Putin's North Pole Wish: Steal Santa's Oil

On future Christmas morning the stockings you hung by the fire the night before may be filled with Russian delicacies, Vladimir Putin action figures, and Russian oil vouchers. Russia, under Putin’s increasingly authoritarian control, has now declared ownership of the North Pole, and presumably Santa’s beloved workshop, a region long protected by a division of territory among 5 nations. Why would Russia make such a bold claim for an area dominated by ice, frigid temperatures, and flying reindeer? Quite simply, Santa has been sitting on one of the world’s largest undeveloped oil deposits for all these years and Putin wants to take it away from the right jolly old elf. According to the UK Daily Mail, Putin’s arctic motives are all too clear. The area claimed by Russia is:

a triangle five times the size of Britain with twice as much oil as Saudi Arabia….Experts estimate the ridge has ten billion tons of gas and oil deposits and significant sources of diamonds, gold, tin, manganese, nickel, lead and platinum.

No wonder Santa has enough funds to produce toys for every child in the world! Burl Ives’s rendition of “Silver and Gold” in the beloved Rudolph animated Christmas special makes much more sense now that we know Santa’s been hoarding untold treasures on his Arctic estate. It also explains why Mrs. Claus is always cheerful and optimistic despite frigid isolation and no local shopping malls or beauty salons for entertainment.

This is not Russia’s first attempt to claim arctic territory (a previous effort failed 5 years ago), but according to British officials Russia is far more serious about the current claim, which is based on alleged geological links and structural similarities between an underwater North Pole ridge and the Siberian continental shelf. Russia claims that the ridge in dispute, the Lomonosov Ridge, is connected to the Siberian continental shelf and is thus an extension of Russian territory.

The distinction is critical, since the geological link argument was carefully crafted to nullify the existing UN convention. As the Daily Mail reported:

Under current international law, the countries ringing the Arctic - -Russia, Canada, the U.S., Norway, and Denmark (which owns Greenland) - are limited to a 200-mile economic zone around their coasts.

A UN convention says none can claim jurisdiction over the Arctic seabed because the geological structure does not match the surrounding continental shelves.

But Russian scientists have returned from a six-week mission on a nuclear ice-breaker to claim that the 1,220-mile long underwater Lomonosov Ridge is geologically linked to the Siberian continental platform - and similar in structure.

The region is currently administered by the International Seabed Authority but this is now being challenged by Moscow.

International geologists have roundly rejected Putin’s claim on scientific grounds, pointing out that by extending the same logic Russia employed to conclude that the Lomonosov Ridge belonged to Russia, similar arguments could be made that Canada should lay claim to Russia because the two are connected by a shared ocean floor plate:

Ted Nield, of the Geological Society in London, branded Russia's claim nonsensical.

"The notion that geological structures can somehow dictate ownership is deeply peculiar," he said.

"Anyway, the Lomonosov Ridge is not part of a continental shelf - it is the point at which two ocean floor plates under the Arctic Ocean are spreading apart.

Given Putin’s increasingly aggressive moves toward nationalizing Russia’s industries, especially gas, oil, and power production under state control, the world should make it clear to Putin that he must contain his lust for the North Pole’s natural resources and halt any ongoing plans to seize the territory that Russia may be formulating. The U.S. State Department and international authorities labeled Russia’s claim surprising and extraordinary, and believe it will go nowhere. The danger lies in what Putin’s reaction will be when the UN rejects, once again, Russia’s claim to the North Pole and its incredible potential revenue stream. Anti-war demonstrators in America and Europe have loudly and illogically insisted that the Iraq War is a war for oil and claim that a war based on oil needs is immoral. Surely the unpopularity of the Iraq War and President Bush’s subsequently low approval ratings are not lost on Putin in his North Pole strategy considerations.

If Americans think a war over oil would be immoral (although we have left all Iraqi oil under Iraqi control), then Putin has likely already concluded that he could seize the disputed North Pole area with no fear of forceful military response by America. It would be, after all, an actual war over oil, and America’s liberals would give Russia anything it wanted to avoid another (in their eyes) war for oil.

President Bush’s personal summit with Putin in Kennebunkport this weekend promises to be tense and likely unproductive. The issues over which Russia and America are at odds are substantial: Russian arms sales to Syria and Iran; the proposed missile defense shield for Eastern Europe; increased state control over industries and the Russian media; and possibly this new claim to the North Pole. Will the UN and U.S. appease Putin’s Arctic lust to avoid armed confrontation? If so, we must ask ourselves which is better, energy dependence on the Middle East, or energy dependence on Russia? Both options should be unpalatable to the American people, yet we are already enslaved by one to an extent, while the other would like nothing more than to enslave us and exercise direct and unquestionable control over our economy through oil manipulation.

If Russia seizes the North Pole in the coming months or years, U.S. reaction must be swift and decisive to push Russia back behind its current borders. Hitler made claims on territory he desired and based those claims on ethnic and cultural similarities of the populations. Europe appeased him and he eagerly devoured what he had truly lusted after; it was not the people or culture he wanted, it was the industry and natural resources he could assimilate to arm, equip, and transport the German military machine on its march to world domination. Putin’s motives for claiming the North Pole are no less diabolic. Instead of culture or ethnicity, he invokes geological links to declare Russia’s “rights” to the North Pole, but like Hitler his true desire is for resources that are essential to securing his power and his nation’s future domination

On January 1, 2007 I published my list of the top 5 threats facing America in 2007. Number one was internal strife in America because of its potential to paralyze us when faced with imminent threats. Number two was Russia. I have seen nothing that would change my initial assessment. Even the threat of a nuclear Iran is part and parcel of the threat Russia poses, as Russian technology, equipment, and UN Security Council veto powers have allowed Iran to reach its presently precarious position threatening Israel and America with Nuclear holocaust. The North Pole issue actually combines the top two threats, as our anti-war left will hesitate to act against Russia when Putin's patience with the UN runs out and he seizes the resources he covets.

Putin must not be appeased, lest “gifts from the North Pole” take on an entirely new and ominous meaning each future Christmas season.

Image credit: "North Pole Idol" courtesy of SantasJournal.com

Technorati Tags:Vladimir Putin, Russia, North Pole, Lomonosov Ridge, Oil Deposits, War for Oil, Natural Resources, Territorial Claims, Arctic Circle

Bolton Worried About Rice Spell on Bush

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is “overwhelmingly predominant on foreign policy” within the Bush administration and has sidelined voices with differing views on how to handle Iran’s nearly imminent production of weapons grade uranium, according to former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton. Bolton, in a telephone interview with the Jerusalem Post yesterday, warned that the current Bush administration may not be up to the task of dealing decisively with Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. The criticisms of the administration’s handling of Iran, coming as they did from a former presidential adviser and tough-talking UN Ambassador, reveal the growth of a significant and potentially paralyzing division within the administration between President Bush’s closest confidants on foreign policy and the War on Terror. Bolton left the administration in part over the Iranian nuclear issue.

Bolton raised a blunt voice of warning, apparently hoping that drawing media attention to what he views as a dire situation may influence the administration to change course away from ineffective sanctions and act before Iran passes the nuclear “point of no return” previously identified by the IAEA. The message Bolton delivered to the Jerusalem Post interviewer was reminiscent of Winston Churchill’s warnings about Nazi Germany’s rearmament and potential danger to the world:

Sanctions and diplomacy have failed and it may be too late for internal opposition to oust the Islamist regime, leaving only military intervention to stop Iran's drive to nuclear weapons, the US's former ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.

Worse still, according to Ambassador Bolton, the Bush administration does not recognize the urgency of the hour and that the options are now limited to only the possibility of regime change from within or a last-resort military intervention, and it is still clinging to the dangerous and misguided belief that sanctions can be effective.

As a consequence, Bolton said he was "very worried" about the well-being of Israel….
"The current approach of the Europeans and the Americans is not just doomed to failure, but dangerous," he said. "Dealing with [the Iranians] just gives them what they want, which is more time...

"We have fiddled away four years, in which Europe tried to persuade Iran to give up voluntarily," he complained. "Iran in those four years mastered uranium conversion from solid to gas and now enrichment to weapons grade... We lost four years to feckless European diplomacy and our options are very limited."

…Bolton lamented that the Bush administration today was "not the same" as a presumably more robust incarnation three years ago, because of what he said was now the State Department's overwhelming dominance of foreign policy. "The State Department has adopted the European view [on how to deal with Iran] and other voices have been sidelined," he said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "is overwhelmingly predominant on foreign policy."

…Bolton, who served as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security from 2001 to 2005, before taking the ambassadorial posting to the UN from August 2005 to December 2006, said the failed handling of the Iran nuclear crisis was one of the reasons he had left the Bush administration. "I felt we were watching Europe fiddling while Rome burned," he said. "It's still fiddling."

John Bolton was, only a few short months ago, one of the president’s most trusted advisers on international security issues, particularly nuclear weapons proliferation and enlisting serious allies in the War on Terror. Bolton was further appointed as the U.S. Ambassador to the UN precisely because he was blunt and would demand accountability and reform from the UN if U.S. funding of that organization was to continue. Unfortunately, after Bolton’s condemnations of UN corruption and demands for reform were met with opposition from corrupt UN officials and nations, Democrats seized on his unpopularity and refused to confirm his appointment in the Senate. After his nomination was blocked and later withdrawn by the president, Bolton remained for a time as an adviser to the administration but never regained the president’s ear.

The cause for this is baffling for a president who is often cited for being loyal to his friends almost to a fault. President Bush seemed to distance himself at every possible turn from the unpopular (in the media and with liberals) Bolton. Instead of continuing to benefit from an experienced and knowledgeable adviser and following his own moral compass, the president instead chose to listen almost exclusively to Secretary Rice, who is in turn influenced greatly by her own State Department colleagues. As I have written previously, State has long been a den of liberalism and its current personnel are unlikely ever to recommend use of force against Iran or any other nation regardless of imminent peril to the world.

Winston Churchill became unpopular with his own party for his incessant and dire warnings of the consequences of appeasement and inaction in the face of Nazi rearmament and aggression. His party relegated him to the back bench in parliament, a humiliating demotion for an accomplished and distinguished politician. Bolton became unpopular with corrupt UN nations large and small as well as the American liberal media, was relegated to a failed appointment as UN Ambassador and was eventually shunned by his allegedly loyal president. Now Bolton, like Churchill, stands on the sidelines of history while other players execute an obviously failed game plan. To the credit of Churchill and Bolton, neither sulked off into bitter silence and withheld their expertise from public discourse. Both continued to speak out in hopes that someone would listen before it was too late. The British did not, and paid a terrible price in WWII. What price will the world pay for “fiddling” while the mullahs reach the capacity to burn Rome, London, Washington, Jerusalem, or Paris?

The most disturbing aspect of Bolton’s cry from the political wilderness is that he is not alone in calling for action against Iran, but all voices arguing logically for action are being ignored by the current administration as it continues to pursue UN sanctions or regime change. As Bolton mentioned, regime changes like the one we envision for Iran occur over time, sometimes involving the development of more than one generation of oppositionists before overthrow can be achieved. The Israeli government has already declared December 31, 2007 as the deadline after which sanctions and diplomacy should be abandoned in favor of forceful action if Iran does not dismantle its uranium enrichment program. Does the Bush administration believe that regime change is likely to occur in Iran in the next 6 months?

Liberal publications certainly don’t envision that happening anytime soon. Newsweek Magazine’s current article, “Iranians Aren’t About to Overthrow the Mullahs” makes a strong case that this option is not realistically available to the world, particularly if the world sincerely desires to prevent a nuclear Iran before the point of no return. Considering that ABC and other liberal media outlets exposed the CIA’s active program to foment unrest among Iranians toward the current regime, Iranians can now recognize those efforts for what they are, thus no unrest will result.

Bolton expressed grave concern that the Bush administration and Secretary Rice have pinned all their hopes for containing Iran on two options, UN Sanctions, and regime change. Removing regime change as a viable option in the limited time remaining before Iran enriches sufficient uranium leaves only UN sanctions as a non-military option, and sanctions have done nothing but encourage Iran to move faster toward nuclear weapons. The State Department has offered no workable alternatives to military action, and the clock is literally ticking.

The formerly “robust” Bush administration, as Bolton puts it, has been replaced with a decidedly liberal, quasi-pacifist cadre that appears to make its policy decisions based on international opinion rather than national interest or national security. Secretary Rice has advocated providing arms and funding to known Palestinian terrorist organizations over Israel’s outraged objections in order to achieve some semblance of stability there. Not surprisingly one terrorist faction wrested control from another and the American weapons have been used against the Israeli Defense Force more than any fellow Palestinian targets. The result is a decidedly unstable Palestinian populace and a further lesson that appeasement of terrorists of any stripe is a woefully ignorant foreign policy strategy.

Rice continues to press Israel to give up more territory and place itself in ever-increasing danger in the name of international opinion. She likewise continues to press the president to rely on UN sanctions to deter Iran from its stated goal to annihilate Israel and the U.S. with glowing fireballs. It is easy to see why Bolton became disillusioned with the formerly tough-talking but currently soft-peddling Secretary of State. She has the president’s ear, while Bolton was left at the altar. According to Bolton, that is dangerous for the U.S. and the world, as the fiddling continues and becomes more maddening as the centrifuges spin in Iran.

Technorati Tags:
John Bolton, Condoleeza Rice, State Department, Iran, Nuclear Weapons, Proliferation, UN Sanctions, Regime Change, Diplomacy, Bush Administration

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:

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.