Having survived working with and routinely around the Clintons and their staffs over the years, I admit I once thought that anyone, literally ANYONE, would be preferable as President than Hillary Clinton. When she announced her long-suspected candidacy for the White House, I found myself, as a conservative Independent, looking upon her Democratic challengers as the last line of defense against another Clinton in the Oval Office, an office I on which I strongly believed her husband had left a stain, figuratively and literally. During the 2008 campaign, it was clear she would not win her party's nomination, and although I had misgivings about an Obama presidency from a tax and spend point of view, I also noted that in their head-to-head debates, Hillary Clinton was much more conversant on world affairs and expressed, courageously for the times in her party, a concern over withdrawing troops too precipitously from Iraq. She was usually hawkish on the Iraq War, much to her credit, although the pressures of trying to win a nomination in a party bent on pulling troops out and declaring the war "lost" eventually drove Hillary to echo some calls for a draw down in troop strength. I do not believe she actually favored that strategy, but it took a back seat to her immediate need to strategically fight for the Democratic nomination.
Now, a few years removed from the bravado of the campaign trail, I wonder if the Democrats made a mistake in nomination as I watch President Obama, as Commander in Chief, taking nuanced non-committal stances on most international developments, as illustrated by his administration's confusing range of responses to the uprising in Egypt. Eventually, after two weeks of protests against Hosni Mubarak, President Obama spoke in favor of the protesters, some of whom were seeking democracy, others of whom, like the Muslim Brotherhood, were seeking and end to Mubarak's tight controls over their terrorism-related ideologies and activities. President Obama called for our staunchest long-time ally in the Arab world to step down from 30 years of keeping the peace with Israel, in favor of temporary rule by the Egyptian military until "democratic" elections can be held later this year. To this day, it remains unclear whether the Egyptian uprising was solely a popular swell for democracy or something insidious organized by groups with violent goals for the region, specifically ending the treaty with Israel. One must entertain this as a possibility if for no other reason than observing the Iranian government gleefully praising the protesters and their toppling of Mubarak.
Although we have yet to hear any definitive statesmanship from President Obama on today's protests in Iran and the violent methods security forces utilized to disperse the marchers, Hillary Clinton voiced today precisely the message that the President should be delivering to the Mullahs in Tehran. Although the White House has been noticeably understated on the events in Iran, in marked contrast to the open calls for governmental change in Egypt days earlier, Hillary was front and center pointing out, in refreshingly blunt language, the utter hypocrisy of Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs for praising the Egyptian "revolution" and change of government in Egypt while simultaneously suppressing their own people attempting to march for reforms in a notoriously oppressive regime.
Listen to Hillary state, more eloquently and more forcefully than the President, what needed to be stated to the Mullahs: Iranian government is hypocritical on issue of protests against government
Capital Cloak gives credit where it is due. Hillary made the right comments today about Iran. The question that we must ask is why President Obama, who claims to champion freedom and democracy in Egypt, is mostly silent on Iran, particularly after missing the opportunity to support the Green Revolution in Iran in June 2009. Iranians who genuinely desire freedom from the oppressive Mullah rule have already experience abandonment once from the Obama White House. Now, after the events in Egypt, Tunisia, and throughout the Middle East have inspired courageous revolutionaries in Tehran to test the waters of support from the U.S., they are finding the waters tepid at best. Unless they listen to Hillary, whose message to the Mullahs today was music to Iranian revolutionary ears.
More such messages are needed, from Hillary, from President Obama, from our Congress, and from heads of state of our allies worldwide. We can only turn up the heat on the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad if we speak candidly and with unwavering support for the protesters in Iran. Unlike in Egypt, where it really DOES matter what type of government replaces Mubarak in the long-term, in Iran it DOES NOT matter what would fill the vacuum left by the Mullahs if toppled. The current regime is hotly pursuing nuclear weapons capability, funding and equipping Hezbollah, infiltrating Iraq and working to shatter fragile coalitions there, and training terrorists who routinely attack allied forces. We would be hard pressed to imagine a worse government in Tehran. Supporting any flicker of desire for democratic reform in Iran should be our highest priority. Speaking bluntly about the regime's hypocrisy is a step in the right direction.
Showing posts with label Mullahs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mullahs. Show all posts
Monday, February 14, 2011
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
General Thinks Mullahs Rational Enough for Nukes
Retired General John Abizaid is working hard to disprove the old adage that “Old 
generals never die, they just fade away.” Unfortunately, many otherwise astute minds are relying on the former CentCom Commander’s outdated worldview to formulate their own policy positions, particularly in our looming confrontation with Iran over that nation’s nuclear ambitions. If America follows Gen. Abizaid's advice, we may all "just fade away" much sooner than we had envisioned.
The Washington Times’ Arnaud de Borchgrave, whom we have praised previously for sound analysis on other topics, quoted Ret. Gen. Abizaid extensively in his recent column on potential conflict with Iran, “Networked and Lethal.” De Borchgrave subscribes to the view that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has aroused international scorn and sympathy in equal portions, is merely a powerless puppet whose strings are controlled by Iran’s Supreme Religious Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
This analysis, by itself, is relatively accurate and approaching diplomacy with Iran from that perspective is a somewhat prudent course to follow. However, de Borchgrave draws upon Gen. Abizaid to support his position that military action against Iran would be a mistake. According to both men, using force against Iran to eliminate uranium enrichment sites would be foolish and dangerous because, somewhere under the lecherous layers of power represented by Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, lies a trickling rivulet of revolution that seeks peace with the west and only civilian use of nuclear power for electricity.
We will set aside for the moment the fact that this optimistic view of Iran’s underlying potential for political reform requires, to borrow from Hillary Clinton’s lexicon, “the willful suspension of disbelief.” Senator Clinton used that phrase to bludgeon General David Petraeus’ report to congress on progress in Iraq, where despite abundant evidence of silver linings, critics choose to see only the dark cloud. By contrast, in evaluating Iran’s potential for peaceful coexistence with the West and its Middle East neighbors as a nuclear nation, those same critics embrace wishful thinking and cite historical references to Persian culture and traditions that they conveniently forget have long since been replaced by radical Islamic ideology.
Ret. Gen Abizaid is a strong advocate of what is, for a leader who was previously so instrumental in the War on Terror, a remarkably reckless and illogical policy toward Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Gen. Abizaid sees no reason why Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear technology, apparently including nuclear weapons, because he mistakenly equates Iran with the former Soviet Union and the current standoff with Iran as just another iteration of the Cold War. The following excerpts set forth de Borchgrave’s and Gen. Abizaid’s reasoning for choosing a nuclear Iran over military conflict to prevent that eventuality:
It is stunning that a man with the mindset that “one or two Iranian nukes should not rattle us” was ever selected as the CentCom commander. His comparison between the former Soviet Union and the current Iranian regime is frighteningly naïve, especially from one who many look to as an “expert” on Middle Eastern matters. Ret. Gen. Abizaid either conveniently or cunningly ignores the fact that during the Cold War nuclear capability belonged to only a handful of nations and was a jealously and fanatically guarded secret. There was virtually no concern within the intelligence community that the Soviets would develop a nuclear weapon, sell it to Islamic or other terrorists, and help them to smuggle it out of country to be used against the United States or its allies.
Quite simply, the Soviets feared that any nuclear weapon used against the United States would be blamed on them and retaliation would not be long in coming. Thus it was in the self-interest of the Soviets not to share nuclear technology with radicals who might strike the United States rashly. Though dangerous in its own right, the Soviet Union wielded nuclear weapons in large quantity as a demonstration of national strength. There is far more fear that a nuclear Iran would use or sell its weapons than there ever was that the Soviets would do so. The Soviets likewise did not harbor any sympathy for or ally themselves with Muslims and were understandably alarmed by the potential consequences of any nuclear Islamic nation.
Ret. Gen. Abizaid seems to think that our ability to “instantly vaporize” Iran should make us
confident that Iran would never be irrational enough to use nuclear weapons against America. In essence, the general advocates applying the strategy of deterrence, or Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) to Iran. MAD was crafted to defend against an enemy's all out assault, an attack intended to cripple America with strikes against multiple cities simultaneously. It was never meant as a deterrent against terrorists who would be perfectly satisfied with a random detonation in just one American city. To equate MAD's capacity to deter the Soviet Union with a similar effect on radical Islamic terrorists is illogical in the extreme.
It is baffling why this so-called expert would not prefer keeping nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands in the first place. Radical Islamic terrorists are not known to be reasonable, rational people. Gen. Abizaid would like to believe that the Iranian nation as a whole is not suicidal and that “they aren’t mad.” He forgets, however, that the weaponry of Iran is in the hands of a small number of religious zealots who preach loudly of their role in ushering in an apocalyptic future. The Iranian nation may not be bent on collective suicide, but its radical leaders have no such qualms about martyring themselves and their nation to fulfill prophecy.
The general’s portrait of Iran as an inherently peaceful nation fails to address what is undeniably the greatest source of concern regarding Iran: that it will provide nuclear weapons and/or technology to terrorist groups who would not hesitate to use them against America and its allies. A nuclear-armed Iran would be unlikely to engage in a tactical nuclear conflict with America, but most Americans would not share Gen. Abizaid’s opinion that we should not be rattled by “one or two Iranian nukes.” Which cities in Europe would Gen. Abizaid be so casually willing to lose? What would be left of Israel after “one or two Iranian nukes?” The nuclear devices would detonate and we would face then the same question we face today: Should we take action to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment and nuclear technology sites? The only difference would be the tragic loss of millions of lives due to a nuclear terrorist attack that would have been preventable.
Given Iran’s well-documented record of funding, equipping, training, and transporting terrorists who attack American civilians and military forces on a daily basis and who have struck at Israel for decades, it requires the willful suspension of disbelief to think Iran would not sell or give freely its future nuclear weapons to terrorist groups it already supplies with weapons. The confusion after a nuclear terrorist attack would be paralyzing to America. Some would blame it on Russians; others would insist it was a preemptive strike by an increasingly aggressive China; Al Qaeda would naturally be suspected, but in the aftermath of such an attack it would be difficult to establish who orchestrated the event and how to respond. The knee-jerk reaction would be to annihilate whatever nation produced the weapon and supplied it to terrorists.
Gen. Abizaid appears to have great respect for Iran and its Persian culture and traditions. He should recognize that the best way to preserve Iran’s people and culture is to prevent its current radical regime from ever developing nuclear weapons that, through their existence and potential use or sale, would jeopardize the future of the entire Iranian nation. Neither the world nor the Iranian people can afford to take the risk that mullahs with nuclear weapons would act responsibly in possession of nuclear weapons. Their record terror sponsorship, their stated vision of a world without Israel, and their hatred for America should rattle us out of our diplomatic course that has allowed Iran to bring over 3,000 centrifuges online and race toward sufficient uranium enrichment for weapons production.
Gen. Abizaid is a trusting soul, but trust in the intentions of Islamic radicals in pursuit of nuclear weapons may prove suicidal. This may be the only situation in recorded history where America should take the word of Ahmadinejad and his mullah puppeteers at face value and ignore the advice of one of our decorated retired generals.
Technorati Tags: General John Abizaid Iran Ayatollah Khamenei Ahmadinejad Iranian Nuclear Weapons War on Terror Cold War
generals never die, they just fade away.” Unfortunately, many otherwise astute minds are relying on the former CentCom Commander’s outdated worldview to formulate their own policy positions, particularly in our looming confrontation with Iran over that nation’s nuclear ambitions. If America follows Gen. Abizaid's advice, we may all "just fade away" much sooner than we had envisioned.The Washington Times’ Arnaud de Borchgrave, whom we have praised previously for sound analysis on other topics, quoted Ret. Gen. Abizaid extensively in his recent column on potential conflict with Iran, “Networked and Lethal.” De Borchgrave subscribes to the view that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has aroused international scorn and sympathy in equal portions, is merely a powerless puppet whose strings are controlled by Iran’s Supreme Religious Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
This analysis, by itself, is relatively accurate and approaching diplomacy with Iran from that perspective is a somewhat prudent course to follow. However, de Borchgrave draws upon Gen. Abizaid to support his position that military action against Iran would be a mistake. According to both men, using force against Iran to eliminate uranium enrichment sites would be foolish and dangerous because, somewhere under the lecherous layers of power represented by Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, lies a trickling rivulet of revolution that seeks peace with the west and only civilian use of nuclear power for electricity.
We will set aside for the moment the fact that this optimistic view of Iran’s underlying potential for political reform requires, to borrow from Hillary Clinton’s lexicon, “the willful suspension of disbelief.” Senator Clinton used that phrase to bludgeon General David Petraeus’ report to congress on progress in Iraq, where despite abundant evidence of silver linings, critics choose to see only the dark cloud. By contrast, in evaluating Iran’s potential for peaceful coexistence with the West and its Middle East neighbors as a nuclear nation, those same critics embrace wishful thinking and cite historical references to Persian culture and traditions that they conveniently forget have long since been replaced by radical Islamic ideology.
Ret. Gen Abizaid is a strong advocate of what is, for a leader who was previously so instrumental in the War on Terror, a remarkably reckless and illogical policy toward Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Gen. Abizaid sees no reason why Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear technology, apparently including nuclear weapons, because he mistakenly equates Iran with the former Soviet Union and the current standoff with Iran as just another iteration of the Cold War. The following excerpts set forth de Borchgrave’s and Gen. Abizaid’s reasoning for choosing a nuclear Iran over military conflict to prevent that eventuality:
Mr. Ahmadinejad, who today will put in his third appearance in three years before the U.N. General Assembly, has little power in Iran's theocracy. The key levers are in the hands of Supreme Religious Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Everything from media to intelligence and including the armed forces and parliament is in his hands. And former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani, who lost the presidential election to Mr. Ahmadinejad in 2005, was elected chairman of Iran's Assembly of Experts, the body that elects the supreme spiritual leader. Mr. Rafsanjani defeated a hard-line cleric who was Mr. Ahmadinejad's friend and protector.
Unlike Mr. Ahmadinejad, who would seem to welcome a military showdown with the United States, if only to force the entire Middle East to side with Iran against the U.S., both Messrs. Khamenei and Rafsanjani are apparently worried about the voices calling for the bombing of Iran's estimated 23 widely scattered underground nuclear facilities.
…Former CentCom commander Gen. Abizaid, who speaks fluent Arabic and whose command extended from Afghanistan to Iraq and the rest of the Middle East and took in a large chunk of Africa from Egypt to the Horn of Africa down to Kenya (27 countries), said bombing Iran would be catastrophic. It would set the entire Middle East ablaze and bring millions more recruits to al Qaeda's anti-U.S. bandwagon.
Gen. Abizaid, now retired, says: "We can stop Iranian expansion. We contained the Soviet Union with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads in missiles targeted against the United States. But we kept talking to Soviet leaders throughout the worst of the Cold War. And we blocked Soviet expansionism and we also learned to live with China after President Nixon restored diplomatic relations."
Iran, the general explains, is a dangerous power that seeks weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to dominate its neighbors much the way the Soviet Union developed satellite and client states. The United States should deliver clear messages. One or two Iranian nukes should not rattle us. If they fired them, Iran would be instantly vaporized.
"The ayatollahs are heirs to a great civilization," he said in a colloquy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "and they are not in the business of collective suicide. Using suicide bombers against Western or pro-Western countries is one thing, but committing national suicide quite another. They aren't mad." And we should talk turkey with Iran at the highest level as soon as possible.
It is stunning that a man with the mindset that “one or two Iranian nukes should not rattle us” was ever selected as the CentCom commander. His comparison between the former Soviet Union and the current Iranian regime is frighteningly naïve, especially from one who many look to as an “expert” on Middle Eastern matters. Ret. Gen. Abizaid either conveniently or cunningly ignores the fact that during the Cold War nuclear capability belonged to only a handful of nations and was a jealously and fanatically guarded secret. There was virtually no concern within the intelligence community that the Soviets would develop a nuclear weapon, sell it to Islamic or other terrorists, and help them to smuggle it out of country to be used against the United States or its allies.
Quite simply, the Soviets feared that any nuclear weapon used against the United States would be blamed on them and retaliation would not be long in coming. Thus it was in the self-interest of the Soviets not to share nuclear technology with radicals who might strike the United States rashly. Though dangerous in its own right, the Soviet Union wielded nuclear weapons in large quantity as a demonstration of national strength. There is far more fear that a nuclear Iran would use or sell its weapons than there ever was that the Soviets would do so. The Soviets likewise did not harbor any sympathy for or ally themselves with Muslims and were understandably alarmed by the potential consequences of any nuclear Islamic nation.
Ret. Gen. Abizaid seems to think that our ability to “instantly vaporize” Iran should make us
confident that Iran would never be irrational enough to use nuclear weapons against America. In essence, the general advocates applying the strategy of deterrence, or Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) to Iran. MAD was crafted to defend against an enemy's all out assault, an attack intended to cripple America with strikes against multiple cities simultaneously. It was never meant as a deterrent against terrorists who would be perfectly satisfied with a random detonation in just one American city. To equate MAD's capacity to deter the Soviet Union with a similar effect on radical Islamic terrorists is illogical in the extreme.It is baffling why this so-called expert would not prefer keeping nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands in the first place. Radical Islamic terrorists are not known to be reasonable, rational people. Gen. Abizaid would like to believe that the Iranian nation as a whole is not suicidal and that “they aren’t mad.” He forgets, however, that the weaponry of Iran is in the hands of a small number of religious zealots who preach loudly of their role in ushering in an apocalyptic future. The Iranian nation may not be bent on collective suicide, but its radical leaders have no such qualms about martyring themselves and their nation to fulfill prophecy.
The general’s portrait of Iran as an inherently peaceful nation fails to address what is undeniably the greatest source of concern regarding Iran: that it will provide nuclear weapons and/or technology to terrorist groups who would not hesitate to use them against America and its allies. A nuclear-armed Iran would be unlikely to engage in a tactical nuclear conflict with America, but most Americans would not share Gen. Abizaid’s opinion that we should not be rattled by “one or two Iranian nukes.” Which cities in Europe would Gen. Abizaid be so casually willing to lose? What would be left of Israel after “one or two Iranian nukes?” The nuclear devices would detonate and we would face then the same question we face today: Should we take action to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment and nuclear technology sites? The only difference would be the tragic loss of millions of lives due to a nuclear terrorist attack that would have been preventable.
Given Iran’s well-documented record of funding, equipping, training, and transporting terrorists who attack American civilians and military forces on a daily basis and who have struck at Israel for decades, it requires the willful suspension of disbelief to think Iran would not sell or give freely its future nuclear weapons to terrorist groups it already supplies with weapons. The confusion after a nuclear terrorist attack would be paralyzing to America. Some would blame it on Russians; others would insist it was a preemptive strike by an increasingly aggressive China; Al Qaeda would naturally be suspected, but in the aftermath of such an attack it would be difficult to establish who orchestrated the event and how to respond. The knee-jerk reaction would be to annihilate whatever nation produced the weapon and supplied it to terrorists.
Gen. Abizaid appears to have great respect for Iran and its Persian culture and traditions. He should recognize that the best way to preserve Iran’s people and culture is to prevent its current radical regime from ever developing nuclear weapons that, through their existence and potential use or sale, would jeopardize the future of the entire Iranian nation. Neither the world nor the Iranian people can afford to take the risk that mullahs with nuclear weapons would act responsibly in possession of nuclear weapons. Their record terror sponsorship, their stated vision of a world without Israel, and their hatred for America should rattle us out of our diplomatic course that has allowed Iran to bring over 3,000 centrifuges online and race toward sufficient uranium enrichment for weapons production.
Gen. Abizaid is a trusting soul, but trust in the intentions of Islamic radicals in pursuit of nuclear weapons may prove suicidal. This may be the only situation in recorded history where America should take the word of Ahmadinejad and his mullah puppeteers at face value and ignore the advice of one of our decorated retired generals.
Technorati Tags: General John Abizaid Iran Ayatollah Khamenei Ahmadinejad Iranian Nuclear Weapons War on Terror Cold War
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
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
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
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:
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
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
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
"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:
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”:
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
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
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Iran's Incongruent Congruence
There must be a medical term for what happens to a person’s ability to speak truthfully
when he becomes an ambassador or a government spokesman. A case in point is the new U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. His is a difficult and largely thankless task, but he did little to help himself with his glass half-full assessment of yesterday’s initial round of diplomatic talks between Iran, Iraq, and the United States. There is nothing wrong with a glass half-full perspective when the facts offer even a ray of hope, but when the glass is completely empty, as was the case in these negotiations over Iraq’s security, it is deceptive and counterproductive to pretend that progress was made when it clearly was not.
The diplomatic talks between the U.S. and Iran, after nearly thirty years of official silence, focused on the security and stability of Iraq’s federal government and Iran’s role as helper or hindrance. Ambassador Crocker reportedly confronted Iran’s Ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi Qomi on Iran’s funding, support, and personnel involvement with terrorists and “militant groups” that continue to attack U.S., British, and Iraqi troops throughout Iraq. Ambassador Crocker also pointed out to his Iranian counterpart that many of the firearms, IED’s and other weapons used to attack allied forces are Iranian and arrived in Iraq directly from Iran.
Had this been a glass half-full diplomatic discussion, Iranian Ambassador Qomi would have stated something to the effect of “We don’t know how our weapons keep popping up mysteriously in Iraq, but we can assure you will do everything to find out who in our country is behind this and cut off their (insert whatever limb would be appropriate for weapons smuggling here) as a show of good faith” or similar. However, this was not a glass half-full discussion. Here is the (UK) Times online summary of the Iranian response:
Clearly, no headway was made in that exchange, since the U.S. insists that Iran is the cause of stability and terrorism in Iraq, while Iran denies any involvement and blames the U.S. for inviting attack by its mere presence in Iraq. There was no glass half-full common ground to agree on, but don’t tell that to Ambassador Crocker. After the rebuttal of each of his arguments, Crocker’s description of the “progress” made leaves one wondering to what discussions he was
referring when he toasted the talks with this half-full glass:
I am sure Ambassador Crocker is a well-educated man, but perhaps his schooling did not include the proper use of the word “congruence.” The term literally means agreeing, or being in harmony. The two sides did not agree on Iran’s role in Iraq, thus there was no congruence down that or any line. The only item on which the Americans and Iranians agree is that it would be beneficial for the region if Iraq were controlled by a stable centralized government. However, the “congruent” line diverges with who would control Iraq’s government. Iran is doing all it can overtly and covertly to undermine the Iraqi parliament that contains a mixture of Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish elements. What Iran wants is a stable non-democratic Shia Iraq that could be a natural ally or potentially an expansionist target. The mullahs fear democracy in general and would be terrified of a democratic Iraq on its border. Already fearing the spread of western influence and ideas of freedom seeping into its radical Islamic culture, the mullahs cannot afford to have a successful, free Iraq residing next door. “Keeping up with the Jones’s” would take on a whole new meaning if Iranians could point to a free neighbor and ask, “why can’t we have what they have?” The U.S. wants precisely that scenario to develop but Iran dreads it and fights it at every turn. The two sides could not be more incongruent.
The only item on which Iran and the U.S. agreed in these historic talks was to disagree. The Iraqis, who set up the talks, soft-pedaled the animosity between Iran and the U.S. Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman, offered this remarkable interpretation of the meeting results, “It shows that both countries are looking at getting the problems solved.” That may be true, but both sides are also looking to solve the problems at the disadvantage or destruction of the other. Until Iran ceases its role as trainer, financier, and arms dealer to “militants” and terrorists in Iraq, and abandons its suicidal sprint toward nuclear weapons, America’s glass of optimism for Iran will and must remain decidedly empty.
when he becomes an ambassador or a government spokesman. A case in point is the new U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. His is a difficult and largely thankless task, but he did little to help himself with his glass half-full assessment of yesterday’s initial round of diplomatic talks between Iran, Iraq, and the United States. There is nothing wrong with a glass half-full perspective when the facts offer even a ray of hope, but when the glass is completely empty, as was the case in these negotiations over Iraq’s security, it is deceptive and counterproductive to pretend that progress was made when it clearly was not.The diplomatic talks between the U.S. and Iran, after nearly thirty years of official silence, focused on the security and stability of Iraq’s federal government and Iran’s role as helper or hindrance. Ambassador Crocker reportedly confronted Iran’s Ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi Qomi on Iran’s funding, support, and personnel involvement with terrorists and “militant groups” that continue to attack U.S., British, and Iraqi troops throughout Iraq. Ambassador Crocker also pointed out to his Iranian counterpart that many of the firearms, IED’s and other weapons used to attack allied forces are Iranian and arrived in Iraq directly from Iran.
Had this been a glass half-full diplomatic discussion, Iranian Ambassador Qomi would have stated something to the effect of “We don’t know how our weapons keep popping up mysteriously in Iraq, but we can assure you will do everything to find out who in our country is behind this and cut off their (insert whatever limb would be appropriate for weapons smuggling here) as a show of good faith” or similar. However, this was not a glass half-full discussion. Here is the (UK) Times online summary of the Iranian response:
The Iranians, whose leadership has long attacked the US as the Great Satan, rejected such accusations and raised their own fears, calling the US presence in Iraq an occupation. Tehran also criticized efforts to train the Iraqi Army and police as inadequate.
The Islamic Republic suggested creating a three-way system, comprising Iran, Iraq and the United States, to coordinate security.
Clearly, no headway was made in that exchange, since the U.S. insists that Iran is the cause of stability and terrorism in Iraq, while Iran denies any involvement and blames the U.S. for inviting attack by its mere presence in Iraq. There was no glass half-full common ground to agree on, but don’t tell that to Ambassador Crocker. After the rebuttal of each of his arguments, Crocker’s description of the “progress” made leaves one wondering to what discussions he was
referring when he toasted the talks with this half-full glass:There was pretty good congruence right down the line in support of a secure, stable, democratic, federal Iraq in control of its own security, at peace with its neighbours.
I am sure Ambassador Crocker is a well-educated man, but perhaps his schooling did not include the proper use of the word “congruence.” The term literally means agreeing, or being in harmony. The two sides did not agree on Iran’s role in Iraq, thus there was no congruence down that or any line. The only item on which the Americans and Iranians agree is that it would be beneficial for the region if Iraq were controlled by a stable centralized government. However, the “congruent” line diverges with who would control Iraq’s government. Iran is doing all it can overtly and covertly to undermine the Iraqi parliament that contains a mixture of Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish elements. What Iran wants is a stable non-democratic Shia Iraq that could be a natural ally or potentially an expansionist target. The mullahs fear democracy in general and would be terrified of a democratic Iraq on its border. Already fearing the spread of western influence and ideas of freedom seeping into its radical Islamic culture, the mullahs cannot afford to have a successful, free Iraq residing next door. “Keeping up with the Jones’s” would take on a whole new meaning if Iranians could point to a free neighbor and ask, “why can’t we have what they have?” The U.S. wants precisely that scenario to develop but Iran dreads it and fights it at every turn. The two sides could not be more incongruent.
The only item on which Iran and the U.S. agreed in these historic talks was to disagree. The Iraqis, who set up the talks, soft-pedaled the animosity between Iran and the U.S. Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman, offered this remarkable interpretation of the meeting results, “It shows that both countries are looking at getting the problems solved.” That may be true, but both sides are also looking to solve the problems at the disadvantage or destruction of the other. Until Iran ceases its role as trainer, financier, and arms dealer to “militants” and terrorists in Iraq, and abandons its suicidal sprint toward nuclear weapons, America’s glass of optimism for Iran will and must remain decidedly empty.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
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:
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)