They Say Nothing!

The Institute for International Science and Security released a report this week that outlines the difficulties of finding and eliminating Iran’s widespread, underground nuclear program. This is not new information. American Hawks, such as former Director of the CIA James Woosley, have been touring the country for over a year talking how the program is buried in many unknown places.

This report is important because it calls attention to the serious misstep in hawk logic. Woosley has been telling luncheon audiences that the hidden nature of the program means that we need to sent LOTS and LOTS of bombs Iran’s way. The ISSR makes clear that bombing Iran will not physically destroy their program. They will survive our onslaught and be only more determined to confront us afterwards.

Whether we like it or not, we are going to have to find an non-military solution to this problem.

The Bush Administration finally shows some signs of actually talking to the Iranians. Our best hope for success in the region is to follow the Roman model and make allies of our enemies, something that Americans leaders from Roosevelt through Nixon understood. But the last four men wielding the US torch don’t seem to read history, understand the region or know how to hear what is being said behind Iran’s public blabber.

Perhaps President Bush is starting to listen. He is sending a third level state department official to talk to the Iranians. Ok, Bruns is number three at State and the President has great distain for the state department but at least we are not imposing pre-conditions on these talks. Up till now, we have been willing to talk only as long as the Iranians agree to everything we want before the talks begin.

The American right is likely to criticize the President for caving and the American media will mostly ignore this positive development or cover the fire-breathing bomb throwers in the US.  When what we need is strong discussion of the best way to deal with the Iran and their role in the region.

President Bush has given tactic approval for Israel to attack Iran if a nuclear power plant goes live. Both the US and Iran have repeatedly stated that most of Iran nuclear facilities are underground in unknown location.  We can’t bomb those.

Destroying the above ground facilities will at best only deepen Iranian resolve and at worst spark a violent reaction in Iraq and Afganistan.  Even our allies are warning us that an attack dramatically increase the violence  in the region with grave impact for the world economy.

The President has not made the reasons for the attack clear.  We have heard vague fears about the a nuclear using nuclear weapons and terrorists. Yet Iran is a state, not a series of cells spread out across the globe. Deterance will work with them.  They also want these weapons to separate (or level) themselves with regional powers - not to make terrorists more powerful.

The American people should think very carefully about these actions for if we are unhappy with our military commitments now, an ill-advised attack on Iran will only make them worse.

Anyone concerned about the price of oil or the spilling of American blood in Middle East sand should read Seymour Hersch’s recent article.

What more can be said except our leadership has years stated that we will not tolerate terrorism or any states that sponsor them.  Hersch offers damning proof that the US continues to sponsor terrorism inside Iran.  This is the level and type of hypocrisy that comes to bite off your ass.

It is time to remove our current leaders before they hurt more Americans.

Now is time for some great care in thought and action yet all around us war drums thud. In a Newsweek interview, David Albright, a pyshcist and UN nuclear inspector, said that Iran is “still a couple of years away, in a worst-case scenario, from being able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.”

We need to remember that the Iranian government has a long history of improving their standing with neighbors by making ridiculous pronouncements against the US and Israel. And if our intellegence estimates are to be believed, Iran’s weapons are buried in extensive and deep tunnel systems that our bombs couldn’t reach, even IF we knew where they were.

We must ask ourselves what a bombing run hopes to accomplish and what our next steps are? Do we expect Iran to cave in like the empty tunnels we blow up? Do we expect them to continue helping us in Afghanistan? What will become of the pro-Iranian government that we installed in Iraq? Do we honestly think that we can achieve the first military victory in history to only deploy the Air Force? What will an invasion look like? Where will we get the soldiers? If we create an open war with Iran, what will that do to the volatile situation in Northern Pakistan? If Iran retaliates against our forces, our nation or Israel, how far are we ready to go? Are we ready to risk the planet because we are too foolish to maniplate an enemy to our good purpose?

I, for one, am not. A deeply distrustful friendship with the most strategic landmass and population in the region is a much preferrable to another war. It will also be cheaper, easier to conduct and be more profitable.

Make no mistake about it, the Economist is a voice of restraint regarding Iran. Their exact words describing any possible attack on Iran, “don’t do it. It would be a mistake.” They favor sanctions over engagement but at least they council Isreal and the US to back down off their war stance and find another way. We couldn’t agree more.

George Carlin. RIP.

Who provides better information?

Criticized as everything from anti-Semitic to pro-terrorist in the US, Mearsheimer and Walt, authors of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, gave a lecture in Tel Aviv to a packed house on Thursday.

Reactions ranged from critical to supportive, but no one called them terrorists or anti-Semitic, which concretely demonstrates the difference between a national debate (what Israel has) and corporate propaganda spooge (what the US has). Those who raise fair and important questions about US policy are not welcomed here.

Challenging ideas do not become part of the fertile intellectual environment that helps us ‘lead the world.’ They are attacked by a massive, asymmetric assault from dozens of big-wallet monkey boys who know exactly how to earn another banana. Israel’s open and engaged reception of these ‘controversial’ authors shames America.

The low-level and poor quality of our national debate could be considered a war crime. The pundits yelling at us couldn’t care less about you and me, and our country will continue to be an international bully as long as we listen to them.

By the way, here is what Mearsheimer and Walt had to say about Iran:

(more…)

Well, it’s still not over, and by not over, I mean not just because we now get to listen to the pundits endlessly analyze this historic primary campaign. It’s not over because isn’t over until the Fat Lady sings.

And no, unlike some writers in the mainstream press, the Fat Lady isn’t Hillary Clinton. As fascinating as such observations about Ms. Clinton’s weight are–just as much as observations that seeing Barack Obama’s dark-skinned face as United States President would cause world peace–when I say Fat Lady, I mean that elephant in the room: party unity.

Who wouldn’t want that you say? And why wouldn’t it happen? Hillary is going to put down her claws, and back down. The convention will be the coronation that it was always intended to be. And in November we’ll all go and vote for our man, Obama, and then John McCain will be elected.

Oh. Wait a second.

While he has been now compared to every Kennedy living, dead, and somewhat living, and Abraham Lincoln (another odd coincidence for you JFK and Lincoln assassinations were related in the stars), Obama simply cannot beat John McCain in a general election without a white person on the ticket. Just as Hillary could not beat John McCain without a man on the ticket.

Funny, exactly what makes this campaign historic is the very reason why the Democrats won’t win: because the two most likely candidates were a multi-racial man, and a tenacious woman. But what would make the campaign truly historic is if the two could somehow come together on the same ticket, bridge the old guard and the new, show that the Democratic party represents all races, all women, all people rich and poor, and beat John McCain in November.

It wouldn’t be that hard. President Obama and Vice President Clinton share the same views on most every issue. And wouldn’t they make a dashing team? Obama is charismatic and idealistic. Clinton polarizing and pragmatic. Obama can talk about things getting done and truly inspire people to believe. Clinton can butt heads and manipulate people until it actually gets done. He’s a man. She’s a woman. It’s like the Odd Couple, Will and Grace, a Reality Show, and the most important election on the planet in the past twenty years, all rolled up into one.

Talk about ratings.

Unfortunately, there’s this little thing that might get in the way of party unity: politicians are dicks. And even when they’re in the room with an elephant, they still think they’ve got the biggest one in the room.

And that ladies and gentlemen, is why we’re fucked. Aaaaaaaaaaaah!
[NY Times]

American Enterprise Institutes’ Jay Nordlinger wrote an opinion piece in the Post last week gently dismissing Scott McClellan’s criticism of the Bush Administration. Harbinger thinks that the US media was tough on the President and that the President is a steadfast decision maker who treasures vigorous debate.

But the rose-colored opinion I found the most funny was Harbinger’s idea that the war in Iraq was necessary. The reason why? WMD, of course, and the possibility that Saddam would someday build some and then someday after that give them to the very people he hated.

If Nordlinger had the guts to discuss oil, water or the pressing need to get our troops out of the Saudi desert, he might be worth reading. But he completes his Pravda-style reasoning by telling us not to worry - be happy - everything will work out in the end. Someday the Middle East will someday build monuments to President Bush.

Thanks, Mr. American Enterprise. Glad to know that creating the worlds’ largest Al Qaeda University will work out in the end. But should we trust Mr. Nordlinger? How can we tell if history’s “final call” will really see this long dehumanizing struggle as worth it?

Perhaps if we imagine what kind of a monument a Middle Eastern country would build for past US Presidents, we will have a better idea of what type of monument President Bush can expect? And because so many of this country’s armchair freedom fighters advocate war with Iran, I thought it would instructive to have Iran build them.

(more…)