The Iran Deal - A Framework For Disaster

Above is President Obama's speech yesterday announcing a framework for an agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear program. This framework is a disaster.

It's impossible to fathom just what is motivating President Obama to seek out and make a deal with the mad mullahs of Iran that would allow them to keep an operational nuclear program that has but a single purpose -- the creation of nuclear weapons. It is no secret that Iran's theocracy is a rogue regime; that they are at war with the U.S. and have been since 1979; that they are the world's leading sponsor and central banker of terrorism; and, because the made mullahs believe that to die in jihad is a sure ticket to an endless heavenly sex orgy and because they have an apocalyptic vision of the Second Coming of their savior, the Mahdi, that requires chaos throughout the world, they are not likely to be deterred from the use of nuclear weapons by the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction. It is a regime that is every bit as bloody and expansionist as Hitler and the Nazis, and one that recognizes no moral strictions on its goal to export the Khomeinist revolution. They are an existential threat to every nation in the Middle East, to America, to Israel, and quite literally every other nation in the world.

There is only one possible acceptable solution to the Iranian nuclear program -- it must end and end completely, whether that be voluntarily on Iran's part or brought about by force of arms. Anything else is sheer suicide and every day we wait, the potential cost in gold and blood to accomplish this necessity rises.

Since word leaked to the world in 2002 that Iran had a covert nuclear program, the U.S. policy has indeed been that Iran must end its uranium enrichment program, period. President Bush built an international coalition that demanded an end to Iran's uranium enrichment and backed up that demand with ever more restrictive economic sanctions. When Obama ran for the Presidency in 2008 and 2012 he sounded these same calls, indicating that he would back them up by force if necessary. But after his election in 2012, Obama immediately sought to loosen Congressionally imposed sanctions on Iran that were really starting to bite the Iranian economy and, if kept in place for the long term, would have left the regime with a choice between economic disaster or its nuclear weapons program. Obama began secret negotiations with the regime that have ended in the disaster we see before us today.

So let's take a look at the framework for agreement that the Obama administration is now touting. You can find a State Dept. Fact Sheet on the agreement here.

Note at the outset two points. One, Iran has already contested the accuracy of the fact sheet being presented to our nation. Iran claims that the Obama administration has already agreed to lift all sanctions immediately upon inking a final agreement, no waiting for verification of Iran's compliance. Two, this deals contains sunset provisions, as Obama indicates in his statement at the top of this page. That means that, in reality, this agreement does worse than nothing. It allows Iran to continue their nuclear program and experimentation, and then emerge on the threshold of a nuclear arsenal in ten or fifteen years with the approval of the U.S. government. Here is how the Washington Post describes this abortion:

THE “KEY parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.

That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years. . .

Even if this agreement went on in perpetuity and actually stood a chance, on paper at least, of stopping Iran from getting a nuclear arsenal, it still suffers from fatal defects. One, it involves the UN Security Council directly in issues of our national security. Anyone who remembers the perfidy of Russia and China in the leadup to the second Gulf War, as well as the incredible treachery of France, will immediately grasp that the UN Security Council is not concerned with U.S. national security and should not be able to insinuate itself in any way into our national security decisions. Two, the inspection regime, which looks quite detailed and complete on paper, is far too unwieldy to allow for timely and aggressive response to cheating by Iran. That is the point made forcefully by former CIA Director Michael Hayden, Olli Heinonen, formerly of the IAEA, and Iranian expert Ray Takeyh in a Washington Post op-ed yesterday.

This agreement, best case scenario with Iran meticulously complying with every provision, will accomplish the following.

1. It will leave Iran with an operational nuclear program and a clear path to nuclear weapons development in fifteen years. It is in essence a sure path to war in the Middle East, but one which gives the mad mullahs a fifteen year breathing space in which to prepare. Hitler should have been so lucky.

2. It will remove sanctions from the Iranian economy, allowing them to become far more secure even as they promote war and terrorism across the globe.

3. It will leave Iran the strongest power in the Middle East and directly threaten the survival of our allies in the region, not least of which is Israel.

4. It will not touch Iran's development of ICBM's to deliver their eventual nuclear payloads to any spot in the world, including our nation.

5. It will touch off nuclear proliferation in some, if not most, of the Middle Eastern nations threatened by Iran. The only thing more frightening than Iran with a nuclear capability is Saudi Arabia, the nation whose Wahhabist form of Islam has been the wellspring for virtually every Sunni terrorist group, from al Qaeda to ISIS.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but how is any single one of those outcomes in the interests of our nation. Bottom line, this agreement is a recipe for disaster and it must be stopped before its foreseeable costs in blood and gold come due.

Udpate: Charles Krauthammer's opinion of the framework:

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Iran & Watching History Repeat Itself (Updated)

The last time the "Peace In Our Time" bit of history played out in 1938, over 50 million people were killed in the aftermath and entire economies destroyed for decades. The only acceptable deal with Iran leaves them without a nuclear program. Period. Anything less is suicidal. And if such a deal is not possible, than we strangle their economy and hope that does the trick before military force is required. Yet it seems the Obama administration is dead set on a deal with the mad mad mullahs at any cost.

Iran has been at war with the U.S. and U.S. interests since 1979. They are the single most destabilizing influence in the world, and particularly in the Middle East, where they are the world's foremost proponent and supporter of terrorism. The mad mullahs are every bit as bloody and expansionist as Hitler and Nazi Germany. Given that WMD's are at stake and not conventional weapons, to make a deal with the mad mullahs that would allow them to continue their nuclear weapons program is far more dangerous and irrational than the deal Chamberlain hammered out with Hitler in 1938 to, famously, insure "peace in our time."

Obama is leading the world to Armageddon. Why, I cannot begin to fathom, but there is no doubting at this point that the more a nation is opposed to U.S., the greater the danger a nation poses to the U.S. and its allies, the more Obama is willing to deal with it irrespective of the cost to our national security. And it is truly the world turned upside down when the only adults in the room protecting the interests of the free world are the French.

This from Thomas Sowell's recent article, Etiquette Versus Annihilation:

Recent statements from United Nations officials, that Iran is already blocking their existing efforts to keep track of what is going on in their nuclear program, should tell anyone who does not already know it that any agreement with Iran will be utterly worthless in practice. It doesn’t matter what the terms of the agreement are, if Iran can cheat.

It is amazing — indeed, staggering — that so few Americans are talking about what it would mean for the world’s biggest sponsor of international terrorism, Iran, to have nuclear bombs, and to be developing intercontinental missiles that can deliver them far beyond the Middle East.

Back during the years of the nuclear stand-off between the Soviet Union and the United States, contemplating what a nuclear war would be like was called “thinking the unthinkable.” But surely the Nazi Holocaust during World War II should tell us that what is beyond the imagination of decent people is by no means impossible for people who, as Churchill warned of Hitler before the war, had “currents of hatred so intense as to sear the souls of those who swim upon them.”

Have we not already seen that kind of hatred in the Middle East? Have we not seen it in suicide bombings there and in suicide attacks against America by people willing to sacrifice their own lives by flying planes into massive buildings, to vent their unbridled hatred?

The Soviet Union was never suicidal, so the fact that we could annihilate their cities if they attacked ours was a sufficient deterrent to a nuclear attack from them. But will that deter fanatics with an apocalyptic vision? Should we bet the lives of millions of Americans on our ability to deter nuclear war with Iran?

It is now nearly 70 years since nuclear bombs were used in war. Long periods of safety in that respect have apparently led many to feel as if the danger is not real. But the dangers are even greater now and the nuclear bombs more devastating.

Clearing the way for Iran to get nuclear bombs may — probably will — be the most catastrophic decision in human history. And it can certainly change human history, irrevocably, for the worse.

Against that grim background, it is almost incomprehensible how some people can be preoccupied with the question whether having Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu address Congress, warning against the proposed agreement, without the prior approval of President Obama, was a breach of protocol.

Against the background of the Obama administration’s negotiating what can turn out to be the most catastrophic international agreement in the nation’s history, to complain about protocol is to put questions of etiquette above questions of annihilation.

Why is Barack Obama so anxious to have an international agreement that will have no legal standing under the Constitution just two years from now, since it will be just a presidential agreement, rather than a treaty requiring the “advice and consent” of the Senate? . . .

From the Washington Policy Institute, a fact sheet on Iran's time to a nuclear breakout.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Wolf Bytes - The Please Wear Underwear Edition

Blue Moon Over Cambodia: If you are First Lady of the United States, for the love of God, WEAR UNDERWEAR!!!

This is an atrocity: US Declassifies Document Revealing Israel's Nuclear Program

The solution, barring regime change, is simple: To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran

Tell us something we didn't know: We're Losing The War Against Radical Islam

And the solution to that problem is: Islam Needs To Go Through A Reformation

From the Daily Beast, no less: Everything The White House Told You About Bowe Bergdahl Was Wrong

George Will: A new and mind-opening book on economics shows that it’s anything but “the dismal science.”

A rather damning indictment - "NYT's science articles take a pro-fearmongering, anti-technology viewpoint:" The New York Times Should Seriously Consider Not Writing About Science Anymore

Follow the money: ISIS's Backdoor Financing

Lanny Davis says that Hillary's E-Mail Scandal is meaningless because -- "LOOK, SQUIRREL!!!:" The Scandal Machine - Will We Ever Learn

Science Fiction comes closer to reality: Developing A "Cloaking Device" To Shield Against Shock Waves

The faith of our fathers: Franklin, Jefferson and what was deism?

From China: Wrath of Dancing Grandmothers

Fascinating: Two Sentence Horror Stories

& Finally, A True Treat: Itzhak Perlman Plays Klezmer

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

The Watcher's Council Forum: Is America In Decline? Why Or Why Not?

Each week, the Watcher's Council hosts a forum, in addition to holding a weekly contest for best posts among the members of the Council. I have been kindly invited to respond to this week's question. Update: The forum is up, with several different answers to the question, all worth your read.

It is beyond question that our nation is in decline. We stand mired in historic levels of debt, yet massive deficit spending by Congress continues unabated. Regulations are being pumped out by unelected bureaucrats at record pace, working fundamental changes to our nation that could never pass Congress. Yet Congress sits by and the odd Congresscritter only occasionally impotently complains in speeches. Medicare and Social Security threaten to bankrupt our nation in the foreseeable future unless reformed, yet Congress does not just nothing, but manages to compound the problems with Obamacare. We have a tyrannical President who unconstitutionally threatens our country's make up by unilaterally legislating the legalization of millions of illegal aliens, while an utterly supine Congress with the sole Constitutional authority to legislate is allowing this to happen. It appears that elections for either party no longer matter to change our national trajectory.

Our Supreme Court today sits as a sort of unelected Politburo deciding that the Constitution means whatever five of them want it to mean based on their whim of the day. What was supposed to be the least dangerous of our co-equal branches of government is now arguably the most dangerous. The left is using our military as a laboratory for insane social experiments, the worst being to allow women into front line combat units, something that can only be accomplished in any number by lowering the physical standards. And that does not even begin to consider the impact on unit cohesion. Space exploration as well as virtually everything to do with space is without doubt of incredible importance to our future. Moreover, it is vital that we continue to develop space defense technology to protect our many satellites upon which modern life is dependant. Space technology is an area where we have still a distinct advantage, yet Obama has killed our nation's space program. Lastly, our national security posture hasn't been this bad since the 1930's.

I think it would be fair to say we are not merely in decline, but rapidly approaching key tests during our descent that will determine our future. It is hard to say which will be the first key test, whether it will come in the form of severe economic stress as the interest rates rise on our outrageous national debt, or whether it will come in the choking of our economy by ever more far reaching regulations by the EPA and FCC, or whether it will come from foreign countries energized by our growing weakness. The only sure lesson of history is that the tests will come.

Our nation has proven resilient in the past, but in the past, we've been much better positioned to respond to challenges. In the past hundred years, we've faced the Depression and come through. But that was at a time when our massive excess industrial capacity sat untapped and we started from a point with no major deficits. We faced WWII and came through. But that was at a time when the other allied nations had strong militaries of their own, not the empty shells that they now have. We faced down the Soviet Union, but that was at a time when our military was at the pinnacle of its strength, not now when Obama has starved our military for funding, going so far as to change our national security posture from being able to fight two simultaneous wars to one. That was a change not based on any threat assessment, but rather a desire to divert the savings to his various welfare programs. And he has likewise overseen the devolution of our nuclear capacity -- something that has maintained the peace in Europe for 75 years -- because of his insane, utopian vision of a world without nuclear weapons. Somebody, please inform the North Koreans, the Iranians, and the other Middle Eastern nations now initiating their own nuclear weapons programs.

Bookworm Room has added her own cogent thoughts to this list above. To paraphrase, in the past, when challenges faced our nation, we had a fundamental love of country to join us. Our immigrants once came for the freedom to seek wealth. Yet today, "our immigrants come for handouts that they then wire to the tyrannies back home." And worst of all:

Our young people once thought that we brought freedom to the world; our young people now believe that we are evil. When a nation's young people think that they and their country are unworthy, the ink is on the suicide pact. And when they've been trained to think of themselves as fragile victims, you can bet that the first drop of blood spilled will seal that pact.

It is hard for me to believe that America will retain a dominant position in the world beyond another decade or so. Perhaps this would not matter if America was intrinsically evil as the left seems to think, or if those who would replace us were benign. The reality is that no nation is strong enough to take our place at the moment, and those who will vie for influence do not have a history of rule by law or democracy. Nor do I believe there is any leader we could elect in 2016 that could restore the Constitutional systems that have allowed us to flourish for much of the past two centuries.

That said, perhaps in response to the key tests and trials foreseeable on our national horizon, things might change. My pessimism is moderated by the reality that history has few straight lines, and great nations have rarely gone gentle into that good night. But my pessimism is made worse by the knowledge that, with key tests and trials come great costs in gold and in blood. The question is not whether America is in decline, but how low we must fall before we even begin to recover, and at what cost?

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Israeli PM Netanyahu Addresses Congress On Obama's Plan That Would Allow Iran's March To A Nuclear Arsenal

This was without doubt the most important speech PM Netanyahu has ever given and likely will ever give on a matter of our national security. Netanyahu's purpose was to educate Americans about the danger of Iran and to explain why Iran cannot be allowed to continue its efforts to build a nuclear arsenal. The threat Iran poses is not just to Israel, but to our country as well.

Did PM Netanyahu succeed? Time will tell. Unfortunately, many Democrat Congressmen and women boycotted the speech, making this issue of national defense a partisan political issue. And equally unfortunately, the major networks boycotted the speech, refusing to carry it. If the speech is to have its effect, it will have to break through a Democrat wall of silence.

PM Netanyahu gave a good summary of the Iranian theocracy's incredible record of bloodshed, aggression, conquest and terror. Not since its inception in 1979 has the theocracy moderated its actions, nor changed its targeting of Israel, Jews and Americans. And indeed, even as Iran develops its nuclear arsenal, it also is developing Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM). The only purpose of ICBM's is to reach out and touch countries at great distance, including the U.S., with nuclear weapons.

When Obama ran for President in 2008, he stated that under no circumstances would he allow Iran to achieve nuclear weapons. Iran had to stop enriching uranium. And yet now, President Obama is negotiating a deal that would leave Iran with its nuclear program intact and, as it is currently constituted, a nuclear arsenal inevitable. It's insane. In trying to justify this plan, Susan Rice claimed that its impossible to stop Iran's nuclear enrichment. That is just ridiculous.

If Iran truly needs nuclear power for peaceful purpose -- which, given their oil and gas supplies, they do not -- then there are certainly reactor types that can provide it without also providing the enriched uranium and plutonium used for nuclear weapons. But what Iran has, between its reactors and heavy water plant, is a factory for producing nuclear bombs.

We were well on the way to breaking the Iranian economy with international sanctions when Iran held out the possibility of a deal to Obama and he bit like a trout on a worm. He dispensed with much of the international sanctions regime as he had dreams of doing a deal with the mad mullahs. The outlines of that deal are now clear. Iran get's to continue its march to a nuclear weapon while Obama claims some sort of hollow diplomatic victory. For the sake of our national security, Obama must never be allowed to complete this deal.

Let's hope that the Prime Minister's speech has its desired effect. The lives of our children and their children depend on it.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama's Failed Iran Policy & The Need To Set A Red Line

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a dramatic speech to the United Nations, employed a simple diagram to hammer home his plea that the international community set a "clear red line" over Iran's nuclear program -- warning that a nuclear-armed Iran would be tantamount to a nuclear-armed Al Qaeda.

Netanyahu: 'Clear red line' needed to stop Iran's nuclear program, Fox News, 27 Sep. 2012

__________________________________________

. . . But what Obama hasn't done is effectively address the single greatest overarching foreign policy issue facing the U.S. since day one of his Administration - the continued viability of Iran's theocracy and that theocracy's drive for a nuclear weapon. This is a regime every bit as dipped in blood as that of Pol Pot's and, as they draw ever closer to having a nuclear arsenal, every bit as threatening to the world as that of Hitler. To repeat the assessment of Iran by then Defense Secretatry Robert Gates in 2008:

Everywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos, no matter the strategic value or cost in the blood of innocents - Christians, Jews and Muslims alike. . . . There can be little doubt that their destabilizing foreign policies are a threat to the interests of the United States, to the interests of every country in the Middle East, and to the interests of all countries within the range of the ballistic missiles Iran is developing.

Iran, Nukes & Obama's Scales, 5 Dec. 2011

__________________________________________

On the day Obama was inagurated into office, stopping Iran's drive towards a nuclear arsenal was by far his most important foreign policy challenge. Yet here we sit, four years later, with Iran's centrifuges spinning ever faster. As Mitt Romney noted this past week

:

U.S. President Barack Obama's policy on Iran represents his single worst foreign policy failure, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said in an interview on Sunday, saying that Iran was closer to having "nuclear capability" than when Obama took office in 2008.

Obama's response - "If Gov. Romney is suggesting that we should start another war, he should say so." Clement Attlee couldn't have said it better.



Without doubt the most important lesson of WWII is that the delay of Attlee and his French counterpart in standing up to Hitler - to draw a red line if you will - ended up embroiling the world in the costliest and deadliest war in the history of man. It wasn't the beligirence of the French and British that led to WWII, it was their desire for peace at all costs, and thus their refusal to threaten force against Nazi Germany all the way up until the date Germany attacked Poland in September, 1939. According to a post-war debriefing of Nazi generals, WWII could been avoided had Britain and France stood up to Hitler in 1936-37, before Hitler's war machine was built up in strength.

Today, Obama claims, for domestic consumption, that the use of force is on the table as an option against Iran. But he is trying to have it both ways, criticizing Romney for even wanting to threaten Iran with force, while to Iran, he is silent.

Israeli PM Netanyahu has been publicly begging Obama to make a credible threat for the use of force against Iran for months as Iran moves ever closer to a nuclear arsenal. At the UN yesterday, Netanyahu gave a crystal clear warning to the world of the threat Iran poses and repeated his plea to Obama to act decisively with a threat of force before it is too late. Do watch this whole speech. It is worth a half hour of your time:



Do note that not only has Obama refused to meet with Netanyahu this past week, our U.N. Ambassador, Susan Rice, did not attend Netanyahu's speech at the UN. She wsa off having lunch with Hillary.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama's Unilateral Disarmament Of The U.S.

In 1967, during the height of the cold war with the Soviet Union, America had 31,255 nuclear warheads. By the time the Soviet Union fell, we had 22,217 nuclear warheads. By 2010, that number had been reduced to 5,113 warheads. Obama is now considering whether to unilaterally reduce our nuclear arsenal to 300 warheads.

To put that in perspective, that would leave us with approximately the same number of nuclear weapons as France, just a few more than China, about two times as many as Pakistan, and about twenty times less than Russia. Obama would see us go from overwhelming nuclear superiority to something akin to nuclear parity with other nuclear powers. He would do so without respect to tomorrow's threats, nor in consideration of how such unilateral disarmament will effect the perception of either our allies who depend on our nuclear umbrella or, more importantly, our opponents, who must consider it.

In an AEI Center For Defense Studies working paper, written at the time that Obama was promising to significantly reduce our nuclear arsenal as part of START to just under 2,000 warheards, the authors wrote:

The third atomic age demands American nuclear capabilities that are flexible, adaptable and resilient in the face of new challenges and emerging threats, the likely rise of additional nuclear powers and the expansion of nuclear strike capabilities among a number of existing nuclear weapon states.  Current American policy, however, seems to be moving in the opposite direction.  U.S. nuclear forces are being reduced; new nuclear weapons, capabilities and missions have been proscribed; the conditions under which the United States would threaten  nuclear retaliation have been narrowed; the enduring value of nuclear weapons is being  challenged; and the vision of a nuclear-free world is being heralded as a desirable – and  ultimately achievable – goal, if only the United States leads the way.

We are concerned with the trends evident in the evolution of U.S. nuclear policy.  They suggest to us a highly questionable premise; namely, that the mere possession of weapons that have helped keep the peace for more than 60 years is more dangerous to American security today than the motivations of those who may possess – or actually use – them tomorrow. In addition, we suggest that our current nuclear course reflects a failure to understand America’s rise as the dominant global security ―provider.‖ Influence in world affairs has resulted not simply from its liberal philosophy, its commitment to democratic  principles and the rule of law or its military-technical superiority in conventional forces,  but from the skillful management and prudent application of its nuclear muscle – as both a deterrent to attack and a guarantor of security for others. The implications of this  suggest that America has grown weary of the global responsibility it has assumed as a  result of its nuclear might and would prefer to shed the burdens associated with global  leadership.  And this portends additional challenges to America’s supremacy by those  who would see U.S. policy as a further sign of American weakness and decline and an  opportunity to restructure world affairs more to their own liking.

As a young campus leftie at Columbia, Obama penned an article that reads as a paean to the anti-war agenda of 80's campus radicals. At one point in the article, "Breaking the War Mentality," Obama argued for a nuclear freeze - a movement we now know was started by Soviet agents in Western Europe - and criticized Reagan for pushing ahead with new weapons systems.  And in 2009, Obama, as our new leader announced the penultimate leftie fantasy, a world without nuclear weapons.  Obama would bet our national defense, and the defense of the free West, on pure fairy dust.  Nonetheless, it appears that Obama is trying to make good towards that campaign promise, irrespective of how dangerous it might be for the U.S. or, that matter, the world.

Obama's desire to disarm America also must be looked at in Obama's much larger plan to minimize work on our ABM shield and gut our conventional forces.   The game he is playing is incredibly dangerous.  At a minimum, if he is allowed to continue ahead with all of his plans, it will mean that the Pax American of the past 60 years is rapidly coming to a close.  It will create a power vacuum that most assuredly will be filled by others - Russia in Europe, China in the East, and Iran in the Middle East seem the most likely bets.  And it will lead to nuclear proliferation throughout the world as allies no longer feel protected by the U.S. nuclear umbrella, and opponents may be inspired to overcome our much depleted umbrella.  Such is the cost to fund Obama's entitlements and his reelection campaign.  

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

The Dictator Is Dead, Long Live The Dictator

The world is minus yet another megalomaniacal dictator with blood stained hands. According to news reports from North Korea, Kim Jong Il's 17 year reign as the Dear Leader ended when he died Saturday of natural causes. Over a year ago, Kim named as his successor his youngest son, 28 year old Kim Jong Un.

 North Korea is a communist police state founded on a cult of personality so potent it would have made Stalin jealous. It is one of the poorest countries in the world, though it maintains a very large military and it has nuclear weapons. North Korea has historically been quite aggressive. In 1950, it invaded South Korea, prompting American intervention. When the war concluded two years later along roughly the same line of demarcation, North Korea refused to agree to peace with South Korea. North Korea has since engaged in numerous provocative acts aimed at its democratic neighbor to the south, including most recently the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel and the shelling of civilians on South Korea's Yeonpyong Island.

The below video gives a good four minute introduction to the nightmare that is North Korea



What will happen in North Korea now is anyone's guess. I lived in South Korea for five years, spending a significant part of that time stationed on the DMZ. I became very familiar with the intelligence surrounding North Korea, such as it was. When Kim Il Sung died, I did not think that Kim Il Jung, a much lesser figure, would be able to successfully consolidate power. And indeed, given how mecurial and unstable Kim Jong Il was, I thought there a high likelihood that he would attempt another invasion of South Korea as a last ditch effort to salvage his failing nation. Obviously I was wrong.  Thankfully so, as renewed war in the Koreas would have a body count well into the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.  It would make Iraq look like a cakewalk.

As it stands today, North Korea's economy, always weak, is in free fall with near starvation - the typical diet is 700 calories per day - being the daily reality of life. Kim Jong Un, at age 28 and with no military experience, is himself a much lesser figure than even his father. Moreover, North Korea's military has apparently gone into severe decline over the past decade because of the poor economy.

 So what happens now? That is anyone's guess. But my money is against anything good happening any time soon.

Read More...

Summary only...

Iran, Orwell & The Enigma Of Greenwald

I generally never click over to read Glen Greenwald unless I spot a particularly interesting title or teaser, such as the one in Memorandum today listing a Glen Greenwald article, "George Orwell On The Evil Iranian Menace."  Greenwald relying on Orwell struck me as odd, as Orwell was a pretty severe critic of the type of politics Greenwald embraces.

Here was the quote that Greenwald uses from Orwell's 1945 Notes on Nationalism as the basis for his column.

All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side. . . . The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.

(emphasis supplied by Greenwald).

Greenwald neglects to inform us that Orwell gave in his essay a unique definition of nationalism, conflating it with xenophoia to define "nationalism" as "identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests." And according to Greenwald, all of those in the U.S. who see Iran as a great evil meet Orwell's definition of "nationalists" as, according to Greenwald, we are actually more "evil" in our actions then is Iran.

To make his point, Greenwald goes through a long list of American and Israeli actions that he considers criminal, ranging from waterboarding (Torture!!!!!!) and military detentions to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and including that:

. . . some combination of the U.S. and Israel has bombarded Iran with multiple acts of war over the last year, including explosions on Iranian soil, the murder of numerous Iranian nuclear scientists (in which even one of their wives was shot), and sophisticated cyberattacks.

Greenwald sees no possible justification for such acts, concluding with this utterly unreal statement:

During this same time period, Iran has not invaded, occupied or air attacked anyone. Iran, to be sure, is domestically oppressive, but no more so — and in many cases less — than the multiple regimes funded, armed and otherwise propped up by the U.S. during this period. Those are all just facts.

Facts?  That is so disingenous, so blatantly misleading in its omissions as to be risible.   Here is a short list I compiled some time ago of Iran's bloodthirsty, dangerous and aggressive acts:

Iran is the single most destabilizing influence in the world today. Sec of Defense Robert Gates had it right when he said not too long ago

Everywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos, no matter the strategic value or cost in the blood of innocents - Christians, Jews and Muslims alike. . . . There can be little doubt that their destabilizing foreign policies are a threat to the interests of the United States, to the interests of every country in the Middle East, and to the interests of all countries within the range of the ballistic missiles Iran is developing.

And, as Stuart Levy, Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence recently testified before Congress, Iran is the "the central banker of terrorism." It "uses its global financial ties and its state-owned banks to pursue its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, and to fund terrorism."

To tick off the list of Iran’s threats:

- Iran is clearly doing all it can to prevent peace between Palestinians and Israel. And in rearming Hamas, it is doing so with substantially stronger rockets that can reach further into Israel, virtually insuring that Israel will have to take extreme measures to stop the daily attacks.

- Iran’s meddling in Lebanon has created a situation where both the Shia population and the country as a whole are dominated by Hezbollah, an army trained, armed and directed by Iran. Indeed, Hezbollah is now demanding veto power over acts of the Lebanese government. In the wake of the 2006 war with Israel, Iran is arming Hezbollah with much stronger rockets that can reach vitrutally all of Israel, thus insuring that the next war with Hezbollah will also be far more bloody for all of Lebanon.

- Iran has occupied several islands belonging to the UAE. Iran has supported attempted coups in Bahrain and, recently, Azerbaijan. Iran occupied a significant part of Iraqi territory immediately after Saddam's fall – some 1800 square-kilometers of the Zaynalkosh salient - and is making an effort to extend its dominance over the waterway on which sits Iraq's only major port.

- Iran is arming and training the Sudan's military - those would be the folks involved in a campaign of genocide against the non-Muslims in Southern Sudan and Darfur.

- Iran is now the single greatest threat to stability in Iraq. Iran is attempting to "Lebanize" Iraq, using "special groups" culled from Sadr’s Mahdi Army to create a Hezbollah type of militia that will keep Iraq’s central government weak and extend Iranian influence over Iraq’s Shia majority. Indeed, Iran’s campaign to create a satellite state of Iraq was clear from the very start of the U.S. invasion in March, 2003. Their "special groups" are responsible for the deaths of nearly 200 American soldiers and the wounding and maiming of hundreds of others.

- Iran’s drive towards a nuclear weapon is significantly destabilizing the Middle East and has already initiated what promises to be a nightmare of nuclear proliferation. "Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, the UAE, Yemen, Morocco, Libya, Jordan and Egypt have indicated an interest in developing nuclear programs, with Israeli officials saying that if these countries did not want the programs now for nuclear capabilities, they wanted the technology in place to keep "other options open" if Iran developed a bomb." According to a recent study initiated by Senator Lugar, "the future Middle East landscape may include a number of nuclear-armed or nuclear weapons-capable states vying for influence in a notoriously unstable region."

- And then of course is the threat that a nuclear armed Iran intrinsically poses. According to Bernard Lewis, the West’s premier Orientalist, Iran's theocracy operates outside the constraints of Western logic. The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MADD) that worked against the Soviet Union and with other nuclear armed nations is not assured of working with a theocracy whose messianic rulers welcome the carnage that will presage the coming of the hidden Imam. And to add to that is the threat that Iran could well provide nuclear materials to terrorist groups in order to conduct attacks, such as dirty bombs, that could not necessarily be traced back to Iran. Such a scenario would be completely in keeping with the historical activities of Iran's theocracy.

And indeed, even the paltry number of "facts" that Greenwald posits are false. Greenwald's suggestion that Iran is staying within its borders is not merely objectively false, but it ignores the whole raison d'etre of Iran's theocracy - as even the smallest amount of research would show:

Iran's theocracy exists to spread its Khomeinist revolution at all costs throughout the Middle East and the world. This is no secret. Iran’s leaders since Khomeini have regularly and explicitly stated as such. For example, this from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook:

I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers of the U.S. and the West] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours.

Read the entire article. And there has been no weakening of this expansionist motivation in the years since. Indeed, the sub-cult of Shia’ism dominant in Iran’s rulers today, Mahdism, is equally as expansionist while actually being more messianic and dangerous than the philosophy articulated by Khomeini. It is a philosophy that welcomes carnage and chaos to hasten the coming of the Mahdi. This from Ahmedinejad, himself a Mahdist, in a February address to Iran’sAssembly of Experts:

Building a model society and introducing the Islamic Revolution are our nation's missions… The Islamic Revolution and the Islamic Republic of Iran are both great divine gifts, not only awarded to the Iranian nation, but to the entire mankind. . . . "Our nation's second important mission [after insuring a Khomeinist utopia in Iran] is introducing the Islamic Revolution to the entire mankind. . . .

Equally risible is Greenwald's claim that Iran's domestic oppression is not particularly harsh or unique.  Did this joker miss the brutal repression of the Green Revolution.  Does he not understand that, even before that repression, the theocracy made extensive use of terrorism to keep its own population in line?  As two human right’s activists wrote in PJM some time ago:

. . . [S]ince 1979 the Mullahs of Iran have killed upwards of one million Iranians, not to mention the nearly one million sacrificed to the 8-year-long Iran/Iraq war. And what the Iranian people have withstood in terms of outrageous human rights violations is shocking; public hangings, stoning, flogging, cutting off limbs, tongues and plucking out eyeballs are an everyday occurrence across Iran. All are meant to strike fear of the ruling Mullahs into people’s hearts.

Read the entire article.  It is hard for me to think of a more evil regime than Iran's theocracy, nor one more threatening to literally the entire world should they gain a nuclear arsenal.

So let's address the enigma that is Greenwald.  He apparently is intelligent enough to write coherent essays.  His professional life involves political commentary and analysis, so we can reasonably assume that he is not so lacking in intelligence that he is incapable of doing rudimentary research.  So we can only conclude that Greenwald is being deliberately intellectually dishonest in the above essay in order to attack his own country.

Indeed, had Greenwald read Orwell's 1945 Notes on Nationalism with a closer eye, he might have seen his own reflection in the form of "negative nationalism."  According to Orwell,  negative nationalists are those who apply xenephobic nationalism in reverse, to see only the worst in their own country in comparison to all others.  Indeed, it would seem that is a disease that fully infects virtually all of our modern left.  That explains the enigma of how Greenwald can pen such a disgusting piece of intellectual dishonesty, but it still doesn't explain the enigma of how and why he gets paid for it.

Update:  Welcome Larwyn's Linx readers

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama's Cairo Address: Nukes, Iran & Weakness Writ Large

I understand those who protest that some countries have [nuclear] weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.

President Barack Obama, Address in Cairo, June 4, 2009

How many things are suicidally wrong with those statements? One, those statements come perilously close to Obama announcing that he will not use force to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. If we have no right to decide who is able to get a nuclear arsenal, then obviously, in Obamaworld, we have no right to use force to stop such an eventuality. That is troubling indeed, as a nuclear armed Iran presents a danger to the West and to Israel that easily eclipses the threat from the Soviets and China during the Cold War. If you do not know why, Bernard Lewis explains it here.

Two, this is moral equivalency and multiculturalism taken to the very suicidal end of logic and into the realm of fantasy. Every nation is the equal of every other nation, end of discussion? Is there to be no discrimination based on facts and history?

Discrimination is the single most basic of survival skills. You see a snake. Do you give it a wide berth or do you ignore it and walk by. To answer that, you take a look at the shape of its head, its markings and its tail. You may not know the type of snake it is, but looking at those things will immediately tell you weather the snake is deadly or just a friendly forest critter. Bottom line, the ability to discriminate is coextensive with the ability to survive. Is this ice thick enough to hold my weight? Is that branch? Is that man friend or foe? Etc., etc.

We expect our President to be able to discriminate who is a danger to us and who is not. So is Obama capable of considering the fact that Iran is the world's central banker of terrorism? Is it impermissible for Obama consider the assessment of Sec. of Def. Gates, that "everywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos, no matter the strategic value or cost in the blood of innocents - Christians, Jews and Muslims alike?" Should Obama ignore the mad mullah's unbroken history of the committing or soliciting the most vile terrorism since 1979? Should Obama ignore that Iran's leadership has repeatedly talked of destroying Israel? In Obamaworld, all of these are apparently impermissible bases on which to discriminate between who can have a nuclear weapon and who we should prevent at all costs from attaining one. If that is true, then our chances of survival as well as Israel's just dropped precipitously.

Next, is there anyone in this world over the age of 12 who thinks that Obama's drive toward a nuclear free world is anything other than the most sophomoric of fantasies. I would expect any child, having reached the developmental stage of a 12 year old, to understand that no matter how much Obama may wish it, he cannot put the genie back in the bottle.

And indeed, a world without nuclear weapons is not a safer one. It does not mean any less will be killed in conflicts. Take a look at Japan in World War II. We killed 100,000 plus Japanese with two atomic bombs. The alternative would have been over a million combined U.S. and Japanese casualties had we not used the bombs. Two, how can we be sure that any supposed disarmament is actually bilateral and not unilateral. We would not last long in this world if the only people who had nuclear weapons hidden away were North Korea and Iran.

As to Iran itself, Obama continued his habit of serial apologetics and moral equivalency. Obama apologized to Iran for the U.S. role in a coup that occurred in 1953. He then made a moral equivalency argument, equating that bad act over half a century ago with the countless acts of terrorism and the countless number of innocent lives lost at the hands of the mad mullahs from 1979 through today. Again, Obama shows that he is unable or unwilling to discriminate or make any sort of value judgment. This is not tact, nor is it diplomacy. It is incredibly dangerous because it ignores reality. It is, in fact, weakness writ large.

Summary - Obama's Cairo Address: What We Needed, What We Got
Part 1 - Obama's Cairo Address: Hiding From The Existential Problems Of The Muslim World
Part 2 - Obama's Cairo Address: A Walk Back From Democracy & Iraq
Part 3 - Obama's Cairo Address: Obama Calls For Women's Rights While Glossing Over Discrimination & Violence
Part 4 - Obama's Cairo Address: Nukes, Iran & Weakness Writ Large
Part 5 - Obama's Cairo Address: Israel & Palestine – A Little Good, A Lot Of Outrageousness
Part 6 - Obama's Cairo Address: Islam's Tradition Of Religious Tolerance?
Part 7 - Obama's Cairo Address: The Dangerous Whitewashing Of History

Read More...

Summary only...

Iran & The End Of The Beginning

Former CIA officer Reuel Marc Gerecht writes that Iran, now on the precipice of a nuclear arsenal, is making no pretense about even a willingness to discuss supension of its nuclear program. Obama's plans for tea in Tehran could not be more unrealistic. Very soon we will be faced with the choice of how to deal with a nuclear armed Iran.
_________________________________________________________

This from Mr. Gerecht writing at the Weekly Standard:

On July 30, Ali Khamenei demolished what was left of George W. Bush's Iran policy. Iran's clerical overlord also put paid to Senator Barack Obama's dreams of tête-à-tête, stop-the-nukes diplomacy. Ten days earlier the Americans, British, French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese had gathered in Geneva hoping to convince Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment. True to form, Khamenei told them all to stick it. The Islamic Republic will not cease and desist: "Taking one step back against the arrogant powers [the West] will lead them to take one step forward," Khamenei replied. So much for the "significant" presence of William Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, who went to Geneva to show Tehran and the Europeans the United States' willingness to have senior-level contacts with the clerical regime. . . .

The mission by Burns, an accomplished "realist" diplomat, is exactly what Obama's campaign had in mind when they said that a President Obama would approve "preparatory" meetings with Iranian officials before he sought to have a face-to-face with a worthy counterpart, which given the Iranian political system means either Khamenei, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the head of Iran's Expediency Council and the cleric who got Iran's clandestine nuclear-weapons program rolling. Since the Illinois senator first broached the idea of personal diplomacy during a Democratic primary debate, Khamenei has unleashed a barrage of speeches against "Satan Incarnate," "the Great Enemy," and "the Enemy of Islam and all Islamic peoples" (all shorthand for the United States). Ahmadinejad, a more spiritual man than Khamenei, suggested to NBC's Brian Williams in Tehran in late July that all the problems between the United States and Iran could be eliminated if Americans would just learn to live according to the dictates of the biblical and post-biblical prophets, who are all, according to Islamic theology, Muslim. Williams didn't appear to realize that Ahmadinejad was making a call for America's conversion. If he had realized it, he would probably have ignored it as perfunctory rhetoric of little real-world relevance.

But it is helpful to imagine the reverse: Suppose Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or John McCain were to call on Iranians to accept the teachings of Christ as practiced by America's Christians. Religiously, culturally, and politically the idea is unthinkable, of course. This ought to give us some idea of the chasm separating Americans and Europeans from the leadership of the Islamic Republic. This ought to tell Senator Obama and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that face-to-face "preparatory" meetings with Iranians are irrelevant: American diplomats could talk for years to Saeed Jalili, the Iranian nuclear negotiator who is in the entourage of Ahmadinejad, and it would not disturb the universe in which Jalili lives and prays.

It's a good guess that [Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Ahmedinejad] really want to tell the West, in earthy language, that they are going to get a nuclear weapon and there is nothing the Americans, the Europeans, and the Israelis can do to stop them. When both men talk about justice, and they mention it constantly, they are thinking of the imbalance in the world between devout Muslims, who follow the true path of God, and infidels, with their damnable technical superiority. By acquiring nuclear weapons, these men intend to restore that balance, allowing real Muslims, especially the faithful Iranian vanguard, to recapture the high ground throughout the Islamic world. Ahmadinejad was glad to see Ambassador Burns at the Geneva meeting not because he wants to reach a compromise with the United States, and welcomes the new, post-axis-of-evil "flexibility" of the Bush administration, but because he sees the Geneva meeting as another step in the West's process of conceding a bomb to Iran. Ahmadinejad's triumphalism, which is the mirror-image of Khamenei's more tight-lipped glee, overwhelmed Brian Williams, who was reduced to asking the same questions repeatedly. When you think you've won, you don't need to pretend with an American news anchor that you might, just possibly, compromise and give the West hope that diplomacy can continue.

There is yet a slight chance the Europeans can revive the Bush-Obama diplomatic track. But the Europeans would have to do what they have so far refused to do and may no longer be able to do: Immediately impose economy-crushing sanctions on the Islamic Republic (Tehran has been rapidly moving its financial assets out of Europe). Russia, China, and India--the key states in developing a suffocating, worldwide sanctions regime--are unlikely to help since they all seem to have concluded that a clerical Iran brought to its knees by the West is worse than an oil-rich, nuclear-armed (and grateful) Islamic Republic. With their dogged efforts to increase centrifuge production (two years ago Iran had one cascade of 164 centrifuges; now it may have 6,000 spinning), Khamenei and Ahmadinejad act as if they will soon have a weapon. And once the Iranians get the bomb and put, or just imply that they are putting, nuclear-tipped warheads on their ballistic missiles, how much resolve will the Europeans have to confront Tehran? Given contemporary European sentiments and habits, isn't an effort to placate Tehran more likely?

. . . It is now entirely reasonable to conjecture that Tehran will have nuclear-armed missiles before the United States is able to install a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. . . .

Even with a functioning antiballistic missile system in place to stiffen European spines, the mullahs may well be able to split the alliance once they have nukes. The allure of Iranian oil and gas is just too great. With Tehran suggesting that the Europeans have nothing to fear so long as they distance themselves from the United States in the Middle East and in Afghanistan, an American containment strategy on Iran, which necessarily has to involve the Europeans if it's going to have any economic teeth, may well be stillborn.

Thoughtful Democrats have realized the havoc the Iranians could cause in the Middle East once they obtain nuclear weapons. But few Democrats--or Republicans, for that matter--have awakened to the potential for Iranian nuclear arms to destroy the very transatlantic ties that both Obama and McCain say need to be strengthened to confront the many problems before us. When he was president of Iran, Rafsanjani began a divide-and-conquer strategy toward the West, trying to bring in the Europeans for investment and trade, while confronting the United States and lethally attacking dissidents at home and abroad. This approach was especially important to the development of Iran's then entirely clandestine nuclear-weapons program, since Rafsanjani didn't want the West lining up against Iran at a time when the clerical regime needed to build up its program to a "break-out" potential. Khamenei and Ahmadinejad abandoned Rafsanjani's and his successor Mohammad Khatami's cautious and slow approach to developing nuclear weapons. For a time, this abrupt change caused concern in Tehran that the United States and Europe might actually deploy economy-crushing sanctions or, even worse, that the Bush administration might order a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities before the enrichment process had sufficiently advanced.

But the fear of George W. Bush has vanished. And we will now see whether Khamenei and Ahmadinejad have a correct understanding of Europe--whether it really still matters. Ironically, Khamenei and Ahmadinejad's confrontational strategy could prove more effective at dividing the Europeans from the Americans than did the wry smile of Rafsanjani or even the warm, soft handshakes of Mohammad Khatami.

Yet, the Europeans might still surprise themselves and us. Concern about the Islamic Republic's nuclear quest is palpable in Paris, London, and Berlin. Senior French diplomats who have been party to the EU-3 talks like to relate how Iran's European embassies are paying their bills with big wads of cash these days since they can no longer transfer the required monies through embargoed banks. The Europeans might still be able to unleash a tsunami of sanctions, sanctions that even the Italians could be shamed into joining. And it is possible that George W. Bush might again follow his better instincts and ramp up the bellicose language, suggesting that he will indeed strike before leaving office. It is even possible that Barack Obama could come to appreciate that his Iran policy has utterly collapsed, too. With Khamenei, loudly advertised machtpolitik is an indispensable inducement to a peaceful suspension of uranium enrichment. Perhaps the contemplation of his administration having to figure out a containment strategy against a nuclear-armed Iranian theocracy might convince the senator of the need now for a bit of eloquent bellicosity.

. . . More likely, we will get to see whether an Obama or McCain administration has any idea of how to contain a nuclear-armed, oil-rich theocracy willing to deploy terrorism and guerrilla warfare to ensure that "justice" is brought to the Middle East and Afghanistan. This is assuming that the Israelis--increasingly desperate as they contemplate their future opposite nuclear-armed Muslim militants who see the Jewish state as an insult to God--don't strike first and change everyone's planning. Perhaps it is not too late to breathe new life and urgency into the critical need for a united Western front against Tehran.

Read the entire article. My worst fear is that the calamity of the mad mullahs, birthed by President Carter during his first term, will come to full bloom during Carter's second term.

Read More...

Summary only...

Hey, Maybe The Iranian Theocracy Is A Nuclear Threat

Remember that National Intelligence Estimate on Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities (NIE). I wrote at the time that it was deliberately couched in such a manner as to falsely minimize the threat posed by Iran. It turns out our nation's spy chief, Mitch McConnell, now agrees.






-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What an utter travesty this is. If Bush had the courage of his convictions, he would have cleaned house in the Intelligence Community immediately after he was presented this NIE. It never should have seen the light of day in the way it was written. This today on the testimony of Mitch McConnell before the Senate Intelligence Community about the NIE, Iran's decision making model and its nuclear weapons program:

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell took careful steps to reconsider key portions of a controversial National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear weapons program on Tuesday under sharp questions from members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

McConnell was grilled on the NIE’s disputed conclusion that Iran had shut down its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003 under international pressure by both Democrats and Republicans.

Sen. Kit Bond, the ranking Republican on the committee, chided McConnell for allowing the NIE to be used as a “political football,” and pointed out that the real revelation of the NIE was just the opposite of how it has been portrayed in news accounts at home and abroad.

“The main news of the NIE was the confirmation that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, not that it had halted it temporarily,” he said.

Even the presumed, temporary halt was open to question, Bond added. “The French defense minister said publicly that he believes the program has restarted. Now if our government comes to that assessment, then we have set ourselves up to release another NIE or leak intelligence, because this last one has given us a false sense of security.”

John Bolton, the former undersecretary of state for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, blasted McConnell and the NIE on the morning of the hearing in a sharply-worded oped appearing in The Wall Street Journal.

“Few seriously doubt that the NIE gravely damaged the Bush administration’s diplomatic strategy,” Bolton wrote.

The NIE was driven by policy considerations, not actual intelligence, and put the community’s credibility and impartiality on the line, Bolton argued.

“Mr. McConnell should commit the intelligence community to stick to its knitting — intelligence — and return its policy enthusiasts to agencies where policy is made,” Bolton added. He called for the reassignment of the three State Department policy-makers who had authored the NIE.

McConnell tried to dismiss Bolton’s comments, then began to seriously back-pedal.

Once he realized that the intelligence community had turned up information that directly contradicted public statements he and his predecessor, John Negroponte, had made about Iran’s nuclear weapons program, McConnell said he was in a bind.

“So now my dilemma was, I could not not make this unclassified,” he said, even though his preference had been to keep the entire 140 page estimate out of the public eye.

Senior Bush administration officials who have read the entire classified NIE have told Newsmax they were “appalled” at the thin sourcing and shoddy analysis.

A former career CIA analyst commented, “I have never seen an intelligence analysis this bad. It is misleading, politicized, and poorly written.”

In a column entitled “Stupid Intelligence on Iran,” the former defense secretary, James Schlesinger, wrote, “Clearly, the key judgments in the NIE were overstated . . . and thus incautiously phrased.”

Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger warned (in a Dec. 13, 2007 Op-Ed in The Washington Post) that the authors of the NIE saw themselves as “a kind of check on, instead of a part of, the executive branch,” and excoriated them for seeking to become “surrogate policy-makers and advocates.”

. . . McConnell pleaded lack of time for what he acknowledged was careless wording in the unclassified version of the NIE that was ultimately released to the public on Dec. 3, 2007.

“So now we’re in a horse race. I’ve got to notify the committee. I’ve got to notify allies. I’ve got to get unclassified out the door,” he said. “So if I’d had until now to think about it, I probably would have changed a thing or two.”

Asked what specifically he would have changed, McConnell said he “would change the way that we described the nuclear program.”

. . . The opening sentence of the NIE set the tone for the controversy. It states: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.”

McConnell acknowledged that the decision to relegate the explanation of what his analysts meant by “nuclear weapons program” to a footnote was misleading.

“I think I would change the way that we described the nuclear program,” he said. “I would argue, maybe even the least significant portion — was halted and there are other parts that continue.”

Armed with McConnell’s admission, Democrat Evan Bayh then rephrased the key conclusions of the NIE as stating that the Iranians could recommence their nuclear program “at any point in time” and “ultimately they’re likely to be successful.”

When McConnell agreed, Bayh then blasted him for releasing a document to the public that was misleading, contradictory, and had “unintended consequences that, in my own view, are damaging to the national security interests of our country.”

Read the entire article. And see this from the WSJ:

. . . Now Admiral McConnell is clearly trying to repair the damage, even if he can't say so directly. "I think I would change the way that we described [the] nuclear program," he admitted to Evan Bayh (D., Ind.) during the hearing, adding that weapon design and weaponization were "the least significant portion" of a nuclear weapons program.

He expressed some regret that the authors of the NIE had left it to a footnote to explain that the NIE's definition of "nuclear weapons program" meant only its design and weaponization and excluded its uranium enrichment. And he agreed with Mr. Bayh's statement that it would be "very difficult" for the U.S. to know if Iran had recommenced weaponization work, and that "given their industrial and technological capabilities, they are likely to be successful" in building a bomb.

The Admiral went even further in his written statement. Gone is the NIE's palaver about the cost-benefit approach or the sticks-and-carrots by which the mullahs may be induced to behave. Instead, the new assessment stresses that Iran continues to press ahead on enrichment, "the most difficult challenge in nuclear production." It notes that "Iran's efforts to perfect ballistic missiles that can reach North Africa and Europe also continue" -- a key component of a nuclear weapons capability.

Then there is the other side of WMD: "We assess that Tehran maintains dual-use facilities intended to produce CW [Chemical Warfare] agent in times of need and conducts research that may have offensive applications." Ditto for biological weapons, where "Iran has previously conducted offensive BW agent research and development," and "continues to seek dual-use technologies that could be used for biological warfare."

All this merely confirms what has long been obvious about Iran's intentions. No less importantly, his testimony underscores the extent to which the first NIE was at best a PR fiasco, at worst a revolt by intelligence analysts seeking to undermine current U.S. policy. As we reported at the time, the NIE was largely the work of State Department alumni with track records as "hyperpartisan anti-Bush officials," according to an intelligence source. They did their job too well. As Senator Bayh pointed out at the hearing, the NIE "had unintended consequences that, in my own view, are damaging to the national security interests of our country." Mr. Bayh is not a neocon.

Admiral McConnell's belated damage repair ought to refocus world attention on Iran's very real nuclear threat. Too bad his NIE rewrite won't get anywhere near the media attention that the first draft did.

Read the entire article. I have no doubt this NIE for which McConnell was responsible will come back to haunt us sooner rather than later. McConnell has not honorably served his country on this critical matter, and it is we that shall pay the price.

Read More...

Summary only...

Europe Not Buying the US NIE Labeling Iran's Nuclear Program "Civilian"

This is rather an interesting turn of events. Europe has consistently embraced "soft power" to deal with Iran. But that was changing as the crescendo rose to do something about Iran’s ongoing nuclear weapon’s program that clearly presents an existential threat to Europe and the entire West. The push was on for at least one round of very biting sanctions to convince Iran to verifiably end their nuclear program as the last alternative to our use of overwhelming force. At least, the crescendo was rising until the internal coup by our intelligence agencies who drafted an NIE that labeled Iran’s ongoing nuclear enrichment as "civilian" and claimed that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

I will admit that, given the past history of our European allies, I fully expected that they would use our NIE as an excuse to once again refuse to implement any meaningful sanctions that would bite into the extensive trade they have with Iran. Perhaps I was wrong, but I still have very deep doubts that are only marginally placated by the statements below. But if not else, readers should take note of just how ridiculously inexplicable it is to label Iran’s enrichment program "civilian:"

On December 13, 2007, Neil Crompton, Hans-Peter Hinrichsen, and Nicholas Roche addressed a Policy Forum at The Washington Institute. Mr. Crompton is a political counselor at the British embassy who served until recently as Iran coordinator and head of the Iraq Policy Unit at the British Foreign Office. Dr. Hinrichsen, first secretary for political affairs at the German embassy, has long worked on non-proliferation issues. Mr. Roche is a counselor at the French embassy who has focused extensively on the Iranian nonproliferation file. The following is a rapporteur's summary of their remarks.

NEIL CROMPTON: Much of the reporting in the United States about the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) has been misleading. The European and international concern about Iran's nuclear ambitions has never been about weaponization, but rather the other elements essential to having nuclear weapons, namely uranium enrichment and missiles. Iran is actively pursuing enrichment, which is the most complicated and time-consuming part of the nuclear program. Also, it proudly displays missiles that are too inaccurate to be useful with conventional warheads.

International concern over Iran's nuclear program is also not based on highly sensitive intelligence material. The concern reflects the activities surrounding the declared program, the fact that Iran concealed that program for eighteen years, and that Iran has not resolved significant questions about its past activities. There has been some speculation that the NIE will weaken pressure for sanctions. Actually, the NIE could have the opposite effect. There has been much concern in Europe that sanctions will inevitability lead to military action. However, now that the prospects of a military strike have been reduced, there might be more willingness in some countries to pursue more sanctions. . .

HANS-PETER HINRICHSEN: The NIE has not had a significant impact on Germany's policy towards Iran. German policy has never been based on Iran's hidden nuclear program, but on its large enrichment program and the heavy water reactor it is building. That reactor has no civilian use, and it is very instructive to look around the world to see who has such reactors and what have they have done with them. Considering Iranian behavior is one of the crucial factors when judging whether Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for civilian purposes. Ahmadinezhad's aggressive rhetoric towards Israel gives the international community basis to be concerned about whether Iran's intentions are peaceful -- a test set out by the UN Security Council resolutions.

There is a misconception that there is not enough communication with the Iranians, and a related misconception that the United States is not involved in discussions with the Iranians. In fact, Javier Solana has met repeatedly with the Iranians. He is inaccurately described in the American media as speaking for the Europeans. In fact, he is talking with Iran on behalf of the EU 3 + 3, that is, the United States, Russia, and China, plus Britain, France and Germany. He speaks for all six countries. The UN sanctions are reflective of world unity on this issue and a clear message needs to be sent to Tehran through another round of sanctions. The EU will take measures to reinforce and complement the UN sanctions so that they can be more effective, and will take care to ensure that its actions do not substitute for or undermine the sanctions. Sanctions on Iran have so far proven effective. They have induced Tehran to answer some of the open questions with the International Atomic Energy Agency because the sanctions have made business life difficult in Iran. For example, German exports to Iran dropped 7 percent in 2006 and 16 percent in 2007.

NICHOLAS ROCHE The NIE has made more noise in Washington than in Europe. France's strategy has always been based on certain simple facts, not intelligence judgments.

First, the Iranians have possessed a clandestine nuclear program for eighteen years, procuring technology from the A.Q. Khan network, which is not known for its expertise in electricity production. Second, the Iranians have developed an enrichment program with no foreseeable civilian use. It is worth emphasizing that the Iranians have not mastered the technology for producing fuel rods. Russia, which will provide the fuel for the Bushehr power reactor, will not under any circumstances provide Iran with the information it would need for Iran's fuel to be used in that reactor. This begs the questions, why is Iran enriching uranium, and what will it do with the material?

The appropriate course now is to continue the sanctions and to finalize a third UN resolution. Although at some point it may become necessary to reconsider this strategy, France does not see any particular "red line" that would force a change in approach. That said, there is always room for maneuvering on the current policy, such as on the modalities of negotiation. Enrichment suspension is the key element to regain confidence in Iran's peaceful intentions. There cannot be negotiations while Iran continues to advance its nuclear program. Without suspension, the ongoing Iranian program would give Iran the capability to build nuclear weapons very quickly.

Read the entire article. I do not believe that the European's embrace of soft power will force a change in the theocracy's actions. Then again, at least they are honest about the threat Iran poses. That puts them a step ahead of our intelligence agencies and those on the far left who are embracing the NIE as if it was carved on stone by fire coming from a burning bush.

Read More...

Summary only...