Relax and Deep Breathley
Real Clear World argues that America may have won the war in Iraq, but Iran is trying very hard to steal the peace by pouring millions of dollars into the coffers of Iranian backed candidates in the forthcoming elections. David Ignatius says “Iran is conducting what U.S. officials say is a broad covert-action campaign to influence Iraq’s elections next month, pumping money and other assistance to its allies, notably Moqtada al=Sadr. The best way to counter this assault, American officials have decided, is by exposing it publicly. … The best check against these Iranian machinations, U.S. officials believe, is the simple patriotism of the Iraqi people. Opinion polls show that Iran is even more mistrusted by Iraqis than is America. Iranian meddling has backfired in the past, officials say, and they are hoping that will happen again when Iraqis go to the polls.”
This less-than-forceful response came as the US warned Syria that its growing alliance with Iran was “undermining Damascus’ position in the Middle East”. State Department spokesman P J Crowley told reporters that the Syrians should realize that “the country was increasingly getting isolated in the Arab world.” The Iranians might respond that the dagger was pointed the other way — at the US. Veteran journalist Michael Young writing in UAE’s The National argued that the clever measures employed by the Obama administration have so far failed. “Mrs Clinton has claimed to be a devotee of “smart power”, which combines “hard power”, a state’s ability to coerce, with “soft power”, its talent to persuade. Yet with Washington’s efforts to engage Iran having failed until now, was it smart for the secretary to take military action against Iran so completely off the table?”
It is so far off the table that Richard Cohen and Zbigniew Brzezinski are debating over the meaning of what it means to keep Israel from crossing Iraqi air space in a hypothetical strike against Iran. Brzezinski wrote in the Washington Post that
I hope that Richard Cohen’s characterization of my opposition to Israel’s use of U.S.-controlled airspace over Iraq as a policy of “we shoot our friends to defend our enemies” is a case of unintentional or exuberant distortion [op-ed column, Feb. 23]. What I have said repeatedly is that an Israeli attack on Iran through U.S.-controlled airspace would make the United States complicit, and the United States would then become the target of Iranian retaliation.
Brzezinski added that “an Iranian bomb would be a disaster, but an attack on Iran would be also a disaster” which is a very clever way of observing that the US is intellectually stuck. Insofar as Iran is concerned ‘Drive’ and ‘Reverse’ are inoperable, but ‘Park’ and ‘Neutral’ work just fine.
Even more “smart power” was in the offing as James Traub in Foreign Policy suggested that the Obama administration revive the Bush-era “Freedom Agenda” in a less threatening way in order to follow up on Obama’s pitch perfect appeal in Cairo the Sunni Middle East. That initiative suffered from the problem of being words without followup. Now the followup is coming. Hillary Clinton announced a program of “entrepreneurship, science and technology, and education” to open the eyes of the region’s closed societies, but taking care to avoid anything that might offend the region’s rulers. An even more forceful version of the “Freedom Agenda” may be in the works via the Millennium Challenge Corporation to shore up troubled democracies. Traub wrote “Obama knows better than to hector. He wants to inspire, not impose. That’s a fine thing, and a necessary correction to the bender of self-righteousness the United States has been on.”
Whether these “smart power” exercises will work against the dumb, but straightforward Iranian tactics of assassination and bribery is yet to be seen. But the administration is yet to unleash its ultimate weapon: UN sanctions. The Asia Times says that the administration is engaged in a long and determined campaign which has “so far produced three toothless UN sanctions”. But the President is no ordinary man, and the campaign continues. The Asia Times writes:
Since he entered office one year ago, Obama has methodically pursued a campaign to isolate Iran diplomatically. He gained a significant milestone last week with the negative report on Iran’s nuclear program by the new IAEA director-general. With expressions of support from the European Union, Russia, and the nations of the Middle East, Obama has announced that China is in his sights – the last domino that needs to fall in order to make a new round of Iran sanctions a reality. …
Leaving China for last may simply be an extension of Obama’s methodical but psychologically obtuse grind-it-out approach to coalition building. Or, as China fears, it may be a conscious decision to stigmatize China in the eyes of the EU and the Middle East as the last, selfish hold-out – the Iran sanctions partypooper. Perhaps it is a little of both.
Neither Syria nor Iran seem particularly intimidated. Perhaps they fail to grasp the subtlety of the game. The Washington Post reports that both countries have openly mocked the administration. Readers will recall that the ambassador to Syria was withheld in order to punish Damascus for its shennanigans in the region. The Washington Post reports that this symbolic punishment is now over perhaps because Washington feels Syria has been sufficiently chastened.
The presidents of Iran and Syria on Thursday ridiculed U.S. policy in the region and pledged to create a Middle East “without Zionists,” combining a slap at recent U.S. overtures and a threat to Israel with an endorsement of one of the region’s defining alliances.
The Obama administration is trying to build an international coalition behind economic sanctions aimed at curbing Iran’s uranium-enrichment program, which the United States and others fear is aimed at developing nuclear weapons. The United States also recently announced that it will send an ambassador to Damascus after a five-year absence, part of an effort to weaken Syria’s relations with Iran and discourage the country’s support for militant groups antagonistic to Israel.
Michael Freund at the Jerusalem Post thinks despite all the “smart power” the neighborhood thugs are rapidly getting out of hand. He writes
Something is stirring in the Middle East. The winds of war are blowing, picking up speed with each passing day, and the threat to Israel is growing steadily more alarming.
All around us, trouble – major trouble – appears to be brewing, and it is time we open our eyes and confront the dangers that may lie ahead.
From Beirut and Damascus in the north to Teheran in the east, and back to Gaza in the south, the “arc of hate” surrounding the Jewish state is speaking openly and brazenly of conflict and destruction.
He shouldn’t fret so much. Wiser minds are on the job. Don’t worry. Be happy.
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
I loved Traub’s line that Obama knows better than to hector. Maybe foreign powers get a different Obama than Americans. Even Jesse Jackson had some problems with his know-it-all tone.
I have been saying this for years….
War is coming. Iran has spent BILLIONS propping up, training, supplying and organizing a crescent of hatred in the middle east…
Hamas is re-armed, Hezbollah is re-armed, Syria has upgraded and is ready, Iran has been killing Americans in Iraq for YEARS and is, on a daily basis, getting ready for war…
But what is to worry about? We have the ONE that we’ve been waiting for… Oh and he votes “present”
The foreign policy of the Obama administration is centered on the concept of soft power, a shadowy, ephemeral mist entirely dependent on the persuasive powers of an increasingly shadowy and irrelevant president.
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows.
Capable of clouding strong men’s minds
The Shadow drifts like smoke
Across the landscape where he finds
They think he is a joke
“Engagement,” whispers from the dark
“Smart power,” whispers back
The Shadow shifts from Drive to Park
Oft-times the safest tack
The press corps sits in massed array
The Great Seal briefly hid
A shadow drifts but does not stay
A murmur “It’s the kid!”
The open door to Air Force One
Starched honor guard erect
A fleeting shadow blocks the sun
Salutes of hushed respect
The engines rev, she starts to roll
No passenger to see
The crew though knows their current goal
Lies far beyond the sea
The Shadow knows his only chance
To save what he loves most
Is ask his partners one more dance
Then revel in the toast
That his success will surely bring
In bringing lasting peace
To all, both beggar and great king
By labor without cease
The Shadow knows that without him
The world would come to blows
Bestride the world, yet feebly dim
The Shadow always knows
“…United States would then become the target of Iranian retaliation.”
W said it best.
“Bring’em on!”
We knew form the start that Iran was an integral member of the “Axis of Evil”. Believe we used Powell’s pacifism as a pretense to stop Gulf War I when we did to avoid creating a political vacuum in Iraq that would lead to absorbtion by Iran. We chose to defang Hussein but leave him enough of a military to keep order with Iran. If there was any hope in stabilizing Iraq after deposing Hussein, Iran needed to be effectively confronted. Believe that would have required a concerted effort from the West perhaps including Russia and for numerous and sundry issues that will likely never happen. Obama has always talked as though Afganistan was a discrete and the principal issue facing our efforts against terror while identifying Iran as an element capable of being ameliorated by talk. He so devalues a degree from Harvard or Columbia if I were a graduate, I’d ask for my money back.
Obama is using his Falklands message to forecast his response to agression against Israel.
I think that the USA’s goals have been reached in Iraq. Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction,it is not a threat to most of the rest of the Middle East, They have had a chance to form a modern and reasonable government. If they chose not to move forward that is now their choice. Europe may want their oil so let Europe work out the details. The current conflict seams to be an internal fight within Islam. This conflict crosses into Iran and it is an issue we cannot solve. We can support Israel and supply Iraq, but step back from an active roll.
Afghanistan is a different issue, There are still groups there that are a threat to us and the rest of the West so we cannot step back from this conflict.
“But the administration is yet to unleash its ultimate weapon: UN sanctions”
Why am I reminder of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSXNJMP8ir4&feature=related
And we all know how well UN Sanctions were working against that other madman Saddam Hussein. The stupidity and cluelessness of this administration is breathtaking.
How would a smart power use “smart power”?
Since I can’t channel Otto von Bismark (the creator of realpolitik) here are some approaches.
1. Undermine the weakest link.
Organize a sub rosa alliance (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt) to collapse the regime in Syria.
2. Put on a floor show at the UN.
Continually propose a series of UN resolutions in the Security Council and General Assembly highlighting the importance of “free passage” for trade in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. Maybe you can get Japan and India, perhaps even France, to lead the parade.
3. Carry the fight in Iraq.
By all means expose Iranian meddling. But also attack there allies, get Maliki to lead the charge under the rhubric of Iraqi independence. The majority of Shia in Iraq do not want to live under the same rules as their co-religionists in Iran.
4. Nice doggy, where’s my stick?
This is the most difficult part and one that requires real behind the scenes diplomacy. Speak the unvarnished truth to China. You can either have free trade with the US, or you can support Iran. We are not afraid of your financial position because we depend on each other. You are a land power, we are a sea power. If necessary we will print as many dollars as needed to keep our economy afloat. This will devalue your holdings and we will prohibit sales of Chinese goods in the US. Yes, it will hurt us, but sometime you have to bite the bullet. Are you really that tied to Iran that you would risk all of your advancements?
5. We are not at war with EastAsia.
Get the Chinese to play ball and the Russians will become much more tractable. To coin a phrase, Russia is a PAPER TIGER.
“…an Israeli attack on Iran through U.S.-controlled airspace…”
Uh, excuse me, but I think that Iraq owns that airspace, not us. The last I heard was Iraq was a soveriegn nation. How does Iraq feel about Iran’s nukes, BTW?
This all fits into Buraq’s plans nicely. Let’s see; he can give Afghanistan to the Taliban, Iraq to Iran, the Falklands to Argentina, and Europe to the Muslim immigrants.
See how nice and tidy that is boys and girls! That’s smart power at work!
When Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley, Samantha Power and Susan Rice head up the main circle of thought surrounding how we should develop our policies in the Mideast…and, perhaps more importantly, how we should treat our greatest ally in the region, Israel, it says all that needs to be said about what’s coming.
All we would need to fill out this lineup would be Pat Buchanan, James Baker and Josef Mengele to make it a truly complete picture.
Britain has gotten a good strong whiff of our ambivalence to them as one of our “allies”. We are courting new friends and Israel and the UK can bugger off, for all our foreign affairs leaders care.
Georgians being bullied by Putin? Well, you never know who started it…we like to say these days. Where’s that reset button, anyway?
Falklands, Iran, Georgia…we simply don’t care very much. Certainly not enough to actually do anything. Maybe we can call a show stopping “summit” and talk them to death. Syria and Iran may be laughing at us now, but wait until the Democrats start the “talking points waterboarding”…that will show them.
#9 SteveC . . .
This is a wonderful list of things we can do. I hope Belmont Clubbers will discuss the items on your list. This is the way a smart power should act and talk.
There is no reason why we can’t get along with China, and we already know that we can work with the Russians. Plus, China has major claims in Russia, and we can play this card too.
I’d say Obama is finally getting his foreign policy ‘in balance’ –with the mission statement something like, “for every ally betrayed, betray another one on the other side of the globe”.
Balanced. Socially Justiced.
You know, I’m not impressed with this “bomb Iran” talk; because of the PEOPLE OF PERSIA! The mullahs are on the ropes. The last election was a fraud. And, borrowed time is still borrowed time.
Iran is actually one of the world’s giant producer of oil and gas. The money, however, is falling only into a few pockets. Since dictators don’t have to please the public at all.
I’d bet Israel IS involved in helping the many people who gather showing their distaste for the iranian government. So, no. All the talk about ‘air space’ is foolish. IF iran springs a bomb? They use their own people as the first target. And, Saudi Arabia as the second target.
Israel? Seems to be holding war at bay in Lebanon/Syria. Including that any attack could end Assad’s ownership of his palace in damascus.
As to the recent kurfuffle in Dubai, the best comment I read, now that the MOSSAD was supposed to have sent in 35 people. Or at least 26. That the plan on Mab-hoo was to trample him to death.
Then, at the shopping mall with all those cameras, the giant sized fish tank sprung a leak. It’s not as if Dubai, too, isn’t facing bankruptcy troubles. (As to spooks, it’s a home to terrorists. From iran. And, hamas, too.) So the fuss is over fake passports? Because there’s a link to europe’s love affair with its muslems?
Sometimes, news should make a lot more sense. Or? Go with all those people trampling Mab-hoo to death. But first he grabbed a free pair of shoes.
Obamao’s chief concern is not the Iranian bomb in of itself but if Iran flaunts its newly acquired bomb how it will complicate Obamao’s DOMESTIC agenda. In other words, the chief problem for the Left is how to allow Iran to get the bomb without appearing to have let them. Look at the political sea in which this President freely swam in for most of his adult life. Look at the views of all of his “czars”, staff appointments, etc: the open admiration for Mao; Hugo Chavez; the portraits of Che in campaign offices and in the chambers of Democrat judges. Didn’t one of the heroes of the Left, Noam Chomsky, state that Iran would be “crazy not to” build nuclear weapons? The Democrat Left wants American power and prestige in world destroyed. Period. The Iranian bomb would be viewed as a huge defeat for America. All of the “moves” and “countermoves” are window dressing. And when Iran finally gets the bomb, the Democrat Left will quietly rejoice.
I’d like to know, in detail and with annotations, exactly who and what is protecting Moqtada sl-Sadr – and I don’t want to hear anything about Sistani, and Mookie’s daddy, and the al-Sadr lineage, and all that other Asiatic horseshit deployed to beguile stupid Westerners. There is a real reason, and it must be awfully nasty.
Obama WILL shoot down Israeli planes and missiles to defend Iran. Why?
Because he was born and raised a Muslim. He remains one culturally, and of course hates White people, particularly Jews, as is a very common attitude among Blacks (see the tremendous amounts of wealth that Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Wright amassed by catering to the hatred of Jews held by ordinary Black people).
But it is not just Obama. Much of the SWPL hate Jews as well, and would be delighted to see Israel nuked off the map. The “correct” political opinion would all be with them, and they could dance around like characters from AVATAR. After all, Virginia Woolfe proudly wrote that she preferred Nazi soldiers to British ones, and the nexus of feminism, liberalism, political correctness, guarantees that most educated, professional, upper middle class people would LOVE to see Israel obliterated because “the Muslims are the poor oppressed” and besides Western Civilization should not exist. Because of “racism” or something.
Heck, most SWPL would agree that America deserved to be nuked, so long as it was none of them. And about half of America would demand … an apology to Muslims if NYC were wiped off the map. After 9/11 the voices in condemnation … of the United States were loud and proud: Muslims, Gays, Feminists, Artists, Norman Mailer, Susan Sontag, Joe Biden, Blacks, Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Wright, etc.
Israel has a choice: nuke first or get nuked first. Simple as that.
Obama won’t even side with the nation that at considerable political cost at home has the most troops in Afghanistan outside the US, in the Falklands.
Of course Argentina will conquer the Falklands easily, with Obama’s backing. Exposing the security bubble. That the US will not protect its allies, indeed will sell them out and side with the enemy, at every opportunity.
The bubble is driven by lack of will. Lack of will to cede some power internally in the US (and other Western nations) to the military, the men who serve, and nerdy engineers, instead of “smart” and credentialed women and men who form part of the hereditary elite. They’d all rather be dead than share power with ordinary folks.
Dan,
You may not want to hear about Sistani and Mookie but that’s the easiest explanation.
Hillary Clinton is comparing the Iran problem with the Cuban missile crisis.
If it’s an apt comparison then it’s a bad one. JFK partially precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis by starting, then stopping the Bay of Pigs invasion and by conveying to Krushchev that he was weak in a meeting in Vienna.
And Kennedy didn’t win the Cuban Missile Crisis except in that he avoided a the consequences of a crisis he in part caused. The US withdrew its own missiles in Turkey as part of a secret deal and the US never considered invading Cuba again. The Soviets had won a permanent enclave in the Western Hemisphere.
In fact, comparing the current crisis with the missiles of October is almost like accusing Barack Obama of repeating JFK’s mistakes. JFK at least had the excuse of going into terra incognita, but surely the least his successors should do is learn from them. Hillary Clinton is seemingly unaware of how eerily similar the blunders of the past shadow the possible blunders of the present. She’s invoking the Cuban Missile Crisis without seeming to know much about it. And that’s the scary thing. Smart power isn’t smart if the people behind it aren’t.
The bottom line is that Krushchev thought he could get away with murder. And therefore he tried. At that point Kennedy had to put the situation back under control and in the process had to take risks which nearly caused a nuclear war. It is always better to keep a perp from drawing his gun then to try to get him to put it back in the holster after he’s gone and pulled it. If you wait until the stable symmetry is broken, the task is much harder. It’s not easy to unscramble an egg.
I wonder to what extent Iranian power was solidified in Iraq during the chaos of 2005-7. From the David Ignatius article Wretchard linked to:
“The current Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is said to play a delicate balancing game with Iran, opposing some of its moves and acceding to others. According to U.S. intelligence reports, a member of Maliki’s staff hand-delivers sensitive documents from Tehran, thereby avoiding electronic communications that might be intercepted. . .
“The Iranians are everywhere, all over the place — overtly, covertly, you name it,” says a White House official who closely monitors Iraq. “They’re putting chips on red and black and whatever is in between.”
It seems that Iraq will never be secure as a democracy unless the present regime in Iran is toppled.
When the fate of the planet rests in the hands of those Ivy Tower elites, who have spent their entire lives developing calluses on their tongues and none on their hands, “intelligent and weak” is the best one can muster.
The problem, of course, is that this lineup of weaklings has been practicing at home against the Washington Generals. Our Globetrotters play in a rigged game. They need only throw out a “guilt” card, allow the shill media to whistle a catchy tune and toss the “guilt” around a bit, and slam dunk a charge of racism…or some other “ism” to finish the play.
This prepares the tongue-callus crowd for…well, nothing…on the world stage against foes who do not shrivel at charges of the “ism” variety. They belly laugh at them.
And, they have their own state controlled media to spew back vitriol like Keith Olbermann on steroids…and not in a dress.
The standard “play” doesn’t work for our weaklings on the road. The game isn’t rigged in their favor as it is here at home.
So “weak and intelligent” is replaced with hapless and feckless.
Our entrenched media has softened them to the point whereby they are incapable of taking their show on the road. If they can’t rig the narrative, they get their brains beaten in.
We saw that at the summit, let’s pray we don’t see it at our nadir.
Robert McNamara claimed that the existence of nuclear weapons is itself the necessary and sufficient cause of the threat of apocalyptic war. The “combination of nuclear weapons and human fallibility” will in the end mean that someone, somewhere will screw up. He was not the first person to realize this. British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, speaking before the Second World War, declared “the bomber will always get through” and thus it was better to build a counter-value force, which was cheap, then prepare for a conventional defense, which was expensive. In that way we could punish each other for our sins and thereby mutually terrify ourselves into good behavior.
Humanity is neither trustworthy or possibly even worthy. One of the sad things about the world is that to some extent, Baldwin was right. Fear works. But McNamara is also correct to some extent: fear does not overcome stupidity.
Back when I was a student we discussed the paradox of destabilization through disarmament. You could disarm too fast, just as you can lose weight too fast in a crash diet. The balance of power becomes unstable one side weakens itself too quickly or too readily gives way. It awakens the incentive to “get away with murder” which then beckons to the foe. Sad, well human nature is often flawed.
And there is no escaping our frailties. The world of powerful human beings McNamara feared is only going to get more powerful unless we decide to abolish science and technology. Robert didn’t want anyone else to be tempted with the cup of power mixed with error. But snake remains with us and probably will till the end of time.
The bomb McNamara feared might be controlled. But it will be replaced and dwarfed by what is to come: biologicals; self-replicating nano-technology and Lord knows what else? Maybe McNamara would argue humanity needs to leashed. But who can leash it without a leash? It would require compelling force to put an end to the possibility of the acquisition of unacceptable force. A group of men need overpowering weapons to keep other men from acquiring overpowering weapons. McNamara’s dilemma is that the weapons of peace are physically indistinguishable from the weapons of war.
Barack Obama needs to have his finger on the nuclear trigger to begin a program of disarmament, which has stated he intends. The Man of Peace must needs become Kali, the Destroyer of Worlds. But more to the point he needs to indicate the willingness to pull the trigger if the trigger is to have any meaning at all. Anyone who wants to pursue the paths of gentleness should convince the world he is an unrepentant murderer. Either that or they will not fear him. Peter Arnett may or may not have coined the phrase “it became necessary to destroy the town to save it”, but it perfectly expresses the problem of mankind through history. The original motto of SAC was said to be “war is our product, peace is our profession”. Looking back on the whole debate I wonder we are any futher than old Khayyam.
Smart power? Oh yes indeed. Only history is full of people who thought they had the angles figured. About all one can say, is ‘we shall see. We shall see.’
I have been noticing something building for about a month now which makes me strongly suspect that a general war in the middle east is coming this summer – or that at least a lot of international investors are betting that way.
Oil prices have been inexplicably but steadily moving up. I watch these closely, and factory production is down worldwide. Demand is down, surplus is everywhere. Reporters will say it has something to do with the Euro and the Dollar, but in fact whenever the dollar rose against the euro before, oil fell. Now it is going up. Oil has reversed all the linkages which were in place and is advancing even though the supply demand equation says it should be going down.
So what’s going on? Are the markets just wrong? That’s rarely true – my interpretation is that across the world, large oil users and traders (everyone including large nations like China) are looking ahead and seeing the strong possibility of war – and with war oil prices would spike catastrophically overnight, especially if the straits of Hormuz are mined. They are beginning to position themselves, and this means taking long positions in oil ahead of time which have nothing to do with current supply and demand.
Look at today – oil went up to $80 on absolutely no economic news at all. By any normal analysis, this shouldn’t be happening, but it is – which means something else is going on. I think it’s preparations for war.
wws said:
“So what’s going on? Are the markets just wrong? That’s rarely true”
I would argue that the markets are just wrong. There’s so much market manipulation going on by the Federal Reserve, central banks, etc. that the markets are no longer efficient in the classic economic sense, i.e. old rules-of-thumb and market analysis no longer apply. Since March 2009, market bears using traditional technical analysis have been getting slaughtered. Also, I would argue that oil prices continue to go up due to Peak Oil. The Iranians may indeed be planning something nasty but market analysis will not reveal this under the current economic situation.
Eisenhower played an excellent hand sitting out “being first” into Berlin. The green light went to stalin. Who had 2-million men in the field. And, they blew their first offensive. Still, the germans were terrified of the russians! We just sat back. Hitler in his bunker might have started out full of hope. But it faded over time. And, then he killed himself.
Stalin ended his days refusing to move out of the Kremlin. When he died, it was said stalln was helped out by Khrushchev, who stepped on his oxygen line.
When you are losing, nothing is missing when yo get out of the way. And, letting our enemies keep on making the downward slide. No need to call out the ‘response,’ when your enemies are raising stakes.. We’re just watching MORE COWBELL. Victory belongs to the person who, on his turn NOT saying “all in” Instead, let your stack stay whole. The con then let’s your stack speak volumes. It’s there as the ‘visual.’ Whatever you have to add should be the minimum. And, PASS.
wws,
I can’t say for sure what’s going on, but one possibility is that the oil price is going up to reflect the overall devaluation of the US dollar. Even if the other markets don’t reflect it, there is still some price to be paid for running the printing presses and issuing debt (with some very worrying purchasing patterns of that debt).
Another possibility is that the markets are so manipulated right now that any move is suspect.
Whiskey,
Argentina cannot conquer the Falklands militarily. They just do not have the capacity to overwhelm either the land-based defenders, or the naval superiority that the RN possesses (in the form of SSNs trolling around ready to sink troopships). Admittedly if they can get the Venezuelans to lend them some amphibs and their Sukhois it will get much more difficult for the defenders (I guess we’ll see whose sales brochures told more truth- the Eurofighter’s or the Su-30′s). If they are to take the Falklands, it will be via other means. Even Brown would have to commit forces if they attacked the Falklands.
Here’s an interesting article out today. FYI, I came up with my hypothesis on my own before this came out.
And note that this is one of those “everything’s fine, nothing to see here folks” articles that gets more and more disturbing as you think about what the International Energy Agency is telling us we shouldn’t bother worrying about.
Think about why the IEA is starting to see this as a real possibility – my theory is that all of the major players in these markets are thinking along the same lines.
I’m long some domestic oil & gas co’s, btw. (in the interest of full disclosure)
“IEA says market can absorb loss of 1yr Iran oil supply”
“The IEA said on Friday that world oil stocks can absorb the loss of supply from Iran for a year and this should have a calming effect on the oil market.
Iran is OPEC’s second largest producer and concerns that the row with the US and its allies over Tehran’s nuclear programme may lead to a disruption in its crude supplies, have moved oil markets.
“Iran produces 3.5 million-4.0 million barrels per day of oil,” David Fyfe, head of the oil industry and markets division at the IEA, told an oil forum in Tokyo. “Stocks could absorb a 3 million to 4 million-bpd supply gap for more than a year. There are mechanisms there for supply disruption, this could be a calming factor for markets.”
http://www.liveoilprices.co.uk/oil/iea_oil_report/02/2010/iea-says-market-can-absorb-loss-of-1yr-iran-oil-supply.html
pure speculation on my part: No one can hit Iran’s nuclear facilities, they are too well hidden and dug in. So how can a small, threatened middle eastern nation with a strong air force bring Iran to it’s knees? Is there any easy way to destroy it’s economy with one blow?
maybe, just maybe, you would just need to destroy all the export terminals and the local refineries. Those would go up with a great big boom, and would take years to rebuild. And Iran would be bankrupt and the people would riot over the massive fuel and electricity shortages that would result. Now that would really screw the Europeans and the Chinese who are buying all that oil, so it’s a really risky move – but would a country which felt it had no other options take this path? I think that if the decision were mine, I would.
On oil prices, it looks like $80 is just the equilibrium price right now. Judging from LA traffic, it is not an immediate problem. In fact it is good news of a sort in that it is (just) high enough to sustain Canadian tar sands and other alternative projects, and should encourage California to start offshore drilling again.
On the Falklands – what forces does Britain have based there now? I wouldn’t bet a farthing on what the RN could ship down there on short notice, as has been previously discussed here.
Iran won’t mine and seize the Strait of Hormuz before they have the bomb. Even once they have the bomb, mining the Strait is a high stakes bet. Though given the Mullah’s psychology and the inflated sense of power that getting the bomb will bring, it’s a bet they may very well make, especially with Obama in the WH.
China and Russia are not going to allow effective sanctions to be implemented against Iran. What little concern they have expressed about ‘possible’ Iranian nuclear ambitions is a complete and total facade, Russia wants Iran to have the bomb and China doesn’t care.
If we can figure out that it is now virtually certain that Iran will get the bomb, so can governments around the world.
Of course they realize what’s coming.
As a result of Iran getting nukes, a nuclear arms race will quickly develop within the M.E. and nuclear proliferation will greatly increase among unstable third-world regimes.
Israel can’t launch a first-strike, ‘unprovoked’ nuclear attack on Iran. Nor does she have the resources to permanently derail Iran’s nuclear program with conventional weapons.
If Israel does attack conventionally, in hopes of delaying Iran’s progress for a year or two, there’s an excellent chance that Obama will either directly or indirectly impose economic sanctions upon Israel for ‘obstructing’ peace efforts.
Israel is in a difficult position and given the geo-political dynamics at play is going to get nuked but it will be a terrorist attack. Almost certainly Tel Aviv. Though it will still be a number of years away, it’s now a matter of when, not if.
Then, the sh*t will hit the fan. Israel is the tripwire for at the very least, a regional nuclear war, they will not go peacefully into the night. And all because American and European liberals refused to learn the lesson that Chamberlain taught.
“We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with dictators, and of talks man to man on the basis that each, while maintaining his own ideas of the internal government of his country, is willing to allow that other systems may better suit other peoples.” –Neville Chamberlain, explaining Munich
“Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. [Yet] There may even be a [still] worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish, than live as slaves.” – Winston Churchill, “The Gathering Storm.”
#2 PRfA,
It doesn’t matter. Nothing the Nutters do can prepare them for the US Military. Nothing.
On a scale of 1 to 10, the US Military is about a 15 while all the suspects you mentioned combined are maybe a 1.
One of my E-buds commanded a minesweeper during the ‘Tanker War” against Iran. He knows what it is like to sweep mines off the coast of Iran. In the decades since then the US Navy has seriously upgraded it’s mine clearing ability. Iran has not upgraded it’s mine laying ability. So the straits won’t be closed this time.
Closing the straits is the only weapon the Mad Dog Mullahs have that they aren’t using already. Their terrorist campaign is running full throttle, as is their propaganda campaign.
Note also that those who offer dire predictions about war against Iran are the same ones that offered dire predictions about Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwaiti.
http://www.payvand.com/news/06/mar/1090.html
They have been wrong in every case.
Brzezinski has even argued against fighting back against terrorism;
http://www.ww4report.com/node/3435
Warning, strap your tin foil hat down tight before entering that site. The cut and paste of a Brezeinski article is legit.
You can’t really say Brezzi is a pacifist, since he has arranged at least one war ( Balkans) by intent and several others thru ignorance ( Iran, And ALL the blowback from the fall of the Shah ). Remember, giving Iran to the Islamic terrorists was a Brezzi plan to ‘Balkanise’ the Islamic crescent.
So I would have to say that his lack of appetite for wars not of his making is more cowardice then pacifism.
Brezeei has never learned that paying the Dane geld does not get rid of the Dane.
I won’t call Brezzi an idiot, since several of my favorite posters iiots and I don’t wish to insult them. However, somewhere a small village is missing Brezeinski.
wws,
Buy on the rumor, sell on the news. Once the war begins a certainty will be brought to events. There will be a period of uncertainty but I don’t think it will last that long. Oil prices will likely become more stable after the mullahs are gone.
Yes, Israel must certainly have considered bombing the Iranian oil transfer locations, pipelines, refineries etc. in an attempt to damage the Iranian economy. I’m a little surprised there hasn’t been any sabotage of Iranian refineries up til now. One or two anti-tank missiles fired into the right part of an oil refinery by ‘someone’ would probably cause terrible damage. I haven’t read anything in the Israeli press to suggest that this is something they will do, however. Everything I read there is aimed at hitting the nuclear program. We’ll just have to see what really happens.
There’s no question though that the level of rhetoric is rising, especially with the ‘war council’ this week of dinner jacket, chinless wonder, and nastyrallah sweat-man. It’s hard to know if they’re just trying to take the world’s eye off the Iranian bomb or if they really are intending to act.
The crazy thing about history is it only tells us what happened. It never tells us what would have happened. The counterfactual remains a mystery to the end of time until we might possibly asked God how things would have worked out if we had taken the other road.
Military men are often accused of fighting the last war. But statesmen are equally blighted. They used the lessons of the last political disaster. The guilt of the Great War made politicians fear action. They got World War 2. And the lessons of that conflict guide us still. But who knows whether they are even relevant to the situation? Just as the best guide to domestic government action is to do nothing unless absolutely necessary, maybe the International Community should similarly do nothing. But that brings us back to the 1930s.
The past is no guide to the future. We can only know what will happen if we try it and never know what would have happened if we have tried something else.
The past is no guide to the future.
Yet what else have we got?
Those who ignore history, are doomed to repeat it.
Any team can beat any other on a given day.
A penny saved is a drop in the bucket.
Josh: On the Falklands – what forces does Britain have based there now?
1076 troops blooded in Afghanistan and Basra, three frigates, an oiler, and four Eurofighters on the island. Maybe a submarine there now.
Standing by, in the event of war, the UK has two carriers and seven amphibious warfare ships we called “Gators” in the Navy they could deploy (albeit over 8,000 miles away) to reinforce Port Stanley.
I wouldn’t bet a farthing on what the RN could ship down there on short notice, as has been previously discussed here.
Argentina has four destroyers and nine frigates, no aircraft carriers, and most importantly, no troop transports. There won’t be another dust-up.
Teresita @ 35: A bit skimpy on the equipment, but they might also have ground-based both defensive and anti-ship missiles – I hope. Maybe a couple of unlisted copters. And against Argentina, I suppose even a few 155mm artillery would be good against ships. Gee, I wonder how many years it’s been, since anyone targeted a warship with a land-based cannon?!
What Argentina could do, rather than a single large attack that would probably fail, is start pot-shotting them, daring them to respond. Sort of like the Palis against the Israelis. This would be massively dumb, of course, but there’s a lot of dumb going around these days.
Obama would BACK a large attack by the Argentines against the UK in the Falklands. Of course that would kill off NATO and result in pretty much all European forces particularly the Brits leaving Afghanistan, but since when has that stopped Captain Wonderful?
The Argentinian leadership has NO CHOICE BUT to launch an attack, because the regime is falling apart. You don’t think Eva Peron Jr., Christina Kirchner, will willingly give up power now do you? She’s a bought and paid ally of Chavez, so of course for that alone Captain Wonderful will back her.
Israel is coming to that moment. Obama has put them on notice — he’ll go to war with Israel to protect Iran. Even Zbigniew is talking about it. All of Europe would gladly see every last Jew incinerated, not the least of which is it would make the Muslims and leftists happy. Most of the governing class of the US hates Israel and would see them destroyed, along with most Jews in this country (who put social Leftism over distant cousins in Tel Aviv).
Moreover, the “gap” between the pro-Israel populace (which also loathes Muslims) and the governing class of America has never been greater. Israel has nukes for a reason. A weapon of last resort. Well, the time is now. Time to choose between being kicked out of Eurovision contests and oranges from Jaffa from being on European tables (both of which will inevitably happen anyway due to Leftist/Muslim anti-Semitism) or survival.
Iran has spread its nuke program around, very cleverly. BUT there is a weakness — it requires widespread power and transport. All of which are vulnerable to nukes. If Israel attacked with nukes power, transport, refineries, harbors, and other centers, Iran’s nuke program grinds to a halt, because many of the scientists and technicians are dead (men trying to kill Israelis) and Iran’s infrastructure is dead — like Germany in March, 1945.
———————–
Wretchard — Machiavelli would have argued against you, in that he held history had MANY lessons. How to be feared (but not so feared that people attack anyway). How it is better to be feared than loved as a prince/leader. That good government means securing the people from threats foreign and domestic. Maintaining bases of power. The foolishness of mercenaries, and the wisdom of one’s own troops.
Indeed, from Machiavelli to your own co-hosted Victor Davis Hanson (“Culture and Carnage”) writers have drawn lessons in what works and what does not from historical events, particularly military affairs.
Josh,
The forces on the Falklands have Rapier missiles for AD, and a bunch of helicopters (though not their Chinook- that got sent to Afghanistan). The job of removing the ships will fall to the RN’s SSN force, but you will not hear anything about their deployment.
As for your question about land-based cannon- funnily enough, the most recent event I can find was the Falklands War, when on the initial invasion of South Georgia, the Royal Marines used their AT weaponry against an Argentinian Corvette to “…damage electrical cables, the 40 mm gun, one Exocet launcher and the 100 mm mounting” (see Wikipedia entry)
The difficulty with Argentina trying to take potshots is that they don’t have any weapons that can reliably hit the islands without exposing the carrier aircraft to being blown into bits and pieces by either the Eurofighters or the Rapier system. This would change if the Argentians get Venezuelan support in the form of their Su-30s and the standoff weapons equipped, but even then they’d still face Eurofighters with Tanker support.
Whiskey,
The problem is that if Argentina attacks the Falklands, they will lose very expensive equipment doing so, along with numerous lives. This will not prove beneficial to the electoral hopes of the Kirchners. Even Gordon Brown has no choice but to defend with all possible measures the islands if this happens, because his electoral hopes will be at stake. As much as the Kirchners may stand to benefit, this counts against them. Finding an alternate method of gaining control of the area would be much better for them.
Obama may want to support such an attack (diplomatically, of course ), but the danger is that the UK holds large amounts of US treasuries. There’s more to worry about in war than just dispositions of forces.
All of this becomes irrelevant, of course, if the Argentines decide to do something very dumb.
Utopia P. wrote: “Buy on the rumor, sell on the news. Once the war begins a certainty will be brought to events. There will be a period of uncertainty but I don’t think it will last that long.”
Good insight – I recall that is exactly what happened in 2003 when the Iraq war began, an initial spike while the outcome was uncertain and then a sharp fallback and long leveling out.
“The original motto of SAC was said to be “war is our product, peace is our profession”.” – quoted by Wretchard
Victory is the “thinkable”. Total devastation, starvation, long, painful and lingering death of an entire civilian population, is “unthinkable”. When either protagonist adopts the thinkable and forgets the unthinkable, nuclear war is all but inevitable.
Weapons are not “good” or “evil”, nor even “offensive” nor “defensive”, but either successfully support the goals of their sponsor, or fail. The American nuclear force was, and continues to be, probably the most effective integrated weapons system in human history – without ever having have been unleashed. What will Iran’s nukes represent?
Israel has an effective nuclear force that until this moment has adequately deterred more numerous (if not strategically superior) foes. Her weapons were only as effective as her national resolve. Ironically, the moment they are deployed, her nuclear weapons are a failed weapons system as they can only protect Israel when unused, i.e. as a deterrent. On the other hand, if her national resolve falters, then all the superior weapon systems in the world won’t save her.
Why is Iran building her nukes? Iran is building an offensive nuclear force to provide strategic cover while she projects power regionally with conventional and irregular forces. However, Iran has also clearly defined the destruction of the state of Israel and the very lives of Israeli citizens as a national goal. If Iran deploys her nuclear forces (e.g. mated with reliable delivery systems), IT WILL BE A FAILED SYSTEM UNLESS IT IS USED to achieve their stated goals.
Think about that dichotomy. Iran must use nukes to maintain a credible strategic deterrent and to accomplish both her strategic and tactical goals. Israel’s deterrent is rendered null-and-void the moment Iran’s is viable, OR she uses nukes in self-defense. Lose-Lose for Israel, but she will act before Iran’s nukes are viable. She must. Nothing says “Standdown! there’s a new Mullah in town” to the new world-wide Islamic caliphate like a nuclear detonation in the heart of Tel Aviv. Both nation states know this.
There is no turning back from nuclear war – not any more, absent a revolution in Iran or Exodus redux.
One more thing: The difference between chemicals and biologicals is control, i.e. the latter is the ultimate potential doomsday machine, while chemicals could be considered more tactical. However, the different between nukes and the other two (or nano tech), is image. Deploy a bio or chem, and no one may even know it. Deploy a nuke, and EVERYONE knows it. It’s another reason Iran is investing in nukes instead of alternatives. Nukes are sexy – effective even when not in use. It’s an excellent sign that Iran has seriously misjudged Israel’s situation. If Iran truly wanted to kill every Jew and vanquish them from the Holy Land, biologicals would be the way to go. Iran thinks Israel will stand down while regional Arab leaders kowtow will to Iranian directs. That’s a seriously deluded notion.
As Wretchard pointed out, after the nuclear Genie is out of the proverbial bottle, more serious horrors await. Every little country is capable of producing such weapons, and will, and will deploy them.
There will be no safe haven in this world. I doubt that Obama grasps any of this.
OldSalt
Saddam Husein was destroyed because he pretended to have WMDs. In his case, the WMDs attracted an attack.
The Iranians, of course, believe that the lesson of Saddam is that they need to really have the weapons so they can deter an attack, or survive if they are attacked. They will be proven wrong, as they will attract an attack also.
There are a lot of little countries in the ME that don’t really want WMDs but will feel that they need them if the Iranians have them. Once the Iranians are destroyed it will be clear that they really don’t want those weapons at all.
oh boy. i’m becoming a non-interventionist (possibly isolationist, see my video blog rant;
Iran Announce Its Nuclear: Why Is This OUR Problem?
wretchard, “Humanity is neither trustworthy or possibly even worthy.”
I’m finishing my B.S. in the Anthropology of War (after an uneventful 10 year stint in radio). So that means I’ve spent the past 3 years sitting around rattling my brain about human nature and war, or Warre. Are we by nature warlike? which is the Hobbesian view (simplified) or are we naturally peaceful creatures? The Rousseauian view (also simplified).
What kind of world is it? Is it a dog eat dog Machiavellian (or Jacksonian) world where its better to be feared than loved? (see whiskey’s earlier post) or is it a Wilsonian loving liberal land that just needs more diplomats and bureaucrats to dialogue with the bad actors?
As indicated, lately I’ve been in a Jeffersonian mood: Jeffersonians seek to avoid international involvement because of the threat it poses to the US constitution.
Are human beings more like the warlike Yanomamo? or peaceful non violent Semai of Malaysia?
My opinion. Of course its a dog-eat-dog, competitive Hobbessian/Yanomamo/Machiavellian/Realpolitik world out there *i lump all those at the risk of criminal oversimplification*.
Having said that, you have to pick and choose your battles. Iran is not going to be one of those we or Israel choose.
BTW. Our current white house dunderhead is a mix of Marxian and Wilsonian with a heavy heaping of Amateurian.
Smart power must be smart. Smart power must also be power.
A smart wimp is still just a wimp. No amount of sophistry will camouflage the fact that a wimp is a wimp.
The real question we face in Iraq is not whether Iran is hated more the America. It is whether America will wimp out on its allies in Iraq. Can Iraqis really trust the United States to back them against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
President Obama needs to realize that domestic opponents are opponents, not enemies. Our enemies are Islamists who seek genocide against the American people and our allies. They are very clear about what they want to do to us and they are mustering the technology necessary for accomplishing their goal of our annihilation.
Our enemies know that the American political establishment apparently regards health care reform as the most important topic in the entire universe, America’s allies be damned.
When the cat’s away, the mice will play.
jason gray:
How about a Machiavellian world where powerful nations seek to legitimize their power through apparently altruistic deeds?
Why not just let the rest of the world see your velvet glove? They don’t need to see the iron fist inside.
Power is legitimate through power. Velvet gloves are irrelevant. The Soviets, Chinese, never concerned themselves with it because it is useless. If you have power, people reckon it. If you lack it, the velvet only generates contempt.
Power, wisely applied, gives opponents an out, rather than simply leaving them no choice but to fight and die. But it must first be power. Sherman and Grant did not apply a velvet glove. The first burned the economic means (and destroyed railways later) of the South’s warmaking capability, killing almost no one and losing almost no one, but making many Southern leaders poor. The second slaughtered the South’s military age men by the ton.
Grant did not needlessly humiliate Lee at Apomattox. But neither did he accede to many of Lee’s demands. In any event, Lee surrendered because Grant would still fight and Lee could not, nor could he escape.
THAT is the lesson of power. Grant had it, Lee not.
#42,
“Iran Announce(s) Its Nuclear: Why Is This OUR Problem?”
It will be our problem because of the entirely predictable and resultant consequences of Iran going nuclear.
Iran is a Shia nation.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey are Sunni nations.
Iran seeks nukes for (among other reasons), regional influence.
Shia and Sunni really don’t like each other. For a comparative historical analogy, think of the Catholic and Protestant European wars.
Iran getting nukes upsets the status quo of regional power and influence. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey will seek to emulate Iran out of nationalistic ego and a compulsion to reestablish the prior status quo. Once they do, Iran will up the ante by bringing Syria and Libya into the mix.
The resultant consequence of this volatile mix is greatly increased nuclear proliferation among unstable third-world regimes.
Our refusal to face and address the geo-political infrastructure of Islamic terrorism means that terrorist networks are not going to go away. At some point, either by hook or crook, they will acquire nukes. When they do, they will use them. As it is in their nature to do so. To think otherwise is to suppose that we can successfully ask a dog not to bark.
Given the psychological dynamics of the M.E., European and American liberalism, it is entirely predictable and inevitable.
Just as historical hindsight allows us to see clearly that given Hitler’s psychological make-up and the absolute predominance in 1930′s Europe of pacifist/liberal thought…WWII was inevitable and entirely predictable. Those geo-political dynamics simply could not have played out any other way.
Churchill knew it long before and yet most dismissively thought; “The past is no guide to the future. We can only know what will happen if we try it and never know what would have happened if we have tried something else.”
Islamic terrorists will not be satisfied with Israel as a sacrificial lamb slain upon the altar of their religious lust. We are the ‘great satan’ and our Canadian border and our coastlines are a sieve with our port cities, pathetically vulnerable. Fanatically malevolent, homicidal minds perceive that vulnerability as an irresistible invitation to mayhem.
“some men aren’t looking for anything logical, like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”
This is why Iran is our problem, not because they will directly attack us but because it opens a Pandora’s box of nuclear probabilities.
Nobody @ 38: Unless the UK forces on the Falklands are on full alert, I’ll bet Argentina could find ways to pot-shot them. If need be, Hispanic jihadis, you betcha. Again, just depends on how nuts people want to be.
What is Iran up to this time? Link to NYT story about Iran moving it’s entire stock pile to an above ground facility.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/world/middleeast/27iran.html?hp
Well we’ll know soon enough. I believe the campaign season in the region usually begins around april.
Earthquake in Chile sets off Tsunami bells all over the pacific. Called my brother in Hawaii.
Doug, I hope your Maui digs are on the northwest side of the island.
Regarding the Falklands, it should be considered that the Obama Administration is openly encouraging Argentina to take the Islands. Diplomats are normally oblique and ambiguous to leave their options open. But here, while the Administration could have chosen to say nothing and kept Argentina guessing, Obama chose to say he would unambiguously side against helping the Brits, thus siding with the Argentines.
Here’s a pretty good graphic visual of the path & intensity of various sections of the
Tsunami as it passes through the Pacific. There’s still an hour or so preparation time for Hawaii.
8.8 is going to have a bunch of aftershocks over 6 and 7 for weeks. Hoo boy. Hold on, Chileans!
@ Whiskey
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1251929/The-perfect-man-geek-facial-stubble–womens-secret-turn-ons-revealed.html
so the super hero can have a big belly too ?
”You can get much further with a kind smile and a gun, than with a kind smile alone.”
This saying has been attributed to Al Capone.
Yet, once everyone knows one has a gun, then what? That is where diplomacy becomes important. You can get much further with a kind smile and a gun, than with a gun alone.
Why does the name “Kennedy” have more allure in popular culture than the name “Bonanno”? Why does the name “Rockefeller” have more allure in popular culture than the name “Escobar”? Legitimization. Joe Kennedy was a bootlegger who knew how to legitimize the Kennedy name. The Rockefeller dynasty founded the University of Chicago.
Elitists become accepted as elites because they find ways to legitimize their unjust control over national resources. When everybody knows you are powerful, you don’t need to advertise your authority. Yes, it is important to assert authority. Yet, there is something utterly pitiful about a man who constantly seeks to assert his authority over other people. Downright pitiful.
There is something wrong with a parent who feels a need to flog his children every day. There is something wrong with a slave master who lashes a pregnant woman. There is something wrong with a man who thinks the only way to gain a woman’s affection is to beat her black and blue. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a brutal man. He is cruel. He is an engineer with a Ph.D. in city planning. He is not someone to emulate, for he is also a barbarian. As resourceful as he is, he attracts enemies wherever he goes because he lacks the ability to legitimize his power.
Some people may admire Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s histrionics. I don’t. I see him as a tiresome idiot. It may be necessary to put him down, but he should not be imitated.
interesting title, a play on the words “relax and breathe deeply”, instructions given to gas chamber recipients during WWII.
From my Facebook; yes I have one but rarely use it:
via Michael Yon: Perhaps there are wheels within wheels here. The PIGS are crashing, the Bear is growling. The Muslims are advancing. This is like the bad old times again. Maybe Germany wants something safer than what the EU offered.
58. LOTM
Gee, soon Germany might even let its soldiers shoot at AQ and the Taliban.
The effects of the earthquake on Chile seem to growing as more pics come in. The tsunami’s on Hawaii are not so much.
The scheduled tsunami was canceled because of low pre-tour ticket sales.
Iran’s greens are down but not out. Despite Rafsanjani’s move to the dark side…again. The greens chose the pol, and not the other way around. A friend tells me the blood has not yet begun to flow in Iran. That chapters in the history of Persia is written in scores of Persian’s blood.
I don’t know so much about that, but repression does give a people who have tasted freedom motive to revolt. I think the question is how strong is the Iranian memory of freedom from oppression and how distinct and how stark is the difference between Iraqi and Iranian existence.
Moqtada al Sadr is a non starter in Iraq, But his fathers followers may still have enough cohesion to be a pain. Still most Iraqi want nothing to do with the Iranian Government and even less to do with the Iranian Revolution and that includes those Iraqis with family and spiritual leaders living in Iran.