First, Egypt was decisively defeated by Israel on the battlefield, convincing Anwar Sadat that there was no possibility of wiping out Israel, and that any attempt to do it would be disastrous for his country. Second, both the United States and the Soviet Union started designing a “peace” deal, and Sadat didn’t like the prospect of a renewed Soviet role in the region. He was even prepared to talk directly to the Israelis. So he went to Jerusalem.
Thus, contrary to Obama’s reconstruction of events in the 1970s, the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel was the result of an Israeli victory on the battlefield. Just as the reconciliation process in Iraq was the result of an American military victory. But the president and his advisers, special envoys and czars, can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that we defeated the terrorists in Iraq. And that little political stratagem contributes to their blindness to the full dimensions of the terror war.
The terror war, like the destiny of the Middle East, revolves around Tehran, the engine of the terror network, the inspiration and paymaster of many jihadis, and the most likely candidate for nuclear status in the near future. Alas, just as the Bush Administration never adopted an effective Iran policy, so the Obama Administration is marching in lockstep to the Bush music. Despite all the talk about a “new strategy,” Iran policy hasn’t changed at all, with the exception of all the bragging about “finally talking” to them. Obama’s Iran strategy is the same as Bush’s, combining sanctions, defensive measures such as arresting and sometimes even killing Iranian Revolutionary Guards forces operating against our men and women on the battlefield, and other financial measures designed to “increase the pressure” on the mullahs.
These measures have not worked in the past, nor have the negotiations that every president since Jimmy Carter has conducted with Iran. There is no reason to think they will succeed today.
Indeed, the Iranians have every reason to believe they can get most anything they want from America, and from America’s closest European ally, Great Britain. Little noticed by Iran watchers, a week ago an Iranian-sponsored terror group in Iraq announced that a deal had been struck that would result in the staged releases of five British hostages in exchange for several terrorists held by American forces. Not only that, but the Guardian reported that “Efforts to finalize the deal were a factor in Britain’s move to re-engage publicly with Hezbollah’s political wing in Lebanon this month.”
In simple English, we and the Brits appeased the Iranians on two levels: we released their killers and the Brits legitimized Hezbollah.
Iran now holds three American hostages: Robert Levinson, Roxana Saberi, and Esha Momeni. Levinson is an ex-F.B.I. agent who disappeared a year ago while in Iran. Saberi is a freelance journalist arrested in Iran at the end of January, and is now reportedly on a hunger strike in Evin Prison in Tehran. Momeni, a graduate student from Cal State University, was conducting research on the Iranian women’s movement (a particularly sensitive theme for the regime), and was rounded up last October.
The Iranians have successfully manipulated Western policy for decades, and not only, as is often claimed, because they are clever tacticians. Brutality is more characteristic of this regime, and hostage taking is one of their trademarks. It works, in part because nobody has any doubt about their willingness to torture and kill Western hostages, whose bodies would unfortunately fill a good-sized morgue. No wonder that Secretary of State Clinton gave the Iranians a letter about these unfortunate Americans.
It may not be entirely coincidental that Iran’s key Asian ally, North Korea, has just taken two American hostages. They’re female journalists who work for Al Gore’s “Current TV.” Do you think the president will refuse to listen to Gore when he begs for help for his people in that awful place?
Quite aside from the nuances of counterinsurgency warfare, nothing would so advance the cause of peace as the fall of the regime in Tehran, and its replacement by a government designed and elected by the Iranian people. I have long believed that can be accomplished peacefully, by supporting a non-violent democratic revolution in Iran. No American president in the last thirty years has attempted it, and most of them have acted as if they were actually afraid of supporting freedom for Iranians. A young Iranian blogger, upon hearing Obama’s love video to the mullahs, reacted with an elegant mixture of sadness and pride:
…people have been tortured on the charges of having connections with the United States. Some have been silent thinking you will come to their rescue. At least Bush had the honesty to separate this regime from the people. How easy you play with the people card. Please do not talk about our people anymore. Engage the regime and leave us alone. We will free Iran, even when you are helping this occupying regime…
That’s the key issue. It should come naturally to any American president, but it doesn’t. I fear we’re going to pay a terrible price for this deliberate refusal to see evil right in front of our noses. Negotiations are a very long shot, and sanctions have never compelled an enemy to change its policy. If we do not support revolution, we will most likely get war, a war far greater and far more lethal than the one the mullahs have been waging against us since 1979.
If the regime does not internally collapse in a year or two, the Israelis will take military action. It might even be sooner. And it will be then that Obama will be forced to make the toughest decision of his presidency. As my history teacher said of Bush the school day after 9/11: “He’s had his seven or eight months of calm. Now he gets to be President.”
Your case is very well stated and backed by evidence. I especially like this Afpak nomenclature, because as far as the War on Terror (or whatever they call it now) is concerned, that is all one theater with an arbitrary line drawn through it.
As for Iran, unfortunately, Mr. Obama took us many stages back when he suggested the Islamic Republic joining the world community, rather than the Iranian people. And he continues gaffe after gaffe, misstep after misstep. He just doesn’t “get it”…
“North Korea, has just taken two American hostages.”
This is occurring because our enemies perceive that our elected leader is an appeaser. It is only going to get worse. The MSM is essentially ignoring this story—even though it involves employees of Al Gore! Thank God that they don’t work For Fox News.
Re #1. Nick, I suspect that Obambi will perform the equivalent of another vote of ‘present’. He is a hard core appeaser and nothing short of an attack on him personally will change that.
The libs have gone from “Stop or I’ll say stop again!” to “Stop or I’ll say I’m sorry!”
North Korea, Russia, Cuba, Iran, & China are all showing their carnivorous teeth while Obama’s administration is in complete denial. The same holds true with the Taliban. I am convinced we are going to have another terrorist attack thanks to the incompetent Obama’s 9/10 mentality.
Hillary Clinton is a disaster as Secretary of State; however, I did not anticipate she would blow up so quickly in her new job. She makes as many unreported gaffes as Obama & Biden.
Michael, is there an American government-in-exile that can be recognized, instead of the current assortment that
is a blight on the scene.
As long as Washington thinks it is the only game in town, it will continue to feed its own insecurities, and the
rest of the world will pay royally for that.
Ledeen has no shame. Remember Chalabi? Ledeen said he was a hero, our best asset in Iraq. And he was spying for Iran the whole time. Truly, Ledeen has no conscience at all.
Does the core of obama’s problem stem from the point made by the author that the “the people on the ground will not commit to one side or another until they see that one side is going to win”?
Shoot, that means somebody has to lose. And he’s not going to go making somebody feel bad about themselves just to save a few million American lives.
The President is childish in his statements of good intentions in dealing with Russia, Iran and terrorism. They will pick his pockets clean and he will be smiling all the time and they will be smiling all the time. But his smiles will be of the “ignorance is bliss” kind while theirs will be disguised smirks that such a naive person has fallen their prey.
PMH
Seems like ignorance is all that you find here.
Re: #7, Shef: Chalabi wasn’t never convicted or even officially charged for “spying” for Iran. It was a political move, done by some people at State/CIA/CPA who didn’t like him. For years, people have made it seem like Chalabi was a ‘stooge’ of the Americans, but we forget thatthe INC incorporated nearly *all* of the opposition groups — secularists, Sunnis, Islamists, ex-Ba’athists, Shi’ites, etc. — and had a very diverse and representative view. Chalabi spent years getting the Talabani and Barzani parties to be allies in the Kurdish reason — and then, to join the rest of Iraqis.
He was always opposed to a long-term U.S. occupation. He had people like Mithal Alusi, who favor normalizing relations with Israel, and people who wanted closer ties to Tehran, all under his political umbrella. In fact, most of the people who run Iraq today used to be a part of the INC because the State Dept. and CPA undermined their influence.
Dr. Ledeen,
I am curious about the last sentence of your article, the one that predicts that “we will most likely get war”.
What kind of scenario do you see developing in which the United States finds itself in a real shooting war with Iran, one in which America acknowledges that it is actually at war and doesn’t leave all the killing to the enemy?
Somehow the national mood in the United States and the tone of the Obama Administration don’t give me the sense of a nation willing to go to war, even if America is overtly attacked as it was, say, at Pearl Harbour.
Uzi, remember that the American people were decidedly unwilling to enter the Second World War until Pearl Harbor, and then when Hitler declared war on us. On the other hand, we were openly attacked on 9/11, and Iran has been waging war against us for thirty years, and we still show no sign of being willing to engage.
When and why we will finally admit what is right in front of our noses, I cannot say. Life is full of surprises. But we are tempting our enemies to attack us more violently and more openly, and they may be unable to resist. It is only a matter of time.
More generally, the Taliban haven’t jumped to reconcile with us. From today’s Reuters:
“KABUL (Reuters) – Taliban insurgents reject a U.S. offer of “honorable reconciliation,” a top spokesman said on Wednesday, calling it a “lunatic idea” and saying the only way to end the war was to withdraw foreign troops.
With the Afghan conflict now in its eighth year, NATO-led forces and the Taliban are locked in a bloody stalemate with violence set to rise further this year as more U.S. troops arrive and seek to contain the insurgency ahead of August elections.
President Barack Obama is redoubling U.S. efforts with more troops, more diplomatic effort and more economic assistance, but he has also already spoken of the need for an “exit strategy.”
Good read. However, it appears Obama is playing by the CFR rule of secular humanism. Man is basicly good, and there is no evil. Terror is a crime, not an act of war. Plus, all problems can be talked out while all CFR members wear pink panties, hold hands, and sing songs.
The withdrawal from the region it certainly will be a good reward for terrorists for re-strengthening their muscles, and per se, will be a great reward to both neutral opportunists “China and Russia” in order to extend their evil arm in the region.
Negotiations are only a waste of time, and a peace invariably is the result of war (if you want peace, be prepared for war). It was only thanks to the smoke of Iraq Freedom War that Gaddafi has abandoned of his WMD’s program.
#9. Shef Rogers:
As usual you blame Dr. Ledeen on your faults and on errors of your institutions!!!
In fact, the humiliating defeat makers and a people like you those who bless the tyrannical regimes, indeed you have NO conscience at all.
#16 Leatherneck, I agree with you. My reading of Obama and the kind of people surrounding him and who support him is that they are amoral cowards who do not believe in the existence of sin and evil. They impose the Marxist template on our enemies and say that “religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature” and “the opium of the people.”
I spent a decade of my life as a Marxist. I never left the Church and endured many insults from these people because I was not a physicalist reductionist (hedonist materialist). Intellectually, these people are enraptured by a dead ideology that is a complete failure. I know these people. I don’t fear them and I will give them no quarter in our battle with them.
They are allied with the Jihadis because, quite frankly, the jihadis are willing to fight and die. They are considered tools, but are completely unaware of how the jihadis are using THEM.
For how many years have we been readidng that the collapse of the Iranian mullacracy is ‘imminent’? It is not. Like the Iron Curtain, it will not fall- it must be pushed. Obama will not do this. he is another Clinton- worse, another Carter. He will not react to terrorist attacks against America, whether overseas or within our borders. He has no idea of the real world. Obama does not know what he is doing. he will get many of us killed in the next 4 years.
God Help Us.
“He doesn’t seem to understand the essential part of the war, which is that the people on the ground will only commit to one side or another if they conclude that one side is going to win.”
Yes, absolutely right.
If I was in Afghanistan I wouldn’t know what to expect from this administration. If they were listening to politics in the U.S. over the past two years of Iraq’s liberation I would think they would be skeptical about this administration’s commitment to defeating the Taliban. How much time before America leaves? How many spectacular suicide attacks and civilian casualties will it take before Obama decides that America has no place in Afghanistan’s civil war?
And now Afghanis watch as Obama offers to negotiate with the Taliban. They are supposed to fight on the side of America only to be turned over to the wolves for the sake of a diplomatic gesture?
I’m actually shocked that Obama had the nerve to talk about the successes in Iraq including the critical factor where Iraqis became committed allies in the war on terror for the sake of her own liberation. Meanwhile as Iraqi soldiers and civilians were dying alongside American troops against America’s sworn enemies, American Democrats like Barack Obama feign ignorance about Al Qaeda’s presence in Iraq, and suggest they need to set a timeline for withdrawal so that Iraq will begin to take responsibility for their own country. Wow, how inspiring!
There is no substitute for victory.
This appears to be a marker for Mr. Ledeen and indeed the political will and capital required to go beyond the next 12-18 months is already rumored to no longer exist from the White House. If that’s in fact the case, there’s little more for the Taliban to do then run their network of camps, numbering now in the dozens on the Pakistan side of the border and resume a double sided alliance with Al Qaeda who is planning its Western operations among them. NATO shows no stomach for summoning its people to support a remote threat, nor even the political will to take on their local extremists, (France perhaps the exception) as political correctness sets the staid reflex reaction to the cultural “problems” local to their community.
Iran has boldly moved forward with its agenda on nukes, President Bush falling back from his aggressive posture without sufficient political capital to do anything but marshall the negotiations via European allies, already a failed outcome. And Obama offers nothing more but additional talks should the Iranian mullahs “unclench” their fist. Well why should they? Playing for time has worked to their advantage and they see nothing but positive signs emanating from that tactic.
Mr. Ledeen has long advocated support for the Iranian resistance but as in most totalitarian countries, its effectiveness relies on the ability to push the envelope without being crushed entirely and that hardly appears to be the case with the mullahs. They are quite comfortable in crushing their defenseless civilian population at every turn.
So now the end game is close at hand. Israel aware that it stands alone with the clock ticking appears to be considering to go it alone somehow against Iran’s burgeoning nuclear weapons objectives. It’s a long shot tactically and yet what option does Israel have?
And Obama will sit by and trumpet the value of negotiations as if they in and of themselves will reconcile the issues at hand. Citing the Israeli-Egyptian conflict and that led to Sadat’s change in policy is especially poignant. And a political reality that escapes Obama entirely.
I fear the price for such rigid naivete will be a heavy cost in blood.
Iran, the Taliban, whoever, will really have to clobber us before we ever respond with overwhelming force.
I doubt if a nuclear attack on the US would provoke a response from Obama. First, it would be the US’s fault that we were nuked (anger over Bush policies), second, we don’t want to sink to their level by nuking civilians.
Obama will call for a peace conference and later be awarded the Noble Peace Prize. China will send aid for US nuclear attack survivors.
Frankie Sturm with the Truman National Security Project has written a good example of appeasement thinking, “Iran: Putting the Threat in Perspective”. Blogger Hans Moleman critiqued Sturm, and now Sturm and Moleman are engaging in an interesting back-and-forth at http://www.mistermoleman.com. It is worth reading.
I have several points to make.
1. The Yom Kippur War led to peace between Egypt and Israel not because Egypt was defeated by Israel: that had happened three times before. What caused the Egyptians to sign a peace treaty was that they lost the war, eventually, but they won early on, and Sadat was able to spin that domestically as a victory and a recoup of the honor of the nation. Most Westerners don’t understand how humiliating Arab countries being defeated by little Israel is, and what a large role that plays in the decision-making process of those Arab countries.
2. Obama can talk all he wants, but as the Marine Corps’ unofficial handbook says, no matter how good your military planning is, the enemy also gets a vote. He can *say* he wants to talk with al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Iranians, whoever, but if all they want to do in return is attack us, he’s going have to respond, or look a fool or worse.
3. All this attempting to repackage the war and reinvent the wheel as far as the military goes is going to erode morale, if he keeps it up. The Global War on Terror isn’t exactly catchy, but at least it’s descriptive: you know what you’re fighting, and can at least guess why. Who wants to die while participating in the “Overseas Contingency Operation”? Further, terrorist attacks are now apparently going to be called man-made disasters, or some such idiocy. One of the worst things Harry Truman did during his presidency was insist on calling the Korean War a police action. While it might have scored him a few points at home, it was devastating to morale among the service members in Korea. Even better, the administration briefly toyed with trying to get private health insurance to cover the injuries of soldiers killed and wounded in combat. This of course would have led to higher insurance rates for those soldiers, and knowing our insurance industry, eventually a denial of coverage for someone. Point is, our soldiers are soon going to be serving *in spite* of the president, not with his help. He *should* be trying to avoid that, but doesn’t appear concerned about it, really.
What I *hope* happens is that Obama comes out and tries all of this talk with the various goofballs who want to kill us, everyone says they only want to kill us, not talk, and he then announces that he gave them their chance, and that we’ll have to fight them after all. I fear it won’t go that way.
NATIONAL SECURITY AN OBAMA WEAKNESS
Wimping out versus North Korea.
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/04/wimping-out-vs-north-korea.html
Great article, but just wanted to point out for my guys that were there that the Anbar Awakening wasn’t just the marines, as badass as the devil dogs are, and us Army grunts were slogging the same streets of Ramadi as well. Cheers!
america is poor, it cannot afford another war. israel or no israel.
Post #26:
1. And Sadat was rewarded for his “victory” with asassination. The reason why Israel was in jeopardy of losing the war was because gov’t failed to heed Mossad intelligence reports which indicated war was at hand. The Egyptians got the jump on Israel. This should be lesson number one for politicians anti-CIA. Another reason for peace is Israel’s air superiority. They can strike virtually at will.
2. That seems to be the problem with a lot of “peace” minded people. Peace must be a mutual agreement. One way peace is like a one way street with a dead end. I’d like to see peace marchers march up a dead end street and keep going. Not that I want war but marching for peace without a similar contingent in the opponents country is like marching up a dead end street.
3. Yeah the Dems like catchy phrases. Keeps the voters in their pocket. Shakespeare wrote “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. War by any other name is still full of blood and death. So Obama will wage war but in a kinder more gentler fashion. Yikes, war is hell why keep trying to make it a picnic? When war becomes fought like war then peace will ensue quicker and more lasting. The gist of my correspondence with Mr. Ledeen hinges on the premise that war is hell. When Iran and others understand that they are suffering horrible losses they will change their minds. I’m not a man of war believe me I’d rather have a drink and listen to realxing music. Politicians do nothing but talk. They can’t run the corner grocery store but they tell all of us how to live. Now they are kicking out CEO’s and running America’s largest corporations. A recipe for failure couldn’t be better prepared. Everything is now politicized even the weather. A heat wave means global warming a blizzard also means global warming how I can’t figure but they will certainly have someone explain it to us. And the press if they like you will nod in agreement. The press adores our President. I’ll bet within a year the press will start dismantling the statue they created. Europe is full of idiots. Why we keep any soldiers on their elitist continent is a mystery. They are adults and should be able to defend themselves. So Obama needs more troops and is asking NATO for some help? Why not take all of the troops out of Germany and send some of them to Afghanistan. The rest can come home or be sent to the Mexican border. Sorry to be running on but we just elected a liberal President with an already liberal majority in both houses and I’m so p’d off we allowed this to happen. Will someone from the Republican Party please step up big? Gingrich 2012.
Some comments on this excellent piece re: Egypt-Israel. Begin was also worried about a Carter-Brezhnev imposed treaty and via Moshe Dayan reached out to the Egyptians. Sadat came to Jerusalem in dramatic fashion but only after the quiet negotiations begun by Israel. Key point remains however what Ledeen said about Israel’s victory. Keep in mind that Israel was nearly defeated and that the Egyptians had initial success because their missiles prevented Israeli air superiority over the Canal. But the reason that happened was that to end of the War of Attrition which involved Israelis and Soviet pilots in dog fights the US brokered a deal whereby Israel ended deep penetration bombing of Egypt in exchange for Egyptian missiles staying far from the Canal Zone. Subsequently the Egyptians moved their missiles forward and of course the State Dept. not only did nothing to return the missiles to their agreed place but claimed Israeli complaints were exaggerated. Victory in war is essential to peace when dealing with dictatorial enemies and diplomacy that creates agreements routinely violated by one side without a price sets the stage for war at a disadvantage to the side that observes the rules.