Ramadi has fallen to ISIS. Ramadi was really where the Anbar Awakening began,”the movement,” Max Boot said, “started by Colonel Sean MacFarland in Ramadi in 200, to mobilize Sunni tries against AQI.” (al Qaeda in Iraq)
After having lost hundreds of American soldiers in Ramadi and its environs since 2003, US efforts finally appeared to have paid off. AQI had been routed of the capital of its self-proclaimed caliphate, and would soon be routed out of the rest of the Sunni Triangle. Victory was in sight.
It is all the more heartbreaking, therefore, to read now that the Islamic State—AQI’s successor organization—has seized the government center in Ramadi. Islamic State extremists detonated a series of suicide car bombs on Thursday to punch their way through fortifications protecting the government headquarters. Reports were that, after the headquarters fell, black-clad fanatics were going to door-to-door, executing tribal fighters who opposed their onslaught. Government security forces and many civilians were fleeing in panic. As Michael Auslin of the American Enterprise Institute points out, it’s as if the Marines, having taken Iwo Jima, had abandoned it and the Japanese had lowered the stars and stripes on Mount Suribachi.
“Leading from behind” is a bad enough strategy when America’s allies take the lead. It is an utterly ruinous strategy when America’s enemies take the lead. But that s what is now happening in Iraq.”
Obama has authorized fewer than 3,000 trainers who are confined to base and not allowed to recruit, train or arm Sunni tribesmen. Nor are they allowed to personally call in airstrikes. They have to depend on Iraqi security forces who are dominated by Iranian security forces to tell them what to bomb. In the guise of fighting ISIS, Iran is taking over most of Iraq.
Obama has illusions of becoming partners with Iran, the world’s greatest terrorist-sponsoring state, and assigning Iran the task of managing the Middle East. AQs yet, he is utterly unable to explain to the American people just where the war effort stands and what he plans to do differently. The Arab states are begging for American leadership, but that seems not to be what Obama does.
The West’s war against ISIS puts the U.S. and Europe tacitly on the side of Assad, the Iranians, and their joint Lebanese proxy Hezbollah for the simple reason that we’re all fighting ISIS at the same time while leaving one another alone. Tehran can hardly contain itself. “One of the world’s leading state sponsors of terrorism,” Weiss and Hassan write, “now presents itself as the last line of defense against terrorism.” The idea that a state sponsor of terrorism could ever be a reliable partner against international terrorism is ludicrous.
Filed under: Politics | Tags: Diplomacy Deficit, Iran, No Snapback of Sanctions, Nuclear Talks
From the American Enterprise Institute:
President Obama has stated firmly that if Iran does not comply with the inspections and other nuclear commitments, sanctions will simply snap back in place. Unfortunately he was a bit on the optimistic side. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov quoted in the Kremlin-backed RIA Novosti (and provided by the Open Source Center):
“We have a whole series of our own priorities and objectives that are important to us, and we will be working on those. We are proceeding on the basis that if one of the partners in the talks raises the possibility of sanctions being reintroduced against Iran, in the hypothetical situation that Iran should fail to honour its commitments, then this process should not in any way be automatic,” he [Ryabkov] said.”Decisions on this matter should be taken in accordance with the procedures of the UN Security Council, through voting in the council, and through the adoption of the appropriate resolutions,” Ryabkov noted.
Russia’s English-language propaganda arm “Sputnik News” left out the key preamble, there, but why burden American policymakers with embarrassing facts about Russia’s position.
Regardless, the Iranian government understands just where it stands. Speaking on the Islamic Republic of Iran News Network Television (IRINN) in Persian earlier today, President Hassan Rouhani bragged about the collapsing sanctions, in a translation provided by the Open Source Center:
“Those who brokered the sanctions had better think of another job for themselves from now on. We will continue moving along the path of constructive interaction with the world with the help of God, with the guidance of the Supreme Leader and with the support of the Iranian nation. Nobody can continue with the sanctions and pressure on Iran in the coming months and years. The sanctions scheme is completely collapsing. The P5+1 group should know well that the government and nation [of Iran] are standing close to each other and are supporting each other, especially in the year of understanding and unity.”
President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were warned by knowledgeable experts that Iran could not be trusted, that relying on Iran to negotiate honestly and to mean what they said was a pipe dream. We have a long history with Iran, including the hostages imprisoned for a year, and it is clear that trust is not part of their dealings. The Koran gives full permission to adherents to lie in negotiations, and even has a word for it — taqiyya.
I don’t know quite what to make of Obama’s mindset. I assume that Kerry is merely doing what he is told. Is Obama completely unfamiliar with the country? Is he depending too much on Valerie Jarrett’s childhood memories? Does he believe this will be a crowning achievement for his “legacy?”
They bargained from weakness and cowardice. At best they could assume they were leaving a catastrophic legacy for our country. This is a complete diplomatic collapse that does nothing to resolve the problem, but merely assures a nuclear race in the Middle East. It’s plain surrender. But will our brilliant negotiators continue to remove the sanctions? Turn confiscated funds back? The funds Obama gave back have rescued their economy and after two years of recession, they announced a positive rate of progress for the Iranian year corresponding to March 2014 − March 2015.
Nice going. Iran pirated an American flagged Marshall Islands cargo ship in the international waters of the Hormuz strait today, claimed it was in Iranian waters, fired a shot over its bow, and escorted it to an Iranian port. Some said we have a treaty obligation to protect Marshall Islands ships, the president denied that, who knows? Iran is flexing their muscles because they can.
Filed under: Middle East | Tags: Danger of Nuclear Breakout, Iran, Iraq, ISIS, Negotiations, Putin, Senate, the Surge
This young Senator is going to be President of the United States one day. This episode of Uncommon Knowledge was published on April 8, 2015.
ADDENDUM: President Obama was mightily annoyed by the letter Tom Cotton and 46 other Senate colleagues sent to the Ayatollah Khamenei simply explaining that any agreement reached by the president could be revoked by the next president or modified by Congress. Obama attempted to say such interference was uncalled for, and detrimental to the national good. Today, the Center for Security Policy sent a thank you letter to Senator Cotton and the other 46 senators containing the signatures of more than 150 security experts, including a former United States ambassador, multiple high-ranking military officials and other security experts. The letter read in part:
“Given the chimerical nature of the so-called framework agreement—which is, at the moment, being characterized in wildly different ways by the various parties, raising profound uncertainty about the nature and extent of the commitments Iran is making, their actual value in preventing an Iranian nuclear weapons program, the timing and extent of sanctions relief, etc.—the need for congressional oversight, advice and consent concerning any accord that flows from that agreement can no longer responsibly be denied.“
“It would be a serious affront to the Constitution and to the American people were an agreement of this potentially enormous strategic consequence not to be submitted for such action by the Congress. Grievous insult would be added to injury should the United Nations Security Council instead be asked to approve it.”
Filed under: Politics | Tags: Barack Obama, Cuba, Hezbollah, Incompetence, Iran, Mexican Border, Raul Castro
Americans envision the coming storm with pure dread, wondering why the Obama administration remains oblivious. Walter Russell Mead over at The American Interest zeroes in on the troubled mindset:
It’s hard to predict how events will play out, but the Obama Administration should have no illusions on one count: Iran must be taken seriously when it says it sees this negotiation as part of a struggle with an enemy. Liberal American diplomats often delude themselves that foreigners prefer them to conservative hardliners. They think that American adversaries like the Castro brothers or the Iranians will want to work cooperatively with liberals here, and help the American liberals stay in power in order to advance a mutually beneficial, win-win agenda. Thus liberals think they can get better deals from U.S. opponents than hardliners who, as liberals see it, are so harsh and crude in their foreign policy that they force otherwise neutral or even pro-American states into opposition.
What liberal statesmen often miss is that for many of these leaders it is the American system and American civilization that is seen as the enemy. … For the Iranians, it is our secular, godless culture combined with our economic and military power that they see as the core threat….
The mullahs in other words, don’t see blue America as an ally against red America. It is America, blue and red, that they hate and want to bring down. And while, like the Soviets during the Cold War, they may be willing to sign specific agreements where their interests and ours coincide on some particular issue, they do not look to end the rivalry by reaching agreements.
Things are not all that much different in Panama. Unfamiliar with history, he seems to think that helping Cuba to continue to abuse her people will be an accomplishment for his “legacy.” Raul Castro has already said that Cuba remains proudly communist, and he has no intention of changing the $20 a month allowance for the Cuban people. Obama’s opening up the relationship gives America nothing whatsoever, and expanded tourist revenue will simply further enrich the Castros — the Cuban people aren’t going to get any of it. So much for the Monroe Doctrine!
The days in which our agenda in this hemisphere so often presumed that the United States could meddle with impunity, those days are past,
Obama’s timing, as usual, is off, as is his understanding of events:
Over the last several years Hezbollah and its patrons in Iran have greatly expanded their operations in Latin America to the detriment of inter-American security and US strategic interests. Today, Hezbollah is using the Western Hemisphere as a staging ground, fundraising center, and operational base to wage asymmetric warfare against the United States. Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and other anti-American governments in the region have facilitated this expansion by rolling out the welcome mats for Hezbollah and Iran. US policymakers must increase their attention to this problem, expand their assets in the region, and develop a comprehensive strategy to combat this threat in a sustained and meaningful way.
Hezbollah is closely involved with the Mexican Drug Cartel, teaching them tunneling skills, and transporting Hezbollah operatives into the United States across the Mexican border.
“There is not, nor has there ever been, an Iran deal. The “framework the president announced last week was just a stunt.As yet another negotiations deadline loomed with the president plainly unwilling to walk away despite Iranian intransigence,congress appears poised to end the farce by voting to stiffen sanctions. The “framework” is a feint designed to dissuade Congress and sustain the farce.” That’s Andy McCarthy. He adds:
Iran has built its foreign policy around the goal of “Death to America” for the last 36 years. …With such a rogue state, there is only one negotiation a sensible nation — particularly the world’s most powerful nation — can have. You tell them that until they convincingly disavow their anti-American stance, cease their support for terrorism, release American prisoners, and acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, that there is no point in discussing anything else.
Filed under: Politics | Tags: Iran, John Kerry, Nuclear Weapons, Obama, Politics, State Department
Obama’s sales pitch for his”framework” of a nuclear deal with Iran has not met with universal plaudits and applause. Partially because Iran doesn’t agree in the slightest with what the U.S. delegation claims to have been agreed upon. They seem to have a different idea entirely, which begins with the prompt end to all sanctions and continues with going to work on building their desired weapon without interference. Big words and big ideas slowly turn into farce.
Less than a week following the framework of a nuclear deal with Iran that allows the Islamic Republic to continue operating core aspects of its program, the State Department is looking for a new training course on how to negotiate.
The agency released a solicitation for “Negotiations” on Wednesday, revealing that the State Department is seeking a class for U.S. diplomats on “making and receiving concessions wisely.”
The overall course teaches the essential skills, knowledge, and attitudes for U.S. diplomats to succeed in any of 275 overseas posts performing the full spectrum of political and economic work,” the solicitation said. “This module will focus on the complex art of negotiating across diverse cultures to find common ground for advancing mutual interests.”
One might suggest that their timing was a little bit off, or make reference to “locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen.”. It would all be really funny if it weren’t so desperately important.
Filed under: Politics | Tags: Iran, Kissinger, Marie Harf, Nuclear Talks, Open Defiance, Shultz, Threat of War
Former, and very distinguished. Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George P. Shultz wrote a joint op-ed for the Wall Street Journal yesterday. titled “The Iran Deal and Its Consequences: Mixing shrewd diplomacy with defiance of U.N. resolutions, Iran has turned the negotiation on it head.”
Debate regarding technical details of the deal has thus far inhibited the soul-searching necessary regarding its deeper implications. For 20 years, three presidents of both major parties proclaimed that an Iranian nuclear weapon was contrary to American and global interests—and that they were prepared to use force to prevent it. Yet negotiations that began 12 years ago as an international effort to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability, albeit short of its full capacity in the first 10 years.
Mixing shrewd diplomacy with open defiance of U.N. resolutions, Iran has gradually turned the negotiation on its head. Iran’s centrifuges have multiplied from about 100 at the beginning of the negotiation to almost 20,000 today. The threat of war now constrains the West more than Iran.
I’m sure being a spokesperson for the State Department is a difficult job. They are expected to repeat the talking points issued and to support them, presumably without learning any contradictory facts, and to be able to handle any awkward questions from attending media people. So,in the natural course of things, State Department spokesperson Marie Harf was asked about the op-ed by the “deans of diplomacy.” She said she heard “a lot of sort of big words and big thoughts, but I didn’t hear a lot of alternatives about what they would do differently.”
Under the new approach, Iran permanently gives up none of its equipment, facilities or fissile product to achieve the proposed constraints. It only places them under temporary restriction and safeguard—amounting in many cases to a seal at the door of a depot or periodic visits by inspectors to declared sites. The physical magnitude of the effort is daunting. Is the International Atomic Energy Agency technically, and in terms of human resources, up to so complex and vast an assignment?”
“In a large country with multiple facilities and ample experience in nuclear concealment, violations will be inherently difficult to detect. Devising theoretical models of inspection is one thing. Enforcing compliance, week after week, despite competing international crises and domestic distractions, is another.”
I wonder if Hart knew who the two former Secretaries were, and what they accomplished? “Big words and big thoughts?” The attendant reporters were clearly not impressed.
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.
American Elephants 