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

Putin's North Pole Wish: Steal Santa's Oil

On future Christmas morning the stockings you hung by the fire the night before may be filled with Russian delicacies, Vladimir Putin action figures, and Russian oil vouchers. Russia, under Putin’s increasingly authoritarian control, has now declared ownership of the North Pole, and presumably Santa’s beloved workshop, a region long protected by a division of territory among 5 nations. Why would Russia make such a bold claim for an area dominated by ice, frigid temperatures, and flying reindeer? Quite simply, Santa has been sitting on one of the world’s largest undeveloped oil deposits for all these years and Putin wants to take it away from the right jolly old elf. According to the UK Daily Mail, Putin’s arctic motives are all too clear. The area claimed by Russia is:

a triangle five times the size of Britain with twice as much oil as Saudi Arabia….Experts estimate the ridge has ten billion tons of gas and oil deposits and significant sources of diamonds, gold, tin, manganese, nickel, lead and platinum.

No wonder Santa has enough funds to produce toys for every child in the world! Burl Ives’s rendition of “Silver and Gold” in the beloved Rudolph animated Christmas special makes much more sense now that we know Santa’s been hoarding untold treasures on his Arctic estate. It also explains why Mrs. Claus is always cheerful and optimistic despite frigid isolation and no local shopping malls or beauty salons for entertainment.

This is not Russia’s first attempt to claim arctic territory (a previous effort failed 5 years ago), but according to British officials Russia is far more serious about the current claim, which is based on alleged geological links and structural similarities between an underwater North Pole ridge and the Siberian continental shelf. Russia claims that the ridge in dispute, the Lomonosov Ridge, is connected to the Siberian continental shelf and is thus an extension of Russian territory.

The distinction is critical, since the geological link argument was carefully crafted to nullify the existing UN convention. As the Daily Mail reported:

Under current international law, the countries ringing the Arctic - -Russia, Canada, the U.S., Norway, and Denmark (which owns Greenland) - are limited to a 200-mile economic zone around their coasts.

A UN convention says none can claim jurisdiction over the Arctic seabed because the geological structure does not match the surrounding continental shelves.

But Russian scientists have returned from a six-week mission on a nuclear ice-breaker to claim that the 1,220-mile long underwater Lomonosov Ridge is geologically linked to the Siberian continental platform - and similar in structure.

The region is currently administered by the International Seabed Authority but this is now being challenged by Moscow.

International geologists have roundly rejected Putin’s claim on scientific grounds, pointing out that by extending the same logic Russia employed to conclude that the Lomonosov Ridge belonged to Russia, similar arguments could be made that Canada should lay claim to Russia because the two are connected by a shared ocean floor plate:

Ted Nield, of the Geological Society in London, branded Russia's claim nonsensical.

"The notion that geological structures can somehow dictate ownership is deeply peculiar," he said.

"Anyway, the Lomonosov Ridge is not part of a continental shelf - it is the point at which two ocean floor plates under the Arctic Ocean are spreading apart.

Given Putin’s increasingly aggressive moves toward nationalizing Russia’s industries, especially gas, oil, and power production under state control, the world should make it clear to Putin that he must contain his lust for the North Pole’s natural resources and halt any ongoing plans to seize the territory that Russia may be formulating. The U.S. State Department and international authorities labeled Russia’s claim surprising and extraordinary, and believe it will go nowhere. The danger lies in what Putin’s reaction will be when the UN rejects, once again, Russia’s claim to the North Pole and its incredible potential revenue stream. Anti-war demonstrators in America and Europe have loudly and illogically insisted that the Iraq War is a war for oil and claim that a war based on oil needs is immoral. Surely the unpopularity of the Iraq War and President Bush’s subsequently low approval ratings are not lost on Putin in his North Pole strategy considerations.

If Americans think a war over oil would be immoral (although we have left all Iraqi oil under Iraqi control), then Putin has likely already concluded that he could seize the disputed North Pole area with no fear of forceful military response by America. It would be, after all, an actual war over oil, and America’s liberals would give Russia anything it wanted to avoid another (in their eyes) war for oil.

President Bush’s personal summit with Putin in Kennebunkport this weekend promises to be tense and likely unproductive. The issues over which Russia and America are at odds are substantial: Russian arms sales to Syria and Iran; the proposed missile defense shield for Eastern Europe; increased state control over industries and the Russian media; and possibly this new claim to the North Pole. Will the UN and U.S. appease Putin’s Arctic lust to avoid armed confrontation? If so, we must ask ourselves which is better, energy dependence on the Middle East, or energy dependence on Russia? Both options should be unpalatable to the American people, yet we are already enslaved by one to an extent, while the other would like nothing more than to enslave us and exercise direct and unquestionable control over our economy through oil manipulation.

If Russia seizes the North Pole in the coming months or years, U.S. reaction must be swift and decisive to push Russia back behind its current borders. Hitler made claims on territory he desired and based those claims on ethnic and cultural similarities of the populations. Europe appeased him and he eagerly devoured what he had truly lusted after; it was not the people or culture he wanted, it was the industry and natural resources he could assimilate to arm, equip, and transport the German military machine on its march to world domination. Putin’s motives for claiming the North Pole are no less diabolic. Instead of culture or ethnicity, he invokes geological links to declare Russia’s “rights” to the North Pole, but like Hitler his true desire is for resources that are essential to securing his power and his nation’s future domination

On January 1, 2007 I published my list of the top 5 threats facing America in 2007. Number one was internal strife in America because of its potential to paralyze us when faced with imminent threats. Number two was Russia. I have seen nothing that would change my initial assessment. Even the threat of a nuclear Iran is part and parcel of the threat Russia poses, as Russian technology, equipment, and UN Security Council veto powers have allowed Iran to reach its presently precarious position threatening Israel and America with Nuclear holocaust. The North Pole issue actually combines the top two threats, as our anti-war left will hesitate to act against Russia when Putin's patience with the UN runs out and he seizes the resources he covets.

Putin must not be appeased, lest “gifts from the North Pole” take on an entirely new and ominous meaning each future Christmas season.

Image credit: "North Pole Idol" courtesy of SantasJournal.com

Technorati Tags:Vladimir Putin, Russia, North Pole, Lomonosov Ridge, Oil Deposits, War for Oil, Natural Resources, Territorial Claims, Arctic Circle

Putin Checkmates Pro-Democracy Chess Champ

Recent news out of Russia indicates that in its continued efforts to consolidate power and silence critics, President Vladimir Putin’s government is rapidly developing decidedly anti-democratic and anti-American policies, and shows little fear of international criticism for its crackdown on democracy advocates critical of Putin. Last Friday, CNSNews reported that both houses of Russia’s parliament passed resolutions that accuse America of interfering with Russia’s internal political processes. The Russian government is bristling at current U.S. State Department assessments of the status of human rights and democracy in Russia, assessments that the Russians believe are intentionally exaggerated.

The State Department’s goal, according to the Russians, is to unite international opposition to the Putin government and to impose sanctions against Russia that would interfere with Russia’s upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections this year and in 2008. Recommending a preliminary strike, Russia’s parliament rattled its sabers about imposing economic sanctions on American interests in that country if America attempted to impose sanctions stemming from human rights violations.

Almost as if on cue, the Russian government could not restrain itself from violating human rights when an opportunity arose for promoting a positive international image. Pro-democracy rallies held in St. Petersburg and Moscow this weekend met with violent riot police tactics and numerous arrests, including Former international chess champion Garry Kasparov, who is now a prominent political activist giving name recognition and credibility to groups opposing Putin’s high-handed quashing of democracy. Kasparov, who has also contributed to the Wall Street Journal since 1990, spent 10 hours in jail before being released after paying a fine. According to Kasparov, the arresting authorities did not identify themselves and several demonstrators were badly beaten.

Incidents like this are becoming par for the course with Putin, and the behavior of the riot police demonstrated that the Russian government’s complaints about the State Department’s Russian human rights assessment are without merit, as Russian democracy appears to be in only slightly less mortal peril than Putin’s turncoat KGB colleagues and personal critics.

Kasparov, contributing to Newsweek in 2005, wrote the following assessment of Putin’s Russia:

The Russian people are ready for democracy—no less so than Iraqis. It's the Putin government that finds democracy unsuitable for its ends. The freedoms gained after the collapse of the U.S.S.R. have been steadily eroded until little remains. Putin is clamping the lid down so tight, in fact, that an explosion is inevitable. Stable? Not Russia.

. . . Nor is Russia an ally on terror outside its borders. Nuclear and missile technology flow to Iran, and Syria's dictatorship is shielded from U.N. investigation of its terror activities, all while the Kremlin says it is trying to help by exploiting its "special relationship" with these rogue states.

That was Kasparov's bleak outlook in 2005. Nothing that has transpired in Russia in the past two years suggests that any improvement will occur under the Putin administration. Those who demonstrate for democracy in Russia are incredibly courageous and careful international scrutiny should be given to Russia’s handling of internal political dissent. I wrote previously of Putin’s thin skin, and Kasparov has worked his way underneath it.

Putin's Thin Skin: Is He Silencing Critics That Pose No Threat to Him?

According to a report by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), another Russian journalist died mysteriously in Moscow Friday, bringing to a chilling 14 the number of journalists who have died under suspicious circumstances since Vladimir Putin became President of Russia 5 years ago. Russia consistently makes the CPJ list of the top 5 most dangerous countries in which to be a journalist. The presence of some nations on the list, such as Iraq and Columbia, are understandable, since one has been a war zone for 4 years and the other has been a drug war zone for nearly 30 years. Russia’s membership on this notorious list deserves scrutiny.

Russia’s annual inclusion in this list should be of grave concern to the world for multiple reasons, but for one reason in particular: the number of dead Russian journalists (and former KGB operatives) clearly demonstrates that Putin is lethally sensitive to criticism and remarkably thin-skinned. Consider that there is little reason to conclude that any of the 14 journalists or the former KBG operatives posed any legitimate threat to Putin’s increasingly authoritarian grip on Russia’s government, military, and oil and gas companies. The now defunct journalists were all reporting on corruption within Russian organized crime and among government leaders, usually associating the two in shady dealings that, like drug activities in Columbia, surprise no one. That Russia is rife with corruption is so universally understood within and outside of Russia that it seems implausible that Putin would feel any actual concern that news reports linking government and organized crime could cost him even one approval poll percentage point.

Putin’s popularity in Russia, like its economy, is on the rise. While President Bush’s job approval rating hovers in the 30-35% range, Putin’s is reportedly around 75%. Of course, such polls conducted in Russia are suspect and likely exaggerated to a degree, but Putin appears to be tapping into deeply-held Russian pride through massive military spending and technological upgrades. As in most nations, when military spending rises, more jobs are created and pride in the nation’s accomplishments swells. Spy the News! previously warned of the dangerous combination of nationalism, military might, and desire for economic expansion that Russia is experiencing. The parallels to pre-World War II Germany are indeed ominous. This is not to suggest that Russia is on the verge of a genocidal holocaust, but many of the societal conditions that allowed Germany to embrace an authoritarian leader who ruthlessly eliminated his political enemies are currently fermenting in Russia.

It does not appear, however, that Putin is silencing his media critics because they pose a threat to him. Last November, Front Page Magazine published a very detailed and informative symposium transcript from a discussion of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya’s murder. Politkovskaya was, of course, a fierce critic of Putin. A panel member, Yuri Yarim-Agaev, made the following observation that supports the idea that Putin’s popularity is in no jeopardy, even from his loudest critics:

The current KGB, though, feels too weak even to put its opponents through mock political trials. So they kill them in a cowardly way or cover up for their murderers. Anna was shot in her elevator by professional killers who escaped.

As tragic as that murder was, no less disturbing is the absence of any significant reaction to it. The Russian Duma and the political opposition do not call for Putin’s resignation. His approval rating among the Russian people has not dropped. Many Russian journalists suggest insane conspiracy theories that only exonerate the authorities, and they continue to speculate whether Putin will stay for a third term or nominate his successor. Western political leaders do not question their alliance with Russia in any important political or economic areas. There are some expressions of concern, but too timid to challenge Putin’s authority.

Anna Politkovskay’s name is the last in a long list of independent journalists murdered for their criticism of official policy. These killings have become a trademark of the post-Soviet era and they seem to have become accepted as the norm inside Russia and in the outside world. It looks as if by world consensus Putin has been given a license to kill his critics, which he will continue to use until he silences all of them.

If Dick Morris wrote a book explaining Putin’s motive, he could use the same title he chose for his book about Bill Clinton’s motive for the Monica Lewinsky disgrace: “Because He Could.”

In the past six months alone, the following deaths have been reported:

Ivan Safronov – Military correspondent for Kommersant, a business daily. Safronov recently wrote about failed military weapons testing and technology, including a third failed test of an important new intercontinental ballistic missile, changes in military leadership, and training incidents that resulted in the deaths of several young soldiers. Safronov, according to CPJ reporting, had been interrogated by the Federal Security Services (FSB, heir to the KGB) regarding publishing “state secrets” but was never charged. Safronov allegedly committed “suicide” by jumping from the 5th floor of his apartment building in Moscow.

He actually lived on the 3rd floor and no one who knew him believes the “suicide” whitewash. Kommersant reported that “Safronov’s relatives believe his death may have been a murder. . . . The journalist had no domestic troubles, was expecting a grandchild, and did not leave a note to explain a suicide.” Another Russian newspaper, Moskovsky Komsomolets , expressed the editor’s opinion of what actually happened in these words: “For some reason it is those journalists who are disliked by authorities that die in our country”

Anna Politkovskaya – as described above. Despite Putin’s public vow to track down her killers, no suspects have been identified.

Alexander Litvinenko – former KGB agent who worked under Putin was poisoned last November in London. As if to claim credit for the murder, the killer poisoned Litvinenko with polonium, a radioactive substance possessed by a mere handful of world governments, including Russia. The polonium was added to Litvinenko’s tea, believed to have been consumed during a meet with another former KGB agent. Litvinenko died of painful radiation poisoning within days of ingesting polonium. The dosage appeared to have been measured specifically not to kill him too quickly, lest he not suffer sufficiently.

Paul Joyal – Maryland resident and Russian intelligence expert was shot in his driveway four days after an appearance on NBC’s "Dateline." In the "Dateline" interview, Joyal accused Putin and the Russian government of murdering Litvinenko because Litvinenko was publicly tying Putin to Politkovskaya’s assassination. Joyal prophetically stated, ”A message has been communicated to anyone who wants to speak out against the Kremlin: 'If you do, no matter who you are, where you are, we will find you, and we will silence you -- in the most horrible way possible.” Joyal, Vice President of National Strategies, a D.C. area government consulting firm, survived the attack but suffered serious injury from the gunshot wound in the groin area. His wife, a nurse, reportedly controlled the bleeding until the ambulance arrived.

Local law enforcement officials stated the attempted murder of Joyal may have been random street crime. Those same officials initially reported that Joyal’s wallet had been taken, though the Washington Post later reported that was not true, as a family member showed the wallet to the Post reporter and declared it was never missing. According to law enforcement, it seems the only indication this incident was street crime was that the two suspects were described as black males. Aside from the obvious racial profiling that conclusion suggests, that if a street crime occurred two black males were surely responsible, it is far more likely that the FSB utilized a tactic it has long employed, working through local criminal groups to locate willing shooters. Doing so gives the FSB and the Russian government plausible deniability. The fact that the assassination was botched may indicate that Joyal was merely receiving a warning, as keenly observed by Frank Gaffney, and it certainly does not preclude the possibility that another attempt will be made.

The fact that Putin feels so emboldened as to orchestrate assassinations of his critics in London and Washington is further evidence of the degree to which Putin’s thin skin dictates that he take political criticism personally and react to it. He would not survive one day as an elected official in America. His desire to eliminate his critics would result in utter confusion. Whom would he target first? If, with a 75% approval rating, he cannot stand criticism of his policies, how would he survive one face to face debate with Ann Coulter?

President Bush has been called stupid, murderer, incompetent, mentally deficient, and corrupt, and those last three came from the current Speaker of the House! Imagine Putin giving a State of the Union while looming behind him is a smirking third in the line of succession political opponent frowning and refusing to clap for his remarks. Our president, while burdened by a low approval rating, does not order the FBI or the CIA to permanently silence his media critics, and he decidedly displays a very thick skin. Compared with Putin’s overreactions to mostly insignificant critics, perhaps Bush’s pleasant patience with Helen Thomas and the hyenas in the White House Press Corps should be more widely appreciated.

Not everyone, though, is convinced that Putin and the Russian government are responsible for the murders and “suicides” of Putin critics. To some liberals, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and the CIA are more likely suspects than Putin. From the posted comments at today’s ABC News Blotter following the Safronov “suicide” story I present liberal investigative reasoning at its finest:

Putin is a monster on par with George Bush and DICK Cheney. Posted by: Putin is a savage Mar 5, 2007 9:03:27 AM

Do you really think Putin's government is behind this, or is it some other force at play to discredit Russia vis a vis their position NOT to bomb Iran?? Posted by: Tom Mar 5, 2007 9:57:43 AM

Yes, it is hard to believe that anyone would commit cold blooded murder. But Putin...everyone forgets he was head of the KGB and we all know how "innocent" they are. Of course, our CIA is just as "innocent" as the KGB. Posted by: Ryan Mar 5, 2007 10:33:17 AM

How many U.S. reporters would be dead now if they were as aggressive as their Russian counterparts? You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it. Posted by: Dennis Mar 5, 2007 11:14:04 AM

Apparently ABC’s Blotter readers believe that the U.S. government is framing Putin by killing off his critics because Putin refuses to help prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. They also seem miffed that the American media has been too soft on President Bush for the past 6 years, and the purported reason for that is they fear he might “Putinize” them. In Russia, Putin’s few critics are the lone voices of reason amid the cacophony of Putin adulation. In America, we are still hoping to find a lone voice of reason among the president’s critics. The First Amendment is alive and well in America, but in Russia criticism of government, even when it poses no threat to the current “elected dictator”, has apparently become a capital offense.

Top 5 National Security Threats for 2007

On this first day of 2007, while most of the nation revels in the arrival of a New Year, it seems the perfect moment to examine the most pressing question facing Americans in 2007: Beyond the obvious constant threat from Islamic-fascist terrorism, what are the gravest risks to national security we face in this New Year?

1. Internal Strife – It may seem incongruous for someone in my profession to rate internal conflict a greater risk than WMD-wielding terrorists or aggressive nation-states with publicly avowed hatred for America. Of course these are significant threats to our safety, and they will be addressed below, yet they pose less danger to America’s safety than our own disagreements over what is right and what is wrong, what is normal and what is not. Internal strife is our greatest threat because it prevents us from dealing effectively with the tangible physical threats we face. If we could unite in purpose we could defeat any nation or ideology bent on our destruction. We cannot agree on whether to wage a War on Terror, let alone how such a war should be waged. We cannot agree on whether it is a good thing to spread democracy or remove dictators who openly refuse to comply with UN WMD inspections. We cannot agree on whether illegal immigration is a security risk or a boon to businesses. We cannot agree on whether it is a good idea to monitor communications between American citizens and known terrorist operatives in other countries.

The chasm between the two major parties grows wider and public trust in government sinks lower. House members and Senators spend far more time raising money and making campaign appearances than they spend on the duties they were elected to perform. Not surprisingly, young Americans are taught to be ashamed of American history and cynical of its government. This is noticeable most vividly in the plots of most Hollywood action thrillers (a topic for a future post). Hollywood’s favorite villain is nearly always a law enforcement officer (local or federal), our own military, a rogue government official, or most commonly a secret cabal within the U.S. Government. It is no wonder that Americans fear their own government more than they fear terrorists. We seem to have lost the American collective agreement that this country, despite its flaws, is worth preserving, defending, and sharing. Anti-Americanism among Americans is the illegitimate offspring of a mistaken belief that America should be more like the rest of the world.

I am reminded of the scene in It's a Wonderful Life, in which George Bailey (played brilliantly by Jimmy Stewart), attends a board meeting where the fate of his father’s building and loan business is to be decided. Mr. Potter, the wealthy, ruthless financier and member of the board moves to dissolve the Bailey Building and Loan. Having already taken over most of the town’s financial institutions and important industries, Potter complains that the Bailey business is “frittering away” money on customers unworthy in Potter’s opinion of the opportunities provided by small loans. As George Bailey witnesses Potter’s greed and low opinion of the common people, George stops and makes a profound statement to the other board members prior to their vote to dissolve the Bailey business. George warns the board, “The people of this town need the Building and Loan if only so they have somewhere to go without having to crawl to Potter.” The remark sobers the board and stuns Potter into silence. The board later votes against Potters motion and preserves the Building and Loan. The world is full of Mr. Potters, leaders who hoard wealth and snatch for more power while those around them starve or suffer. The world needs America if only so people will have somewhere to go to avoid having to live under tyranny, oppression, and ideological captivity.

2. Russia - There is a Mr. Potter in Russia, where private companies formed in the initial glow of an expected capitalist democracy are rapidly being centralized and profits redirected under the thumb of an increasingly authoritarian leader. The bread lines of Cold War Russia have returned as the distinctions between organized crime rings and the Russian government blur ominously. Political opponents or those possessing sensitive knowledge of Putin’s actions have been assassinated, or have fled to other nations for asylum only to later be assassinated. In word and deed, Putin, like Hitler in the 1930s, is working to restore national pride after a humiliating defeat (Cold War), reunite lands once part of an empire (Georgia is on Putin’s mind), find someone to blame for national woes (Anti-Americanism is on the rise under Putin), and silence enemies of the state. Like Hitler, Putin sees other heads of state as weak and easily intimidated. While making speeches about Russia’s cooperation in the War on Terror, President Bush is simultaneously developing ulcers over Russian arms sales to Iran and North Korea and lacks the tenacity of a Churchill to confront the man on his duplicity. It must be particularly galling for Putin, given his KGB background, to constantly read in every international publication that the U.S. won the Cold War. We should not make the mistake of believing our own boasting, even from leaders we admire.

The Cold War can never be concluded until one side or the other abandons its ideology, its weaponry, or both. Putin has abandoned neither. Instead, he embraces authoritarianism and is wrapping himself in the old Soviet flag while fanning the flames of Russian nationalism. Soaring oil and arms revenues are not being directed toward building infrastructure or expanding capitalist ventures, or even to increasing food production for the Russian people. Those revenues are fueling a restoration of Russia’s military prowess, and Putin’s job approval rating is 3 times that of Bush because he is appealing to “a resurgence of the Russian national culture.” In the Cold War, we did not defeat communism, we merely outspent it. Russia now holds enormous leverage in the world’s oil markets and has plenty of excess revenue to equip its military. Whether as direct culprit or willing facilitator through arms sales or intelligence sharing, Russia is in my estimation the nation to fear most in 2007.

3. Iran – Why not fear Iran more than our alleged ally, Russia? Quite simply, there is still an opportunity to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. Israel will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran and will act unilaterally if necessary to prevent it. Iran’s president has openly called for the annihilation of Israel, has threatened Israel with a glowing fiery destruction, and denies the Holocaust ever occurred. He refuses to allow Iran’s nuclear program to be monitored by the IAEA as required by the UN. While the status of Iraq’s WMD program was clouded by questionable intelligence, the locations and progress of Iran’s nuclear development facilities are boasted of openly by Iran itself. The people of Iran, particularly college students and others with more pro-western views need the United States if only to have somewhere to turn without having to crawl to Ahmadinejad for national pride. In this category too, Russia has consistently stated its opposition to any interference by the United States in Iran, making eventual confrontation with both of these nations inevitable.

4. North Korea - There is a Mr. Potter in North Korea, building additional nuclear arms and equipping his burgeoning army while millions starve in drought and famine conditions. UN sanctions will not alter Kim Jon Il’s course or bring his family dynasty to its demise. North Korea has already demonstrated its relationships with state sponsors of terrorism through rocket purchases from Iran and nuclear technology from Pakistan. Russia also continues to provide updated military technology to North Korea, which promises to “mercilessly punish” any nation that interferes with its nuclear program. Kim Jong Il covets his family’s wealth and prestige above all else and will sell any weapon or WMD technology in his possession with no concern over who is purchasing it or what it will be used for. The North Korean people need the United States if only to offer somewhere to turn to end the humanitarian nightmare and the political madness that is Kim Jong Il.

5. Pakistan – President Musharraf is a frequent target of criticism from Americans who feel he could do more to rid Pakistan’s mountainous regions near the Afghanistan border of terrorists in hiding. Many are convinced Bin Laden is located there but Musharraf lacks the courage or desire to oust him. We should not forget that Pakistan, a technologically advanced nuclear power, is one assassination away from falling into political chaos, with a potential for it to emerge from the leadership vacuum under the control of Islamic-fascists. Musharraf has survived double digit assassination attempts, from within his own security forces as well as known Al Qaeda operatives. Pressing him for gradual reform is appropriate, but we should fear what may rise in his place if his enemies eventually succeed in his murder. President Bush is right to maintain close ties with and a close eye of scrutiny on Musharraf and the internal politics of Pakistan.

These five risks to our security, if not dealt with decisively and with unity in 2007, pose grave threats to our very existence. Internal strife, however, should be our most pressing concern, because if we continue on the path of increasing public dispute over what constitutes a terrorist and how terrorists should be dealt with, we will be rendered impotent to defend ourselves or anyone else from tyranny.

Technorati Tags:
War On Terror Al Qaeda national security terrorism Russia Putin Iran Ahmadinejad Pakistan Musharraf North Korea Kim Jong Il Jimmy Stewart IAEA WMD