Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Foreign Policy, History, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Media Bias, Military, National Security, Politics, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: A Clash of Cultures, Intercontinental Missile, Iran
Iran on Sunday unveiled their new cruise missile that it claimed would extend the Islamic Republic’s potential range to 2,500 kilometers, placing cities like Budapest, Warsaw and Athens within striking difference. Their intercontinental ballistic missiles are not part of the nuclear talks with Iran, we are told. Tehran has refused to include their growing missile-development program as part of the negotiations. It is not any part of the deal, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reminded us last week in his speech to Congress.
The Soumar missile, as it is known in Iran, is a copy of the Soviet Kh-55 which was stolen from the Ukraine in 2001 and apparently reverse engineered in Iran. It flies at low altitude and is thus hard for radar to detect. The payload is reportedly in the 200-kilogram range, not yet capable of delivering a nuclear device. It does, however raise the question of U.S. plans to station missile defense systems in Europe. Russia has long contended that Iranian missiles threaten neither Europe nor the U.S.. This is an interesting development, if it was taken without Russian consent.
Back when he as a mere candidate, Barack Obama said that diplomacy with rogue regimes was an important issue “The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them… is ridiculous,’ he declared in 2007. “If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us,” he told Al-Arabiya. He has been so determined on a deal that he hasn’t let anything stand in the way — not Congress, not our allies, and especially not the facts.
Unfortunately, the State Department does not conduct after-action reports, forcing participants to confront their mistakes, like the Army does. The State Department has no clear metrics for such measurement. Michael Rubin notes that:
Too many American diplomats dismiss the need to consider mistakes. Instead, many are committed to the belief that talking is a cost-free, risk-free strategy. Testifying before the Senate in support of Obama’s outreach to Iran, Nicholas Burns, the second undersecretary of state for foreign affairs under George W. Bush, promised, “We will be no worse off if we try diplomacy and fail.”
We project our American understandings onto other countries with different cultures — who see entering into discussions as a weak response, and lifting the sanctions as complete surrender. Ignorance of an adversary’s true intentions can kill. Obama seems to believe that Iranians are reasonable people who really want the same things we do. Obama’s foolish rush into a deal with Iran would be disastrous.
Every U.S. administration has attempted to bring Iran into the family of nations in spite of its rhetoric and in spite of its actions. It’s hard for nations who yearn for peace to understand those that yearn for the apocalypse. In the year before Obama agreed to talks with Iran, the Iranian economy had shrunk by 5.4 percent. To bring them to the table, Obama has released more than $11 billion to Iran. The only two times Iran has reversed course after swearing to a course of no compromises have been when Iran was close to collapse. Michael Rubin says — Only one thing will deter Iran: “forcing the regime to choose between its nuclear ambition and its survival.” Pretending to delay them for ten years is pathetic.
Does Obama think his deal will deter Iran? Does he believe that ten years will let him off the hook? Or does he simply have no understanding of the consequences of his actions nor consider the possibility that he might indeed be wrong.
Filed under: Israel, Middle East, Terrorism | Tags: Iran, Islamist Turkey, Israel
(click to enlarge)
What’s going on with Israel? World governments are busily condemning Israel over the flotilla incident in which Israeli soldiers, boarding a ship attempting to breach the completely legal blockade of Gaza, were attacked, beaten, and in danger of their lives.
The lead ship of the flotilla, a Turkish ship — the Mavi Marmara — manned by “peace activists” who advertised themselves as “adhering to nonviolence and nonviolent resistance on word and deed at all times.” The “peace activists” were waiting with knives, metal clubs, slingshots with steel balls and fire bombs. All the usual people were shocked! shocked! A deliberate provocation, staged with all sorts of planning by the phony peace activist pals of Hamas, turned into the hysterical headlines the organizers were looking for.
As Victor Davis Hanson said:
Turkey thought that the Gaza flotilla would be yet another clever way of confronting Israel: They would hype the hoped-for “overreaction,” then posture as regional defender of the faith to the world’s outraged Muslims. However, as more details of the incident emerge, more and more suspicion is falling on Turkish interests that seem to have gone out of their way to stage a violent encounter in order to showcase Turkey’s new Mideast role.
At the Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger added:
The world’s peoples may pay soon for their leaders’ display of such a disproportionate double standard. Recall that the other, recent instance when the world’s governments deployed their collective authority and wrath was last June, against Lilliputian Honduras. The conclusion is inescapable: The smaller the problem, the larger the world powers’ output of hot air. But if a problem is large or difficult—especially if the problem is nuclear—they blink and deflate, and will do so repeatedly. Example: It emerged this week that the International Atomic Energy Agency believes Iran is pursuing higher-enriched uranium and “the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.” The world yawns. Or hides.
Now Iran is threatening to send their Revolutionary Guard navy to safeguard another flotilla attempting to break the blockade. The completely legal blockade conducted by Israel and Egypt. Egypt too is threatened by Hamas. The United States appears weak and indecisive, and enemies are always ready to take advantage of weakness. Obama sort of said he would stand with Israel, while offering undeserved condolences to Turkey and insisting on an investigation. This is what other nations understand as weakness. And belligerents often overestimate weakness.
The present government of Turkey, led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is attempting a new Mideast role, reestablishing its long ago role as leader of the Ottoman empire. The world’s powers feel free to pile on relatively small isolated nations. They “find it easier to be blowhards than statesmen,” said Dan Henninger. “And that means we have a problem.”
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Islam, Middle East, Terrorism | Tags: Freedom, Hezbollah, Iran, Islamic Radicals
From the Associated Press, dated May 15, 2010.
TEHRAN, Iran —A radical cleric called Saturday for the creation of a “Greater Iran” that would rule over the entire Middle East and Central Asia, in an event that he said would herald the coming of Islam’s expected messiah.
Ayatollah Mohammad Bagher Kharrazi said the creation of what he calls an Islamic United States is a central aim of the political party he leads called Hezbollah, or Party of God, and that he hoped to make it a reality if they win the next presidential election.
Mr. Kharrazi’s comments reveal the thinking of a growing number of hard-liners in Iran, many of whom have become more radical during the post-election political crisis and the international standoff over the country’s nuclear program. Mr. Kharrazi, however, isn’t highly influential in Iran’s clerical hierarchy and his views don’t represent those of the current government.
Mn hmm. And U.S. Attorney General Erik Holder just cannot bring himself to say the words “Radical Islam.” Just fills you with confidence. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano blames Americans (those violent tea party types) first, and calls 9/11 a “Man-Caused Disaster.” A disaster it was, but this kind of language — weak, pandering, politically correct, simply avoids not just clear thinking, but thought. What it says to the rest of the world is”weak.” And that is not a good message to send.
We have an administration that cannot seem to grasp the reality of Islamic radicalism, pressing for month after month for talks with a government that has been leading their followers in shouts of “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” steadily ever since 1979. Even fairly obvious clues just don’t register with some people.
Still, even President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday that he expects the government which follows his to be “ten times more revolutionary.”
Filed under: Freedom, Islam, Middle East | Tags: Iran, Status of Women, UN Human Rights Circus
The United Nations is a remarkable organization in many bizarre ways:
Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged “immodest.”
Just days after Iran abandoned a high-profile bid for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, it began a covert campaign to claim a seat on the Commission on the Status of Women, which is “dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women,” according to its website.
And back home, Tehran’s police chief said a national crackdown on opposition sympathizers would be extended to women who have been deemed to be violating the spirit of Islamic laws. He said:
The public expects us to act firmly and swiftly if we see any social misbehavior by women, and men, who defy our Islamic values. In some areas of north Tehran we can see many suntanned women and young girls who look like walking mannequins.We are not going to tolerate this situation and will first warn those found in this manner and then arrest and imprison them.
Well, there you go. Human rights. Words fail me.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, National Security, Statism, Terrorism | Tags: Democrat Demagogues, Iran, Nuclear Summit
President Obama has checked off another little item on his list. He has saved the world from the horrors of nuclear weapons. As The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank began his piece today:
World leaders arriving in Washington for President Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit must have felt for a moment that they had instead been transported to Soviet-era Moscow.
They entered a capital that had become a military encampment, with camo-wearing military police in Humvees and enough Army vehicles to make it look like a May Day parade on New York Avenue, where a bicyclist was killed Monday by a National Guard Truck.
In the middle of it all was Obama — occupant of an office once informally known as “leader of the free world” — putting on a clinic for some of the world’s greatest dictators in how to circumvent a free press.
Reporters for foreign outlets, admitted for the first time to the White House Press pool were ushered out after Obama’s eight-minute opening statement — which ended with the words: “I’m going to ask that we take a few moments to allow the press to exit before our first session.”
Obama’s official schedule for Tuesday would have pleased China’s Central Committee. Excerpts: “The President will attend the Heads of Delegation working lunch. This lunch is closed press. . . . The President will meet with Prime Minster Erdogan of Turkey. This meeting is closed press. . . . The President will attend Plenary Session II of the Nuclear Security Summit. This session is closed press.”
President Transparency has believed since his undergraduate days in the Nuclear Freeze movement, that nuclear weapons kill people. So he has signed a START treaty with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons — that includes a long list of just when Moscow will ignore the treaty. The Russians were apparently adamant about excluding tactical weapons, where they have a 10-1 advantage, from the treaty.
The big Nuke Summit doesn’t yield much of anything at all. Canada and Chile agreed to send some uranium to the United States. ( We were really worried about Canada). The Ukraine will send some to Russia. Obama insulted some more allies and bowed to despots once again.
And surprise, surprise, our greatest nuclear threat is not addressed at all by the uranium transfers announced with such fanfare. One would think that someone in the administration might take seriously Iran’s announced threat to America, Israel,and Europe, but that might take something more than pretty speeches, and summit meetings that promise to meet once again — just like the eternal and useless climate meetings.
The threat of Islamic terrorists getting hold of nuclear weapons more likely comes from Iran, Pakistan or North Korea than any other source. But this was not addressed at all. Of course if we actually got any nuclear material from one of the 47 nations in attendance, what would we do with it? We have no place to put it, since President Obama shut down Yucca Mountain.
But is our greatest threat terrorists? Or is it the mullahs who lead the chant of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” and proudly announce how many centrifuges they have operating? And does President Transparency have any intention of doing anything at all about Iran? Even encouraging the dissidents who want to overthrow the government? Didn’t think so. Big speeches, not open to the press, are more his speed, and banning words like jihad, and Islam, and terrorist.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Law, Military, National Security, Terrorism | Tags: Iran, Nuclear Disarmament, Protecting America, Russia
A full one-third of terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11 have occurred in 2009, under Obama’s watch. Just mentioning.
There is a segment of the population that believes that if people of good will would just sit down together and decide to end war, then we would have eternal peace. And so it is with violence, if we would just renounce violence, then no one would be violent anymore. They believe in community, and communes. We can all just live together in harmony, sharing the work and the rewards, sharing everything. That always works out well.
President Obama has a vision of a world without nuclear weapons. Apparently it has taken a year and 150 meetings to translate his vision into a policy prescription known as the Nuclear Posture Review. It took a while to wear down those within the administration who were opposed to actually disarming the United States.
President Obama feels quite comfortable criticizing our friends and telling them how to behave. Our enemies require coddling. A treaty seems to be the end game, although treaties are only words. James Carafano reminds us of some of the history of World War I.
That global conflict was billed as “the war to end all wars.” The Versailles Treaty was meant to seal the deal. But its words couldn’t stop the German military.
The treaty aimed to prevent Germany from producing cutting-edge weaponry. The Kaiser’s U-boats, for example, had taken a dreadful toll during the war.
So the treaty forbid all future “construction and purchase of all underwater vessels, even for commercial purposes … in Germany.” The Germans consequently used foreign dummy corporations to build and test their new and improved U-boat designs while Karl Doenitz developed the “wolf pack” tactics that would make Nazi submarines the scourge of the Atlantic during World War II.
The treaty also placed great restrictions on German air forces. It said nothing, however, about rockets or missiles. Wernher Von Braun brought that loophole to the attention of the German high command. In turn, it bankrolled development of the world’s first military missile — the A4. During World War II, 3,000 of them rained down on Britain.
Measuring intentions is an important part of negotiating any treaty. Yet this basic tenet of foreign policy seems to elude our current administration. Case in point: the new arms control treaty the president plans to sign.
President Obama believes that reducing nuclear arms in concert with Moscow is the first step on the “road to zero.” Unfortunately, the Russians don’t.
Moscow sees its nuclear weapons as the cornerstone of its defense. Moreover, its unspoken threat of nuclear attack is central to the success of its foreign policy. Significantly diminishing those resources is the last thing Russia plans on doing.
Moscow does, however, want to see the U.S. nuclear deterrent reduced to an equal footing with its mediocre might. It also wants U.S. conventional strike capabilities and missile defense to be on the table.
The Ayatollahs in Tehran want nuclear weapons badly. They see them as giving Iran a pre-eminent place in the Middle East, and control of the region. The White House is still talking about sanctions, but they are too little and too late. The ‘Green Movement’s”efforts to discredit the regime deserved our support. The lessons that the Iranian regime has learned is that they can do whatever they want and we will not impose any price.
We now face what once we thought unthinkable, a nuclear armed Iran. A world much more dangerous and unstable. Ronald Reagan didn’t have to threaten war, he only needed to fire the air traffic controllers. It is not the words of the fine speeches that influence our adversaries and competitors, but our actions and behavior. Obama doesn’t come off as exactly a tower of strength.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Liberalism, National Security, Terrorism | Tags: Hubris, Iran, Vice President Joe Biden
Vice President Joe Biden recently announced that he didn’t think that the terrorists were able to pull off another attack like the attack on the twin towers on 9/11. “They are, in fact, not able to do anything remotely like they were able to do in the past.” And the Iraq War was lost many moons ago and anyway it should be divided into three states.
Press secretary Robert Gibbs assured us that Iran’s claims about nuclear enrichment were not matched by reality.
“The Iranian nuclear program has undergone a series of problems throughout the year; we do not believe they have the capability to enrich to the degree to which they now say they are enriching.
The notably reluctant UN just belatedly announced that the Iranian theocracy is focused very seriously on obtaining a warhead.
Victor Davis Hanson notes in a post at the Corner:
This administration has a particularly bad record of prognostication (cf. last year’s assurances on the unemployment rate, the number of jobs saved or created, the size of the deficit, etc.).
This administration has an even worse record of consistency, e.g., former fat cats on Wall Street are now wealth producers; once-taboo nuclear power is now viable; KSM will/will not be tried in New York; previously anti-Constitutional protocols from renditions, tribunals and wiretaps to Predators, Iraq, and Guantanamo are now apparently acceptable anti-terrorism methodologies. I am sure that, if need be, they with blithely and without embarrassment offer us a new narrative in which, in fact, al-Qaeda is still dangerous in the 9/11 sense and Iran is most assuredly is close to getting a bomb.
This is usually called “hubris.” Joe Biden’s most consistent record is one of being wrong on almost everything. He said Dick Cheney has not given President Obama credit for killing dozens of al Qaeda leaders in what he characterized as a more aggressive fight against terrorism than was waged under the Bush administration. One of Vice President Cheney’s consistent criticisms it that Obama is not treating the fight against terrorism as a war.
Biden responded: “The President of the United States said in the State of the Union, ‘We’re at war with al Qaeda.’ He stated this — and by the way, we’re pursuing that war with a vigor like it’s never been seen before.”
In the meantime, the Iraq War has — a new name. No longer Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Obama administration has decided to call it “Operation New Dawn.” Defense Secretary Gates said:
Gates writes that by changing the name at the same time as the change of mission — the scheduled withdrawal of U.S. combat troops — the US is sending “a strong signal that Operation IRAQI FREEDOM has ended and our forces are operating under a new mission.”
The move, Gates writes, “also presents opportunities to synchronize strategic communication initiatives, reinforce our commitment to honor the Security Agreement, and recognize our evolving relationship with the Government of Iraq.”
As Jonah Goldberg said ” I guess “Operation Defend Biden’s Gaffe” was too blunt.