War Drums On Iran?

There were a number of interesting developments today that are said to point towards a possible attack on Iran. It's worth taking a look at them and seeing where they lead:

Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu is described in one major story in the British press as 'trying to rally support in his cabinet for an attack on Iran, according to government sources'.

The Israelis successfully test fired a new ballistic missile, the Jericho 3 that has a range of over 4,300 miles, or 7,000 kilometers, putting all of Iran within easy reach.

Aside from some of the usual Iranian saber rattling, Hezbollah's cockroach-in-chief Sheik Nasrullah threatened Israel with massive retaliation,claiming that if another war starts the rockets will be aimed Tel Aviv first this time.

Rumors are flying that the Obama Administration is considering an attack on Iranian facilities to prevent Iran from going nuclear in view of recent developments. The latest, sparked by a visit by Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak to London and British chief of defense Staff David Richards to Jerusalem has NATO,led by the U.S. and UK doing the heavy lifting.

The Israeli Air force just completed a major drill in Italy with NATO forces that is said to be designed to familiarize Israeli pilots with NATO procedures in the lead up to an Iran strike

Okay...now let's look at what's actually going on here.

The Iranians appear to have mostly overcome the damage to their nuclear weapons program caused by stuxnet and other sabotage, including some deliberate slow ups by the Russians building these facilities in order to jack the costs up and get more money out of the Mullahs for their new toys.

The November IAEA report, due out in a matter of days is pretty clear that the Iranians are proceeding apace in their race to nuclear weapons. The current sanctions haven't deterred them one bit. It also details how the Iranians got considerable technical help from the Russians, North Koreans, and the Infamous A.Q. Kahn of Pakistan.

My sources also tell me that the IAEA report clearly states for the first time that a number of the facilities, processes and materials Iran is working with have no possible peaceful applications. That's something you knew well over three years ago if you were reading this site.

The biggest problem is the ongoing dispersal,protection and concealment of Iran's nuclear facilities and stockpiles of material. The most liberal estimates are that in another 12 months or so, getting to them to take them out without massive damage and civilian casualties is going to be close to impossible.

The Israelis understand this very well.What they are essentially saying to the Obama Administration is that time is running out, and if you don't do something about this we certainly will.

The Israelis don't particularly need NATO's assistance( although it would certainly be helpful) , or even the Jericho 3. Israel's drones, pilots and nuclear subs can already get close enough to Iran to hit whatever they need to hit, and an Israeli raid on Iran would almost certainly be accompanied by the Saudis turning a blind eye to Israel flying over their territory for the purpose.

The indications are that the Israelis are fully capable of doing this themselves provided they're ruthless enough to do what it takes to make a thorough job of it. It would probably take multiple strikes, and Israel's inherent limitations would undoubtedly make things messy and might even involve tactical nukes, but the Iranian nuclear program could be crippled for some time.

That, however is not at all what the Obama Administration wants. This president doesn't want to have to choose between alienating all those new Islamist regimes he's so fond of by supporting Israel in a strike on a Muslim country, or alienating even more of the pro-Israel vote at home in an election year by not doing so.

President Obama's preferred scenario is to try and use the Israelis as leverage to try and get support from Russia and China for actual, punitive sanctions on Iran. The fact that they haven't worked yet and likely never would doesn't come into the equation for this president.

The pitch to the Russians and Chinese would go something like this: 'Look, there's only so much I can do with these psycho Jews just now. It's better we all act now like the adults in the room to solve this thing instead of letting it get out of hand.'

If that doesn't work, there are indeed signs that President Obama may be leaning reluctantly towards an Iran strike if he feels it's to his personal advantage. But if it happens, it will be one that definitely doesn't involve Israel, at least not openly.

The first signal was the departure of Robert Gates, the former Secretary of Defense and a long time Iran appeaser. Along with former Secretary of State Condi Rice, it was Gates who was instrumental in making sure that the Bush Administration kicked this can down the road as well as seeing to it that the Israelis didn't get any kind of green light for it either, back when Iran would have been a lot easier to deal with than they are now. The team of Gates and Rice even attempted to stop the Israelis from taking out Syria's North Korea-supplied reactor and budding nuclear weapons site. fortunately without success. Gates pulled exactly the same trick during his tenure in the Obama Administration on Iran, aided and abetted by Admiral William J. Fallon, then commander of CENTCOM.

The second sign is the coming removal of all US troops from Iraq, scheduled to be completed by the end of next month. For political reasons,(both American and Iraqi) the president is required to finish the draw down by year's end. But it has the small silver lining of removing a nearby target for retaliation and attack by Iran or its Shi'ite proxies within Iraq. True, many of those troops will be redeployed next door in Kuwait, but Kuwait is not controlled by Shi'ites and can be defended a lot easier than Iraq if necessary.

If President Obama does decide on military action against Iran, it will probably come within a few months in the run up to the election to get maximum electoral benefit for the president. It would most likely involve NATO forces, most likely lead by the US, and including the British and the French. It might also include token forces from Saudi Arabia and the Emirates to avoid the 'stigma' of attacking a Muslim country, similar to the coalition President George HW Bush used in the Gulf War for exactly the same reason.

The Israeli role in this scenario would be limited to intel, recon and keeping Iran's proxies in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria busy,so as not to complicate things with the Muslim world.

I must reiterate that this president is far more likely to simply delay things in hopes that yet another round of sanctions will have the desired effect, at least until he's safely out of office.

A lot depends on how the current elections go. and what President Obama sees as more beneficial to campaign on. Will he get more mileage as the president who brought our troops home from Iraq, or as the president who took out Iran's nukes? Will he garner more criticism from his base as President Warmonger or more from people complaining about him allowing Iran to go nuclear on his watch? Would it be better for him politically to take on Iran, or to let Israel do it?

One thing I'm certain of. As much as this president hates decisions,he will try to delay things as long as possible.

As things stand, my money is still on the IDF ending up doing the job.Israel no longer has the luxury of time.Neither do we,but it's a lot more obvious to the Israelis from where they sit.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

War Drums On Iran?

There were a number of interesting developments today that are said to point towards a possible attack on Iran. It's worth taking a look at them and seeing where they lead:

Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu is described in one major story in the British press as 'trying to rally support in his cabinet for an attack on Iran, according to government sources'.

The Israelis successfully test fired a new ballistic missile, the Jericho 3 that has a range of over 4,300 miles, or 7,000 kilometers, putting all of Iran within easy reach.

Aside from some of the usual Iranian saber rattling, Hezbollah's cockroach-in-chief Sheik Nasrullah threatened Israel with massive retaliation,claiming that if another war starts the rockets will be aimed Tel Aviv first this time.

Rumors are flying that the Obama Administration is considering an attack on Iranian facilities to prevent Iran from going nuclear in view of recent developments. The latest, sparked by a visit by Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak to London and British chief of defense Staff David Richards to Jerusalem has NATO,led by the U.S. and UK doing the heavy lifting.

The Israeli Air force just completed a major drill in Italy with NATO forces that is said to be designed to familiarize Israeli pilots with NATO procedures in the lead up to an Iran strike

Okay...now let's look at what's actually going on here.

The Iranians appear to have mostly overcome the damage to their nuclear weapons program caused by stuxnet and other sabotage, including some deliberate slow ups by the Russians building these facilities in order to jack the costs up and get more money out of the Mullahs for their new toys.

The November IAEA report, due out in a matter of days is pretty clear that the Iranians are proceeding apace in their race to nuclear weapons. The current sanctions haven't deterred them one bit. It also details how the Iranians got considerable technical help from the Russians, North Koreans, and the Infamous A.Q. Kahn of Pakistan.

My sources also tell me that the IAEA report clearly states for the first time that a number of the facilities, processes and materials Iran is working with have no possible peaceful applications. That's something you knew well over three years ago if you were reading this site.

The biggest problem is the ongoing dispersal,protection and concealment of Iran's nuclear facilities and stockpiles of material. The most liberal estimates are that in another 12 months or so, getting to them to take them out without massive damage and civilian casualties is going to be close to impossible.

The Israelis understand this very well.What they are essentially saying to the Obama Administration is that time is running out, and if you don't do something about this we certainly will.

The Israelis don't particularly need NATO's assistance( although it would certainly be helpful) , or even the Jericho 3. Israel's drones, pilots and nuclear subs can already get close enough to Iran to hit whatever they need to hit, and an Israeli raid on Iran would almost certainly be accompanied by the Saudis turning a blind eye to Israel flying over their territory for the purpose.

The indications are that the Israelis are fully capable of doing this themselves provided they're ruthless enough to do what it takes to make a thorough job of it. It would probably take multiple strikes, and Israel's inherent limitations would undoubtedly make things messy and might even involve tactical nukes, but the Iranian nuclear program could be crippled for some time.

That, however is not at all what the Obama Administration wants. This president doesn't want to have to choose between alienating all those new Islamist regimes he's so fond of by supporting Israel in a strike on a Muslim country, or alienating even more of the pro-Israel vote at home in an election year by not doing so.

President Obama's preferred scenario is to try and use the Israelis as leverage to try and get support from Russia and China for actual, punitive sanctions on Iran. The fact that they haven't worked yet and likely never would doesn't come into the equation for this president.

The pitch to the Russians and Chinese would go something like this: 'Look, there's only so much I can do with these psycho Jews just now. It's better we all act now like the adults in the room to solve this thing instead of letting it get out of hand.'

If that doesn't work, there are indeed signs that President Obama may be leaning reluctantly towards an Iran strike if he feels it's to his personal advantage. But if it happens, it will be one that definitely doesn't involve Israel, at least not openly.

The first signal was the departure of Robert Gates, the former Secretary of Defense and a long time Iran appeaser. Along with former Secretary of State Condi Rice, it was Gates who was instrumental in making sure that the Bush Administration kicked this can down the road as well as seeing to it that the Israelis didn't get any kind of green light for it either, back when Iran would have been a lot easier to deal with than they are now. The team of Gates and Rice even attempted to stop the Israelis from taking out Syria's North Korea-supplied reactor and budding nuclear weapons site. fortunately without success. Gates pulled exactly the same trick during his tenure in the Obama Administration on Iran, aided and abetted by Admiral William J. Fallon, then commander of CENTCOM.

The second sign is the coming removal of all US troops from Iraq, scheduled to be completed by the end of next month. For political reasons,(both American and Iraqi) the president is required to finish the draw down by year's end. But it has the small silver lining of removing a nearby target for retaliation and attack by Iran or its Shi'ite proxies within Iraq. True, many of those troops will be redeployed next door in Kuwait, but Kuwait is not controlled by Shi'ites and can be defended a lot easier than Iraq if necessary.

If President Obama does decide on military action against Iran, it will probably come within a few months in the run up to the election to get maximum electoral benefit for the president. It would most likely involve NATO forces, most likely lead by the US, and including the British and the French. It might also include token forces from Saudi Arabia and the Emirates to avoid the 'stigma' of attacking a Muslim country, similar to the coalition President George HW Bush used in the Gulf War for exactly the same reason.

The Israeli role in this scenario would be limited to intel, recon and keeping Iran's proxies in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria busy,so as not to complicate things with the Muslim world.

I must reiterate that this president is far more likely to simply delay things in hopes that yet another round of sanctions will have the desired effect, at least until he's safely out of office.

A lot depends on how the current elections go. and what President Obama sees as more beneficial to campaign on. Will he get more mileage as the president who brought our troops home from Iraq, or as the president who took out Iran's nukes? Will he garner more criticism from his base as President Warmonger or more from people complaining about him allowing Iran to go nuclear on his watch? Would it be better for him politically to take on Iran, or to let Israel do it?

One thing I'm certain of. As much as this president hates decisions,he will try to delay things as long as possible.

As things stand, my money is still on the IDF ending up doing the job.Israel no longer has the luxury of time.Neither do we,but it's a lot more obvious to the Israelis from where they sit.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Two Quotes On Our Iraq Withdrawal

One frustrated,one abysmally stupid.

First, the frustration, from General John Keane, who was key in persuading President Bush to implement the urge strategy:

“I think it’s an absolute disaster,” said Gen. Keane, who advised Gen. David H. Petraeus when he was top Iraq commander. “We won the war in Iraq, and we’re now losing the peace.”

“Forty-four hundred lives lost,” Gen. Keane said. “Tens of thousands of troops wounded. Over a couple hundred thousand Iraqis killed. We liberated 25 million people. There is only one Arab Muslim country that elects its own government, and that is Iraq.

“We should be staying there to strengthen that democracy, to let them get the kind of political gains they need to get and keep the Iranians away from strangling that country. That should be our objective, and we are walking away from that objective.”

Sorry, General Keane. It is a disaster, but that mistake was set in stone when the Bush Administration decided to rush Iraq into elections with the idea of massaging his fetish of 'Arab Democracy' and empowered Shi'ite politicians with close ties to Iran instead of putting an interim pro-US government in power. Once that happened, the rest was predictable and just a matter of time.

And now the stupidity, from the same article:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday warned Iran not to miscalculate the U.S. decision to withdraw its troops.

“No one, most particularly Iran, should miscalculate about our continuing commitment to and with the Iraqis going forward,” she said in an interview with CNN from Uzbekistan.

“In addition to a very significant diplomatic presence in Iraq which will carry much of the responsibility for dealing with an independent, sovereign, democratic Iraq, we have bases in neighboring countries, we have our ally in Turkey. We have a lot of presence in that region,” she added.

As if Iran hasn't simply laughed at such pronouncements before? As if Erdogan's Islamist Turkey didn't sabotage our invasion of Iraq in 2003 and hasn't been a conduit for Iran evading the so-called sanctions since then? As if 150 troops guarding an embassy is going to stave off Moqtada al-Sadr and his Iranian armed and trained Shi'ite militia from Lebanonizing Iraq? As if the Iraqis themselves aren't booting us out in response to pressure from Iran?

Unbelievable. And there are people that still want this clueless woman as president.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Two Quotes On Our Iraq Withdrawal

One frustrated,one abysmally stupid.

First, the frustration, from General John Keane, who was key in persuading President Bush to implement the urge strategy:

“I think it’s an absolute disaster,” said Gen. Keane, who advised Gen. David H. Petraeus when he was top Iraq commander. “We won the war in Iraq, and we’re now losing the peace.”

“Forty-four hundred lives lost,” Gen. Keane said. “Tens of thousands of troops wounded. Over a couple hundred thousand Iraqis killed. We liberated 25 million people. There is only one Arab Muslim country that elects its own government, and that is Iraq.

“We should be staying there to strengthen that democracy, to let them get the kind of political gains they need to get and keep the Iranians away from strangling that country. That should be our objective, and we are walking away from that objective.”

Sorry, General Keane. It is a disaster, but that mistake was set in stone when the Bush Administration decided to rush Iraq into elections with the idea of massaging his fetish of 'Arab Democracy' and empowered Shi'ite politicians with close ties to Iran instead of putting an interim pro-US government in power. Once that happened, the rest was predictable and just a matter of time.

And now the stupidity, from the same article:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday warned Iran not to miscalculate the U.S. decision to withdraw its troops.

“No one, most particularly Iran, should miscalculate about our continuing commitment to and with the Iraqis going forward,” she said in an interview with CNN from Uzbekistan.

“In addition to a very significant diplomatic presence in Iraq which will carry much of the responsibility for dealing with an independent, sovereign, democratic Iraq, we have bases in neighboring countries, we have our ally in Turkey. We have a lot of presence in that region,” she added.

As if Iran hasn't simply laughed at such pronouncements before? As if Erdogan's Islamist Turkey didn't sabotage our invasion of Iraq in 2003 and hasn't been a conduit for Iran evading the so-called sanctions since then? As if 150 troops guarding an embassy is going to stave off Moqtada al-Sadr and his Iranian armed and trained Shi'ite militia from Lebanonizing Iraq? As if the Iraqis themselves aren't booting us out in response to pressure from Iran?

Unbelievable. And there are people that still want this clueless woman as president.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Out Of Iraq - The Lesson Learned?

President Obama has announced that all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by the end of this year, except for 150 troops needed to guard the massive U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

“The rest of our troops in Iraq will come home at the end of the year,” Obama said today at the White House. “After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.”

Contrary to the spin given to this by the WashingtonPost and the other establishment media, this was not President Obama's choice, but the demand of Iraqi government, who insisted that all U.S. troops be out of Iraq by year's end.

While this is also being spun as an expression of 'Arab democracy' it's actually anything but.

Moqtada al-Sadr's Iran-trained, armed and funded Mahdi Army militia has been maintaining a publicly declared quiet period with the provision that all U.S. forces leave the country. They're doing so on Iran's orders.

The Iranian strategy is to allow U.S. forces to leave and then begin a political de facto takeover of the new Iraq, aided by Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki, who depends on the support of the Shi'ite Bloc controlled by Iranian proxy al-Sadr to stay in power. Maliki actually lost the last elections back in March to the secular, pro-American bloc led by Ayad Allawi, but Maliki was able to overcome that by making a deal with al-Sadr to form a government and 'disqualifying' a few of Allawi 's winning parliamentary candidates on grounds that would have done credit to a Chicago ward heeler.

Iran owns Maliki now, and the Mahdi Army will prove just as useful as Hezbollah was in Lebanon at persuading anyone who objects to the new order to see things differently by removing any particularly stubborn opponents as an example.

Maliki is simply acting like the creature of the region he is and gravitating towards what he perceives as the strong horse. As soon as President Obama got in, Maliki took his measure, saw his weakness and understood that we were leaving, Iran isn't and that working with the mullahs was not only a way to stay in power but to stay healthy.

Besides, he doesn't need us around any more. We've already built him a shiny new army and repaired the country's infrastructure at our expense.

So Iraq will almost certainly dance to the Mullah's tune, while President Obama will now campaign as 'the man who ended Bush's war in Iraq and brought the troops home.'

President Bush's frequently stated war goals in Iraq were to have a stable Iraq who would be democratic and an ally of ours in the so-called 'war on terror.' The goals themselves were absolutely farcical in terms of the reality on the ground and what our actual war aims should have been, and even at that we have only barely accomplished one out of three, stability. And it cost us over 4,000 lives and a trillion dollars, much of which was wasted or stolen.

In the end, we didn't even wind up with the oil. The leases on the oil fields Halliburton was miraculously able to save after Saddam set them on fire went to China.

What we've established in Iraq is a Shiite Islamic Republic based on Sharia that will have much of its government friendly or beholden to our enemies in Iran. Iraq has continued to adhere religiously to a boycott of Israel that is against US law, and there has been open season under our watch on Iraq's Christians, a story that rarely merits a mention in the dinosaur media. Iraq will no more be a 'ally ' of ours against our enemies than say, Pakistan, and will limit their 'war on terror' activities to simply suppressing any dissident elements in their own society.

This was something that was easily predictable.

Let me make one thing very clear. To repeat what I said more than two years ago, General Petraeus, his successor General Ordiano and our warriors achieved an amazing victory in defeating an in-country insurgency backed by unfriendly states to the east and north that acted as havens, bases and transit areas for our enemies. And even more miraculously, they did it in spite of ridiculous Rules of Engagement designed with political correctness in mind that no American fighting men and women have ever had to face before. The warriors who won WWII would have shaken their heads in disbelief at that.

That said, what their valiant achievement accomplished(aside from sending a notable number of jihadis to their just desserts and putting a fighting edge on our army) was to put the best possible face on a bad situation and allow America a graceful exit. It wasn't a victory, but thanks to what our warriors accomplished, it wasn't a defeat.

Before we get involved in another war with foggy, dubious goals and no clear path to victory, we need to remember the lessons of Iraq. Nation building and establishing democracy are all very well in their place, but they come from victory.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Out Of Iraq - The Lesson Learned?

President Obama has announced that all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by the end of this year, except for 150 troops needed to guard the massive U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

“The rest of our troops in Iraq will come home at the end of the year,” Obama said today at the White House. “After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.”

Contrary to the spin given to this by the WashingtonPost and the other establishment media, this was not President Obama's choice, but the demand of Iraqi government, who insisted that all U.S. troops be out of Iraq by year's end.

While this is also being spun as an expression of 'Arab democracy' it's actually anything but.

Moqtada al-Sadr's Iran-trained, armed and funded Mahdi Army militia has been maintaining a publicly declared quiet period with the provision that all U.S. forces leave the country. They're doing so on Iran's orders.

The Iranian strategy is to allow U.S. forces to leave and then begin a political de facto takeover of the new Iraq, aided by Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki, who depends on the support of the Shi'ite Bloc controlled by Iranian proxy al-Sadr to stay in power. Maliki actually lost the last elections back in March to the secular, pro-American bloc led by Ayad Allawi, but Maliki was able to overcome that by making a deal with al-Sadr to form a government and 'disqualifying' a few of Allawi 's winning parliamentary candidates on grounds that would have done credit to a Chicago ward heeler.

Iran owns Maliki now, and the Mahdi Army will prove just as useful as Hezbollah was in Lebanon at persuading anyone who objects to the new order to see things differently by removing any particularly stubborn opponents as an example.

Maliki is simply acting like the creature of the region he is and gravitating towards what he perceives as the strong horse. As soon as President Obama got in, Maliki took his measure, saw his weakness and understood that we were leaving, Iran isn't and that working with the mullahs was not only a way to stay in power but to stay healthy.

Besides, he doesn't need us around any more. We've already built him a shiny new army and repaired the country's infrastructure at our expense.

So Iraq will almost certainly dance to the Mullah's tune, while President Obama will now campaign as 'the man who ended Bush's war in Iraq and brought the troops home.'

President Bush's frequently stated war goals in Iraq were to have a stable Iraq who would be democratic and an ally of ours in the so-called 'war on terror.' The goals themselves were absolutely farcical in terms of the reality on the ground and what our actual war aims should have been, and even at that we have only barely accomplished one out of three, stability. And it cost us over 4,000 lives and a trillion dollars, much of which was wasted or stolen.

In the end, we didn't even wind up with the oil. The leases on the oil fields Halliburton was miraculously able to save after Saddam set them on fire went to China.

What we've established in Iraq is a Shiite Islamic Republic based on Sharia that will have much of its government friendly or beholden to our enemies in Iran. Iraq has continued to adhere religiously to a boycott of Israel that is against US law, and there has been open season under our watch on Iraq's Christians, a story that rarely merits a mention in the dinosaur media. Iraq will no more be a 'ally ' of ours against our enemies than say, Pakistan, and will limit their 'war on terror' activities to simply suppressing any dissident elements in their own society.

This was something that was easily predictable.

Let me make one thing very clear. To repeat what I said more than two years ago, General Petraeus, his successor General Ordiano and our warriors achieved an amazing victory in defeating an in-country insurgency backed by unfriendly states to the east and north that acted as havens, bases and transit areas for our enemies. And even more miraculously, they did it in spite of ridiculous Rules of Engagement designed with political correctness in mind that no American fighting men and women have ever had to face before. The warriors who won WWII would have shaken their heads in disbelief at that.

That said, what their valiant achievement accomplished(aside from sending a notable number of jihadis to their just desserts and putting a fighting edge on our army) was to put the best possible face on a bad situation and allow America a graceful exit. It wasn't a victory, but thanks to what our warriors accomplished, it wasn't a defeat.

Before we get involved in another war with foggy, dubious goals and no clear path to victory, we need to remember the lessons of Iraq. Nation building and establishing democracy are all very well in their place, but they come from victory.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

King cartoon