Cause it’s getting better
In yet another blow to the ‘Arab Spring’, Egyptian liberals have walked out of the constitution drafting process saying “they were not given the opportunity to discuss articles and their suggestions were being ignored.”
The departure of at least 12 liberals from the 100 member assembly follows the resignation of five Christian delegates – as well eight out of 10 members of a advisory committee providing technical assistance – over similar complaints.
As the regime in Cairo evolves towards an uncertain form, the Obama administration despite saying earlier that it would stand with Israel has sent a clear message to Jerusalem that it would not favor a ground incursion. The New York Times reports, “the Obama administration is increasingly concerned about the escalating violence in Gaza, believing that a ground incursion by Israel there could lead to increased civilian casualties, play into the hands of the militant Palestinian group Hamas and inflict further damage to Israel’s standing in the region at an already tumultuous time.”
Bryan Preston notes that this “two channel” mode of discourse is alive and well. “A new CNN poll finds that a majority of Democrats are out of touch with a majority of Americans on Israel’s actions against Hamas. A solid majority of Americans — 59% — supports Israel. But: ‘Only four in ten Democrats think the Israeli actions in Gaza are justified, compared to 74% of Republicans and 59% of independents. The solution is simple: say one thing to the public and another to your base.
Has Hamas been granted sanctuary by Washington? The president is following his normal practice of saying one thing in public and another in private. The NYT continues:
Though President Obama uttered immediate and firm public and private assurances that Israel has a right to defend itself from rocket attacks emanating from Gaza, administration officials have been privately urging Israeli officials not to extend the conflict, a move that many American officials believe could benefit Hamas. …
Mr. Obama telephoned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Friday for the second time this week, and officials at the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department have been on the phone with their Israeli counterparts since then.
There is “do not cross line” around Gaza. But is there a red line around Iran? Dr. Henry Kissinger, writing in the Washington Post argues that the administration has been drawing red lines that can’t be kept. Kissinger argues that “Iran must be President Obama’s immediate priority” . But the boundary the president has ostensibly set for it — a few inches short of the finish line — is unrealistic. Dr. Kissinger argues that once you give it a surfeit of material for the Bomb, the Bomb follows.
Its enrichment capacity … exceeds any reasonable definition of peaceful uses authorized by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The inevitable culmination is a nuclear weapon …
To draw the line at proscribing an Iranian nuclear weapon — as some argue — would prove unmanageable. Once the requisite amount of fissile material has been produced, constructing and equipping a warhead is a relatively short and technologically straightforward process, almost certainly impossible to detect in a timely fashion.
If so ineffectual a red line were to emerge from a decade of diplomacy by the permanent members of the Security Council, the result would be an essentially uncontrollable military nuclear proliferation throughout a region roiled by revolution and sectarian blood-feuds.
Once you let Hamas keep its rockets then perhaps it also follows that the rockets will continue to be used. The question with respect to both Gaza and Iran is that if the president has not been able to draw a firm line around either in the past then why he should be expected to do so in the future. However that may be, Dr. Kissinger argues that the ultimate consequence of Obama’s elastic policies will be Middle East armed to the teeth and at daggers drawn.
The reformist tendencies in the Arab Spring — already under severe pressure — would be submerged by this process. The president’s vision of progress toward a global reduction of nuclear weapons would suffer a blow, perhaps a fatal one.
But it is the appearance of things rather than their actuality that has historically concerned the administration. Whether it is the chimerical job numbers, a wonderously provocative video in Benghazi, the stinted unstinting support for Israel, talking points that miraculously rewrite themselves on the page, or containing the nuclear genie while not containing it, what matters is the headline in the New York Times, not the reality on the ground.
The Three Conjectures at Amazon Kindle for $1.99
Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99
No Way In at Amazon Kindle $8.95, print $9.99
Tip Jar or Subscribe or Unsubscribe
but of course this administration is reducing nuclear threats!!
the democrats are the peace party!!
Philippines, Korea, Japan and even Australia have got to be sweating profusely, Taiwan must be drinking heavily! China has enough internal problems that they just might push hard on those rocks off Japan/Philippines to focus the body internal, China has got to know they have a Paper Tiger and its name is 0bama!
It makes a lot of sense why General Petraeus was sand bagged, after the next four years (possibly less than that) America will be in need of a experienced military leader to pull us out of this very deep dark hole that is being dug…
Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Australia each have at least part of the building blocks for a nuclear deterrent, some having more of the building blocks [ore and processing/reprocessing technology, fabrication ability, delivery means] for a nuclear deterrent than the others. It is a matter of political will and time.
I suspect that Japan’s distance from a credible deterrent can be measured in turns of the wrench.
Taiwan and Korea have the knowledge, the technological base, and interestingly enough both have deployed indigenous missile systems that make absolutely no sense unless armed with nuclear warheads. Taiwan not only once had a nuclear weapons research program, but a number of the scientists working on our program were from Taiwan.
Australia is the second largest exporter of uranium ore in the world, although they lack a nuclear industrial base.
Given that a mutual defense guarantee from the current American regime makes Chamberlain at Munich look like “Stonewall” Jackson; covert mutual discussions and actions by those countries, if not mutual action, should have started some time ago. I hope it has.
Subotai Bahadur
Obama strongly supports Israel’s right to defend itself just as long as they don’t. Obama strongly supports freedom of speech just as long as it isn’t exercised making movies. Obama strongly believes in bipartisanship just as long as the Republicans agree with the Democrats.
Obama strongly believes in uniting us as long as it means we’re all shutting up and doing what he says.
I saw the headline but didn’t click on it, that “Israel is running out of targets”. I hope they haven’t run out of smarts. What on Earth would they do in a ground incursion, search ever house?
If they have any smarts left, the ground incursion is a bluff, and I presume they have some alternate plan in mind.
Have to consider that any escalation may also activate Hizboolah on the northern border, with a much heavier supply of basic and advanced missiles. In fact, it’s mildly curious they haven’t already started up, and there may well be a story to that.
like a broken record . . .
The concerns of the administration can be considered successfully achieved if one assumes that its objectives are to undermine:
* military power
* economic productivity
* international hegemony
* honest elections
* education
* energy production
* the Constitution
* its Westphalian integrity
SB @ 4 – if Australia ever finds itself in a position where it decides it needs nukes – it will be far too late to do anything about it. The requisites for production of such items do not exist, and are politically unpalatable to even contemplate.
Even with all the handwringing about global warming/climate change/dirty weather or whatever it’s called this week, no-one here seriously considers nuclear energy as a clean alternative.
I would not want to be Netanyahu’s shoes. The Arabs and Iranians have surrounded Israel with strategic booby traps, i.e. the rockets from Gaza, the insurrection in Syria, the Moslem Brotherhood’s take over of Egypt, instability in Jordon and Lebanon, and most important, the Iranian nukes. Any correct policy to be followed must not follow linear thinking, e.g. if Israel invades Gaza to stop the rockets then Egypt may feel compelled to tear up the peace treaty. If Egypt opts to be stupid and fight a war with Israel (false flag) then Syria has the perfect opportunity to use chemical weapons against their insurgents. Any military activity by Israel, makes it easier for Iran to continue their nuclear weapons development. It’s strategies within strategies, within strategies.
Arabs are not stupid and Iranians are chess players. The “clever” Iranians and Arabs have made the situation so complicated that they’ll force Israel into a strategic miscalculation and cause a regional nuclear war. In the end Netanyahu may say “It’s too complicated!” and opt to untie the Gordian knot by slashing it with a sword. To make matters worse, Netanyahu knows he can expect no help from Obama or the Europeans. Without hesitation, Obama would push Israel under the bus.
Netanyahu is at the historical branch point, not Obama, not Putin, not the Chinese, not anybody else…
krontekag @ 9,
Australia is rich in anthracite coal and does not need nuclear power. Australia won’t develop nuclear weapons technology until after Japan trots out a nuclear weapon or the Indonesians do something particularly stupid. The Japanese will not produce a nuclear weapon until after the Chinese engage in some sort of overreach concerning Japan. Australia is rich in uranium and should pursue nuclear technology. Unfortunately Australia has issues with political correctness in many areas including energy policy.
While I completely that Obama’s attempt to be everything to all parties is a significant factor in the current conflict I also believe that current events are being driven by Iran. A conflict in Gaza continues to drain attention and resources from any coordinated effort, (including military) to delay Iran’s production of deliverable nuclear device.
Moreover, while this Arab “spring” or more correctly described “fall” is in large part due to Obama’s failures, what evidence is their that a significant portion of the population will actually blame Obama? I agree with Eggplant it is Netanyahu who is between a rock and a hard place.
With China’s money on the rise and the world falling back into recession (strong possibility of depression) China’s leadership will be in a corner, now that the new leader is in place and the peasants are very much mad all over, Japan is a great relief valve for much steam and renewal of the National Pride in bad economic times, America has been and is hallowing out its Military and Moral is low, America is very much in civil turmoil, these next two years will be one trip wire after another! America’s Government and Media have shown that they cannot be trusted this will be a primer for those who have ill intent for others.
I will give this “Peace Party” of ours one thing. They not only own our media, they know how to play them. I know its easier to get played if you are already playing along, but talk about being inside someone’s OODA loop! The progs have this 2 week media cycle figured out to the nanosecond. Anybody remember Fast and Furious? Chris Stevens and Benghazi and CIA detainees? Chicago precincts with zero votes for Romney? Petraeus and Mrs Broadwell? Mrs Kelley and Gen Allen? The financial cliff? Sequestration? Didn’t think so. Poor old Rep Issa’s head is spinning. Today its what is Netanyahu up to, what about the poor Palestinians who shoot unguided rockets at Israeli population centers and teh won is in Myanmar? Whatever will it be tomorrow? He doesn’t care what the scandal du jour is because he doesn’t have to, by tomorrow it is all so two weeks ago. Jay Carney will make it all go away anyhow, because the people Jay is talking at have never seen Obama lose, and they like it.
#9 krontekag
I was thinking of Australia as a long term source of uranium ore. They are so impossibly far behind the power curve on all the other factors, that it makes it fantasy for Australia to dream of a nuclear deterrent. And that is assuming the will should ever be there. Which it won’t. They seem to have caught a bad case of the “Kiwi”‘s on that subject.
#10 Eggplant
“then Syria has the perfect opportunity to use chemical weapons against their insurgents.”
Given that there are not only no “good guys” amongst the Syrian insurgents, but that all sides in this battle are enemies of the US and Israel, and that the use of the chemical weapons stockpile does not increase its threat to us or Israel, and actually decreases it by the amount consumed; this is part of a booby trap, how?
Other than that, and the fact that I think it will be a calculated decision and not a matter of being too complicated; I agree. That Netanyahu has the fate of Israel in his hands is obvious. He also has the fate of the West in his hands, in that he may either bring about the end of the Islamic threat, or trigger their triumph. We DO live in interesting times.
I do think that the Islamists in and outside the White House may have miscalculated, though. First, they seem to assume that crossing the nuclear threshold is forever outside Israeli consideration. Second, that once crossed, the Israeli nukes will not be used overwhelmingly to completely destroy the Ummah. Backing nations into a corner does not always work out well for those imposing the pressure. q.v. the Roosevelt oil embargo on Japan.
…When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard. -Sun Tsu
Subotai Bahadur
…When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard. -Sun Tsu
I doubt that Hannibal would have agreed with Sun Tsu. At the battle of Cannae the Romans were slaughtered. There was no outlet for them, nor was there intended to be.
If the Israelis have to use the nuclear option there simply is no point to sparing any of their enemies. What would they fear–world opinion? Killing one by nukes couldn’t create any worse attitudes than killing them all. Even less. Dead enemies speak no ill against you nor actively seek to do you harm.
And the ones who are left standing often feel a compulsion to hold their tongues because that just might mark them as a target should the going get rough again.
Subotai Bahadur @ 14 asked a question:
“Given that there are not only no “good guys” amongst the Syrian insurgents, but that all sides in this battle are enemies of the US and Israel, and that the use of the chemical weapons stockpile does not increase its threat to us or Israel, and actually decreases it by the amount consumed; this is part of a booby trap, how?”
Subotai Bahadur then provides the answer to his own question:
“I do think that the Islamists in and outside the White House may have miscalculated, though. First, they seem to assume that crossing the nuclear threshold is forever outside Israeli consideration. Second, that once crossed, the Israeli nukes will not be used overwhelmingly to completely destroy the Ummah.”
Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are all weapons of mass destruction. If the Syrian government with Iranian involvement starts murdering their own people with mustard gas and Sarin, how long will it be before Israel gets involved? Particularly if the Syrian government loses anyway to its insurgents and launches chemical weapons against the Israelis as a Syrian version of the “Sampson Option”. Again, this sort of “nonlinear thinking” is probably keeping Netanyahu up at night with worry.
A note on Rhetoric.
The signal that the Old Left was lying was when they said, “As everyone knows …” The New Left would sing, “All we are saying is give peace a chance.” The Post-modern Left says, “As science proves …”
The NYT buries the hook of a lie in the middle and puts the sting in the tail. Passages like “play into Hamas’ hands … hurt Israel’s standing” contain so many outrages as to dare the reader to unpack them. The way to not play into Hamas’ hands and raise Israel’s standing is to kill Hamas.
re 16. Eggplant
I concur.
The weapons from Khaddafi’s regime are now in the hands of the Syrian islamist rebels and Hamas. Not clear if the US was involved in some of those transfers via Benghazi.
Certainly after Assad falls, his stockpiles will get smuggled around to various islamist groups for use. Can you imagine Hizballah and Hamas with chem/bio, purchased at the US consulate in Damascus?
SB @ 14 – yeah well being an expat Kiwi living in Sydney, I can confirm your suspicions regarding the will of either country to ever fire up a nuclear reactor in anger.
Shame really – Interior Aus would be the perfect geologically stable place for such devices and their exhaust. Shakey countries like NZ and Japan are a bit riskier.
@ 14 Subotai Bahadur
This goes along really well with what Wretchard had to say on the nuclear / deterrence subject over a year and a half ago (see comment # 77):
http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/02/15/in-and-out-of-eden/#comment-144210
Or, same comment accompanied by a rather haunting map:
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/enemies_foreign_domestic/when_push_comes_to_nuke.php
“administration officials have been privately urging Israeli officials not to extend the conflict, a move that many American officials believe could benefit Hamas. …”
This is absolutely correct. administration officials’ urging will benefit Hamas, on whose behalf the urging is done. What other point to the urging can our administration have, other than to benefit Hamas?
Did we ever find out what Obama and Bibi talked about on 9/11/2012 while the Battle of Benghazi was happening?
I love it! Polls show Democrats are out of touch with their base, which continues to reelect them. So why should they care???? Obama is destroying the country in plain view and he’s reelected. Polls show – again – the low regard in which Americans hold them and keep reelecting them anyway. What’s the message here?
4. Subotai Bahadur
“Given that a mutual defense guarantee from the current American regime makes Chamberlain at Munich look like “Stonewall” Jackson; covert mutual discussions and actions by those countries, if not mutual action, should have started some time ago. I hope it has.”
No. OVERT!!
Let everyone know that if you mess with me, I have friends. If you keep them covert, it’s kind of like the doomsday device in the movie that no one knew existed. Its threat to destroy the world was unknown, so was no threat at all, and thus no protection, and indeed was more dangerous to have created than not having it at all.
Along those lines, the presence of US provided ‘material’ on site in AU, NZ, Japan, and Taiwan could be accomplished in short order. I’m not too sure what PRC response would be, but I doubt they’d be more inclined towards offensive activity.
tom
Jim M @23. The dems keep getting “reelected” because they cheat. 59 precincts without a single Romney vote in Chicago, more in NC and elsewhere, most with 100%+ turnout.
#24 tomw
I take your point, but believe that it is over-ridden at least temporarily by another concern. Up till, I believe 1976, Taiwan had a nuclear weapons program. Under extreme pressure from the US government [pressure being in the form of a threat of a functional trade embargo and a public renunciation of military support if attacked], Taiwan cancelled the program, at least overtly. I have my doubts, and note reports that there were discrepancies in the accounting for Taiwan’s power reactor nuclear fuel rod count found in the 1980′s.
Now look at the current regime in DC. What would their reaction be to the concept that South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan were trying to make themselves less liable to American blackmail if they should become the next “Sudetenland”? There is a point, up to which, that it is best to keep things covert. I suspect that the break point for that would be the establishment of a relatively survivable counter-strike capability.
Japan has all the factors necessary to have created a nuclear warhead some time ago, if they had the will. Keep in mind that they actually live in a very hostile neighborhood. They have the delivery means. If you can put a satellite over 155 kg into a selected orbit with a perigee over say 250 kilometers, you have an interesting ballistic delivery system for countervalue targeting. Japan sent the Hayabusa asteroid probe weighing 510 kg all the way to the freaking asteroid belt, landed a probe on a specific asteroid, and returned it to a precise point in the Australian desert. Pretty much anywhere populated in China is fish in a barrel, along with much of the rest of Asia, if Japan has the will.
Both Taiwan and South Korea have developed and deployed indigenous cruise type missiles with the range to reach China, but with CEP’s [Circular Error Probability - the circle within which 50% will land] that make absolutely no tactical or strategic sense with conventional warheads. However, with even a small nuclear warhead, they would have tremendous countervalue use. The missile development was extremely expensive, and done largely secretly before deployment. If it was not a very expensive bluff in both countries, it is not logical unless they have a WMD warhead. Another alternative is, of course, the development of a new and secret terminal guidance system that reduces the CEP, at which point one has to consider the possible development of a conventional counter force capability for static targets. The parallel development of either raises the theoretical possibility of some level of cooperation between Taiwan and South Korea already, or a high level of coincidence. It should be noted that South Korea also has had the previous US enforced limits on the range and payload of ballistic missiles they can deploy extended by the US earlier this year. Once again given the current US regime’s policies, it can be suspected that such would not have been done except as a reaction to a fait accompli. The new limits of 800 kilometers and 500 kg place a number of critical Chinese and North Korean counterforce and countervalue targets within range.
And keeping in mind that Taiwanese, South Koreans, and Japanese can be self-sacrificing patriots; it is easier to develop a nuclear device that can be carried on a one way aircraft mission. It does not even have to be released from the aircraft. And yes, they all have strike aircraft capable of penetrating an air defense system and go for countervalue targets.
As above, the tipping point for going overt would likely be the IOC of a survivable deterrent. There are 4 ways of making a deterrent survivable; dig deep, high numbers, concealment, or mobility. Or some combination of the last 3.
Digging deep would not be an option, as it is detectable and targetable in a first strike. Numbers have a certain critical value to make a deterrent, but a combination of concealment and mobility is best. It is possible, if there is cooperation, for a mutual defense treaty between two or more of the three [an attack on one being an attack on all], for a joint declaration to give a sufficient number of weapons taken together to constitute a sufficient deterrent against China, with fewer delivery systems per country.
Aircraft standing hot alert could be a partial solution, but that implies an early warning capability to reliably allow a timely launch. Ships, surface or otherwise, could be be another deployment modality; especially for cruise missile variants. I note that all three have active submarine programs, and all have sought AIP submarines as a less costly alternative to nuclear submarines. And that they could be based on regular warships or converted merchant ships.
There are tremendous cultural and historical factors that inhibit such cooperation. But the physical and technical process is far more possible than believed at first glance by most people. And all three have a parallel history of having to deal with an aggressive Chinese threat to their national existence.
Will it happen? If they have half a lick of sense, given that today a declaration of support by the United States is the equivalent of a bodkin in the back. Can it happen? It is within the realm of possibility but dependent on a number of factors not subject to analysis until after the fact; as for domestic political and the possibility of hostile foreign reaction, it has to be covert until announcement of a deterrent capability.
Subotai Bahadur