Iranian Youth Set Example For Congress

There is more enthusiasm and support for Middle East Democracy among college students in Iran, where such support is a capital offense, than in the U.S. House and Senate, where such support should be expected. While Democrats and some Republicans in the House and Senate continue pounding the incessant drumbeat of surrender and withdrawal from Iraq, effectively abandoning a fragile Arab democracy, university students in Iran are risking life and limb to install and participate in on-campus democracy. The United States has long hoped that such sentiment could one day lead to another Iranian revolution, with Iranian students leading the charge toward democracy and modernization and away from radical Islamic rule and suppression of human rights. Young Iranians are fulfilling their role by pushing Ahmadinejad and the mullahs for more pro-western and democratic policies, but the elected leaders of the land of the free and the home of the brave are not offering much by way of example when it comes to embracing Middle East democracy.

Compare the “timetable for withdrawal” and “this war is lost” attitudes of the Democrat controlled House and Senate with the courage of Iranian university students as reported in today’s New York Times:

Amir Kabir University has long been a center of student political activity. Students there chanted against Mr. Ahmadinejad when he visited the university late last year and set fire to posters bearing his likeness.

A student leader, Mehrdad Khalilpour, was arrested Monday by security officials, but two of his comrades managed to escape. Among other student leaders, Babak Zamanian was arrested late last month and Ahmad Ghassaban was arrested on Friday.

However, the student democracy advocates said they scored a victory on Monday when they managed to hold their annual elections.

“The students reached the conclusion that the only way was to resist,” said Ehsan Mansouri, a student leader who has been banned from attending classes. “The students guarded the ballot boxes as they were attacked and clubbed severely by the university security guards.”

The drive for freedom is inherent in the human spirit, and while these Iranian students fight what some might consider a minor skirmish in the war on oppressive ideologies, they are willing to risk beatings, torture, and execution simply for the right to choose their own student government on-campus. If under oppression for several years, they will continue this fight because it is a fundamental struggle, and when new students arrive they too will engage in the battle. In stark contrast are America’s liberals, who cannot stomach a brutal fight to protect Iraqi freedom from terrorists seeking to return the country to oppression simply because the war has lasted longer than they expected. The Bush administration is somewhat to blame for the unrealistic expectations of rapid success, but in the face of setbacks and fierce resistance from organized terrorists in Iraq the administration has pressed forward with a dogged determination to win. Not so for the Democrats in the House and Senate, who are not as committed to democracy and victory as they are to elections and regaining the White House in 2008 at any cost, including freedom for the Iraqi people.

The courage and democratic leanings of Iran’s students is one of the primary reasons that military action against Iran’s nuclear program or as a reprisal for Iran’s role as a terror sponsor is so problematic. America continues to hope and pray for Iranians themselves to rise up and overthrow the mullahs and Ahmadinejad, but the mullahs’ race for nuclear weapons essentially places a limit on how long the world can be willing to wait for an internal revolution before military action becomes an absolute necessity. This situation is further complicated by the minimal intelligence capabilities the U.S. and its allies can rely upon in Iran. If the intelligence is accurate, America can afford to wait and fuel the fires of revolution among pro-western elements within Iran. Yet assuming the intelligence is accurate is in itself a risky proposition.

Is it possible that the Iranian university students and America’s current congressmen and senators were accidentally switched at birth? Other than brazen political chicanery or complete ignorance of geopolitics, no other explanations account for the admirable backbone displayed at Iran’s universities and the complete absence of spine in the U.S. house and senate on the same issue: democracy in the Middle East.

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.

Ehud Barak: Fighting Terror Like Fighting Malaria: Kill Mosquitoes and Drain the Swamp

In a talk given to the World Leaders Lecture Forum hosted by the University of Utah yesterday, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak addressed serious Middle Eastern issues but also provided some entertaining one-liners and sound bites.

As reported in the Deseret Morning News, in describing Israel’s current posture in its dealings with Palestinians and neighboring terror sponsoring states, Barak bluntly remarked that:

Israel has one hand stretched out in peace and the other hand very close to the trigger. . . . That’s the only way to survive in the Middle East, where there is no mercy for the weak.

He later added this quippy gem:

The Mideast is not the Midwest. We would love to have the Canadians as our neighbors, but you got them.

Given Israel’s neighbors, Barak’s quip is understandable, but perhaps Canada is not quite as peaceful and benign as he implies. Canada’s radical Islamic population is increasing at a rapid pace, and anti-Americanism, along with a strong anti-Semitism, are thriving, particularly in Montreal-Quebec. Courtesy of IDF Israel, this is what Mr. Barak wishes for on his borders in exchange for what Israel currently faces:


This should provide some perspective if Barak would love to have such people as depicted in these photos as his neighbors. He considers the U.S. lucky to have Canada as a neighbor, and despite Canada’s covetous anti-Americanism, I suppose we are fortunate in our geographical location in the modern world. Of course we also have a neighbor to our south that hates us more than Canada . . . but I digress.

Barak made some interesting remarks about U.S. strategy in the war on terror, including our efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. According to Barak, the U.S. will need to compromise with China on human rights issues and Russia on self-determination for Chechnya to secure the cooperation of these nations in confronting Iran.

Human rights advocates will oppose such compromise, of course, and on the surface it is humbling to step back from previously stated demands made of China and Russia, but as I wrote about our strategy in Iraq in yesterday’s post, sometimes it is necessary to make unpleasant deals with unsavory characters or nations in order to achieve a more critical goal. We did so with Stalin in WWII, and it appears necessary now, as Russia and China are arming Iran and providing Ahmadinejad with the equipment to enrich uranium. Of course we are concerned with the human rights of the oppressed citizens of China, and we are similarly in favor of liberty and self-government for Chechnya, but neither of those issues currently imperils the existence of America and its allies. A nuclear Iran does. If we are intent on pursuing diplomatic pressure to convince Iran to change course, we must enlist Russia and China to intervene decisively in the interest of global security.

Mr. Barak seemed also to discount the importance of establishing a democracy in Iraq. According to Barak:

In the Middle East, the right to vote isn't the main issue. I'd prefer to look at the four freedoms outlined by President Franklin D. Roosevelt: expression, worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. Americans would do better to insist on universal, mandatory education for women rather than the right to vote.

This statement raises important questions. In my post yesterday addressing the question of whether the Iraq War is really a mess, I called attention to several tactics we failed to utilize that would have helped secure the services and cooperation of local tribal leaders and the disbanded Iraqi army in suppressing the insurgency. I quoted author Robert Kaplan’s summary of a conversation he had with an Iraqi sheik as described in Imperial Grunts: On the Ground with the American Military, and Mr. Barak's speech yesterday confirmed much of what that sheik described to Kaplan as the root problem faced by the America military: democracy, or democratic elections, was merely an intangible result of the American overthrow of Saddam’s regime. The Iraqi people wanted (and are still hoping for) more tangible offerings to improve their physical situation, and Barak echoes this sentiment by identifying the four Roosevelt freedoms as issues of more importance than elections in securing allies for America in the Middle East.

Barak assigns minimal significance to the right to vote in comparison to education for women. At first glance this appears contradictory, in that education would seem useless without the right to vote and participate in decision making. However, Mr. Barak makes an important point that others in alternative media have discussed: reform of Islam will never occur unless Muslim women are permitted to receive education and training, and gradually exercise more influence on Islamic culture. Women tend to soften extremism and provide wise counsel in public discourse. Barak is no chauvinist here. Israeli women serve mandatory tours of duty in the Israeli Defense Force and the contribution of women is critical to Israeli strength in the field and perhaps more importantly on the home front.

Few people in the world have the depth of experience with and knowledge of Arab culture that Barak has acquired over a lifetime of military, intelligence, and political service, and it should be significant to U.S. strategic planners that a former Prime Minister of the original Middle Eastern democracy would urge America to place higher priority on humanitarian and security concerns than on democracy as the key tools for winning the War on Terror. Based on his assessment, it appears we have killed many “mosquitoes” in the War on Terror, and hopefully the troop surge will contribute more to “draining the swamp” by securing Iraqi cities so Iraqis can receive Roosevelt’s four freedoms.