Showing posts with label NIE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NIE. Show all posts

Sunday, January 3, 2010

Deadlines & Opportunities Unforgivably Missed


December 31, 2009 was the deadline Obama gave the mad mullahs to respond to his more than generous offers regarding their nuclear program. The Iranians did not accept. And now, after years of negotiations and after years of one missed deadline after another, we have yet another deadline - this one from Ahmedinejad:

Iran warned on Saturday the West has until the end of the month to accept Teheran's counterproposal to a UN-drafted plan on a nuclear exchange, or the country will start producing nuclear fuel on its own.

The warning was a show of defiance and a hardening in Iran's stance over its controversial nuclear program, which the West fears masks an effort to make nuclear weapons. Teheran insists the program is only for peaceful, electricity production purposes and says it has no intention of making a bomb.

"We have given them an ultimatum. There is one month left and that is by the end of January," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, speaking on state television.

To add to that, our current administration, animated seemingly as much by the spirit of William Borah as by Neville Chamberlain, had floated plans to send John Kerry to Iran to give one last chance at talks. If there is still anyone who believes that talks and carrots have any chance whatsoever of convincing the mad mullahs to stop their march towards a nuclear weapon, they are more out of touch with reality than Timothy Leary on a LSD bender. But no matter, we learn today that the mad mullahs have officially withdrawn the welcome mat, denying Kerry a visa. For once, the mad mullahs have done something most Americans can support.

A recent NYT report states that the Obama administration has been successful in convincing the Israelis to stay their plans to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. This will buy Obama time to do whatever dithering it is he now intends to do. That "dithering" is spelled out by the NYT:

As President Obama faces pressure to back up his year-end ultimatum for diplomatic progress with Iran, the administration says that domestic unrest and signs of unexpected trouble in Tehran’s nuclear program make its leaders particularly vulnerable to strong and immediate new sanctions.. . .

Sanctions against Iran have a history at this point, and that history is of being wholly ineffective. Neither Russia nor China will agree to the type of economy crippling sanctions that might have a chance of working. And any sanctions that actually bite will, unless carefully circumscribed, bite the Iranian people as a whole. Given that Iran is not all that far from revolution at the moment, that would not be a wise idea. That said, there is a very small silver lining in this otherwise very dark cloud bank:

The White House wants to focus the new sanctions on the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, the military force believed to run the nuclear weapons effort. That force has also played a crucial role in the repression of antigovernment demonstrators since the disputed presidential election in June.

At least Obama is trying to surgically target sanctions at Iran's praetorian guard, the IRGC. That said, it would seem that the administration is going to pursue sanctions not as an adjunct to seeking regime change, but instead of.

Although repeated rounds of sanctions over many years have not dissuaded Iran from pursuing nuclear technology, an administration official involved in the Iran policy said the hope was that the current troubles “give us a window to impose the first sanctions that may make the Iranians think the nuclear program isn’t worth the price tag.

One, it makes no logical sense to think that the unrest in Iran has slowed down the march to a nuclear weapon in the slightest. Merely because Khameini is giving out orders to crush protests does not mean Natantz shuts down or that nuclear scientists at an IRGC base in Qom stop working on a nuclear trigger. Two, Obama is apparently ideologically set against supporting regime change in Iran. The article quoted above suggests that his administration sees the unrest in Iran as merely an opportunity to get the regime to forgo its nuclear operations. Yet it is only regime change that will end the threat to the world posed by the mad mullahs. Both the history of this most evil of regimes and their apocalyptic and triumphalist ideology tell us that anything that might slow down their march towards a nuclear weapon will do so, if at all, then only temporarily.

It also appears from the NYT article that the administration is leaking information that suggests we have a bit of breathing space because Iran's nuclear program is experiencing problems. This also from the NYT:

While outsiders have a limited view of Iran’s nuclear program, the Obama administration officials said they believed that the bomb-development effort was seriously derailed by the exposure three months ago of the country’s secret enrichment plant under construction near the holy city of Qum. Exposure of the site deprived Iran of its best chance of covertly producing the highly enriched uranium needed to make fuel for nuclear weapons.

In addition, international nuclear inspectors report that at Iran’s plant in Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges spin to enrich uranium for nuclear fuel, the number of the machines that are currently operating has dropped by 20 percent since the summer, a decline nuclear experts attribute to technical problems. Others, including some European officials, believe the problems may have been accentuated by a series of covert efforts by the West to undermine Iran’s program, including sabotage on its imported equipment and infrastructure.

These factors have led the administration’s policy makers to lengthen their estimate of how long it would take Iran to accomplish what nuclear experts call “covert breakout” — the ability to secretly produce a workable weapon.

“For now, the Iranians don’t have a credible breakout option, and we don’t think they will have one for at least 18 months, maybe two or three years,” said one senior administration official at the center of the White House Iran strategy. The administration has told allies that the longer time frame would allow the sanctions to have an effect before Iran could develop its nuclear ability. . . .

Iran’s insistence that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes only is roundly rejected by Western officials and, in internal reports, by international nuclear inspectors. Yet Washington’s assessments of how much progress Iran has made toward a weapon have varied greatly over the past two years, partly a reflection of how little is known about the inner workings of the country’s nuclear programs. . . .

After reviewing new documents that have leaked out of Iran and debriefing defectors lured to the West, Mr. Obama’s advisers say they believe the work on weapons design is continuing on a smaller scale — the same assessment reached by Britain, France, Germany and Israel.

In early September, the American ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Glyn Davies, warned that Iran had “possible breakout capacity.” Administration officials say that Mr. Davies’ assessment was technically accurate, yet the new evidence suggests that Iran is less likely to use its uranium stockpile to assemble one or two bombs, a move officials say would be likely to provoke an Israeli strike.

The administration’s current view of Iran’s nuclear program was provided by six senior administration officials advising Mr. Obama on his strategy, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the subject. The administration’s review of Iran’s program, which they said was based on intelligence reports, information from allies, and their own analysis, did not amount to a new formal intelligence assessment.

In interviews, those officials as well as European officials engaged in the Iran issue and private experts described Iran’s nuclear program as being in some disarray.

The biggest disruption came in late September when Mr. Obama, along with President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain, publicly exposed Iran’s covert effort to build an enrichment plant near Qum.

Western intelligence agencies had been studying the underground plant from afar for nearly a year, and two European officials say that Iranian nuclear spies recruited by Europe and Israel provided some confirming evidence about the purpose of the plant. . . .

International inspectors who were granted access to the underground site in October found that the plant was about a year away from operation and that it was designed for just 3,000 centrifuges — not enough to produce the large amounts of fuel needed for commercial reactors, but sufficient for the stealthy production of highly enriched bomb fuel. (By comparison, the Natanz plant, which is ostensibly for producing reactor fuel, is designed for 54,000 centrifuges.) . . .

Both administration officials and experts say that another factor slowing Iran’s nuclear development is that it is working with older centrifuge technology that keeps breaking down.

By the recent count of inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency, there were 3,936 centrifuges running at Iran’s enrichment plant in the desert at Natanz — down from a peak of 4,920 centrifuges in June.

Administration officials say Iran began producing almost all of its own centrifuge components after discovering that the United States and other Western countries had sabotaged some key imported parts, and they have made a series of manufacturing errors.

R. Scott Kemp, a Princeton University physicist, said that another factor was in the basic design of the centrifuges, obtained from Pakistan nearly two decades ago. “I suspect design problems,” Mr. Kemp said. “The machines run hot and have short lives. They’re terrible. It’s a really bad design.”

If Mr. Kemp and others are right, it suggests that Iran has a long way to go before it can make good on its recent vow to open 10 new enrichment plants. Iranian officials have said publicly that those plants will use a new version of the centrifuges. But Paul K. Kerr, a nuclear analyst at the Congressional Research Service, said research on the new generation of centrifuges had apparently proved “less successful” than the original, primitive design.

Another possible problem for Iran is the Western sabotage efforts. In January, The New York Times reported that President Bush had ordered a broad covert program against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, including efforts to undermine electrical and computer systems that keep the nuclear program running. The Obama administration has been silent about the progress of that program, one of the most heavily classified of the United States government.

We may have some additional time, we may not. The only thing for sure is that the threat posed by Iran to the U.S., Israel and the world will not end until this most evil of regimes is removed from power. Obama's sole focus should be on supporting the nascent revolution in Iran in every way possible. Nothing I have seen yet suggests that he will do anything of the sort. A critical moment in history will pass unexploited, and we will pay for it dearly in the long run with blood and gold.

Read More...

No Kidding Sherlock


In 2007, Thomas Fingar, Kenneth Brill, and H. Van Diepen drafted a scandalous and incredibly harmful piece of fiction - the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) On Iran's Nuclear Program. Despite its name, it was not an intelligence estimate. It was a piece of partisan advocacy designed to tie the hands of the Bush Administration. As I wrote in some detail at the time, every one of those authors' major findings - that Iran's nuclear weapons program had ended years earlier, that their ongoing program was civilian in nature, that the Iranian regime would respond to negotiations with a mix of carrots and sticks, that they were rational, that the threat of force was not a viable option, etc. - were unfounded and, indeed, contraverted by all of the known facts. We would later learn that they were also contraverted by facts known then to our intelligence agencies - namely that Iran was constructing a secret nuclear enrichment plant whose size was only appropriate for military use. No matter. The NIE was embraced wholeheartedly by the left. But now . . . . now . . . . what do you know. The Obama camp has some suspicion that, perhaps, the 2007 NIE may have been wrong.

Mr. Obama’s top advisers say they no longer believe the key finding of a much disputed National Intelligence Estimate about Iran, published a year before President George W. Bush left office, which said that Iranian scientists ended all work on designing a nuclear warhead in late 2003.

There are times when saying "I told you so" brings naught but cold comfort. This is one of them. The stakes are too high. We have wasted two years while Iran's nuclear program has progressed ever nearer the point of weaponization and the rest of the Middle East has been drawn into pursuing their own nuclear arsenal. As I wrote about a month ago, Thomas Fingar, Kenneth Brill, and H. Van Diepen have much for which to answer. As do the Left who uncritically embraced the NIE fiction, prioritizing attacks on the Bush Administration over our national security.

Read More...

Monday, December 14, 2009

Hang 'Em . . . Hang "Em High



Two years ago, I excoriated the drafters of the NIE on Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program - Thomas Fingar, Kenneth Brill, and H. Van Diepen - for drafting what was clearly then a highly politicized document that ignored the great weight of publicly available facts and, moreover, came to ridiculously unsupportable conclusions. Those conclusions included that Iran had ceased its nuclear weapons program in 2003, that Iran's nuclear program since was civilian in nature, that Iran would respond "rationally" to carrots and sticks, and that Iran was amendable to negotiations. It was a document drafted with the intent of tying Bush's hands in dealing with the mad mullahs.

What we have learned since is that our intelligence agencies had known for years that Iran had built a secret enrichment plant near Qom that was too small for commercial use, but the correct size for enriching uranium to weapons grade quality. That was known at the time that the NIE was released but was held in confidence by the U.S. Now we learn that Iran has been working on a critical component of atomic weapons since 2007 - in addition of course to enriching vast amounts of uranium for which they had no other use than to make atomic weapons. This from the Washington Post:

Western and U.N. nuclear officials are evaluating a secret Iranian technical document that appears to show the country's nuclear scientists testing a key component used in the detonation of a nuclear warhead, according to intelligence officials and weapons experts familiar with the document.

The document, if authenticated, could rank as one of the strongest pieces of evidence pointing to a clandestine Iranian effort to build nuclear weapons, said former intelligence officials and weapons experts. They were responding to a published report of alleged sophisticated research by Iran on one of the final stages in the construction of a nuclear device.

Excerpts from the technical paper, first reported on the Times of London Web site late Sunday, detail a four-year program by Iranian scientists to develop and test a neutron initiator, a device used to trigger a nuclear explosion.

Although the document is undated, the Times quoted foreign intelligence officials as saying it was written in 2007, more than four years after U.S. intelligence agencies believe Iran stopped research on a nuclear warhead.

"It looks bad -- there is no doubt about it," said David Albright, a former inspector with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, who reviewed the document and other papers for the London newspaper. He said work on a neutron initiator is a "very strong indicator of nuclear work." . . .

To say this comes as no surprise is an understatement. Anyone who for a second believes that Iran's nuclear program is for civilian use is naive to the point of suicidal. Bush had a window of opportunity to deal with the mad mullahs by force or the credible threat of force through 2007. When the NIE came out, it wholly emasculated the Bush regime in as much as they could no longer even credibly threaten force against Iran. As I wrote at that time, the NIE's effect would give Iran far more time to procure a nuclear arsenal, thus meaning that what we might have been able to stop with little cost would instead, eventually, require an exponentially greater cost in American blood and gold to end. Shades of Nazi Germany, circa 1937 to 1939.

In light of the revelations subsequent to the release of the NIE, it is becoming increasingly clear that what the authors of that document did amounted to treason. When Republicans again take control of Congress, one of their first acts should be to investigate the troika of Fingar, Brill and Van Diepen. Then they should be treated accordingly. I will donate the rope.

Read More...

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

The Next Moves In An Existential Chess Match


The situation regarding Iran has changed – and changed again – since December, 2007. Iran continues to increase the stakes with its deadly proxy wars throughout the Middle East, including in Iraq, and with its drive towards a nuclear arsenal. Four months ago, it appeared that our hands were completely tied in dealing with Iran, compliments of a State Department coup wholly undercutting the President. But that is no longer the case today. So what is the next move?

__________________________________________________________

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.

- 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.

Something must be done to convince the theocracy to end its nuclear ambitions and to stop its acts of war against our soldiers in Iraq. We appeared on a course to do that until, in December, our State Department conducted what amounted to a coup with the publication of an unclassified version of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear program. The authors claimed that Iran did not have an ongoing nuclear weapons program and they deliberately crafted the document to deligitimize the use or threat of use of force against Iran. As I wrote at the time:

Our intelligence agencies have done our nation a tremendous disservice. It will, in the long run, likely cost us bitterly since it puts off any reckoning with the single most destabilizing force in this world. Every day that reckoning is put off will increase the cost we will pay and gold and blood. And if Iran achieves a nuclear arsenal, that cost we will pay will rise exponentially.

On Friday, in light of the NIE and all that has transpired, Charles Krauthammer wrote that an Iranian nuclear arsenal was inevitable and called for the U.S. to place Israel under the protection of the U.S. nuclear umbrella – a move we should do in any case. But I think that the decision not to confront Iran with force or the threat of the same over its nuclear program - and its acts of war through proxy forces in Iraq - is far from settled.

Among the many considerations regarding use of force against Iran, one has been how such an act would reverberate in Iraq. Having made the decision to invade Iraq rather than Iran in 2003, we were victims to an extent of our own strategy. Any attack against Iran could have had significant repercussions for our mission in Iraq, further destabilizing the country. We could never be sure whether an attack on Iran would bring significant numbers of Iraqi Shia out against us. And in this regard, Sadr had explicitly promised to attack U.S. forces if we attacked Iran. That problem may now be resolved.

Iran had been, until recently, steadily increasing its malign influence in Iraq. Only a few months ago, some 300,000 Shias in the south of Iraq petitioned their government to do something about the murderous and ever growing Iranian influence. As al Qaeda attacks waned, Iranian proxies increased their violence, including attacks against the Green Zone, where Iraq’s Parliament meets. And in late February, there was a significant increase in the infiltration of Iranian Qods force personnel into Basra and Baghdad that, in light of subsequent events, may well have been related to the Basra offensive and Sadrist uprising in Baghdad and numerous other southern Iraqi cities in addition to Basra.

The Basra offensive and the defeat of Iranian backed, if not Iranian led, Mahdi militia elements in every major city where they staged an uprising has been an incredibly strong blow against Iran. (Update: For any who still might think Basra anything other than an utter defeat for Sadr and his Iranian backers, do see the articles discussing current events in Basra and Sadr City here.) And now, with PM Maliki and Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani calling for the disarmament of all militias, including Sadr’s, it appears that the majority of Iraqis and their government are actively taking a stand against Iranian influence in Iraq.

This dovetails with recent analysis by Michael Ledeen:

The issue for Iraqis, at all levels of the society, is not whether the mullahs are killing them. They know that, and they have known it all along. . . .

Iraqi ministers have been talking about Iranian terrorism for years. When I was at a closed meeting of leading Iraqis in Copenhagen two months ago, I heard many stories, complaints and warnings about Iran’s murderous activities. . . .

The issue is not "sensitizing" the Iraqi leaders to Iranian crimes. The issue is—was, rather—getting to the point where the Iraqis feel confident enough to go after the Iranians and their proxies.

That is the big change: Iraq is defeating Iran. Iran’s proxies have been defeated in most of Iraq. The remaining areas—primarily the zones in and around Mosul, and in and around Basra—are under siege from Iraqi and Coalition forces, including, at long last, the Brits (who were supposed to have pacified Basra long since). And the Iranians are losing, bigtime. A couple of weeks ago I wrote here that the Iranians were increasingly desperate, and that it looked like Khamenei was going to try a desperate throw of the dice. He did. And lost, losing to mostly Iraqi forces.

Read the entire article.

Iran’s gambit may have failed for now, but simply defeating the immediate threat is not going to stop Iran’s deadly meddling throughout the Middle East, nor for that matter in Iraq over the long term. Iran is deeply troubled by the spectre of a stable, quietist Shia democracy on its borders. That would be too great of a direct challenge to the legitimacy of Iran’s theocracy. Thus, unless the price becomes too great to pay, Iran will continue training and arming special groups that target U.S. forces and attempting to destabilize the Iraqi government. But with Iraq's government committed now to counter Iran’s deadly meddling, we will have far more flexibility in how we respond to Iran, both as to their acts of war in Iraq and their nuclear program.

As to Iran’s nuclear program, it has picked up steam and is now clearly aimed at producing a nuclear arsenal. You will find no one today, outside of the State Dept. at least, that might support the NIE’s assertion to the contrary. It appears now that Iran is in the process of designing a ballistic missle delivery system. It is tripling its capacity to enrich uranium – for which it has no use other than to create nuclear weapons. Our intelligence chiefs have spent the past two months backtracking on the NIE. Recently, CIA Chief, Michael Hayden, said that he believes Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons while his boss, Mike McConnell, projected that Iran may have a nuclear weapon by 2010. Then there was VP Cheney’s recent tour of the Middle East. Iran was at "the top of the agenda" during his tour, and in Turkey, VP Cheney publicly stated that Iran is seeking to make weapons grade uranium.

With that in mind, it looks as if we may in fact be preparing to make a viable threat to use force to stop this program. Our air and naval assets in the Gulf are quietly being beefed up to the same level as existed in March, 2003, prior to the invasion of Iraq. Additionally, we now have two warships off the coast of Lebanon, likely to target Hezbollah should the need arise. According to a recent report leaked from Russian intelligence, plans and forces are in place to execute a large scale attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities as we speak. Clearly, the threat of force is back on the table. However, the threat of force is only viable if the entity threatened believes that it may in fact be used. Iran does not seem to believe any such threat is viable.

Keeping that in mind, there are yet other nuances to consider in the calculus of what to do next. The problem with a large scale attack on Iran’s highly decentralized nuclear sites is that there is a strong possiblity it would leave the current regime in place while giving the appearance, at least, of a widespread assault on the larger population of Iran, resulting in an explosion of nationalist sentiment in support of a regime that is largely reviled within its borders today. Remember that it was less than a decade ago that Iran sat on the edge of a counter revolution – the so called Tehran Spring. But Iraq’s reformist president at the time, Imam Khatami, blinked and refused to support the movement. It was brutally repressed.

What has transpired since is near complete domination by hard liners opposed to any reform and who have rigged the elections to ensure their hold on power. The clerics are shifting ever more power to the 125,000 member Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), the clerics’ primary vehicle for maintaining control of their country. The IRGC now control much of the day to day power in the country and are becoming wealthy beyond measure through their economic schemes. While the IRGC and clerics get rich, the economic situation for the 60 million other Iranians, made all the worse by Ahmedinejad, is critical. Inflation is running above 25% and unemployment among a population, the majority of which is under 30, is hitting new double digit highs each month. Food prices are soaring and gas is now being rationed.

Iran is, in short, a tinder box. It is a highly dysfunctional nation that should be low hanging fruit for our intelligence agencies, particularly now that we have access to a huge pool of Iraqis who can freely move across the Iranian border and vica versa. The school solution to all the problems of Iran’s theocracy is to fan the flames of discontent and amplify the promises of true democracy, free of the heavy and repressive hand of the Khomeinists. We can and should fan a counter revolution within Iran. To that end, we should be overtly and covertly giving massive support to Iran's dissidents, including support to the MEK. That has not happened to date, as Michael Ledeen explains here. It is utterly inexplicable and unconscionable that it has not. Unfortunately, even if we start in earnest now, such a course of action takes time to bear fruit - and time is a commodity of which we have precious little in regards to Iran's nuclear program.

While internal regime change may be the school solution and while large scale use of force may hold the potential for unintended consequences, that does not mean that we should not use any force, or that we should not create a scenario where the theocrat's have to worry that we will use such large scale force. To the contrary, we need to be doing precisely that. The history of Iran's theocracy is that it responds to the use of force. In 1980, Iran released its American hostages after more than a year. The did so on the day a belicose Ronald Regan took office. Iran ceased mining the Persian Gulf only after the U.S. destroyed half their navy on a single afternoon in 1988. If our intelligence is correct, Iran stopped its overt nuclear weapons program in 2003 at the same time we invaded Iraq. And just recently, in Basra, we saw Iran quickly back down the Mahdi Army forces when it became clear they were taking significant casualties.

With all of the above in mind, we can and should use force against those elements on Iranian soil that have been involved in training, arming and funding the "special groups." We should target in Iran the Qods force, their training bases, and the assembly plants for rockets and IED's that are ending up in Iraq. One, it would directly challenge the regime without the sort of large scale collateral damage that would likely rally the populace. Two, such action is fully justified under international law and, indeed, long overdue for several hundred of our dead and wounded soldiers, as a measure of self defense. Three, it would give the regime a bloody nose and perhaps destabilize it further in the eyes of the Iranian populace. Lastly, it would set the stage for a very serious threat of significant force on the nuclear issue.

And I believe that is in fact what we will soon be seeing. The recent warnings to Iran by President Bush as to their choices in Iraq as well as General Petraeus’s testimony, that he has a full press briefing on Iranian acts of war in Iraq prepared and is merely awaiting word from his chain of command to execute, indicates that such attacks are very much in the planning stages. The time is ripe for such action, both as a means to stop Iran's destabilization of Iraq and, equally importantly, to send a clear warning of a willingness to use force on the nuclear issue without yet having to pull the big trigger.

Iran does not have the goodwill among the Iraqis now to significantly hurt us there. And to launch a major attack against our naval or air forces in the region would be as suicidal today as it was in 1988. Its our move. After that, Iran may have precious few moves left in this game of existential chess.


Read More...

Friday, February 29, 2008

Focus On An Ever More Dangerous Iran

Iran is at war with the United States - and has been since 1979. It is well on its way to achieving a nuclear arsenal as the world dithers. It is a triumpahist and expansionist theocracy that places no value on human life. It is a theocracy that does not enjoy popular support within its borders, but shows no signs of weakening. Indeed, the opposite appears to be occurring as Iran slowly moves ever more under the domination of the the Revolutionary Guards. Below is a roll-up of some of the important about devleopments regarding and within Iran.

_________________________________________________________

Britian now joins with our own spy chief, Mike McConnell, in disputing the assertion in the NIE that Iran's atomic weapon's program is for "civilian" purposes. Meanwhile, the most recent IAEA report was a "whitewash" by IAEA director, Mohammed El Baradei - a man very accurately described in a recent WSJ article as "a deeply political figure, animated by antipathy for the West and for Israel on what has increasingly become a single-minded crusade to rescue favored regimes from charges of proliferation." For example, there is this from Haaretz:

Referring to Iran's simulations and experiments with high-impact explosives and planned ballistic missile warheads, ElBaradei writes that there is no indication linking these activities to "nuclear materials." The IAEA cannot therefore reach a clear decision about the Iranian nuclear program's character, he writes. In other words, it is clear even to ElBaradei that Iran is concealing, misleading and ignoring the Security Council's resolutions, yet he refrains from stating explicitly that it is developing nuclear arms."

Read the article here. There is also a good article on this IAEA report at the Christian Science Monitor.

Between the perfidious acts of the author's of our NIE, the pro-Iranian agenda of the IAEA, and the economic motivations of our "allies," I do not see any chance to stop Iran from achieving nuclear arms unless Israel itself acts alone. Further tepid sanctions will clearly have no effect on a theocracy that sees itself supported by Allah against a weak and impotent West.

The fantasy of many in the West is that the deeply unpopular Iranian theocracy would fall internally to another revolution if it did not moderate. The chances of that happening appear remote at best. Indeed, if anything, the latest trends from Iran appear even more dire. It appears not that Iran's theocracy is transforming into a military dictatorship still retaining the ideological dynamic of Khomeinist Shiaism. This from AEI:

The clerical leadership in Iran has grown increasingly reliant on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to help it stave off internal pressure for political and economic reform and external pressure resulting from international concern over Iran's nuclear program. But as the IRGC gets more involved in domestic politics, the Islamic Republic is gradually morphing into a military regime, albeit one governed by theocratic principles. The March 14, 2008, parliamentary elections are likely to reinforce this trend.

Read the entire article.

On the issue of Iran's deadly activities in Iraq, and although I strongly disagree with his conclusion, Richard Dreyfuss, writing in the Nation, gives an fascinating look into the byzantine nature of Iran's involvement in Iraq. Where he goes wrong is in thinking that Iraqi nationalism will only reassert itself if the U.S. leaves Iraq. It does not take much in terms of arms and money for Iran's proxy forces to exert control through murder and mayhem if they are not contested by a stronger force - and the only force capable of that is the U.S.


Read More...

Friday, February 8, 2008

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...

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Interesting News - Super Tuesday Edition



This is it. Super Tuesday is here.
Big Lizards Guide to Uber Tuesday for the Perplexed is a where to go for your scorecard. And pundits are using their columns to try and influence the vote. E.J. Dionne has found his personal savior in Obama. Can we have a "hallelujah" Indeed, we now know the debate is over and the only ones who consider it otherwise are racists. Could they be as racist as the head of Trinity United, however? On the right side, Andres Martinez leads with the question of whether McCain has accepted Jesus as his personal savior, while Rick Moran ponders the redefining of what it means to be a Republican. I happen to share the view of the Glittering Eye on McCain.

John Bolton ponder how our spy chief, Mitch McConnell, can undue the tremendous damage of the NIE on Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program when he testifies before Congress this week.

David Aaronovitch ponders the horrendous ramifications of a withdrawal from Afghanistan. As does a professor in Pakistan. America will not abandon it, but NATO is shaky indeed, compliments of the cowardly and disloyal Germans who have refused to provide combat soldiers that would actually fight in the NATO operation.

As I have blogged previously, Gordon Brown plans to get upwards of 30% of the UK’s energy through a massive construction of wind turbines throughout Britain. It was nuts to begin with, and now its worse. "Nato has begun an investigation into British findings that wind farms make overflying planes invisible to radar . . ." Meanwhile, Labour has given £1 billion in tax receipts to energy companies to start building them – which the companies have pocketed while energy prices in the UK skyrocket.

More insane PC silencing of free speech in Britain. "Schools are being ordered to drop the term "mum and dad" in case it offends pupils from a single-parent, homosexual or turkey-baster ‘family.’" And if its not the PC crowd, it’s the bureaucrats doing in the quality of life.

"A new study says that mandatory diversity training backfires: After looking at data from 830 workplaces, researchers discovered that sensitivity seminars and their ilk led to declines in the number of women and minorities in management."

What will you do to celebrate Waitangi Day tomorrow, take a Mori tribesman to dinner?

Sleaze goes Goracle green. He is the modern version of a war profiteer.

More on the travesty of justice in the Maldives following the gang rape of a 12 year old girl by members of the religion of peace.

Gloria Steinem editorializes at TNOY as to the many accomplishments of the "womyn’s" movement in America. You will find a few of the accomplishments surprising, beginning with the more equal distribution of STD’s


Read More...

Friday, February 1, 2008

Interesting News - 1 February 2008

Behind Obama’s soaring rhetoric, his post-partisan promises, his Kennedyesque visions, lies . . . the member of Congress with the single most far left voting record of 2007.

I’ve been meaning to write on Obama a more, but each time I have readied the quill, I’ve found that Bookworm Room has expressed my thoughts in a post of her own and done so more eloquently then I could have. Do see her post on the Great Bloviator and this one, where she asks the very pertinent question in light of his voting record, What Will Obama Change?

Hillary is every bit the liberal that Obama is, and indeed, her socialist economic views could be disastrous. Beyond that, Victor David Hanson opines that whether the Democratic nominee is Clinton or Obama, their views are so dangerous and so far to the left that any conservative angst over McCain will disappear by midsummer. That said, there is a tremendous amount of huffing and puffing at the moment.

JoshuaPundit has pulled together some incisive punditry looking at the political lessons to be learned from the campaign to date.

Apparently, being a leftie is a genetic disease.

The Economist has a damning indictment of the performance of the U.S. intelligence community with the seditious NIE on Iran’s Nuclear Weapon’s Program which, as the Economist notes, was written even as "the enrichment machine spins on." You can read Reza Pahlavi thoughts on all of this here.

Also from the Economist: "Who would have thought that a friendless theocracy with a Holocaust-denying president, which hangs teenagers in public and stones women to death, could run diplomatic circles around America and its European allies? But Iran is doing just that. And it is doing so largely because of an extraordinary own goal by America's spies, the team behind the duff intelligence that brought you the Iraq war."

Red Alerts has a good post on the fallacy of grievance based terrorism.

Lionheart will be returning to the UK today. This is the blogger facing arrest for his criticism of Islam on his blog.

Who is Hesham Islam and why is he directing our DOD to make outreach efforts to the American chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood?

And why is our DNC appointing a radical Deobandi cleric, Imam Malik Mujahid to the DNC credentials committee? From LGF via Jawa Report.

I say we need to work with the locals to establish a Berkley Awakening Council.

Are we entering into a (hopefully) Little Ice Age?

Cat at Brits at Their Best discusses a point that I’ve made previously. The Britain of today now has a tyranny of Parliament. There are no substantive checks and balances within Britain’s current form of government. Cat discusses this within the historical irony of the first earl of Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper, who established the first political party in order to fight against what he saw as the tyranny of the Crown. Now things have come full circle, with the majority party, Labour, exercising the powers of a tyrant.

Read More...

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

A Lame Duck Quacks (Updated)

I just watched President Bush’s State of the Union Speech. All in all, I thought it was one of the strongest speeches I have ever heard him give. Bush spoke with a rare gravitas and clarity on all of the major issues. You can find the text of his speech here, as well as video and audio.

There is clearly a lot that Bush mentioned that just is not going to happen with the Democrats in control of Congress. That said, the best line of the night came when Bush tweaked the Democrats about making his tax cuts permanent:

Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm, and I am pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders.

Even Nancy Pelosi cracked a smile on camera for that one.

And Bush was singing sweet music to the conservative base, calling for balanced budgets, limitations on spending, and most importantly, a real cut back on earmarks. Admittedly, Bush's new found fiscal conservatism could qualify as the topic of an example sentence in Webster's Dictionary for the definition of "hypocrisy." Conservatives will not care.

Republicans spending the tax dollars of America like drunken Democrats and the scent of corruption associated with earmarks like the "bridge to nowhere" cost Republicans the election in 2006. Now Bush, if not all Republican lawmakers, has found religion on this issue. Bush just reclaimed the mantle of fiscal conservativism and helped out his party in the coming elections immensely.

As to the earmarks, Bush promised to veto spending bills that did not cut by half the number and cost of earmarks, and he promised to "issue an Executive Order that directs Federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not voted on by the Congress." What he is referring to is the habit of slipping earmarks into committee reports that then are treated as law despite the fact they have never been subject to a vote.

I was highly unimpressed with Bush's discussion of energy. You will recall that he signed into law last month a "bipartisan" energy bill that emphasized, in part, biofuels. What we are seeing around the world now, in large measure because of the biofuel program, is a steep rise in food prices that only portends to get only worse. This is bad for the economy and particularly hard on the poor. Moreover, biofuels are significantly less environmentally friendly than oil and gas. See here and here. Yet, in his speech, Bush seemed to be indicating his continued support for biofuels. I think that a huge mistake.

Another major theme in Bush's speech concerned the Protect America Act (PAA) which will sunset on Friday if the Congress does not act. The PAA closes the loopholes in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act so that we can monitor communications between people on foreign soil without the necessity of a warrant. But it also contains a grant of immunity to private companies that assisted the government post 9-11 with intelligence gathering. The Democrats postponed a vote on that bill today because they did not want Bush to be able to say in his speech that the Democratic Congress voted down the bill.

The real problem for Democrats is that one of their constituencies, the tort lawyers, are eyeing a huge payday by suing the communications companies that voluntarily cooperated with the Justice Department post 9-11 in domestic intelligence gathering. Once again, for Democrats, partisan politics trumps our national security.

The majority of Bush's speech was given over to discussing Iraq. Bush covered the surge, noting the tremendous success it has had in quelling the violence in Iraq that was, in large measure, driven by al Qaeda terrorists and Iran. Bush also spelled out the successes of the government of Iraq, noting the progress towards provincial elections, the equal sharing of oil revenue, and the recent passage of both a de-Baathification law and pension law. Those last two mark substantial progress towards reconciliation. Most important of all was Bush spelling out the potential fruits of victory and the consequences of failure in Iraq.

Any further drawdown of U.S. troops will be based on conditions in Iraq and the recommendations of our commanders. General Petraeus has warned that too fast a drawdown could result in the "disintegration of the Iraqi Security Forces, Al Qaeda-Iraq regaining lost ground, [and] a marked increase in violence." Members of Congress: Having come so far and achieved so much, we must not allow this to happen. . . .

The mission in Iraq has been difficult and trying for our Nation. But it is in the vital interest of the United States that we succeed. A free Iraq will deny Al Qaeda a safe haven. A free Iraq will show millions across the Middle East that a future of liberty is possible. And a free Iraq will be a friend of America, a partner in fighting terror, and a source of stability in a dangerous part of the world.

By contrast, a failed Iraq would embolden extremists, strengthen Iran, and give terrorists a base from which to launch new attacks on our friends, our allies, and our homeland. The enemy has made its intentions clear. At a time when the momentum seemed to favor them, Al Qaeda's top commander in Iraq declared that they will not rest until they have attacked us here in Washington. My fellow Americans: We will not rest either. We will not rest until this enemy has been defeated. We must do the difficult work today, so that years from now people will look back and say that this generation rose to the moment, prevailed in a tough fight, and left behind a more hopeful region and a safer America.



Bush also touched on Iran, but only in relative passing. The NIE on Iran neutered our ability to hold out the threat of force to coerce the mad mullahs into ending ever quickening march towards a nuclear weapon, and it showed in the speech. Bush all but announced our capitulation on that issue tonight. Further – and maddeningly – he took note that Iran is responsible for the death of our soldiers in Iraq, and then just let the topic drop there. Although Bush tried to sound bellicose, the words "act of war" were left unsaid. It was all very hollow - and in the end, I think may only encourage further acts of deadly meddling by Iran's theocrats.

Bush's speech was wide ranging, but those were the highs and lows as I saw them. You can find the WaPo spin here, and an ironic bit of "fact checking" here. What an incredibly disingenuous bit that WaPo fact checking is. And you will find some stomach churning spin from the NYT here. You can also find Fred Barnes take on the speech here.

And unless I am really reading the signals wrong, open season was just declared in Demland for Hillary hunting. First there was the Kennedy clan endorsing Obama today. Then there was what occurred tonight.

Hillary Clinton's name did not come up in the State of the Union Speech by the President. Nor did it explicitly come up when Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius gave the Democratic Respone. But read this portion of Sebelius's speech:

And so I want to take a slight detour from tradition on this State of the Union night. In this time, normally reserved for a partisan response, I hope to offer something more: An American response. A national call to action on behalf of the struggling families in the heartland and across this great country. A wake-up call to Washington, on behalf of a new American majority, . . .

You can find the full speech here. Wow. What does it say when the official response of the Democratic Party adopts the themes of Obama and reads like one of his stump speechs? Obama just got a huge DNC embrace . . . and it would appear that Hillary has fallen from grace in a very big way.

As an aside, Sebelius was even more wooden reading from a teleprompter than Gore at his worst. And as to the substance of the speech, it was a typical call for the President to put aside partisanship and just, by golly, show your true support for America -- by agreeing to every socialist program the Democrats can dream up. In other words, it really was an Obama stump speech.

Final Score:

President Bush – 7

Obama – 3

Fox News - 0 and need to give Major Garrat a crash course on professional journalism.

Hillary Clinton - 0 and feeling hunted.


Read More...

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Interesting News - 17 January 2008

Rick Moran takes issue with the anti-conservative musings of the Ayatollah Huckabee. The essence of conservatism is freedom of thought. Huckabee is proposing his own mini-theocracy the precise opposite.

The Democrats get to jettison Dennis Kucinich from their debates, but Republicans still have to give air time to Ron Paul. The scales of justice are just not balancing on this one.

The Top Ten UN Slogans. My personal favorite: "If this is an emergency, please hang up and call America." Do read them all.

When did World War II end? Read this thoughtful post and decide for yourself.

Ex-GOP Congressman Mark Siljander has been arrested and charged with a bevy of offenses connected to terrorism financing.

The reverberations from the NIE on Iran’s Nuclear Weapon’s Program continue. As I indicated at the time, the only possible conclusion is that the declassified NIE was written in such a manner as to take Iran policy out of the hands of the executive and put it in the hands of the State Department. The reverberations of that act portend to grow ever louder with the passage of time.

Bill Rogio, Michael Ledeen and several other luminaries took part in a recent symposium on Iraq. Their depth of thought is a bit more illuminating than you are likely to hear at the average Democratic Presidential Debate. See here.

Free speech is once again under fire. The victim this time is the Pope who was censored by scholars at Sapienza, one of Europe's most prestigious universities. The scholars successfully argued that it was inappropriate for the Pope to speak at their University because he had supported the 17th century trial of Galileo for heresy arising out of Galileo’s own exercise of freedom of speech. The irony of censoring the Pope on these grounds apparently went wholly unnoticed by the leftist scholars. I for one wish I had but a tenth of the moral clarity of today’s left.

Arthur Brooks at the WSJ points out that our modern left is less rational and more intolerant than are conservatives. "The very essence of intolerance is to dehumanize the people with whom you disagree by asserting that they are not just wrong, but wicked." The moniker of Bush-Hitler comes to mind. I disagree with Brooks’s labeling of the modern left as "liberal." They are "progressives" – having long ago progressed beyond the liberal traditions of intellecutal honesty and tolerance.

Stick and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. Unless of course I happen to be a member of the religion of peace, in which case words pose a mortal threat to my identity and justify my own homicidal temper tantrum. Do read this story about Susan Winter down under. She has really, really pissed off the Salafists. Sheik Yer Mami has the story on this one.

Read More...

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Amir Taheri, The NIE On Iran's Nuclear Program, And "The Usual Suspects"

Amir Taheri, an Iranian born columnist, is frustrated with the NIE and how it is being used by the "usual suspects" to justify calls for unilateral talks with Iran. As he sees it, such talks with the Iran's theocracy would be every bit as counterproductive as were Chamberlin's attempt to buy "peace in our time" by his talks with Hitler in the 1930's:

Until a few days ago, Iran's nuclear ambitions appeared destined to become the hottest issue in the current American presidential campaign. A consensus, cutting across partisan divides, appeared to be taking shape that the Islamic Republic should be confronted forcefully, contained, and in time, forced to scale down its ambitions.

However, with the publication of the new American National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) claiming that Tehran had stopped the military aspect of its nuclear programme in 2003, most presidential candidates find it hard to sustain a tough position on the Islamic Republic.

This has enabled the usual suspects of appeasement to return from the woodworks to urge "a negotiated settlement."

In the past few days, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has broken her silence to call for negotiations with Tehran. One wonders why the administration to which she belonged failed to secure any concession s from Tehran through negotiations.

We have also had former United Nations' Secretary General Kofi Annan coming out of the purdah to call for negotiations.

In this, Annan has echoed former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Bzrezinski, who has called for a "grand bargain" with the Islamic Republic.

This new wave of negotiationism, to coin a phrase, is based on a mixture of false assumptions and bad faith.

The first false assumption is that the new NIE proves that the Islamic Republic has stopped the military aspect of its nuclear programme once and for all. . . .

The only visible sign of the decision to stop the programme was the suspension of uranium enrichment. That decision was reversed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad soon after he was sworn in, and uranium enrichment was resumed at a faster pace.

In other words, even if we accept the NIE's claim that the programme was stopped in 2003, something that we have no reason to do, there is no evidence that it has not been resumed.

There is, in fact, quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.

As already noted, the uranium enrichment project has been resumed and continues at much faster pace.

•According to official estimates in Tehran, allocations for the nuclear programme have risen by almost 40 per cent.

•The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports that all of Iran's known nuclear sites remain in full operation.

•The IAEA also reports that it has no access to a number of other industrial sites in Iran that may well be linked to the nuclear programme. In other words, we know what we don't know but don't know what we don't know.

The negotiationists forget that the EU3, Britain, Germany and France have been negotiating with the Islamic Republic on this issue for almost a decade. During his term as British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw visited Tehran more than any other capital outside Europe. Javier Solana, the EU's chief foreign policy official, has spent more time talking to envoys from Tehran than diplomats from any other nation. Tehran has also been engaged in negotiations with the five permanent members of the United Nations' Security Council plus Germany.

Not only do they ignore the history of negotiations with Tehran, the appeasers also refuse to state clearly what it is that should be negotiated. In other words, they put process in place of policy. Talking about what to do becomes a substitute for doing what needs to be done.

The Islamic Republic, of course, would love to talk to anybody for as long as it is not required to do anything it does not wish to do.

. . . The negotiationists do not say what it is that one should negotiate with President Ahmadinejad.

More than four years ago, the IAEA discovered that the Islamic Republic had been violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) for almost 18 years. Such a violation should have led to sanctions spelled out in the NPT itself. Instead, the IAEA decided to "negotiate" to prevent future violations. When those negotiations failed, the matter was taken to the UN Security Council which passed two resolutions demanding that the Islamic Republic stop uranium enrichment.

The Islamic Republic has ignored those resolutions and repeatedly stated that it would never abide by their key demand. In other words, the Islamic Republic is ready to negotiate, in fact would love to negotiate, provided the talks are about everything except the one thing that could be the object of credible negotiations.

The appeasers are indirectly calling on the UN Security Council to drop its one demand and enter into "unconditional negotiations" with the Islamic Republic. This means surrendering to Tehran and may or may not be a good option.

In that case the appeasers should shed their lexicon of obfuscation and admit that they are recommending unconditional surrender to the Islamic Republic.

Once they do that, they may have an even stronger point. They would be able to say that, since the major democracies have no stomach for a fight with a power, described by Mrs. Albright as " rogue regime" before her conversion to appeasement, it is better to surrender to it in the hope that it moderates its radical temperament.

Today's appeasers, however, appear to be less courageous or more disingenuous than their predecessors in the late 1930s. This is why they are giving appeasement a bad name while increasing the possibility of war by confirming Ahmadinejad's illusion that he can do whatever he likes without risking the survival of his regime.

Read the entire article here. Our intelligence agencies have done our nation a tremendous disservice. It will, inn the long run, likely cost us bitterly since it puts off any reckoning with the single most destabilizing force in this world. Every day that reckoning is put off will increase the cost we will pay and gold and blood. And if Iran achieves a nuclear arsenal, that cost we will pay will rise exponentially.


Read More...

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...