Tuesday's Wall Street Journal contained an eye-opening account of what was supposed to happen when Wonderboy chaired the UN Security Council meeting last week. According to the Journal,
"But now we hear that the French and British leaders were quietly seething on stage, annoyed by America's handling of the announcement.
Both countries wanted to confront Iran a day earlier at the United Nations. Mr. Obama was, after all, chairing a Security Council session devoted to nonproliferation. The latest evidence of Iran's illegal moves toward acquiring a nuclear weapon was in hand. With the world's leaders gathered in New York, the timing and venue would be a dramatic way to rally international opinion.
President Sarkozy in particular pushed hard. He had been "frustrated" for months about Mr. Obama's reluctance to confront Iran, a senior French government official told us, and saw an opportunity to change momentum. But the Administration told the French that it didn't want to "spoil the image of success" for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons, according to the Paris daily Le Monde."
Wow. In order to protect the image of success, Wonderboy's handlers forbid Britain and France to actually address real nuclear weapon proliferation concerns at the UN, which would be the logical place to do so.
The editorial continues, referring to Sarkozy's modified UN address,
"The address takes on added meaning now that we know the backroom discussions.
"We are right to talk about the future," Mr. Sarkozy said, referring to the U.S. resolution on strengthening arms control treaties. "But the present comes before the future, and the present includes two major nuclear crises," i.e., Iran and North Korea. "We live in the real world, not in a virtual one." No prize for guessing into which world the Frenchman puts Mr. Obama.
"We say that we must reduce," he went on. "President Obama himself has said that he dreams of a world without nuclear weapons. Before our very eyes, two countries are doing exactly the opposite at this very moment. Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council Resolutions."
You can't criticize Sarkozy for avoiding reality or being in denial. Like our president. The French PM continued,
"And last but not least, it has resulted in a statement by Iranian leaders calling for wiping off the map a Member of the United Nations. What are we to do? What conclusions are we to draw? At a certain moment hard facts will force us to make decisions.""
Sarkozy pulls no punches about the threat a nuclear Iran will pose to Israel. How's that for irony? A French Prime Minister arguing on Israel's behalf?
Unfortunately, our own leader can't muster the courage to confront the Iranians at the UN, preferring, instead, to continue his imaginary global victory lap undisturbed by the reality of nuclear weapons proliferation in one of the most dangerous reasons on Earth.
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Friday, October 2, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Iran's Nuclear Weapon Development
The recent disclosure of Iran's additional reactor site brings to the forefront an unbelievable state of affairs in the ineptitude of the Western world's management of this situation for over a decade.
As I sit writing this post, I find myself thinking that this must be what it felt like to read newspapers in the late 1930s, seeing war coming and watching the West's leaders fumble any chance to pre-emptively contain it.
Iran is a regional bully. It's a poorly-run theocracy that crushes its own citizens' dissent. Properly economically embargoed, the current regime might collapse in a year or so. Certainly, the lack of refined petroleum products and hard currency would make ordinary life and the continued progress of its nuclear weapons ambitions very difficult to sustain.
Instead, eight years of accommodation and lack of response by the Bush administration let Iran make substantial progress on both uranium enrichment and missile delivery systems. By turning a blind eye to Iran's single-minded pursuit of nuclear weapons, President Bush missed a golden opportunity to take the program out when it was still in its infancy.
Apparently, Bush's infatuation with Vladimir Putin prevented him from unilaterally halting Iran's nuclear weapons program. Further, inexplicably, when Iran was proven to be aiding those in Iraq attacking US forces, Bush, again, failed to take advantage of the opportunity to destroy substantial parts of Iran's nuclear capability.
With the 1930s as a reasonable example from which to learn, it should be obvious that rogue nations like Iran, now, and Germany, then, are secretly scared of being stopped via military force during their arming phase. But they treat every diplomatic threat as a signal to proceed.
Using major powers' values and diplomatic processes against them, these rogue nations merrily put on a show of diplomacy while racing ahead with rearmament. While everyone watches their clear displays of duplicity, leaders of the major powers continue to behave as if what everyone knows is, in fact, not true.
In the 1930s, it resulted in world war of epic proportions and loss of millions of lives.
Now, we are talking nuclear weapons with missile delivery systems. In the face of this, Wonderboy has just backed down on deploying the Bush-planned theater anti-missile defenses in Eastern Europe.
How can this be happening? How can we actually be watching our own elected president, and the heads of the major European powers, and Russia, simply sit and watch a renegade state approach the point of capability of launching a nuclear weapon at Israel or southern Europe?
Are these elected leaders mad? Insane? Or merely so pompous and egotistical that because they, or, in our own case, he, believes in his rhetorical skills, he is willing to bet several million lives and the use of land in several Mediterranean or European countries for thousands of years on them?
I read this past weekend's two-page piece on Israel's options for destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program. Two things struck me as I read the article.
First, we have a cold-blooded, analytical piece concerning how Israel, a regional power, might take out Iran's nuclear threat, when the world's most effective and strongest military power, the US, stands nearer Iran, with greater assets. Yet I was reading a serious piece about how Israel would have to contemplate doing the job itself in order to avoid nuclear annihilation.
Second, with such a serious, world-changing possibility in the offing, i.e., Iran acquiring and launching nuclear weapons that will, for all practical purposes, change the face of the world for decades to come, the US isn't even considered in the running to stop it.
It's now a foregone conclusion that our own government will not use our considerable military advantage to simply attack and destroy anything necessary inside Iran, until it has no hope of recreating a nuclear weapons program for the next four or five decades.
Instead, we have the UN, NATO, and the US all behaving as if Iran already has active nuclear weapons in a deliverable state.
Whatever political and human costs a pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities would entail, in hindsight, after the detonation of the first Iranian nuclear weapon on another country's soil, those costs will seem laughably small and affordable.
But, then, it will be far too late.
As I sit writing this post, I find myself thinking that this must be what it felt like to read newspapers in the late 1930s, seeing war coming and watching the West's leaders fumble any chance to pre-emptively contain it.
Iran is a regional bully. It's a poorly-run theocracy that crushes its own citizens' dissent. Properly economically embargoed, the current regime might collapse in a year or so. Certainly, the lack of refined petroleum products and hard currency would make ordinary life and the continued progress of its nuclear weapons ambitions very difficult to sustain.
Instead, eight years of accommodation and lack of response by the Bush administration let Iran make substantial progress on both uranium enrichment and missile delivery systems. By turning a blind eye to Iran's single-minded pursuit of nuclear weapons, President Bush missed a golden opportunity to take the program out when it was still in its infancy.
Apparently, Bush's infatuation with Vladimir Putin prevented him from unilaterally halting Iran's nuclear weapons program. Further, inexplicably, when Iran was proven to be aiding those in Iraq attacking US forces, Bush, again, failed to take advantage of the opportunity to destroy substantial parts of Iran's nuclear capability.
With the 1930s as a reasonable example from which to learn, it should be obvious that rogue nations like Iran, now, and Germany, then, are secretly scared of being stopped via military force during their arming phase. But they treat every diplomatic threat as a signal to proceed.
Using major powers' values and diplomatic processes against them, these rogue nations merrily put on a show of diplomacy while racing ahead with rearmament. While everyone watches their clear displays of duplicity, leaders of the major powers continue to behave as if what everyone knows is, in fact, not true.
In the 1930s, it resulted in world war of epic proportions and loss of millions of lives.
Now, we are talking nuclear weapons with missile delivery systems. In the face of this, Wonderboy has just backed down on deploying the Bush-planned theater anti-missile defenses in Eastern Europe.
How can this be happening? How can we actually be watching our own elected president, and the heads of the major European powers, and Russia, simply sit and watch a renegade state approach the point of capability of launching a nuclear weapon at Israel or southern Europe?
Are these elected leaders mad? Insane? Or merely so pompous and egotistical that because they, or, in our own case, he, believes in his rhetorical skills, he is willing to bet several million lives and the use of land in several Mediterranean or European countries for thousands of years on them?
I read this past weekend's two-page piece on Israel's options for destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program. Two things struck me as I read the article.
First, we have a cold-blooded, analytical piece concerning how Israel, a regional power, might take out Iran's nuclear threat, when the world's most effective and strongest military power, the US, stands nearer Iran, with greater assets. Yet I was reading a serious piece about how Israel would have to contemplate doing the job itself in order to avoid nuclear annihilation.
Second, with such a serious, world-changing possibility in the offing, i.e., Iran acquiring and launching nuclear weapons that will, for all practical purposes, change the face of the world for decades to come, the US isn't even considered in the running to stop it.
It's now a foregone conclusion that our own government will not use our considerable military advantage to simply attack and destroy anything necessary inside Iran, until it has no hope of recreating a nuclear weapons program for the next four or five decades.
Instead, we have the UN, NATO, and the US all behaving as if Iran already has active nuclear weapons in a deliverable state.
Whatever political and human costs a pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities would entail, in hindsight, after the detonation of the first Iranian nuclear weapon on another country's soil, those costs will seem laughably small and affordable.
But, then, it will be far too late.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
The Iranian Nuclear Threat
A week ago, in the Friday edition of the Wall Street Journal, Arthur Herman wrote a very descriptive review of Michael Ledeen's book, "The Iranian Time Bomb."
What we learn from this article is that Mr. Ledeen's book provides us with evidence of the shocking decline of Iran's economy. And that the country's nuclear weapons program is no longer a comforting decade, or even five years from fruition, but, rather, possibly as close as two years to producing a working device.
From the evidence, Iran is to be taken seriously as both a regional and, consequently, due to the region affected, global threat.
Ledeen personally prefers diplomacy and funding of those who would overthrow Iran's government, to military action by the US and its Western allies. While that's not a moot point, for me, the more interesting information in the article reviewing the book is how tenuous Iran's own supply of gasoline is. They have virtually zero refining capacity, so any confrontation in which they attempted to shut down the Straits of Hormuz and their own oil shipments, would rapidly drain their own gasoline supplies faster than the world would be affected by a shortage of crude oil.
The nuclear weapons threat, of course, makes the potential to force such a standoff earlier, rather than later, all the more pressing.
Mr. Herman, the reviewer, notes Ledeen's own flip-flop on the diplomacy vs. aggression question. Too, he notes that few revolutions have occurred without a foreign military presence causing the fall of the unpopular, current regime.
I found the review to be very eye-opening, particularly as the US, thanks to our fortuitous presence in Iraq, has troops, aircraft, naval and logistical assets at hand in the region, should armed intervention in Iran be appropriate within the next year or so.
What we learn from this article is that Mr. Ledeen's book provides us with evidence of the shocking decline of Iran's economy. And that the country's nuclear weapons program is no longer a comforting decade, or even five years from fruition, but, rather, possibly as close as two years to producing a working device.
From the evidence, Iran is to be taken seriously as both a regional and, consequently, due to the region affected, global threat.
Ledeen personally prefers diplomacy and funding of those who would overthrow Iran's government, to military action by the US and its Western allies. While that's not a moot point, for me, the more interesting information in the article reviewing the book is how tenuous Iran's own supply of gasoline is. They have virtually zero refining capacity, so any confrontation in which they attempted to shut down the Straits of Hormuz and their own oil shipments, would rapidly drain their own gasoline supplies faster than the world would be affected by a shortage of crude oil.
The nuclear weapons threat, of course, makes the potential to force such a standoff earlier, rather than later, all the more pressing.
Mr. Herman, the reviewer, notes Ledeen's own flip-flop on the diplomacy vs. aggression question. Too, he notes that few revolutions have occurred without a foreign military presence causing the fall of the unpopular, current regime.
I found the review to be very eye-opening, particularly as the US, thanks to our fortuitous presence in Iraq, has troops, aircraft, naval and logistical assets at hand in the region, should armed intervention in Iran be appropriate within the next year or so.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
"Reckless Caution"
The following is an editorial, copied in its entirety, from the Wall Street Journal late this past week. It's a very succinct, clear and thought-provoking piece.
By JAMES TARANTO
February 8, 2007; Page A15
When NBC's Tim Russert asked John Edwards on Sunday if he, as president, would accept a nuclear-armed Iran, the silver-tongued lawyer got tongue-tied: "I -- there's no answer to that question at this moment. I think that it's a -- it's a -- it's a very bad thing for Iran to get a nuclear weapon. I think we have -- we have many steps in front of us that have not been used. We ought to negotiate directly with the Iranians, which has not, not been done. The things that I just talked about, I think, are the right approach in dealing with Iran. And then we'll, we'll see what the result is. . . . I think -- I think the -- we don't know, and you have to make a judgment as you go along, and that's what I would do as president."
Less than two weeks earlier, Mr. Edwards had spoken by satellite to Israel's annual Herzliya Conference. "Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. . . . To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table. Let me reiterate -- all options must remain on the table."
Why did Mr. Edwards's views morph so quickly from hawkish to weaselly? Probably because confrontation with Iran is very unpopular among the Democratic antiwar base. Last week Ezra Klein of The American Prospect, a left-liberal magazine, confronted Mr. Edwards about the Herzliya speech, and the candidate waffled. Although allowing that "it would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table," he offered this criticism of President Bush: "When he uses this kind of language 'options are on the table,' he does it in a very threatening kind of way." Does Mr. Edwards mean to be docile?
Mr. Klein asked if America can live with a nuclear Iran. "I'm not ready to cross that bridge yet," Mr. Edwards answered. There's a world of difference between the unequivocal "under no circumstances" and the coy "I'm not ready." And that "yet" suggests it is only a matter of time before he does cross the bridge.
Mr. Edwards is not the only Democratic presidential candidate without a comprehensible position on Iran. Last week Hillary Clinton spoke to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Heather Robinson of PoliticalMavens.com reported that Mrs. Clinton said: "There are many, including our president, who reject any engagement with Iran and Syria. I believe that is a good-faith position to take, but I'm not sure it's the smart strategy that'll take us to the goal we share. What do I mean by engagement or some kind of process? I'm not sure anything positive would come out of it . . . but there are a number of factors that argue for doing what I'm suggesting." Whatever that may be.
Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton have something else in common: Both voted for the Iraq war in 2002, and both turned against it only after it become unpopular. On Iraq, they followed public opinion; on Iran, they are waiting to be led.
Pandering to public sentiment may be fine for a senator, but the president needs to be able to make decisions in the national interest -- which sometimes means shaping public opinion, sometimes defying it. Mr. Bush has done both, whether or not his decisions were wise ones.
Perhaps voters next year, chastened by Mr. Bush's dangerous boldness, will opt for someone more risk-averse. But if a crisis arises and the president proves unable to lead, they may find themselves longing for Mr. Bush's steadfastness. An excess of caution is itself a form of recklessness.
I found this editorial to be a truly brilliant expose of the lack of leadership and conviction by any of these Democratic Presidential hopefuls. Ironically, perhaps the Iran question, by virtue of its hypothetical nature, is the better litmus test of Presidential leadership ability for 2008, rather than the reality of Iraq, on which so much second-guessing and foot-shufflings is now occurring.
On the latter topic, the Journal featured another editorial, on Thursday, chronicling Hillary Clinton's predictable attempts to distance herself from her earlier pro-war stance on Iraq. The article points out that, whereas, initially, she was bound to support her husband's pro-interventionist statements, stance and actions regarding Iraq, the realities of being flanked on the left by other Democratic Presidential candidates has sent her running headlong from her earlier, solid pro-Iraq-war votes, statements and positions.
Essentially, we have two Democrats, one a former Senator, one still sitting, who voted for the Iraq war, now showing their inability to lead, persevere in their convictions, or do other than pander to what they perceive as popular opinions. In that manner, both Edwards and Hillary seem to be chips off the triangulating Clinton block.
By JAMES TARANTO
February 8, 2007; Page A15
When NBC's Tim Russert asked John Edwards on Sunday if he, as president, would accept a nuclear-armed Iran, the silver-tongued lawyer got tongue-tied: "I -- there's no answer to that question at this moment. I think that it's a -- it's a -- it's a very bad thing for Iran to get a nuclear weapon. I think we have -- we have many steps in front of us that have not been used. We ought to negotiate directly with the Iranians, which has not, not been done. The things that I just talked about, I think, are the right approach in dealing with Iran. And then we'll, we'll see what the result is. . . . I think -- I think the -- we don't know, and you have to make a judgment as you go along, and that's what I would do as president."
Less than two weeks earlier, Mr. Edwards had spoken by satellite to Israel's annual Herzliya Conference. "Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. . . . To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table. Let me reiterate -- all options must remain on the table."
Why did Mr. Edwards's views morph so quickly from hawkish to weaselly? Probably because confrontation with Iran is very unpopular among the Democratic antiwar base. Last week Ezra Klein of The American Prospect, a left-liberal magazine, confronted Mr. Edwards about the Herzliya speech, and the candidate waffled. Although allowing that "it would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table," he offered this criticism of President Bush: "When he uses this kind of language 'options are on the table,' he does it in a very threatening kind of way." Does Mr. Edwards mean to be docile?
Mr. Klein asked if America can live with a nuclear Iran. "I'm not ready to cross that bridge yet," Mr. Edwards answered. There's a world of difference between the unequivocal "under no circumstances" and the coy "I'm not ready." And that "yet" suggests it is only a matter of time before he does cross the bridge.
Mr. Edwards is not the only Democratic presidential candidate without a comprehensible position on Iran. Last week Hillary Clinton spoke to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Heather Robinson of PoliticalMavens.com reported that Mrs. Clinton said: "There are many, including our president, who reject any engagement with Iran and Syria. I believe that is a good-faith position to take, but I'm not sure it's the smart strategy that'll take us to the goal we share. What do I mean by engagement or some kind of process? I'm not sure anything positive would come out of it . . . but there are a number of factors that argue for doing what I'm suggesting." Whatever that may be.
Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton have something else in common: Both voted for the Iraq war in 2002, and both turned against it only after it become unpopular. On Iraq, they followed public opinion; on Iran, they are waiting to be led.
Pandering to public sentiment may be fine for a senator, but the president needs to be able to make decisions in the national interest -- which sometimes means shaping public opinion, sometimes defying it. Mr. Bush has done both, whether or not his decisions were wise ones.
Perhaps voters next year, chastened by Mr. Bush's dangerous boldness, will opt for someone more risk-averse. But if a crisis arises and the president proves unable to lead, they may find themselves longing for Mr. Bush's steadfastness. An excess of caution is itself a form of recklessness.
I found this editorial to be a truly brilliant expose of the lack of leadership and conviction by any of these Democratic Presidential hopefuls. Ironically, perhaps the Iran question, by virtue of its hypothetical nature, is the better litmus test of Presidential leadership ability for 2008, rather than the reality of Iraq, on which so much second-guessing and foot-shufflings is now occurring.
On the latter topic, the Journal featured another editorial, on Thursday, chronicling Hillary Clinton's predictable attempts to distance herself from her earlier pro-war stance on Iraq. The article points out that, whereas, initially, she was bound to support her husband's pro-interventionist statements, stance and actions regarding Iraq, the realities of being flanked on the left by other Democratic Presidential candidates has sent her running headlong from her earlier, solid pro-Iraq-war votes, statements and positions.
Essentially, we have two Democrats, one a former Senator, one still sitting, who voted for the Iraq war, now showing their inability to lead, persevere in their convictions, or do other than pander to what they perceive as popular opinions. In that manner, both Edwards and Hillary seem to be chips off the triangulating Clinton block.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
