Saying No to Iran

TimesSelect" href="http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.html?URI=http://select.nytimes.com/2006/01/13/opinion/13friedman.html&OQ=thQ26emcQ3Dth&OP=11367b26Q2F)u@b)OgVmmO)PQ7DQ7D0)Q7Do)o3)mwpYpmY)o3aVp@!chYxDOcQ60">The New York Times

The only countries with the clout to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb - by diplomatic means - are China, Russia and India.

Tom Friedman has a good point. The only countries with significant economic ties that Iran can't afford to lose are in Asia. If Iran is isolated in Asia, they would be truly isolated. India can be pursuaded, Russia will not block U.S. efforts to take Tehran's nuclear case to the U.N. Security Council. But what will China do? China could very well tip their hand for the immediate future on their position on Iran.

Looks Like Iran Will Face the Security Council

I must say, Bush's support for Rice has gotten several foreign policy initiatives back on track. There is truly a coalition of US and EU countries ready to stand up to Iran's intent to go nuclear. No one seems to believe their insistance that they have no intention to build weapons. Thats because it's not believable. However, it seems to me the Bush Administration has created the conditions for several countries to believe the only way they can stand up to US military intimidation is to go nuclear. So then who is responsible for proliferation? Who is responsible if there is a war? I say Bush shares responsibility.
WaPo

"The Iranian government will have to stop all its voluntary cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog" if the case is referred to the United Nations Security Council, Mottaki said. Mottaki insisted that Iran's "right to access nuclear technology is not associated with the will of any particular country." Last year, Iran's parliament passed a law mandating that cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, be terminated if it was sent to the Security Council.


Iran's latest threats came one day after the foreign ministers of Britain, Germany and France called for Tehran to be referred to the Security Council for violating its nuclear treaty obligations, saying that their long negotiations reached a dead end this week when the Iranians resumed enriching uranium.

The Irony of Iran's President

I'll nominate this Quote of the Month!
Newsweek

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may someday qualify for a similar kind of historical ignominy among his own countrymen. Iran's president is probably the last one to realize it, but the joke is on him. Though he is rabidly anti-American, Ahmadinejad has done more to help the Great Satan than anyone since the fellow Iranian he most despises—that great toady of Washington, the Shah.


In fact, Ahmadinejad, who has piled idiocy upon idiocy in a series of offensive remarks that have alarmed the world, has achieved a truly amazing feat. He has made George W. Bush look like a statesman. Since Ahmadinejad has embraced his role as this era’s Muammar Kaddafi, the Bush administration mustered international unity against Iran of the kind that hasn’t been seen since right after September 11.


And now this broad diplomatic front will be put to the test. On Tuesday, the Iranians brazenly removed what nuclear expert David Albright calls the “last major technical hurdle” to a nuclear bomb-breaking the seals on a 164-centrifuge cascade that will allow them to master the process of enriching uranium to bomb-grade purity.


NEWSWEEK has learned that Washington, with likely support from Britain, France and Germany, has called for an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors for as early as next week. The issue will be whether to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council over Tehran’s breach of a previous commitment not to enrich. The Americans and Europeans are likely to get a quick meeting despite some balking by Russia and China, which fear an automatic referral. Still, Moscow and Beijing are more aligned with Washington than they have been in the past-all thanks to Ahmadinejad. On Wednesday, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov called Iran's decision “cause for alarm.”

I simply don't trust Bush and his warmongering. As one of my commenters points out, there are other reasons to attack Iran. Bush cannot be too eager to see Iran government end the US Dollar's monopoly of the oil trade, by setting up it's own energy market based on the euro. This would limit the ability of the US government to borrow foreign reserves and force the dollar down in value.

Our Outstanding Effective All-Volunteer Armed Forces Is At Risk

Congressman John Murtha made an unusual stand for a former marine with a hawkish reputation and a long history of support for our Armed Forces. Then a few months later, an Israeli military expert, Martin van Creveld, called invasion of Iraq "the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them." He is a professor of military history at the Hebrew University, "the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers."
Our all volunteer army is struggling with morale, inferior armor, unprepared by training or with proper equipment or tactics for an insurrection. They are suffering unnecessary casualities, facing high rates if PTSD and despite being wrecked emotionally, they are being sent back to Iraq to suffer more incalculable damage to their psyche.
Slate

In response to the tightening trends, on Sept. 20, 2005, the Defense Department released DoD Instruction 1145.01, which allows 4 percent of each year's recruits to be Category IV applicants—up from the 2 percent limit that had been in place since the mid-1980s. Even so, in October, the Army had such a hard time filling its slots that the floodgates had to be opened; 12 percent of that month's active-duty recruits were Category IV. November was another disastrous month; Army officials won't even say how many Cat IV applicants they took in, except to acknowledge that the percentage was in "double digits."


(These officials insist that they will stay within the 4 percent limit for the entire fiscal year, which runs from October 2005 through September 2006. But given the extremely high percentage of Cat IVs recruited in the fiscal year's first two months, this pledge may be impossible to keep. For the math on this point, click here.)


[...]In a RAND Corp. report commissioned by the office of the secretary of defense and published in 2005, military analyst Jennifer Kavanagh* reviewed a spate of recent statistical studies on the various factors that determine military performance—experience, training, aptitude, and so forth—and concluded that aptitude is key. A force "made up of personnel with high AFQT [armed forces aptitude test] scores," Kavanagh writes, "contributes to a more effective and accurate team performance."

Hat tip to The Next Hurrah.

Twenty North African Youth Raid a Train in France

Washington Times

A gang of more than 20 youths -- thought to be North African immigrants -- terrorized hundreds of train passengers in a rampage of violence, robbery and sexual assault on New Year's Day, French officials said yesterday. The five-hour-long criminal frenzy was "totally unacceptable," French President Jacques Chirac told reporters. "Those guilty will be found and punished, as they deserve."


The gang of between 20 and 30 youths boarded the train, heading from Nice on the French Riviera to Lyon, in eastern France, early on Jan. 1, as it carried 600 passengers home from New Year's Eve partying overnight. Once inside, they went wild, forcing passengers to hand over mobile phones and wallets, and slashing seats and breaking windows. A 20-year-old woman cornered by several of the marauders was sexually molested. "It was a real scene of pillage on the train," said the regional state prosecutor, Dominique Luigi, adding that the passengers were in a state of "panic."


Train staff alerted police, and the train pulled into a station to wait. The three officers who initially turned up later were joined by reinforcements. A waitress in a bar near the station said two young women from the train had come inside in tears. "They told me there had been groping. They talked about sexual assaults. They were really traumatized," she said. MORE

This couldn't happen at a worse time. Already, xenophobia is running rampant in France and all over Europe. Civil liberties have disappeared in a dozen states all over the continent in the interest of "security". EU, the world's examples of restraint since American became hegemonic, is challenged in the way it has seldom responded well in history. Remember the Jewish pogroms in past centuries? They were not just Russian. And then there is the holocaust. Legislation all over Europe has limited immigration, even though it is needed for future economic growth. Anti-immigration movements grow daily.
Civilization needs time to integrate deep learning available in disaster. There has been too little time since the French riots to for the French to learn from their mistakes.
Hat tip to Kira Zalan.

Russia's Move with Ukraine May Win the Election

While it may prove true Putin hurt his relationships with the west, he appears to be on the verge of success in the Ukraine. The west leaning political spectrum has split on the issue of gas prices. Last year's loser and Putin's favorite appears to leading in the polls.
Los Angeles Times

After last week's signing of a five-year natural gas agreement with Russia, President Viktor Yushchenko was basking in self-congratulation. "I would call it a brilliant achievement," he told Ukraine's NTN television.


But former ally Yulia Tymoshenko thought otherwise. "Only a person with a huge New Year's hangover can call this a success," declared Tymoshenko, who was a partner in the 2004 Orange Revolution that brought Yushchenko to power and was his prime minister until last fall. "It's clear that the government has systematically and consciously betrayed the national interests of Ukraine." Just a little more than a year ago, the duo were a "dream team" that stood, hands clenched triumphantly together in the air, in Kiev's Independence Square. For much of the world, they came to symbolize democratic aspirations throughout the former Soviet republics.


But just two months before parliamentary elections that could make or break Yushchenko's efforts to steer Ukraine toward Europe, the showdown with Russia over gas has left the two reformists more divided than ever. In an alarming sign for Ukrainian liberals, Yushchenko's Our Ukraine party got just 13.7% in a poll taken before the gas deal, putting it in third place, trailing Tymoshenko's bloc. Leading the pack is the party of former Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich, the Russian-backed candidate who faced Yushchenko in 2004 and was defeated only after hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians occupied the streets and demanded new elections. His party now commands 26.6% in the polls.


Many here felt Russia's move to quadruple natural gas prices was an attempt to punish Ukraine for its drift to the West. It presented the Yushchenko administration with its most serious crisis yet — the prospect of billions of dollars in higher gas costs. Yushchenko successfully called on a broad range of Ukrainians to rally against the Russian enemy and emerged with a pact that he said guaranteed the nation "true independence" where it counts. "We have guaranteed ourselves a stable gas supply in the next five years, and this is the most important thing, believe me," he said. But Tymoshenko has charged that Russia shrewdly outmaneuvered Ukraine and took home a deal that gave it almost everything it wanted.

Only time will tell if Putin's heavy hand will prove effective reality politics in Ukraine and the west.

Iraqi Withdrawal in 2006?

Deadlines always sound so good to those who want the war over. But they always make me nervous. A man I wouldn't expect one from made one in the OpEd at WaPo. Zbigniew Brzezinski says:

In contrast, a military disengagement by the end of 2006, derived from a more realistic definition of an adequate outcome, could ensure that desisting is not tantamount to losing. In an Iraq dominated by the Shiites and the Kurds -- who together account for close to 75 percent of the population -- the two peoples would share a common interest in Iraq's independence as a state. The Kurds, with their autonomy already amounting in effect to quasi-sovereignty, would otherwise be threatened by the Turks. And the Iraqi Shiites are first of all Arabs; they have no desire to be Iran's satellites. Some Sunnis, once they were aware that the U.S. occupation was drawing to a close and that soon they would be facing an overwhelming Shiite-Kurdish coalition, would be more inclined to accommodate the new political realities, especially when deprived of the rallying cry of resistance to a foreign occupier.


In addition, it is likely that both Kuwait and the Kurdish regions of Iraq would be amenable to some residual U.S. military presence as a guarantee against a sudden upheaval. Once the United States terminated its military occupation, some form of participation by Muslim states in peacekeeping in Iraq would be easier to contrive, and their involvement could also help to cool anti-American passions in the region.


[...]The requisite first step to that end is for the president to break out of his political cocoon. His policy making and his speeches are the products of the true believers around him who are largely responsible for the mess in Iraq. They have a special stake in their definition of victory, and they reinforce his convictions instead of refining his judgments. The president badly needs to widen his circle of advisers. Why not consult some esteemed Republicans and Democrats not seeking public office -- say, Warren Rudman or Colin Powell or Lee Hamilton or George Mitchell -- regarding the definition of an attainable yet tolerable outcome in Iraq?


Finally, Democratic leaders should stop equivocating while carping. Those who want to lead in 2008 are particularly unwilling to state clearly that ending the war soon is both desirable and feasible. They fear being labeled as unpatriotic. Yet defining a practical alternative would provide a politically effective rebuttal to those who mindlessly seek an unattainable "victory." America needs a real choice regarding its tragic misadventure in Iraq.

It makes me nervous when anyone starts talking about a specific time table in Iraq. The end of 2006 seems very close for the kind of outcome Brzezinski expects. The withdrawal or garrisoning of American troops will immediately precipitate the battle for Kirkuk. Right now, the Kurds have the upper hand. The Turkmen have lots of people in town and there are quite a few Sunnis around as well. Turkey will not tolerate a Turkman massacre. They are already said to have a military unit in the area. Nothing short of a compromise by the Kurds would give enough to allow Sunnis to hold some oil fields. I don't see the Kurds letting go without a fight.
Djerejian has a compelling argument against Brzezinski's view.
THE BELGRAVIA DISPATCH

Iraq has been horrifically difficult (spare me Battle of La Somme number-crunching troll-ies. I'm speaking in terms of contemporary standards, for a war of choice, and let's us not forget the very significant Iraqi casualties either). Approximately 30 American servicemen have died there over the past two or three days. A Blackhawk went down today, five Marines died in Fallujah, and yesterday I.E.D.s and gunfire killed several soldiers in various locations throughout Iraq. We are angry at those who declared the war would be a "cakewalk", or that the war was in its "last throes," just as we are angry at the imbeciles in print media and the blogosphere who have declared victory from the safety of their Pj's and keyboards. We are angry at these empty spinmeisters, many of them clueless cretins whose knowledge of the Middle East wouldn't fill a small thimble. We are angry too at crass Congresswoman intimating people like Jack Murtha are cowards, when he loves the Army, even if his policy recommendations are unsound, more deeply than perhaps any other serving member of the House. We are angry at the rank ignorance and near dereliction of duty of our Secretary of Defense, and the incredible lack of accountability his continuing presence in that job showcases. And, yes, the President has been a source of not inconsiderable frustration as well, his tepid and half-hearted emergence from a bubble of too uniform advice, of late, notwithstanding. But Bush does know, and he is hearing it from people like Zalmay Khalilzad, that a precipitous withdrawal could well portend disaster. And, as much as Democrats refuse to acknowledge it, I am near certain a Kerry Administration (given Kerry's campaign utterances and world-view) would have organized a too hasty retreat from Iraq with little consideration to what impact such a move would have had on the country's chances for emerging as a unitary and viable, if imperfect, democracy.


So you may protest this is but flawed policy wrapped in an illusion, that Iraq is going to hell in a hand basket no matter whether we stay or go. But I hear from foreign policy pros that the cause is not lost, that with patience, and with a multi-faceted strategy that has become increasingly sophisticated since the State Department took over more of the Iraq portfolio after Rumsfeld's sad bungling of Years 1 and 2, matters are improving and the project is salvageable. This may sound like a thin reed, all told, but it's perhaps better than Zbig B's too breezy "acceptance of the complex post-Hussein Iraqi realities." If "complex" means that the country could descend into large scale ethnic cleansing, or that Kurdish and Shi'a detention centers will sprout up with impunity, or that a Shi'a super-state with massive Iranian influence would sprout up in the South--well, let's at least be clear about what we could be talking about.

Large scale ethnic cleansing would seem likely. American presence has kept it more hidden so far, but recent Badr statements and actions by their Ministry of Interior suggests that will not last long.
I don't like the idea of staying "as long as it takes." Right now, the American presence is restraining the political influence of the Sunnis, preventing them from asserting their coercive persuasion. Yes, that means more death and destruction. The Americans are likely the only reason Zarqawi has a free hand. I suspect as Americans disappear from Sunni areas and cities, Zarqawi will be slapped down hard by the Sunnis. The Iranians are welcome support to the Shi'a of Iraq, but even Sistani has rebuffed any more meaningful presence. Iranians hardly want a government of national unity for which Sistani has called.
All the signs are there that Brzezinski is right. But there is no way of knowing that it can happen by the end of 2006. I like a view between Brzezinski and Djerejian, very much like Juan Cole's view.

UFW Betrays Its Roots

Living in plastic and card board shacks, over looking the affluent valleys of California, undocumented teenage farmworkers keep warm on a chilly Sunday night, their only day off.
This story repeats itself thousands of times all over the US where undocumented farmworkers eek out a living they can't find near their homes in Mexico. Caesar Chavez built the United Farm Workers union through the 1970's to better the lives of migrant workers. In the 1980's it's hay day was over, but it's budget continued to grow. Reviewing it's budget in 2004, it reflects salaries and expenses of the staff, but few services for farm workers. The number of farmworker contracts has dropped to little more than a handful.
Looking at it's business activities, it looks as if it has become a foundation to benefit primarily it's own employees. This isn't a new situation for unions, but it is the most recent example. The Teamsters Union, in it's history has allegedly served as a front organization for organized crime. Rank and file membership seldom are particularly enthusiastic for their union, because they know too, that it exists primarily to benefit itself, and the membership secondarily.
Los Angeles Times

Chavez's heirs run a web of tax-exempt organizations that exploit his legacy and invoke the harsh lives of farmworkers to raise millions of dollars in public and private money. The money does little to improve the lives of California farmworkers, who still struggle with the most basic health and housing needs and try to get by on seasonal, minimum-wage jobs. Most of the funds go to burnish the Chavez image and expand the family business, a multimillion-dollar enterprise with an annual payroll of $12 million that includes a dozen Chavez relatives.


The UFW is the linchpin of the Farm Worker Movement, a network of a dozen tax-exempt organizations that do business with one another, enrich friends and family, and focus on projects far from the fields: They build affordable housing in San Francisco and Albuquerque, own a top-ranked radio station in Phoenix, run a political campaign in support of an Indian casino and lobby for gay marriage.


The current UFW leaders have jettisoned other Chavez principles:


The UFW undercut another union to sign up construction workers, poaching on the turf of building trade unions that once were allies. The UFW forfeited the right to boycott supermarkets and stores, a tactic Chavez pioneered, in order to sign up members in unrelated professions. And Chavez's heirs broke with labor solidarity and hired nonunion workers to build the $3.2-million National Chavez Center around their founder's grave in the Tehachapi Mountains, a site they now market as a tourist attraction and rent out for weddings.


A few hundred miles away, in the canyons of Carlsbad north of San Diego, hundreds of farmworkers burrow into the hills each year, covering their shacks with leaves and branches to stay out of view of multimilliondollar homes. They live without drinking water, toilets, refrigeration. Fireworks and music from nearby Legoland pierce the nighttime skies. In a larger camp a dozen miles to the south in Del Mar, farmworkers wash their clothes in a stream, bathe in the soapy water, then catch crayfish that they boil for dinner.

All large organizations, as they grow, shift their missions. Once a business has grown beyond it's base to allow diversification, it leaves behind it's initial mission of producing a product at a profit, or in the case of non-profits, to serve more people. It moves into the business of feathering it's nest. In the case of for profits, owners profit takes precidence. In a publicly traded company, shareholders are the primary benefactors. In a non-profit, employees get the perks. The organizations primary mission shifts from building a success to maintaining itself. For government, it's much the same as for a non-profit. The larger the organization, the more excess goes to feather the nests of it's benefactors.
My values say all organizations owe a debt to the society that allowed it's success. The organization was successful in the first place because it's initial mission served the public and consumers responded by making the organization a success. Yet there is no incentive for organizations to serve society, even as it benefits from it's wages.
We're in the middle of a tax revolution that has made more billionaires than ever in America. I am not one to take it away from them now, we need to rebuild the productive infrastructure of America. We need to make more jobs, rebuild a manufacturing core that can compete worldwide. Lets encourage reinvestment by taxing only the dollars that don't grow the economy, that benefit only those who have enriched themselves on successfully gathering the wages of others. For example, the latest tax cut was one of the few that made sense. Capital gains is the primary means that profit is taken from a mature investment. Lets not tax those dollars that go back into rebuilding America.
As for unions, let this story be a wake up call for the union movement. We are going to need grassroots unions in the future in this world of globalization. But lets make sure, they stick to their primary mission by keeping them small and focused on membership, their only means of survival. The big unions need to de-centralize, and spend most of their dollars on the rank and file. Big unions need to devolve into associations of small unions.
Hat tip to The Agonist.

IRS Tracking Political Affiliation

In another despicable invasion of privacy, the IRS is tracking party affiliation of taxpayers. Big Brother has expanded his reach into every aspect of your life.
TalkLeft

I.R.S. tracked the political party affiliations of taxpayers in 20 states.


[...]In a letter to Kelly, Deputy IRS Commissioner John Dalrymple said the party identification information was automatically collected through a “database platform” supplied by an outside contractor that targeted voter registration rolls among other things as it searched for people who aren’t paying their taxes. “This information is appropriately used to locate information on taxpayers whose accounts are delinquent,” he said.


If you have received a tax collection call from a collection agency and you live in one of these states, you may be a person aggrieved. According to Murray’s office, the 20 states in which the IRS collected party affiliation information were Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin.

Women are the "Niggers" in Iran

While I don't advocate the US becoming the world's police force, Iran is one of the most despicable court systems in the world. Women are treated as cattle. It appears a woman in court is guilt until proven innocent. A woman who is raped can be stoned to death, but if she defends herself with lethal force, she can be hung.
Iran Focus-News

An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece.


The state-run daily Etemaad reported on Saturday that 18-year-old Nazanin confessed to stabbing one of three men who had attacked the pair along with their boyfriends while they were spending some time in a park west of the Iranian capital in March 2005.


Nazanin, who was 17 years old at the time of the incident, said that after the three men started to throw stones at them, the two girls’ boyfriends quickly escaped on their motorbikes leaving the pair helpless. She described how the three men pushed her and her 16-year-old niece Somayeh onto the ground and tried to rape them, and said that she took out a knife from her pocket and stabbed one of the men in the hand. As the girls tried to escape, the men once again attacked them, and at this point, Nazanin said, she stabbed one of the men in the chest. The teenage girl, however, broke down in tears in court as she explained that she had no intention of killing the man but was merely defending herself and her younger niece from rape, the report said. The court, however, issued on Tuesday a sentence for Nazanin to be hanged to death.

Mossad Warns of Iranian Nukes

TCM.net

Meir Dagan, head of the Israel Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations (Mossad), predicted today that Iran was liable to obtain full nuclear capability in 2006, and operational nuclear capability within a year or two.


Dagan warned against Iran's nuclear capability in an annual review in the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. He also warned that Al Qaeda terrorist units were coming close to the borders of Israel and the territories. He disclosed that these units included terrorists who had fought in Iraq, and were now attempting to undermine the stability of the regimes in Egypt and Jordan. The head of IDF military intelligence also stressed this threat in his recent briefing for the committee.

Israel is sounding the alarm about Iran, warning that it will have nuclear weapons in 2006. This is much sooner than anyone else is reporting. Israel has the most to gain from military action against Iran. Sounds to me that they are beating the war drums in hopes someone (read that Bush) will come to their rescue.
Using Bush's magic word, he also notes that "Al Qaeda" is setting up in Eqypt, Lebanon, and Syria. They describe these people as the next generation of terrorists recruited for Bush's war who are now turning their attentions towards Israel, weakening it's borders and attempting to spark conflict between Israel and it's neighbors.

China signals reserves switch away from dollar

FT.com / Home UK - China signals reserves switch away from dollar
China indicated on Thursday it could begin to diversify its rapidly growing foreign exchange reserves away from the US dollar and government bonds – a potential shift with significant implications for global financial and commodity markets.
ADVERTISEMENT

Economists estimate that more that 70 per cent of the reserves are invested in US dollar assets, which has helped to sustain the recent large US deficits. If China were to stop acquiring such a large proportion of dollars with its reserves – currently accumulating at about $15bn (€12.4bn) a month – it could put heavy downward pressure on the greenback.

China May Ben Moving Away From Dollar

FT.com / Home UK - China signals reserves switch away from dollar
“It is a subtle but clear signal that they are interested in moving away from the US dollar into other currencies, and are interested in setting up some kind of strategic commodity fund, maybe just for oil, but maybe for other commodities,” he said.
The Group of Seven leading industrialised economies has repeatedly called for an adjustment in global trade imbalances, including a rise in the renminbi. The US has expressed frustration that China has not allowed its currency to rise significantly after last July’s 2 per cent revaluation. That saw China move from a dollar peg to managing its currency against a basket of currencies, potentially allowing the renminbi to rise against the dollar.

Will the NSA Whistleblower Get to Testify?

The Moonie Republican newspaper has a very interesting article published today. It seems there was a former NSA employee reading the NY Times about the illegal eavesdropping. He immediately wrote the House and Senate Intelligence Committees that he has evidence of "unconstitutional" activities ordered by the White House.
Will the Republican Congress allow Bush to be investigated? Or will Bush be able to continue his witch hunt seeking the lead source for the NY Times article.
The Washington Times

A former National Security Agency official wants to tell Congress about electronic intelligence programs that he asserts were carried out illegally by the NSA and the Defense Intelligence Agency.


Russ Tice, a whistleblower who was dismissed from the NSA last year, stated in letters to the House and Senate intelligence committees that he is prepared to testify about highly classified Special Access Programs, or SAPs, that were improperly carried out by both the NSA and the DIA.


"I intend to report to Congress probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts conducted while I was an intelligence officer with the National Security Agency and with the Defense Intelligence Agency," Mr. Tice stated in the Dec. 16 letters, copies of which were obtained by The Washington Times.


The letters were sent the same day that the New York Times revealed that the NSA was engaged in a clandestine eavesdropping program that bypassed the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. The FISA court issues orders for targeted electronic and other surveillance by the government.

Nuclear War against Iran?

I'm not sure what to make of Globalresearch.ca. They do seem willing to say the most alarmist things. Here is a good example:
Choking the Internet: How much longer will your favorite sites be on line?

There are also many cases of Google’s search engine failing to list and link to certain information. According to a number of web site administrators who carry anti-Bush political content, this situation has become more pronounced in the last month. In addition, many web site administrators are reporting a dramatic drop-off in hits to their sites, according to their web statistic analyzers. Adding to their woes is the frequency at which spam viruses are being spoofed as coming from their web site addresses. Government disruption of the political side of the web can easily be hidden amid hyped mainstream news media reports of the latest "boutique" viruses and worms, reports that have more to do with the sales of anti-virus software and services than actual long-term disruption of banks, utilities, or airlines.

I've not had any trouble finding what I want. And I can't believe my site could avoid being censored if that was Google's intent. Clearly, my site is not. Enter "Doublethink Dubya" and my site is first on the page. Now enter site:www.globalresearch.ca Global Research in Google and you will see some of their most controversial titles. They make no mention of the sites that are not listed by Google, but clearly their site is listed and page ranked high.
So keep this all in mind when reading the excerpt or full article I'm citing. I don't believe nuclear war is imminent with Iran, but they clearly do. They are a pacifist advocacy site, intent on scaring anyone who will listen. I do believe Cheney has been preparing contingency plans for just this sort of war. There has been plenty of warning over the past year that the US is using a black ops approach and considering something more. So, consider the article a reasonable description of Cheney's contingency plans for war with Iran. Even though I don't believe the writing is on the wall yet, it could happen. At this point, I simply don't believe the EU has acquiesed, nor is NATO involved. Turkey appears to be facing a carrot and stick diplomatic approach from the US seeking "permission" to allow US strategic projection of force, but I seriously doubt the Turks have already agreed to US use of Turkish air bases and air space. I do believe EU tacit support and Turkey's acting support would be necessary would be necessary for Cheney's plan to go forward. I think the likelihood of that kind of support is remote unless Iran starts looking very menacing.
Dejerejian sees only a 10-15% chance of an air strike on Iran by Q1 2007. President of the Eurasia Group Ian Bremmer thinks the chances are more like 60% and rising. I think there maybe a 30% chance but it would most likely be Israel who might act for political reasons at home. A new government in Israel given today's news might do anything. Bombing without ground forces is unlikely to do anything but delay the threat.

The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran is now in the final planning stages. Coalition partners, which include the US, Israel and Turkey are in "an advanced stage of readiness". Various military exercises have been conducted, starting in early 2005. In turn, the Iranian Armed Forces have also conducted large scale military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf in December in anticipation of a US sponsored attack. Since early 2005, there has been intense shuttle diplomacy between Washington, Tel Aviv, Ankara and NATO headquarters in Brussels.


[...]No dissenting political voices have emerged from within the European Union. There are ongoing consultations between Washington, Paris and Berlin. Contrary to the invasion of Iraq, which was opposed at the diplomatic level by France and Germany, Washington has been building "a consensus" both within the Atlantic Alliance and the UN Security Council. This consensus pertains to the conduct of a nuclear war, which could potentially affect a large part of the Middle East Central Asian region.


Moreover, a number of frontline Arab states are now tacit partners in the US/ Israeli military project. A year ago in November 2004, Israel's top military brass met at NATO headqaurters in Brtussels with their counterparts from six members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. A NATO-Israel protocol was signed. Following these meetings, joint military exercises were held off the coast of Syria involving the US, Israel and Turkey. and in February 2005, Israel participated in military exercises and "anti-terror maneuvers" together with several Arab countries.


[...]The earth-penetrating capability of the [nuclear] B61-11 is fairly limited, however. Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. Even so, by burying itself into the ground before detonation, a much higher proportion of the explosion energy is transferred to ground shock compared to a surface bursts. Any attempt to use it in an urban environment, however, would result in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area.

Power has been transferred to Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert after Sharon suffered a "significant stroke"

CNN.com - Sharon suffers 'significant' stroke - Jan 4, 2006

Power has been transferred from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert after Sharon suffered a "significant stroke" Wednesday and was under anesthesia and on a respirator, officials said. For the second time in less than three weeks, Sharon was taken to a Jerusalem hospital after suffering chest pain and weakness Wednesday night, a senior aide said.

Lets hope that his replacement can find the way to peace that seemed impossible for him.

Putin Shoots Himself in the Foot

The Soviet Union used subsidies and intimidation to control it's client states. Since the break up of the Soviet Union, it's client states have gone running towards the west with the notable exceptions of Belarus and Uzbekistan whose leaders wish to trade near dictatorial powers for a special relationship with Russia.
Putin has wanted to expand his client state empire to include Ukraine by "bribing" the people of Ukraine to elect a puppet government by offering them a below market rate for natural gas. It back fired. The Ukraine is now a democracy even after Russia's man tried to steal the election by handicapping his opponent and then election fraud.
Now Putin shows the world his real colors by seeking to quadruple the price of gas for Ukraine just to punish them for leaning towards the west.
WaPo

RUSSIAN PRESIDENT Vladimir Putin once again has overplayed his hand. In his zeal to reestablish Moscow's dominion over Ukraine, he has, as he did during the Orange Revolution, triggered an international crisis that could end up weakening rather than strengthening Russia's international position. Mr. Putin hoped that by shutting off gas supplies to Ukraine on Sunday, he could undermine its democratic and pro-Western government. Instead, he has provided a timely wake-up call to Western European countries dependent on Russian energy supplies. Those nations now see how Mr. Putin understands the question of "energy security," which he would make one of the principal topics for discussion by the Group of Eight this year.


[...]That leverage is considerable: Russia holds more than a quarter of the world's gas supplies and is a major supplier to virtually every country in Europe.


[...]In partially shutting down supplies on Sunday, Mr. Putin calculated that Ukraine would allow Russian gas free transit to countries farther west through the same pipeline -- or, if it did not, that Western governments would blame Kiev.


Instead, when gas pressure fell off sharply yesterday in Vienna, Rome and Paris, it was Mr. Putin who was reproached -- including by such customers as Germany, which recently agreed to a controversial plan for a new pipeline under the Baltic Sea. Mr. Putin was forced to back down, though the underlying price dispute with Ukraine remains unresolved. He has a sensible way out of the conflict, which the Bush administration is urging on him: a negotiation in which Ukraine agrees to a gradual shift toward world market prices. Poland and the Baltic countries have cut such deals with Russia in the past -- though the prices they pay Gazprom are nowhere near what Mr. Putin proposed to charge Ukraine.

Will the EU hear the warning? Will Putin back off and behave like a "civilized" state and gradually increase the price to cushion the impact on Ukraine, up to world market prices, not Russian's punishing price? Doesn't energy independence sound like a worthy goal?

The McCain Amendment Vivisected

Even some conservatives are getting worried about Bush and his cowboy ways. Besides adding an addendum to the Army Field Manual, Bush signed the McCain Amendment and then said because of the Presidents War Powers, he reserves the right to violate it whenever he thinks it's a matter of national security. From THE BELGRAVIA DISPATCH:

I sincerely regret having to say this, but I must agree with Sully [Andrew Sullivan] when he writes today, about Bush: "I certainly don't trust him not to authorize torture again in the future." Bush sold many, in the main, on his straight-shooting conviction, but he now appears to be playing games more and more often. When the stakes are this high and critical, playing it fast and loose like this starts forcing people into opposition. Why? Because you lose trust, and there is no more sacred bond than that.

Demonizing the Opposition

It's tempting to demonize all Republicans for all the Un-American activity going on in the White House. This Administration has done more damage to this country than any single administration that I know of from history. Bush has managed to make lying to and spying on the American people, humiliating opponents and destroying careers a common and acceptable practice in government. In the future, Americans will be left to believe what they want to believe, rather than chosing from various presentations of the facts. Bush has made little or no attempt to tell the truth about Iraq and the war on terror.
There are, however, people within the Administration who are clearly worthy of the demon label. Pretend the link to the following article refers to political strategists and specifically Kark Rove, and then it's a worthy read. A self-respecting Republican will not read this post. One is simply doing damage to the cause by demonizing Republicans enmass.
NewsHog: You don't have to a sociopath to be a [Political Strategist], but it helps.

[Karl Rove] exhibit[s] many of the behavioral characteristics of a sociopath or socialized psychopath-- such as an outstanding ability to charm and seduce followers. Since [he] appear[s] apparently normal, [he is] not easily recognizable as deviant or disturbed. Although only a trained professional can make a diagnosis, it is important to be able to recognize the personality type in order to avoid further abuse.

Carving the Cake

CIA Knew Nuke Experts in Iraq Denied WMDs to Family

Yahoo! News

Dr. Alhaddad flew home in mid-September 2002 and had a series of meetings with CIA analysts. She relayed her brother's information that there was no nuclear program. A CIA operative later told Dr. Alhaddad's husband that the agency believed her brother was lying. In all, the book says, some 30 family members of Iraqis made trips to their native country to contact Iraqi weapons scientists, and all of them reported that the programs had been abandoned.


In October 2002, a month after the doctor's trip to Baghdad, the U.S intelligence community issued a National Intelligence Estimate that concluded Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program.

I'm sure Congress had this information as well as the President. Or no one told the President this "fine point". Maybe Cheney withheld the information.
I'm sure the President made the decision to invade in good faith, well faith anyway. He had plenty of faith in his preconscieved notions so that any contradictory information was rejected out of hand.

More Indications US Planning Air Strike in Iran

The American and Israeli war drums are sounding. War with Iran is threatened. This is the new years hottest story with daily changes occurring. Iran said on Sunday it had developed machinery to separate uranium from its ore in it's drive to acquire independent nuclear technology. The one face-saving out offered Iran by the US was dismissed. This Russian proposal was that it conduct uranium enrichment in Russia for Iran as a way out of an impasse in talks with the EU. Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani said it was not logical for any country to entrust its energy security to another state.
Clearly, Iran is headed towards joining the nuclear club. The propaganda instrument of the Iranian resistance [to be taken with the grain of salt reserved for the Chalabi's of this world], National Council of Resistance of Iran, has published a description of the Iranian nuclear "plot".

Tehran is building nuclear-warhead capable missiles with help from North Korean experts in a vast underground complex, Iranian opposition sources said Monday. The project was initiated at the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1989. The plan involves dozens of immense tunnels and facilities built under the mountains near Tehran.


"North Korean experts have cooperated with the Tehran regime in the design and building of this complex," said Alireza Jafarzadeh, president of Strategic Policy Consulting, and a former representative of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq. "Many blueprints of the site have been prepared by North Korean experts."

Meir Dagan, the chief of Israel’s Mossad spy agency has warned Israeli legislators:

"Iran will not be satisfied with producing fissionable material for one bomb but will continue to produce large quantities of such material for more bombs.” Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Knesset committee, said: "Iran is capable of getting a bomb in a year or two. And if it does, there will be a new Middle East – black, dangerous and threatening the world over.” Dagan called for an intensification of international diplomatic pressure on Iran.


But Aharon Zeevi, Israel’s chief of military intelligence, said the current lack of pressure can be blamed on the Europeans. "I had meetings with senior officials in Europe,” he told Uri Dan. "And their position is, why should we fear Iran’s nuclear weapons? After all, we lived under the nuclear threat after World War II. "And besides, either you or the Americans will solve the problem.” Zeevi has said that a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would be "difficult but not impossible.” But he told the Yediot Aharonot daily: "It is not the time nor place to talk about military action as the diplomatic route is still the order of the day.”

Indeed, today Bill Frist, Republican Senate Majority leader asked America to act now to thwart Iran's nuclear threat:

A multinational sanctions regime might begin with an embargo on technologies that Iran can use in its nuclear program. If these sanctions prove ineffective, the program might escalate to include a ban on arms sales and penalties for suppliers. Further sanctions could include limits on the export of civilian technologies, such as machine tools, that have military applications, and, eventually, the full spectrum of measures the United States has in place to isolate Iran and persuade its rulers to give up their nuclear ambitions. If we let Tehran develop nuclear weapons covertly while IAEA negotiations slog forward, Iran's theocrats will have little reason to negotiate with anyone. The United States needs to act before a regime that has denied the real Holocaust unleashes another.

In Aljazeera.Net, General Dan Halutz, Israel's chief of staff, rules out the prospect of a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear installations in the near future saying that the threat to Israel is Iran in possession of nuclear weapons. Clearly, that does not sound like an Israeli position. This sounds more like disinformation.
While both Israel and the US leaders explicitly call for negotiations with a threat of sanctions, Iran has already rejected the only offer the US and the EU has endorsed: enriching uranium in Russia. It seems to me that all of this is an attempt to prepare a military option, sending mixed signals to Iran and warning allies. Lets back up and put these events in context. I don't think the go on open hostilities has been given.
Last week, an article written by Udo Ulfkotte in Der Spiegel reported Washington was preparing its "closest allies", meaning Turkey and Germany, for the likelihood of an air assault on Iran. CIA Director Porter Goss, on a visit to Istanbul, was reported to have asked Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan to support the air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military installations by stepping up the exchange of intelligence. The strikes were alleged to be "an option" that could occur in 2006. Furthermore, Goss is alleged to have given Turkish security services three dossiers that prove Iranian cooperation with al-Qaeda. According to Winds of Change.NET, the Turks refer to a different element that is in common usage in the US. What they are "referring to here is the various Kurdish Islamist groups that once banded together under the aegis of the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan during the early 1990s but have since splintered into a number of different factions, one of which was Ansar al-Islam. Ansar al-Islam evolved into Zarq-awi's group in Iraq. Back to Watching America's report on the Der Spiegle article:

In addition, there was a fourth dossier focusing on the current state of Iran's nuclear weapons program. According to information from German intelligence sources, the CIA director assured the Turkish government that it would be informed several hours ahead of any attack, and also green-lighted almost simultaneous Turkish attacks on camps in Iran run by the PKK, the Kurdish separatist organization. This go-ahead appears rather strange since the PKK runs its camps out of northern Iraq and has no such installations in Iran.


[...]Two weeks ago, the current head of the Turkish Army and likely future military Chief of Staff, Yasar Buyukanit, was himself in Washington. Afterwards, he declared that relations between the Turkish and U.S. Armies are once again excellent. This is noteworthy, since General Buyukanit is one of the hawks in the struggle against the PKK, and in the past he has often spoken on the record about the necessity of marching into northern Iraq. That is, unless the U.S. and the Iraqi Kurds prevent the Kurdish separatists from planning and carrying out attacks on Turkey.


[...]Regardless, the Turkish government has consistently spoken out against any military action versus Iran as well as against Syria. For on the Kurdish question these three governments form a united front, and refuse to countenance the idea of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. Thus, here there appears to be no convergence of interests between Washington and Ankara. However, if the U.S. is planning a missile attack on Iran, then Turkey needs to be either actively or tacitly on board.


Erdogan and the Turkish military are, however, extremely apprehensive about the consequences for the entire region should the U.S. actually act against Iran. Western experts are also loath to guarantee that any strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would be successful. On the contrary, an attack would likely not achieve its goal of stopping the nuclear program, and also wind up strengthening support for President Ahmadinejad.

However, Ulfkotte and the publisher Der Spiegel is called a questionable source however, with a reputation of sensationalizing the news. And there is also the possibility that it's disinformation that could be from any number of sources.
Then I tripped over an article from TheKurdistani.com:

On various occasions, a delegation consisting of senior Israeli diplomats have sought to hold high-level talks with Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi president and leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan in relation to the formation of an independent Kurdish state in Southern Kurdistan. Not only Talabani has expressed his grave opposition to the set forth accord but also released some classified information related to Kurdistan’s national security to Iran and Turkey. Escalating ties between president Talabani and Tehran is also beleaguering Washington. In his recent remarks, Talabani’s endorsement of Iranian president has further caused the Bush administration to feel more dubious about his bent unto Iran.

Now why would the Iraqi Kurds claim the Israelis were wanting to talk about an independent Kurdistan, a dream the Kurds have had for many years, and then point out the current Iraqi President, who also happens to be a Kurd, rejects those discussions while pursuing better relationships with Iran? Unless it's all too true. And if it's true, it would suggest the Israelis and likely the Bush Administration has given up on a united Iraq and is seeking to isolate the Iranians from any attempt to settle with the Kurds. Israel and the US might see the Kurds as an ally in an invasion of Iran.
The US has been conducting Black Ops in Iran and Air Force overflies since at least 2004. The House and Senate Intelligence Committees have been talking about Iran at least since February of 2005. Members of Congress,

Reps. Bob Filner, D-Calif., Tom Tancredo, R-Col., Dennis Moore, R-Kan., and staffers for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, addressed a convention of Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) supporters today in Washington. The MEK has been listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department since 1997, but some in Congress and close to the Administration want the group to be removed from the terrorist list. Even President Bush has called the MEK a "dissident group."

Here is an article with surprising allegations from March of 2005 in Aljazeera.Net written by Scott Ritter, the former UN Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq. You may remember Scott Ritter as the former Gulf War Marine who alleged interference by the CIA in his attempt to direct the UN arms searches prior to Gulf War II.

The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations. It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organization, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq. Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.


But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran. To the north, in neighboring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan's role in the upcoming war with Iran. The ethnic links between the Azeri of northern Iran and Azerbaijan were long exploited by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and this vehicle for internal manipulation has been seized upon by CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units who are training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilizing indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran.


But this is only one use the US has planned for Azerbaijan. American military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran. In fact, US air power should be able to maintain a nearly 24-hour a day presence over Tehran airspace once military hostilities commence. No longer will the United States need to consider employment of Cold War-dated plans which called for moving on Tehran from the Arab Gulf cities of Chah Bahar and Bandar Abbas. US Marine Corps units will be able to secure these towns in order to protect the vital Straits of Hormuz, but the need to advance inland has been eliminated. A much shorter route to Tehran now exists - the coastal highway running along the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan to Tehran.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine intelligence officer and a veteran of the first Gulf War. He served as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq for seven years. As an expert on arms control, he has addressed governments around the world as well as being a frequent guest on radio and TV talk shows. In the lead up to the attack on Iraq, Ritter openly questioned whether Iraq had any weapons of mass destruction. He is the author of "Endgame" and "Frontier Justice: WMDs and the Bushwhacking of America."

This is not the kinda guy you'd expect to be an alarmist. However, I remember him telling a story of how the US was sabatoging his efforts to find WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion and he was clearly an angry man on a mission to discredit the Bush Administration. I Googled "Azerbaijan" and could find no other indication of the US base there. They are still locked in a conflict with Armenia still occupying 17% of their country! Certainly they'd have an interest in getting support in their effort to get back their territory. But it would seem to be a questionable place for the US to set up a base and start an invasion of Iran.
While the US could make a mess of Iran's infrastructure in short order, it certainly can't stop a nuclear effort without an outright invasion. Bombing would likely strengthen the hand of Ahmadinejad, the loud mouth President of Iran. In fact, I suspect that was his plan all along when he lashed out at Israel in a bid to consolidate power. Iran doesn't worry about casualties in war. They readily trade bodies for political gain. And so it is with Ahmadinejad.
With Special Ops stirring up oil rich southwestern Iran, as well as areas adjacent to Azerbaijan, and nine Iranian soldiers who went missing from their post close to Iran’s border with Pakistan, one has to wonder about most any news in Iran that might suggest a point of internal conflict. Here we have a report that the Mullahs are crushing trade unions and Iran’s Tudeh Party is leading the opposition to that move. It would appear the Mullahs are moving to consolidate power, but perhaps they are seeking to stifle any dissent in the face of internal and external pressure.
Today, we have a good analysis of the strategic situation involving the US and Iran from Stirling Newberry at The Agonist. Text formating is mine. Bold refers to points with which I agree, italics are placed for items with which I disagree.

The political ramifications of Iran as a deterrent state with a deterrent force are not in the direction of a fear of an expansionist Iran. Unlike North Korea, the current regime has no demonstrated propensity to desire expanded territory. It does fund ideologically sympathetic groups, including state sponsored terrorism. However, the consequences for Iran of sponsoring atomic terrorism are such that it would not do so. Instead, the consequences of Iran developing a deterrent force are two fold. The first is that it would be another proliferating nation. It has a demonstrated propensity to proliferate. Second, the US would no longer be able to deal with Iran as a non-nuclear nation. That is, American ability to threaten Iran would be sharply limited.


The potential responses are three: one can talk, one can bribe, or one can bomb. The possession of a deterrent force reduces the possibility of the third, so offensive pre-emptive or preventative attacks are a wasting asset. This "use it or lose it pressure" is undoubtedly forcing the Bush executive to act precipitously. Bombing is already of limited value, because Iran has an economic deterrent - stop selling oil, and gain OPEC approval for an embargo on the US. The economic consequences of which would swiftly bring an end to any US regime that attempts to bomb without compelling reasons and substantial results. The current US administration does not have the first, and has a track record of not producing the second.


Bombing might also not produce a significant delay in Iran's coming into possession of a deterrent force. Iran could, if the threat level escalates high enough, pull the fissiles from its exposed points, shield them, and assemble a deterrent force from the fissiles produced. It could then rebuild the reactor in a more survivable location, and become a declared power. All that bombing would do is generate hostility, and force Iran to declare earlier rather than later.


Talking has two parts: one is positive extension of friendship, the other is threats, and pressure from international bodies. So far both have proven to be of relatively limited value in dealing with Iran. It is not just the long term hostility towards the United States of the current regime - reciprocated in spades from Washington - but the general belief in Iran that the United States is on the run in Iraq and economically. Iran, as long as there are US forces in Iraq, has a response to any US threat - arm insurgents and radicalize Shia in Iraq. An Iraq that falls apart with US forces in it will deliver unacceptable casualties rapidly.


The third option is the most acceptable. Iran, unlike many other states, is not a top to bottom ideological state. In fact, the current regime holds power, to some extent, based on the threats from the United States. A secularizing Iran would, then see the possession of a deterrent force as necessary, but would see leveraging it as counter-productive. The best route for the United States is to undermine the ideological regime which is willing to pour vast resoures in pursuit of a strategic deterrent, when no such deterrent is seen as needed by the general population.


However, the high probability is that Bush will up the pressure, and use the cover that it is to give the European and Russian efforts more teeth, and then execute on threats at that point where there is domestic political advantage to be gained. That is, as with Iraq and the GWOT, he will double cross his allies in pursuit of his internal objectives in the United States.


As such, since bombing does not advance US long term interests significantly, and there is a regime in the United States with the demonstrated propensity of turning chronic problem into explosive crisis so that it can profit from the chaos and confusion, the only stance available to the US public and to allies is to be vocal in opposition to the use of military force against Iran unless certain bright lines are crossed. Because of the demonstrated propensity by the Bush executive to lie about when lines have been crossed, the body making this determination must be independent of the US, and spelled out emphatically each and every time a declaration is made to Iran to persuade it that there are consequences for failing to cooperate.


The compellence issue raises its head: given the fragile economic state of the West with respect to oil, many compellence options are off the table. Since compellence requires the ability to resist any counterstrike from the compelled, US policy makers must begin to realize that re-establishing the basic conditions of compellence, as soon as possible, are an urgent necessity, not a luxury. These include terminating involvement in Iraq, moving the US economy off of energy dependence for its monetary basis, and re-establishing credibility in the integrity of its international diplomacy.


Iran is not a threat, and on the other hand it is. That is Iran does not yet possess a deterrent force, but the point where it can be prevented from acquiring one is rapidly closing in. While Iran will not deploy a credible deterrent for at least three years, the point where it cannot be prevented from doing so is coming up within the next 12 months, and may already have been passed.


The Bush executive will want to act before the realization of the point of no return has sunk in with global policy makers and the public. As soon as the inevitability of a deterrent force Iran is accepted, there will be no political will to create animosity towards a future deterrent state. The time there will be sufficient "proof" to launch strikes is, paradoxically, the point after which Iran cannot be stopped from reaching DFC - deterrent force capability. In short, Bush will wait through the rest of 2006, and only bring escalating pressure on Iran militarily in the latter half of the year, when it is useful politically, and act in 2007, when he needs both the access to liquidity in the form of defense appropriations, and the political cover for domestic objectives such as funnelling FICA taxes into the stock market.

Let me take these items point by point. First I'll address those with which I disagree.

"no demonstrated propensity to desire expanded territory."

In the conventional sense, this is true. The Iranian Army isn't going to march across the border to conquer a state. But it has shown it's ability to build stable alliances with it's neighbors and to facilitate and fund viable and loyal organizations that can project it's agenda both politically and with guerrilla tactics. e.g. Hizbollah. They have also been sending supplies to the Lebanese Army.

the consequences for Iran of sponsoring atomic terrorism are such that it would not do so

I don't think Iran is too worried about being a pariah. Besides, allegations of arming atomic terrorists is far from a smoking gun. The Bush Administration has no credibility world wide. The Iranian army had no hesitation to send hundreds of thousands of adolescents to certain death in human wave assaults against Saddam's invasion. Why would they be too worried about a limited nuclear attack. Certainly world opinion will keep the US from doing much more than use a few nuclear bunker busters. They are certainly not worried about a ground invasion from the US bogged down in Iraq. Bombing and commando raids may well set back the the Iranian nuclear effort, but it can't stop it. Any stirring up of the dissident populous is likely a decade away from a successful insurrection. Besides as Newbury says:

The third option is the most acceptable. Iran, unlike many other states, is not a top to bottom ideological state. In fact, the current regime holds power, to some extent, based on the threats from the United States. A secularizing Iran would, then see the possession of a deterrent force as necessary, but would see leveraging it as counter-productive. The best route for the United States is to undermine the ideological regime which is willing to pour vast resoures in pursuit of a strategic deterrent, when no such deterrent is seen as needed by the general population. and All that bombing would do is generate hostility, and force Iran to declare earlier rather than later. and but the general belief in Iran that the United States is on the run in Iraq and economically. Iran, as long as there are US forces in Iraq, has a response to any US threat - arm insurgents and radicalize Shia in Iraq. An Iraq that falls apart with US forces in it will deliver unacceptable casualties rapidly.

Iran has an economic deterrent - stop selling oil, and gain OPEC approval for an embargo on the US.

Why would OPEC follow up with an embargo? OPEC is dominated by the Sunnis, sworn enemies of Iran.

In short, Bush will wait through the rest of 2006, and only bring escalating pressure on Iran militarily in the latter half of the year, when it is useful politically, and act in 2007, when he needs both the access to liquidity in the form of defense appropriations, and the political cover for domestic objectives such as funnelling FICA taxes into the stock market.

The 2006 elections is an accident waiting to happen for the Republicans. If Bush is inclined to maximize the political advantages of another war, early fall in 2006 would be the best time.
Now for my agreements.

The first is that it would be another proliferating nation. It has a demonstrated propensity to proliferate. Second, the US would no longer be able to deal with Iran as a non-nuclear nation. That is, American ability to threaten Iran would be sharply limited.

While Iran will not deploy a credible deterrent for at least three years, the point where it cannot be prevented from doing so is coming up within the next 12 months, and may already have been passed. and The Bush executive will want to act before the realization of the point of no return has sunk in with global policy makers and the public. As soon as the inevitability of a deterrent force Iran is accepted, there will be no political will to create animosity towards a future deterrent state. The time there will be sufficient "proof" to launch strikes is, paradoxically, the point after which Iran cannot be stopped from reaching DFC - deterrent force capability.

Let's face it. The US can't hope to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear capability without EU/NATO military support, probably Sunni oil and financial support and an unpopular draft in the US. No limited incursion will have any hope of success and would throw Iran into chaos and likely take it's oil off the market. I just don't see that happening.

As such, since bombing does not advance US long term interests significantly, and there is a regime in the United States with the demonstrated propensity of turning chronic problem into explosive crisis so that it can profit from the chaos and confusion, the only stance available to the US public and to allies is to be vocal in opposition to the use of military force against Iran unless certain bright lines are crossed. Because of the demonstrated propensity by the Bush executive to lie about when lines have been crossed, the body making this determination must be independent of the US, and spelled out emphatically each and every time a declaration is made to Iran to persuade it that there are consequences for failing to cooperate.

This paragraph contains the jewel of the article. In retrospect, the Bush Administration had multiple agendas for the invasion of Iraq. At least one of these was to create chaos to disguise another means to dump future tax dollars to it's chronies like Haliburton. Bush can't be trusted to monitor any line in the sand drawn for the Mullahs. A verifiable limit is necessary. Iran can't be expected to act as a deterrent state. Iran, China, North Korea, and even the US are quite capable of using their nuclear weapons in limited action when sufficiently provoked. The US is VERY likely to use nukes if it acts against Iran. It doesn't have any other viable option. That will only solidify the hold of the Mullahs on Iran and create another generation of terrorists hungry for American blood.