Russian Danger and Dollar Signs in Iran

This has been a week for news of surprise common sense actions of great importance by some who previously had demonstrated little such sense. First, congressional Democrats, after more than a year and a half of harsh criticism and accusations against President Bush, made a wise and potentially lifesaving decision by passing legislation authorizing intelligence agencies to utilize warrantless wiretaps to monitor terrorist communications with suspected counterparts in America. Since I addressed that legislation in detail in a previous post published by Reuters I will not do so here. The turnaround by the Democrats was pleasantly surprising, but of equal or greater importance for global security was the stunning action taken by Russia against Iran.

That story received only moderate media attention yesterday, apparently not important or morally shocking enough for sites like the Drudge Report to give it more exposure than tabloid images of Prince Harry looking less than royal seated provocatively in a chair dressed only in his underwear. Prince Harry’s status as a sex symbol may have generated high levels of Internet traffic, but developments in Iran’s status as a potential possessor of nuclear weapons somehow seemed slightly more newsworthy than pictures of the pretty-boy prince.

It was no secret that with the technological and material assistance of Russia, Iran has been constructing a nuclear reactor facility in Bushehr, Iran, ostensibly for peaceful civilian power generation purposes. The Bushehr reactor was slated for completion at the end of this year, which surely not coincidentally agrees with Israeli intelligence warnings that December 31 of this year will be the deadline after which diplomatic solutions must yield to more aggressive options to halt Iran’s nuclear program. Iran had confidently thumbed its nose at UN Security Council resolutions and sanctions, relying on Russia as its business partner to restrain other UN Security Council members pushing for more aggressive actions against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Until three weeks ago Iran appeared safe from any unanimous actions by the Security Council, with Russia’s veto vote securely in pocket due to the lucrative Bushehr construction contracts between the two countries. In its arrogance, however, Iran made a critical mistake: it failed to pay its bills to money-hungry Russia.

In retaliation for Iran’s falling behind in its Bushehr-related payments, Russia earlier this year brought construction of the reactor site to a screeching halt. Russia expressed no qualms at that time about the morality of allowing the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism to develop nuclear capabilities; the sticking point for Putin’s government was money, or more specifically the lack of it flowing from Iran to Russia’s government coffers. In a twist of irony that only Cold War veterans could appreciate, it was a moment of greedy, irresponsible, amoral Russian capitalism run amok. Russia was doing business and selling sensitive weapons and nuclear technology to any regime willing to pay, without any concern for political ideology or to what uses those weapons or technologies would be put. Yet, as reported publicly for the first time yesterday, three weeks ago Russia changed course in its dealings with Iran over Bushehr.

According to a confidential diplomatic source quoted by AFP, three weeks ago Russia delivered a message to Iran’s mullahs that carried more than the expected demand for timely payment of Bushehr construction debts. The message reportedly warned the mullahs that the nuclear fuel needed to complete and activate the Bushehr reactor would not be delivered until Iran satisfied international concerns, presumably through full inspections and monitoring, over ongoing uranium enrichment at the Natanz facility that appears to be of a military rather than civilian power generation nature. Of course, the Russian message also contained complaints over unpaid debts and other monetary concerns, but as AFP further reported, a second diplomatic source emphasized that “The Russians don't want to be seen as the ones helping the Iranians get a nuclear weapon.”

Despite other actions by Putin’s government to assert Russia’s power on the world stage, such as its latest territorial claim to the North Pole and the region’s natural resources, Russia demonstrated a degree of responsibility and cooperation on an issue far more critical than who should own rights to an undersea continental shelf supporting Santa’s workshop. Russia is the only nation capable of applying sufficient non-military leverage against Iran regarding its nuclear facilities and motives. Only Russia had the economic power to slow or halt construction of the Bushehr reactor or withhold the nuclear fuel necessary for power generation or uranium enrichment.

The importance of Russia’s decision to force Iran to yield to international concerns over military production of nuclear material cannot be overemphasized. Russia’s leverage with Iran reportedly has pushed back the potential completion of the Bushehr reactor until late 2008. Hopefully this setback will convince the Iranian regime to take Russia’s demand seriously, but the world should not count on Iran to act sensibly on an issue central to that regime’s pride and power projection.

Much can still change in this volatile situation. If Iran provided full payment to Russia in short order, there is always a risk that Russia might back down from its demand that Iran openly comply with the UN sanctions it has thus far ignored. The sources for the AFP report also have no indication that Russia will shift from its previous stance which supported Iran’s right to develop “peaceful” civilian nuclear power for electricity generation purposes only. The other members of the UN Security Council and obviously Israel oppose the very idea of Iran’s development of nuclear power for any purposes due to the undeniable links between Iran and Islamic terrorist groups as well as apocalyptic pronouncements against the United States and Israel by Iran’s current leaders.

Russia’s position on Iranian civilian nuclear power has thus far been irreconcilable with the other Security Council members, but its message to the mullahs at least temporarily demonstrated what may be a good faith effort by Russia to win goodwill in the West and keep nuclear weapons out of a radical regime’s hands.

Praising congressional democrats and Putin’s government in the same week for making wise decisions regarding domestic counterterrorism surveillance and blocking Iran’s potential production of nuclear weapons could almost lead me to consider, as two Brookings Institution fellows wrote of Iraq last week, that this is “a war we just might win.”

Technorati Tags:
Bushehr Reactor, Iranian Nuclear Program, Vladimir Putin, Russia, UN Security Council, Nuclear Proliferation, Drudge Report, Nuclear Power, Mullahs

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

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

IAEA, Dems Prefer Iran Nukes to "Warmongers"

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a highly specialized international nuclear watchdog has apparently branched out into other fields and now feels qualified to offer unsolicited military tactical advice and political policy recommendations to world governments, particularly the United States. With no access to classified intelligence obtained by the U.S. and its allies regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program development or the feasibility of dismantling it with military action, the IAEA nevertheless now presumes to tell world powers what they should and should not do in their own defense rather than sticking with the allegedly neutral task it was created to perform, namely nuclear facility inspections.

Late last week IAEA chief Mohamed El-Baradei warned world powers that an attack on Iran over its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons despite UN Security Council resolutions would be "an act of madness." According to the Jerusalem Post report, the indirect warnings appeared to be directed towards the United States and Israel.

El-Baradei, after offering what was clearly his personal political opinion of military action in Iran also reportedly stated that Iran would likely be operating nearly 3,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges by the end of July. The 3,000 centrifuge total is critical because IAEA officials have made clear in past statements that once Iran has that many centrifuges in operation, Iran will have reached a point of no return after which it could enrich uranium in quantities and enrichment levels sufficient for large-scale production of weapons-grade material.

The IAEA performed its primary function well in identifying a potential point of no return and estimating, based on inspections, when that point could be reached. Reporting the results of its inspections to the UN, however, should have been the limit of IAEA involvement in the discussions of Iran’s nuclear program. Instead, El-Baradei felt it necessary to editorialize on military and political strategies neither he nor the IAEA are privy to, or qualified to discuss. El-Baradei apparently feels that preventing Iran from completing its development of nuclear weapons would be “an act of madness,” but allowing Iran, the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism, to possess nuclear weapons would be acceptable to him.

It is beyond disconcerting that a man with such an obvious lack of common sense is responsible for inspecting the world’s nuclear facilities. Then again, many Democrats express views similar to El-Baradei’s and label conservatives who speak openly about confronting Iran before it reaches the IAEA point of no return as “warmongers.” Last week on Fox News’ Hannity and Colmes, White House Adviser John Bolton (former ambassador to the UN), was a guest, and after he made a sensible and firm statement about not permitting Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, Alan Colmes attacked Bolton for being a “warmonger” because of his position on Iran. It was clear after the “debate” (and I use that term loosely) that Bolton made a much stronger case for action than Colmes did for inaction, which was based largely on personal attacks and “you got it wrong on Iraq now you want to attack Iran,” but it would be useful for Colmes and other Democrats to examine their use of the term “warmonger” in the context of Iran.

Was Winston Churchill a warmonger because while Hitler was building massive armies and weaponry Churchill was urging his disbelieving colleagues in parliament to begin arming Britain to matching levels? Churchill foresaw the danger of allowing Germany to rearm in violation of Treaty of Versailles terms, but PM Neville Chamberlain and many others in parliament dismissed Churchill’s agitations in much the same manner that Colmes berated Bolton as a warmonger. This is how Churchill was relegated to the humiliating status of "backbencher" in parliament.

Had anyone listened to the "warmonger" Churchill before Hitler began invading territories and neighboring nations in Europe, untold millions might have been spared the ravages of WWII. Iranian president Ahmadinejad shares many personality traits and racial views with Hitler, and it is not warmongering to believe the world should take him at his word when he states that no one can stop Iran from building nuclear bombs and that Israel must be annihilated in a glowing fireball. In today's world of rampant political correctness, where are the ACLU, the Democrats, and the gay and minority rights groups and their condemnations of "hate speech?" These groups seek severe penalties for "hate speech" and "hate crimes" directed toward specific races or lifestyles, but when the world's most radical anti-American and anti-Semitic regime vows to destroy a nation of Jews, the political correctness crowd stands in a puddle of its own cold sweat of cowardice and chastises conservatives who want to confront the threat before "hate speech" becomes a "hate crime" in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Is someone a warmonger whose stated goal is to prevent the ultimate weapon, a weapon with potential to kill millions with each detonation and befoul the entire world with radiation (the ultimate man-made global warming) from being produced, stored, and utilized by a radical terror-sponsoring regime? Is it warmongering to advocate tactical strikes on nuclear sites even with some civilian loss if doing so would spare millions of lives from nuclear annihilation in the name of jihad? If so, I choose the warmonger over the pacifist appeaser with no regrets.

Fortunately, our current president, regardless of what one thinks of his handling of Iraq or immigration, is no Colmes or El-Baradei. The only act of madness here would be to allow Iran to reach its point of no return and being high-level enrichment of uranium for nuclear weapons. Israel has already recognized this and as reported previously on Capital Cloak, considers December 31, 2007 as the date after which sanctions and political solutions will no longer be considered sufficient action.

In the meantime, El-Baradei and the IAEA should continue inspecting facilities and reporting on the construction and operation of centrifuges in Natanz and other sites in Iran, and not move beyond that function by offering unsolicited opinions of the sanity of attacking Iran before it is too late. Each nation should consider the available intelligence, determine what it will and will not tolerate when it comes to a potentially nuclear Iran, and then take appropriate action to preserve its national interests and security. There is no nation on earth that would be immune from the fallout, literal and figurative, from a nuclear armed Iran. To allow it to happen through “peace mongering” would be a fatal act of madness.

Technorati:
El-Baradei IAEA Alan Colmes John Bolton Warmonger Peace Monger Ahmadinejad Iranian Nuclear Program Centrifuges Inspections

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

"Sneaky Bastard" Iran: Too Late to Stop Nukes, May Have Ties to JFK Bombers

I thought the quote of the day winner would be an easy choice today, but now there is real competition. I highlighted Newt Gingrich’s blunt assessment of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff’s “bow to reality” approach to illegal alien amnesty in an earlier post today. In case you missed that quote, here is a portion of it: “but we hire leaders to change reality to fit our values, not to change our values to fit their failures.”

As eloquent and well constructed as Newt’s quote was, it may have been upstaged by a far less eloquent but certainly impassioned remark, an assessment of Iran provided by former FBI counterterrorism head Kenneth Piernick to the New York Sun. To provide a brief summary of the context for Piernick’s statement, the FBI, in its investigation of the recently disrupted plot to destroy New York’s JFK Airport, the FBI is reportedly attempting to determine why one of the plotters was attempting to flee from Guyana to Iran through anti-American Venezuela before being captured. According to the suspect’s wife, he stopped in Guyana to obtain an Iranian visa, but the FBI is seeking further information about the suspect’s Iranian ties. The New York Sun reported that the suspect currently has two sons “studying” in Iran.

When asked for his opinion about whether the JFK attack plotters may have had ties to the Iranian mullahs and President Ahmadinejad, Piernick made it clear that he would not be surprised if such a connection were identified:

"The fact of the matter is that the Iranians are a bunch of sneaky bastards. They are going to take care of anyone who hurts us. I am not at all surprised that they might have been trying to provide him cover to get out of the region," he said in a telephone interview.

Given Iran’s continued march toward nuclear weapons and Ahmadinejad’s taunting of America, maybe the choice for best quote of the day is not so difficult after all.

While Iran may have been “sneaky” by quietly assisting the JFK attack planners, Ahmadinejad roared like a lion at America and other nations who have vowed to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapon capabilities. Ahmadinejad warned the world today that it “is too late” to stop Iran’s nuclear program, and that further international sanctions against the regime will only make the future more difficult for the west. As reported by Fox News via AP, he added that more sanctions would be as unwise for the west as “stepping on a lion’s tail”:

”We advise them not to play with the lion's tail," Ahmadinejad said, prompting applause from a room of reporters, Iranian officials and foreign dignitaries at a Tehran news conference.

"It is too late to stop the progress of Iran," Ahmadinejad said. "Iran has passed the point where they wanted Iran to stop."

It would appear that neither the subtle (UN sanctions) nor the sneaky (covert ops) approaches have worked for the U.S. in slowing down or destroying Iran’s suicidal nuclear quest. The Bush administration has demonstrated that it is good at “bowing to reality” on one important national security issue, immigration, and wants to throw up its arms in surrender through amnesty. The world must hope that this administration has more backbone on this national security issue by preventing through all available means the reality of a nuclear Iran. Bowing to that reality by granting Iran nuclear amnesty would result in the end of reality for Israel, America, and freedom.

Ahmadinejad Photo by AP

Technorati: Ahmadinejad Kenneth Piernick FBI Counterterrorism JFK Airport Terrorist Plot Bush Administration Mullahs Iranian Nuclear Program

Iran Plays America Like A Fiddle On Nukes

America is being played like a fiddle, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s performance is worthy of virtuoso acclaim. Pitting the American media against the Bush administration while simultaneously duping America’s intelligence analysts into believing Iran remains years away from a viable nuclear weapon, Ahmadinejad has convinced half the world that Iran is a ticking nuclear time bomb and the other half that Iran’s intentions are peaceful and the country is open to negotiations. Since both halves can only be proven right over time, neither seems inclined to take any decisive action, relying on impotent UN sanctions and resolutions to resolve an issue with incredible ramifications for global security.

Capital Cloak has reported extensively on the Iranian nuclear weapons program saga, focusing specifically on the wildly fluctuating assessments of anticipated time frames submitted by intelligence analysts. With each report, Capital Cloak warned that analysts were underestimating Iran’s progress, capabilities, and commitment, and thus far analysts have been proven wrong with each new revelation uncovered by international media. In the most recent post on this topic published at Capital Cloak, I observed that “counting on machinery to malfunction is not a strategy that will keep nuclear arms out of the mullahs’ hands.” At that time, experts and analysts insisted that Iran’s uranium enrichment capabilities were dependent on the durability and maintenance of its centrifuges, and these experts likewise insisted that it would take Iran four or five years to overcome the routine glitches that would surely occur. Once again the “experts” were wrong, as reported in today’s New York Times.

The opening sentence of today’s article, “Atomic Agency Concludes Iran is Stepping Up Nuclear Work,” directly nullified the expert predictions of nuclear physicists, as well as Israeli and American intelligence analysts who were so certain Iran would need several years to resolve glitches other nations experienced during uranium enrichment. The article began with the following revelation:

Inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency have concluded that Iran appears to have solved most of its technological problems and is now beginning to enrich uranium on a far larger scale than before, according to the agency’s top officials.

The findings may change the calculus of diplomacy in Europe and in Washington, which aimed to force a suspension of Iran’s enrichment activities in large part to prevent it from learning how to produce weapons-grade material.

In a short-notice inspection of Iran’s operations in the main nuclear facility at Natanz on Sunday, conducted in advance of a report to the United Nations Security Council due early next week, the inspectors found that Iranian engineers were already using roughly 1,300 centrifuges and were producing fuel suitable for nuclear reactors, according to diplomats and nuclear experts here.

Until recently, the Iranians were having difficulty keeping the delicate centrifuges spinning at the tremendous speeds necessary to make nuclear fuel and were often running them empty or not at all.

Now, those roadblocks appear to have been surmounted. “We believe they pretty much have the knowledge about how to enrich,” said Mohammed ElBaradei, the director general of the energy agency, who clashed with the Bush administration four years ago when he declared that there was no evidence that Iraq had resumed its nuclear program. “From now on, it is simply a question of perfecting that knowledge. People will not like to hear it, but that’s a fact.”

Once again the Iranians have made advances the nuclear physics community thought unlikely and at a faster pace than intelligence analysts considered possible.

While not so quietly speeding toward nuclear weapons development and his avowed goal of annihilating Israel, Ahmadinejad continues to manipulate international public opinion about how best to deal with Iran by sweet talking world leaders with pleasant sounding references to negotiations. This skillful media guru clearly understands that as long as he leaves the door open to occasional IAEA inspections and negotiations over peaceful use of nuclear power for electricity, few, if any, world leaders will rally sufficient political support to take decisive action. While he whispers what the Washington Post generously described as “reassurances” into the ears of world diplomats, claiming Iran welcomes and is prepared for negotiations with the U.S., he is stealthily unsheathing a nuclear sword that will one day behead the major democracies while their attention is focused on the glittering fool’s gold alluringly embedded in nuclear negotiations with a terror sponsor.

There remains hope that President Bush, an avid reader of historical biography and a self-proclaimed admirer of Winston Churchill, has taken to heart Churchill’s famous warning about negotiating with a dangerous evil: “an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” If there is a world leader who has the courage to act against Iran before it is too late, it is the current occupant of the White House. Unfortunately, President Bush may be the victim of ignorant advisers, some of whom apparently do not take Ahmadinejad or the mullahs seriously. The previously cited New York Times article provided this chilling account of think-tank theorizing run amok:

The inspectors have tested the output and concluded that Iran is producing reactor-grade uranium, enriched to a little less than 5 percent purity. But that still worries American officials and experts here at the I.A.E.A. If Iran stores the uranium and later runs it through its centrifuges for another four or five months, it can raise the enrichment level to 90 percent — the level needed for a nuclear weapon.

In the arcane terminology of nuclear proliferation, that is known as a “breakout capability,” the ability to throw inspectors out of the country and then produce weapons-grade fuel, as North Korea did in 2003.

Some Bush administration officials and some nuclear experts here at the I.A.E.A. and elsewhere suspect that the Iranians may not be driving for a weapon but rather for that “breakout capability,” because that alone can serve as a nuclear deterrent. It would be a way for Iran to make clear that it could produce a bomb on short notice, without actually possessing one.

These same administration officials, if their memories go back that far, likely thought that during the Cold War the Soviets were filling their missile silos with empty rocket housings as a deterrent, since those missiles would look real to our satellite imagery, as the Soviets could then bully the world without actually possessing the number of missiles they boastfully reported. The “breakout capability” theory requires twists of logic in the extreme. “Breakout capability” would be a deterrent only for Iran’s neighbors, none of whom except Israel have the military capability to strike and disarm Iran, and thus would not likely provoke an enemy possessing enough uranium to rapidly produce a bomb if needed. However, the United States, Russia, Britain, and China have the capacity to strike Iran without warning, thus denying Iran the necessary time to quickly produce a bomb on short notice. None of these powers would be deterred merely by Iran’s capability to produce something. That capability could be destroyed and thus removed from the deterrent equation. Should the world make the assumption that Ahmadinejad and the mullahs only want the capability to produce the ultimate terror weapon rather than actually holding tangible proof of their power?

Having a nuclear plant stocked with enriched uranium will not make Iran a feared nuclear force. Only the actual possession of a stockpile of deployable nuclear bombs will accomplish that. If the president is actually receiving advice from officials who think Iran’s nuclear intentions are peaceful and only for show, the White House should encourage them to explore employment opportunities in the private sector as soon as possible. They have been played like a fiddle by a master media manipulator who, if appeased, will buck Churchill’s idiom and eat us first.

Intel "Experts" vs. Magic 8 Balls

Get out your Ouija boards, Tarot cards, Magic 8-Balls, and tea leaves, because with these you could predict with as much accuracy as any “expert” how long it will take for Iran to produce a functional nuclear weapon. The dynamics of the debate over Iran’s capabilities change from week to week. The divergent opinions of nuclear “experts” and intelligence agencies signal a frightening admission that when it comes to estimating when Iran will master the uranium enrichment and warhead production processes, the only certain thing is uncertainty.

In January I warned that America’s intelligence analysts were underestimating Iran’s determination and aggressive overtures to accomplice nations such as Russia, and North Korea. At that time, the consensus among intelligence analysts was that Iran could not construct a nuclear weapon earlier than 2015. On April 3rd I alerted readers that Iran’s unprecedented speed in building 3,000 centrifuges forced intelligence experts to revise earlier estimates and point to 2009 rather than 2015 as the year by which Iran would weaponize uranium. On April 10th I wrote about the revised revisions of WMD specialists alarmed by reports and video footage from within the Natanz nuclear facility south of Tehran. At that time “experts” warned that Iran, if all factors fell into place and centrifuge construction continued at a torrid pace, might produce sufficient enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon by the end of this year. Following this pattern, it would seem logical to predict that the next revised estimate might warn of Iran weaponizing uranium before Alex Rodriguez hits his 20th home run of this young season (he has hit 14 in 18 games in April thus far).

So much for patterns or analysts’ credibility! An esteemed British theoretical physics professor and Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, now agree that Iran is actually three or four years away from producing deployable weapons grade uranium. After interviewing Professor Norman Dombey, the UK Telegraph reported:

But the smallest particle of dust - even a fingerprint - can disrupt enrichment. Iran will have to spin all the centrifuges inside a vacuum without any interruption for a period of about one year.

If any machine breaks down - or if dust enters the system or if the power supply is lost - the process must halt and start again.

Prof Dombey estimates that Iran will need about two years simply to master the process of running centrifuges. Then, making allowances for interruptions caused by breakdowns, it could take another two years to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one bomb.

The Telegraph article also asserted that even if Iran eventually masters the enrichment process, it will still be faced with the task of building a warhead and fitting it to a missile delivery system. I do not separate this task from the more complex enrichment problem. Iran’s role as provider of 20% of the world’s crude oil places it in a strong position to purchase warhead delivery missile technology from a number of willing nations already doing business in Iran. Iran need not “figure out” how to build the missiles. It can simply buy them and clear that hurdle while the centrifuges are spinning straw into gold, as it were.

Intelligence analysts have now changed their estimates to read quite differently than just two years ago. Then, the consensus was that Iran would not be capable of producing sufficient uranium for 10 years. Now, analysts no longer speculate about capability to produce. That has become, apparently, an accepted fact. Estimates now focus only on whether Iran will encounter technological glitches that will hamper production. The UN and the U.S. missed the opportunity to address Iran’s nuclear ambitions decisively before they moved from construction to production. Now our intelligence “experts” are counting on Iran’s centrifuges to break down or work less efficiently than planned to buy time for negotiations and sanctions. What these “experts” will not predict is how soon Iran will have sufficient enriched uranium if all the centrifuges operate perfectly, because they apparently refuse to believe in that possibility. According to Gary Samore, Vice President of the Council on Foreign Relations, "The belief in Western intelligence circles is that a large portion of these machines are likely to break if Iran attempts to operate them at high speeds necessary for enrichment."

Counting on machinery to malfunction is not a strategy that will keep nuclear arms out of the mullahs’ hands. Analysts are uncertain how well the centrifuges were constructed. They are uncertain whether the machinery will withstand the rigors of high enrichment. They are uncertain how many centrifuges have been or are currently being constructed in facilities other than Natanz. They are uncertain what technological and material assistance has been provided by nations with valuable investments in Iran, such as China and Russia. They are uncertain how many years (or is it months?) it will take for Iran to enrich weaponized uranium.

The only factor of which analysts are certain is that the mullahs will do and say anything to buy time for their ultimate goal: Annihilating Israel and wielding nuclear weapons over cowering Middle East and Europe populations. Perhaps our policies toward Iran should operate on that premise rather than on psychics, palm readers, or nuclear intelligence “experts”, all of whom seem to be equally reliable sources when making important strategic decisions.

Will Iran Have Bomb in Months?

My, how things change in a week! One week ago, I wrote about reports that U.S. intelligence analysts had revised their estimates for the earliest date by which Iran could develop a nuclear bomb from the year 2015 to 2009. Now, a scant 7 days later, World Net Daily is reporting that after yesterday’s “nuclear day” announcement by Iranian President Ahmadinejad, intelligence analysts have again revised their estimates of Iran’s capabilities and warn that Iran could potentially produce sufficient weapons-grade Uranium in a matter of months. This would change the estimated target date from sometime in 2009 to late 2007-mid 2008. Maybe moving up the dates of all those big state primaries was a good idea after all, as the candidates may be forced to directly state what they would do about Iran even as Iran’s WMD program reaches critical mass.

According to WND, analysts were taken by surprise by yesterday’s announcement that Iran had successfully constructed and placed in operation 3,000 centrifuges, ten times the number of centrifuges previously known, at the underground Natanz facility. The Chief of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization stated after yesterday’s announcement that within the next 20 days, Iran will announce the number of centrifuges injected with uranium at Natanz.

Because Iran has prevented IAEA inspectors access to the Natanz facility and other less publicized sites, it is currently unknown how many centrifuges are operational throughout Iran or what improvements have been made on the original centrifuge technology Iran acquired from Pakistani scientist Abdul Kahn.

In one week, intelligence analysts shaved 7-8 years off of their estimates of Iran’s nuclear weapons program capabilities. The only surprise involved in Iran’s announcement yesterday is that analysts were taken by surprise. On January 24, I wrote the following paragraphs in a post here at Spy The News!, which in light of yesterday’s announcement and analysts’ reactions, seems prescient:

One wonders, given this incredible underestimation of China, a nation we know much more about and can monitor more closely than Iran, how accurate are analysts’ assessments that Iran will not have nuclear weapon capabilities until 2015? That estimate was made after a “major US intelligence review” in 2005, and analysts concluded that Iran was 10 years away from possessing the capability to produce a nuclear bomb.

These analysts were wrong about North Korea, wrong about China’s space weaponry, and it is prudent for current and future administrations to assume that the 10 year prediction for Iran is another dangerous underestimation. Ahmadinejad refuses to allow IAEA inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities, and he openly challenges America, the only obstacle to the goal of Iranian nuclear weaponry, to try to stop him. With the technological assistance of North Korea and the UN Security Council vetoes of China and Russia confidently in pocket, Iran will surely produce a deployable nuclear weapon much sooner than analysts predict.

Revising a WMD estimate from years to months is a significant act in the intelligence community. At least we know one thing for certain: Ahmadinejad does not yet have a nuclear bomb. We know this because no mushroom clouds have appeared over Israel yet. Hopefully our intelligence on Iran will improve so that that will not be our first official notification of Iran’s capabilities. While it is true that leaders such as Ahamdinejad often employ bluster as a propaganda tool, it has become clear that there is significant technology and determination operating behind the bombast. Iran is perilously close to bringing online sufficient enrichment capabilities to produce weapons grade uranium and is daring the UN and particularly the U.S. to intervene.

Pelosi Alternative Foreign Policy Powers, Monster Bunnies, Cloaking Devices, and Other Fictions

The world we live in today has never been more bizarre or more dangerous. Each new day brings evidence of this as reported through global media sources. How adept are you at identifying fact from fiction among news headlines?

The following are headlines that may or may not have appeared in the news today. All are actual headlines, except for one. Try to identify which of the headlines is fictional without clicking any links:

#1 Woman Dropped on Head Alleges 'Negligent Dancing'

#2 Theoretical Cloaking Device is Created

#3 French Train Smashes World Speed Record

#4 Bin Laden Hunters Abandon Psychics

#5 Exclusive: Iran Nuclear Bomb Could Be Possible by 2009

#6 No More Monster Bunnies for North Korea

#7 Grieving Couple Commits Suicide After Dog Dies

#8 Democrats Playing with Fire

#9 No Chatter, Chatter! New Rule Silences Baseball Tradition

#10 41-Year-Old Virgin Spends $40,000 To Find A Mate

Now that you have read the headlines and made your guess as to which one is fake, it is time to reveal the answer. Monty Python’s Holy Grail fans would never question the reality of monster bunnies, thus they will believe #6 must be true. Franco-phobes will never believe France capable of anything more technologically advanced than brie, and will select #3 as the fake. Trekkies have always insisted that cloaking devices would one day be fact rather than science fiction, thus they likely disobeyed the instructions above, clicked on the link, and are scouring the Internet for all references to cloaking devices. Hopefully they will return here to finish this post! Intelligence analysts, who have insisted since 2005 that Iran could not develop a nuclear bomb earlier than 2015, undoubtedly will look at this list of headlines and choose #5 as the obvious fake. How is one to choose from among such preposterous headlines?

The answer is that all of the headlines above appeared in today’s news. Some of them are quite interesting and amusing, but two stand out as very significant, and they are interrelated: #5 and #8.

In January I wrote that American intelligence analysts consistently underestimate the capability for rapid technological advancement by other nations, specifically China, North Korea, and Iran. When that post was written, China had just successfully tested an anti-satellite missile several years sooner than our intelligence analysts had previously estimated. Citing that example, I warned that the 10 year estimate for Iran to develop nuclear weapons should be reevaluated and that Iran’s determination not be discounted. ABC’s “The Blotter” reported today that some intelligence sources are now concerned and even “caught off guard” by information indicating that Iran may be capable of generating enough uranium to produce a nuclear weapon by 2009, not 2015.

Change is inevitable in intelligence, and with a regime as closed off from western influence as the Mullahs it is no simple matter to estimate its capabilities. Yet in three months, some analysts have shaved 6 years off of their earlier predictions, which is a significant change. According to “The Blotter”:

Iran has more than tripled its ability to produce enriched uranium in the last three months, adding some 1,000 centrifuges which are used to separate radioactive particles from the raw material.

The development means Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb by 2009, sources familiar with the dramatic upgrade tell ABC News. . . .

The addition of 1,000 new centrifuges, which are not yet operational, means Iran is expanding its enrichment program at a pace much faster than U.S. intelligence experts had predicted.

"If they continue at this pace, and they get the centrifuges to work and actually enrich uranium on a distinct basis," said David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security, "then you're looking at them having, potentially having enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 2009."

Previous predictions by U.S. intelligence had cited 2015 as the earliest date Iran could develop a weapon.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicly predicted his country would have 3,000 centrifuges installed by this May, but few in the West gave his claim much credence, until now.

"I think we have all been caught off guard. Ahmadinejad said they would have these 3,000 installed by the end of May, and it appears they may actually do it," Albright said.

Now, as Iran continues to hold 15 British sailors hostage, continues to fund, train, and supply terrorists infiltrating Iraq, and is sprinting toward enriching enough uranium for nuclear weapons, unity among our elected officials and a shared resolve to meet and defeat this enemy are needed more than ever. Which brings us to the other truly serious headline from our list, “Democrats Playing With Fire.” In that article, the always enlightening Thomas Sowell examined the potential damage that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her entourage are inflicting on American foreign policy by traveling throughout the Middle East this week independently meeting with leaders such as Syrian President Assad despite vocal objections from the White House.

As Sowell pointed out, Speaker Pelosi is not the Secretary of State or the President, the two positions through which America’s official foreign policies are declared to the world in a one voice policy (for another example of a government one voice policy, click here). The President is America’s mouthpiece to the world. He represents America when he meets with foreign leaders, or he designates someone to represent America in his stead, traditionally the Vice President or Secretary of State.

Speakers of the House or Senate Majority Leaders represent their constituents and are Congress’ mouthpieces to America. They are not officially authorized to represent America to foreign leaders. Yet Speaker Pelosi is attempting to usurp presidential constitutional authority and makes no secret of that motive behind her Middle East tour. As Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), who is accompanying the Speaker stated, as reported in the Speaker’s hometown newspaper:

We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States.

That same newspaper astutely reported precisely what Speaker Pelosi hopes to accomplish with her self-appointed diplomatic mission:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's arrival in Syria tonight is widely viewed in Washington as a bold end run around President Bush, raising her profile as a kind of Democratic prime minister to Bush's Republican presidency.

Sowell responded to this usurpation very concisely:

Democrats can have any foreign policy they want -- if and when they are elected to the White House.

Until Nancy Pelosi came along, it was understood by all that we had only one president at a time and -- like him or not -- he alone had the Constitutional authority to speak for this country to foreign nations, especially in wartime.

All that Pelosi's trip can accomplish is to advertise American disunity to a terrorist-sponsoring nation in the Middle East while we are in a war there. That in turn can only embolden the Syrians to exploit the lack of unified resolve in Washington by stepping up their efforts to destabilize Iraq and the Middle East in general.

It is clear that while intelligence analysts have underestimated Iran, Democrats have overestimated the mandate they believe they were given through their slim electoral victory in Congress last November. Instead of acting as a “shadow government” and performing foreign policy and military strategy end-runs around our elected President, Congressional Democrats should remember that Syria is on the State Department list of terrorism sponsors and the official American foreign policy toward Assad has been and should continue to be isolation rather than legitimization.

If Speaker Pelosi wants so desperately to formulate and represent American foreign policy, then she should throw her hat into the ring for 2008 and earn the job through election rather than trampling the constitution. In America, the executive branch conducts foreign policy. There is no legal basis for “an alternative Democratic foreign policy.” America has one voice when it speaks to foreign nations, and that voice, until the next inauguration day, belongs to George W. Bush.

Which is more ridiculous, monster bunnies, cloaking devices, or Pelosi foreign policy? At least the other headlines provided humor rather than anxiety. Perhaps analysts’ estimates underestimate how long it will take to develop the cloaking device, and in the near future the Speaker could wear one to all meetings between the President and foreign heads of state, keeping her unseen and unheard. Having demonstrated a fondness for shadow governments, she should embrace the cloak wholeheartedly.

Comparing Lists of Top Threats to the U.S.

In today's Fox News People's Weekly Brief, 15 year CIA veteran Mike Baker provided a list of the top threats facing the U.S. as submitted by PWB readers. Although the list contains some "threats" that I certainly do not rate as imminent (such as Global Warming or the Democratic Party), it is instructive to compare this list with the Spy The News! list of the top 5 threats facing the U.S. in 2007.

Mike's PWB readers and Spy The News! readers certainly share a healthy mistrust of Russia, and especially Mr. Putin, who continues his sabre rattling with new threats against Czechoslavakia and Poland if those nations agree to house components of the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense system designed to detect and intercept missiles launched from rogue Middle Eastern nations like Iran. PWB readers ranked Russia #7, while Spy the News! had Russia at #2. It is becoming more obvious with each public exchange of Cold War barbs that whatever friendship President Bush developed with Mr. Putin over the years has been replaced with Putin's increasing nostalgia for the time when Russia was taken seriously because of its threats to "bury" any nation foolish enough to oppose it.

The PWB and Spy The News! lists also include, of course, Iran. PWB readers chose Iran as the #1 threat, but I maintain that because there are still options and opportunities for preventing Iran from fully developing a deployable nuclear weapon, the threat from Iran remains, at least for now, a terrorist threat only. Dollar for dollar, Russia is providing more weapons systems, equipment, and replacement parts to terrorist organizations and terror sponsors than any other nation in the world. While it is true that Iran is shipping those weapons into Iraq and other terrorist operational venues, the weapons are being produced in and sold by Russia or other former Soviet states looking to profit from their proxy war with America and its allies.

China, also standing to benefit greatly in world esteem and profit immensely from the decline of America's wealth and power, not surprisingly also made both lists and is a major supplier of technology to North Korea and Iran. This is not to downplay the threats posed by Iran. Clearly Iran is the most imminent threat in the Middle East. But in the long run, who poses a greater risk to America and its allies, the terrorists themselves or the nation-states that arm, equip, and maintain them? We wage war on one, while granting most favored nation trade status to the other.

Some argue that Putin faces his own Islamic terrorist threat in Chechnya and thus is a natural ally in the War on Terror. This view is too simplistic. Under the former Soviet regime, which produced Putin and the iron fist ideology he yearns for, Islamic terrorism was ruthlessly suppressed. Putin is a Cold War product and views the U.S., not Islamic terrorists, as the single obstacle preventing Russia from achieving global dominance. How long will Russians tolerate the loud and arrogant claims that America won the Cold War and that communism was defeated? National pride is a dangerous force that, once unleashed, typically propels a nation toward cataclysmic war. Hitler tapped into just such feelings of wounded pride and anger stemming from defeat in previous wars.

Putin is centralizing businesses and natural resource industries, threatening Poland and Czechoslovakia, and publicly condemns the U.S. far more than any terrorist groups. Only those unwilling to see the signs will fail to recognize that the path Russia is taking bears ominous similarities to Germany in the 1930's. A global recession that forces Russians to beg their government to take further control, and a scapegoat upon which to blame their economic misfortunes, are the sole ingredients needed for Putin (or another like him) to turn a flickering flame of nationalist pride into a raging wildfire. For Hitler, the Jews were the economic and cultural scapegoats. For Russia, the scapegoat will be the Americans and post Cold War "capitalism."

I invite you to compare the two lists and form your own conclusions. Spy The News! maintains that "Internal Strife" poses the single greatest threat we face in 2007, for the reasons detailed in the original post.

Speaker Pelosi's Slight of Presidential Protocol Worse than "ic" Error by President: Wants to Strip President of War Powers

Comments made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi illustrated all too clearly that Democratic animosity toward President Bush trumps Democratic commitment to fighting terrorism and keeping the world safe from nuclear arms proliferation. Speaking to a gathering of Democratic members of the House of Representatives in Williamsburg, VA on Saturday, Pelosi menacingly stated to her colleagues, “if it appears likely that Bush wants to take the country to war against Iran, the House would take up a bill to deny him the authority to do so.”

From a national security perspective, this sentiment, coming as it did from someone third in the line of presidential succession, is significant. Note that Pelosi did not qualify her remarks with any caveats such as whether Congress should authorize war against Iran if Iran attacked another nation, such as Israel, or if an Iranian-produced nuclear device were detonated in an American or allied city, or even if Iran continues to refuse to halt its nuclear weapons program. Pelosi likewise did not make an exception for a scenario in which Iran, seeing Congress’s spineless debates over meaningless “resolutions” on the Iraq War, decided the time was right to invade Iraq and seize its considerable natural resources and slaughter Sunni’s without restraint or mercy.

Based on Pelosi’s statement, none of these provocations, any of which would pose clear and present dangers to global security, would be sufficient for this Democratic Congress to approve military action against Iran and support the Commander in Chief, entirely because he is George W. Bush. For Speaker Pelosi and her colleagues the fundamental threat to America is not Iran, or North Korea, or even Islamic terrorists. Rather than working to deny terrorists of their funding, weaponry, and safe shelter from sponsoring states, the current Congress is more interested in working to deny the President the authority to wage war with Iran regardless of Iran’s actions. Note her choice of words, “deny him the authority” (emphasis added). Congress is not interested in proposing a bill to deny ALL presidents the authority to wage war against Iran, only THIS president.

If a Democrat, Hillary Clinton perhaps, is elected president in 2008, and Iran successfully tests a nuclear weapon and then acts militarily against Israel or the U.S., would the Democratic president respond with war on Iran? Or would Speaker Pelosi’s Congress “deny him [or her] the authority to do so”? Democrats cannot have it both ways. Either Iran is a threat or it is not, and to rule out military action against Iran even before it becomes a necessity is irresponsible and demonstrates a poor grasp of national security policies.

Analyzing Pelosi’s comments further reveals much about the Speaker’s emotions and personal disdain for the President. Courtesy protocol within the U.S. Government, and indeed American culture as a whole, once required the proper name and/or title for the person elected to serve as President, regardless of party. Even in the rancorous Congressional debates immediately prior to the Civil War, Congressmen and Senators referred to the President as “Mr. President” or “President (fill in the blank).” Speaker Pelosi rarely uses the appropriate titles for a sitting president, instead choosing to express her anti-Bush sentiment by generally refusing to acknowledge he is the President, constantly leaving out the title altogether.

The Democratic Party recently threw quite a tantrum in the media when President Bush referred to it as the “Democrat” rather than the “Democratic” Party. The President explained that he simply forgot to include the “ic” suffix and apologized, but that hardly pacified the Democrats, who displayed a remarkable sensitivity to the expected protocol of appropriate titles. For Democrats to constantly refer to the President as simply “Bush” or “Mr. Bush” demonstrates an intentional and personal disrespect for the President, who has the historical expectation of being called “Mr. President,” “Sir,” or “President Bush.” News articles and broadcasts, conservative and liberal, have embraced the stripping of titles in the interest of brevity.

Respect for the office of President has declined in the U.S. and the world to the point that few are impressed anymore by the title “President of the United States,” when not long ago it was the most imposing and respected position in the world to friend and foe alike. The loss of respect for the office is not a product of President Bush’s perceived shortcomings, but rather arose prominently during the Vietnam War and unfortunately continues to this day.

Having witnessed the unseemly behaviors of a former president and the social circles he kept, I understand how loss of respect for the man serving as president occurs. Not all presidents are role models in their private lives. However, even when observing such behavior, to me he was still “Mr. President” or “Sir” and he represented the U.S. to the world. Our presidents must project to the world the image of collective support of the American people, particularly in times of war or crisis. There was nearly unanimous support for war against Saddam Hussein in 2003 based on the available intelligence, yet when the war became more difficult than expected blaming the President became a political opportunity for his personal opponents in both parties.

Despite the patently false accusation, anti-war activists eagerly spread the concept “Bush lied people died.” Where are the chants, “Clinton lied people died”? After all, while in office former President Clinton declared Saddam Hussein a grave threat to the world and pointed out that while others may possess WMD, Hussein had actually used them on Iranians and Kurds (read Clinton’s announcement of strikes in Iraq in 1998 and his justification for them here). Senator Clinton echoed similar assessments of Hussein when she voted to support the war in Iraq.

Democrats do not accuse the Clintons of lying, defending them instead as victims of faulty intelligence. They reserve the liar label for President Bush, who used the same intelligence to justify the removal of Saddam. Al Gore screamed, “He [Bush] betrayed out country. He played on our fears,” despite Gore’s support of the decision to strike Iraq in 1998 for the same reasons Bush cited for war. The effort to portray President Bush as a deceiver and warmonger has influenced international opinion and discredited the office of president itself, a weakening that Democrats will wish they had not encouraged if/when they hold that office and need to wield power to protect the nation.

When 2005 brought the Hurricane Katrina disaster, it was the President’s fault that neither the mayor of New Orleans or the Governor of Louisiana took any action to use local resources to relocate and care for their citizens who chose not to listen to FEMA and NWS warnings to evacuate. Democrats instead encouraged storm victims, particularly African-Americans who lost everything to Katrina, to blame the President and accuse him of not wanting to help black people. Was the African-American mayor accused of this when he failed to utilize hundreds of available local school buses to evacuate the city? No, it was still the President’s fault.

We are failing as a nation to project a strong image to the world during a period of war and crisis (terrorism) and our enemies, terror groups as well as nation states, are well aware of our divisions and personal animosities. Until the American electorate chooses otherwise, President Bush is the President of the United States and should be treated as such by Congress, particularly in public appearances and in front of the controversy-hungry media. The Speaker of the House and her party should not be cementing plans to deny the President of any authority that one day may prove essential to national security simply because they personally dislike the man and covet the office.

Technorati Search Tags: Al Gore Presidential Protocol Presidential Authority Islamic Terrorists Nancy Pelosi Bush Administration Civil War Iranian nuclear program National Security Hillary Clinton Bill Clinton Iraq War Global War On Terror