’s pursuit of WMD.
Consider whether these words from a senior Iranian official, reported by the Guardian (UK) indicate any commitment to a peaceful and lawful end to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons:
Tehran has made clear that it will not suspend enrichment as the UN security council has demanded, despite two earlier rounds of financial, travel and arms sanctions. A decision on a third round has been put off until September. "If there is another resolution, we will react with whatever we have," the senior official told western journalists. "So far we have answered legally, limiting [UN] inspections, and reducing cooperation with the IAEA within the legal framework.
"But if there is no legal option left, it is obvious we will be tempted to do illegal things. What is very important to us is our dignity, and we are prepared to act."
There will never be a stable Iraq as long as there is a radical, nuclear weapons-seeking regime on its border, pouring arms and terrorist expertise into the country. The danger from Iran is increased by the fact, as stated by this senior official, that Iran's dignity is at stake. To a regime that thrives on projecting an image of strength, defending dignity will likely require irrational actions. The major difference between the mullahs’ quest for nuclear weapons and Saddam Hussein’s similar effort to acquire WMD is religion. Saddam was a secular leader who sought ultimate weapons for the sheer exercise of power politics. The mullahs seek them for self-proclaimed apocalyptic use on Israel and the United States.
In our determination to stabilize Iraq and assure that its government is capable of providing defending itself, we must not lose sight of the greater danger posed by Iran. Though it would be an unpleasant situation, technically the U.S. could fight al Qaeda indefinitely in Iraq on a small scale, but if Iran’s uranium enrichment is not halted and its production facilities are not rendered inoperable, we will be fighting the same war for years to come but under the danger of nuclear attack from Iraq’s neighbor. Thus our war to provide Iraq with freedom and self-determination will have been for naught.
The Bush administration is right to argue that a stable Iraq is important to our national security, particularly in the long run, because it would establish a Muslim democracy and maintain America's image of strength in an area of the world that preys on perceived weakness. However, stabilizing Iraq should be a secondary priority to eliminating Iran’s supply stream of IEDs and arms into Iraq as well as its uranium enrichment recalcitrance. Since Iraq’s stability is codependent on Iran’s, our focus should be on stabilizing the one that is months away from possessing sufficient enriched uranium to produce its first nuclear weapon. Once that genie is out of the bottle, there will be no further opportunity to recapture it. Israeli intelligence clearly shares this assessment and may be forced to act unilaterally by the end of this year. It should not be forced to act alone. The UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty should be enforced aggressively by all who signed it.
Before the U.S. places any trust in Iran, Iran must be required to demonstrate responsibility on
the world stage by immediately halting its uranium reduction efforts. Ahmadinejad is no fool. His new willingness to engage the U.S. in diplomacy over Iraq’s security is a calculated tactical move that provides him with the two most valuable things he needs to move his uranium enrichment to the point of no return: an international image of cooperation; and time.As long as Iran appears cooperative on the issue of Iraq, it will be difficult for President Bush to make the case to the world that decisive action must be taken to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. The world will always call for new talks, further negotiations, and diplomatic solutions. At some point in coming months, while holding talks and negotiations, Iran will pass the point of no return in its uranium enrichment and the opportunity for action will have passed. Iran is counting on its Iraq cooperation smokescreen to obscure from view its true intentions, both in Iraq and in its nuclear facilities.
An Iranian gesture of “goodwill” in Iraq on the one hand must not be allowed to conceal or excuse the nuclear dagger it holds in the other. America should make no mistake as to where that dagger points.
Technorati Tags:
Iraq War, Iran, Regional Security Subcommittee, Ahmadinejad, Bush Administration, Uranium Enrichment, Diplomacy
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Chavez-Iran Axis Revives Monroe Doctrine
Summer 2007 appears to have ushered in a new season of revivals; Liberal Democrats, not satisfied with control of all broadcast TV networks, CNN, MSNBC, and most major daily newspapers in America, attempted to revive the “Fairness Doctrine” in order to destroy conservative talk radio; In Britain, the specter of summertime Islamic terror attacks was revived over the weekend with attempted bombings of nightclubs in London and the Glasgow Airport in Scotland; Scooter Libby’s freedom was revived after President Bush provided him with clemency after an agenda-driven prosecutor and a biased DC jury convicted him for having a poor memory in a case in which no underlying crime actually occurred; The level of political activity and discussion in America was revived by fierce debate and Internet blogging about illegal immigration, proving that the voices of constituents really can make a difference to our elected officials; The threat of socialism and the extension of radical Islamic ideologies in the western hemisphere was revived through the formation of an alliance between Iran and Venezuela, creating direct threats to America’s national security and economic interests throughout South America.
This last revival deserves significant consideration as it relates to America’s foreign policy and national security. An anti-American “Axis” has been formally created between Venezuela and Iran, two members of the OPEC oil cartel. This alliance, dubbed the “Axis of Unity,” is a wedding of oil-rich nations who share only one stated purpose: "The two countries will united defeat the imperialism of North America." Those words by Venezuela’s socialist president Hugo Chavez, when placed in the context of recent actions by Iran and Venezuela, constitute a direct threat to the stability and security of the western hemisphere. Chavez has issued orders to Venezuela’s rapidly growing military to prepare for war against the U.S. He has entered into several arms purchase agreements with Russia, including Russian submarines to bolster Venezuela’s expanding naval capabilities, and although the Russian subs are not the most tactically advanced or newest models, they still pose grave potential security threats to U.S. shipping in South America as well as a completely unmonitored method for smuggling terrorists and weapons (possibly WMD) from Iran to Venezuela through the quiet deep. Chavez further seized the operations of two American oil companies in Venezuela (Exxon Mobil and Conoco-Phillips) and nationalized them, forcing the companies out and adding to Venezuela’s despotic control of its oil production.
Iran, as has been reported extensively by Capital Cloak, continues its rapid march toward nuclear weapons capability, and continues to train, fund, equip, and transport Islamic terrorists throughout the world, in particular Iraq. American generals have determined that Iran is actually attempting to organize an Iraqi version of terror group Hezbollah and is responsible for most of the IEDs and VBIEDs that have killed or wounded coalition forces in Iraq. Iran, like Venezuela, is a major oil producer, and that status gives concerned nations considerable pause when contemplating use of force to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions and terror sponsorship. Nothing would please Iran and its radical president Ahmadinejad more than establishing a secure foothold in the Americas, sheltered by a sworn enemy of the U.S., where terror operations and smuggling could bring operatives and weapons into much closer proximity to the “Great Satan” than is currently possible on any large scale. The two nations have formed an economic, ideological, and potential military partnership in America’s backyard.
I would ask our government to consider a simple question: what has happened to the Monroe
Doctrine? In this summer of revivals, the return of the Monroe Doctrine would be a revival worthy of swift implementation. President Bush frequently tells us that “we are fighting terrorists over there so we won’t have to fight them here.” If that is the logical basis for the administration’s War on Terror strategy, then it would seem critical to define what is meant by “fight them here.” Under the Monroe Doctrine, “here” would include anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. The Doctrine, set forth by President James Monroe in 1823, declared to European powers that North and South America were no longer open for colonization and that any attempt by a foreign power to extend its influence into the “New World” would be viewed as dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States. Prior to the official pronouncement of the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. had recognized Argentina, Chile, Columbia, and Mexico as republics, and the doctrine was an affirmation that the sovereignty of free governments in the western hemisphere, as well as the prevention of foreign interference, were critical to America’s national security and would be enforced through American military force as needed.
Since that time, to briefly summarize a long history of development, the Monroe Doctrine has been invoked to justify anti-Soviet operations in Guatemala in the 1950s after the Soviet Union intervened in Guatemala’s internal politics, as well as President Kennedy’s Cuban missile crisis confrontation with the Soviets. While it is true that Venezuela sought its current alliance with Iran and is not technically being interfered with by a foreign power, Latin and South American security considerations in the age of Islamic terrorism would certainly be as justified under the Monroe Doctrine today as it was in Monroe’s, Grant’s, Teddy Roosevelt’s, or John F. Kennedy’s time. In 1962, Kennedy made the following statement about the Monroe Doctrine’s role in confronting the Soviet Union over Cuba:
The Bush administration and future presidents should consider carefully Kennedy’s wording. He did not state that a foreign power must be interfering in the Western Hemisphere before America should act. He used the phrase “we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere.” In its new “Axis of Unity” based on hatred of America, Iran is certainly making overt efforts to extend its power into the America’s, or as Chavez bragged, "This is the unity of the Persian Gulf and the Caribbean Sea."
If President Bush is serious about “fighting terrorists over there so we won’t have to fight them here,” he should study and reassert the Monroe Doctrine as previous presidents have done to prevent dangerous ideologies and avowed enemies of America from establishing a beachhead in the Western Hemisphere from which to launch attacks on our interests or foment terror on our doorstep.
It is not in the interest of our national security, or the security of other Latin and South American nations, to allow an “Axis of Unity” to join hands with the “Axis of Evil.”
Technorati Tags:
Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Axis of Unity, Venezuela, Russian Arms Sales, Monroe Doctrine, War on Terror, National Security
This last revival deserves significant consideration as it relates to America’s foreign policy and national security. An anti-American “Axis” has been formally created between Venezuela and Iran, two members of the OPEC oil cartel. This alliance, dubbed the “Axis of Unity,” is a wedding of oil-rich nations who share only one stated purpose: "The two countries will united defeat the imperialism of North America." Those words by Venezuela’s socialist president Hugo Chavez, when placed in the context of recent actions by Iran and Venezuela, constitute a direct threat to the stability and security of the western hemisphere. Chavez has issued orders to Venezuela’s rapidly growing military to prepare for war against the U.S. He has entered into several arms purchase agreements with Russia, including Russian submarines to bolster Venezuela’s expanding naval capabilities, and although the Russian subs are not the most tactically advanced or newest models, they still pose grave potential security threats to U.S. shipping in South America as well as a completely unmonitored method for smuggling terrorists and weapons (possibly WMD) from Iran to Venezuela through the quiet deep. Chavez further seized the operations of two American oil companies in Venezuela (Exxon Mobil and Conoco-Phillips) and nationalized them, forcing the companies out and adding to Venezuela’s despotic control of its oil production.
Iran, as has been reported extensively by Capital Cloak, continues its rapid march toward nuclear weapons capability, and continues to train, fund, equip, and transport Islamic terrorists throughout the world, in particular Iraq. American generals have determined that Iran is actually attempting to organize an Iraqi version of terror group Hezbollah and is responsible for most of the IEDs and VBIEDs that have killed or wounded coalition forces in Iraq. Iran, like Venezuela, is a major oil producer, and that status gives concerned nations considerable pause when contemplating use of force to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions and terror sponsorship. Nothing would please Iran and its radical president Ahmadinejad more than establishing a secure foothold in the Americas, sheltered by a sworn enemy of the U.S., where terror operations and smuggling could bring operatives and weapons into much closer proximity to the “Great Satan” than is currently possible on any large scale. The two nations have formed an economic, ideological, and potential military partnership in America’s backyard.
I would ask our government to consider a simple question: what has happened to the Monroe
Doctrine? In this summer of revivals, the return of the Monroe Doctrine would be a revival worthy of swift implementation. President Bush frequently tells us that “we are fighting terrorists over there so we won’t have to fight them here.” If that is the logical basis for the administration’s War on Terror strategy, then it would seem critical to define what is meant by “fight them here.” Under the Monroe Doctrine, “here” would include anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. The Doctrine, set forth by President James Monroe in 1823, declared to European powers that North and South America were no longer open for colonization and that any attempt by a foreign power to extend its influence into the “New World” would be viewed as dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States. Prior to the official pronouncement of the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. had recognized Argentina, Chile, Columbia, and Mexico as republics, and the doctrine was an affirmation that the sovereignty of free governments in the western hemisphere, as well as the prevention of foreign interference, were critical to America’s national security and would be enforced through American military force as needed.Since that time, to briefly summarize a long history of development, the Monroe Doctrine has been invoked to justify anti-Soviet operations in Guatemala in the 1950s after the Soviet Union intervened in Guatemala’s internal politics, as well as President Kennedy’s Cuban missile crisis confrontation with the Soviets. While it is true that Venezuela sought its current alliance with Iran and is not technically being interfered with by a foreign power, Latin and South American security considerations in the age of Islamic terrorism would certainly be as justified under the Monroe Doctrine today as it was in Monroe’s, Grant’s, Teddy Roosevelt’s, or John F. Kennedy’s time. In 1962, Kennedy made the following statement about the Monroe Doctrine’s role in confronting the Soviet Union over Cuba:
The Monroe Doctrine means what it has meant since President Monroe and John Quincy Adamsenunciated it, and that is that we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere, and that is why we oppose what is happening in Cuba today. That is why we have cut off our trade. That is why we worked in the Organization of American States and in other ways to isolate the Communist menace in Cuba. That is why we will continue to give a good deal of our effort and attention to it.
The Bush administration and future presidents should consider carefully Kennedy’s wording. He did not state that a foreign power must be interfering in the Western Hemisphere before America should act. He used the phrase “we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere.” In its new “Axis of Unity” based on hatred of America, Iran is certainly making overt efforts to extend its power into the America’s, or as Chavez bragged, "This is the unity of the Persian Gulf and the Caribbean Sea."
If President Bush is serious about “fighting terrorists over there so we won’t have to fight them here,” he should study and reassert the Monroe Doctrine as previous presidents have done to prevent dangerous ideologies and avowed enemies of America from establishing a beachhead in the Western Hemisphere from which to launch attacks on our interests or foment terror on our doorstep.
It is not in the interest of our national security, or the security of other Latin and South American nations, to allow an “Axis of Unity” to join hands with the “Axis of Evil.”
Technorati Tags:
Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Axis of Unity, Venezuela, Russian Arms Sales, Monroe Doctrine, War on Terror, National Security
Monday, June 18, 2007
IAEA, Dems Prefer Iran Nukes to "Warmongers"
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a highly specialized international nuclear watchdog has apparently branched out into other fields and now feels qualified to offer unsolicited military tactical advice and political policy recommendations to world governments, particularly the United States. With no access to classified intelligence obtained by the U.S. and its allies regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program development or the feasibility of dismantling it with military action, the IAEA nevertheless now presumes to tell world powers what they should and should not do in their own defense rather than sticking with the allegedly neutral task it was created to perform, namely nuclear facility inspections.
Late last week IAEA chief Mohamed El-Baradei warned world powers that an attack on Iran
over its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons despite UN Security Council resolutions would be "an act of madness." According to the Jerusalem Post report, the indirect warnings appeared to be directed towards the United States and Israel.
El-Baradei, after offering what was clearly his personal political opinion of military action in Iran also reportedly stated that Iran would likely be operating nearly 3,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges by the end of July. The 3,000 centrifuge total is critical because IAEA officials have made clear in past statements that once Iran has that many centrifuges in operation, Iran will have reached a point of no return after which it could enrich uranium in quantities and enrichment levels sufficient for large-scale production of weapons-grade material.
The IAEA performed its primary function well in identifying a potential point of no return and estimating, based on inspections, when that point could be reached. Reporting the results of its inspections to the UN, however, should have been the limit of IAEA involvement in the discussions of Iran’s nuclear program. Instead, El-Baradei felt it necessary to editorialize on military and political strategies neither he nor the IAEA are privy to, or qualified to discuss. El-Baradei apparently feels that preventing Iran from completing its development of nuclear weapons would be “an act of madness,” but allowing Iran, the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism, to possess nuclear weapons would be acceptable to him.
It is beyond disconcerting that a man with such an obvious lack of common sense is responsible for inspecting the world’s nuclear facilities. Then again, many Democrats express views similar to El-Baradei’s and label conservatives who speak openly about confronting Iran before it reaches the IAEA point of no return as “warmongers.” Last week on Fox News’ Hannity and Colmes, White House Adviser John Bolton (former ambassador to the UN), was a guest, and after he made a sensible and firm statement about not permitting Iran to acquire nuclear
weapons, Alan Colmes attacked Bolton for being a “warmonger” because of his position on Iran. It was clear after the “debate” (and I use that term loosely) that Bolton made a much stronger case for action than Colmes did for inaction, which was based largely on personal attacks and “you got it wrong on Iraq now you want to attack Iran,” but it would be useful for Colmes and other Democrats to examine their use of the term “warmonger” in the context of Iran.
Was Winston Churchill a warmonger because while Hitler was building massive armies and weaponry Churchill was urging his disbelieving colleagues in parliament to begin arming Britain to matching levels? Churchill foresaw the danger of allowing Germany to rearm in violation of Treaty of Versailles terms, but PM Neville Chamberlain and many others in parliament dismissed Churchill’s agitations in much the same manner that Colmes berated Bolton as a warmonger. This is how Churchill was relegated to the humiliating status of "backbencher" in parliament.
Had anyone listened to the "warmonger" Churchill before Hitler began invading territories and neighboring nations in Europe, untold millions might have been spared the ravages of WWII. Iranian president Ahmadinejad shares many personality traits and racial views with Hitler, and it is not warmongering to believe the world should take him at his word when he states that no one can stop Iran from building nuclear bombs and that Israel must be annihilated in a glowing fireball. In today's world of rampant political correctness, where are the ACLU, the Democrats, and the gay and minority rights groups and their condemnations of "hate speech?" These groups seek severe penalties for "hate speech" and "hate crimes" directed toward specific races or lifestyles, but when the world's most radical anti-American and anti-Semitic regime vows to destroy a nation of Jews, the political correctness crowd stands in a puddle of its own cold sweat of cowardice and chastises conservatives who want to confront the threat before "hate speech" becomes a "hate crime" in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Is someone a warmonger whose stated goal is to prevent the ultimate weapon, a weapon with potential to kill millions with each detonation and befoul the entire world with radiation (the ultimate man-made global warming) from being produced, stored, and utilized by a radical terror-sponsoring regime? Is it warmongering to advocate tactical strikes on nuclear sites even with some civilian loss if doing so would spare millions of lives from nuclear annihilation in the name of jihad? If so, I choose the warmonger over the pacifist appeaser with no regrets.
Fortunately, our current president, regardless of what one thinks of his handling of Iraq or immigration, is no Colmes or El-Baradei. The only act of madness here would be to allow Iran to reach its point of no return and being high-level enrichment of uranium for nuclear weapons. Israel has already recognized this and as reported previously on Capital Cloak, considers December 31, 2007 as the date after which sanctions and political solutions will no longer be considered sufficient action.
In the meantime, El-Baradei and the IAEA should continue inspecting facilities and reporting on the construction and operation of centrifuges in Natanz and other sites in Iran, and not move beyond that function by offering unsolicited opinions of the sanity of attacking Iran before it is too late. Each nation should consider the available intelligence, determine what it will and will not tolerate when it comes to a potentially nuclear Iran, and then take appropriate action to preserve its national interests and security. There is no nation on earth that would be immune from the fallout, literal and figurative, from a nuclear armed Iran. To allow it to happen through “peace mongering” would be a fatal act of madness.
Technorati:
El-Baradei IAEA Alan Colmes John Bolton Warmonger Peace Monger Ahmadinejad Iranian Nuclear Program Centrifuges Inspections
Late last week IAEA chief Mohamed El-Baradei warned world powers that an attack on Iran
over its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons despite UN Security Council resolutions would be "an act of madness." According to the Jerusalem Post report, the indirect warnings appeared to be directed towards the United States and Israel.El-Baradei, after offering what was clearly his personal political opinion of military action in Iran also reportedly stated that Iran would likely be operating nearly 3,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges by the end of July. The 3,000 centrifuge total is critical because IAEA officials have made clear in past statements that once Iran has that many centrifuges in operation, Iran will have reached a point of no return after which it could enrich uranium in quantities and enrichment levels sufficient for large-scale production of weapons-grade material.
The IAEA performed its primary function well in identifying a potential point of no return and estimating, based on inspections, when that point could be reached. Reporting the results of its inspections to the UN, however, should have been the limit of IAEA involvement in the discussions of Iran’s nuclear program. Instead, El-Baradei felt it necessary to editorialize on military and political strategies neither he nor the IAEA are privy to, or qualified to discuss. El-Baradei apparently feels that preventing Iran from completing its development of nuclear weapons would be “an act of madness,” but allowing Iran, the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism, to possess nuclear weapons would be acceptable to him.
It is beyond disconcerting that a man with such an obvious lack of common sense is responsible for inspecting the world’s nuclear facilities. Then again, many Democrats express views similar to El-Baradei’s and label conservatives who speak openly about confronting Iran before it reaches the IAEA point of no return as “warmongers.” Last week on Fox News’ Hannity and Colmes, White House Adviser John Bolton (former ambassador to the UN), was a guest, and after he made a sensible and firm statement about not permitting Iran to acquire nuclear
weapons, Alan Colmes attacked Bolton for being a “warmonger” because of his position on Iran. It was clear after the “debate” (and I use that term loosely) that Bolton made a much stronger case for action than Colmes did for inaction, which was based largely on personal attacks and “you got it wrong on Iraq now you want to attack Iran,” but it would be useful for Colmes and other Democrats to examine their use of the term “warmonger” in the context of Iran. Was Winston Churchill a warmonger because while Hitler was building massive armies and weaponry Churchill was urging his disbelieving colleagues in parliament to begin arming Britain to matching levels? Churchill foresaw the danger of allowing Germany to rearm in violation of Treaty of Versailles terms, but PM Neville Chamberlain and many others in parliament dismissed Churchill’s agitations in much the same manner that Colmes berated Bolton as a warmonger. This is how Churchill was relegated to the humiliating status of "backbencher" in parliament.
Had anyone listened to the "warmonger" Churchill before Hitler began invading territories and neighboring nations in Europe, untold millions might have been spared the ravages of WWII. Iranian president Ahmadinejad shares many personality traits and racial views with Hitler, and it is not warmongering to believe the world should take him at his word when he states that no one can stop Iran from building nuclear bombs and that Israel must be annihilated in a glowing fireball. In today's world of rampant political correctness, where are the ACLU, the Democrats, and the gay and minority rights groups and their condemnations of "hate speech?" These groups seek severe penalties for "hate speech" and "hate crimes" directed toward specific races or lifestyles, but when the world's most radical anti-American and anti-Semitic regime vows to destroy a nation of Jews, the political correctness crowd stands in a puddle of its own cold sweat of cowardice and chastises conservatives who want to confront the threat before "hate speech" becomes a "hate crime" in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Is someone a warmonger whose stated goal is to prevent the ultimate weapon, a weapon with potential to kill millions with each detonation and befoul the entire world with radiation (the ultimate man-made global warming) from being produced, stored, and utilized by a radical terror-sponsoring regime? Is it warmongering to advocate tactical strikes on nuclear sites even with some civilian loss if doing so would spare millions of lives from nuclear annihilation in the name of jihad? If so, I choose the warmonger over the pacifist appeaser with no regrets.
Fortunately, our current president, regardless of what one thinks of his handling of Iraq or immigration, is no Colmes or El-Baradei. The only act of madness here would be to allow Iran to reach its point of no return and being high-level enrichment of uranium for nuclear weapons. Israel has already recognized this and as reported previously on Capital Cloak, considers December 31, 2007 as the date after which sanctions and political solutions will no longer be considered sufficient action.
In the meantime, El-Baradei and the IAEA should continue inspecting facilities and reporting on the construction and operation of centrifuges in Natanz and other sites in Iran, and not move beyond that function by offering unsolicited opinions of the sanity of attacking Iran before it is too late. Each nation should consider the available intelligence, determine what it will and will not tolerate when it comes to a potentially nuclear Iran, and then take appropriate action to preserve its national interests and security. There is no nation on earth that would be immune from the fallout, literal and figurative, from a nuclear armed Iran. To allow it to happen through “peace mongering” would be a fatal act of madness.
Technorati:
El-Baradei IAEA Alan Colmes John Bolton Warmonger Peace Monger Ahmadinejad Iranian Nuclear Program Centrifuges Inspections
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
"Sneaky Bastard" Iran: Too Late to Stop Nukes, May Have Ties to JFK Bombers
I thought the quote of the day winner would be an easy choice today, but now there is real competition. I highlighted Newt Gingrich’s blunt assessment of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff’s “bow to reality” approach to illegal alien amnesty in an earlier post today. In case you missed that quote, here is a portion of it: “but we hire leaders to change reality to fit our values, not to change our values to fit their failures.”
As eloquent and well constructed as Newt’s quote was, it may have been upstaged by a far less eloquent but certainly impassioned remark, an assessment of Iran provided by former FBI counterterrorism head Kenneth Piernick to the New York Sun. To provide a brief summary of the context for Piernick’s statement, the FBI, in its investigation of the recently disrupted plot to destroy New York’s JFK Airport, the FBI is reportedly attempting to determine why one of the plotters was attempting to flee from Guyana to Iran through anti-American Venezuela before being captured. According to the suspect’s wife, he stopped in Guyana to obtain an Iranian visa, but the FBI is seeking further information about the suspect’s Iranian ties. The New York Sun reported that the suspect currently has two sons “studying” in Iran.
When asked for his opinion about whether the JFK attack plotters may have had ties to the Iranian mullahs and President Ahmadinejad, Piernick made it clear that he would not be surprised if such a connection were identified:
Given Iran’s continued march toward nuclear weapons and Ahmadinejad’s taunting of America, maybe the choice for best quote of the day is not so difficult after all.
While Iran may have been “sneaky” by quietly assisting the JFK attack planners, Ahmadinejad roared like a lion at America and other nations who have vowed to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapon capabilities. Ahmadinejad warned the world today that it “is too late” to stop Iran’s nuclear program, and that further international sanctions against the regime will only make the future more difficult for the west. As reported by Fox News via AP, he added that more sanctions would be as unwise for the west as “stepping on a lion’s tail”:
It would appear that neither the subtle (UN sanctions) nor the sneaky (covert ops) approaches have worked for the U.S. in slowing down or destroying Iran’s suicidal nuclear quest. The Bush administration has demonstrated that it is good at “bowing to reality” on one important national security issue, immigration, and wants to throw up its arms in surrender through amnesty. The world must hope that this administration has more backbone on this national security issue by preventing through all available means the reality of a nuclear Iran. Bowing to that reality by granting Iran nuclear amnesty would result in the end of reality for Israel, America, and freedom.
Ahmadinejad Photo by AP
Technorati: Ahmadinejad Kenneth Piernick FBI Counterterrorism JFK Airport Terrorist Plot Bush Administration Mullahs Iranian Nuclear Program
As eloquent and well constructed as Newt’s quote was, it may have been upstaged by a far less eloquent but certainly impassioned remark, an assessment of Iran provided by former FBI counterterrorism head Kenneth Piernick to the New York Sun. To provide a brief summary of the context for Piernick’s statement, the FBI, in its investigation of the recently disrupted plot to destroy New York’s JFK Airport, the FBI is reportedly attempting to determine why one of the plotters was attempting to flee from Guyana to Iran through anti-American Venezuela before being captured. According to the suspect’s wife, he stopped in Guyana to obtain an Iranian visa, but the FBI is seeking further information about the suspect’s Iranian ties. The New York Sun reported that the suspect currently has two sons “studying” in Iran.
When asked for his opinion about whether the JFK attack plotters may have had ties to the Iranian mullahs and President Ahmadinejad, Piernick made it clear that he would not be surprised if such a connection were identified:
"The fact of the matter is that the Iranians are a bunch of sneaky bastards. They are going to take care of anyone who hurts us. I am not at all surprised that they might have been trying to provide him cover to get out of the region," he said in a telephone interview.
Given Iran’s continued march toward nuclear weapons and Ahmadinejad’s taunting of America, maybe the choice for best quote of the day is not so difficult after all.
While Iran may have been “sneaky” by quietly assisting the JFK attack planners, Ahmadinejad roared like a lion at America and other nations who have vowed to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapon capabilities. Ahmadinejad warned the world today that it “is too late” to stop Iran’s nuclear program, and that further international sanctions against the regime will only make the future more difficult for the west. As reported by Fox News via AP, he added that more sanctions would be as unwise for the west as “stepping on a lion’s tail”:
”We advise them not to play with the lion's tail," Ahmadinejad said, prompting applause from a room of reporters, Iranian officials and foreign dignitaries at a Tehran news conference.
"It is too late to stop the progress of Iran," Ahmadinejad said. "Iran has passed the point where they wanted Iran to stop."
It would appear that neither the subtle (UN sanctions) nor the sneaky (covert ops) approaches have worked for the U.S. in slowing down or destroying Iran’s suicidal nuclear quest. The Bush administration has demonstrated that it is good at “bowing to reality” on one important national security issue, immigration, and wants to throw up its arms in surrender through amnesty. The world must hope that this administration has more backbone on this national security issue by preventing through all available means the reality of a nuclear Iran. Bowing to that reality by granting Iran nuclear amnesty would result in the end of reality for Israel, America, and freedom.
Ahmadinejad Photo by AP
Technorati: Ahmadinejad Kenneth Piernick FBI Counterterrorism JFK Airport Terrorist Plot Bush Administration Mullahs Iranian Nuclear Program
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
ABC Warns Iran of US Covert Actions
If Harry Reid had referred to the War on Terror rather than the Iraq War when he stated “this war is lost,” perhaps he would have been closer to the truth. America faces the world’s premier terror sponsor, Iran, rapidly advancing toward nuclear capability, but neither the American government nor the American media have the collective will or discipline to win any war, let alone a war against terrorism.
The New York Times previously revealed the existence of the NSA domestic surveillance program that monitors communication between persons residing in America and known terrorists in foreign nations. That revelation resulted in terrorist groups altering their communication protocols, making it more difficult for American intelligence agencies to identif
y terrorists living in the United States and thwart potential attacks on the homeland. Now ABC and “anonymous government sources” are placing the entire world at risk by exposing a covert American intelligence program designed to prevent Iran from constructing nuclear weapons without the U.S. resorting to military action. Keeping nuclear weapons out of Ahmadinejad’s hands; that should be something all Americans want, right? Apparently the “A” in ABC does not stand for American, as its decision to publish this story was anything but patriotic.
The ABC Blotter report posted last night exceeded the New York Times piece on NSA Domestic Surveillance in its audacity, poor timing, and potential consequences for global security. It is quite clear from the Blotter report that ABC has no sense of self-preservation, and is far more concerned about breaking an exclusive story than it is about Iran’s mullahs holding the threat of nuclear bombs over Israel and America. It is impossible to overstate this fact: If we are hold Congressional hearings about firing U.S. Attorneys and leaking names of “covert” CIA employees who were never covert (Valerie Plame), then heads should roll and charges filed over the “sensitive” (i.e. Top Secret/SCI) information revealed to and reported by ABC. Here are the salient points from the Blotter article:
What did Iran learn from this ABC report? First, the general existence of the covert program and its intended goals; second, the U.S. has temporarily chosen to avoid military confrontation with Iran, which will surely lead to Iran further expediting its uranium enrichment efforts without immediate fear of military strikes; and third, the CIA is targeting Iranian monetary accounts which funnel funds to Iran’s nuclear program, which will surely lead to Iran altering the funding process and better disguising these accounts, much like al Qaeda altered its communications after the New York Times revealed the Domestic Surveillance program.
Each of these pieces of information was classified and revealing any of them is a criminal act. The Blotter report also contains important information about who knew about the program and its approval by the White House. This should help prosecutors, if Congress is interested even minimally in protecting national security, to compile a short list of suspects. Bruce Riedel, although hiding behind the moniker “retired CIA senior official” is not immune. Although many reporters speculate about steps America could take to disrupt Iran’s uranium enrichment, Riedel’s disclosure of the CIA strategy to target specific secret accounts used by Iran to fund its nuclear program was based on his personal knowledge of classified discussions and documents, and under federal law he was not authorized to disclose that information until official declassification, typically 25 years later. He should not have spoken to ABC until the year 2032 and should be prosecuted and professionally shunned for his participation in making it easier for Iran to build nuclear bombs and keep the mullahs in power. If he ever writes a book about his years in the CIA, boycott it.
In Intelligence, military, and law enforcement, the key to victory is “operational
security” (OPSEC). It is universally understood that once the public knows about an operation, its effectiveness is virtually neutralized. For an illustration of effective OPSEC, we need look no further than the 9/11 al Qaeda cells. There were no sources within Bin Laden’s “government” who spoke to the media on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the plot information. There were no revelations to the media about methods al Qaeda was training to implement in hijacking operations. There was no advance warning, and in fact their OPSEC kept the cells from even knowing each other’s identities, locations, or itineraries so that if one cell were identified by the FBI, it would have no capacity to reveal anything about the other cells. If they, being evil, can be so good at OPSEC, why is it that we, being good, are so bad at OPSEC? There can be no covert “black” operations when they are exposed to media light before they can develop.
“The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say…” should be the opening argument in the Justice Department’s prosecution of the sources and ABC officials who received classified information and published it. These sources should not be "saying" anything, and they know it. It also clearly illustrates why we will lose the War on Terror. President Bush, who is constantly accused of warmongering by the liberal left, has obviously worked along with the intelligence community to do everything possible short of military action to prevent Iran from building nuclear bombs in defiance of international law. Yet even the non-military approach was leaked to willing accomplice ABC by leftover (or passed over) Clinton/Tenet liberals in the CIA and other agencies in an effort to undermine this administration even if doing so results in a nuclear Iran. America cannot win a War on Terror when half of the nation hates its president more than it hates terrorists. They would rather impeach or embarrass Bush than disarm Iran. They would rather see a liberal win the 2008 election than see the world’s democracies win the War on Terror.
The New York Times previously revealed the existence of the NSA domestic surveillance program that monitors communication between persons residing in America and known terrorists in foreign nations. That revelation resulted in terrorist groups altering their communication protocols, making it more difficult for American intelligence agencies to identif
y terrorists living in the United States and thwart potential attacks on the homeland. Now ABC and “anonymous government sources” are placing the entire world at risk by exposing a covert American intelligence program designed to prevent Iran from constructing nuclear weapons without the U.S. resorting to military action. Keeping nuclear weapons out of Ahmadinejad’s hands; that should be something all Americans want, right? Apparently the “A” in ABC does not stand for American, as its decision to publish this story was anything but patriotic.The ABC Blotter report posted last night exceeded the New York Times piece on NSA Domestic Surveillance in its audacity, poor timing, and potential consequences for global security. It is quite clear from the Blotter report that ABC has no sense of self-preservation, and is far more concerned about breaking an exclusive story than it is about Iran’s mullahs holding the threat of nuclear bombs over Israel and America. It is impossible to overstate this fact: If we are hold Congressional hearings about firing U.S. Attorneys and leaking names of “covert” CIA employees who were never covert (Valerie Plame), then heads should roll and charges filed over the “sensitive” (i.e. Top Secret/SCI) information revealed to and reported by ABC. Here are the salient points from the Blotter article:
The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.
The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.
"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region...
The sources say the CIA developed the covert plan over the last year and received approval from White House officials and other officials in the intelligence community...
Officials say the covert plan is designed to pressure Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment program and end aid to insurgents in Iraq...
Current and former intelligence officials say the approval of the covert action means the Bush administration, for the time being, has decided not to pursue a military option against Iran...
Riedel says economic pressure on Iran may be the most effective tool available to the CIA, particularly in going after secret accounts used to fund the nuclear program...
"Presidential findings" are kept secret but reported to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other key congressional leaders...
Also briefed on the CIA proposal, according to intelligence sources, were National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams...
What did Iran learn from this ABC report? First, the general existence of the covert program and its intended goals; second, the U.S. has temporarily chosen to avoid military confrontation with Iran, which will surely lead to Iran further expediting its uranium enrichment efforts without immediate fear of military strikes; and third, the CIA is targeting Iranian monetary accounts which funnel funds to Iran’s nuclear program, which will surely lead to Iran altering the funding process and better disguising these accounts, much like al Qaeda altered its communications after the New York Times revealed the Domestic Surveillance program.
Each of these pieces of information was classified and revealing any of them is a criminal act. The Blotter report also contains important information about who knew about the program and its approval by the White House. This should help prosecutors, if Congress is interested even minimally in protecting national security, to compile a short list of suspects. Bruce Riedel, although hiding behind the moniker “retired CIA senior official” is not immune. Although many reporters speculate about steps America could take to disrupt Iran’s uranium enrichment, Riedel’s disclosure of the CIA strategy to target specific secret accounts used by Iran to fund its nuclear program was based on his personal knowledge of classified discussions and documents, and under federal law he was not authorized to disclose that information until official declassification, typically 25 years later. He should not have spoken to ABC until the year 2032 and should be prosecuted and professionally shunned for his participation in making it easier for Iran to build nuclear bombs and keep the mullahs in power. If he ever writes a book about his years in the CIA, boycott it.
In Intelligence, military, and law enforcement, the key to victory is “operational
security” (OPSEC). It is universally understood that once the public knows about an operation, its effectiveness is virtually neutralized. For an illustration of effective OPSEC, we need look no further than the 9/11 al Qaeda cells. There were no sources within Bin Laden’s “government” who spoke to the media on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the plot information. There were no revelations to the media about methods al Qaeda was training to implement in hijacking operations. There was no advance warning, and in fact their OPSEC kept the cells from even knowing each other’s identities, locations, or itineraries so that if one cell were identified by the FBI, it would have no capacity to reveal anything about the other cells. If they, being evil, can be so good at OPSEC, why is it that we, being good, are so bad at OPSEC? There can be no covert “black” operations when they are exposed to media light before they can develop.“The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say…” should be the opening argument in the Justice Department’s prosecution of the sources and ABC officials who received classified information and published it. These sources should not be "saying" anything, and they know it. It also clearly illustrates why we will lose the War on Terror. President Bush, who is constantly accused of warmongering by the liberal left, has obviously worked along with the intelligence community to do everything possible short of military action to prevent Iran from building nuclear bombs in defiance of international law. Yet even the non-military approach was leaked to willing accomplice ABC by leftover (or passed over) Clinton/Tenet liberals in the CIA and other agencies in an effort to undermine this administration even if doing so results in a nuclear Iran. America cannot win a War on Terror when half of the nation hates its president more than it hates terrorists. They would rather impeach or embarrass Bush than disarm Iran. They would rather see a liberal win the 2008 election than see the world’s democracies win the War on Terror.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Iran Plays America Like A Fiddle On Nukes
America is being played like a fiddle, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s 
performance is worthy of virtuoso acclaim. Pitting the American media against the Bush administration while simultaneously duping America’s intelligence analysts into believing Iran remains years away from a viable nuclear weapon, Ahmadinejad has convinced half the world that Iran is a ticking nuclear time bomb and the other half that Iran’s intentions are peaceful and the country is open to negotiations. Since both halves can only be proven right over time, neither seems inclined to take any decisive action, relying on impotent UN sanctions and resolutions to resolve an issue with incredible ramifications for global security.
Capital Cloak has reported extensively on the Iranian nuclear weapons program saga, focusing specifically on the wildly fluctuating assessments of anticipated time frames submitted by intelligence analysts. With each report, Capital Cloak warned that analysts were underestimating Iran’s progress, capabilities, and commitment, and thus far analysts have been proven wrong with each new revelation uncovered by international media. In the most recent post on this topic published at Capital Cloak, I observed that “counting on machinery to malfunction is not a strategy that will keep nuclear arms out of the mullahs’ hands.” At that time, experts and analysts insisted that Iran’s uranium enrichment capabilities were dependent on the durability and maintenance of its centrifuges, and these experts likewise insisted that it would take Iran four or five years to overcome the routine glitches that would surely occur. Once again the “experts” were wrong, as reported in today’s New York Times.
The opening sentence of today’s article, “Atomic Agency Concludes Iran is Stepping Up Nuclear Work,” directly nullified the expert predictions of nuclear physicists, as well as Israeli and American intelligence analysts who were so certain Iran would need several years to resolve glitches other nations experienced during uranium enrichment. The article began with the following revelation:
Once again the Iranians have made advances the nuclear physics community thought unlikely and at a faster pace than intelligence analysts considered possible.
While not so quietly speeding toward nuclear weapons development and his avowed goal of
annihilating Israel, Ahmadinejad continues to manipulate international public opinion about how best to deal with Iran by sweet talking world leaders with pleasant sounding references to negotiations. This skillful media guru clearly understands that as long as he leaves the door open to occasional IAEA inspections and negotiations over peaceful use of nuclear power for electricity, few, if any, world leaders will rally sufficient political support to take decisive action. While he whispers what the Washington Post generously described as “reassurances” into the ears of world diplomats, claiming Iran welcomes and is prepared for negotiations with the U.S., he is stealthily unsheathing a nuclear sword that will one day behead the major democracies while their attention is focused on the glittering fool’s gold alluringly embedded in nuclear negotiations with a terror sponsor.
There remains hope that President Bush, an avid reader of historical biography and a self-
proclaimed admirer of Winston Churchill, has taken to heart Churchill’s famous warning about negotiating with a dangerous evil: “an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” If there is a world leader who has the courage to act against Iran before it is too late, it is the current occupant of the White House. Unfortunately, President Bush may be the victim of ignorant advisers, some of whom apparently do not take Ahmadinejad or the mullahs seriously. The previously cited New York Times article provided this chilling account of think-tank theorizing run amok:
These same administration officials, if their memories go back that far, likely thought that during the Cold War the Soviets were filling their missile silos with empty rocket housings as a deterrent, since those missiles would look real to our satellite imagery, as the Soviets could then bully the world without actually possessing the number of missiles they boastfully reported. The “breakout capability” theory requires twists of logic in the extreme. “Breakout capability” would be a deterrent only for Iran’s neighbors, none of whom except Israel have the military capability to strike and disarm Iran, and thus would not likely provoke an enemy possessing enough uranium to rapidly produce a bomb if needed. However, the United States, Russia, Britain, and China have the capacity to strike Iran without warning, thus denying Iran the necessary time to quickly produce a bomb on short notice. None of these powers would be deterred merely by Iran’s capability to produce something. That capability could be destroyed and thus removed from the deterrent equation. Should the world make the assumption that Ahmadinejad and the mullahs only want the capability to produce the ultimate terror weapon rather than actually holding tangible proof of their power?
Having a nuclear plant stocked with enriched uranium will not make Iran a feared nuclear force. Only the actual possession of a stockpile of deployable nuclear bombs will accomplish that. If the president is actually receiving advice from officials who think Iran’s nuclear intentions are peaceful and only for show, the White House should encourage them to explore employment opportunities in the private sector as soon as possible. They have been played like a fiddle by a master media manipulator who, if appeased, will buck Churchill’s idiom and eat us first.
performance is worthy of virtuoso acclaim. Pitting the American media against the Bush administration while simultaneously duping America’s intelligence analysts into believing Iran remains years away from a viable nuclear weapon, Ahmadinejad has convinced half the world that Iran is a ticking nuclear time bomb and the other half that Iran’s intentions are peaceful and the country is open to negotiations. Since both halves can only be proven right over time, neither seems inclined to take any decisive action, relying on impotent UN sanctions and resolutions to resolve an issue with incredible ramifications for global security.Capital Cloak has reported extensively on the Iranian nuclear weapons program saga, focusing specifically on the wildly fluctuating assessments of anticipated time frames submitted by intelligence analysts. With each report, Capital Cloak warned that analysts were underestimating Iran’s progress, capabilities, and commitment, and thus far analysts have been proven wrong with each new revelation uncovered by international media. In the most recent post on this topic published at Capital Cloak, I observed that “counting on machinery to malfunction is not a strategy that will keep nuclear arms out of the mullahs’ hands.” At that time, experts and analysts insisted that Iran’s uranium enrichment capabilities were dependent on the durability and maintenance of its centrifuges, and these experts likewise insisted that it would take Iran four or five years to overcome the routine glitches that would surely occur. Once again the “experts” were wrong, as reported in today’s New York Times.
The opening sentence of today’s article, “Atomic Agency Concludes Iran is Stepping Up Nuclear Work,” directly nullified the expert predictions of nuclear physicists, as well as Israeli and American intelligence analysts who were so certain Iran would need several years to resolve glitches other nations experienced during uranium enrichment. The article began with the following revelation:
Inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency have concluded that Iran appears to have solved most of its technological problems and is now beginning to enrich uranium on a far larger scale than before, according to the agency’s top officials.
The findings may change the calculus of diplomacy in Europe and in Washington, which aimed to force a suspension of Iran’s enrichment activities in large part to prevent it from learning how to produce weapons-grade material.
In a short-notice inspection of Iran’s operations in the main nuclear facility at Natanz on Sunday, conducted in advance of a report to the United Nations Security Council due early next week, the inspectors found that Iranian engineers were already using roughly 1,300 centrifuges and were producing fuel suitable for nuclear reactors, according to diplomats and nuclear experts here.
Until recently, the Iranians were having difficulty keeping the delicate centrifuges spinning at the tremendous speeds necessary to make nuclear fuel and were often running them empty or not at all.
Now, those roadblocks appear to have been surmounted. “We believe they pretty much have the knowledge about how to enrich,” said Mohammed ElBaradei, the director general of the energy agency, who clashed with the Bush administration four years ago when he declared that there was no evidence that Iraq had resumed its nuclear program. “From now on, it is simply a question of perfecting that knowledge. People will not like to hear it, but that’s a fact.”
Once again the Iranians have made advances the nuclear physics community thought unlikely and at a faster pace than intelligence analysts considered possible.
While not so quietly speeding toward nuclear weapons development and his avowed goal of
annihilating Israel, Ahmadinejad continues to manipulate international public opinion about how best to deal with Iran by sweet talking world leaders with pleasant sounding references to negotiations. This skillful media guru clearly understands that as long as he leaves the door open to occasional IAEA inspections and negotiations over peaceful use of nuclear power for electricity, few, if any, world leaders will rally sufficient political support to take decisive action. While he whispers what the Washington Post generously described as “reassurances” into the ears of world diplomats, claiming Iran welcomes and is prepared for negotiations with the U.S., he is stealthily unsheathing a nuclear sword that will one day behead the major democracies while their attention is focused on the glittering fool’s gold alluringly embedded in nuclear negotiations with a terror sponsor.There remains hope that President Bush, an avid reader of historical biography and a self-
proclaimed admirer of Winston Churchill, has taken to heart Churchill’s famous warning about negotiating with a dangerous evil: “an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” If there is a world leader who has the courage to act against Iran before it is too late, it is the current occupant of the White House. Unfortunately, President Bush may be the victim of ignorant advisers, some of whom apparently do not take Ahmadinejad or the mullahs seriously. The previously cited New York Times article provided this chilling account of think-tank theorizing run amok:The inspectors have tested the output and concluded that Iran is producing reactor-grade uranium, enriched to a little less than 5 percent purity. But that still worries American officials and experts here at the I.A.E.A. If Iran stores the uranium and later runs it through its centrifuges for another four or five months, it can raise the enrichment level to 90 percent — the level needed for a nuclear weapon.
In the arcane terminology of nuclear proliferation, that is known as a “breakout capability,” the ability to throw inspectors out of the country and then produce weapons-grade fuel, as North Korea did in 2003.
Some Bush administration officials and some nuclear experts here at the I.A.E.A. and elsewhere suspect that the Iranians may not be driving for a weapon but rather for that “breakout capability,” because that alone can serve as a nuclear deterrent. It would be a way for Iran to make clear that it could produce a bomb on short notice, without actually possessing one.
These same administration officials, if their memories go back that far, likely thought that during the Cold War the Soviets were filling their missile silos with empty rocket housings as a deterrent, since those missiles would look real to our satellite imagery, as the Soviets could then bully the world without actually possessing the number of missiles they boastfully reported. The “breakout capability” theory requires twists of logic in the extreme. “Breakout capability” would be a deterrent only for Iran’s neighbors, none of whom except Israel have the military capability to strike and disarm Iran, and thus would not likely provoke an enemy possessing enough uranium to rapidly produce a bomb if needed. However, the United States, Russia, Britain, and China have the capacity to strike Iran without warning, thus denying Iran the necessary time to quickly produce a bomb on short notice. None of these powers would be deterred merely by Iran’s capability to produce something. That capability could be destroyed and thus removed from the deterrent equation. Should the world make the assumption that Ahmadinejad and the mullahs only want the capability to produce the ultimate terror weapon rather than actually holding tangible proof of their power?
Having a nuclear plant stocked with enriched uranium will not make Iran a feared nuclear force. Only the actual possession of a stockpile of deployable nuclear bombs will accomplish that. If the president is actually receiving advice from officials who think Iran’s nuclear intentions are peaceful and only for show, the White House should encourage them to explore employment opportunities in the private sector as soon as possible. They have been played like a fiddle by a master media manipulator who, if appeased, will buck Churchill’s idiom and eat us first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)