Social Media are a Stuxnet for Middle East Freedom

Facebook. Twitter. Google Buzz. Stuxnet? Though the latter is not a social media platform, the events in the Middle East make it clear that social media and sophisticated espionage software have something in common: both have penetrated, and will continue to penetrate, sophisticated ideological and technological defenses established by entrenched dictators or extremist theocracies. Social media are penetrating ideological and political defenses that maintain various regimes' power over their citizens; Stuxnet penetrated military and intelligence networks that maintain secrecy surrounding the true nature and progress of Iran's uranium enrichment facilities. All of these penetrations by modern technology into the ideological and cyber domains of non-democratic governments throughout the Middle East work together to expand and protect freedom in a potentially safer environment for all.

The Stuxnet super worm, or "cyber missile", was a remarkably effective tool designed to accomplish a single mission: jump from computer to computer, penetrating every layer of Iran's complex cyber security systems protecting the computer networks operating the Mullahs' uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Bushehr, and destroy those control systems. Stuxnet embedded commands into the software controlling centrifuges and other key machinery, causing breakdowns, incorrect spinning speeds, and other glitches that damaged more than 1100 centrifuges which had been working 24/7 to produce weapons-grade enriched uranium.  For months, the Iranians had no idea they had been hit by arguably the world's first weaponized computer worm.  It worked silently until its damage was done.  The Iranians made repairs, ordered replacement equipment, scratched their heads, and watched as their uranium production ground to a halt.

Many regimes and governments in the Middle East are likewise scratching their heads over the sudden boiling point their citizens have reached, taking to the streets and demanding reforms, resignations, and even democratic elections.  Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, Iran.  From whence, they wondered, did this viral push for reform spring?  The answer, like Stuxnet in Iran, is found in technology, but not a master work of espionage, but simple social networking platforms that carry discussions and dreams of better lives and more freedom.  Facebook, Twitter, Buzz, and other social media penetrate net filters, arriving on personal devices protesters rely upon to coordinate rallies, launch marches, and direct media attention to brutality. Words of encouragement from around the world, including the U.S., reach into the hearts and homes of protesters for reform via Facebook and Twitter despite the efforts of various oppressive regimes to block citizens from seeing that their protests are known and supported in many lands. The tinderboxes we see today throughout the Middle East may never have spread so broadly, with such speed, and with such effectiveness were it not for the wide availability of social networking and technologically savvy users who, like their more advanced Stuxnet peers, found ways through and around government firewalls and filters to bring reform ideology to the masses, and in some cases, to bring dictators to their knees.

Like Stuxnet, social networking quietly goes about its business, ultimately finding the vulnerabilities of a regime's power and secrets, exploits them, and exposes them to the world. Also, like Stuxnet, social media penetration is not a burden of one nation's people alone, but rather an alliance of like-minded people from any nation intersted in assisting with the ruin of regimes. It is not by coincidence that regimes, when facing protests and international scrutiny, move first to sever communications and Internet access. Yet as Stuxnet and Facebook/Twitter demonstrated, the tech geniuses in the general population always find a way through even the most determined regime's barriers. Freedom, like nature, will always find a way.  Keeping communications open despite clampdowns is a heroic act which has its heart a base desire for human freedom.

Stuxnet crippled Iran's nuclear program for many months, buying nations valuable time to assess the true progress of the Iranian nuclear program and prepare options for an inevitable showdown with the Mullahs. It also reminded Iran that when nations unite their brightest minds for a common cause, anything is possible, even the world's most sophisticated cyber weapon designed for peacefully fighting nuclear proliferation. Social media remind us that likewise, the world's great freedom-loving minds and voices can unite to topple dictators or force reforms that expand human rights and opportunities for self-determination. Technology penetrates barriers to freedom, and carries news of successes to other oppressed peoples who merely need to see what is possible.

Hillary Tougher Talk on Iran than Commander in Chief

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.

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:

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

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:

"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

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:

…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 know of 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

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 kill 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

NIE Shows CIA, State in Denial on Iran

Portions of the much anticipated new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) will be released to the public today, and finally average citizens will get a clear view of the end product funded by their taxes. After more than two years of meetings, conferences, briefings, draft sessions, and revisions, the American intelligence agencies’ NIE concludes only that there is no consensus between them on very fundamental issues. The “major points” made by the report are truly shocking revelations that no one outside of an intelligence agency could possibly have concluded without all of that specialized training and experience (sarcasm off):

-Al Qaeda is still trying to get its hands on a variety of WMDs and, gasp, would use them if it possessed them.

-Al Qaeda has regrouped and restored most of the ingredients necessary to launch a major terrorist attack against the U.S. homeland.

-Al Qaeda, another gasp, is working hard to place operatives in the U.S.

-The U.S. faces “a persistent and evolving terrorist threat” for at least the next three years. The predicted main sources for that threat are, third gasp, Islamic terrorist groups, particularly Al Qaeda. The threat to the U.S. comes from “the undiminished intent to attack the homeland and a continued effort by terrorist groups to adapt and improve their capabilities.”

Of course, NIE summaries released to the public are sanitized of any classified information or source references, but the level of sanitization for this NIE is insulting to Americans who do not have access to the full report. Capital Cloak readers are intelligent and interested in matters of national security and intelligence. You did not need the NIE, representing millions of dollars and thousands of hours of research, to tell you what you already knew: Islamic terrorists want to kill Americans in America with any weapon they can acquire. In my profession, we knew these things long before 9/11, and anyone who did not learn these lessons after 9/11 continues to live in a fantasy world of “if we leave them alone they will leave us alone.” What then was the purpose of the NIE and all of the media hoopla surrounding it?

Like most NIE’s, the one released today contains the official conclusions of the sixteen agencies that comprise the intelligence community. If nothing else, NIE’s offer a glimpse at the functionality and ideology of each agency, and often the gulf between certain agencies are nowhere more clearly demonstrated than in these documents. Sometimes inter-agency disagreements are little more than technical trivia, but disputes also can create institutional paralysis. When several major agencies offer divergent opinions of the same issue, it leaves the executive and legislative branches that rely on those opinions for policy decision-making in a difficult position. Unfortunately, as the NY Sun reported today, the new NIE includes a critical point of disagreement between agencies on what is likely the most important issue currently facing America: Iran.

Despite clear and increasing evidence that al Qaeda’s resurgence is occurring not only in Pakistan’s mountains but also in Iran, analysts within the State Department and CIA argue in the new NIE that Iran’s Quds Force, terrorist special forces units designed to support terror operations and report directly to Iran’s supreme leader, are acting independently of Iran’s official government in their funding, equipping, and transporting al Qaeda terrorists who have attacked and continue to attack American troops in Iraq. According to these two agencies, the simple fact that Iran is a Shia nation while al Qaeda is run by radical Sunnis makes collaboration between the two groups against a common enemy unlikely if not impossible. They appear convinced that Iran’s government is not giving orders to the Quds Force to assist al Qaeda terrorists with their fight against the U.S. in Iraq.

That conclusion is incredibly short-sighted and narrow-minded. It is true that al Qaeda’s Sunnis view Iran’s Shia population as “infidels” under a technical Koranic interpretation, but the differences between the two are far easier to overcome than the religious and cultural divide between Islam and non-Islamic nations and cultures. Thus it is far more logical to conclude that Shia-Sunni collaboration against the West is not only possible but extremely likely, and if the combined effort succeeds in defeating Western cultures, these two differing branches of Islam could then turn their attentions or contentions to each other. But don’t try to convince anyone at State or the CIA, they are convinced that the two are not capable of working together. Extending that flawed logic to its equally flawed conclusion, these two departments apparently believe that Sunni terrorists would refuse to join with Shia terrorists in a war against Israel. It is much more logical to conclude that branches of the same religion would gladly join hands and martyr themselves in a war against the U.S. or Israel, as doing so is necessary to bringing about their ultimate goal: a global Islamic state under Sharia law.

National Review’s Michael Ledeen nicely countered the flawed thinking behind the estimate that the Quds Force acts independently:

Instead, every new revelation about Iran’s role in the terror war is greeted with the pathetic mantra “but this does not prove that the regime itself is involved.” As if General Suleimani of the Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force would dare launch operation after operation against us in Iraq without the explicit approval of his commander-in-chief, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Do our analysts not know that the Revolutionary Guards were created for the explicit purpose of responding to the whims of the Supreme Leader? Whenever the Guards move, they do so precisely because “the regime” has willed it.

While Americans should be insulted by the common sense vanilla plainness of the public portions of the new NIE, we should also be concerned that two of the most influential agencies in any administration, the CIA and State Department, refuse to recognize that the Defense Department, which has infinitely more sources of information in the region at this time, is warning that Iran, despite a doctrinal religious difference with al Qaeda Sunnis, is actively supporting the terrorists in Iraq and killing our troops. Iranian weaponry and explosives are found in ever-increasing numbers within Iraq. Those weapons and IEDs did not leave Iranian supply facilities on their own or without the approval of Iran’s government.

The liberal media jumped out in front of this issue long ago, accusing the Bush administration and specifically Vice President Cheney, of pushing for action against Iran, branding such recommendations as “war mongering.” Yet it should be noted that counterterrorism expert and bitter Bush critic Richard Clarke’s deputy Roger Cressey told the NY Sun that when President Bush took the fight to the Taliban after 9/11, al Qaeda relocated its operational centers to two areas: Pakistan and Iran. Cressey described known meetings and meet locations of al Qaeda leaders in Iran and made it quite clear that the Shia Iranian government had no qualms about allowing and even embracing al Qaeda within its borders because they share common enemies, the U.S. and Israel. Those who casually toss out accusations like “war mongering” should remember that it was the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report, highly revered in liberal circles, that first reported publicly Iranian ties and assistance to eight of the 9/11 hijackers, with Iran’s government offering them passage into and out of Afghanistan.

What liberal critics and apparently the CIA and State Department fail to grasp is the concept of war. They mistakenly sit idly by, tinkering with foreign policy “solutions,” waiting for Iran to formally declare war on the U.S., and only then will they choose to recognize war-like behaviors for what they are and recommend decisive action to defend America. Unfortunately, the days of nations notifying each other through declarations of war are long gone, and whether or not State and CIA officials recognize it, Iran is conducting a war against the U.S., allowing well funded proxies to fight it for them. Another term for such proxies is mercenaries, and even liberals cannot deny that England’s employment of Hessian mercenaries against America in the Revolutionary War did not make Hessians responsible for the war itself. While Iran’s proxies kill our troops with no repercussions resulting for the mullahs, Iran continues to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons production with no intention of stopping or being induced to stop by sanctions or other diplomatic methods.

In war, there is logic behind meeting the enemy on a “neutral” battlefield. In this case, Iran is taking the fight to us in Iraq, attempting (very half-heartedly) to conceal its involvement, while making sure that Iraqi, not Iranian, citizens are killed in the battles and crossfire. At some point, however, defeating an enemy requires destroying his resources, production capabilities, and governmental centers. This is why it is so critical that the U.S. remain and stabilize Iraq; victory there will set the stage for the coming conflict with the world’s largest state sponsor of terror and soon to be its number one WMD threat.

The boots on the ground in Iraq insist that Iran is already at war with us. Hopefully the CIA and State Department will come to recognize this fact instead of holding tenaciously to the ridiculous notion that differing Islamic radicals groups cannot work together to hasten our demise.

Technorati Tags:
NIE, National Intelligence Estimate, Iran, Quds Force, Al Qaeda, Islamic Terrorists, CIA, State Department, 9/11 Commission

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

Deadline for War with Iran: Dec 31

I have warned repeatedly here on Capital Cloak that the roller coaster-like predictions found in American intelligence estimates on how soon Iran could produce sufficient weapons grade uranium to build nuclear bombs were dangerously underestimating Iran. As reported previously, the IAEA warned that Iran had overcome the technical glitches that experts were certain would delay Iran’s centrifuges from reaching peak production levels for several years. For readers trying to make sense of the various and often conflicting intelligence estimates, perhaps the best indicator of Iran’s progress is to observe Israel’s preparation and examine carefully the statements of Israeli officials. Using that barometer, Israel appears to be feeling intense pressure building toward military action against Iran.

In today’s New York Sun, reporter Eli Lake, whose work is consistently excellent, wrote an ominous article revealing that Israeli officials meeting with their diplomatic and defense counterparts in Washington are urging the U.S. to establish a deadline for the end of diplomacy with and sanctions against Iran if it fails to dismantle its nuclear program. Israel made it clear that it considers the end of 2007 to be the date of no return, after which actions beyond sanctions and diplomacy must be taken, which clearly is a not-so-subtle reference to military force. Israel’s patience with international efforts to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions has been a source of speculation, but the selection of a specific deadline demonstrates that Israel’s own intelligence estimates from Mossad are predicting that Iran is likely to produce sufficient weapons grade uranium for a bomb in 2008. While cherry blossoms bloom in Washington next Spring, Israel is convinced that nuclear bombs will be budding in the Natanz facility, and that bud must be nipped if December 31, 2007 passes without Iran caving to international pressures.

From Lake’s Sun article:

A senior Israeli delegation, here for strategic talks with top American government officials, is calling for an expiration date on the diplomatic approach to Iran of the end of the year.

Speaking to the Israeli press on Wednesday evening after meeting Secretary of State Rice, Israel's deputy prime minister, Shaul Mofaz, said, "Sanctions must be strong enough to bring about change in the Iranians by the end of 2007." According to a source familiar with discussions yesterday with the undersecretary of state, Nicholas Burns, Mr. Mofaz said, "Technical developments for the Iranian nuclear program will not follow a linear progression," a clear warning that America's official estimate that Iran will not attain an atomic bomb for at least five years could be dangerously optimistic.

....Channel 2 News in Israel reported that Mr. Mofaz said Israel would take military action if Iran did not cease its uranium enrichment by year's end. However, a source familiar with yesterday's discussions disputed the Channel 2 report. Mr. Mofaz only alluded to such action in the meeting, the source said, saying, "All options are on the table" if the diplomacy with Iran does not work.

….Publicly at least, Prime Minister Olmert has not said he would unilaterally bomb Iran. Last year he appointed one of Israel's most hawkish politicians, Avigdor Lieberman, as a deputy prime minister and announced that Mr. Lieberman would oversee Iran policy. Other Israeli politicians such as a former premier, Benjamin Netanyahu, have openly called for Israel to take out the known Iranian nuclear facilities. Within the American intelligence community, there is some debate about Israel's capabilities in this regard.

Some argue that the Israelis still lack the midair refueling capacity they would need to conduct a bombing mission over Iran as a unilateral move.

Other analysts, however, point out that Israel's fleet of American made F-15s has such refueling capacity, not to mention the capability of Israeli nuclear submarines. On background, Israeli former military officials have told The New York Sun that the option of a unilateral strike is there for Israel should Israel choose to take it.

America’s intelligence agencies are gambling that Iran will need up to four years to produce a nuclear bomb. The IAEA does not share that view and predicts that Iran will succeed much sooner. Israeli Mossad’s estimates have generated sufficient concern within the Israeli government to set a deadline for the end of sanctions and diplomacy, a deadline that will arrive in 6 months. If Israel’s intelligence proves accurate, and it usually is far more reliable in that region than our own, war with Iran could begin as early as January 2008. America’s early presidential election primaries next year may center on electing a new president during wartime. The entire complexion of the campaign will change as the deadline for war approaches, arrives, and opens the door to conflict with Iran. The smart and well-advised candidates will take the lead on this issue, particularly the GOP candidates who wish to establish their national security policy credentials. It would not surprise me in the least if Hillary Clinton stakes out a hawkish position on Iran and declares her unwavering support for Israel’s security.

Israel has demonstrated throughout its history that it will do what is necessary for its national survival regardless of international opinion. Will America do likewise? A nuclear Iran would be a threat to all free nations, and Israel’s patience will reach its limit by the end of the year. The message from Israel’s delegation in Washington is clear: UN sanctions are not working, and do not appear likely to bring any change to Iran’s behavior; Iran is closer to weapons-grade uranium production than even the gloomiest estimates had previously predicted; and war, though not sought or desired, is now six months distant on the horizon unless Iran chooses responsibility rather than repercussions.

Technorati: Israel Iran Iranian Nuclear Program Uranium Enrichment Natanz UN Sanctions Diplomacy IAEA Deadline Nuclear Non-Proliferation Israeli Air Strike

Iran's Incongruent Congruence

There must be a medical term for what happens to a person’s ability to speak truthfully when he becomes an ambassador or a government spokesman. A case in point is the new U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. His is a difficult and largely thankless task, but he did little to help himself with his glass half-full assessment of yesterday’s initial round of diplomatic talks between Iran, Iraq, and the United States. There is nothing wrong with a glass half-full perspective when the facts offer even a ray of hope, but when the glass is completely empty, as was the case in these negotiations over Iraq’s security, it is deceptive and counterproductive to pretend that progress was made when it clearly was not.

The diplomatic talks between the U.S. and Iran, after nearly thirty years of official silence, focused on the security and stability of Iraq’s federal government and Iran’s role as helper or hindrance. Ambassador Crocker reportedly confronted Iran’s Ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi Qomi on Iran’s funding, support, and personnel involvement with terrorists and “militant groups” that continue to attack U.S., British, and Iraqi troops throughout Iraq. Ambassador Crocker also pointed out to his Iranian counterpart that many of the firearms, IED’s and other weapons used to attack allied forces are Iranian and arrived in Iraq directly from Iran.

Had this been a glass half-full diplomatic discussion, Iranian Ambassador Qomi would have stated something to the effect of “We don’t know how our weapons keep popping up mysteriously in Iraq, but we can assure you will do everything to find out who in our country is behind this and cut off their (insert whatever limb would be appropriate for weapons smuggling here) as a show of good faith” or similar. However, this was not a glass half-full discussion. Here is the (UK) Times online summary of the Iranian response:

The Iranians, whose leadership has long attacked the US as the Great Satan, rejected such accusations and raised their own fears, calling the US presence in Iraq an occupation. Tehran also criticized efforts to train the Iraqi Army and police as inadequate.

The Islamic Republic suggested creating a three-way system, comprising Iran, Iraq and the United States, to coordinate security.

Clearly, no headway was made in that exchange, since the U.S. insists that Iran is the cause of stability and terrorism in Iraq, while Iran denies any involvement and blames the U.S. for inviting attack by its mere presence in Iraq. There was no glass half-full common ground to agree on, but don’t tell that to Ambassador Crocker. After the rebuttal of each of his arguments, Crocker’s description of the “progress” made leaves one wondering to what discussions he was referring when he toasted the talks with this half-full glass:

There was pretty good congruence right down the line in support of a secure, stable, democratic, federal Iraq in control of its own security, at peace with its neighbours.

I am sure Ambassador Crocker is a well-educated man, but perhaps his schooling did not include the proper use of the word “congruence.” The term literally means agreeing, or being in harmony. The two sides did not agree on Iran’s role in Iraq, thus there was no congruence down that or any line. The only item on which the Americans and Iranians agree is that it would be beneficial for the region if Iraq were controlled by a stable centralized government. However, the “congruent” line diverges with who would control Iraq’s government. Iran is doing all it can overtly and covertly to undermine the Iraqi parliament that contains a mixture of Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish elements. What Iran wants is a stable non-democratic Shia Iraq that could be a natural ally or potentially an expansionist target. The mullahs fear democracy in general and would be terrified of a democratic Iraq on its border. Already fearing the spread of western influence and ideas of freedom seeping into its radical Islamic culture, the mullahs cannot afford to have a successful, free Iraq residing next door. “Keeping up with the Jones’s” would take on a whole new meaning if Iranians could point to a free neighbor and ask, “why can’t we have what they have?” The U.S. wants precisely that scenario to develop but Iran dreads it and fights it at every turn. The two sides could not be more incongruent.

The only item on which Iran and the U.S. agreed in these historic talks was to disagree. The Iraqis, who set up the talks, soft-pedaled the animosity between Iran and the U.S. Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman, offered this remarkable interpretation of the meeting results, “It shows that both countries are looking at getting the problems solved.” That may be true, but both sides are also looking to solve the problems at the disadvantage or destruction of the other. Until Iran ceases its role as trainer, financier, and arms dealer to “militants” and terrorists in Iraq, and abandons its suicidal sprint toward nuclear weapons, America’s glass of optimism for Iran will and must remain decidedly empty.