TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | WMDs

‘Peace Deal’ in Swat Region Called Off

First I’d have to ask if you can call anything a “peace deal” if it sacrifices women on its altar. You know my answer to that one.

Secondly, if you break your promises of “peace” through kidnappings, police murders and general civic mayhem, why should anyone care if you call of the “peace deal”? Then there’s the whole problem with breaking the “truce”. Via GeoTV:

A Frontier Corps commander and his four guards have gone missing in Kambar area of restive Swat valley on Sunday.

Sources quoted Malakand Commissioner saying that he was in contact with Sufi Muhammad in this connection.

Five persons, including District Commander Ahsam-uddin, had gone missing, sources said.

Besides, how are Islamic courts in the Swat Region of Pakistan going to help Obama route out extremism? That’s a serious question.

Squeezing Zardari, who’s got a weak hold on things as it is, these fundamentalist clerics promise peace, brutalize the populace who don’t fall in line, and end up keeping their weapons and violent extremism intact, while helping their allies in other regions.

Case in point is the Swat Taliban kidnappings that happened in February 2009 (h/t Long War Journal).

Desperation to stop violence shouldn’t seduce weak leaders (see Karzai and Zardari) into making deals with extremists who aren’t going to change, but hope that “peace deals” to push Islamic law will enable them to cement spots across the country where they can operate and work diligently with other factions in squeezing the ends against the middle.

Let’s also not forget that Pakistan has WMD.

comments are closed

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Iran Overtures as American Roxana Saberi Charged with Espionage

Joining in on nuclear discussions with Iran is now a reality. This has been coming since Richard Holbrooke had the recent exchange. Since tomorrow is Iran’s “National Nuclear Day”, the irony on this one is thick.

The Obama administration said Wednesday that the United States for the first time would participate regularly with other global powers in negotiations with the Iranian government about its nuclear program. …

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is responding in kind, showing willingness to engage. That’s rich, especially since he doesn’t make the decisions in Iran, but has to wait until Ayatollah Ali Khamenei weighs in. The Ayatollah wants to see if Obama is “honest,” while admitting the Iranians don’t know him yet, so there’s a wait and see.

Photobucket

But the plot has thickened, as they say.

All of this comes at the moment when the Iranians have charged Roxana Saberi with espionage. Since Iran doesn’t recognize dual citizenship, she’s being treated as an Iranian spying on her own government.

On Monday, her parents were allowed to visit her in Tehran’s notorious Evin prison, where she was sharing a cell with three others. They said she seemed to be in relatively good health.

Iran does not recognise dual citizenship and legally she is regarded as Iranian. “Saberi has an Iranian citizenship, passport and an Iranian national identity card,” Mr Haddad said. “She has entered Iran as an Iranian citizen and if she has another citizenship, we are unaware of it and it has no effect on how we will proceed with her case.”

One can only wonder what “relatively good health” means.

Clinton recently said that issues such as Saberi’s arrest would have to be cleared out because they post “problems between us.” Since Ms. Saberi has now been officially charged with espionage, I would expect the Obama administration to treat this situation as even more of a problem that it was before, especially since there are other Americans whose whereabouts in Iran are still unknown.

Oh, and the picture is Roxana Saberi with former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami. It might be time for her family to give him a call.

comments are closed

Read full story · Comments are closed

Ask a Stupid Question…

Get a stupid answer. Rasmussen and Politico doing a tag team on North Korea. Rasmussen asks the question (h/t Democracy Arsenal), with Politico setting up Newt Gingrich pretty well in their “Voters back force in N. Korea” headline on the polling.

In what seemed to be a swipe at the Obama administration’s response, he warned, “One morning, just like 9/11, there’s going to be a disaster,” adding, “I have yet to see the United Nations do anything effective with either Iran or North Korea.”

Okay, so let’s play it out. We take out North Korea’s missile on the launch pad. Now tell the international story.

North Korea’s Taepodong-2 missile went around 1,984 miles miles then made a splash landing, though the government is saying otherwise. That’s around twice the range of the first launch in ’98.

No matter how you look at it, North Korea is a long way from hitting Alaska or anywhere else in the U.S. So what Mr. Gingrich is suggesting is to do exactly what Pyongyang wants and that is to give them the wrong kind of attention they so desperately seek, with Gingrich’s solution helping them a lot more than the U.S. Typical foreign policy strategy of conservatives of Gingrich’s ilk.

Steve Clemons has a potentially powerful, if provocative, suggestion on how to respond to North Korea’s “pin-pricks.”

At the same time, we simply need more alternatives and allies — and the best I can think of is to work with Japan, South Korea, and China in not calling for withdrawing engagement and toughening sanctions but rather crafting how to strategically enhance engagement with particular forces inside North Korea that we want to cultivate.

It’s time for a Nixonian approach that would enrich some of North Korea’s potential robber barons against the interests of others inside the regime. We need to try to unleash opportunities for some and not others. [...]

Utilizing North Korea’s neighbors, Japan, South Korea, and even China is a much smarter play. We don’t have to do everything ourselves. In fact, we shouldn’t.

Read full story · Comments are closed

It Isn’t Just About Israel and Iran

North Korea’s launch is the backdrop, but in the conversation on nuclear proliferation this isn’t just about Netanyahu’s bluster, and Ahmadinejad’s ambitions in the face of little proof of manifestations as yet. It’s also about Russian loose nukes, as well as the underground market that Pakistan let run unchecked so long, the tensions yo-yoing with India, as other nations like Saudi Arabia race to arm.

North Korea defied the United States, China and a series of United Nations resolutions by launching a rocket on Sunday that the country said was designed to propel a satellite into space, but that much of the world viewed as an effort to prove it is edging toward the capability to shoot a nuclear warhead on a longer-range missile.

[...] Manufacturing a nuclear warhead that is small enough, light enough and heat-resistant enough to be mounted atop a missile is far more complex than building a basic nuclear device — and intelligence officials and outside experts believe North Korea is still years from that accomplishment. Typically, it takes many years of experimentation for a nation to learn how to shrink an ungainly test device into a slim warhead.

Nonetheless, the series of tests in recent years — in 2006 and 1998 — is prompting fears of North Korean proliferation among Japanese, Chinese and Western leaders. North Korea’s missiles have ranked among its few profitable exports — Iran, Syria and Pakistan have all been among its major customers. If this long-range test ends up a success, it would presumably make the design far more attractive on the international black market. …

President Obama’s statement on the Taepo-dong 2 missile launch by the North Koreans:

North Korea’s development and proliferation of ballistic missile technology pose a threat to the northeast Asian region and to international peace and security. The launch today of a Taepo-dong 2 missile was a clear violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718, which expressly prohibits North Korea from conducting ballistic missile-related activities of any kind. With this provocative act, North Korea has ignored its international obligations, rejected unequivocal calls for restraint, and further isolated itself from the community of nations.

We will immediately consult with our allies in the region, including Japan and the Republic of Korea, and members of the U.N. Security Council to bring this matter before the Council. I urge North Korea to abide fully by the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council and to refrain from further provocative actions.

Preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery is a high priority for my administration. The United States is fully committed to maintaining security and stability in northeast Asia and we will continue working for the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula through the Six-Party Talks. The Six-Party Talks provide the forum for achieving denuclearization, reducing tensions, and for resolving other issues of concern between North Korea, its four neighbors, and the United States. North Korea has a pathway to acceptance in the international community, but it will not find that acceptance unless it abandons its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and abides by its international obligations and commitments.

But as Robert Gates, whose defense budget is due tomorrow and will likely shake the earth, said recently in an interview on Fox, Six-Party Talks haven’t worked, and we’re not prepared to shoot any missile there down. It’s about inflicting damage that would mainly hit the North Korean people who are already in deep trouble: “Frankly, from my perspective, the opportunity for success is probably more in economic sanctions in both places than it is in diplomacy,” Gates said. “What gets them to the table is economic sanctions.”

We need Medvedev to do anything about nuclear proliferation, and we all await Undersecretary of State William Burns and what he has to say about Iran next week, because they’re next on any conversations on the topic, even though they’re years away, despite what Mr. Netanyahu believes.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Hail To The Chief

Photobucket

In one visit, President Obama turned the page from the Bush-Cheney era of cowboy leadership to one that acknowledges that in the 21st century we cannot go it alone.

Merkel of Germany and Sarcozy of France went from promising disgruntlement to giving credit where it’s earned:

Both credited the new U.S. president with helping to break a banking-secrecy logjam over tax havens and the release of a blacklist of non-compliant jurisdictions.

… “President Obama really found the consensus,” Sarkozy told reporters after the meeting. “He didn’t focus exclusively on stimulus … In fact it was he who managed to help me persuade [Chinese] President Hu Jintao to agree to the reference to the … publication of a list of tax havens, and I wish to thank him for that.”

In her news conference, Merkel noted that “the American president also put his hand into this.”

Pres. Sarkozy announced he will also take one detainee from Gitmo.

As for Russia’s Pres. Medvedev, what a difference a real leader makes:

The Russian president contrasted Obama as “totally different” to his predecessor George W. Bush, whom he blamed for the “mistake” of US missile shield plans fiercely opposed by Moscow.

[...] “I liked the talks. It is easy to talk to him. He can listen. The start of this relationship is good,” he said, adding: “Today it’s a totally different situation (compared to Bush)… This suits me quite well.”

It’s a turn in a new direction, though manifesting something concrete, especially on loose nukes, remains to be worked out, as does the missile defense issue, which waits a solution.

Obama went further today, reaching out in an historic townhall that was obviously meant to encourage the people of France and also Germany that their countries need to get further involved in Afghanistan. This as Pres. Obama heads to NATO to press his case for more regional involvement in Afghanistan, while also stressing that Al Qaeda and terrorism remains a world threat.

“France recognises that having al-Qaeda operate safe havens that can be used to launch attacks is a threat not just to the United States but to Europe.

“In fact it is probably more likely that al-Qaeda would be able to launch a serious terrorist attack in Europe than in the United States because of proximity.

“This is not an American mission, this is a Nato mission, this is an international mission.”[..]

It’s enough to make Glenn Beck cry.

Read full story · Comments are closed

No One’s Looking Into Anyone’s Soul

Praise the gods, Bush’s idiocy nowhere to be found.

“A good place to start will be the issue of nuclear proliferation…” – President Obama

Obama and Putin released a joint statement:

Joint Statement by President Dmitriy Medvedev of the Russian Federation and President Barack Obama of the United States of America

Reaffirming that the era when our countries viewed each other as enemies is long over, and recognizing our many common interests, we today established a substantive agenda for Russia and the United States to be developed over the coming months and years. We are resolved to work together to strengthen strategic stability, international security, and jointly meet contemporary global challenges, while also addressing disagreements openly and honestly in a spirit of mutual respect and acknowledgement of each other’s perspective.

We discussed measures to overcome the effects of the global economic crisis, strengthen the international monetary and financial system, restore economic growth, and advance regulatory efforts to ensure that such a crisis does not happen again.

We also discussed nuclear arms control and reduction. As leaders of the two largest nuclear weapons states, we agreed to work together to fulfill our obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and demonstrate leadership in reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world. We committed our two countries to achieving a nuclear free world, while recognizing that this long-term goal will require a new emphasis on arms control and conflict resolution measures, and their full implementation by all concerned nations. We agreed to pursue new and verifiable reductions in our strategic offensive arsenals in a step-by-step process, beginning by replacing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with a new, legally-binding treaty. We are instructing our negotiators to start talks immediately on this new treaty and to report on results achieved in working out the new agreement by July.

While acknowledging that differences remain over the purposes of deployment of missile defense assets in Europe, we discussed new possibilities for mutual international cooperation in the field of missile defense, taking into account joint assessments of missile challenges and threats, aimed at enhancing the security of our countries, and that of our allies and partners.

The relationship between offensive and defensive arms will be discussed by the two governments.

We intend to carry out joint efforts to strengthen the international regime for nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. In this regard we strongly support the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and are committed to its further strengthening. Together, we seek to secure nuclear weapons and materials, while promoting the safe use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. We support the activities of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and stress the importance of the IAEA Safeguards system. We seek universal adherence to IAEA comprehensive safeguards, as provided for in Article III of the NPT, and to the Additional Protocol and urge the ratification and implementation of these agreements. We will deepen cooperation to combat nuclear terrorism. We will seek to further promote the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, which now unites 75 countries. We also support international negotiations for a verifiable treaty to end the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. As a key measure of nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament, we underscored the importance of the entering into force the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. In this respect, President Obama confirmed his commitment to work for American ratification of this Treaty. We applaud the achievements made through the Nuclear Security Initiative launched in Bratislava in 2005, including to minimize the civilian use of Highly Enriched Uranium, and we seek to continue bilateral collaboration to improve and sustain nuclear security. We agreed to examine possible new initiatives to promote international cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy while strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime. We welcome the work of the IAEA on multilateral approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle and encourage efforts to develop mutually beneficial approaches with states considering nuclear energy or considering expansion of existing nuclear energy programs in conformity with their rights and obligations under the NPT. To facilitate cooperation in the safe use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, both sides will work to bring into force the bilateral Agreement for Cooperation in the Field of Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. To strengthen non-proliferation efforts, we also declare our intent to give new impetus to implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1540 on preventing non-state actors from obtaining WMD-related materials and technologies.

We agreed to work on a bilateral basis and at international forums to resolve regional conflicts.

We agreed that al-Qaida and other terrorist and insurgent groups operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan pose a common threat to many nations, including the United States and Russia. We agreed to work toward and support a coordinated international response with the UN playing a key role. We also agreed that a similar coordinated and international approach should be applied to counter the flow of narcotics from Afghanistan, as well as illegal supplies of precursors to this country. Both sides agreed to work out new ways of cooperation to facilitate international efforts of stabilization, reconstruction and development in Afghanistan, including in the regional context.

We support the continuation of the Six-Party Talks at an early date and agreed to continue to pursue the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in accordance with purposes and principles of the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement and subsequent consensus documents. We also expressed concern that a North Korean ballistic missile launch would be damaging to peace and stability in the region and agreed to urge the DPRK to exercise restraint and observe relevant UN Security Council resolutions.

While we recognize that under the NPT Iran has the right to a civilian nuclear program, Iran needs to restore confidence in its exclusively peaceful nature. We underline that Iran, as any other Non-Nuclear Weapons State – Party to the NPT, has assumed the obligation under Article II of that Treaty in relation to its non-nuclear weapon status. We call on Iran to fully implement the relevant U.N. Security Council and the IAEA Board of Governors resolutions including provision of required cooperation with the IAEA. We reiterated their commitment to pursue a comprehensive diplomatic solution, including direct diplomacy and through P5+1 negotiations, and urged Iran to seize this opportunity to address the international community’s concerns.

We also started a dialogue on security and stability in Europe. Although we disagree about the causes and sequence of the military actions of last August, we agreed that we must continue efforts toward a peaceful and lasting solution to the unstable situation today. Bearing in mind that significant differences remain between us, we nonetheless stress the importance of last year’s six-point accord of August 12, the September 8 agreement, and other relevant agreements, and pursuing effective cooperation in the Geneva discussions to bring stability to the region.

We agreed that the resumption of activities of the NATO-Russia Council is a positive step. We welcomed the participation of an American delegation at the special Conference on Afghanistan convened under the auspices of Shanghai Cooperation Organization last month.

We discussed our interest in exploring a comprehensive dialogue on strengthening Euro-Atlantic and European security, including existing commitments and President Medvedev’s June 2008 proposals on these issues. The OSCE is one of the key multilateral venues for this dialogue, as is the NATO-Russia Council.

We also agreed that our future meetings must include discussions of transnational threats such as terrorism, organized crime, corruption and narcotics, with the aim of enhancing our cooperation in countering these threats and strengthening international efforts in these fields, including through joint actions and initiatives.

We will strive to give rise to a new dynamic in our economic links including the launch of an intergovernmental commission on trade and economic cooperation and the intensification of our business dialogue. Especially during these difficult economic times, our business leaders must pursue all opportunities for generating economic activity. We both pledged to instruct our governments to make efforts to finalize as soon as possible Russia’s accession into the World Trade Organization and continue working towards the creation of favorable conditions for the development of Russia-U.S. economic ties.

We also pledge to promote cooperation in implementing Global Energy Security Principles, adopted at the G-8 summit in Saint Petersburg in 2006, including improving energy efficiency and the development of clean energy technologies.

Today we have outlined a comprehensive and ambitious work plan for our two governments. We both affirmed a mutual desire to organize contacts between our two governments in a more structured and regular way. Greater institutionalized interactions between our ministries and departments make success more likely in meeting the ambitious goals that we have established today.

At the same time, we also discussed the desire for greater cooperation not only between our governments, but also between our societies ?? more scientific cooperation, more students studying in each other’s country, more cultural exchanges, and more cooperation between our nongovernmental organizations. In our relations with each other, we also seek to be guided by the rule of law, respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights, and tolerance for different views.

We, the leaders of Russia and the United States, are ready to move beyond Cold War mentalities and chart a fresh start in relations between our two countries. In just a few months we have worked hard to establish a new tone in our relations. Now it is time to get down to business and translate our warm words into actual achievements of benefit to Russia, the United States, and all those around the world interested in peace and prosperity.

Joint Statement by Dmitriy A. Medvedev, President of the Russian Federation, and Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, Regarding Negotiations on Further Reductions in Strategic Offensive Arms

The President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, and the President of the Russian Federation, Dmitriy A. Medvedev, noted that the Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START Treaty), which expires in December 2009, has completely fulfilled its intended purpose and that the maximum levels for strategic offensive arms recorded in the Treaty were reached long ago. They have therefore decided to move further along the path of reducing and limiting strategic offensive arms in accordance with U.S. and Russian obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

The Presidents decided to begin bilateral intergovernmental negotiations to work out a new, comprehensive, legally binding agreement on reducing and limiting strategic offensive arms to replace the START Treaty. The United States and the Russian Federation intend to conclude this agreement before the Treaty expires in December. In this connection, they instructed their delegations at the negotiations to proceed on basis of the following:

- The subject of the new agreement will be the reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms;

- In the future agreement the Parties will seek to record levels of reductions in strategic offensive arms that will be lower than those in the 2002 Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions, which is currently in effect;

- The new agreement will mutually enhance the security of the Parties and predictability and stability in strategic offensive forces, and will include effective verification measures drawn from the experience of the Parties in implementing the START Treaty.

They directed their negotiators to report on progress achieved in working out the new agreement by July 2009.

Mark the date.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Prime Minister Netanyahu

Photobucket

A tale of headlines and backdrops.

The Atlantic: Netanyahu to Obama: Stop Iran—Or I Will. Even the Weekly Standard‘s Michael Goldfarb judges that Mr. Netanyahu “hypes the threat” in the interview while concluding: If Netanyahu thinks a nuclear-armed Iran is really that bad, then he must do everything in his power to prevent the country from acquiring a nuclear weapon. From Jeffrey Goldberg (more at Memeorandum):

In an interview conducted shortly before he was sworn in today as prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu laid down a challenge for Barack Obama. The American president, he said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—and quickly—or an imperiled Israel may be forced to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities itself.

“The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told me. He said the Iranian nuclear challenge represents a “hinge of history” and added that “Western civilization” will have failed if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

In unusually blunt language, Netanyahu said of the Iranian leadership, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.”

On a day where Mr. Holbrooke is at the Hague having the Administration’s first conversation with a deputy minister from Iran.

Every moment is an opportunity, on all sides.

Then there’s New York Times: Netanyahu Offers Conciliation, but Not Concessions.

Any wonder why Sean Hannity hyped the Goldberg version on his show today? Hannity making predictions along the way that Israel would indeed end up attacking Iran, while castigating President Obama because he has stopped using language like the “war on terror.” Sean evidently never taking to heart the “sticks and stones” nursery rhyme message.

If the drums get loud enough Bibi won’t have a choice or miss the chance, likely making Ahmadinejad more popular to nationalistic, pro western Iran.

Read M.J. Rosenberg’s perspective, someone who thought Netanyahu might have mellowed, got a shocker today. M.J. is emphatic about the action Obama needs to take:

President Obama needs to get on the phone and let Netanyahu know that Israel can take no action vis a vis Iran without full consultation with Washington. Obama is pursuing diplomacy which means, whether it lkes it or not, that Israel is too. And that, quite simply, means that Israel cannot act unilaterally as if it is a free agent. It isn’t. Like the Britain, Germany, Canada, or France, it cannot take unilateral actions that would endanger Americans.

Americans for Peace Now let fly:

“Netanyahu refuses to endorse the two-state solution,” she continued. “His foreign minister [Yisrael Beiteinu Chairman Avigdor Lieberman] is a hate-monger; several of his coalition partners support the most extremist West Bank settlers and their messianic vision; Netanyahu reportedly gave his promise to coalition partners to build new settlements in crucially sensitive areas such as the Jerusalem – Ma’aleh Adumim corridor.”

As much as things change, in the Middle East they stay the same. Only this time Netanyahu, even as he offers a rhetorical fig leaf of peace to the Arabs, has the goal of making sure Iran’s everyone’s enemy, using oil as the cudgel.

This is precisely what I expected, though the oil angle is a priceless touch.

Clinton to the courtesy phone, please.

Let Obama wait until Netanyahu has cooled his heels a while. Nothing to gain. While Livni’s going to be left to stew until Bibi really screws this up, especially since Ehud Barak has something to prove.

P.M. Netanyahu doesn’t care about President Obama’s aims in the region, because he’s first got to pass a test. Bibi’s too busy channeling Dick Cheney. Wonder if Seymour Hersh still sees a big chance for Obama to get “peace”?

Powerline’s conclusion today is “Bibi’s back.” You know, like Winston Churchill. God help us, and Israel. After Winston got through so was England. But they see a savior for a world that is “sleepwalking toward Iran.”

Equilibrium isn’t anywhere on the menu.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama’s Iran Problem

People are talking a lot today about Clinton’s Iran problem and the fact she’s
sent a
letter to Iowans explaining
her vote on Kyl-Lieberman. Now Sam
Stein at Huffington Post
brings back a May 2007 interview Barack Obama did
with Haaretz. Frankly, I missed it and I read Haaretz regularly. This is quite
interesting, especially if you remember the exchange shown in the video above,
where Obama said he’d meet with Ahmadinejad and other leaders his first year,
without preconditions, but Clinton said she wouldn’t commit to such a meeting,
though she still intended to reach out through diplomatic efforts in other ways.
Stein on Obama:


This past July, Senator Barack Obama, D-IL, stirred up the campaign trail
by proclaiming that as commander-in-chief he would personally meet with Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions within his first year
in office. It is a position Obama has stuck to adamantly and one that his
campaign has emphasized as a critical foreign policy difference with his Democratic
rival Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY.

But in a little-noticed interview in May 2007 with the Israeli paper, Ha’aretz,
Obama advocated what appears to be a more conditional, nuanced approach to
Iran. In an exchange with reporter Shmuel Rosner, Obama said it would be inappropriate
to pursue “full-scale” diplomatic negotiations with Tehran without
seeing positive steps beforehand. … ..

Early
Obama Comments Indicate Shift On Iran

The blog post to which Stein refers above is by Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz.com’s chief
U.S. correspondent, quoting Obama, revealing a much different view on Iran than
we’ve been hearing lately. No preconditions in the CNN YouTube debate is very clear, but that’s not what
Obama was saying in May.


He is still in favor of talking to the Iranians, no pre-conditions attached,
but made some interesting statements clarifying his position in our conversation.

I asked whether the U.S. should talk with Tehran even as the centrifuges
are still spinning and producing more enriched uranium. Obama’s answer is
both yes and no: “Its important to have low-level talks” with Iran
even without them freezing the enrichment, he said.

However, high-level talks “will not be appropriate without some
sense of progress” on the enrichment issue. Obama said that the talks
with Iran initiated by the Bush administration over Iraq are a “step
in the right direction.” It will “establish a pattern of dialogue”
with Iran, Obama hopes. … ..

Obama
to Haaretz: More pressure on Iran urgently needed

What’s interesting, is that when I went back to his Senate race against Alan
Keyes, I found something even more alarming suggesting there is no
clear rationale behind Obama’s Iran philosophy or the policies that unfold from it.


U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United
States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and
Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.

… .. “The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these
pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they
do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take
military action?” Obama asked. … ..

… .. “In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all the problems
in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching
some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,”
he said.

“On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession
of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not
having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. …
And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how
this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.”
… ..

Obama
would consider missile strikes on Iran

I’ve contended all along that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that
Barack Obama would have voted against the Iraq war resolution had he been in
the Senate at the time. His statements slamming Clinton on the Kyl-Lieberman vote, while not being around himself, is one thing, especially when he voted for similar status for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard himself. But the bold portions above was the state of play when he
was running against Alan Keyes and beating him very badly way back in 2004. Though Obama clearly
states missile strikes are not an “optimal position” to take, in the
same breath he states that we must be prepared to strike. It’s good to remember
that in 2004 we knew even less than we do today about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, with our intelligence woefully lacking back them,
but that didn’t stop Mr. Obama from crafting his own version of “all options are
on the table,” with a little Cuban missile blink language added for emphasis.

However, when you take Obama’s statements on Iran in their entirety, even looking back to 2004, his statements are nothing short of alarming and indistinguishable from anyone else, Republican or Democrat. Obama’s conflicting statements on Iran don’t show a maturing attitude as much as political posturing as the moment dictates on one of the most vital issues we face today, with a carefully crafted
I’ll kick their butts message woven in. Clinton takes a hawkish position, with muscular diplomacy leading the one, but at least she’s consistent. I’m not sure what he’s actually
saying at this point, but it’s certainly no different than the usual political status quo we get from everyone else. It’s long past time his supporters started noticing.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Israel’s Preemptive Syrian Strike Redux

Last year’s Lebanese debacle for Olmert meant Israel felt it had to re-establish the country’s military prowess. Cue up the strike against Syria. The New York Times
has more today, including a source who admits to that fact.


Israel’s air attack on Syria last month was directed against a site
that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed
nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create
its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel, according to American and foreign officials
with access to the intelligence reports. … ..

… .. Behind closed doors, however, Vice President Dick Cheney and other
hawkish members of the administration have made the case that the same intelligence
that prompted Israel to attack should lead the United States to reconsider
delicate negotiations with North Korea over ending its nuclear program, as
well as America’s diplomatic strategy toward Syria, which has been invited
to join Middle East peace talks in Annapolis, Md., next month.

Mr. Cheney in particular, officials say, has also cited the indications that
North Korea aided Syria to question the Bush administration’s agreement
to supply the North with large amounts of fuel oil. During Mr. Bush’s
first term, Mr. Cheney was among the advocates of a strategy to squeeze the
North Korean government in hopes that it would collapse, and the administration
cut off oil shipments set up under an agreement between North Korea and the
Clinton administration, saying the North had cheated on that accord.

Analysts
Find Israel Struck a Nuclear Project Inside Syria

It’s all about Dick Cheney, battling the saner contingent that now also includes
SecDef Gates, who joins Condi. All this bluster because Olmert doesn’t know
what he’s doing. That sure rings a bell.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Our Nukes are Better than Yours

Israeli fighter jet
IDF-Reuters


It’s the wingnut philosophy on nuclear proliferation. It’s why we have a modern
arms race right now.


That’s also why the US had better start harking back to the Bush Doctrine
on terror-supporting states. Israel has the right idea, and if we don’t stop
nuclear arms from getting to terrorists, it won’t just be Tel Aviv that goes
up in a mushroom cloud.

The
Axis Threw A Spoke

But sometimes even wingnuts say something ironic even if they don’t realize what they’ve said.


As everyone else is saying; assuming this is true, it’s pretty damned amazing. The thing that gets me is Israel’s seeming ability to shut down the Syrian air defenses.

Foreshadowing of where this is all heading is revealed in this beauty: The other thing that gets me is that even Ehud Olmert gets it. Chinless ophthalmologists and short, apocalyptic Islamist religious fanatics should not be allowed to play with nukes. Again, assuming this is true, it’s real nice to see that Israel still has the biggest balls on the block.

Ah yes, the cajones quotient. It’s been such a reliable predictor of successful national security hasn’t it?

Let’s not play name the nuke countries, shall we? Everyone knows Israel has
nukes. Pakistan has them. India has them. We have them, including newer, smaller, better version, so they tell us. So with the neocons reminding everyone that preemptive war is the official foreign
policy of the Administration, wingnutters flog the “mushroom cloud”
theory of national security hoping to create the same kind of furor that foreshadowed
the disaster in Mesopotamia, all this leading into another presidential election. Hear the footsteps.

Engage your suspension of disbelief now. Murdoch minions weigh in:


Once the mission was under way, Israel imposed draconian military censorship
and no news of the operation emerged until Syria complained that Israeli aircraft
had violated its airspace. Syria claimed its air defences had engaged the
planes, forcing them to drop fuel tanks to lighten their loads as they fled.

But intelligence sources suggested it was a highly successful Israeli raid
on nuclear material supplied by North Korea.

Washington was rife with speculation last week about the precise nature of
the operation. One source said the air strikes were a diversion for a daring
Israeli commando raid, in which nuclear materials were intercepted en route
to Iran and hauled to Israel. Others claimed they were destroyed in the attack.
… ..

Israelis
‘blew apart Syrian nuclear cache’

Claims of North Korea’s involvement have been unsubstantiated and not even
Bolton ever said there was any evidence supporting this fantastical claim. But
it’s an axis of evil through line to connect the Bush dots in support of friends. So if you want to honestly confront our policies towards Iran you must be willing to take on the Bush administration’s one-sided and clearly biased viewpoint of our Middle Eastern challenges.


For Israel, the possibility of a nuclear-armed adversary might have been
enough to warrant the operation. Officially in a state of war with Syria—and
Iran—Israel has vowed to let neither country obtain nukes (though Israel
itself is believed to have built at least 200 nuclear bombs in its secret
Dimona plant). Earlier this year, according to a well-placed Israeli
source, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert asked President Bush for assurances that
if economic and political sanctions failed to get Iran to shut down its nuclear
facilities, Bush would order the U.S. military to destroy them before he leaves
office.
Bush has yet to provide the assurances, according to the
source, who refused to be quoted because he is not authorized to speak for
the government. The source says the Israeli government believes the Iranians
will reach the point of no return in their nuclear-enrichment program sometime
next year.

U.S. intelligence agencies, by contrast, believe Iran is still two to eight
years away from mastering the technology to build a bomb. Some officials warn
that attacking Iran would mire U.S. forces in another messy war and might
prove ineffective, since the Iranian facilities are believed to be scattered
across the country and buried deep underground. Still, from Israel’s perspective,
there might never be a more supportive White House. “It makes sense that
if Israel has to do it alone, it would want to do it on Bush’s watch and not
wait to see what the political attitude of the next administration will be,”
says Alpher. That Arab states, and the world, will look away next time might
be too much to assume.

A Mission of
Mystery

Israel sends Iran a signal with a stealth raid into Syria.

The highlighted portion above is the rub. Olmert should have been thrown out
of the Oval Office. We are an ally of Israel and clearly have a special relationship to that country, but Iran isn’t a clear and present
danger
to our country, which is an important distinction that’s not being considered or represented in Bush’s policies. Of course actions inside Iraq by Iran against U.S. forces, when
proven conclusively, must be addressed, no doubt. But someone needs
to remind Bush of the job of the president. Keep this country safe.
Hitting Iran does just the opposite, no matter what some neocon nut job may
think (however incorrectly) it will do for Israel.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Nuclear Fear Factor

Expert guest post by Charles Pena
Straus Military
Project
Adviser
originally published on Aug. 16, 2007 by United Press International

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke on the 18th anniversary of the death of Ayatollah Khomeini, June 2007, under his portrait at his mausoleum near Tehran. – AP photo

Even as the International Atomic Energy Agency is meeting with Iranian officials
to discuss increasing the openness of Iran’s nuclear program, Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remains defiant about Tehran’s right to pursue such
a program — including uranium enrichment, which would give Iran de facto nuclear
weapon capability.

This raises the specter of one of the greatest fears in the post-Sept. 11 world:
nuclear terrorism.

Indeed, this was the prospect brandished by President Bush to help gain public
support for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein. “If the Iraqi
regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium
a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less
than a year,”
he said. “And Saddam Hussein would be in
a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.”

But how likely is it that a regime with ties to terrorist groups would give
them a nuclear weapon?

The conventional wisdom is that if a regime such as Iran acquired a nuclear
weapon it could give that weapon to a terrorist group it supports (such as Hezbollah)
and that the group would use the weapon against a common foe of the group and
the regime (presumably the United States.)

This is the logic of the enemy of my friend is my enemy, which is emotionally
appealing and based on the assumption that regimes and terrorist groups hate
us for who we are.

But it is deeply flawed.

First and foremost, there is no history of hostile regimes supplying terrorist
groups with chemical or biological weapons they have access to, let alone a
nuclear weapon.

Saddam was known to support anti-Israeli Palestinian terrorist groups (including
Hamas) for years, but he never gave chemical or biological weapons to those
groups to use against Israel, a country he hated as much as he hated the United
States. The same is true for the mullahs in Tehran.

It is also important to understand that terrorist groups aided by hostile regimes
are not completely controlled by those regimes. There is an assumption that
a terrorist group would use a nuclear weapon to attack the United States —
and that this is the only plausible scenario.

But a nuclear weapon would also give the terrorist group the ability to topple
the regime that supplied it, and the regime would have no way to prevent that
from happening once the weapon was out of its control.

Moreover, it would be logistically easier for the terrorists to attack the
regime that supplied it — rather than trying to clandestinely transfer the
weapon to a foreign target like the United States.

Two other factors would affect a regime’s decision to transfer a nuclear weapon
to terrorists. First, the cost to develop such weapons is significant — several
billions of dollars. One has to question whether any regime would make that
kind of investment simply to give a weapon away.

Second, once a weapon is in the hands of terrorists, they could use it against
any target of their choosing. If that target is not the one approved by the
regime, nuclear forensics could be used to trace the weapon back to its source
(even without nuclear forensics, the list of suspects will be relatively short).

As a result, the regime would have to worry that a terrorist group would commit
an act that would endanger its own survival — especially if U.S. policy is
to reserve the right to retaliate against the suspect regime using its vastly
superior nuclear arsenal.

Indeed, if deterring U.S.-imposed regime change is one of the primary incentives
for certain countries to pursue nuclear weapons, giving them away to terrorists
would be counter-productive and more likely to invite the very action the regime
seeks to avert.

Overall, a regime would have to have suicidal tendencies to engage in such
risky behavior — yet while individual fanatics may sometimes be willing to
commit suicide for a cause, prominent political leaders rarely display that
characteristic.

So while the logic of the enemy of my friend is my enemy has popular appeal,
the reality is that there are clear and significant disincentives for any regime
to simply give away a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group.

Thus, although we must be concerned about the prospect of nuclear terrorism,
we should also not be mesmerized by rhetoric of smoking guns in the form of
mushroom clouds and live in dire fear of it.

 

Charles Peña is an adviser to the Straus
Military Reform Project
at the Center
for Defense Information
, a senior fellow with George Washington University’s
Homeland Security Policy Institute and author of Potomac Books’ “Winning
the Un-War: A New Strategy for the War on Terrorism.”

Read full story · Comments are closed