The Iranian Assassination Plot: Islamic Statecraft
The foiled Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States illustrates the cultural fault line that divides the Islamic world from the West — and the contempt with which the Iranians hold the Obama administration.
Killing a diplomatically protected person in the nation’s capital is a severe violation of international, as well as American, law. Even for the Islamic regime of Iran, which has conducted assassinations all over the world, it was an unprecedented action. Iran has never before been so bold as to consider an assassination in the American capital, especially one by explosion that would result in numerous additional casualties. Until now, Iran has conducted assassinations in countries where it felt it was unlikely to get caught or be subject to retaliation. This new tactic is an indelible statement of Iran’s contempt for the current administration.
A nation’s external statecraft is a function of its cultural values. Its embrace of international law will depend on how it perceives the international community’s legal structure reflects its own values. In Islam, there is a long tradition that treaties are expedient devices to gain advantage, and the idea of a transcendent legal system is irrelevant if it does not advance the cause of Islam. After all, Mohammed’s treaty with the Koresh tribe of Mecca, which was conveniently discarded once Mohammed bought sufficient time to conquer the city, is cited even by Muslims as an example.
It was no accident that in 1979 the American embassy and diplomatically protected persons were seized by the Iranian revolutionaries, and the new Islamic government did nothing to honor its legal obligations to protect the embassy or its personnel. Indeed, the Islamic government of Iran itself eventually became complicit in the embassy takeover.
The Iranian government was making a statement, one it continues to make, and one which the Obama administration is incapable of hearing: the Iranian government does not perceive international law or any Western-based institutional system as legitimate. This is the same statement that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the underwear bomber, made when he pleaded guilty in a Detroit court of attempting to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight. Abdulmutallab claimed that he was not guilty under Islamic law, and was only pleading guilty because he was in an American courtroom governed by American law.
This was the mindset of Yasser Arafat, when in the wake of having signed the Oslo accords, he hastened to tell Arab audiences — in Arabic — that he had in actuality signed the Peace of Mecca, the peace Mohammed signed with the Koresh tribe.
Weeks ago, the Egyptian government withheld protection of the Israeli embassy from a bloodthirsty mob until President Obama himself directly intervened with the Egyptians. Prior to that moment, the Egyptian government was perfectly content to ignore its legal obligation to protect a foreign embassy, even when it meant the embassy personnel would be slaughtered.
The authentic voice of the Arab Spring is not seen in the MSM hype or the Obama administration depiction of democracy breaking out in Tahrir Square, but in the rape of journalist Lara Logan. The charade of the Arab Spring is revealed in the brain-splattered head of a Coptic Christian, who was one of dozens of Christians purposely crushed by military vehicles as they repeatedly sped through the crowd mauling demonstrators.
The Christians are protesting the burning of churches, a conflagration unleashed with the rise of Egypt’s Arab Spring and the ascension of the Muslim Brotherhood. The face of the Arab Spring, so lauded by this administration and the MSM, is revealed in pictures of rank and file soldiers joining with the Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood, who were brutally attacking the Christian demonstrators that the soldiers were supposed to protect.
In another indulgence of fatuous behavior, President Obama asked both sides to exercise restraint.
But worse, the mainstream Christian community has been righteous in its silence on the increasing brutalization of Christians in the Islamic world. Even the pope has retreated from his earlier courageous criticism of Islam. Violent attacks on Catholics in the Islamic world have silenced him. In the Islamic world, violence on behalf of Islam is an imperative, and in the face of violence, the Holy See has backed down.
It is not just the MSM that fails to understand the incompatibility of Islamic culture with the rule of Western law. Barry Rubin, in PJMedia, describes the naïve observations of three prominent Republicans on the uprising in Libya, observations that could only be appropriately described as quixotic embraces of a Potemkin Village scene of democratic rebels — who are in reality killing prisoners, bombarding civilians, and selling weapons to terrorists.
The Obama administration is handling the Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, which also had the potential of killing scores of innocent bystanders, as a criminal justice problem and not what it is — an act of war. This is an act of war brought on by Obama’s willingness to engage Iran without any demand for reciprocity, and his alacrity to embrace the murderous Bashir Assad as a partner in the Middle East.
When American leaders are looked upon as weak buffoons, our adversaries and our enemies will take risks in dealing with them. Nikita Khrushchev perceived President Kennedy as weak and inept, especially after his abandoning the Bay of Pigs invaders and terminating their air support. Khrushchev gambled on tilting the balance of terror in his favor by putting nuclear missiles in Cuba. Fortunately, Kennedy rose to the occasion.
Now Iran moves decisively toward producing a nuclear weapon, and the administration does nothing. The administration has done nothing about Assad’s opening the border with Iraq to move in fighters who kill American troops. The administration has done nothing about Iran’s transfer of weapons to Iraq’s Shi’a militia. Iran is the source of the military grade explosives used in IEDs.
One could not have expected a culture which has no reverence for the norms of international law to abide by legal restraints, but one could have expected that all cultures comprehend the consequences of provoking a strong adversary who is unhesitant in undertaking decisive retaliation, especially for an act of war.
Clearly, the Iranians believed we would not retaliate. And this was to be expected. They did what no nation-state in the modern era has done. In 1979, they flagrantly violated the law of nations as applied to internationally protected persons. They suffered negligible consequences. Their Hitler-like president is honored by our elites and invited to disseminate his hatred at one of our most privileged universities. The Iranians see an administration that pursues them. Their client Bashir Assad was hailed as a partner for Middle East peace, and even after he was shooting people in the streets, the Obama administration clung to him until it became too obscene to continue.
In these times, the nation needs another JFK, a man who learned from his mistakes and had the courage to preserve the nation’s security. Instead, we are burdened with a president who equivocates when decisiveness is needed and who is stymied by a vision of Islamic culture that fails to recognize how it translates into statecraft.
What doesn’t help is how some people conclude that Islamism is different than Islam.
Why not ask those who were Muslims if there is a difference.
Mind you, then there are those who simply have so much invested in their stance that they will not accept it that they are wrong.
Can you tell me what you are talking about?
Also see:
Geert Wilders: No distinction between Islam and Islamism
What he is saying that trying to be politically correct and not mentioning Islam when confronting the behaviour displayed, is not helpful to one’s survival.
Here is one essay on the fallacy that there is any difference between “Islamism” (or its variants) and Islam itself:
Istist Rhetoric
That may answer at least part of your question.
Firstly, are we all sure that Iran actually plotted the death of a Saudi ambassador? We can’t believe everything we’re told, you know. Also, it just doesn’t seem like the Iranians would do such a thing. But most of all, look at the first name of this article’s author….it’s “Abraham”, which as you all know, is a Hebrew name. That says a lot right there. Where do you think this author’s loyalties lie? Hmmmm? Is it possible that the author is knowingly spreading a false story to support a Zionist first strike against the children of Iran? Hmmm? Think about that….a name says quite a bit about a person. I believe that…a name says quite a bit about where a person’s loyalties lie. Even you crazy neocons can agree with that observation.
LE- what does “that” have to do with the price of eggs in China?
Look at the man’s name! What is it?! What do you think it helps us understand? If a man’s name is “Solomon” or “Abraham”, what do you think his race/religion are? Do you then think that he harbors a loyalty to a certain small nation in the middle-east? And that such loyalty may seep out into his writings? What if a man is named “Mohammed” or or “Amir” or “Hussein”, would you not think that the same logic applies? That he supports the Muslim Brotherhood or the fundamentalist Libyan rebels or Uganda’s Muslims in their fight against the Christian LRA? What is the problem with you neocons? Can you not see the logic? Think it, smell it, lick it, do what you need to understand this!
Hmmmm?, Hussein, where have I heard that name before?
“If a man’s name is “Abraham”, what do you think his race/religion are?”
You mean, Abraham like in Abraham Lincoln, for example?
So following your guidelines, everything you might say with respect to the environment should be instantly discounted, because your username is “LovelyEarth,” and thus naturally you will be a fanatic and allow your personal biases to hold sway.
Well?
My Father’s name was Aaron, yet he was a baptist.
What does that tell you?
By the way his father’s name was Hiram.
LovelyEarth,
You weren’t raised properly.
Obama proves once again that he is in over his head…what to do…what to do are what is going through his mind at this very moment. We are doomed!
Tinfoil alert.
My mistake. I didn’t know LE is a resident Poe satirist.
What a lovely anti-semitic response! It doesn’t seem like Iran would do such a thing? Iran has been doing such things since it became an Islamic state. Islam teaches that one should lie to advance the cause of Islam, and since Islam controls all under Shar’ia, it is perfectly o.k. to lie to non-Islamics about anything. It’s all about world domination, baby.
So, assuming that this isn’t a satirical post, and that you aren’t bugnutz crazy, I take your comment to mean that if my name is Rebecca, I am a peacemaking shepherdess of the Hebrew tribe (which I am not). What does your internet nickname LovelyEarth signify? Do you shed all your clothes at the full moon and dance in the dew in the worship of Gaia?
Time to rotate “Lovely Earth” -this side is well-cooked…
You are a fool. I know Abe, and I don’t know you, but I know enough to say you are a fool.
Are you telling me that Obama doesn’t understand Islam?
Hey LovelyEarth, you did a poor job at hiding your inclination towards anti-semitism there.
Looks like the Iranians have our number. We sure as God are not going to do anything. Increasing sanctions against ‘individuals in Iran’? That’s just asinine.
The only “law” the Iranians understand is that of strength. Pure, overwhelming, strength and a president that is not afraid to use it. If you have that, you can keep the Iranians in a box. If not, we will get what we saw just a few days ago, an attempt to kill an ambassador and a plan to blow up part of Washington.
Libertship said “Pure, overwhelming, strength and a president that is not afraid to use it. If you have that, you can keep the Iranians in a box”
We have the strength- not the rest…
and-my government friend tonight informed me-US Government is “afraid” to do anything to Iran -because- wait for this- because Russia AND China would defend
Iran. And, together with “Syria, Lebanon, and Hezbullah- are too strong for US to attack-” I swear this is from a top Democrat tonight at dinner.
I did not disturb our meal-but, question -Does anyone think US has already become this weak???
This is quite obviously a false flag event, designed to make people start thinking that Iran is somehow an enemy of the USA.
Why is it that we’re supposed to be outraged at the “Islamists” in Iran, but pay no attention to the “Islamists” in Saudi Arabia?
Oh boy….here’s a perfect example of how a name says everything you need to know about someone. Here we have “WhiteHistory”. What else do we need to know about this poster to understand that he harbors terrible feelings toward people of color? But not Iranians?…who even Hitler maintained were Aryans. Mr. WhiteBreadHistory probably hates the Zionist entity too. A NAME SAYS IT ALL. LOOK AT THE NAME…..you maroons.
Right. I am pretty sure that “LovelyEarth” and “WhiteHistory” are the same person. Both are the same racist troll.
Lovely White Earth History
Unbelievable. You rail against a racist and don’t see your own anti-Semitism. Doubly a fool. And a stupid one at that.
Lovely earth that is, not you Udar
Great analysis.
The two worst case scenarios for Iran were:
1) the plot was successfully executed, many American citizens were killed including a US Senator, and we find out they were behind it;
2) the plot was foiled and we find out they were behind it.
They were clearly willing to risk #1. So when #2 occurred, no big deal as far as they are concerned.
Assuming this plot was real, and all indications are it was — $1.5 million is a lot of money, it is obvious they were unconcerned about anything they thought Obama might do.
Given the US responses to all they have done to us in the past 32 years, they had little reason to think Obama, of all people, would respond aggressively.
After the killing of bin Laden the Dems and the MSM tried to portray him as a “gutsy” Dirty Harry style terrorist killer. Iran knew the truth about that. They have deflated that balloon, not that there was much hot air left in it.
Imagine how they will behave once they get a nuke. Think Obama will do anything to prevent that? I don’t.
Let’s not fault Obama too much here. Yes, he lets Assad send fighters across the border to kill our troops in Iraq. Yes he lets Iran send arms to their Shia brothers in Iraq. So what if a few IEDs blow up some of our troops. He helped free Libya so that they can arm Hamas. Note how loudly he has defended the Coptic Christians in Egypt……. On the other hand, he has sent in American advisors to Uganda to fight the Lord’s Army yet involving us in another foreign adventure. I tell you the man is a saint.
Look at other things he’s done:
He stopped the space program in its tracks, too costly.
He stopped the F22 fighter program in its tracks, too costly.
He stopped the F35 program, again too costly.
He stopped the European anti ballistic missile program, to win friends in the Kremlin.
He has us leaving Iraq.
He has us leaving Afghanistan.
He has done all of this to save us money. Instead of our people working on the above programs, he now has the money to pay people for not working. The man is a saint. And, if we reelect him, we will get the government we deserve.
Yes, he is the “Saint Vitus of the Spastic Finance Game.”
From “Let’s roll” to “Let’s roll over” in less than one term.
If what the author says is true, then we lose. With nearly 2 billion murderous savages in our midst, we cannot survive in a civilized condition.
If, however, we can find common cause with Muslims who are people of good will, we win, and the sooner we reach out to them, the sooner we win, and the lower the price in blood.
Like we did in Iraq.
I agree that Hamas is well-described in this article. They produced the Hamas Covenant, as filthy a document as ever produced by human beings. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp The same is true of the government of Iran, which has a policy to engage in Geneva Convention violations. We know this, for example, by observing what they funded in Lebanon for the purpose of attacking Israel.
Miscreants aside, real Muslim scholars know the origins of their faith, and its fundamental commandments, which are THE SAME as those of Islam. They said so when they answered the Pope’s Regensberg address. http://www.acommonword.com/index.php?lang=en&page=option1
With two documents written entirely by Muslims, the Hamas Covenant and A Common Word Between Us, we have the means to challenge the Iranian government, to isolate it as the deadly pariah it is. We can ask them to repudiate the Hamas Covenant as unIslamic in light of A Common Word. Assuming they refuse, we can follow up with choice quotes, asking them to reconcile the two.
Or we could send them a sternly worded letter. Maybe using harsh language.
You are on a roll, Rebecca!!
ditto
President Bush allowed Iranian intelligence to convince the White house to invade Iraq ( Mr. Chalabi was a main source of information regarding Iraq for the Bush Administration, and was an Iranian Spy. He now manages Iraqi petroleum interests on behalf of Iran ). We handed Iraq to Iran on a silver platter and even killed Saddam for them.
President Obama is about to allow the same scenario; a govt other than Iran is behind this and they will try to convince the White house to Invade Iran.
This is the tragedy of the American people, No thinking for ourselves.
Sometimes it can be hard to tell the Poes from the real thing.
Alex, you are exactly wrong about the US handing Iraq to Iran. The effects of a type of democracy, or at the very least a non-dictatorship or non- kingdom, in Iraq are in it’s infancy. This is only the beginning of the story in the middle east. the region has been a cesspool of tyrannical and oppressive rule. The seed of freedom has been planted in the heart of the Muslim world. It is human nature to gravitate to freedom and dignity. The majority of these countries population are under 30. The genie is out of the bottle. It will spread and grow. The kingdoms will fall. The mullahs will fall. Iran is a blip filling a temporary power vacuum. They are not growing in power, but they are accelerating their own implosion.
What I see is Islamic law is used at will when it is convenient.
Terrorists obviously act outside of Islamic law on occasion and
Obama claims we and other countries should “take it” and that
shows strength. A few deaths , even a few hundred, but,maybe
thousands will cause a response..nothing less.
Message is – individual terrorists on small scale will be tolerated.
1645American,
Qassem Suleimani manages Iraq…he is an Iranian power broker and the ultimate power in Iraq and now influencing Syria and Libya. He achieved this because we removed the thorn in his Side, Saddam Hussein. Because of what we did, Iraq belongs to Iran today.
The beginning of the story in the Middle east was when Nixon placed us on a collision course by creating the petro dollar system. We placed control of our economy with Saudi Arabia, and have been subservient to their foreign policy decisions ever since. When Saudi nationals trained in Saudi funded terrorist camps rammed airliners into NYC, we took action against….Iraq..??
This is all heading towards a Showdown between Fundamental forces within Saudi Arabia and Iran. We will do Saudi Arabian Bidding as they control Liquidity accounts that form foundation of US petro dollar system. We can never lift a finger against, or refuse any instruction from Saudi Arabia, They control the US economy through the petro dollar system.
We ended up here because our leaders sold American interests to the highest bidder in the 60′s-90′s , and now the bill has come due.
I have to laugh when you say we need another JFK to stand up to Iran. Ha!! JFK was weak and Kruchev destroyed him in their private one on one meeting. Kennedy himself knew that he blew it and said so to Ted Sorenson following the meeting and Kruchev went back and told the Politboro that they could have their way with this young president and that is how we got the Cuban Missle Crisis. Yes, Kennedy got the credit for turning back the Soviet intrusion into our sphere of influence, but the media really never got to the root of why the Soviets did what they did. I don’t think we need a JFK, we need a Reagan or Nixon in the WH who understands geopolitical power and IS NOT afraid to act accordingly.
Great piece with an accurate analysis of our dilemma. I just have trouble believing Eric Holder and BHO. This is a great distraction from the deep doo-doo that they are in and I wouldn’t put it past them to concoct the whole thing. My Persian friends agree.
I too thought it may be a ‘distraction’ for Obama and Holder but it not. Hillary called for the entire world community to rally against Iran; just two weeks ago or so AndImanutjob was pontificating at the U.N. where the whole world was rallying against Israel!!
Iran have vowed to send warships to ‘monitor’ the coast East coast of the U.S.; they already did it to Israel and i fully expect that they’ll give it a try here…a big concern condidering that they have a few extra missiles with no place to go yet. The weak response to their attempted assassination may encourage them even more. I look at it as a dry run type of thing. Iran is convinced that they need to nuke the U.S. and Israel and I have to give Hillary credit for taking the lead in calling for judgement against Iran.
When Bush II declared “Islam is a religion of peace”, most of us were as stupid about that mass psychopathy as he was, myself included. I actually defended Islam once when a Christian missionary lady told me that Muslims were godless people. I owe that lady an apology.
Islam is the bane humanity.
Now it appears that the stealth Jihadist Obama is sending American troops to Uganda to kill Christians. If that is true, the American people need to send troops to Washington to get rid of him.
Huh??? Why are you surprised that an American President would send troops to kill Christians? Clinton bombed Bosnia to save Muslims,,, who do you think he was bombing, it wasn’t Budests. Duh,,,
Maybe the author needs to look at The Declaration of Human Rights by Cyrus thr Great before he sums up the Iranian nation. It’s the Hezbollah Party in Iran that is at fault. Authors should not think that they are “The State of Iran”. In fact they are at war with Iranians and none of them have any power in the administration of the country. The western media has chosen to ignore the cultural might of Iranians and how Islamification has failed. US needs a foe and they have chosen to make a monster out of a mullah hill.
Cyrus the Great may have believed in “human rights”, but his successors, like Darius the First and Xerxes, believed that people everywhere had the “right” to worship Darius and/or Xerxes. This in spite of supposedly being devotees of Zoroastrianism. The moral being that just because somebody preaches something that sounds good, doesn’t mean it’s not just a cover for them practicing what is most advantageous to them personally. Or just lets them scratch their personal itches. (I.e., kicking people they don’t like.)
As for “mountains and mullah hills”, Iran is run on the Golden Rule of Dictatorships; Whoever Has The Guns Gets The Gold, And Makes The Rules. The opposition lasts as long as it takes their leaders’ armed minions to reload, no longer. And Islam approves of such “strong man rule”, as long as it is done in the name of Allah.
The fact that the mullahs are delusional fanatics operating on an eschatological apocalyptic dogma (look up “Twelfth Imam”) makes no difference. They are in charge, and anyone who disagrees is dead. Period. Dot.
And oh yes, they are about to go nuclear in the war-fighting department.
What the people of Iran do or do not want does not matter. What their ruling religious fanatics dream of matters a great deal. To them, and to the rest of the world.
clear ether
eon
The West simply makes war in a different way. Traditionally, the West fights on one roll of the die. Islam likes the sort of back and forth: I chase you and you chase me. You don’t play tit for tat they just get bolder.
What will happen is that Islam will overplay its hand and the West, what there is left of it will go for a total solution. No crusade, but a crushing blow.
Islam fights and runs, and when defeat is total the faith is dead.
Off-Topic in a specific sense, but on-topic in a general, essential, sense:
The YouTube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/palwatch, the YouTube channel of Palestinian Media Watch ( http://palwatch.org ), which is an organization that observes, and translates into English, and posts, with English subtitles, content of the television media of the Fatah-PLO-PalestinianAuthority and Hamas television stations, has been terminated. Fatah-PLO-PalestinianAuthority and Hamas, on their television stations, broadcast racist genocidally anti-Jewish programs and state, in Arabic, their intentions to annihilate Israel. Palestinian Media Watch presents, with English subtitles, that programming broadcasted by Fatah-PLO-PalestinianAuthority and Hamas. The YouTube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/palwatch of Palestinian Media Watch ( http://palwatch.org ) had several hundred video clips of the television media of the Fatah-PLO-PalestinianAuthority and Hamas television stations.
Now, navigating to the YouTube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/palwatch results in there not being displayed the YouTube channel palwatch, but, rather, instead, results in there being displayed a page which contains the following message:
“This account has been terminated due to repeated or severe violations of our Community Guidelines and/or claims of copyright infringement.”
I suspect that the cause of the YouTube channel of Palestinian Media Watch being terminated was a campaign of false flagging by ‘Palestinian’ Arab activists, and/or Muslim Arab non-’Palestinian’-Arab activists, and/or Muslim non-Arab activists, and/or Western so-called “Anti-Zionist”/”Pro-Palestinian” activists (Western totalitarian anti-Jewish racists).
the LRA is a muslim outfit based out of Khartoum.
one need only review the atrocities committed to see that they are false flag christians. Christmas attacks and booty taking of children for forced fighting and sex slavery are examples of jihad.
just saying
Und tell me, Lovely Earth, do you have relatives in Germany? You sound very much like an SS interrogator in a Hollywood B-movie. Und vat sort of name does lovely earth represent. Some sort of flower child who takes needles between the toes?
Lovely Earth is proof positive of the wacko left’s / liberals proclivity towards and comfort with antisemitism.. By the way, just Google “Lovely Earth” I rest my case.
Have you read Ezekiel 37-39 lately?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2037-39&version=NIV
Before the September 11 observances in NY attended by Obama and his wife I would have said that he is not a Muslim sympathizer. But after seeing a photo of him looking up as former president Bush bowed his head at one point during the ceremonies I have since believed that he is not only a sympathizer but a Muslim, albeit one that has the sense to not inadvertently reveal it to any great degree. His strange Middle East policy could be about performing a delaying action for his co-religionists there. If anyone has a better explanation for what makes the Bamster tick in this regard I would be glad to know about it.
– Muslim?
This is why the US and/or Israel need to do whatever it takes to eradicate or stymie Iran’s nuclear bomb program.
For all the reasons argued in this article, no-one should be in any doubt that if Iran’s rulers thought they could safely slip a nuke to one of its terrorist proxies, without being caught, in he hope of its being used in the US or Europe, they would do so. It wouldn’t cause them to lose a moment’s sleep. Horrible, but it has to be faced.
You guys are all upset about Islam and Iran and all that stuff. But all this is smoke and mirrors. Iran never threatened the Saudi guy, much less on US soil. The Iranians are Islam assholes, and I’m referring here to their government and religious leaders. but in this instance all this hype and this new terror alert have been engineered by the secret elite that run the world–no matter whom we elect to any office. Obama is merely a puppet in this. A stupid one, but nevertheless a puppet. Direct your attention elsewhere to figure out what’s happening. Even weirdo Icke has a better clue about this than most of us.
It’s a gag to get Holder off of the hook. Alinsky said, “Overwhelm them !!!!!!” Obama is a shiite muslim as is his friend Amedinajihadi LEADER of Iran!!! All the US has been doing is killing AlQueda leaders and their relatives and LONG LIVE OBAMA’S MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD. He is using our resources, ie. BLOOD and money, to fight the ages-long ISLAMIC war.
We are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooostupid. Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
We can thank the adherents of the Idiotic Right for the rise of a nuclear armed Iran. They were among the most enthusiastic backers for America’s attack and invasion of Iraq, despite the persistent warnings from Israeli and other intelligence agencies.
Jerusalem post- October 15, 2011
“It seems like only yesterday we were marching into Baghdad, waiting to be greeted with shouts of gratitude and appreciation for saving you from the evil dictator who ruled your totalitarian state with an iron fist. Well, the surge is over and we’re gonna roll pretty soon, so I just wanted to mention that it’s not too late to greet us as liberators if you get the chance.” GEN. RAY ODIERNO
America invades Iraq: Lawrence Wilkerson, in 2002 a member of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff and later chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell recalled in an interview that, “the Israelis were telling us Iraq is not the enemy — Iran is the enemy. If you are going to destabilize the balance of power, do it against the main enemy.” Wilkerson recalled that the message “was conveyed to the administration by a wide range of Israeli sources, including political figures, intelligence and private citizens.” Nor was Israel the only concerned bystander. Turkey’s prime minister, Bulent Ecevit, at a time when that country was still a strong ally of the United States and Israel and still under secular rule delivered the same message, as did the Saudis, Lebanon and Egypt.
Hosni Mubarak prophetically “told the American government that if you strike at the Iraqi people… we fear a state of disorder and chaos may prevail in the region.”
As Air Force 2 approached Riyadh on the first leg of a mission to convince the Saudis and Gulf Emirates that America invading Iraq was in their interest, Dick Cheney was informed that Crown Prince Abdullah had just told ABC News, ”I do not believe it is in the United States’ interests, or the interest of the region, or the world’s interest, to do so… And I don’t believe it will achieve the desired result.” But neither the advice of the Saudis, the Israelis and the Turks individually or collectively could deter Bush once he made up his mind.
From the beginning the logic of those warnings by America’s allies in the region should also have been obvious to America’s policy-makers. For how could anybody with any background in the region have not foreseen the pivotal role of Iraq as deterrent to Iran? But the administration was bent on following its own inner voice. Emblematic of administration ignorance, Vice President Cheney told Meet the Press that he and Bush fully expected the American invaders to “be greeted as liberators.”
America’s informal alliance with Iran: The Iranians had fought a decade-long war with Iraq and suffered a million casualties. The Islamic Republic was not anxious to try again. They needed a proxy to topple Sadam. America’s first Gulf war stopped at the gates of Baghdad because Bush, Sr. understood Sadam’s role as deterrent. “Iran knew it could not invade Iraq and win by itself.” Iran would have to encourage the Americans to do the job for them.
“Influential people in the White House, the Pentagon and Congress saw [Ahmed Chalabi] as an Iraqi George Washington.” The MIT-educated, secular Shiite Muslim, “was the Pentagon’s and Vice President Dick Cheney’s candidate to lead Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003.” In fact Chalabi, close confidant and major source of intelligence regarding those phantom Iraqi WMD (weapons of mass destruction and rationale to invade), was an Iranian spy who both kept Teheran informed of US planning, and provided Bush what it wanted to hear in support of its intentions: “The CIA blames him for some of the bad intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” And, “intelligence officials now believe that Iran used the hawks in the Pentagon and the White House to get rid of a hostile neighbor, and pave the way for a Shia-ruled Iraq.”
Rather than the welcome as liberators of the oppressed Shia majority of Iraq the “liberators” were met by a well organized community bent on fighting the infidels. While Ahmadinejad had been baiting the American invasion the Iranian Revolutionary Guard had been organizing and training their Shia co-religionists to fight the invasion. Iran funded, provided weapons and training and, as the insurrection progressed, even officers to lead the militias. It turned out that defeating the Iraqi army and deposing Sadam was the easy part.
Iran had deftly manipulated the superpower, and would deftly continue to do so with great profit. With the US military bogged down in Iraq the administration had little appetite for yet another Muslim adventure. Although they could never acknowledge it, Bush was now dependent on Iran as a moderating force needed to keep American casualties low. When in 2007 Bush introduced his “successful” Surge, its success was dependent on Iranian cooperation. Ahmadinejad ordered the Shia Mehdi Army, highly successful in fighting the Americans, to withdraw from the streets of Baghdad.
“The US plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years as part of a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush.” Was it mere coincidence that the Mehdi Army abandoned the streets to the US, and that Bush provided Ahmadinejad that State Department Interest Section in downtown Teheran, reversing a thirty year US policy of diplomatically isolating the Islamic Republic? But if Bush bought Iranian assistance with that Interest Section it was unnecessary. Iran would have gladly provided Bush any assistance desired, no strings attached, to encourage the Americans to leave. That had been Iranian policy from the start.
The Iranian Bomb: On its surface, based on the statements of Bush and Cheney, the US was committed to use force to stop Iran’s nuclear bomb project. But if that were really policy, why appoint a defense secretary who opposed that policy from the start; why appoint a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who saw eye-to-eye with the defense secretary? In fact American policy regarding the Iranian bomb had been bluster and inaction long before the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran provided cover by concluding, “with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.”
But Gates and Mullen needed no such fig leaf; they had long been on record opposing war with Iran. “In 2007, [Secretary of Defense Gates] told a private meeting of Congressmen that bombing Iran would “create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America… They will start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and they will be less secure at the end than they are now.” And chairman Mullen: “Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. Attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome.” What do such statements mean in context of the president who hired them? What does it say about the intentions of Bush’s successor: President Obama asked both to remain?
New York Times, 10 July, 2011: Panetta Says Iranian Arms in Iraq Are a ‘Concern’
“…Mr. Panetta is the third top American official to raise an alarm about Iranian influence in Iraq in recent days. The American ambassador to Iraq, James F. Jeffrey, said last week that the United States had “forensic” evidence that weapons and weapons parts from Iran were being used by Shiite militias against American troops. His remarks were echoed two days later in Washington by Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff… Iran’s motive, American officials say, is to claim credit for driving American forces out of Iraq at a time when those forces are more than halfway out the door… In April, Robert M. Gates, Mr. Panetta’s predecessor as defense secretary, all but begged the Iraqis to ask for troops to stay… On Sunday, Mr. Panetta echoed Mr. Gates.”
Who the hell is MSM?
Tactile nuclear waapons is my answer before it is to late.
“Tactile nuclear waapons is my answer before it is to late.”
Wow!!! So many typos in such a powerful response, it’s hard to believe a real Col. ret. Raoul Korsoski (I copied and pasted that because I thought the idea of a Cuban Polack was curioius). While I don’t like to make light of my fellow poster, that was really funny.
I like when somebody is pulling our chain.
Personally, if I were in charge of anything, I would happily turn a lot of desert into a glass parking lot,,, starting with Mecca. Nukes will ultimately be the answer. In order to survive we will eventually have to eliminate the Muslims. We have no choice if the Judeo/Christian morality is to survive,. You need to get comfortable with that idea, or they will kill us
Miller’s article evokes what other credible observers are saying—-that the Obama administration will dither in the face of this obvious act of way. The current foreign policy climate is similar to the actions that a weak United States took against British atrocities in the first decade of the 19th century. The end result was the War of 1812. Or, consider the pathos of Chamaberlain’s assurances that Hitler was honorable and could be managed. Weak leaders with such assurances lead us into inevitable war.
Obviously the ‘white’ part of Obama descended from Neville Chamberlain. God give us a Churchill who’ll kick this Community Organizer’s butt out of the White House before we get a 2011 version of an Austrian house painter invading Poland.
When Israel Attacks
It hasn’t been been an “if” for a long time and the “when” now appears imminent. The dilemma for the United States remains, When Israel launches its long-anticipated tactical strike at Iranian nuclear facilities, what will America do?
Despite being beset with economic upheaval and by endless threats from its other Muslim neighbors, it’s nevertheless a foregone conclusion that Israel will soon replicate the September 6th, 2007 attack on Syria’s al-Kibar nuclear weapons site which effectively ended the Assad regime’s pretensions of dominating the Mideast.
There is one significant difference between the al-Kibar strike by Israel’s IAF and the expected operation to eradicate Iran’s nuke capabilities, namely, al-Kibar preceded the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama.
The latest news out of Washington is that the unilateralism-averse Obama administration has been pressuring the U.N. Security Council and the two permanent members who have opposed tougher sanctions, China and Russia, to support American initiatives intended to forestall a unilateral attack by Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Fat chance, as is the chance Israel will heed Obama’s importunings not to take out a growing and virtually-certain danger before it becomes an accomplished fact and much of the tiny Jewish state is decimated.
The latest news out of Tel Aviv is that Israel is developing ICBM capabilities and launched a test missile just two days after Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu again warned of the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program. Those ominous developments followed reports Netanyahu has been working to firm up his cabinet’s endorsement of a first strike.
Israel is preparing for war.
Given international and IAEA awareness of Iranian progress in both missile technology and nuclear capabilities, Iran’s persistent declarations of wiping Israel off the face of the map, and their most recent vow to inflict “heavy damages to the US as well as to the Zionist regime” in the event of a pre-emptive strike, that pre-emption is a certainty.
The only uncertainty is how the United States should react. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5877.)