Beware Iran's Left Hand if Shaking Right

No government engages in more doublespeak than the current Iranian regime. While shaking America’s right hand and agreeing to participate in a Regional Security Subcommittee with the U.S. and Iraq, Ahmadinejad’s administration holds a lethal weapon in its other hand. It is impossible to assign any credibility to Iran’s stated desire to help stabilize the security situation in Iraq while it simultaneously floods Iraq with weapons, IEDs, and terrorists using them to kill American troops and Iraqis. It is likewise impossible to place trust for cooperation in Iraq in a regime that flatly refuses to comply with UN resolutions and sanctions designed to halt its uranium enrichment efforts.

Iran’s offer to help broker security in Iraq is nothing more than a clever political feint clearly designed to soften international perceptions of Iran’s intentions in the region. If Iran can convince world leaders through its participation on a security subcommittee that it seeks peace and stability in the region, then its claims to a peaceful nuclear program developed only for power generation will appear less transparent. Our European allies are easily pacified by small gestures of cooperation, no matter how insincere those gestures may be, from Middle Eastern leaders. Saddam Hussein proved that conclusively by co-opting high ranking government officials in Germany, France, and Britain through cash and oil bribes. In exchange, these leaders softened their countries’ stances on enforcement of UN resolutions against Iraq’s pursuit of WMD.

Consider whether these words from a senior Iranian official, reported by the Guardian (UK) indicate any commitment to a peaceful and lawful end to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons:

Tehran has made clear that it will not suspend enrichment as the UN security council has demanded, despite two earlier rounds of financial, travel and arms sanctions. A decision on a third round has been put off until September. "If there is another resolution, we will react with whatever we have," the senior official told western journalists. "So far we have answered legally, limiting [UN] inspections, and reducing cooperation with the IAEA within the legal framework.

"But if there is no legal option left, it is obvious we will be tempted to do illegal things. What is very important to us is our dignity, and we are prepared to act."

There will never be a stable Iraq as long as there is a radical, nuclear weapons-seeking regime on its border, pouring arms and terrorist expertise into the country. The danger from Iran is increased by the fact, as stated by this senior official, that Iran's dignity is at stake. To a regime that thrives on projecting an image of strength, defending dignity will likely require irrational actions. The major difference between the mullahs’ quest for nuclear weapons and Saddam Hussein’s similar effort to acquire WMD is religion. Saddam was a secular leader who sought ultimate weapons for the sheer exercise of power politics. The mullahs seek them for self-proclaimed apocalyptic use on Israel and the United States.

In our determination to stabilize Iraq and assure that its government is capable of providing defending itself, we must not lose sight of the greater danger posed by Iran. Though it would be an unpleasant situation, technically the U.S. could fight al Qaeda indefinitely in Iraq on a small scale, but if Iran’s uranium enrichment is not halted and its production facilities are not rendered inoperable, we will be fighting the same war for years to come but under the danger of nuclear attack from Iraq’s neighbor. Thus our war to provide Iraq with freedom and self-determination will have been for naught.

The Bush administration is right to argue that a stable Iraq is important to our national security, particularly in the long run, because it would establish a Muslim democracy and maintain America's image of strength in an area of the world that preys on perceived weakness. However, stabilizing Iraq should be a secondary priority to eliminating Iran’s supply stream of IEDs and arms into Iraq as well as its uranium enrichment recalcitrance. Since Iraq’s stability is codependent on Iran’s, our focus should be on stabilizing the one that is months away from possessing sufficient enriched uranium to produce its first nuclear weapon. Once that genie is out of the bottle, there will be no further opportunity to recapture it. Israeli intelligence clearly shares this assessment and may be forced to act unilaterally by the end of this year. It should not be forced to act alone. The UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty should be enforced aggressively by all who signed it.

Before the U.S. places any trust in Iran, Iran must be required to demonstrate responsibility on the world stage by immediately halting its uranium reduction efforts. Ahmadinejad is no fool. His new willingness to engage the U.S. in diplomacy over Iraq’s security is a calculated tactical move that provides him with the two most valuable things he needs to move his uranium enrichment to the point of no return: an international image of cooperation; and time.

As long as Iran appears cooperative on the issue of Iraq, it will be difficult for President Bush to make the case to the world that decisive action must be taken to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. The world will always call for new talks, further negotiations, and diplomatic solutions. At some point in coming months, while holding talks and negotiations, Iran will pass the point of no return in its uranium enrichment and the opportunity for action will have passed. Iran is counting on its Iraq cooperation smokescreen to obscure from view its true intentions, both in Iraq and in its nuclear facilities.

An Iranian gesture of “goodwill” in Iraq on the one hand must not be allowed to conceal or excuse the nuclear dagger it holds in the other. America should make no mistake as to where that dagger points.

Technorati Tags:
Iraq War, Iran, Regional Security Subcommittee, Ahmadinejad, Bush Administration, Uranium Enrichment, Diplomacy

Deadline for War with Iran: Dec 31

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

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

From Lake’s Sun article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CNN Whitewash of Iran's Terror Role in Iraq: Portrays Tehran as Wanting to "Help America a Lot"

During last night’s installment of CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, Cooper aired a segment titled, “Evidence of Iranian Involvement in Iraq” (transcript here). From this title, a curious viewer would assume that the segment would include evidence or examples of Iranian interference and support for the “insurgents” fomenting attacks on American and Iraqi forces. In classic CNN form, however, Cooper first worked to frame the Iranian interference story in the context of criticism of the troop surge strategy. Cooper led into the expected updated body count from Baghdad with the statement, “If lawmakers needed any more evidence that Iraq will be a tough place to fix, if possible at all, they got plenty more today.” Following that gloomy introduction, CNN efforts to whitewash Iranian involvement in Iraq began in earnest.

Cooper deferred to the “expertise” of seasoned CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour, reporting from Tehran, to provide insight into the Iranian reaction to accusations that Iran is supplying Iraqi militias with powerful weaponry and other forms of support. Amanpour, who notably lacks the word “terrorist” in her otherwise immense vocabulary, used quotations from “sources very close to the government” in Tehran to portray Iran as having no reason for or interest in harming American forces that had liberated their Shiite brethren in Iraq. Fighting the Americans, these sources have convinced Amanpour, is not in Iran’s national interest. Less believable was this gem from Amanpour regarding her Iranian government sources:

They say that they want a democratic and freely elected government in Iraq, which they say exists right now, and that, yes, their position is that they want the U.S. -- quote -- "occupying forces" out, but only have they have laid the groundwork for the possibility to get out, and not to get out precipitously, which would leave -- quote -- "Iraq in a bigger mess than it is in already.”

The idea that Iran would prefer a strong, stable, oil-rich and well-armed Iraq on its border rather than a weak, vulnerable, defenseless oil-rich neighbor is patently absurd. Hitler desired to seize and assimilate neighbors with abundant natural resources (Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc) and Ahmadinejad possesses that same lust for expansion (as well as a similar desire to exterminate Jews).

It is very instructive that a reporter with Amanpour’s extensive experience takes statements like those above from the Iranian government at face value, but does not take seriously that same government’s outspoken threats to annihilate Israel and then the US with nuclear weapons and denies the Holocaust and Israel’s right to exist. How are viewers to decide whether Iran means us no harm in Iraq because we freed the Shiites there or whether Iran wants to destroy America, “the Great Satan,” a term previously coined in Iran? Since actions speak louder than words, and a picture is worth a thousand words, perhaps Iran’s continued reckless drive to develop nuclear weapons, its own stated installment of 3,000 new centrifuges, and satellite images of ever-expanding Iranian nuclear facilities should be the basis of our final judgment on Iranian intentions.

Cooper then sets the stage for his next question to Amanpour by first reminding viewers that the Bush administration, despite the urgings of former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, continues to reject any diplomatic negotiations with Iran. Cooper then asks Amanpour whether the Iranian government is open to the idea of talks with the US on the Iraq War. Amanpour offers this remarkable response containing another portrayal of Iran as an innocent, unjustly maligned nation that holds the answers to lasting peace in Iraq:

Well, I think they do want to. And they have made that representation in the past.

Certainly, officially, it's really difficult to get a straight answer on this. But, unofficially, those people who I have been talking to say: Look, we were -- and they use the word partners with the United States over the war in Afghanistan, when the Taliban was kicked out, and we helped the United States, in a very constructive way, usher in the new democratic government of Hamid Karzai.

And even the U.S. admits that. So, these very same people are saying that: We should be having the same kind of cooperation in Iraq. "We know -- who knows Iraq better than us?" they say. We were at war with Iraq for eight years. We have this long border, as Michael pointed out. So many of the leadership and, by the way, the Badr Brigades, the militias, the people in Iraq now who are in the armed camps, were inside Iran. We know a lot, and we can help a lot. And we can help the Americans a lot.

So, on this side, many of the officials are wondering why they can't get to talks to -- with America about this issue.

Cooper and Amanpour neglect to provide the answer to why Iran “can’t get to talks” with America regarding Iraq, despite Cooper having mentioned earlier in this segment that Iran yesterday rejected UN requests to install monitoring cameras or allow inspections of Iran’s underground nuclear facilities. Cooper and Amanpour, always quick to point out perceived distortions or duplicity in the Bush administration, seem unwilling to point out the obvious deception from Amanpour’s Iranian government sources. Her sources claim innocence in Iraq and claim no animosity toward American troops or efforts there while funneling weapons, funds, and tactical expertise in terror operations into Iraq, facts acknowledged by the Pentagon and the US intelligence community.

Those same Iranian sources claim to innocently wonder why the US will not negotiate with them while they publicly vow to end Israel’s and America’s existence with nuclear weapons and refuse to comply with UN and UN Security Council resolutions and sanctions intended to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

If Iran will abandon its suicidal obsession with establishing itself as a nuclear power, the US and other nations will be willing to enter diplomatic talks on Iraq and a host of other issues. If these Iranian officials are truly wondering and confused, as Amanpour reports, she could relieve them of that burden by pointing out the hypocrisy of offering to help America and the Iraqi democracy while arming and supplying terrorists in Iraq and simultaneously racing to enrich sufficient uranium to destroy “the Great Satan.”

Perhaps CNN should dispatch its White House Press Corps reporters to Tehran to question Amanpour’s sources with the same impatient zeal and cynical distrust employed to interrogate and embarrass the Bush administration.

Technorati Search Tags: Christiane Amanpour Anderson Cooper Iranian Interference in Iraq Nuclear Diplomacy Iranian nuclear program Ahmadinejad Iraq War Global War On Terror White House Press Corps CNN

Deceptive Democrat or Republican Manchurian Candidate? Webb Misrepresents Eisenhower

In today’s Washington Post, E. J. Dionne analyzed the Democratic response to the State of the Union Address. Dionne praised Senator Jim Webb, D-VA, for his precise use of language, compared Webb’s delivery and style with Ronald Reagan, and labeled Webb a “Reagan Democrat.” Of course, Webb served as Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy and is a former Republican, so it is plausible that Webb observed and admired Reagan’s public speaking skills personally. However, Dionne made this comparison based on Reagan’s penchant for speaking his mind plainly and ascribed the same skill to Webb.

If Dionne’s conclusion that Webb spoke his mind in the Democratic response is true, Democrats and Republicans alike should immediately seek clarification from Webb regarding his misrepresentation of President Eisenhower’s motivations and strategies for bringing the Korean War to a speedy conclusion. A hat tip is made to TigerHawk for pointing out an intriguing comment posted by a reader of his blog regarding Webb’s remarks. In his response to the State of the Union, Senator Webb stated:

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President,he brought the Korean War to an end. [Eisenhower] took the right kind of action... for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action.... If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

At first glance, Webb’s comment comes across as more “end the war now” propaganda, but a TigerHawk reader presented this historical reminder:

Interesting that Webb invoked Eisenhower ending the Korean War. According to this cached google report (and multiple other sources), "Nearly three years later, Truman's successor, President Dwight Eisenhower, also wielded the threat of U.S. nuclear use. In May 1953, Eisenhower authorized an expanded Korean bombing campaign, prompting the North Koreans and Chinese to respond by increased ground action.

As part of the heightened military activity, the Joint Chiefs presented six different scenarios for ending the war, "most envisioning the possible use of atomic weapons," according to an official Pentagon history. "After the NSC reached a seeming consensus on May 20 to employ atomic weapons both strategically and tactically--that is within and outside the Korean Peninsula--the administration communicated its resolve to the Chinese and North Koreans. . . . Both Eisenhower and [Secretary of State John Foster] Dulles believed the message had the desired effect" of ending the war, the history reads." So, is Webb saying the US should threaten the use of nuclear weapons to end the Iraq war?

As a former Secretary of the Navy, it is unlikely Webb was ignorant of Eisenhower’s “Big Stick” nuclear diplomacy that forced the communist enemy to end the conflict, albeit leaving a divided Korean Peninsula. If one assumes Webb had his historical facts straight and he speaks plainly, as Dionne asserts, Webb’s intentions behind the Eisenhower example raise significant questions. Is Webb, in reality, a Republican “Manchurian Candidate” who has infiltrated the Democratic Party and is now acting on pre-programmed commands from the "Vast Neocon Conspiracy"? Or was his withdrawal from the GOP merely a tactical decision by which he knew he could successfully run for office as a war hero Democrat in a party so desperate for military credibility it nominated John Kerry in 2004?

If Webb was aware of the Eisenhower strategy to end the war, and Webb will be “showing him [Bush] the way” by recommending we emulate Eisenhower, how sorry will Democrats be for helping such a man get elected? It should not be forgotten that Truman became President in April 1945 and made the decision a few months later to utilize atomic weapons to convince Japan to surrender and end the war quickly. By 1953 when Eisenhower threatened China and the North Koreans with nuclear weapons, precedent had been established that this was a successful option to end conflict. World War II, and Korea both demonstrate that nuclear weapons, threatened and utilized if necessary, bring war to conclusion much faster than the “regional diplomacy” Democrats believe is the only way out of Iraq. The President, though his opponents refuse to admit it, had it right: The only way out of Iraq is through victory.

Not surprisingly, no Democrat has articulated what “regional diplomacy” means when the diplomacy would involve convincing Iran not to overrun Iraq the moment our troops pull out, or convincing Syria to stop sheltering and funding Hezbollah and terrorizing Lebanon, or securing an end to thousands of years of conflict between Jews and Palestinians. Why would any nation in the Middle East take our soft walking diplomacy seriously when our big stick has been pocketed and redeployed elsewhere without defeating the enemy? That’s a question the “clear speaking” Senator from Virginia seems to avoid. When negotiating an end to war, it is always desirable to negotiate from a position of strength.

The fact that this statement about Eisenhower needs explanation refutes Dionne’s exaggerated comparisons of Webb to Reagan. Webb gave us no “Evil Empire” identifications of our enemies (though he certainly fanned the flame of class envy), no direct appeals to action like “tear down this wall,” (though his new motto may be “rob from the rich to give to the poor”) and no glimpse of the man’s personality (not to be confused with military service record), which Reagan gave in every speech with a gleam in his eye. By omitting the context in which Eisenhower called for a speedy end to the Korean War (threatening to use nuclear weapons on China and the North Koreans) Webb provided obfuscation and misleading metaphor where plain speaking was needed. Unfortunately, Webb’s State of the Union response came shortly after my “Recent DC ‘Snow Jobs’” post. Webb would surely have been near the top of that list for his either ignorant or blatantly calculating misrepresentation of Eisenhower.

Technorati Tags: Senator James Webb State of the Union Address E.J. Dionne Dwight Eisenhower Korean War Nuclear Diplomacy Reagan Democrat Democratic Response Manchurian Candidate Secretary of the Navy Reagan Iraq War