The World After the NIE Report

If anyone wants to know what a brave new world the internet and 24 cable news has created they only need to look at the dynamics created by the release of the National Intelligence Estimate in regards to Iran's nuclear program. Six or eight years ago I would venture to guess that many in government wouldn't know anything about any NIE report. Now, the NIE is subject to water cooler discussion and is being used as spin material by politicians as far away as Iran.



The problem with this brave new world is that most of the people in it know just enough to be dangerous. First, as Fred Thomspon rightly points out, we should have a healthy skepticism toward this report.

The accuracy of the latest NIE on Iran should be received with a good deal of skepticism. Our intelligence community has often underestimated the intentions of adversaries, including Saddam Hussein's Iraq and North Korea. And are all of the CIA detractors now going to take intelligence pronouncements at face value? It's awfully convenient for a lot of people: the administration gets to say its policies worked; the Democrats get to claim we should have eased up on Iran a long time ago: and Russia and China can claim sanctions on Iran are not necessary

Second, if the report is right, then the reaction is almost entirely spin and in no way relates to reality. There is a great deal of irony that most of the same people that are using this report to attack Bush for some sort of perceived misleading statements also attacked Bush for lying about Iraq. The final NIE report on Iraq painted a scary picture in which the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein was seeking a plethora of WMD programs. Even though that particular report concurred with the picture the President gave, that didn't stop his opponents from claiming that he lied about Iraq's WMD's. Now, most of the exact same people that ignored a previous NIE report to claim he lied are using another NIE report to claim he is now lying. They simply can't have it both ways. Either the NIE is the gospel or it isn't.



Finally, if this report is accurate, then it in fact validates Bush's entire foreign policy strategy. The NIE report says that Iran halted their nuclear program in 2003. Unless you are a believer in strange coincidences that means Iran stopped their program because they noticed their neighbor to the West was getting bombarded because of his own WMD program. In other words, the invasion of Iraq did in fact put tyrants and despots on notice and it changed their behavior. Remember, Lybia also gave up its WMD program in the immediate aftermath of the invasion.

Here is another view...

What did that pressure consist of? In the fall of 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency had not yet referred the civil Iranian nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council. That happened in 2006, and the Security Council finally agreed on (weak) sanctions later that year. In the fall of 2003, the European Union had barely swung into action with its negotiations--which have gone nowhere in four years. The quasi-urgency displayed by both the IAEA and the EU in late 2003 was a result of fear that unless they got engaged, the United States might act unilaterally and militarily. Why such fear?

Much as the U.S. intelligence community, the IAEA, and the EU might prefer to forget it, we did overthrow Saddam Hussein in April 2003. As Rosett puts it, that "was the year in which Saddam Hussein became Exhibit A of the post-Sept.-11 era for what could happen to terror-linked tyrants who ignored America's demands that they abjure weapons of mass murder."

Did anyone notice? Muammar Qaddafi did. Libya, in late 2003, gave up its nuclear weapons program (which was, incidentally, more advanced than the IAEA believed) and invited U.S. experts in to dismantle it.

Perhaps Iran's mullahs also noticed. Perhaps they noticed, too, a large U.S.-led military force just across their border.

Why then are some using this as bludgeon against Bush? Here is how Joe Biden put it...

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.) Tuesday asserted that President Bush is not leveling with the country when he says that he did not know in mid-October that U.S. intelligence services believed at that time that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

“Are you telling me a president who is briefed every single morning, who is fixated
on Iran, is not told back in August that the tentative conclusion of 16 intelligence agencies in the United States government said they had abandoned their effort for a nuclear weapon in ’03?” Biden said in a conference call with reporters.

So, when accusing the sitting President of lying about matters of national security, Biden uses nothing but supposition. Of course, he isn't alone. Most of the entire MSM has claimed this.
Criticism was coming from nearly every single quarter.

The new National Intelligence Estimate — which says Iran had a nuclear weapons development program, but halted it in 2003 — made President Bush's week play out like a sad country song. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was smiling and called the report a victory. Rush Limbaugh blasted the report as a product of administration sabotage. And Democrats were accusing the president of being a flip-flopper.

The NIE drew fire from nearly all sides, including anti-war Democrats in Congress, foreign leaders the administration needs to hold the line against Iran, and conservatives usually supportive of the administration.

The root issue for many critics comes down to credibility: Credibility of the estimate, credibility of the intelligence community that developed it and the credibility of the administration for whom those agencies work. Bridging that credibility gap might prove difficult for an administration heading into its final months.

The most absurd criticism came from those that claimed this would slow down "Bush's rush to war". First, the only rush that Bush had to go to war with Iran was in the minds of the people that claimed he had it. For the last six years the only thing Bush has done is go back to the UN for an endless stream of useless sanctions. If anything Bush hasn't been tough enough, not too tough. Second, to claim that this proves that Iran isn't the threat that Bush claims is to ignore all reality. First here is how some of those think.

To be sure, the first reaction to the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran is simple relief — the Bush administration is less likely to launch a unilateral, pre-emptive military strike against a nuclear program that doesn’t exist.

But then there are the second and third reactions, which are nearly as important in providing context. Matt Yglesias, for example, reminds us that in 2003, Iran reached out to the U.S. in order to strike a sweeping peace deal, which would have led the country to give up on a nuclear program that they then-realized would be too hard to develop. Bush wasn’t interested.

For anyone to treat Iran as anything short of a sociopathic regime that needs to be isolated and confronted until they understand that confrontation will only lead to their destruction is to ignore reality. Let's review some of the things Iran has done in the last couple years.

One of their proxies started a war in Lebanon with Israel. Another proxy started a war in Palestine with Israel. It is Iran that is responsible for the much of the alphabet soup of explosive devices currently killing our soldiers in Iraq . Let's not forget that the Iranians crossed into international waters, took fifteen British sailors hostage, and then paraded them on television for propaganda purposes. To claim that Iran is not a menace because some government report claims they halted their nuclear program (though interestingly not their uranium enrichment) is to ignore Iran's actions over the last few years. Iran is a menace. If this report is accurate then it proves that the only way to deal with them is with a hammer.

What is frustrating to folks like me is how the White House is again bungling the media handling of this report. Even though they have the bully pulpit of the Presidency you aren't hearing much response to much of this absurd criticism.

There you have the brave new world of the MSM and the NIE report. It is complicated by nature as the NIE report is really not meant for layman. That said, most people are asking all the wrong questions and coming to all the wrong conclusions. It is nothing short of absurd to have the same Joe Biden accusing Bush of misleading on Iraq, all the while ignoring the NIE report, and misleading on Iran, all the while treating this NIE report as the gospel. It is shameful that the MSM has focused solely on perceived misleading statements without even a thought that this report actually confirms Bush's policies.

Finally, and to me most importantly, it is no less shameful that the Bush admin allows all of this to happen even though they have the bully pulpit of the Presidency.

The Changing Dynamics of the War in Iraq and Its Political Ramifications

Rick Moran wrote an amazing piece yesterday that really breaks down the situation currently going on in Iraq. If you have a chance, please read it. If you don't, here is a summary. There is no doubt that there has been some success since the institution of the surge. That said, Iraq remains an unbelievably complex place with all sorts of moving parts with varying agendas, and it is impossible to predict if our current success will transfer into ultimate success with all of these parts.

This is all no doubt true however I would also add that I believe that our forces have accomplished the most difficult part of the task so far, and that they have my full confidence in accomplishing the rest. It was fascinating and peculiar that former General Rick Sanchez gave the Democratic response to Bush's weekly radio address this past weekend. After all, the Democrats railed on Rumsfeld's failed Iraq plan and Sanchez was instrumental in its implementation. In 1864, former failed Union General George McClellan ran for the Democratic ticket. While I have no doubt there are eyes rolling, there are some peculiar similarities.

There are now two concurrent and divergent realities going on vis a vis Iraq. The first is that things are improving and the second is that this is a war that the public will NEVER like. This makes Iraq a paradigm politically for both parties. The Republicans are hand cuffed to a perpetually unpopular war and the Democrats are hand cuffed to defeat in an improving situation. It appears neither side wins in this case.

There is also great irony in the political framing that each party is taking vis a vis Iraq. For instance, Carl Levin represented the Democrats in the Iraq War debate on FNS. Here is some of what he said.

Well, it shows an improvement on the military side, but the president's policy very specifically had as its purpose — the surge's purpose was to give the Iraqi political leaders the breathing space to work out a political settlement, and that purpose has not been achieved.

They're just as far apart as ever. And I think there's a growing frustration with the Maliki government, even among our own military leaders, for the Maliki government's failure to make political improvements. That growing frustration is reflected in a State Department bulletin that just came out which said that the greatest threat which now exists in Iraq is no longer Al Qaeda, it is not the insurgency of the Sunni insurgency, it is not the militias.

The greatest threat to any success in Iraq is the failure of the Iraqi politicians to work out their political differences.

Senator Lindsey Graham represented the Republicans and here is some of what he said.

It's working amazingly well, beyond my expectations. I think history will judge the surge as probably the most successful counterinsurgency military operation in history.

Violence is down. Economic activity is up. It's not just about more troops. It's how the troops are used. So hats off to General Petraeus and all under his command. You're making military history and a phenomenal success. I was amazed, really.

Here is the irony. Both parties have maintained their overall assessments for much of the war. The Republicans are optimistic and the Democrats are pessimistic. That is true, however they have swapped their measures. Remember for years, despite all the violence Bush continued to point to political benchmarks: elections, the constitution, the formation of the government, etc. as signs that we were still succeeding, and the Democrats just pointed to the next car bomb. Now, since there are no car bombs, the Republicans are pointing to that, and the Democrats are pointing to the lack of political progress.

Now, if electoral history is any judge, the Republicans now hold the edge. The Democrats must convince the folks that we are losing when we are winning, while the Republicans must divorce themselves from Bush. More and more, the Iraq War is becoming the war of General David Petraeus. He will soon become the face of it almost entirely and the Democrats will likely counter with Generals that weren't in the theater or were there during years of failure.

The Republicans have no easy task either. Tying yourself to a neverending and deeply unpopular war is no easy task. Of course, Nixon proved that this position can still be better than calling defeat. The person in best position to use Iraq is John McCain. He called failure when there was failure and success as soon as that happened as well. Furthermore, no one has more credibility on military issues among politicians.

Hillary Clinton appears to be the weakest on Iraq political, at least to me (and my opinion is certainly slanted). She has had moving positions and at this point continues to not only defend her initial vote but also propose a vague withdrawal plan that has no definite end. That frankly ultimately pleases no one. Barack Obama is a bit stronger since he merely defends a withdrawal plan that is more forceful however ultimately pretty vague as well. He is, in my opinion, a totaly foreign policy light weight and I just can't see the voting public being impressed with foreign policy experience amounting to a few years spent overseas as a youth.

The next major event that will affect the politics of Iraq, in my opinion, comes in March. That is when General David Petraeus presents his next progress report. The last one was overshadowed by the Betray Us ad. It's other main highlight was Hillary Clinton claiming that believing there was progress required a "willing suspension of disbelief". If progress was difficult to see then, it will be darn near impossible to ignore then, again in my opinion only. The last three months we have seen a reduction in coalition casualties, Iraqi military casualties, and Iraqi civilian casualties. I believe that November will be month number four and if the trajectory holds it will be seven months of decreasing violence by the time he speaks to Congress.

The genius of Petraeus is that he has developed a plethora of measurements for progress. He develops so much data that accountants would probably get lost in it: deaths, violent events, business openings, recruitments, elections, etc. There is a statistic for just about everything. Given that progress was only beginning to show in September, the numbers will be nothing short of startling in March.

The Democrats will no doubt continue to point to political progress. By political progress, I mean benchmarks. Obviously, there are all sorts of political progress seen in Iraq, however none of them are included in the benchmarks. To me at least, arguing with a General, who has made Iraq his home for the last three years, that political progress can only be defined by static benchmarks set before the start of the operation seems like a political loser. There are all sorts of reconciling between Sunni and Shia sheiks and these partnerships have lead to security agreements. Things that have worked in Sunni areas have been copied with wrinkles in Shia and mixed areas.

Finally, if a lack of political progress by the Central government is any measure success based on pre set benchmarks, they have also just condemned their own Congress. Like I said, the ever changing political dynamic in Iraq is filled with irony.

Hillary's Grown Up Foreign Policy?

I have made it one of my missions as a blogger to find as many incidents of MSM bias and expose them. The most egregious example came with this hatchet job that masqueraded as political analysis of Rudy Giuliani from a Midland, Texas paper. The Washington Post shows its bias in many ways however burying good stories about Iraq while highlighting negative ones on the front page is one of their favorites. In fact, the bias can be so overwhelming that reporters will openly admit that when combat deaths fall in Iraq they don't consider it news but when they rise that is news.

Which brings me to this puff piece entitled Foreign Policy Grown Up about Hillary Clinton's supposed acumen in foreign policy. In reality, her acumen is measured against the rest of the Democratic field. There were a couple of questions that came to mind when I read this piece. The first is who is paying this guy's salary, and the second is who is paying that person's salary.

The thesis of the piece is that unlike her rivals Clinton bucked the far left and voted for sanctions against Iran.

Begin with the Iran debate. All the Democratic presidential hopefuls know that a nuclear Iran is scary. They know that the Europeans have been patiently negotiating with Iran to secure a freeze of its program and that the Iranians have been stalling. But Clinton is the only Democratic candidate who unequivocally embraces the obvious next step: Push hard for the sanctions that might change Iran's calculations. Unlike all her opponents, Clinton supported a pro-sanctions resolution in the Senate. Ever since that vote, Obama and the rest have attacked her mercilessly.

He then goes into a long winded explanation of the extreme pacifist philosophy of the far left. He also explains how sanctions do not mean a rush to war. Now, while I am happy that the Senator voted for sanction against Iran, it is hardly something that should be commended. In fact, by design or accident, Mallanby actually exposes the amazing power and radical agenda of the far left. I would say that slapping sanctions on Iran isn't courageous but rather obvious.

Let's go over what Iran has done just in the last year or so. They are responsible for the alphabet soup of explosive devices blowing up soldiers in Iraq. They started a proxy war in Lebanon with Israel. They went into international waters grabbed fifteen british sailors and held them hostage for propaganda purposes. They started another proxy war in the Palestinian territories. Wait, oh yeah, I haven't even talked about the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room. Now, Mr. Mallaby thinks we should be impressed because Hillary Clinton rounded up the sense and courage to actually vote for sanctions against this country.

I am reminded of the pinnacle scene in Quiz Show. Right after Van Doren confesses to his deeds the Senators one after another praise his candor, honesty and courage. Finally, one Senator brings things back some sanity.

I'm happy that you've made the statement. But I cannot agree with most of my colleagues. See, I don't think an adult of your intellegence should be commended for simply, at long last, telling the truth.

The same way here I don't think Hillary Clinton should be commended for doing what anyone with any intelligence can see is the sensible and obvious thing to do. Like the Senator, I am happy that she voted for the sanctions, but slapping sanctions on a country that has committed dozens of acts of war all over the Middle East just in the last year isn't corageous or "grown up" but obvious.

Mallaby then goes on to laud Clinton's position on Iraq.

Clinton's rivals are contemplating history and deriving only a narrow lesson about Bush: Don't trust him when he confronts a Muslim country. But the larger, more durable lesson from Iraq is that wars can be caused by a lack of confrontation. The Iraq invasion happened partly because the world had lost the stomach to confront Saddam Hussein by other means. By 2002, the sanctions on Hussein's regime had been diluted, and there was pressure to weaken them further. Hussein was no longer "in his box," to use the language of the time: If you believed that a resurgent Saddam Hussein presented an intolerable threat, it was worth taking the risk of unseating him by force, sooner rather than later.

Alone among the Democratic candidates, Clinton has the honesty to insist that the case for war was reasonable at the time -- even if, with the benefit of hindsight, the invasion has proved disastrous. In sticking to that politically difficult position, Clinton is saying that, despite its awful risks, war can sometimes be the least bad choice. She is not running away from military power, even in a political climate that makes running attractive.

To this, I am not even sure what he is impressed with and frankly I don't care. Mallaby is a Bush hater, and he says as much.

Bush's record is disastrous, and on an emotional level, Bush hatred is understandable. But what we need in the next president is a vision of the world that's not distorted by the bitterness of recent times: a vision that accepts the limits of military force but also acknowledges that Americans face real threats, that feckless foreign powers can sometimes make the ideal of multilateralism unattainable and that war can sometimes be the least bad option.

He appears to be impressed by Clinton because despite her hate she has enough sense to slap sanctions on Iran and see sense for war at times. Frankly, the article is derelict not only in what it says, but frankly what it doesn't say. For all of the grown up talk, Mallaby doesn't seem to mention the multiple and muddled positions Hillary has on both Iraq and Iran.

In July, Clinton called Obama naive for suggesting he would negotiate with Iran with no pre conditions, but by October she was herself saying she would also negotiate with Iran with no conditions. As Rudy Giuliani rightly pointed out, Clinton refused whether or not Israel has the right to defend herself against Iran, and Clinton is not clear as to whether or not war is ultimately also an option for her own administration when dealing with Iran.

On Iraq her position is even more muddled, in the beginning of the year she was strenuously in favor of pulling out of Iraq as soon as possible.As we've come to the second half of the year, she has suddenly taken the position that she can't promise all forces will be out of Iraq by 2013. This continues a long and tortured evolution for Clinton on Iraq. Hillary Clinton was enthusiastically behind the effort. As the war turned for the worse, and public opinion turned for the worse, she turned against the war as well. She's even claimed that her vote for the Authorization to Use Military force in Iraq wasn't an authorization for military force but rather more diplomacy.

None of these shifting and muddle positions is ever addressed by Mallaby when he calls Clinton a grown up. In Mallaby's world, changing your position as often as the weather changes is perfectly fine and still being a grown up as long as you can muster up the good sense to vote for sanctions against Iran.

Finally, I would like to draw a metaphor. In my fantasy football league, every year all the teams that don't make the playoffs play in their own pseudo playoffs that we call the toilet bowl. Now, no one is lauded for winning the toilet bowl, we just all love fantasy football and want everyone to play as long as possible. To say that Hillary Clinton is the "grown up" among the Democrats vis a vis foreign policy is really the equivalent of congratulating the toilet bowl winner in fantasy football.

Let me end my analysis of Mallaby's piece with one word. I will clean it up since this is a family show and simply say: bolderdash.

Answering Richard Cohen vis a vis Iran

Anyone who wants to read an eloquent explanation of the way in which George Soros would like to see our foreign policy run at least as it concerns Iran should read this piece by Richard Cohen. Cohen starts with a long winded and quite condescending assessment of Rudy's confrontational style. Now, Rudy gains as many enemies as he does friends, and it should come as a surprise to no one that an ideological opposite like Cohen doesn't like Rudy's style. That is fine and irrelevant and it needs not be quoted for he doesn't deserve such esteem. The meat of Cohen's arguement is here.

War with Iran would be ugly. An airstrike would undoubtedly cause Iran to unleash Hezbollah, Hamas and other extremist groups, causing no end of trouble in the Middle East. It could close the Persian Gulf to shipping, producing an oil shock. It could foment serious trouble in Saudi Arabia's oil-producing region, which has a significant Shiite population.

and here,

Rather than enhance Ahmadinejad's standing in his own country, rather than put Iran up against a wall and dare it to back down, rather than make Iran the hero of anti-American Islamists everywhere, why not attempt to engage in direct talks and treat the country not as a pariah -- one-third of the ludicrous and illogical "axis of evil" -- but as a fellow state? Why not, as it were, treat Iran as we once did the Soviet Union or we now do China? We talked to the former; we talk to the latter.

The meat of Cohen's arguement is that such talk only props up Ahmadinejad among his own people, war with Iran would be messy, and so what we really need to do is talk to them. All veterans of my work will know that this is a similar arguement to one made by Joe Conason. Just like Conason, Cohen is long on rhetoric and very short on evidence and facts to back up his rhetoric. For instance, he claims that Rudy's incendiary and confrontational tone props up Ahmadinejad among his own people. I find it highly unlikely that the words of any single Presidential candidate does much to change the opinion of the Iranian people toward Ahmadinejad one way or another, but more importantly, according to polling, the Iranian people put the blame for this confrontation where it belongs, at the hands of their own leaders. Here are some results from a poll done this summer

Iranians want nuclear power more than nuclear weapons. Suffering under gasoline rationing and falling energy exports, three-quarters said that developing nuclear power, without weapons, was “very important.” By contrast, only 37 percent said developing nuclear weapons was a similar priority. Since the Iranian regime says that it wants nuclear power, not nuclear weapons, its stated position accords with its people’s views. (The government, of course, is lying and wants to get a bomb.)

and

Iranians would gladly agree to “full inspections and a guarantee that Iran would not develop nuclear weapons” if other nations would increase overall trade and investment (80 percent), increase investment in the energy sector (79 percent), give humanitarian assistance (80 percent) or assist in helping Iran develop peaceful nuclear energy (80 percent).

* Only 33 percent said supporting terrorist proxies Hezbollah or Hamas was a priority, and 55 percent are ready to endorse full recognition of Israel and of a Palestinian state if they could get “normal trade and full recognition” from the United States. Almost two-thirds - 64 percent - said that they are willing to end Iranian assistance to armed groups in Iraq and 51 percent would forgo nuclear weaponry and accept full international controls and inspections in return for normal relations with the United States.

The polling says they see their own government as the aggressor and merely want normalized relations with our government. It seems to be a stretch to say that they will then back Ahmadinejad if their own government's aggression leads to confrontation.

Cohen says to other important things. First, he proclaims that war with Iran would be messy. Well, I agree war with Iran would be messy, but not nearly as messy as allowing them to get the bomb. He also proclaims that we should sit down with Iran the way in which we sat down with Russia and China. There is a difference between Iran and those other regimes. Those regimes practiced the rule of self preservation. In other words, there was some reason to them because ultimately they wanted to avoid their own annihilation. Iran would gladly get annihilated if that is in pursuit of destroying the infidels.

Now, I am not against sitting down with Iran per se, but certainly not the way Cohen sees it. He seems to think that sitting down with them would solve all our problems. The Iranian regime is a collection of sociopaths. They only respond to threats that they take seriously. The only negotiations that would work are those in conjunction with an action that lets them know that the alternative is their own destruction, and even then negotiations may very well not work.

Thus, unless the real and clear threat of all out war is on the table, negotiations are not only fruitless, but frankly counter productive. I, myself, have devised a three point plan for bringing the regime down peacefully. My plan and any plan that has any hope of success must be done in conjunction with the real and unmistakeable threat that if all else fails, we will go to war with Iran before we allow them to get nukes.

Rudy is not war mongering as Cohen is suggesting, but rather making it clear to the regime that if they push him, he will destroy them. Like all sociopaths they will only respond nicely to force they know they can't match.

Silence in Syria and Panic in Iran

This is cross posted from Snooper over at Take Our Country Back

Come to think of the situation, I find it "Rather" curious why the Little Man from Iran really came to the United States strutting his Little Man Syndrome and then traveling to Venezuela, further strutting his Little Man Syndrome with another Little Man.

A few weeks back, Israel performed a deep penetration into Syria to take out an unspecified target or targets. The mission was a success but how successful is still unclear seeing that Israel knows how to deal with loud-mouthed Press Schnooks...State Secret Leakers are severely dealt with, unlike here in the US, much to our detriment and due to the plethora of cowards in DC to prosecute such cretins.

There is much speculation as to that which was attacked and/or destroyed. It could be it was the Nork "nuclear material" recently shipped to Syria to be used to make "dirty" nukes; it could be the stockpile of Zilzal missiles recently shipped to Syria from Iran to be used to attack Israel; it could be that someone found the WNDs that Saddam had which was reportedly shipped to Syria before the US took Saddam out. After all, Saddam said that he might go into exile if he could take his WMD data to Egypt.

Be that as it may, the real story is the successful penetration of Syria by Israeli war planes. Syria and Iran have spent untold amounts of money to the old USSR (soon to make a come-back) for the theoretical state of the art high-tech air defense systems...which didn't work.Syria is silent. Iran is panicked. Why? They are defenseless. That is why.Others are talking about this and have been for at least since the Israeli attacks into Syria:WizbangOpinion JournalReutersFree Republic
The Astute Blogger
Tail Rank
And this just in:

Israel lifted its official veil of silence over last month's strike in
Syria on Tuesday as army radio
said that the Jewish state carried out the attack deep inside its arch
foe's territory.
The Israeli military censor lifted a blackout on publishing
the information on the September 6 strike, in which Syria had said its air
defences fired on Israeli warplanes that dropped ammunition deep inside its
territory.

"The military censor has authorised for the first time the publication of
the fact that Israeli combat planes attacked a military target deep inside
Syrian territory on September 6," the radio said."It is the only element that
the censor allowed to be published," it added[...]In an interview aired by the
BBC on Monday, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad identified the target of the
strike as an "unused military building" and said that the warplanes had hit
"nothing of consequence."[...]Yahoo
News:
[...]

Foreign reports, quoting unidentified U.S. officials, have speculated that
Israel attacked a weapons shipment destined for Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon,
or attacked a nuclear facility built with North Korean technology.
North
Korea, which provides missile technology to Syria, has denied any nuclear link.
Syria also has denied receiving North Korean nuclear help.
[...]

And what most fail to remember:

[...]Syria and Israel are formally at war. Peace talks between them collapsed in
2000 over the scope of an Israeli pullout from the Golan Heights, a plateau
which the Jewish state captured from Syria in 1967.[...]Syria is shamed and
silent. Iran is freaking out in panic. And the friends of our enemies here in
the states are shrill

Neo Cons Prepare for War with Iran?

That is the headline coming out of the telegraph. This is the common assumption and it has been for years now from most people that I refer to as elitist. To me this is an absurd narrative since it has been said for so long that if it were so it would have already happened by now. You can find this supposition in most of the usual suspects. Each time I read one of these pieces I find they are a variation of every other one, and so I will deal specifically with the telegraph piece, but keep in mind the telegraph represents a form of thinking, and I intend to show its flaws here. Let's start with this...

American diplomats have been ordered to compile a dossier detailing Iran's
violations of international law that some fear could be used to justify military
strikes against the Islamic republic's nuclear programme.
US
trains Gulf air forces for war with Iran
Members of the US secretariat
in the United Nations were asked earlier this month to begin "searching for
things that Iran has done wrong", The Sunday Telegraph has
learnt.advertisement

Some US diplomats believe the exercise — reminiscent
of attempts by vice-president Dick Cheney and the former defence secretary
Donald Rumsfeld to build the case against Saddam Hussein before the Iraq war —
will boost calls for military action by neo-conservatives inside and outside the
administration.

One diplomat revealed the plans for an Iran dossier to Steven Clemons, a fellow with the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank, who has previously revealed attempts by Mr Cheney's allies to pressurise President George W Bush into war.

Opponents of war with Iran are constantly claiming that the administration is searching for reasons to attack. The simple fact is they need not search. The Iranians have committed so many acts of war in the last year or so I have lost track. I detailed several here

Let's look at some of the things Iran has been responsible for in the last year
or so: the alphabet
soup of explosive devices in Iraq that continue to kill our soldiers, a proxy war with Israel, hostage
taking, extortion, and propaganda all originating in international waters, another
proxy war in the Palestinian territories, and I won't even bring up the 800 pound gorilla
in the room.

Between taking hostages, smuggling explosives, starting proxy wars, and building nuclear weapons, are war opponents now saying we need to search for reasons to go to war with Iran. The simple fact of the matter is that we have turned the other cheek to far too many acts of war.


The Six Day War was a pivotal period in the history of the Middle East.

The Six Day War broke out on June 5, 1967, following three weeks of tension
which began on May 15, 1967 when it became known that Egypt had concentrated
large-scale forces in the Sinai peninsula. Egypt's force buildup in the Sinai
was accompanied by other serious steps: the United Nations Emergency Force
stationed on the border between Egypt and Israel and Sharm el-Sheikh in 1957 and
which had provided an actual separation between the countries was evacuated on
May 19 upon the demands of the Egyptian president at the time, Gamal
Abdel-Nasser; the Egyptian navy blocked the Straits of Tiran, located at the end
of the Gulf of Eilat, on the night of May 22-23, 1967, preventing the passage of
any Israeli vessels; and on May 30, 1967, Jordan joined the Egyptian-Syrian
military alliance of 1966 and placed its army on both sides of the Jordan river
under Egyptian command. Iraq followed suit. It agreed to send reinforcement and
issued a warning order to two brigades: Contingents arrived from other Arab
countries including Algeria and Kuwait. Israel was confronted by an Arab force
of some 465,000 troops, over 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft.

The Six Day War was started with something as benign as a Naval Blockade. I say benign though in reality a Naval Blockade is an act of war just like taking hostages, sending in explosives, and of course training the enemy are all acts of war. Israel was of course roundly criticized by the world community. Then, the Israelis proceeded to steam roll through all of its enemies in six days in the most decisive victory, in my opinion, in the history of war fare. It is not mere coincidence that within ten years, two of their adversaries in that war, Egypt and Jordan, formed peace agreements. Their governments understood clearly that confrontation led to disaster. The Iranians don't get any such message from their own acts of war.
The telegraph continues...

Opponents of military action were further alarmed last week when it emerged
that Norman Podhoretz, one of the godfathers of neo-conservatism, used a
45-minute meeting with Mr Bush at the White House to lobby for the bombing of
Iran's nuclear plants.

Mr Podhoretz disclosed that, when he said Mr Bush was just "giving futility
its chance" by pursuing diplomacy, the president and his former aide Karl Rove
had burst out laughing. "It struck me," Mr Podhoretz added, "that if they really
believed that there was a chance for these negotiations and sanctions to work,
they would not have laughed. They would have got their backs up and said, 'No,
no, it's not futile, there's a very good chance'." He said he believed "Bush is
going to hit" Iran before his presidency ends.

Mr Podhoretz is highly influential. His son-in-law is Elliott Abrams, Mr
Bush's deputy national security adviser, who is regarded by US officials as a
key advocate of bombing Iran. He was found guilty of withholding evidence from
Congress over the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s.Concern is also growing in the CIA and the Pentagon that the White House exaggerated intelligence used to justify an Israeli air raid on a suspected nuclear facility in Syria earlier this month, which some neo-conservatives hope is a precursor to war with Iran.

I am always amused whenever war opponents use obscure and relatively unknown figures in some sort of a grandiose conspiracy as a pre cursor to war. If you believe the telegraph, the entire CIA and Pentagon bureaucracy has less influence and power in the administration than Norm Podhoretz, a columnist. We are supposed to believe that full time employees of two major departments have less influence than one 45 minute meeting. The irony is that while the Telegraph tries to make Podhoretz into a shadowy figure, it is their own side that is in fact shadowy. Notice, there is no specific person cited in either the Pentagon or the CIA. Instead they cite it as an institution, as though its whole apparatus speaks in only one voice. The

Telegraph does the exact same thing when referring to the bombing in Syria by Israel. There is no explanation or sources.

Frankly, spotting propaganda, like the one here in the Telegraph, is relatively easy. This hits all the marks: there are no specifics, no real sources, and a supposed shadowy figure (Podhoretz) is used to scare the masses.

I don't know what Bush will do vis a vis Iran. I have put forward a three point plan to avoid all out war with Iran. I don't believe that war with Iran is inevitable, however, I also believe that the only thing worse than war with Iran is Iran getting nukes. I also believe that the only response to an act of war, let alone an endless stream of acts of war, is all out war. Furthermore, I believe that most of those claiming that Bush is looking for a reason to go to war with Iran are themselves downplaying that threat in order to demean Bush.

We must avoid war at all costs, however we must speak truthfully about the reality of the threat we face in Iran. You cannot stop a country from taking soldiers hostage, smuggling weapons and explosives, training the enemy, starting proxy wars, and building nuclear weapons simply by talking to them. These threats are not benign and war must be a real and legitimate option when dealing with such a threat. In a case like this, trying to pre empt a war for political purposes is much more dangerous that the actual war itself.

An Alternative Iranian Policy

Joe Conason penned this piece explaining how he would deal with the Iranian regime. I will take things one at a time. First, he lays out the current policy as he sees it.

The loud, angry and sterile debate over the Iranian president's visit to
Columbia University raises a more serious problem that has long confounded
American policymakers: How to cope with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's real masters, the corrupt regime of mullahs who determine both foreign and domestic policy in
Iran. Their rule has meant awful suffering for the Iranian people, whose
democratic aspirations remain frustrated, and instability for the Middle East
and the world, as the leadership in Tehran constantly seeks provocations to
distract from its own failures.

Now the same geopolitical geniuses who promoted the invasion of Iraq -- and
thereby endowed the mullahs with more influence than they ever enjoyed before --
insist that the only solution is another war. They claim that we are already at
war and should begin bombing Iranian nuclear and military sites as soon as
possible.

Obviously, he has no use for Bush or his neoconservative administration and that is fine. Somewhere around two thirds of Americans and more agree with him. What is troubling about his assertion that the administration is marching toward war and that is the only solution. What I believe is closer to the truth is that Bush has relied on the UN and the Europeans for far too long and has put war so far on the back burner that the Iranian regime has become emboldened. It isn't that Bush has foresaken diplomacy, in my opinion, but that he has relied too much on it. The two countries have had several high level meetings vis a vis Iraq and all that has happened is that the weaponry from Iran used to kill our soldiers has only increased.

Conason believes that our isolationist policy has gotten no results but the Clinton admin made engagement their policy with regards to the Syrians and the Palestinians throughout the nineties, and I assert that those policies were significantly more counter productive than ours. I assert that the problem is that while we isolate the Europeans engage. If we can come together on a full court isolationist policy, that would have devastating results. While it isn't a perfect model, the South African apartheid government was brought down largely through coordinated isolation. I don't know any despot and tyrant who was brought down through engagement.
Conason continues...
"

Once merely a small-time populist politician in his hometown, Ahmadinejad has
become a folk hero throughout the Muslim and Arab worlds thanks to his
provocations against America, Israel and the West. Sunni Muslims and
secular-minded Arabs who might otherwise oppose Shiite authoritarianism applaud
him because they perceive him as standing up for them against Western
oppressors. Each expression of American outrage against the Iranian president
from afar, every screaming tabloid headline and radio rant, only inflates the
significance of this unimpressive and fundamentally unimportant man. And the
constant threats of war from within the Bush White House and its neoconservative
echo chamber intensify the effectiveness of his propaganda, both within his own
country and across the Middle East.

Here Conason is just merely engaging in misrepresentation or out and out lying. Ahmadinejad is no folk hero anywhere, especially not in his country. Fortunately, unlike, Conason, I have a little more than mere assertions to back up my case. For proof, let's take a look at a poll of Iranians conducted just this past July

Iranians oppose the institution of an "unelected Supreme Leader" by 61-27
and favor democracy by 79-14. So when liberals assail neocons for having a naive
faith in peoples' aspirations for freedom, they are just wrong - even in Iran.

* Iranians want nuclear power more than nuclear weapons. Suffering under
gasoline rationing and falling energy exports, three-quarters said that
developing nuclear power, without weapons, was "very important." By contrast,
only 37 percent said developing nuclear weapons was a similar priority. Since
the Iranian regime says that it wants nuclear power, not nuclear weapons, its
stated position accords with its people's views. (The government, of course, is
lying and wants to get a bomb.)

The survey underscores the need to separate nuclear power from weaponry in
the minds of the people and make clear that Western sanctions are designed to
prevent Iran from getting the bomb, not power or energy.

* Iranians would gladly agree to "full inspections and a guarantee that
Iran would not develop nuclear weapons" if other nations would increase overall
trade and investment (80 percent), increase investment in the energy sector (79
percent), give humanitarian assistance (80 percent) or assist in helping Iran
develop peaceful nuclear energy (80 percent).

* Only 33 percent said supporting terrorist proxies Hezbollah or Hamas was
a priority, and 55 percent are ready to endorse full recognition of Israel and
of a Palestinian state if they could get "normal trade and full recognition"
from the United States. Almost two-thirds - 64 percent - said that they are
willing to end Iranian assistance to armed groups in Iraq and 51 percent would
forgo nuclear weaponry and accept full international controls and inspections in
return for normal relations with the United States.

Furthermore, Ahmadinejad has been roundly criticized for his own domestic economic policy

At the same time, the traditional conservatives and their natural allies, the
bazarries, the country's small merchant class who control much of the Iranian
economy, are increasingly alarmed about Ahmadinejad’s policies. The influential
head of Tehran's bazaar guilds, Ahmad Karimi, recently stated that economics is
a science and those who have neglected its basic principals -- meaning the
Ahmadinejad administration -- can no longer evade responsibility by blaming
others for their mismanagement. Iran's influential Friday prayer leaders, most
of whom are conservative, have also heaped contempt on the president for his
economic policies. The mainstream political analyst Amir Mohebbian, in an
interview with Roozonline daily, stated that the conservative faction can no
longer afford to conceal its widening internal schisms -- implying that the time
for compromise with the militant faction has passed.

If this is praise, I have to wonder what exactly someone needs to say for Conason to consider it condemnation. As for the rest of Middle East, mostly Sunni to Ahmadinejad's Shia, they are almost universally petrified of him. So much so that there was nothing but whispers to the recent bombing of a suspected Syrian nuclear site. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia just entered into an arms deal specifically to counter the threat from Iran that the Saudis fear.

The United States is reported to be preparing a major arms deal with Saudi
Arabia and other Gulf states worth $20bn (£9.8bn) over the next decade. Defence
officials quoted by US media said the sales would include advanced weaponry,
missile guidance systems, upgraded fighter jets and naval ships. It is said to
be an attempt to counter the regional threat posed by Iran.

The rest of the Middle East feels pretty much the same way. Most of the entire Middle East considers Iran nothing but a threat to their very existence
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan regard the Syrian-Iranian-Hizballah triangle (as voiced through the press, and not from the regimes themselves) as a sort of axis of radical policy, the muqawamah--the "Shi'a storm" as King Abdallah of Jordan dared call it--or as a group that strives for an Islamic Middle East. Such terms were being applied to this axis even before the Lebanon War of the summer of 2006. The Arab countries were aware of Iran, the ambitious giant that rose up from the East, at least since Ahmadinejad's election as president, but they consciously chose to ignore this. In the accord from the March 2006 Arab summit in Khartoum, the only reference to Iran was, as in the past, the demand to return the three islands over which there is dispute between Iran and the United Arab Emirates.

Unlike me, Conason, has absolutely no back up for his assertion that Ahmadinejad is some sort of a populist in most of the Middle East. The truth is much closer to his being perceived as a madman on the scale of the greatest madmen of all time a la Adolph Hitler.
Conason continues...

The moment of dialogue at Columbia, by contrast, shrank Ahmadinejad back down to a more realistic size. Unlike Tehran, where his thugs can intimidate, imprison
and even murder those who dare to question him, he had to stand and listen
meekly as Columbia students and president Lee Bollinger demanded answers about
his government's repressive acts. Although Bollinger went over the top in
parroting various White House themes in his brusque language, his commitment to
free speech reflected well on the United States.

If only that were true, but I already debunked this myth just yesterday. Here are some excerpts of reaction to his speech from the Middle East and beyond...

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have faced ridicule in the United States
bysuggesting there were no homosexuals in Iran, but he won praise at home
onWednesday for taking his country’s case to “the Lion’s Den.”
Generally,politicians and media in the Islamic Republic — even some who have
previouslycriticized the president — described Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York
as atriumph and denounced the university president who called him “a petty and
crueldictator.” ...The president spoke at Columbia University on Monday and
onTuesday addressed the U.N. General Assembly, where he told world leaders
theissue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions was “closed” and that military threats
andsanctions had failed.“By fearlessly and courageously walking into the‘Lion’s
Den’ ... he is sure to become even more of a hero in the Arab-Muslimstreet than
before,” the daily Iran News wrote."...

Ahmadinejad is hitting the blind spots, the stuff polite society does not
talkabout, that is his attractionHis comments on the bomb are more intelligent
thanthe drivel you read in the Western press by so called analysts.Basically the
US,Western countries have lost the moral highground - Putin's talkbacks prove
thattoo -- No I would not vote for Ahmadinejad, if I lived in Iran - you vote
forhim, he is not a dictator ... to use words like fascism in an Iranian
contextdoes not make sense ... yes the party I would vote for is illegal in Iran
...,no I would not vote for Putin

Thus, whatever Conason thinks of the reaction to his speech, in reality, it was as I predicted a PR coup for him where it mattered, the Middle East.

Conason then leads us into his own ideas for dealing with the regime...

When the sideshow ends and the mullahs' puppet returns to Tehran, we will
still have to decide how to deal with the regime he represents. As Peter
Galbraith explains in a penetrating essay in the current issue of The New York
Review of Books, the Bush administration has vastly empowered the Iranian
leaders by overthrowing their enemy Saddam Hussein and installing their Shiite
allies as Baghdad's new government.

With 160,000 American troops in Iraq, moreover, we are not exactly in the
optimal strategic position to wage war against Iran, despite the bloody
fantasies of Vice President Dick Cheney. Unlike Saddam in 2003, whose armed
forces disintegrated within days, Tehran has a real army and air force, and
sufficient naval power to block the Iraqi ports. Our forces would have to fight
not only the 800,000-man Iranian army but also the Shiite militias, who could
swiftly cut our resupply route.

Let's leave aside the balance of power question for a minute and deal with the idea that having 160K in troops on his border somehow puts us in a weaker position militarily to strike at him. That is absurd on its face and needs no link to be disproven. The simple fact is that we had troops all throughout Western Europe specifically as a military challenge to the Soviet Union, and we continue to have troops on the Korean border for the exact same reason. Whatever one thinks of the Iraq war claiming that having troops in Iraq puts us in a poorer position to strike Iran is just intellectually bankrupt. As to the Iraqi government being beholden to Iran, well the beauty of democratically elected governments is that they tranisegent. The people of Iraq will be no happier with a puppet Iranian theocracy anymore than they were happy with Saddam's baathist, but the only difference is that this government can be voted out.

Acting like Saddam should have been kept in power because he would act as a counter weight to an equally evil rival is pretty absurd. Trying to resolve issues by relying on several evil regimes holding some sort of a delicate balance would eventually blow up in your face and lead to all sorts of unintended consequences.
Conason finishes...

It is an ugly prospect to contemplate, with potential losses that would
dwarf our casualties in Iraq and an aftermath that would be still more chaotic,
dangerous and ruinous to our reputation. Assuming we would eventually win, would
that mean taking control of Iran -- with the same kind of "success" we have
enjoyed next door?

The alternative is what Iran's courageous democratic dissidents have long
implored us to do, and what the Iraq Study Group urged last year. Engage the
regime, draw Iran into the world economic system and penetrate its closed
borders peacefully to strengthen its civil society and weaken its overgrown
theocratic state. Stop making heroes of the villainous mullahs and their
puppets, and start dividing the pragmatists and reformers from the fanatics. And
mute the threats that in Iranian eyes justify a nuclear weapons
program.

That would be the beginning of wisdom.

Anyone reading this should have long become weary of every assertion Conason makes. He backs absolutely nothing up. He seems to take as fact that propping a theocracy up economically will somehow help our cause. For instance he claims we are uniting reformers and fanatics. Not only did the poll I cited utterly refute that, but how exactly does propping up the economy divide those groups. Furthermore, he asserts that dissidents have long implored that we engage the regime. Who are these dissidents? None that I know of say that we should engage with the regime. He claims that we are making them heroes, which, again, I thoroughly debunked as well. This is the sort of empty rhetoric that one will find all over college campuses as they willfully ignore evidence to the contrary.

I am not against engaging with evil sociopaths like Ahmadinejad per se. For instance, the U.S. and Britain engaged one of the worst in history in Joseph Stalin in WWII. However, there was something different there. Stalin felt a threat worse than the U.S. in Hitler and used the enemy of my enemy logic. We don't have that here. Even when Reagan engaged Gorbachev, who I must make sure everyone understands is every bit a reasonable person and no sociopath, he did it only after he built up the arms race so that the Soviets were crumbling. Peace through strength is not a mere slogan but proper diplomacy when dealing with enemies. Simply meeting because you feel dialogue is always the answer is totally counter productive when you are dealing with sociopaths. Sociopaths have goals and all that matters to them is accomplishing those goals. Ahmadinejad wants to rule the Middle East and kill everyone he disagrees with and any meeting will be used on his part to accomplish that goal.

As someone so aptly put once "The only way to negotiate with your enemy, is with your knee on his chest and your knife at his throat." If we are going to negotiate with Ahmadinejad it is with that thought in mind, not with any of the touchy feely ideas that Conason has.

Finally, if you want an alternative to Conason's alternative please read her

More Momentum for the Divesting from Iran Movement

In his latest column, Dick Morris lays out the momentum building for divesting from any company that does business with Iran. While a lot of it has also been brought to light on this very blog, you will find some new and very encouraging information about efforts by the state of New York (which if true would mean all three of the biggest states are on their way). Here is the latest from Dick Morris

Columbia University this week managed to hand a PR victory to Iran's
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It's time for another New York institution - the
state Office of the Comptroller - to join the drive to undermine this evil and
dangerous regime.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is set to sign a new law aimed at
banning Golden State public pension funds - which includes the two largest ones
in America - from investing in companies that are involved in developing Iranian
petroleum or natural-gas resources. Florida's public-employee-retirement fund is
divesting nearly $1.3 billion invested with 21 companies doing business in Iran
or Sudan. (California already hit Sudan's pocketbook last year.) Missouri and
Louisiana have similar policies in place.

The blow to Iran's rulers should be huge. The California system alone has
assets totaling $350 billion - much of it invested in companies that do business
with Iran such as Sieman's, Total, Respol and Shell.Here in New York, state
Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli has total power over the state pension funds. He
could add materially to the pressure on Iran simply by the stroke of a pen. City
Comptroller William Thompson Jr. could help, by pushing to move Gotham pension
funds away from Iranian-investing companies.

City Council Majority Leader Joel Rivera (D-Bronx) is sponsoring a
resolution calling on the state and the city to disinvest in companies that do
business with Iran. He says that more than $100 billion of the holdings by New
York public pension funds are invested directly or indirectly in Iran.

It is time to help all you New Yorkers, please contact your assembly

Divesting From Iran Gains Momentum

On the heels of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signing into law California's intention to divest their pension funds from any company that currently does business in or with Iran comes this from Newsmax

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has asked the state’s largest public pension funds to
stop investing in firms that do business in Iran because of that nation’s
support of state-sponsored terrorism. Perry also asked the $24.9 billion
Employee Retirement System and the $108 billion Teachers Retirement System to
withdraw investments from some of the companies with links to Iran,
Bloomberg.com reports.

“While Texas cannot set its own foreign policy, we can send a strong
message that Texans will not condone Iran’s continued support of those seeking
to do harm to our men and women in uniform,” Perry said in a news release issued
on Tuesday.

Perry has already signed a bill to pull pension investments from companies
operating in Sudan because of the genocide in the Darfur region. A similar bill
covering Iran was not passed by the legislature, and Perry now says he may call
a special legislative session to revisit the issue.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has asked the state’s largest public pension funds to stop investing in firms that do business in Iran because of that nation’s support of state-sponsored terrorism. Perry also asked the $24.9 billion Employee Retirement System and the $108 billion Teachers Retirement System to withdraw investments from some of the companies with links to Iran, Bloomberg.com reports.

.
This is huge everyone. Between California and Texas we have two of the three biggest states either signing into law or announcing their intentions as such. This movement is growing but it needs help. All those in Texas need to get on the horn and call your Reps and Senators.

I Take No Joy in Being Right

The early verdict is in. Ahmadinejad was a big hit and scored a big PR coup following his speech at Columbia University. No, the glorious reviews didn't come from the New York Times or much of anywhere in our own Mainstream Media, but he did score, as I predicted, where he wanted to, all over the Middle East. Here is a sampling of what we will expect courtesy of the Iranian media (Hat tip to Little Green Footballs)

" President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have faced ridicule in the United States by
suggesting there were no homosexuals in Iran, but he won praise at home on
Wednesday for taking his country’s case to “the Lion’s Den.” Generally,
politicians and media in the Islamic Republic — even some who have previously
criticized the president — described Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York as a
triumph and denounced the university president who called him “a petty and cruel
dictator.” ...
The president spoke at Columbia University on Monday and on
Tuesday addressed the U.N. General Assembly, where he told world leaders the
issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions was “closed” and that military threats and
sanctions had failed.
“By fearlessly and courageously walking into the
‘Lion’s Den’ ... he is sure to become even more of a hero in the Arab-Muslim
street than before,” the daily Iran News wrote

."
Here is some commentary for a Middle Eastern Blog

Ahmadinejad is hitting the blind spots, the stuff polite society does not talk
about, that is his attractionHis comments on the bomb are more intelligent than
the drivel you read in the Western press by so called analysts.Basically the US,
Western countries have lost the moral highground - Putin's talkbacks prove that
too -- No I would not vote for Ahmadinejad, if I lived in Iran - you vote for
him, he is not a dictator ... to use words like fascism in an Iranian context
does not make sense ... yes the party I would vote for is illegal in Iran ...,
no I would not vote for Putin
...
The primary thrust of Ahmadinejad's
speech has been completely ignored by everyone. That thrust, was the supreme
nobility of education,knowledge and truth. In an ominous veiled threat to
western Main stream media's cold calculated campaign of darkness and ignorance.
This was an excellent topic for this venue of a University forum. I am amazed at
how this vitally important subject has been totally ignored. It had monumental
implications. Not bad at all for a humble populist game cock like
Ahmadinejad

If that isn't bad enough, here are some comments from BBC online readers (again, the Hat Tip must go to Little Green Footballs, Charles Johnson, the operator has been all over this story)

The president of Iran had a wonderful chance at Columbia to act as the more
educated and civil person, and he used that chance.America needs to recognize
that Iran’s hostilities will not falter as long as ours hold so high. A little
bit of trust could make them no longer have desire to use the weapons they may
or may not have. Unless the west intends on starting a war, it may be beneficial
to placate them, otherwise we won’t make any progress whatsoever.Columbia wasted
a good chance there.

Mr. Ahmadinijad is absolutely correct in saying why talking about Holocaust
is not compatible with freedom of speech.--What do you think would happen if the
west wanted to explore the Mohammed 'story'...Pop eye---Do you think ridiculing
God sent prophets is the same as exploring an event? Would you be happy if
someone did the same to Jesus/Moses?...---Well, do YOU think ridiculing a 6
million people genocide is the same as regarding the life of one? quid pro
quo..

The issue is CLOSED. If it is not then it may mean out and out war. Nobody
wants that. He is right in that his country has a right to nuclear energy. A
warring terrorist nuclear state nearby, his country feels unsafe. Much of Iran
was destroyed by Iraq! Ahmadenajad doesn't oppose Israelis but feels Israel
should be elsewhere for everybody's security. If it was, there would be no war
in that area! We speak of antipollutive actions yet deny Iran clean nuclear
energy. Moronic!

I can go on and on, but I think everyone gets the idea. Here are my prophetic words only a couple days ago

You have to understand who you are dealing with and Ahmadinejad is a sociopath.
He is only going to manipulate this to his advantage the way he always
manipulates everything. Does any really think it hurts his public standing that
Bollinger questioned him on civil rights, the Holocaust, etc. He wasn't
performing for our media or the Western media in general. He was performing for
the Middle East media, and they won't spin it as being called out, but rather
standing up to the mean, mean Americans and showing them who is boss. His
standing in the Middle East just improved exponentially thanks to the useful
idiot Lee Bollinger. In the larger scheme of things his appearance at Columbia
is not going to change things in the Middle East in any substantial way.
Ahmadinejad is not going to be able to ride this to any sort of long term PR
success, however as Americans, we must do what is in the best interest of
America not the terrorists. Inviting Ahmadinejad did not help America and it did
help our enemy and frankly enough is enough.

I think that in my disgust over this incident I overstated its importance. The dynamic of Middle Eastern geopolitics won't necessarily change from one speech at one naive and misguided Ivy League university. Still, this speech hurt our side and helped our enemies. The magnitude of that hurt is frankly besides the point because all Americans should wonder which side is Lee Bollinger on.

Bringing Down Iran Another Follow Up

As I have mentioned over and over Iran is a regime ripe to fall with the right push. One of the pillars of pushing Iran into crumbling from within is for all peace loving Americans to support pro Democracy anti regime groups both within Iran and without. I was emailed recently two such groups.

I encourage everyone to visit their websites and make whatever donation you can afford. Any bloggers out there that believe as I do, that Iran is ready to fall, can take things one step further and include these groups in your blog roll.

Any fellow freedom fighters please email or link me other groups working toward the bringing down of the government of Iran

Daily Kos, Iran, and Middle East Media

In response to Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia, there was this diary at Daily Kos Hat tip to Little Green Footballs

No wonder those that are beating the war drums against Iran didn't want Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak any place American might hear him. Thanks
to Columbia University and CPAN he was heard by many. He sounds entirely too
reasonable. Hearing his own word doesn't help the cause of demonizing him as a
madman and the most recent Hitler. This is someone we definitely should be
talking to. so in the interest of promoting peace and knowledge, I present these
short excerpts from his talk at Columbia University today.

Now, this is an opinion probably not even shared at most of the Daily Kos. The point here is not to find the most outrageous example of outlandish analysis of his speech here in the American media. This particular diary should remind us what the reaction to his speech will be and has been in the Middle East media. This is the sort of analysis you can find in the Middle East, courtesy of Al Jazeera

Iran hasn't given any hint about attacking anyone, unlike the U.S. & UK who
invaded countries that didn't threaten them.
Iran has not, I repeat NOT given
any hint or word about attacking anyone, unlike the U.S., Britain and their
allies who invaded countries that DID NOT threaten them.
The U.S. needs to
keep oil trade under U.S. dollars; the provocation for war is the American way
of securing its finances."

His audience is not and never has been anyone in the United States. By providing him a platform, Columbia provided him with an opportunity to propagandize in a presitigous American University for a Middle East audience.

I have no doubt that Bollinger, and the rest of the Columbia staff did what they thought was right, however they just don't understand who they are dealing with. If they think this was anything but a PR coup for Ahmadinejad they are fooling themselves, they fooled themselves frankly into believing that this would do anything but raise this guy's profile at the exact moment that he was starting to be quite isolated. Here is how I saw it

You have to understand who you are dealing with and Ahmadinejad is a sociopath. He is only going to manipulate this to his advantage the way he always manipulates everything. Does any really think it hurts his public standing that Bollinger questioned him on civil rights, the Holocaust, etc. He wasn't performing for our media or the Western media in general. He was performing for the Middle East media, and they won't spin it as being called out, but rather standing up to the mean, mean Americans and showing them who is boss. His standing in the Middle East just improved exponentially thanks to the useful idiot Lee Bollinger. In the larger scheme of things his appearance at Columbia is not going to change things in the Middle East in any substantial way. Ahmadinejad is not going to be able to ride this to any sort of long term PR success, however as Americans, we must do what is in the best interest of America not the terrorists. Inviting Ahmadinejad did not help America and it did help our enemy and frankly enough is enough.

California Lays down the Gauntlet to Iran

Governor Schwarzenegger is set to sign a bill that forbids any California pension plans from investing in companies that invest in Iran.
"

The bill, passed earlier this month by the California Legislature, would ban the
nation's two largest public pension funds _ the California Public Employees
Retirement System and the State Teachers Retirement System _ from investing in
companies that work on defense or nuclear projects or are involved in developing
Iranian petroleum or natural gas resources.
"I look forward to signing
legislation to divest from Iran to take an equally powerful stand against
terrorism," Schwarzenegger said in a statement Monday. The signing could come
this week, said spokesman Aaron McLear.
CalPERS estimated the ban would
require it to divest an estimated $2 billion from 10 companies."

As I wrote earlier, I believe that Iran is ripe to fall from within, peacefully, and one of my three pillars is to starve Iran of the economic investment that the country relies on. The state of California has laid down the gauntlet, either enjoy our money or Iran's. If I am the CEO of any company currently investing in Iran, the choice is simple. Furthermore, similary measures are passing through the legislatures of Florida, Michigan and Texas. It isn't enough. Investment in Iran is now a matter of national security. The group Divest Terror lists the dirty dozen, the twelve biggest companies currently investing in Iran.

The worst culprit, in my opinion, is BNP Paribas (this should sound familiar if you ever watch the French Open as they advertise prominently in the background of all the tennis courts at the French Open). They are in fact the only ex pat bank that currently has a branch in Tehran. Here is how the center describes their activities

In July 2002, BNP Paribas, along with Germany's Commerzbank AG, led Iran's first
sovereign Eurobond offering since the state's 1979 revolution. Originally
scheduled for Euro 500 million, high demand for the instruments led BNP Paribas
to increase the offering to a total of Euro 625 million. In December 2002,
a second offering of Euro 375 million, also led by BNP Paribas and Commerzbank,
brought the total raised on behalf of the Iranian government to over Euro 1
billion.1
The company also is involved in the financing of projects and
export facilities in Iran including an aromatics plant and a number of energy
and infrastructure-related deals. In total, the company is involved in
credit lines totaling more than $1 billion to increase Iranian trade and
development.2"

I am a free market, free trade, small government conservative, and so some have questioned how this fits into my view of the world. To me this is not an issue of economics but rather geopolitics and war. Investing in Iran is investing in blood money. As long as Iran kills our soldiers in Iraq, threatens Israel and the U.S., starts proxy wars in the Middle East, and develops nuclear weapons, they are our enemy in the GWOT. We do not provide financial assistance to our enemies in war time, and we do not provide financial assistance to any company that does either.

Mahmoud: From the Left and Right

The blogosphere is ablaze regarding Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia. I wrote about it here on Friday. From the right, we havenear universal condemnation

This event raises deep and complicated issues about how best to express our
commitment to intellectual freedom, and to our free way of life. Although we
believe in free and open debate at Columbia and should never suppress points of
view, we are also committed to academic standards. A high-quality academic
discussion depends on intellectual honesty but, unfortunately, Mr. Ahmadinejad
has proven himself, time and again, to be uninterested in whether his words are
true. Therefore, my personal opinion is that he should not be invited to speak.
Mr. Ahmadinejad is a reprehensible and dangerous figure who presides over a
repressive regime, is responsible for the death of American soldiers, denies the
Holocaust, and calls for the destruction of Israel. It would be deeply
regrettable if some misread this invitation as lending prestige or legitimacy to
his views.

The view from the far left is a whole different

Okay, I admit it. Part of it is that he just looks cuddly.
Possibly cuddly enough to turn me straight. I think he kind of looks
like Kermit the Frog. Sort of. With smaller eyes. But that’s
not all…

I want to be very clear. There are certainly many things about
Ahmadinejad that I abhor — locking up dissidents, executing of gay folks,
denying the fact of the Holocaust, potentially adding another dangerous nuclear
power to the world and, in general, stifling democracy. Even still, I
can’t help but be turned on by his frank rhetoric calling out the horrors of the
Bush Administration and, for that matter, generations of US foreign policy
preceding.
Recall that, back in May, Ahmadinejad sent a letter
to President Bush:

For some time now, I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable
contradictions that exist… Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon
Him), the great Messenger of God,
Feel obliged to respect human
rights,
Present liberalism as a civilization model,

Announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs,
Make "War on Terror" his slogan,

And finally, work towards the establishment of a unified international
community --- a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one
day govern,
But at the same time,

Have countries attacked. The lives, reputations and possessions of people
destroyed and on the slight chance of the presence of a few criminals in a
village, city, or convoy for example, the entire village, city or convoy set
ablaze.

It’s a great question, which I’ve wondered myself. He goes
on:

Because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is
occupied, around 100,000 people killed, its water sources, agriculture and
industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity
of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps 50
years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of
one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and
women --- as occupation troops --- put in harms way, taken away from family and
loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much
psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide and those returning
home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of ailments;
while some are killed and their bodies handed to their families.
Ahmadinejad, it would appear, cares more about American troops than
President Bush.

What is really obscene is that this last quote comes from a self described Jewish lesbian. She acknowledges many of his evil deeds though that doesn't seem to stop her from having a crush on him, despite him being evil, wanting to kill all Jews, and of course besides him being the wrong sex. Of course, Bush Derangement Syndrome takes on a new level when a lesbian finds a man attractive simply because that mean, a sociopathic and murderous tyrant, also hates Bush as much as she does.

As for condemnation of his very appearance at Columbia, we have yet to see that. Again, I note that the Daily Kos invited all of the Democratic Presidential candidates to a debate and all but Joseph Biden gladly accepted. I hope that is kept in mind when we are all choosing our Presidential candidate.

Mahmoud's Whirlwind tour of the Big Apple

Well, Mr. Ahmadinejad is going to have quite a week this week, he will speak at the United Nations, Columbia, and the National Press Club. I have already heard the reasoning for allowing the President of the world's leading state sponsor of terror for speaking at these institutions. We need to engage with him, challenge him, and allow for debate. Well, what all of these well meaning and well intentioned people just don't realize is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a sociopath, a person totally devoid of conscience and empathy, and one common trait of all sociopaths is their ability to manipulate every situation. Right now, he and the mullahs are feeling lonely. Everyone from the Sunni Muslim nations, to his neighbors, to even weak kneed Europeans have turned away from them. Just as they are being isolated, here Mahmoud finds an excellent opportunity to re engage with the world community.

Recently, I wrote a diary for a plan to bring Iran down peacefully. It is a three point plan, with one of the pillars being isolation. Iran is on the brink of collapse. While they are currently one of the world's leading oil producers, they import more than half their own gasoline. (this happens because they sell it to their own citizenry at a price ridiculously below market in what I can only assume is some sort of bribe to disregard the plethora of human rights and other violations).

Pressure is being ratched up on the Iranians, vis a vis their nuclear weapons program so much, even the French are in on the act. Currently, more and more states are pressuring their pension funds to divest of companies such as Hyundai, BNP Paribas, and others who continue to accept what I can only call blood money in continuing to do business in Iran. With all of this pressure coming from all sides in this terrorist state, what we need is isolation, not engagement.

Let's look at some of the things Iran has been responsible for in the last year or so: the alphabet soup of explosive devices in Iraq that continue to kill our soldiers, a proxy war with Israel, hostage taking, extortion, and propaganda all originating in international waters, another proxy war in the Palestinian territories, and I won't even bring up the 800 pound gorilla in the room. As a result of all of this, their President will now speak at the United Nations, one of our leading universities, and one of our leading newspaper organizations.

Make no mistake everyone, Iran is our enemy in the GWOT, and we do not speak to our enemies in war time, we do not invite them to world body's to speak, and we don't have our leading institutions of higher learning invite their leader to speak...I guess we do, I should have said we can't win if we do all of this.

Divesting From Iran:An Update

Michael Barone has an article about the divestment movement today

The divestment movement has been gaining speed during the past year. In
2006, Missouri State Treasurer Sarah Steelman ordered the Missouri Investment
Trust to divest stock in companies that do business in Iran. The California
Assembly has passed a divestment bill, and it is now before the state Senate;
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has promised a major signing ceremony if it passes. A
bill limited to Iran's energy sector has been passed into law in Florida. A
divestment bill has been passed in committee in the Pennsylvania House, and a
divestment resolution was passed by the Georgia Senate. In Louisiana, a bill to
set up a "terror-free international index" has been passed into law. Divestment
bills have been filed in Ohio, New Jersey, Michigan, New York, Massachusetts,
Maryland and Texas.

Many of these bills have met with opposition. Pension fund administrators,
such as those at California's giant CalPERS, have opposed them. They argue that
divesting would cost them money. But the fact is that U.S.-based companies
already are prohibited from doing business in Iran. Firms that do the most
business in Iran are French (Alcatel, BNP Paribas, Total), Italian (ENI), Korean
(Hyundai), Chinese (PetroChina) and Russian (Statoil). The potential losses to
pension funds are almost certainly minimal; a fund can find plenty of
international stocks for its portfolio without touching those who do business in
Iran.

Of course, divesting from any company that does business in Iran is one of the three pillars of my own plan to bring the Iranian government down peacefully, here it is again.

For more information please visit the site divestterror.org. According to this site, the twelve companies with the most Iranian investment are, Alcatel, BNP Paribas, Hyundai, Lundin Petroleum, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Total SA, Technip Coflexip, Stolt Nielsen, Statoil ASA, Siemens AG, PetroChina. These companies must be held to account first and foremost. Once investment dries up in Iran the second and third pillars must follow and the government WILL fall peacefully.

Authoritarianism, The Ultimate Equalizer

I have had several diary entries lately in which I have laid out a plan in which Iran can be confronted peacefully and brought down from with in.

Since then newsmax has published a story about Kurds organizing for an armed uprising.

Rahman Haj Ahmadi, president of the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK), told
NewsMax in an exclusive interview that he hoped to meet with senior
administration officials to discuss the situation inside Iran and how the U.S.
could help the opposition.
"PJAK has thousands of fighters in the mountains
of Iran and deep inside Iranian cities," he said. "With U.S. help, we will lead
the Kurdish people in an uprising that could spread to the whole of Iran."
PJAK fighters seized government buildings in Marivan briefly in the summer
of 2005, in armed clashes with regime security forces that spread to major
cities and towns through the Kurdish region. The clashes were sparked by the
brutal murder of a Kurdish human rights activist.
Ahmadi and his group have
been accused by the Tehran regime of being lackeys of the U.S. government. The
July-August 2005 clashes occurred after PJAK officials met with U.S. military
leaders in northern Iraq, Tehran alleged.
Such accusations make Ahmadi
smile. "Actually, this is the first time we have had contacts here in
Washington," he told NewsMax. "We would love to have received U.S. help, but
until now we have had no direct contacts with the U.S. government."
"We, the
12 to 14 million Kurds in Iran, will be the dependable and loyal allies of the
USA and the democratic world," he added.

All of this is great news, however, the thing about authoritarianism is that the regime will they whatever they have to in order to maintain power. Just this past week 230 youths were arrested for going to a rock concert

Iran arrested more than 200 music fans at an underground rock concert that one
official called a "satanic" gathering and authorities accused the youths of
breaking Islamic law.
A witness said Sunday that police raided
the concert as it was ending late Wednesday near the town of Karaj, some 30
miles west of the capital.
"Police detained the young people who had gathered
to enjoy music in a private orchard," said the witness, who requested anonymity
for fear of government retaliation.
The arrests come during a recent crack
down on "immoral behavior" in Iran, where holding mixed parties or concerts without
permission has been forbidden since the 1979 Revolution that brought hardline
Shiite Muslim clerics to power.
Calls to authorities were not immediately
returned on Sunday. But the public prosecutor in Karaj, Ali Farhadi, said
Saturday about 230 people were arrested during the concert.
"Most of them
were wealthy young people who were not aware of the satanic nature of the
concert," Farhadi told state television. "A female singer, who was performing,
and some rock and rap music bands were among the detained

Now, The Wall Street Journal Published a piece by Amer Taheri. The reign of terror in Iran has been ratched up since the regime is feeling more pressure from with in.

The latest wave of executions is the biggest Iran has suffered in the same time
span since 1984, when thousands of opposition prisoners were shot on orders from
Ayatollah Khomeini.
Not all executions take place in public. In the
provinces of Kurdistan and Khuzestan, where ethnic Kurdish and Arab minorities
are demanding greater rights, several activists have been put to death in
secret, their families informed only days after the event

it continues...

The campaign of terror also includes targeted "disappearances" designed to
neutralize trade union leaders, student activists, journalists and even mullahs
opposed to the regime. According to the latest tally, more than 30 people have
"disappeared" since the start of the new Iranian year on March 21. To intimidate
the population, the authorities also have carried out mass arrests on spurious
grounds.
According to Gen. Ismail Muqaddam, commander of the Islamic Police,
a total of 430,000 men and women have been arrested on charges related to drug
use since April. A further 4,209 men and women, mostly aged between 15 and 30,
have been arrested for "hooliganism" in Tehran alone. The largest number of
arrests, totaling almost a million men and women according to Mr. Muqaddam, were
related to the enforcement of the new Islamic Dress Code, passed by the Islamic
Majlis (parliament) in May 2006.
Most of those arrested, he says, spent a
few hours, or at most a few days, in custody as "a warning." By last week,
40,000 were still in prison. Of these, 20,363 men and women are held on charges
related to violating the Islamic Dress Code. According to the Deputy Chief of
Police Gen. Hussein Zulfiqari, an additional 6,204 men and women are in prison
on charges of "sexual proximity" without being married.
The wave of arrests
has increased pressure on the nation's inadequate prison facilities. At a recent
press conference in Tehran, the head of the National Prisons Service, Ali-Akbar
Yassaqi, appealed for a moratorium on arrests. He said Iran's official prisons
could not house more than 50,000 prisoners simultaneously while the actual
number of prisoners at any given time was above 150,000. Mr. Yassaqi also
revealed that each year on average some 600,000 Iranians spend some time in one
of the 130 official prisons.
Since Mr. Ahmadinejad ordered the crackdown,
work

Yes, it seems, anything and everything is a crime in Iran. Holding hands in public is a crime. Not wearing the right amount of clothes is a crime. Opposing the government is a crime. Organizing a union is a crime. Make no mistake. This regime is not going to roll over. They will respond to pressure from within and without with cruel, evil, and vicious and violent desperation, and the ones that suffer will be the people of Iran most of all. Just like the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere use their tactics to break the will of their enemies: real and perceived, so to does the regime of Iran, at least the ones they can terrorize. While they instill terror in the minds of Israelis by threatening to wipe them off the map, and the UN, and its limp sanctions, by threatening counter attacks, they instill fear in their own citizenry, by arrests, imprisonment, and even public executions. They will make sure that everyone knows that any challenge to the regime will be met with swift reprisal. They will break the will of the opposition.

Make no mistake bringing down the Iranians cannot happen with token effort, or half effort, or even 90%, but all the way. It will take each and every state disinvesting from each and every company that does business in Iran. Here is a list of the so called dirty dozen companies. These are the worst, most greedy offenders, who redefine greed as we know it. These companies are willing to foresake any hope of peace and prosperity for the sake of the all mighty dollar or whatever other currency they deal in.



Alcatel SA
BNP Paribas
ENI SPA
Hyundai
Lundin Petroleum
Oil & Natural Gas Corp.
PetroChina
Siemens AG
Statoil ASA
Stolt Nielsen
Technip Coflexip
Total SA

links to their web pages are provided and I encourage everyone to make their feelings known. Second, pressure must be put on each and every peace loving ally that embassies in Iran only go to further prop up these evil, murderous regimes. Iran must be further isolated not welcomed into the world community with an embassy in Tehran. The same is true for Iranian embassies in their home countries. Their diplomats must be expelled immediately.

Finally, we must all help the freedom loving peace groups fighting at risk of life and limb to bring these regimes down. I have spoken about it here...

Furthermore, this effort would need to be combined with an effort to support
those groups that are themselves working to bring freedom and Democracy in Iran.
A simple Google search of Iranian freedom finds many such groups, like this, and
this. Movements to bring freedom to Iran are everywhere however they are
weak and need help. The first thing they need is cash. I say this because I
believe that there are conservatives everywhere organized and ready for a cause,
and they all should be flushed with cash. I say this because there should be
Conservatives everywhere that just recently were part of an effort to defeat the
Senate Amnesty bill. Many of them swore that politicians and political parties
were no longer going to get their money. In other words, their money is in need
of a cause.

Finally, and most importantly, we must win in Iraq. Victory in Iraq secures momentum, huge momentum, for bringing down the Iranian regime, and a loss has the exact opposite effect. Thus, I also encourage everyone to visit http://www.win-the-war.com/ and see how you can help to secure victory in Iraq.


Update,

In what can only be described as a surreal usurpation of authoritarian power The American Israeli Patriot has the story of some teen agers arrested at a birthday party...

Tehran, 7 August (AKI) - Iran stepped up its moralisation campaign this
week with the arrest of 17 teenagers aged between 13 and 17 years of age at a
birthday party in Tehran. It is the latest arrest in a controversial campaign
ordered by president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and enforced by the supreme leader,
Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei.The United Nation's children's fund, UNICEF,
immediately expressed concern about the arrests of nine males and eight females
- all minors - who have been accused of "promiscuity", "alcohol use", and
"dressing indecently".The adolescents, being held at the court's discretion,
could be sentenced to three years' jail, a police spokesman said