Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts

Friday, September 14, 2012

Arab Spring, Arab Fall, and the Train of War


         The seeds Barack Obama planted with American apologies, American money, and American military assistance in the Arab Spring are being harvested now as we enter the Arab Fall.
         That harvest is, as anyone not a fool would have predicted, a harvest of anti-American hatred, violence, murder, animosity, and fanaticism that spans the Arab world.  That harvest is not yet fully in the barn, and it won’t be until the threat of a nuclear Iran as been eliminated and the future of Israel secured.  Toward that end, the president has not stopped Iran at all.  Indeed, he has hardly even slowed it down.  He talks, indeed he talks frequently, but his talk has stopped nothing, unless one perhaps asserts that his talk show appearances have stopped Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from visiting Obama, though it did not stop the representatives of the Muslin Brotherhood in Egypt from doing so.
         Barack Obama has forgotten, if ever he knew, that no nation has ever been attacked for being too strong.  But plenty of nations have been attacked for being weak, whether that weakness was real or merely perceived.  His apologies make us look weak.  His actions make us weak in fact.  In the Arab world, that is a gold-embossed invitation to conflict.
         We are weak because he has not issued credible pronouncements to host nations in the Arab world that our embassies will be protected from violence one of two ways:  Either the host nation will provide that iron-clad protection or else we will do it ourselves with our own soldiers, our own equipment, in our own way, under own our command, and in our own timing.  Because those host nations have failed abjectly to provide for our diplomats what every other civilized country has provided as a matter of course, whether those nations are friend or foe, Barack Obama must tell the now-negligent Arab countries that the second option is the only option left.  He must tell them that we will protect ourselves to whatever degree we, not they, think is necessary, and do so in ways we, not they, think are suitable.  He must say this not as bluster but as settled policy.
         When Obama takes this burden of self-protection upon us, he must never forget that even preparing for a worst-case scenario might not be enough because in the Arab world simply to prepare for the worst case is sometimes too optimistic.  Either that or close down our embassies there and their embassies here.  If our Arab counterparts wish for the diplomatic option to remain open, then they must provide a safe arena in which it can take place, just as we do.
         Judging from his own actions and his own words, both before he became president and after, Barack Obama is either incapable of, or unwilling to, produce the resolve needed to deal effectively with nations dominated by the religion of his father, of his step-father, and of his own early education.  He is shockingly unprepared for Islamic violence.  As a result, he leaves his own diplomats ridiculously under-protected.  Marines without bullets is not adequate protection for melting ice cream, much less for an embassy or a consulate, and certainly not in Arab nations, not now.
         By saying “not now,” I am not saying that this threat and this violence are new or that they are the result of an obscure, low budget, amateurish, and highly deplorable film against Islam.  Perhaps I might think so if this violence hadn’t been going on for 1,500 years and occurred simultaneously in multiple countries on the anniversary of 9/11.
         Right now, Barack Obama must do two things:
         First, and most importantly, he must, as Netanyahu insists, draw a line in the sand for Iran.  That line should demand that Iran cease its nuclear weapons procurement efforts and that it open its nuclear program to full and unfettered outside inspection.  He also must place a deadline on that compliance, a deadline very, very close at hand.  He should state unequivocally what the consequences of noncompliance will be, and make those consequences staggeringly harsh so that no other course but compliance is remotely feasible.  If he does not, Iran will not comply and very likely a regional nuclear war will ensue (assuming any nuclear war can actually remain regional).  Iran must see not even the slightest crack of daylight between us and our Israeli allies.  To see a even a small such crack is to invite Iran to think it can divide and conquer. 
         Second, and more easily, because the photos surrounding the murder of Ambassador Stevens and his three colleagues are numerous, clear, and widely available, Obama must demand that the Libyan government assist us in identifying, tracking down, and bringing to justice the killers and their cohorts.  We cannot trust the Libyans themselves to do it any more than we could trust them to keep the American compound and its occupants safe in the first place.
         Barack Obama must remember that inaction is action. He must not permit it of himself or his Arab counterparts.  We already are sliding toward war in the Middle East.
         The war train is coming.  The engineer’s chair is empty.  Obama needs to fill it and bring that train to an immediate halt. 

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

The mess he Inherited, the mess he left


       You hear Democrats talk repeatedly about the mess Obama inherited. But you never hear them talk about the enormously greater mess he will leave for the next president: (1) trillions of dollars more in debt, (2) far greater levels of poverty, (3) significantly higher levels of unemployment, (4) massively larger numbers of folks on food stamps and welfare, (4) higher gas and food prices, (5) a constrictive environment for investment, (6) more porous borders, (7) a war on marriage and traditional morality, and (8) a diminished military facing even greater budgetary diminishment in an ever-more dangerous world, including a nuclear Iran.
       Long as it is, this list is incomplete.

Friday, August 12, 2011

"Iran is not Iceland, Ron"


I'm not saying that Iran will nuke Israel when it gets the chance.  Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is saying it, and I believe him.
When a man says he wants to start a second holocaust, this time on a larger scale and with nuclear weapons, which he then sets about to acquire, reasonable people take him seriously and act accordingly.  Taking him seriously and acting accordingly does not mean you wait for him to make his maximally-deadly move.  It means you take his move away from him before he makes it, or else your nation is wiped away forever.
Some nations cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. Given its current militant leadership, Iran is one of them.  Either Iran's friends must stop Iran, or else Iran's enemies must do it.  Iran’s friends can accomplish this goal either by convincing the Iranian leadership to change its collective mind, or else by convincing the Iranian people to change their leadership.  Perhaps I have missed it, but to date I have seen no indication that Iran's friends will or can talk Iran out of its destructive nuclear intentions.  Maybe some of the more sensible powers that be in Iran can do it, or maybe they can effect a regime change.  I don’t know.  But if none of these things work, the options reduce to one:  Israel must take action.
Israel has been trying to avert conflict with Iran in many ways short of nuclear confrontation.  For that, it is to be commended.  For example, I do not think it was an accident that several of the Russian experts who aided Iran’s nuclear dreams died in a recent plane crash.  The Tupalev on which they died is a notoriously unsafe airplane.  I’d be willing to call their joint demise just terrible bad luck were it not that such "accidents" have befallen others who helped Iran in this project.  I also think that the recent cyber-crippling of Iran's nuclear program was a prudent effort, one made possible by help from Germany and the US.
Other lower level responses are still possible, though none have succeeded to date.  If none ever succeeds, then higher level responses are all that’s left.  Iran knows this.  Israel knows this.
Yet, despite this knowledge and despite the opposition Iran has met on these lower, sub-nuclear, levels, it persists in its deadly project.
If Iran persists in its purpose to obliterate Israel, it must beware the dire consequences, which are certain to follow.  No nation, Israel included, can sit patiently and passively by, awaiting its doom.  It must react.  In other words, Iran's future is up to Iran.  I sincerely hope it will turn away from its deadly intentions immediately.  Were it not to do so, the consequences are simply horrific.
Here’s what I mean:
Because the current Iranian leadership seems unable to resist the temptation to nuke Israel once it is able to do so, I cannot resist the conclusion that the Middle East will be set alight with the fires of nuclear weaponry whether Israel strikes first or not.  I hate that prospect -- I simply hate it -- but absent an Iranian about-face, it will happen.  Apparently the only thing separating us from this awful scenario is just the time it still takes Israel’s enemies to develop whatever capacity they deem necessary for this destructive action to be effective.  I have no confidence whatever in Iran’s capacity for self-restraint on this point, not when its leadership tells the world plainly, publically, and repeatedly about its intention to wipe Israel off the map.
Given Ahmadinejad’s implacability, and given that every lower level attempt to foil Iran’s destructive intentions have failed, this awful conclusion seems unavoidable:  Whatever weapon is not destroyed by Israel will be used against Israel, either before Israel acts or after.  Given Ahmadinejad’s implacability, Israel’s options are now reduced to two:  (1) either take out the Iranian leadership, or (2) pick the sequence of nuclear engagement:  first strike or second.  Unless the Iranian leadership changes radically, strikes there will be.  Ahmadinejad has told us so.  Israel, therefore, must destroy as much nuclear capability as possible before any enemy first use.  It must do so in a way that forestalls any nuclear response.  If it fails to do so, Israel will no longer exist.  For Israel, that prospect is utterly unacceptable.  For the Iranian leadership, it is a dream come true.  At least that’s what they say, both in word and action.
In a regional nuclear confrontation, you don’t want to throw the second punch.  You want to throw the first, and to make sure no second punch ever follows.  That first punch must be simply devastating -- so devastating that any effective second punch becomes impossible.  If you don’t make an effective second punch impossible, you have not struck hard enough, and you have not protected your nation.  The consequence of that failure are indescribable.
Like Israel, Ahmadinejad has options, too:  Either (1) drop the plan to nuke Israel into obliteration, or (2) face that same prospect yourself.
Along with billions of other concerned persons, I do not want that fate for either Israel or Iran. 
But if the recent past is any indication of the near future, it looks like no one is going to talk Israel's enemies out of their nuclear weapons, or out of their use against Israel.  Therefore, either the Iranian leadership must change or else their weapons must be forcibly taken away.  If not, those weapons will be used.  The only weapons not used will be those that are destroyed.
It does not please me to speculate about what I take to be this dire and horrific eventuality.  I deplore it.  But in my view, the future of the Middle East is extremely bleak.  Given Iran’s deadly intention and Israel’s desire to survive, the Middle East has a nuclear future.
Who knows if it can be limited to the Middle East?

Israel's Nuclear Future . . . . and Ours?


I'm not saying that Iran will nuke Israel when it gets the chance.  Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is saying it, and I believe him.
When a man says he wants to start a second holocaust, this time on a larger scale and with nuclear weapons, which he then sets about to acquire, reasonable people take him seriously and act accordingly.  Taking him seriously and acting accordingly does not mean you wait for him to make his maximally-deadly move.  It means you take his move away from him before he makes it, or else your nation is wiped away forever.
Some nations cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. Given its current militant leadership, Iran is one of them.  Either Iran's friends must stop Iran, or else Iran's enemies must do it.  Iran’s friends can accomplish this goal either by convincing the Iranian leadership to change its collective mind, or else by convincing the Iranian people to change their leadership.  Perhaps I have missed it, but to date I have seen no indication that Iran's friends will or can talk Iran out of its destructive nuclear intentions.  Maybe some of the more sensible powers that be in Iran can do it, or maybe they can effect a regime change.  I don’t know.  But if none of these things work, the options reduce to one:  Israel must take action.
Israel has been trying to avert conflict with Iran in many ways short of nuclear confrontation.  For that, it is to be commended.  For example, I do not think it was an accident that several of the Russian experts who aided Iran’s nuclear dreams died in a recent plane crash.  The Tupalev on which they died is a notoriously unsafe airplane.  I’d be willing to call their joint demise just terrible bad luck were it not that such "accidents" have befallen others who helped Iran in this project.  I also think that the recent cyber-crippling of Iran's nuclear program was a prudent effort, one made possible by help from Germany and the US.
Other lower level responses are still possible, though none have succeeded to date.  If none ever succeeds, then higher level responses are all that’s left.  Iran knows this.  Israel knows this.
Yet, despite this knowledge and despite the opposition Iran has met on these lower, sub-nuclear, levels, it persists in its deadly project.
If Iran persists in its purpose to obliterate Israel, it must beware the dire consequences, which are certain to follow.  No nation, Israel included, can sit patiently and passively by, awaiting its doom.  It must react.  In other words, Iran's future is up to Iran.  I sincerely hope it will turn away from its deadly intentions immediately.  Were it not to do so, the consequences are simply horrific.
Here’s what I mean:
Because the current Iranian leadership seems unable to resist the temptation to nuke Israel once it is able to do so, I cannot resist the conclusion that the Middle East will be set alight with the fires of nuclear weaponry whether Israel strikes first or not.  I hate that prospect -- I simply hate it -- but absent an Iranian about-face, it will happen.  Apparently the only thing separating us from this awful scenario is just the time it still takes Israel’s enemies to develop whatever capacity they deem necessary for this destructive action to be effective.  I have no confidence whatever in Iran’s capacity for self-restraint on this point, not when its leadership tells the world plainly, publically, and repeatedly about its intention to wipe Israel off the map.
Given Ahmadinejad’s implacability, and given that every lower level attempt to foil Iran’s destructive intentions have failed, this awful conclusion seems unavoidable:  Whatever weapon is not destroyed by Israel will be used against Israel, either before Israel acts or after.  Given Ahmadinejad’s implacability, Israel’s options are now reduced to two:  (1) either take out the Iranian leadership, or (2) pick the sequence of nuclear engagement:  first strike or second.  Unless the Iranian leadership changes radically, strikes there will be.  Ahmadinejad has told us so.  Israel, therefore, must destroy as much nuclear capability as possible before any enemy first use.  It must do so in a way that forestalls any nuclear response.  If it fails to do so, Israel will no longer exist.  For Israel, that prospect is utterly unacceptable.  For the Iranian leadership, it is a dream come true.  At least that’s what they say, both in word and action.
In a regional nuclear confrontation, you don’t want to throw the second punch.  You want to throw the first, and to make sure no second punch ever follows.  That first punch must be simply devastating -- so devastating that any effective second punch becomes impossible.  If you don’t make an effective second punch impossible, you have not struck hard enough, and you have not protected your nation.  The consequence of that failure are indescribable.
Like Israel, Ahmadinejad has options, too:  Either (1) drop the plan to nuke Israel into obliteration, or (2) face that same prospect yourself.
Along with billions of other concerned persons, I do not want that fate for either Israel or Iran. 
But if the recent past is any indication of the near future, it looks like no one is going to talk Israel's enemies out of their nuclear weapons, or out of their use against Israel.  Therefore, either the Iranian leadership must change or else their weapons must be forcibly taken away.  If not, those weapons will be used.  The only weapons not used will be those that are destroyed.
It does not please me to speculate about what I take to be this dire and horrific eventuality.  I deplore it.  But in my view, the future of the Middle East is extremely bleak.  Given Iran’s deadly intention and Israel’s desire to survive, the Middle East has a nuclear future.
Who knows if it can be limited to the Middle East?