Barack Obama’s excruciating campaign to impose United Nations sanctions on Iran in a last ditch attempt to stop their acquisition of a nuclear weapon has come down to two roadblocks: Brazil and China. China’s reluctance to support sanctions can be put down to its growing economic ties with Iran and a geopolitical desire to hamstring the US. But Brazil’s reluctance, according to the WSJ, stems from its hemispheric ambitions. It is anxious to show that it isn’t the tail to the Yankee kite.
Their recalcitrance comes at an awkward moment. The administration can’t afford more setbacks along its road to engagement. Iran is inching closer and closer to its goal of nuclear weapons and Barack Obama’s “engagment policy” has yet to show results. The enterprise is behind schedule and Lee Smith argues that someone has been tampering with the alarm clock to ensure things started late. He describes an Iranian disinformation campaign coursed through journalists and Washington policy wonks sympathetic to IRG and Hezbollah who successfully duped the establishment into believing that Iran was interested in a Grand Bargain, only to find when they read the fine print that they were not.
Smith describes a fax sent to Washington influentials with close ties to Iran suggesting the possibility of Grand Bargain. It raised hopes in the capital until it finally died under the realization that nothing suggested in the fax had been repeated in meetings elsewhere. Richard Armitage said “Nothing that we were seeing in this fax was in consonance with what we were hearing face to face [from the Iranians],” Armitage told Frontline for a 2007 broadcast. “So we didn’t give it much weight.” But by then it had served its purpose: it had kept the chimera of the Grand Bargain alive for just that much longer and let Teheran get that much closer to the finish line. The “disinformation” game was played through Hezbollah too. There are individuals in Washington who specialize in setting up interviews with the Hez. Through these conduits flock a variety of journalists and left-wing intellectuals, each eager to hear what the Hezbollah are only too willing to tell: the story that despite their sexy fatigues and masculine beards, they only want justice and peace. And how that line plays.
Compared to boring democrats in suits, terrorists are hard men whose power and sex appeal issues from their willingness to use violence. Hence, they are attractive to Western media, and they know how to play the media. A famous terrorist like Hezbollah General Secretary Hassan Nasrallah is well aware that an interview with him is a form of currency, and he enhances the value of his interviews by granting them sparingly—and only to those who can be counted on to deliver a positive spin. It is hardly an accident that while Nasrallah has harsh words for the Jewish state, he likes to use Jews, like Seymour Hersh and Noam Chomsky, to convey his more polite-sounding messages. It’s good PR, and the attachment of Hezbollah’s Jewish messengers to their counter-ethnocentric mission makes it unlikely that they would ever risk making Nasrallah mad.
Now, with time running out and the centrifuges churning, the Grand Bargainers are looking around for the long pass. The chance for the Hail Mary play, or whatever it is called in Arabic, is uppermost in their minds. What can be offered to Iran to bring it to the table? Failing that what can be served up to China to put more pressure on Iran? One morsel is Iraq, which Iran wants Finlandized; especially that when it looks to become an American victory. A high UN official writing in the Washington Post says Iraq may be on its way to normalcy. Peter Wehner in the National Review cites Newsweek’s amazing cover story
which declared that “something that looks mighty like democracy is emerging in Iraq. And while it may not be a beacon of inspiration to the region, it most certainly is a watershed event that could come to represent a whole new era in the history of the massively undemocratic Middle East.”
Do tell. In other circumstances it would be no-brain win for Barack Obama. If Iraq succeeds, as seems increasingly possible, the President can claim it as his victory. On the other hand, as Glenn Reynolds says, “if Obama somehow manages to blow it, retroactively that will turn out to be Bush’s fault.” But its very success makes only a bigger bargaining chip. And that’s exactly what Stratfor’s George Friedman provocatively suggests: instead of trying to convince all these hard headed allies, why not sell out the Arab Sunni world and throw in with Teheran? Friedman’s argument is simple. Since Obama is unlikely to convince China to turn the screws on Iran; since Obama is never going to stop the Teheran by force and since both of them have an interest in beating down Sunni terrorism, then do a Roosevelt and sign articles with the Stalin of today. Friedman writes:
To recap, the United States either can accept a nuclear Iran or risk an attack that might fail outright, impose only a minor delay on Iran’s nuclear program or trigger extremely painful responses even if it succeeds. When neither choice is acceptable, it is necessary to find a third choice. …
Iraq, not nuclear weapons, is the fundamental issue between Iran and the United States. Iran wants to see a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq so Iran can assume its place as the dominant military power in the Persian Gulf. The United States wants to withdraw from Iraq because it faces challenges in Afghanistan — where it will also need Iranian cooperation — and elsewhere. Committing forces to Iraq for an extended period of time while fighting in Afghanistan leaves the United States exposed globally. Events involving China or Russia — such as the 2008 war in Georgia — would see the United States without a counter. The alternative would be a withdrawal from Afghanistan or a massive increase in U.S. armed forces. The former is not going to happen any time soon, and the latter is an economic impossibility….
Roosevelt and Nixon both faced impossible strategic situations unless they were prepared to redefine the strategic equation dramatically and accept the need for alliance with countries that had previously been regarded as strategic and moral threats. American history is filled with opportunistic alliances designed to solve impossible strategic dilemmas. The Stalin and Mao cases represent stunning alliances with prior enemies designed to block a third power seen as more dangerous.
It’s breathtakingly simple: throw everyone under the bus and drive off with Ahmedinajad. Friedman’s audacious prescription might even appeal to those with a sentimental attachment to the Chicago Way, where no problem is so great it can’t be solved by persuading someone to drink five hundred tablets of aspirin or shoot themselves in the back while jumping to commit suicide in a river. But there’s only one problem with the Judas option: Israel. To throw in with Iran will make Israel very nervous, especially when it surrounding Israel with a ring of proxy enemies, directed mostly from Teheran. Aviation Week describes the heap of combustible material piled all around Israel’s borders. “Thousands of Hezbollah rockets are poised to strike Israel again.”
Other developments are raising tensions as well. In the year since the Gaza incursion called Operation Cast Lead ended, Hamas has made a major effort to restore its internal security forces. The military/terrorist wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, has been rebuilt to its previous strength with its military capabilities substantially expanded. The smuggling of weapons into Gaza has accelerated beyond expectations, in spite of Israel and Egypt sealing their respective borders with the area and Israeli interception of arms shipments at sea and in Africa. Much of this weaponry originates in Iran, whose rulers are eager to extend their regional influence to the Mediterranean. Restoring Hamas’s arsenal with advanced ordnance is a major part of Iran’s strategy of targeting Israel from Lebanon and Gaza.
The Hamas weapons inventory has grown enormously in the past year. Yuval Diskin, head of the Shin Bet internal security agency, told the Knesset’s foreign affairs and defense committee last month that Hamas’s current capabilities are “better than they were on the eve of Operation Cast Lead.” Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups “will continue to grow stronger in 2010,” he added. Diskin said Hamas will continue efforts to smuggle rockets into Gaza that have a range exceeding 50 km. (31 mi.), along with “antiaircraft missiles, antitank missiles and . . . other . . . weapons.” Last November, the head of military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, told the committee that Hamas had conducted a successful trial launch of a rocket with a 60-km. range, which could endanger the Tel Aviv metropolitan area.
The one reason why George Friedman’s suggestion won’t work is that in order to embrace Iran, America will have to figure out how to square things with Israel. Unless Iran has given up on exterminating the Jewish State it might prove the one thing that will be a little too hard to throw under the bus. Why, was someone thinking on it? It’s interesting to speculate on what the Hit Team which took out Hamas’ arms buyer in Dubai might have been after. Maybe they were looking for answers to questions, whoever they were; men said to be from the Mossad yet rumored to have escaped through Iran. But that’s the world of the Middle East. It’s awash with faxes which may never have been sent; hit teams going every which way; full of cordial meetings between enemies and Grand Bargain forms with the names of the parties left blank. It’s a hotbed of intrigue. About the only thing one can hope for is that the American maestros of Smart Power don’t get outsmarted or finish up being too clever by half.
embedded by Embedded Video
YouTube Direkt
Too easy
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
All these machinations based on idiot intellectual notions of negotiation with fascist mongrels like the government of IRan remind me of the lead up to WWII.
Even after the Nazis had invaded Poland, an action that required a declaration of war and immediate military action by England and France, Chamberlain was sending diplomatic notes trying to get Hitler to pull his troops out so they could negotiate some more.
Sometimes the talking just has to stop and the bombs have to fly.
Iran is vulnerable. Very vulnerable, socially, economically and technically and we have the means to grind it to a halt whether or not we actually get all the centrifuges.
The refinery and the electrical generation and distribution make great targets.
But soon the consequences of hitting them will become too high.
So, let’s just talk some more. Right that’ll do it.
Now I know why I dropped my subscription to Stratfor.
I wonder what is in the dirt, air, water in that part of the world. I really do. The middle east has been a “hot bed of intrigue” since before biblical times. Man developed religion to control the masses of just barely out of the animal stage humans. And yet despite his best efforts, these people have devolved. It has to be the soil or more likely it is the heat. Heat can drive a man crazy you know.
Eventually they want to figure out how to sell everybody to everybody.
In front of the Breckinridge House dormitory at the University of Chicago on the East end of the Midway Plaisance is a statue of a Czech warrior put up there in memory founding President of Czechoslovakia Thomas Masaryk, who had taught at the University. It was placed there after his son Jan managed, with the help of the NKVD, to throw himself backwards from a window in the 3rd Defenestration of Prague.
The list of people interested in seeing the Iranian refined fuel storage facilities and power distribution nodes destroyed is long enough that, like with the killing of the Hamas agent, it is at least plausible to speculate that there might be either Israeli or Saudi agents behind any event. Are the interested parties delayed, in some rendition of Alphonse and Gaston, by the hope that each will do the work for them? Will some comedy ensue when agents from five different organizations show up at a target simultaneously?
The solution to Gaza is to squeeze the toothpaste from the tube.
Don’t worry, it’s being taken care of:
http://www.tiziano.caviglia.name/images/obama-football.jpg
Lifeofmind #4:
“Eventually they want to figure out how to sell everybody to everybody.”
That clicked with me. Obama has a Real Estate Agent’s view of international affairs. It does not matter if new houses are built. It does not matter if people can afford them. It does not matter if they go into foreclosure 3 months after closing. It does not matter if the buyers trash the houses. It only matters that the sale is made and he gets his cut.
He is “President Foreclosure.”
And did I say this was his style for International Affairs? Hell, that’s his approach to everything.
Amazingly enough it appears that no one in Washington is familiar with any of the time tested strategic principles outlined by Sun Tzu, Machiavelli or Clausewitz. Step one should certainly be isolating and overthrowing Syria. Always attack the weakest ally.
Then, play the China card. As in, “Hey China, that’s some nice foreign trade you’ve got with us. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.”
Mr Obama is hot to trot to get an up-or-down vote on a host of his…programs domestically. Of what is he so terrified that he won’t force an up-or-down vote in the UN? He should force the vote on serious sanctions and put Russia and China–and Brazil, too, apparently–on the public record as either favoring preventing terrorist nations from getting nuclear weapons or as favoring terrorist nations getting those nuclear weapons. This is quite simple.
And when the vote fails, then it’s time to strike militarily.
But it’s all Obamatalk. There’s no intention actually do anything. “Iran, you’re breaking the law. I’m going to talk about sanctions and you. I’m going to shake my finger very firmly at you.” “Northern Korea, you’re breaking the law. I’m going to talk about sanctions and you. I’m going to shake my finger very firmly at you.” “I’m going to have the most ethical administration the US has ever had.” And then the only folks he can find, his Obamatalk claims, out of 200 million adult Americans, to put into his cabinet and other senior positions, are lobbyists and those who have trouble paying their taxes. And so on.
The only solution to this string of disasters is to turn the rascals out. This fall and 2012 aren’t coming soon enough.
Eric Hines
Wretchard writes: “About the only thing one can hope for is that the American maestros of Smart Power don’t get outsmarted or finish up being too clever by half.”
Agreed. Another instance of arrogance and hubris by our faculty-lounge ruling class, this time from the Washington branch of the Wall Street-Ivy League-Washington axis. Not the first time whiz-kid teachers’ pets get bested by street-smart cleverness.
It’s time for Davos Man to retire, before he takes civilization down with him.
Norm @ 2
“Now I know why I dropped my subscription to Stratfor.” Yes, I dropped mine long before Stratfor President George Friedman wrote in his book to watch out for Poland and Japan as America’s next big strategic rivals in the latter 21st century (presumably the Poles will re-annex Ukraine, Kaliningrad/East Prussia and Lithiuania like in those Ivan the Terrible times). And he wrote this nonsense in 2008, not 1988. And he advocates the U.S. allying with China against Russia (Oceania and Eastasia vs. Eurasia) like it’s 1974 and Obama is Nixon.
As Spengler wrote, it’s McStrategy. But it’s not only McStrategy (look at Zeihan’s emphasis on natural barriers against tanks for Germany, Russia, etc), it’s McStrategy nuggets from 1974. Not tasty at all after all these years. Even Spengler with his let’s make friends with India and Russia makes more sense.
And the Chinese would simply reply to @ 7 “that’s a fine dollar you have, it’s a shame we have to dump these $2 trillion in bonds on the market and everyone suffers the consequences.” Some damn fool thing in the Balkans blew up the last globalized world, it’d be a shame if some damn fool thing in the Mideast did likewise. Only Hal Lindsey types would be happy about it.
Just had an entertaining hour trying to find the right clip from Get Smart that would go with my point about the full cavalcade of world intelligence agencies meeting over Iran. No joy unfortunately but it is the healthiest way to view the approaching disaster.
About the only thing one can hope for is that the American maestros of Smart Power don’t get outsmarted or finish up being too clever by half.
you just burned out my sarcasm meter
E Hines, #8: Mr Obama is hot to trot to get an up-or-down vote on a host of his…programs domestically. Of what is he so terrified that he won’t force an up-or-down vote in the UN? He should force the vote on serious sanctions and put Russia and China–and Brazil, too, apparently–on the public record as either favoring preventing terrorist nations from getting nuclear weapons or as favoring terrorist nations getting those nuclear weapons. This is quite simple.
And when the vote fails, then it’s time to strike militarily.
Bob Murphy, #1: Sometimes the talking just has to stop and the bombs have to fly.
But… but… but that would mean going to war and being blamed (rightly or wrongly) for the ensuing hardship and suffering on both sides. Not to mention abandoning the Gospel of John and Yoko, along with the grand project of giving America its “extreme makeover” starting with its financial, automotive and health care industries.
That’s what Obama is terrified of here – the possibility of having to back up his words with warfare.
“it might prove the one thing that will be a little too hard to throw under the bus.”
Hey, he didn’t have a problem turning his grandmother and the pastor of his church into grease spots on the pavement. He certainly won’t balk at Israel if he thinks it would further his personal goals.
http://www.leap2020.eu/Turkey-s-awakening-Its-gradual-exit-from-the-Western-camp_a4361.html
something that is changing, and that not many persons remarck, Turkey is pulling out of Nato first, then out of EU, and want to become the arbitrary of the orient/occident (traffics) relations
If you let things get so bad that nothing can be done, you can excuse inaction by saying nothing can be done.
One place to start on that process is the bogus NIE (don’t worry/be happy)several years ago.
We have the malice/incompetence question, with Obama’s connections domestically and internationally leading one to think more than twice about malice toward Israel.
Many years ago, there was a televised discussion of media attitudes towards the various parties in the ME. Daniel Schorr opined that the terrs are romantic figures with their long hair, flashing eyes, and brandished AKs. He implied that western journos got weak in the knees at the sight, while the IDF, being a bunch of boring professionals, didn’t turn anybody on.
And the parlor pinks always have a hard-on for the guys who do the wet work.
One has to think of that when the usual peace-and-justice folks (see the Presbyterian Church USA for the most recent example) line up with baby-killing murderers completely at odds with their oleaginous blatherings about peace and justice and God and Jesus’ teachings.
And none of this is susceptible to talk about reality, real morality, subsequent events and dangers. Talking about these things is a waste of time. And when you have dicey buddies, as Obama does, acting as if we’re discussing this in good faith as a matter of morality and US interests gives one the feeling of being conned.
We can always go to Abe Foxman and discover it’s conservative Christians Jews have to fear.
The whole thing is disgusting and I hope the IDF/IAF can take care of business, since we won’t take care of their business and are damned sure not going to take care of our business either.
“Some damn fool thing in the Balkans blew up the last globalized world, it’d be a shame if some damn fool thing in the Mideast did likewise. Only Hal Lindsey types would be happy about it.”
Of a similar episode in the past, Lord Melbourne quotably said:
“What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.”
Simply giving Iran everything it wants isn’t a bargain. We get nothing.
A lot of the people advocating a bargain use the examples of the Soviet Union in WW2 and China in 1972. What both of those alliances of convenience had was a common enemy- Nazi Germany and the USSR.
What’s the common enemy of the USA and Iran? There isn’t one.
This is just appeasement. Armed standoff over Iraq and Arabia is preferable to abandoning the middle east to its fate.
Spengler, AKA, David Goldman at First Things did a great takedown of Friedman and STRATFOR last month (http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/spengler/2010/02/18/mcstrategy-over-at-tablet-magazine/ ).
A couple of things to think about: 1. All of the anguish over the Obama’s policy towards Iran presupposes that he really wants to protect and/or strengthen US influence in the Middle East. There is NOTHING in Obama’s past or present that supports this view. Obama is a long standing member of the hard left and there is NO far leftist in the world that works to strengthen American influence in any part of the world. The far left has no problem with Iran’s nuclear program as they view it as legitimate self defense against America/Israel (see Noam Chomsky, et al.). Obama’s concern over Iran is based solely on the domestic political fallout that will be generated when, not if, Iran goes nuclear. His moves are simply CYA and a cynical attempt to give himself additional political cover (here the MSM will be of great service). Obama has NO qualms over Iran going nuclear in and of itself.
2. Brazil. Are we really surprised that da Silva said no to sanctions? Brazil has hosted Ahmadinejad and da Silva is planning a return visit to Iran. Why should a visceral anti-American like da Silva make common cause with the US? President da Silva is a leftist that makes regular pilgrimages to Havana so that he can pay homage to Fidel Castro. Inspect the photos of him with Castro. Look at da Silva’s eyes – there you will see the deep admiration da Silva has for his prophet. Irrespective that da Silva “has hugged George W Bush” he is no friend of America.
There is a level of deliberate public ignorance in the halls of power worldwide in re the Iranian nuclear weapons program. It is being spoon-fed to the American public by all parties involved. One basic rule to live by: If you are in the middle of a con game, and you cannot figure out who the mark is … it’s you.
1) There will BE NO sanctions on Iran, UN or otherwise. Russia is the source of the entire Iranian nuclear program, including its fuel [which arrived already purified above reactor grade], its technology, and it has made itself Iran’s protector from any military attack on the program.
2) The EU blows hot and cold on sanctions. Whenever it gets serious, the EU [read France and Germany] backs away from sanctions. It ain’t gonna happen.
3) China is contracted for much of Iran’s oil output, and views Iran as a handy weapon against the American enemy.
4) The deliberately falsified [as we know now from events] 2007 NIE came from Democrat operatives and supporters in the intelligence community and was specifically designed to attack a Republican president and to protect Iranian, Russian, and Chinese nuclear ambitions in the Middle East. It is the policy of the Democratic Party, in conjunction with various foreign partners, that Iran develop a nuclear weapons capability able to threaten not only Israel, but also the entire West.
5) Every supposed effort by Buraq Hussein Obama to slow the development of Iranian nuclear weapons has been an abject and publicly embarrassing failure. There has been, and there is no sign of, any change in tactics; implying that either he has a learning curve that is absolutely non-existent, or that in fact the results he is getting are exactly what he wants.
In point of fact, examining what he has done in relation to Iran; if he were deliberately trying to protect and enable the Iranian nuclear weapons program from interference, what would he be doing different than he is doing now?
Who are the marks?
I only hope that a number of the ones who think that they can control the outcome are amongst those who suffer the consequences of reality. And their families. Regardless of what country they are in.
Since the American Left is largely based in large urban areas, I expect to get at least part of my wish. Within a year or so.
Subotai Bahadur
A Chinese threat to dump 2 trillion dollars in US T bills on the market is akin to Cleavon Little holding a gun to his own head.
I think that Lula needs to realize that if he can flip us off, we can flip him off too. We should not let Brazil jerk the United States around. We need to find some way to demonstrate that if Brazil aligns itself with America’s enemies, there will be negative consequences.
He who stabs his friends in the back will soon lack friends. The United States needs to stand by its friends.
#17 is correct. The information we get from our government has been less than useless in such matters as the Iranian nukes. And today it is no more useful in assessing our economy, our schools, or trying to plan our future.
I almost retired to Chile or Australia – there were a few other candidates too – a decade ago. But I was needed here to care for relatives with serious problems. I wish that had been different.
#18 is also correct. Five years ago a random sample of 100 people would have correctly said that Iran was going to make nukes. But our best and brightest – in Washington and at the UN – didn’t want to see it.
What does O intend? I doubt if he has any fixed intentions other than personal power. And the first item on the agenda is to dominate your own citizens, control media and communications, strengthen the police, and destroy any other nodes of power within your own country.
Brazil and China are doing huge amounts of business. I think Brazil is rejecting sanctions on Iran because of that. They have no real interests in or with Iran. The Chinese just don’t want to say no. They have important oil agreements with Iran and little reason to disturb them.
The bottom line – as they say in business – is that no one has any reason to align with the US now. There is no real downside to ignoring us. We are unreliable, dishonest, timid on important issues, and bullies when it is safer.
Everyone sees that O keeps hurting the interests of our oldest friends. Those still with us probably figure they have no alternative for the moment. But over time they will change that.
20 MarcH: Yeah Spengler does a great takedown of Friedman. However he loses sight, as our host does not, that it is truly Amateur Night at the Potomac Theater, and the easy 2X cross of all our heretofore allies is, unfortunately, not out of the question.
Thanks much for directing me there; I wasn’t aware that today is National Grammar Day. http://nationalgrammarday.com/
So turn on your Spellcheck and Grammarcheck and use them please. Happy National Grammar Day and party on!
24. Alexis:
“He who stabs his friends in the back will soon lack friends. The United States needs to stand by its friends.”
Umm, what friends? Mr Obama already has stabbed most of them, if not all, in the back, beginning with Poland and the Czech Republic in his surrender to the Russians, and most lately in his abandonment of the British over the Falklands.
Eric Hines
2) The EU blows hot and cold on sanctions. Whenever it gets serious, the EU [read France and Germany] backs away from sanctions. It ain’t gonna happen.
uh, sure, it would have been surprising that you forgot France
when your country works behind the curtains:
http://www.iran-resist.org/article3330 (a trusful source)
President Obama addresses the White House press corps on his latest initiative to bring peace to the Middle East.
Throwing people under the bus?
Goodness gracious that’s not us
Although it’s true that we, by golly
Will throw our friends under the trolley
It’s all a matter of style, you see
A graceful act of civility
We’re noted for our kind attacks
That’s why we like those trolley tracks
Iran’s our bosom buddy now
So peace will come, we’ll show you how
We have a lot of friends to sell
We’ll give them Israel as well
They’ll have the bomb, but that’s all right
At least we all can sleep at night
Excuse me please, there goes the phone
What’s that you say, they’ve gone alone?
Teheran is gone, Damascus too?
Now ain’t that like a dirty Jew
They’ve gone without a nod from us
And threw us all under the bus
Well, there’s the other problem too, that Iran would just pocket whatever we gave them, laugh and build their nukes anyway. No strategy that relies on Iran voluntarily giving up its nuke program is going to work. They will need to be forced to do it. What circuitry didn’t get wired up in the heads of people who believe otherwise?
Yeah, on the other hand, it’s looking more and more like those consequences are going to be suffered regardless. I’m not sure how we wind down that debt for a soft landing. If it’s going to crash anyway, might as well extract what we can out of it first.
Wow, the Footstool Empire was dead less than a century.
Of course I’m still on record with the long standing — and counter-intuitive — prediction that the Obama Administration will be bombing Iran by the end of the summer. The prediction was premised on the Obama administration wanting to do a deal with Iran their first year in office and Iran “playing” them in a fairly open and obvious way — since the dissing of the US would increase their regime prestige, and lessen that of the US. In the meantime the Obama administration would want peace abroad — or at least its appearance — while they took over the economy at home. So Iran would sense success and push ahead.
The bombing of Iran would not result from any sensible calculation of what is best for US national security. It would result from the Democrats being in a deeply weakened political position in the run up to the fall elections and because Israel decides to bomb Iran (which it would see as an existential threat) on its own, if need be. Besides, they need to know which way the US will jump so they can make suitable arrangements.
The Obama administration could threaten to stop Israel — but then they would actually have to stop them. Basically, siding with Iran against Israel could turn a bad political year for the Democrats into a disaster.
The Obama administration could join Israel in the attacks, but that would tie them too close to Israel when they want to distance themselves.
So I would expect them to act unilaterally (though with some sort international “fig-leaf of approval,” if possible). President Obama might even offer the Brits the Falkland Islands in return for their help.
I would expect him to do a pretty thorough job against Iran — with the promise of more to come — because he would not want any more trouble from Iran during the rest of his term. Plus, a threat big enough to justify the action would require a strong, rather than weak, response. He would also hope a thorough shellacking might result in something like “regime change” (or at least a different group of top people).
But the real goal is to change the political dynamic in the run-up to the elections in the US. The topic would no longer be the economy or the Washington power grab, but something like “a win” in the Middle East.
I would expect them to blame Bush and Israel for being forced to bomb (if only they had solved the Palestinian problem!). Behind the scenes they would promise Iran many carrots to go along with the display of stick. What are the probable results: Would it end well for the administration? Likely, yes. For the US? No.
‘…Barack Obama’s “engagment policy” has yet to show results.’
Wretchard, was that a typo or a pun? HAH!!
As for bombing Iran, will Commander 0 let ‘em fly this summer so as to build up some cred for the Congressional elections? Or will he wait until 2012, saving his ammo for a more personal war?
Geez, I’m a suspicious bastard…
The biggest problem with a nuclear Iran is not Israel. It is the end result to Obama’s presidency.
A Nuclear Iran that dominates the Gulf, or an agreement (soon to be violated) that has a general American Withdrawal from the Gulf, including Iraq, will mean Iran dominating (of course) the Gulf, militarily.
And what will be the result of said domination?
Why, oil at $200-300 a barrel! Because Iran cannot maintain its patronage and thug networks much longer without massive increases in oil prices. Which requires military domination of the Gulf to force the Gulf oil states to reduce their output.
It has been the National Security policy of the United States since FDR to dominate the Gulf militarily, so that oil prices are cheap. Because the US runs on cheap oil, and the USSR/Russia depends (as a net oil exporter) on expensive oil.
Oil at $200-300 a gallon will destroy what is left of the American economy. Sending unemployment to 45%, and producing real, starvation level poverty in America.
Obama either is a moron, and cannot figure this out because fundamentals of economic and national security policy are outside his “Hate Whitey” racial expertise and agenda, and redistributive politics coupled with an upbringing as Muslim boy in Indonesia, filled with reflexive anti-Americanism and anti-White majority sentiments. OR he plans a “self-Coup” and plans to use the crisis to rule by decree, basically forever. With the two-fer of punishing the White majority population, no matter that it makes Blacks poorer.
Of course it could be mixtures of both. Obama I think is comfortable (if you look at his arguments to Democrats in the House/Senate, that they should lose their seats to pass health care) with massive electoral losses. In this I think he has no intention of abiding by them, instead planning a self-coup. It is a leading indicator that he does not do the popular thing and simply bomb Iran.
He could get Health care passed if he bombed Iran, because of the rally round the President effect and showing conservative instincts in foreign policy (i.e. regaining public trust). He has not done that. Because he plans to be Fujimoro.
Brazil’s attitude is nothing new. Several years ago they were tossing Americans in jail or abusing them t the airport in some parody of or retaliation for TSA. The State Department swept that under the carpet.
I tend to disagree with 33. whiskey:
I think a “problem” with Iran/Middle East will produce a spike in oil prices, but not a significant permanent rise–Iran just isn’t that big a player in the world oil market beyond their involvement with satisfying the PRC’s oil demand.
The pundits think Iran wants nuclear weapons so they can join the nuclear club, play the status game, and try to extort their neighbors. That presumes a reasonably rational Iranian government. I think the Iranian goal is far more naked than that. Iran wants nuclear weapons so they can use them on Israel and so they can give/sell them to terrorists who will use them on us and on European cities.
The Russians and Chinese want the Iranians to have nuclear weapons so the Iranians will use them, and/or sell/give them to terrorists so the latter will use them, to hurt us and Europe. Russia has no other reason for actively blocking any effort to stop the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons or for actively helping the Iranians develop them or for actively arming the Iranians. China has no other reason for actively blocking any effort to stop the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons or for funding the Iranian effort (with American dollars–my irony meter is pegged) by buying Iranian oil nearly exclusively, instead of spreading their buys around the world’s oil souks.
Eric Hines
33. Whiskey: An Iranian stranglehold on the Persian Gulf (nice image) would be very bullish for oil prices in the short term. But $200 – $300 for more than a few weeks? I like to read your stuff – but this is a temptation to hold you up to ridicule. And I don’t think this miss undermines the point of your post: but you should consider what I’m saying. If oil prices were set on the producers’ wishes, prices would still be ~ $140/bbl. But the market needs both supply and demand sides: The Great US oil demand crater of 2009 got the producers’ attention. They (say Russia and Iran and Chavez-ville) are financially strapped: they cannot cut off deliveries to force prices up. Once prices clear $90/bbl again a lot of more difficult (deeper, more remote) resources become economic. More transportation in the US will switch to natural gas, (which we have plenty of). So the econ catastrophe leg of your argument must be discarded.
“the Obama Administration will be bombing Iran by the end of the summer”
Could happen. So could lots of other scenarios. And looking down the road, there is China with openly declared intentions of becoming the biggest kid on the block. China produces about 50% of the world’s steel – the US 5%. China has the largest automobile manufacturing capacity in the world — the US imports its vehicles from Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico. If the ruling elite had ever gone to a real high school, they would know that the kid who aims to become #1 has to humiliate (or worse) the kid who is currently seen as #1. That challenge is inevitable.
How did democracy fail so badly? How do we come to have no political leaders at all in the Western World?
An issue that has troubled me for years about the 1930s is — Did they not see it coming? Doubtless some Chinese PhD student in years to come will comb through blogs like this to demonstrate that, yes, the Westerners in the early 21st Century saw it coming. They just could not do anything about it.
But Mr. eHines, through the Persian Gulf churn some mighty huge tankers filled to capacity with light crude, sweeter by far than the sulfurous crud that is more characteristic of Iran’s typical wells (so I read.)
When the Ayutollah Homeini was shelling and sending rubber Zodiacs full of exuberant sappers against Saddam Hussein’s oil platforms and Saddam was doing likewise to Iranian facilities and tankers, all shipping in the Gulf was in peril. It was a good time, maybe, to invest in the maritime insurance bidness. It seems reasonable to expect a substantial rise in prices at the pump for consumers if Iran gets a strangle hold on the Straits of Hormuz.
I’m quite sure o would rather get the $7/gallon price by taxing $2/gallon gasoline before it gets to the consumer, rather than having to pay $6/gallon at the ocean’s edge.
#36 weSwinger:
Once prices clear $90/bbl again a lot of more difficult (deeper, more remote) resources become economic. More transportation in the US will switch to natural gas, (which we have plenty of).
I agree that we have resources that we could use, especially at a higher world oil price. However, the reason that we are not doing so now is purely a matter of domestic Left wing politics over-riding and suppressing the rational economic reaction. Given the nature of the regime and its supporters, what are the odds that rational economics will be allowed to function if the price spiked? And I suspect that if such a price spike comes in the next decade, while our economy is still in the tank, that there will not be a domestic demand to spur a round of exploitation of our own resources.
Subotai Bahadur
When I hear about “Smart Power”, I am somehow reminded of Maxwell Smart.
Wretchard writes: “About the only thing one can hope for is that the American maestros of Smart Power don’t get outsmarted or finish up being too clever by half.”
It’s starting to look more likely that they will end up out-smarting THEMSELVES.
Which will not be good for the rest of us.
Subotai @.39…
Say What?
Was that a typo? (“And I suspect that if such a price spike comes in the next decade, while our economy is still in the tank, that there will not be a domestic demand to spur a round of exploitation of our own resources.”)
Are you saying you expect our country is already so screwed up that people will just roll over in despair????
Well, it’s not so bad (yet) in these precincts as North Korea, where a factory worker was recently executed by firing squad for smuggling news about living conditions – the price of rice, for instance – out of the country. Apparently the news was recorded as data on a cell phone.
Link on tonight’s Drudge page.
Another link which I followed lead to a dead page at WSJ:
Drudge title: ” BIG SIS UNLEASHED: Homeland Security program digs ‘into all Internet communications’…”
gotta find out what that was about…
weSwinger why is that out of the question?
Demand is inelastic in the short term, while supplies are deeply constrained. It would take 10-15 years for significant output to increase in Canadian tar sands and US oil shale. Because the process of drilling, extracting, and building refineries is not trivial, in fact gargantuan.
Meanwhile, trains, buses, cars, planes, all need to run. The other producers are likely to profit-take by reducing output and as a practical matter, are constrained. Venezuela and Nigeria are in no position to boost oil output if they wanted to, and Indonesia and Malaysia are near capacity now.
Iran wants oil production constrained deeply, sharply, and permanently, so they can have a good ten years or more with huge profits. Oil at $300 a barrel is not likely for ten years, but for two or three, yes. Because again, demand is inelastic, mostly, and supplies are not easily brought online. Russia also needs oil sky high, to pay its patronage network.
China? It has a habit of looking at short term issues, and has decided for the moment to play ball with Iran so they don’t cause trouble in XianXing province with the Uighers. They also like to reflexively screw the US. They have not thought through what happens when the US collapses economically — they just see the easy pickings of Taiwan (which is of course a dead duck). They have not seen that the US no longer buying Chinese stuff means a switch made to domestic consumption that is not possible in that time frame. Hence their own problems with provinces spinning away and likely, the Uighurs and Tibetans causing trouble again. As in declaring independence and fighting a full out war with China, dragging in Pakistan, Iran, and other muslim nations on the side of the Uighurs for sure.
Iran is run by deeply evil men, but they are not crazed lunatics listening to voices in their heads. They instead want to wipe out Israel because its a demonstration like a Mafia with nukes shakedown, of what could happen if the gulf oil nations do not do their bidding.
Remember, Iran can ill afford an all-out war, because it would allow the US Navy to dominate and quickly destroy them while impacting the gulf oil production overall very little. Iran is a net loser with conventional weapons.
With NUKES, they can simply turf the US out, by making an example out of Israel (a two-fer because it shows US impotence in protecting a client state).
Iran needs sky-high oil prices, to survive and they are determined to get them.
I don’t see this as out of line: oil embargoes in the past have reached inflation adjusted $100 a barrel marks, and I am predicting a swing about twice to three times that amount on the outside.
Why? Because nukes are a game changer. It allows Iran to basically turf out the US without a conventional war. One way or another. Particularly with a weak President.
If anything, I am being overly conservative.
We have never had a man like Barack HUSSEIN Obama as President. NEVER.
We have seen under him: “Teddy Kennedy’s seat” go Republican. New JERSEY elect a Republican Governor. The House likely switch overwhelmingly Republican from overwhelmingly Democratic in two years.
Whiskey,
Weak indeed.
The concern is that the present occupant of the ovaltine cubicle will “confine to barracks” precisely the offensive systems that we know are otherwise capable of obliterating the mullahs at a moment’s notice.
The temptation to make gestures that will scorch his name forever onto the honor roll of Marxist Icons must be fierce. In such matters, urkle o’bumble has shown less inclination to conform to the constraints we mortals accept than President “can’t control his own willie” surrounded by the Dallas Cheerleaders slathered in almond oil.
But, seriously…
Traitors abound. And too often citadels that could have resisted the most determined assault have fallen because of betrayal by someone who felt no loyalty to the people that trusted him.
Unless the USA is directly attacked, I expect our military will obey orders to stand down rather than mutiny.
Lord God, hear our prayers. Throughout history, the problem of mutiny has normally been the fear that soldiers will refuse to put themselves in harm’s way when desperate conditions call for sacrifice.
The world is turned on its head.
to get $300 a barrel, the Iranian’s will nuke the oil fields of their hated cousins, the Saudis.
bomb #2 is for Isreal.
Israel is big O’s way out of this. He tells the Israelis soto voce that they go and he will follow. In fact if Israel attacks Iran then Iran will retaliate against US naval ships and US military bases within range of their medium range missiles. Obama will then have no choice but to return fire. And we’ll all be off to the races. Do I think that’s what Big O really wants? Doesn’t matter what he really wants. That’s how I think it will turn out.
Whiskey has a few reasonable points today (it happens I guess). This is definitely an economic situation. The Iranians have a failed economy. The only kind of economy that they understand is one based on selling oil. It’s possible that all of the belligerent talk from Iran and its minions lately is meant to both push up the price of oil and to provoke Israel into an attack before Israel is really ready. The Iranian economy can easily be destroyed with a blockade or by shutting down their oil shipping ports for six months. Of course they would start firing missiles after a few days of that.
visitor, there will be no second bomb, at least not one fired by Iran. If Iran dropped a nuclear bomb on your neighbor’s house and you had a few nukes lying around not being used what would you do? Wait until dinner jacket decided what his next target was? I don’t think so. Obama has been plenty happy to drop bombs and fire hellfire missiles on our enemies. He just doesn’t want to send boots to be on the ground over there. He will push the button when he needs to, rather than send boots on the ground over there.
Visitor #46,
You are absolutely correct. This whole game in the middle east has been about Persia V Arab. What do you think Iran was saying 15 years ago when the Saudi’s opened the spigot for Clinton and oil proces were $15/bbl? right after the brutal Iran/Iraq war. What about the Russians?
Destruction of the Arab (Saudi) oil supplies, or at least the extreme curtailment is the ultimate objective of Iran and thier Russian backers…the Chinese care, but not so much, as their Iranian/African fixed price petro contracts are all denominated in US dollars.
The fact of the matter is that from 1998 to today, we have more than doubled the amount of GDP we put towards energy on a dollar basis:
http://bp2.blogger.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SG-vf0QOpXI/AAAAAAAACPc/HNHVROeDMbI/s1600-h/USEnergyGDP.jpg
And people wonder why the economy is in the crapper…on a dollar basis, we spent an extra 8% of GDP in 2008 than in 1998 (14% vs. 6%), on a $14 trillion economy, that is $1.12 trillion dollars EXTRA going towards energy. And they say health care is “the biggest economic issue facing our nation today”, please.
Until we quit with the fairy tales about how more expensve sources of energy are going to create a bunch of new jobs, we are quite simply screwed.
Cheap energy now.
#42 Mad Fiddler:
It is not despair, it is realism. We are well and truly scrod, and that precipitation we are all feeling from Washington is not rain. The fiscal and financial frauds, thefts, and improprieties that have brought us down so far have not even begun to work their way through the system. In fact every single thing that the regime has done since January has aggravated our problems, and their deepest desires are to continue to make them worse still.
We have not yet begun to feel the pain from the horrendous deficits created in the last few months. Even if we a) have real elections in November, and b) take back both houses from this collection of wanna-be Beria’s and Stalin’s; they still have almost an entire year before a new Congress is seated and the damage is going to continue.
And not counting the deficits, there are parallels with past business cycles that scare me goolie-less… and I’m supposed to be fearless. Best case, Carter-like stagflation. Worst case, Great Depression redux. It will take a forceful removal of the miscreants, maladroits, and unindicted co-conspirators of the Left from all aspects of our society to ultimately fix things. They will not go quietly.
Ten years if we are lucky, not counting the effects of any hostilities [internal or external] that come about. It is not a matter of despair, it is a matter of the hard times that will have to be gotten through.
[there are those who might say that I am not of a Pangloss-ian outlook on life.]
Subotai Bahadur
With respects to quite nice coverage by Richard, in those expert assessments about what American can and can’t do, and what Israel can and can’t do, are a whole lot of flawed assumptions. I think it’s that infamous error called “static analysis”. Unfortunately, such false assumptions are precisely what leads to war.
The world, including probably even the Hezzie idiots, fully believe that Israeli will hide in their shelters as wave after wave of missiles devastate their homes, businesses, fields, assets, and the very lives of their children. All the while Israeli soldiers fight WWI style trench warfare against a well dug in, well fortified guerrilla army, with numerically superior assistance from around the Arab and Persian world, taking serious battlefield losses, losing precious lives that Israeli’s cannot replace.
Wrong. At some point, Israel will understand it’s very existence not just threatened, but immediately at stake. The “Marquess of Queensberry rules” for Western etiquette gets stripped away, and the Israeli’s start REALLY playing for keeps. They WILL start killing a lot of Arabs, not just their fighters, but all the men, women, and children civilians who they embed with. Those fearful missiles – they’d better be able to knock out Israel’s defensive capability in 24 hours, because after that there won’t many left. Carpet bombing and modern munitions are a pretty good offense against well entrenched guerrilla’s, as long as you no longer care much about collateral damage. As for Israel’s Iranian problem: it will cease to be after two dozen nukes impact Tehran and most communication, command and control sites. The Iranians can keep their hardened lab’s and factories, as their scientists and Jahaadi’s die of thirst, starvation, or perhaps even a lack of air. It just won’t really matter if the Iranian’s are “really, really angry” after the strike, because (a) the Iranian nuclear threat will be over, and (b) so will any serious threat from any other state in the Middle East. NO ONE will mess with Israel, because the bodies of dead Iranians will long testify to what happens if you seriously try to commit Holocaust II upon Israel proper.
Likewise with the USA. The only limit’s on our military power is that which our limp-d*ck’d politicians put on them. Ditto for our response to Iran. Iran can do NOTHING if the USA ever applies itself to reducing the Iranian power and leadership, again, collateral damage be damned. Its not that we would go all out for genocide, but in real-world war where the stakes are mom and the kids and everything, the enemies civilians had better not be in the way of the mission or target, or they join their Jahaddi’s with the 72 virgins (my, now wouldn’t that be a crowded scene). The only difference between an Israeli or American attack on Iran is that the USA can afford to leave many more Iranian’s alive and more of their infrastructure intact. In fact, if the “anti-war” Obama led such an attack, it would probably do more for America’s defense than anything in the past 250 years. Putin and whoever leads China this week may think that America is now neutered with the “evil Bushies” gone and the naive Obamican’s in their place. But OMG, if an American PEACENIK(!) show’s some … um.. intestinal fortitude … and pulls the trigger, then the lines would truely be drawn. Putin would probably start downsizing his forces in Georgia almost immediately. I mean, hey, if a dictator can’t depend on either America’s political right OR left wing to give the game away with treaties and half-wars, then the USA and it’s military machine could be pretty darn scary.
Military power and force projection depends on the will to use it, as well as the means. America has always had more means than will, because regardless of what the Worlds masses say when they defame us, American’s really could care less about projecting power anywhere. We want to be left alone, to enjoy our “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” that most of the rest of the world can only dream about. However, when other nations try to seriously jeopardize any of those, it’ll be hell-on-earth all over again for anyone who tries.
So, forget all that crap about what “can be done” and “can’t be done”. As long as an American President or Israeli leader could care less what the “experts” in Europe, Geneva, San Fransisco, NYC, and Washington say, we can do just about anything we need to, and no, it won’t cost us those “50,000 or 100,000″ American casualties that the “experts” predicted pre-Iraq I and Iraq II.
When it comes to Israeli or American survival, well, I’ve got some just miserable and scary news for the Hezzi’s and Iranians and Chavez-ians and Talibanies – we love life more than you love death – and in the end, we just don’t give a damn whether you live or die or are angry or whatever. We choose life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Old Salt
Old Salt,
Your assumption of competence or good will on Obama’s part is a reach given his record. It is not necessary to subscribe to whiskey’s whole thesis to see the risk to shipping in the Straits and the overall vulnerability of the Sunni regimes leading to higher oil prices. The interests of the Russians and the Chinese are opposed to ours and we have been in a needless retreat. Israel may act but it is very deep in their reflexes to not conduct strategic warfare against the hostile civilian population.
Personally I would do some demonstration to convince Assad that the first thing that happens is the elimination of the two villages that the Alawites come from.
weswinger #36: Once prices clear $90/bbl again a lot of more difficult (deeper, more remote) resources become economic. More transportation in the US will switch to natural gas, (which we have plenty of).
subutai #39: I agree that we have resources that we could use, especially at a higher world oil price. However, the reason that we are not doing so now is purely a matter of domestic Left wing politics over-riding and suppressing the rational economic reaction.
About a month ago there was an article in The Oklahoman entitled, “Natural gas producers try to woo New York.” I thought, well, good luck with that. According to the article, the Marcellus shale play in New York is one of the four largest such formations in the country but natural gas producers are having one heck of a time trying to convince NY powers-that-be that they have nothing to be afraid of, that hydraulic fracturing drilling will have no negative impact on the watershed. The gas producers have “engaged in discussions, demonstrated our technology and showed facts rooted in the science of drilling” and presented decades’ worth of evidence that horizontal drilling is safe, yet still, “New York state has enacted a moratorium on drilling… until regulators complete new standards expected to be among the strictest in the country.” Tom Price, Chesapeake’s v.p. for corporate development and governmental relations was quoted as saying, “Chesapeake and many others have been doing this kind of drilling safely, responsibly and in environmentally sensitive areas for decades. These folks are unfamiliar with the process and thus really afraid of the unknown. Rather than ask questions and seek solutions, they have made accusations and sought to scare people.” Ha, you can imagine the poor energy producers frustrations. It’s kind funny, in a pathetic way, if they think it’s just a fear of the unknown and the unfamiliar. If, instead of questions and solution-seeking, all you get is accusations and attempts to scare people, that should tell you something. When are energy producers going to wake up? They’re still trying to deal with these people in good faith, as if they’re rational actors.
Then a few weeks after the above article appeared, I saw an editorial written by an Okla. state representative complaining that now the federal House Energy and Commerce Committee have announced an investigation into whether hydraulic fracturing poses risks to the environment.
It doesn’t matter what our domestic resources are, nor does it matter what the economics picture is, our leftist rulers will continue to throw up every hindrance imaginable to stop utilization of our own energy supplies. So far, they’ve been marvelously successful. How long until we’ve had enough? When starts the hindering of the hinderers?
52 Karen Yvonne: Thank you, and 44 Whiskey and 39, 49 Subotai; with all due respect. The game changing geo-political events, which ever way they go, will clear the regulatory decks Karen wrote on at comparative warp speed. People will be pi$$ed. The ‘stick in the spokes’ “NIMBYism” of the lefty regulators will be exposed for the voters to see, and hate. Once that is done, there are huge number of positive changes that will flow through to the supply side.
There is a lot of nat gas here: Increasing the infrastructure to deliver it is well known, and it can be “legged out” to demand centers as supplies come on, and will be a true and timely economic stimulus.
There are well known, already mapped oil-bearing strata off the California and Florida coasts.
Further, there is God’s own amount of coal here, which can be converted to usable energy in any number of ways.
Lots of factors mitigate against the scary economics you want to paint.
I’m almost as worried about the O-P-R reaction to losing their majority in the next election (esp. w/ Reid going down ☺) as I am about them keeping it, or Iran/Israel: What kind of legislative poison pill will they bless us with?
weswinger, speaking of coal, several years back, Oklahoma’s largest electric utility applied for a permit to build a new coal fired power plant that would use clean-coal technology and be the best option for the ratepayers but the corporation commission turned them down. There was no fight over it, not a peep. Coal, air scrubbers or no, is just so yesterday. Coal has been successfully demonized (even for Oklahomans) and now the demonization program for natural gas is in progress. Energy producers still don’t realize they’re the enemy.
What kind of legislative poison pill will they bless us with? They’ve already blessed us with insurmountable debt. Is there any way to climb out of that hole? Even assuming a tsunami of conservatives in November (which would be assuming alot, imo).
But back to the subject of Iran. Wretchard says the Obama administration can’t afford any more setbacks to its’ engagement policy. I don’t see why not. Results are not the thing. The engagement policy itself IS the “success.” Israel will be set upon by her surrounding enemies and no one will come to her aid.
can’t buy me love!!!
Obama gives Brazil Billions in loan gaurantees for off shore drilling (and blocks drilling off the US coast) but still cant get any help from Brazil.
He is not just bad at international diplomacy, he is expensively bad at it.