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

"No one dare attack our sacred land": Iran FM's Claim Challenges Relevance of Britain, U.S. as World Powers

One week ago today, the Iranian Navy seized 15 British Navy personnel engaged in searching for smugglers in Iraqi waters. Despite GPS evidence presented by the British government that clearly indicated the British crew was well within established Iraqi waters, Iranian leaders have refused to release the hostages, whom they insist were captured in Iranian territorial waters. Ignoring Geneva Convention policies and British warnings not to do so, the Iranian government produced and distributed videotaped “confessions” in which the hostages “admit” they were in Iranian waters illegally when they were captured. Iran also floated the possibility that the lone female hostage would be released, but has subsequently rescinded that gesture. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki now insists that Britain must apologize for instigating the incident, and suggested that the hostages may yet be tried in Tehran on charges of espionage. The outcome of such a show trial is not difficult to imagine. Espionage is a capital offense under Iran’s version of Sharia law.

What steps have Britain and the UN taken to resolve this critical situation? Tony Blair demanded the release of the hostages, to which demands Iran responded with increased rhetoric and blunt refusals to comply. To add insult to injury, Iran released to the media a letter allegedly written by female hostage Seaman Faye Turney, in which Turney robotically asks her government to withdraw troops from Iraq. Tony Blair became “livid” at the Iranian attempt to dictate British foreign policy, the refusal to release the hostages, and the obviously forced confessions (hint to future Iranian fake confession writers: British citizens refer to their Parliamentary representatives as MPs, not “representatives”). Blair requested that the UN Security Council condemn Iran for the seizure and issue a resolution calling upon Iran to immediately release the British crew.

In a pathetic display of its own irrelevancy, the UN Security Council, at the behest of such stalwart defenders of international law as Russia, could not agree on issuing a call for the immediate release of the hostages. The UK Times Online reported:

The UN Security Council, voicing “grave concern”, meanwhile called on Iran to allow consular access to the detained British naval personnel and urged “an early resolution of this problem, including the release of the 15”.

Britain originally asked for a tougher three-sentence statement to “deplore” the detention of the British personnel and “support calls” for their immediate release, but this was blocked by Russia and several other members.

“We will not be able to accept a call for the immediate release of the 15 UK naval personnel,” Vitaly Churkin, Russian’s UN envoy, declared during the debate.

The final two-sentence statement was read to the press outside the Security Council chamber, making it weaker than a formal declaration.

Apparently “grave concern” is the extent of the Security Council’s reaction to what under international law is an act of war: forced boarding of a vessel under flag of a recognized nation, compounded by taking uniformed military personnel of a sovereign nation hostage. Whatever one thinks of President Bush personally or politically, it is clear he was justified in his blunt warning to the UN that if it did not take action against Saddam Hussein after 14 of its resolutions had been ignored it would become an irrelevant organization in world affairs. Unfortunately, terrorists have paid close attention to the UN’s reactions to provocations and Iran clearly determined that President Bush was right about the UN’s irrelevancy. Hence the brazen taking of British hostages with little concern that any nations other than Britain and the U.S. would be inclined to interfere.

The west has a tendency to underestimate radical Islamic nations like Iran, whether out of a sense of cultural superiority or sheer ignorance. Iran has proven itself an astute observer of internal politics in America and Britain and has calculated that neither government has the political unity necessary to mount an effective response to this hostage incident. The political climate in America has become so acidic that Iran is certain America will not respond militarily to this provocation against our closest ally.

Democrats begging for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and impeachment of President Bush should consider carefully the words of Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki:

To a question on probable US military attack on Iran, he said the Americans are now engaged in domestic issues and are not in a position to enter into another crisis.

"No one dare to attack our sacred land," he said.

“Engaged in domestic issues” is a euphemism for blind bush hatred in Congress. Non-binding resolutions criticizing the new “surge” in Iraq; over dramatized investigations into U.S. Attorney firings the President was constitutionally empowered to conduct; adding non-military pork funding to the Iraq War appropriations bill; and inserting ill-advised provisions into that bill to establish a withdrawal date from Iraq are precisely the “domestic issues” Mottaki and the Mullahs count on to tie the hands of our Commander in Chief. Conservative radio hosts and bloggers frequently use the term “embolden our enemies” when referring to the effects of the Democrat controlled Congress’s efforts to shackle President Bush’s executive war powers. Mottaki’s comments are proof that our enemies are indeed emboldened by this Congress and that bravado resulted in the hostage incident now upon us.

Britain is in a less rancorous but equally tenuous political position, as Prime Minister Blair is in effect a lame-duck leader until replaced in the next UK election. His liberal party has cut military expenditures so significantly during his tenure that France now has a larger Navy than Britain, which once ruled the seas. In fact, Belgium’s navy is now approximately the same size as Britain’s. Britain has been slowly reducing its military presence in Iraq, and other than typical criminal investigations did virtually nothing in response to the London Subway bombings in 2005. It is easy to see why Mottaki feels very confident that no nation dares to attack Iran. Even though Iran is known to be the world’s largest supplier of terrorist financing and equipment, to date no nation has taken direct action against it except the U.S. and then only under Republican presidents.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, interviewed on the Sean Hannity radio show yesterday, expressed some hope that the hostage incident can still be resolved diplomatically, but that is the politically correct answer one would expect from the nation’s head diplomat. Hannity reminded Secretary Rice of President Reagan’s response in 1987 when the Iranian Navy attempted to mine the Persian Gulf, in which commercial oil and military vessels of various nations were operating. President Reagan considered the Iranian mining strategy a danger to American and international interests and without begging for UN permission or sanctions or written resolutions, President Reagan ordered military strikes against the Iranian ships laying the mines. After several of Iran’s naval vessels were sunk, Iran stopped its mining operations. When Iran resumed mining the Gulf in 1988, Reagan again ordered military action that resulted in significant losses to the Iranian Navy. The mining stopped and was not resumed again. Some regimes only respond to, and respect, force. Iran is governed by such a regime.

The U.S. and Britain now face a moment of decision in which the global relevancy of both nations may hinge on their response to this Iranian provocation. If Britain takes no action beyond becoming “livid” or pleading with the UN Security Council to merely “condemn” the action, Britain will certainly be targeted by terrorists for increasingly brazen attacks. If the U.S. fails to take decisive action on behalf of its dearest ally and continues being distracted by partisan sniping, it may suffer a similar fate.

President Bush warned the UN about becoming irrelevant, and Bin Laden referred to America as a “paper tiger.” Perhaps both were right. The only thing that today’s Democrats become angry enough to go to war over is paper: resolutions, appropriations bills, and hanging chads. The War on Bush has spanned more than 6 years, and the only two casualties have been the world image of the President of the United States, and the unity of the American people in the face of grave danger from terrorists. It is difficult to determine who is more gleeful over President Bush’s low approval ratings, liberals or emboldened terrorists.

Foreign Minister Mottaki’s confidence that no one dares attack Iran may be premature. According to an unnamed U.S. government source quoted in the New York Sun today:

“The Iranians are going to be shocked to find out how badly they have miscalculated," this official said. "Remember, Jimmy Carter is not the president of the United States these days."

444 days is a long time to let an act of war go unpunished. It is fitting that Carter was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, because from 1979 to 1981 he contributed a great deal to the “peaceful” seizure of the U.S. Embassy and Embassy staff in Tehran through his spineless non-response to that act of war. It is no coincidence that the man whose face is circled in the picture at right with a U.S. Embassy hostage is the same man who orchestrated the kidnapping of the British crew last week: Ahmadinejad. Britain and America should hope history is not repeated in the current hostage incident. In that context, one week has already been too long to let an act of war go unpunished.

DNC Led in Prayer for Global Conversion to Islam: Ignorance of Islamic Terminology Rampant in Washington

On Saturday, World Net Daily reported that at Friday’s Democratic National Committee (DNC) winter meeting, attendees bowed their heads and were led in prayer by a popular Michigan religious leader. The party usually associated with ACLU positions on prayer religion’s role in public life, appeared in its winter meeting to be eager to show its reverence for religious practice. On the surface this would appear to be a welcome change for the DNC, but when it comes to the DNC and its quest to cast itself as mainstream America, nothing is as it seems. As the DNC bowed and listened to a prayer seemingly for peace, brotherhood, and an end to global strife, what was actually prayed for by the religious leader went completely unrecognized and unchallenged by DNC members.

In a remarkable, but sadly not uncommon (Rep. Silvestre Reyes, Chairman House Intelligence Committee unaware of whether Al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite), display of Washington’s chronic cultural ignorance of Islamic culture and symbolism, DNC members prayed for their own conversion to Islam, liberation of the world from religions other than Islam, the end of American and Israeli “occupations” in the Middle East, and the destruction of Israel. More troubling is that none of them appear to have realized they had done so.

The meaning of the prayer, spoken in English by Husham Al-Husainy, Shiite imam of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center, a mosque in Dearborn, Michigan, was clearly understood by those with knowledge of Islamic symbolism, but not by any DNC members, many of whom already hold or aspire to occupy the most sensitive policy making positions within the US Government. Senators, Congressman, presidential aspirants, and key staffers, the power-wielders in the party now controlling Congress suffer from a deplorable ignorance of traditional, let alone radical Islam. Lest Republicans gloat about their rival colleagues’ shortcomings, a similar ignorance of Islam exists in that party as well, though displayed less transparently than Rep. Reyes and the DNC have illustrated.

Robert Spencer, Director of Jihad Watch, reviewed a transcript of the prayer and provided a concise explanation of terms as they relate to Islamic culture, history, and teachings from the Quran. The prayer was delivered as follows:

“In the name of God the most merciful, the most compassionate. We thank you, God, to bless us among your creations. We thank you, God, to make us as a great nation. We thank you God, to send us your messages through our father Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Muhammad. Through you, God, we unite. So guide us to the right path. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom. Help us God to liberate and fill this earth with justice and peace and love and equality. And help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation. Ameen.”

Spencer pointed out that in Islam, the term “straight path” refers to Islamic Sharia, the body of Islamic law that governs politics, economics, behaviors and all other aspects of life under Islamic rule. All other paths, or governmental forms, are errant and must be corrected. Likewise, the phrase “the path of the people you bless” refers to peoples living under Sharia law. All other religions or nations not under Sharia rule are doomed.

It is significant that the next sentence importunes God to “liberate and fill the earth with justice”. Liberate whom, and what form would justice take? “Liberation” in Islamic terminology denotes conversion of all nations to Islam, or liberation from errant religions, and “justice” equates to Sharia, the Islamic code of laws Muslims would implement after “liberating” nations oppressed by other religions, such as Judaism and Christianity.

Imam Al-Husainy concluded with the obligatory reference to Israel, calling for an end to the Israeli state and its presence on (occupation of) disputed Arab land, as well as and end to the US “occupation” of Iraq. To embrace a prayer with such references and wishes is ironically stunning for the DNC, which is supported with fierce (though clearly misguided) loyalty by American Jews. Donating to campaigns of candidates from a party that invites clerics to pray for global conversion to Islam is, one would reasonably conclude, not in the interest of members of any other religion or no religion at all. Under Sharia there is no special consideration or immunity granted to atheists, agnostics, or naturalists. ACLU secular crusaders would face beheading for attempting to separate Church and State under Sharia law.

That the DNC sought to demonstrate its conveniently new effort to appear religious by inviting an imam to pray is not objectionable. That the DNC did not recognize or have courage to criticize the content of the prayer should stir outrage among all Americans of either party and of all religions. Our elected officials and the parties funding them either lack basic knowledge of Islamic culture and the teachings of the Quran, or if they have such awareness lack the fortitude to point out and condemn thinly veiled calls for the overthrow of America and Israel, especially when those calls come from a popular imam.

Secretary of State Rice recently bowed to “political correctness”, referring to HAMAS as a “resistance movement” rather than a terrorist group (despite the State Department’s official designation of HAMAS as a terrorist organization). Even those tasked with recruiting allies in the War on Terror are afraid of offending terrorists by calling them terrorists. It should come as no surprise that the DNC imam had the audacity to pray for such things by invitation in front of a prominent political organization. That he did so and no one in Washington noticed or cared should be a clear warning sign to all who are not on the “straight path” that radical Islam is winning the political, media, and culture war here while our soldiers are fighting the physical war in the Middle East.


Technorati Search Tags: DNC Husham Al-Husainy World Net Daily Robert Spencer Jihad Watch Islamic Conversion HAMAS Dearborn US Department of State Condoleeza Rice Global War On Terror Silvestre Reyes Israeli Occupation

Toe to Toe with Ahmadinejad: The Gloves are Coming Off

Today Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice bluntly warned Iran not to interfere with the renewed American efforts to stabilize Iraq. Using significant terms such as "regional aggression" to describe Iran's activities in Iraq, Rice made the salient point that the Iranian government will be held accountable for terrorist activity in Iraq, and that the orders for IEDs, snipers, or "insurgent" attacks are coming from Tehran. She could not have stated more clearly the administration’s plans for the troop increase, yet she never spelled out the true purpose for the troop buildup: confronting Iran.

Approximately 6 hours prior to Rice's official statement this morning, multinational forces in Iraq reportedly raided the Iranian diplomatic mission in Arbil, capturing 6 Iranians and securing computers and documents believed to link Iran with ongoing sectarian violence in Iraq. The significance of such an action, coming the day following President Bush’s assurance that new tactics would be implemented to stabilize Iraq, should not be underestimated.

A military raid on a diplomatic mission is considered an aggressive act against the nation operating the mission, and is not conducted at the discretion of rank-and-file military officers. A foreign mission, like an embassy, is generally considered to be virtually sovereign soil of the nation quartered in the mission. An assault on a diplomatic mission, even if it clearly is being used to coordinate terrorist activity, is still the equivalent of a raid on the nation itself. Such a potentially provocative action was certainly was not taken without approval at the highest levels of the Bush Administration. The gloves are apparently coming off, and it appears the focus of American efforts to stabilize Iraq will be to confront Iran directly, engaging Iranian terrorists found stirring up the “insurgency” in Iraq and obtaining incontrovertible evidence of Iranian participation in attacks on American and multinational forces in Iraq.

Iraq will never be stable and secure until Iran’s interference there is eliminated. Iran’s interference there will continue until Ahmadinejad is confronted directly on his nation’s role as perhaps the world’s largest state sponsor of terror and he is forced to terminate Iran’s nuclear weapons development programs. Ahmadinejad has made his intentions all too clear: acquire nuclear weapons and use them to wipe Israel off the map and then destroy America. The world failed to take Hitler at his word for too long, and a Holocaust occurred (though Ahmadinejad believes it was a hoax). American and its allies should take Ahmadinejad at his word.

The troop buildup and more aggressive tactics such as the raid on the Iranian mission in Arbil, are steps in the right direction for securing and stabilizing Iraq. Once Iranian interference and terrorist funding/training are effectively cut off, the world will get a much more accurate view of the real situation in Iraq and who has been fomenting the so-called religious “civil war.” Secretary Rice and this administration surely know that Iranian operatives will be found frequently and in large numbers in Iraq, and those operatives, acting as agents of Tehran, will provide a legitimate justification to for America to engage Iran directly as the primary enemy in the War on Terror.

Technorati Tags: Iraq War War On Terror Iraq Ahmadinejad Bush Administration Condoleeza Rice Iranian Nuclear Program Arbil