EMP's are back in the news again as we learn that NORAD is looking to take its operations center under ground to protect against an EMP attack. The world is becoming a more dangerous place with the growth of nuclear proliferation. One very specific threat from this nuclear proliferation is the likelihood of an EMP attack. EMP's are one of those things our nation has ignored for decades, even as the threat has become more apparent.
EMP stands for electro-magnetic pulse, and a nuclear EMP attack is far more dangerous to us than any single nuclear weapon aimed at a city. Our nation could be effectively destroyed by a single EMP - a very sobering thought in an era of nuclear proliferation and with the penultimate rogue state, Iran, on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon compliments of Obama. Unless electrical systems and computer circuits are hardened to protect against an EMP discharge, they would be fried in the event of an EMP attack. A successful EMP attack on the U.S. would immediately throw us back to the stone age, with repairs to systems taking in excess of a year, assuming we would still have the economic wherewithal to make such repairs:
"What it could do, these various threats, is black out the U.S. electric grid for a protracted period of months or years," warned Peter Pry, executive director of the EMP Task Force, a bipartisan congressional commission. "Nine out of ten Americans could die from starvation, disease and societal collapse, if the blackout lasted a year."
Every nuclear weapon that explodes generates an electro-magnetic pulse that reaches out to line of site -- i.e., as far as one could see where they standing at the exact point in space where the detonation occurs. Since virtually all attacks on geographical points are accomplished with low altitude detonation, the EMP portion of a conventional nuclear attack is not of great concern.
That changes when a nuclear weapon is used to specifically to conduct an EMP attack. The nuclear weapon is fired high into the stratosphere to maximize line of site coverage. Theoretically, it would be possible for a single high altitude nuclear explosion near the midpoint of the U.S. to cover all of the lower 48 states. Thus, Iran, with but a single nuclear weapon on an ICBM, becomes a mortal threat to our nation in consideration of what would be the penultimate act of terrorism.
The mechanics of the three phases of a nuclear generated EMP are explained here. At any rate, the costs to harden our electrical grid and electronics against an EMP threat would be in the tens of billions of dollars. Why we still, despite knowing of this threat for decades, have done nothing to protect against it is inexplicable and scandalous.
Each week, the Watcher's Council hosts a forum, as well as a weekly contest among the council members for best post of the week. This week's forum question is "are negotiations with Iran worth continuing?" I have kindly been invited to respond.
Update: The Forum is up at the Watcher's Council. Do click over to read a variety of intelligent views on this issue.
Until the reelection of Obama in 2012, negotiations with Iran were based on multiple UN declarations requiring that Iran cease any further enrichment of uranium that could be used for a nuclear arsenal. Those negotiations were backed by sanctions that were hurting the Iranian economy and, deep in the background, there was a threat of force if the negotiations failed. Arguably, force should have been applied years ago, but be that as it may, the sanctions were hurting Iran sufficiently that they've come to the table to have them lifted.
But the negotiations as they now exist are over a Proposed Framework that would lift sanctions, see the continuation of the Iranian nuclear program as well as continued development of Iran's delivery systems for nuclear weapons, and give the imprimatur of the U.S. and the U.N. to full scale development of an Iranian nuclear arsenal in a decade. The collateral effect of a deal on these terms would be to see Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey create their own nuclear arsenal. All of this would be, in the words of Charles Krauthammer, "a catastrophe, not a strategic objective."
No, the negotiations over the Proposed Framework are not worth continuing. The mere fact that they happened is insanity itself.
The contention from Obama that it is either this or we de facto acquiesce to an Iranian nuclear arsenal is suicidal fallacy. According to Obama, sanctions will not work to end the Iranian threat. As to force, Obama stated in his NYT interview with Tom Friedman, that “a military strike or a series of military strikes can set back Iran’s nuclear program for a period of time — but almost certainly will prompt Iran to rush towards a bomb, will provide an excuse for hard-liners inside of Iran to say, ‘This is what happens when you don’t have a nuclear weapon: America attacks.’"
. . . Economic sanctions with a threat of force is what brought Iran to the table. Now Obama claims that neither continued and ever increasing economic sanctions will work and use of force will only lead Obama to a nuclear weapon more quickly? That is ludicrous. One, economic sanctions were crippling Iran's economy and can work if given time. The negotiations ongoing now are proof.
But if we run out of time, there must be a threat of overwhelming force. The Iranian regime is wholly dependent on sales of oil and gas for it's economy. Cut them off from their oil and gas and the bloody theocracy would soon fall. All of Iran's oil and gas fields are on a strip running along the western border of the country. Indeed, when Iraq attacked Iran in the 1980's, their master plan was to take control of a portions of that western border region. It was actually a workable strategy, had Saddam Hussein not been an incompetent commander. Bottom line, there is no need to attack all of Iran to bring the theocracy to its knees and destroy it. Because of its dependence on oil revenues and the vulnerability of its oil fields, it would be much easier to bring decisive force on the theocracy than it might at first blush appear. The whole concept of using force is based on the truism that you use it until the other side gives up. It's kind of been that way since before the written word. Obama's claim that force would only lead Iran to faster development of nuclear weapons would only be true if the force used were utterly insufficient and ineffective to convince the mad mullahs that they would lose everything if they continue to pursue nuclear weapons.
So bottom line, negotiations over a Proposed Framework should end now. Negotiations from the deck of the 5th Fleet anchored in the Persian Gulf and backed by the threat of overwhelming force to end, once and for all, Iran's nuclear program should recommence. But those negotiations should come with a hard end date, when words end and diplomacy "by other means" begins. And that threat of force should be multilateral, including not just the U.S. and Israel, but all of the other nations that have a stake in seeing that Iran's mad theocrats never gain a nuclear arsenal. That should be about 205 by my count. There are no other acceptable options. Peace in our time with a nuclear armed Iranian theocracy is as impossible today as "peace in our time" was impossible in 1930's Europe with Hitler and his Nazi regime.
If Obama were to make a deal with Iran that would permanently prevent them from gaining a nuclear arsenal, no one would have cause to complain. But this abortion that he is trying to sell now does not accomplish that. It does not come close to accomplishing that. Indeed, it virtually ensures that, within two decades, we will be faced an Iranian theocracy armed with nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them anywhere in the world. And it ensures that we will face nuclear proliferation among the unstable regimes in the Middle East that Iran threatens.
This is an existential issue for us. That anyone can think to support this deal is simply irrational. We are talking putting nuclear weapons in the hands of a regime that, in many ways, resembles that of Hitler's. This is not something that we or the world can afford to get wrong, nor is it something that can simply be corrected in a decade or two when, by the terms of its sunset provision, Iran emerges from the strictures of this deal with the ability to create a nuclear arsenal.
This is not an issue where we can roll the dice and hope that, despite no evidence whatsoever that the Iranian theocracy has moderated it's bloody ways, it's genocidal hatred of the Jews, or its threat to the U.S. and all other nations since 1979, that somehow after this deal is inked, the theocracy will moderate. One definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result. This is the flip side of that equation, that doing an act with no basis for expecting a particular desired result is equally insane.
Obama did an interview today with the NYT's Tom Friedman. The straw men Obama raises in that interview to justify this deal are simply ridiculous.
. . . “You take a country like Cuba. For us to test the possibility that engagement leads to a better outcome for the Cuban people, there aren’t that many risks for us. It’s a tiny little country. It’s not one that threatens our core security interests, and so [there’s no reason not] to test the proposition. And if it turns out that it doesn’t lead to better outcomes, we can adjust our policies. The same is true with respect to Iran, a larger country, a dangerous country, one that has engaged in activities that resulted in the death of U.S. citizens, but the truth of the matter is: Iran’s defense budget is $30 billion. Our defense budget is closer to $600 billion. Iran understands that they cannot fight us. ... You asked about an Obama doctrine. The doctrine is: We will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities.”
Okay, does Obama realize that, in the story of David and Goliath, Goliath was the one killed? Nuclear weapons are the great equalizer if one is willing to use them. Our defense budget is not a nuclear shield. We do not have a capacity to stop a nuclear first strike, and the horrifying reality is that it would take a single nuclear weapon, detonated at, say, a height of five miles at a position a hundred miles or so off the coast of Maryland, to send half of America back into the stone age for about a year, crippling our nation, perhaps permanently. But it doesn't have to come to that. What if the theocracy merely decides to give nuclear material to, say, al Qaeda, with whom they've partnered in the past. It doesn't have to be a nuclear weapon. A dirty bomb blown at the docks in NYC or Los Angeles would cripple the American economy. It is simply not possible to minimize the threat of an Iranian theocracy that continues to enrich uranium.
The fact that our responsive attack could make the rubble bounce in Tehran only works if the theocrats of Iran can be dissuaded by the thought of Mutually Assured Destruction. What basis does Obama or anyone on the left have for believing that would be the case? Does anyone think for a moment that if the theocracy in Iran is threatened, internally or externally with its imminent end, the mad mullahs wouldn't push the button and send nuclear missiles against Israel, if not the U.S.?
The short video below includes the West's premier orientalist, Bernard Lewis, addressing the danger of the made theocrats of Iran if armed with nuclear weapons. The takeaway quote: "For them, [MADD] is not a deterrent, it's an inducement."
As for protecting our Sunni Arab allies, like Saudi Arabia, the president said, they have some very real external threats, but they also have some internal threats — “populations that, in some cases, are alienated, youth that are underemployed, an ideology that is destructive and nihilistic, and in some cases, just a belief that there are no legitimate political outlets for grievances. And so part of our job is to work with these states and say, ‘How can we build your defense capabilities against external threats, but also, how can we strengthen the body politic in these countries, so that Sunni youth feel that they’ve got something other than [the Islamic State, or ISIS] to choose from. ... I think the biggest threats that they face may not be coming from Iran invading. It’s going to be from dissatisfaction inside their own countries. ... That’s a tough conversation to have, but it’s one that we have to have."
Yes, Saudi Arabia has huge internal problems. And yes, their brand of Islam, Wahhabism, happens to be the ideological basis for the ISIS and al Qaeda. What President Obama neglects to mention is that Saudi Arabia is now starting to pursue its own nuclear weapons program in response to Iran's. The only thing more frightening than Iran with a nuclear arsenal is a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia. That is something Obama cannot ignore. He has to address the nuclear proliferation issue.
On Congress’s role, Obama said he insists on preserving the presidential prerogative to enter into binding agreements with foreign powers without congressional approval.
Funny, I must have missed that clause in the Constitution. Does anyone know if it comes before or after Article II, Section II, that says: "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur . . ." This President is out of control.
Since he has acknowledged Israel’s concerns, and the fact that they are widely shared there, if the president had a chance to make his case for this framework deal directly to the Israeli people, what would he say?
“Well, what I’d say to them is this,” the president answered. “You have every right to be concerned about Iran. This is a regime that at the highest levels has expressed the desire to destroy Israel, that has denied the Holocaust, that has expressed venomous anti-Semitic ideas and is a big country with a big population and has a sophisticated military. So Israel is right to be concerned about Iran, and they should be absolutely concerned that Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.” But, he insisted, this framework initiative, if it can be implemented, can satisfy that Israeli strategic concern with more effectiveness and at less cost to Israel than any other approach. “We know that a military strike or a series of military strikes can set back Iran’s nuclear program for a period of time — but almost certainly will prompt Iran to rush towards a bomb, will provide an excuse for hard-liners inside of Iran to say, ‘This is what happens when you don’t have a nuclear weapon: America attacks.’
This is a pure straw man argument. Economic sanctions with a threat of force is what brought Iran to the table. Now Obama claims that neither continued and ever increasing economic sanctions will work and use of force will only lead Obama to a nuclear weapon more quickly? That is the purest of straw man arguments. One, economic sanctions can work if given time. The negotiations ongoing now are proof.
But if we run out of time, there must be a threat of overwhelming force. The Iranian regime is wholly dependent on sales of oil and gas for it's economy. Cut them off from their oil and gas and the regime would soon fall. All of Iran's oil and gas fields are on a strip running along the western border of the country. Indeed, when Iraq attacked Iran in the 1980's, their master plan was to take control of that western border region. It was actually a workable strategy, had Saddam Hussein not been an incompetent commander. Bottom line, there is no need to attack all of Iran to bring the theocracy to its knees and destroy it. Because of its dependence on oil revenues and the vulnerability of its oil fields, it would be much easier to bring decisive force on the theocracy than it might at first blush appear. The whole concept of using force is based on the truism that you use it until the other side gives up. It's kind of been that way since before the written word. Obama's claim that force would only lead Iran to faster development of nuclear weapons would only be true if the force used were utterly insufficient and ineffective to convince the mad mullahs that they would lose everything if they continue to pursue nuclear weapons.
If their leaders really are telling the truth that Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon, the president said, then “the notion that they would want to expend so much on a symbolic program as opposed to harnessing the incredible talents and ingenuity and entrepreneurship of the Iranian people, and be part of the world economy and see their nation excel in those terms, that should be a pretty straightforward choice for them. Iran doesn’t need nuclear weapons to be a powerhouse in the region. For that matter, what I’d say to the Iranian people is: You don’t need to be anti-Semitic or anti-Israel or anti-Sunni to be a powerhouse in the region. I mean, the truth is, Iran has all these potential assets going for it where, if it was a responsible international player, if it did not engage in aggressive rhetoric against its neighbors, if it didn’t express anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish sentiment, if it maintained a military that was sufficient to protect itself, but was not engaging in a whole bunch of proxy wars around the region, by virtue of its size, its resources and its people it would be an extremely successful regional power. And so my hope is that the Iranian people begin to recognize that.”
Clearly, he added, “part of the psychology of Iran is rooted in past experiences, the sense that their country was undermined, that the United States or the West meddled in first their democracy and then in supporting the Shah and then in supporting Iraq and Saddam during that extremely brutal war. So part of what I’ve told my team is we have to distinguish between the ideologically driven, offensive Iran and the defensive Iran that feels vulnerable and sometimes may be reacting because they perceive that as the only way that they can avoid repeats of the past. ... But if we’re able to get this done, then what may happen — and I’m not counting on it — but what may happen is that those forces inside of Iran that say, ‘We don’t need to view ourselves entirely through the lens of our war machine. Let’s excel in science and technology and job creation and developing our people,’ that those folks get stronger. ... I say that emphasizing that the nuclear deal that we’ve put together is not based on the idea that somehow the regime changes.
This is pure Obama off in fantasyland. To claim that Iran's nuclear program is aimed at anything other than the development of a nuclear arsenal is ridiculous. This is a question asked and answered years ago.
And Obama would tell Iran that they don't need to be anti-Semetic or anti-Sunni? Is he having delusions of grandeur? Sunni and Shia have been warring upon each other for over a millennium, and Obama thinks he can say a few magic words and that enmity goes away? Likewise, anti-Semitism is written into Islam's religion. Does Obama think that he can make that go away? Obama does not seem to understand what motivates the theocracy. The mad mullahs don't care about their people or their economy beyond the opportunity to spread the revolution while getting personally rich on the side. There is nothing in the history of this regime that suggests otherwise, nor anything to give one hope that this theocracy will moderate. This is insane.
And does Obama truly believe that Iran's enmity towards the West is predicated on a CIA coup three quarters of a century ago? Funny, I listen to Iranians shout "death to America" all the time and it seems to be religiously motivated. Indeed, as I recall reading Khomeini's complaints about America years ago, none of them concerned the coup. All of them concerned that we represented a competing values system.
The Iranians are not the left. The theocracy is not motivated by the socio-economic concerns of Marx. Obama does not seem to understand that.
Okay, I'm stopping there. There is more I could say in response to the inanities being uttered by Obama, but the bottom line, Iran armed with nuclear weapons is an existential disaster for the world. And this abortion Obama is trying to sell puts Iran on the glide bath to a nuclear arsenal. It cannot be allowed to come to fruition.
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:
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.
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? . . .
'Realpolitik' is a 19th century term meaning to conduct a pragmatic foreign policy based on a cold calculation of reality. Criticized for its lack of lack of paramount concern for morality, democracy and other considerations, it long marked America's foreign policy and perhaps reached its zenith under President Nixon, with his trip to China and his negotiation of an end to the Vietnam War begun by the Democrats. So how would one describe Obama's foreign policy, which seems to be unconnected from reality and wholly lacking in pragmatism?
When Obama took office in 2009, Libya was neutral. Egypt and Yemen were both under the control of pro-Western dictators. Iraq had been won and was under U.S. influence. Syria was stable, if then an ally of Iran. Al-Qaeda had been defeated on the battlefield of their choice and was on its heels. Turkey was still a nominal ally. Iran was beginning to feel real pain from economic sanctions designed to punish that country for its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Afghanistan needed attention. And the role of Islam in promoting terrorism was very much at issue.
Today, Libya has been destabilized by a U.S. "led-from-behind" coup and is now a home base for ISIS radicals. Obama supported a coup against pro-Western Egyptian dictator Mubarak, only to see the nation fall under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood, the ideological parent of al Qaeda and virtually all other Sunni terrorist groups. Since then a second coup led to the ouster of the Muslim Brotherhood regime and Obama has maintained very cool relations with the new, pro-Western government of al-Sisi, going so far as to suspend military aid at a time when that nation is increasingly coming under fire from radical Islamists. Obama squandered our hard won victory in Iraq, leaving that nation to fall under the ever greater influence of neighboring Iran. Syria, which fell into a revolt led by pro-Western rebels, was ignored by the Obama administration until, now, it is nothing more than a war for spoils between the ISIS and Iran. Turkey has become ever more a home to Islamists and less an ally.
If that were all, one would be forced to conclude that the Obama foreign policy has been one misstep after another based on mistaken but perhaps reasonable assessments of reality. But that is not all. When one adds in considerations of Yemen and Iran, it's apparent that the Obama administration is not merely mistaken in its assessments, it is completely disconnected from reality.
As to Iran, it is still the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism, still dedicated to the export of its Khomeinist Revolution, and still a mortal enemy of this nation and it has the blood of thousands of Americans on its hands. And yet, Obama has suspended sanctions, removed Iran from a list of terrorists, and now appears ready to make a deal with Iran that would allow them to keep their nuclear program active. Before 2009, I warned that Obama would be the second coming of Chamberlain, likely to try and appease Iran. I was wrong. As Bookworm Room points out, Obama has been infinitely worse, for he appears not merely reasonably mistaken in his assessments, but fully and knowingly willing to make a deal with the devil. The belief that giving a bloody, rogue regime carte blanche to continue developing a nuclear weapons capability will somehow be, in the words of Tom Friedman, transformational in any sort of positive sense for this nation, is pure insanity. It is a recipe for further destabilizing the Middle East.
And then there is Yemen. Within the past week, Iranian backed rebels have driven not merely the government of that country out of the capital, but U.S. diplomatic and military forces as well. It is a disaster. Six months ago, Obama was claiming that Yemen was not merely a counterterrorism success, but a blueprint for future operations. And today . . . his administration is still making that claim, calling Yemen a "template that has succeeded."
It that is success, then the word failure has no meaning. This is actually frightening in its lack of any grounding in reality.
The Obama administration is the anti-Nixon in the foreign policy arena. This is a foreign policy based on fantasy for which there is no word in our historic or political science lexicon. A new word must be created, and the most apt would seem to be "unrealpolitik." And the scariest part of it all is that Obama still has near two more years to do untold damage to our nation's national security.
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?
Sorry, been very busy of late, and thus the slight lull in blogging. At any rate, these are the things I have wanted to blog about the past few days but have just not had the time:
The Enlightenment marked civilizations greatest advancements; largely only bad things have happened since we've advanced beyond the Enlightenment itself: Bad Feminism
Fox News Special Report, Interview of Egypt's President al-Sisi, 9 March 2015
The exchange above tells you everything you need to know about Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East. In the language of diplomacy, that is the equivalent of saying "it is completely screwed." And it is.
The Arab nations are under attack from the Wahhabi purists who dream of a caliphate as well as Iran's mad mullahs who dream of exporting the Khomeinist revolution throughout the Middle East and the world. Everything the Obama administration has done has, on one hand, allowed the growth of the Wahhabist Sunni threat, and on the hand, strengthened the hand of the mad mullahs. Morevover, as to Egypt, Obama has suspended most, if not all, military support, including equipment transfers, since the radical Muslim Brotherhood regime of Morsi was overthrown in 2013.
According to Fox News, in another portion of the interview, not shown in the portion posted below, President Sisi "addressed the need for what he called a religious "revolution," urging moderate Muslims around the world to "stand up" against terrorists twisting their religion." It bears repeating that President al-Sisi is the only national leader to call for Islam to reform itself, to do away with the doctrines that are today inspiring Islamic terrorism. (You can see his speech to the clerics at al Azhar University here.) President al-Sisi deserves our full support, not the back of Obama's hand.
Here is the portion of the interview already posted to the net:
Update: Much more on President Sisi's attempts to change how Islam is taught in Egypt at American Thinker.
According to an article in the WSJ (available around the paywall here), the 2012 raid on the bin Laden compound in Pakistan netted the single greatest collection of intelligence materials since 9/11. At the time -- and since -- the Obama message was that al Qaeda was all but destroyed and that it was time to wind down the war on terror. As Obama said, when two years ago he asked Congress to repeal the Authorization For Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in the wake of 9/11, this war on terror "must end."
However, the wealth of materials captured in the bin Laden raid told a different story. They told of a vastly expanding threat from al Qaeda, the Taliban and the ISIS, as well as complicity by Iran. Those facts contradicted the Obama administration's narrative, so not only were they kept from the public eye, but in what can only be seen as treasonous insanity, they were walled off from analysis by our intelligence community for at least a year, and have had only limited availability since. Yes, read that last line twice and let it sink in.
After a pitched bureaucratic battle [that lasted about a year], a small team of analysts from the Defense Intelligence Agency and Centcom was given time-limited, read-only access to the documents. The DIA team began producing analyses reflecting what they were seeing in the documents.
At precisely the time Mr. Obama was campaigning on the imminent death of al Qaeda, those with access to the bin Laden documents were seeing, in bin Laden’s own words, that the opposite was true. Says Lt. Gen. Flynn: “By that time, they probably had grown by about—I’d say close to doubling by that time. And we knew that.”
This wasn’t what the Obama White House wanted to hear. So the administration cut off DIA access to the documents and instructed DIA officials to stop producing analyses based on them.
Even this limited glimpse into the broader set of documents revealed the problems with the administration’s claims about al Qaeda. Bin Laden had clear control of al Qaeda and was intimately involved in day-to-day management. More important, given the dramatic growth of the terror threat in the years since, the documents showed that bin Laden had expansion plans. . . .
The WSJ article goes on to argue for making all of the documents from the bin Laden raid publicly available. I'd be satisfied if they'd just make them available to our intel analysts. This incident highlights both how and why Obama's foreign policy has been a complete disaster for our national security. Obama's policies are completely out of touch with reality. Obama values ideology and political power more than he does our national security. And while our nation can recover from the economic disaster that the Obama regime has been, it is far less certain that we can recover from the damage Obama has done to our national security,
In 2008, I wrote a post supporting John McCain's presidential bid on the issue of national security. I argued that McCain could be expected to make national security decisions respecting "Iran, Iraq and terrorism" based on the long term interests of our country while Obama would make such decisions based on ideology and polls. I think history has proven my point with a terrible vengeance, but it is a hollow 'I told you so.' Even I never expected this degree of disaster. As Victor Davis Hanson recently stated, "Obama’s morally confused foreign policy is making the world more dangerous by the day."
- Obama refused to intercede in Syria at the start of their civil war. While Obama fiddled, pro-Western forces in Syria were overcome by the Sunni radical groups. Syria is now a war for spoils between the Wahabbi radicals of ISIS and the mad mullahs of Iran.
- Obama's war in Libya against Qaddafi, who at least maintained the neutrality of that country, has opened up Libya for exploitation by ISIS and al Qaeda.
- Obama fully supported the Muslim Brotherhood administration of Mohamed Morsi in Egypt as they used authoritarian tactics to reshape that nation into a permanent theocracy. The Obama administration still maintains ties with the Muslim Brotherhood while having a very cool relationship with Egypt's secular leader, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who, it should be noted, is the only national leader, Islamic or otherwise, to call for a reform of Islam.
- Obama refuses to even acknowledge Islam's role in the Islamic terrorism that is reshaping our world. That refusal to engage in the war of ideas guarantees that Islamic terrorism, perhaps apocalyptic given the ever increasing likelihood of a WMD attack, will never be defeated.
- Obama's entire foreign policy, based on fantasy and, we now know, a simple refusal to acknowlede uncomfortable facts, has allowed for the rise of ISIS, an utterly animalistic group that has now have proclaimed a caliphate in the areas of Syria and Iraq where they hold sway. In addition, the ISIS now hold parts of Libya. The ISIS threatens to destabilize other Sunni countries in the already unstable Middle East.
- Obama, who named as one of his many insane, utopian goals, a world without nuclear weapons, has significantly reduced our nuclear arms capacity That nuclear capacity is what has kept the peace in Europe, the Pax Americana, of the past near seventy years.
- Obama unilaterally changed our national defense posture from being able to fight in two theaters of war simultaneously -- our defense posture since WWII -- to being able to fight in one. This was certainly not based on any threat assessment. It was based on his desire to use more of our nations wealth to fund his domestic programs.
- Under Obama, defense spending has become our nation's lowest priority, and, according to a 2015 Heritage Foundation analysis, our military capabilities are significantly declining. Add to that is Obama's decision to use our military to advance the social policies of radical feminists by allowing women into the combat arms without even the pretense of a study to determine how this would effect, let alone enhance, our war fighting capability.
- Obama, who promised in his 2008 campaign and again in his 2012 campaign that he would stop Iran's nuclear program, has broken a sanctions regime that had finally brought the Iranian theocracy to its knees. Iran is the quintessential bad actor in the world. The mad mullahs of Iran have been at war with U.S. interests, and often times the U.S. itself, since almost the first day Iran's theocracy was proclaimed in 1979. The mad mullahs pose the single greatest threat to our and the world's long term security. Yet Obama appears on the cusp of cutting a deal with Iran to allow them to continue their nuclear enrichment - and thus their march towards a nuclear arsenal.
- Obama, by allowing Iran to continue its nuclear program, is igniting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East as Saudi Arabia and other nations start their own nuclear programs for self defense. The only thing more frightening than Iran with nuclear weapons is Iran and the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons.
- Obama, when presented with a rare strategic opportunity during Iran's Green Revolution to perhaps topple or at least alter the trajectory of Iran's bloody and lawless theocracy, wholly ignored the opportunity until the mad mullahs had almost completely regained control.
- Russia has already invaded the Ukraine, and several NATO nations are concerned, probably not unreasonably, that Russia might invade and that NATO, led by the U.S., will not respond.
- North Korea is continuing to build and refine its nuclear arsenal. And its Dear Leader is beating the war drums, telling Army commanders this week to prepare for a Great War of Reunification against the U.S. and South Korea.
The world today is a far more dangerous place for America than it was in 2008, when Obama took office. We can't stop Obama's continued degradation of our national security between now and 2017, but let us hope we can slow it, at least in regards to Iran's march to a nuclear arsenal. Otherwise, our nation will not recover from the damage Obama has done and may yet do.
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.
Try for a moment to imagine any scenario where a U.S. President has united Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt in mutual accord? Try to imagine a scenario where Saudi Arabian newspaper columnists are penning their full throated support and hope for the success of Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu? That is the stuff of which Nobel Peace Prize's are made. And Obama has accomplished it.
This is the concluding paragraph of an article penned by Dr. Ahmad Al-Faraj yesterday, appearing in the Saudi daily Al-Jazirah:
Since Obama is the godfather of the prefabricated revolutions in the Arab world, and since he is the ally of political Islam, [which is] the caring mother of [all] the terrorist organizations, and since he is working to sign an agreement with Iran that will come at the expense of the U.S.'s longtime allies in the Gulf, I am very glad of Netanyahu's firm stance and [his decision] to speak against the nuclear agreement at the American Congress despite the Obama administration's anger and fury. I believe that Netanyahu's conduct will serve our interests, the people of the Gulf, much more than the foolish behavior of one of the worst American presidents. Do you agree with me?
Obama, with his insane policy of trying to deal with the mad mullahs and bless off on their nuclear program has managed to do the impossible. If they give out Nobel Peace Prize's for wholly unintended consequences, Obama should be a shoe-in. And extra points to the Saudi columnist for recognizing Obama's place in the pantheon of U.S. Presidents.
Barack Obama intends the centerpiece of his foreign policy legacy to be a de facto alliance with Iran–a stroke so brilliant that only he could think of it. The U.S. will set Iran up as the dominant regional power in the Middle East, in part by allowing it to develop the nuclear capability for which its rulers have long yearned, and in exchange, Iran will keep the peace and subdue troublesome upstarts like ISIS. To someone who grew up thinking that the call to prayer from a minaret is one of the most beautiful sounds on Earth, this might make some kind of sense. To those of us forced to live in the real world, it is bonkers.
The left has continuously and catastophicly misjudged Iran's theocracy since 1979, when Jimmy Carter made Iran's theorcratic revolution possible. Carter wholly misunderstood the ideology and threat of Ayatollah Khomeini, allowing him back into Iran to take over the revolution under the belief that Khomeini was rational and could be swayed by American economic benefits. We are still paying for Carter's catastophic naivety today, as Iran remains the single most destabilizing influence, not just in the Middle East, but the world. You can read the roll-up of Iran's actions here. Since I wrote that in 2008, little has changed other than Iran's machinations are starting to pay off. The theocracy is playing an ever-more dominant role in Iraq, and the Shia rebels they were backing in Yemen have forced that country's leadership to flee. The rebels now control the capital.
Now things portend to get much worse. Obama too misjudges Iran, seeing them as a ratonal actor that can be a "partner for peace" in the Middle East and that can be entrusted with nuclear weapons. To call Obama's plans "bonkers," as John Hinderaker does in the quote at the top of this post, is to understate the existential danger of Obama's plan by an infinite order of magnitude. While Israel of course sees this Obama madness as the greatest of dangers, it is certainly not just Israel in the Iranian sites. If anyone in this country does not see the same existential danger to America and Western civilization as a whole, they are suicidally delusional. Yet if nothing is done to derail this insanity, the Obama deal, a deal of Chamberlainesque proportions, will be done.
Enter PM Bibi Netanyahu, who will speak to Congress this week. Obama is pulling out all the stops to delegitimize Netanyahu and his speech, for it really is only the Israeli PM and his ability to sway American public opinion that can stop Obama's suicidal march. As Caroline Glick writes:
Netanyahu is not coming to Washington next Tuesday to warn Congress against Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, because he seeks a fight with Obama. Netanyahu has devoted the last six years to avoiding a fight with Obama, often at great cost to Israel’s national security and to his own political position.
Netanyahu is coming to Washington next week because Obama has left him no choice. And all decent people of good will should support him, and those who do not, and those who are silent, should be called out for their treachery and cowardice.
Treachery and cowardice indeed. Unfortunately, such people rarely pay the price their acts so justly deserve. As it is, Obama and the entire left, whose hands are bloodied from throwing away our victory in Iraq for the benefit of their domestic political narrative, will pay no price except perhaps in the history books, assuming our nation survives to write them.
I'll shift gears here and close this post with the single most prophetic and troubling poem ever written. It's by William Butler Yeats, who penned it in 1921, in the wake of the horrific destruction wrought in World War I. And when one thinks of the world today, it is far too easy to think that it could have been penned to describe our reality.
The Second Coming
by William Butler Yeats
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Update: This from the sidebar and headline on Drudge at the moment:
Posts
