November 7, 2007Hail Multilateralism!I'm ready to join the Black Helicopter crowd. First Larry Kudlow brings us the story of the World Bank's $900,000,000 loan to Iran. As America successfully gets business and some pensions to divest of Iranian holdings and start to apply financial pressure, the mostly-US-funded World Bank dives into the breach. A commenter says "It's good to know dictators in need have someone to turn to." The World Bank will float them, and the UN will protect them. The Wall Street Journal Ed Page today criticizes the International Atomic Energy Agency (paid link): For the past year, [IAEA head Mohammed] ElBaradei has been running an independent foreign policy from his IAEA perch. People tell him he is "doing God's work" -- or so he tells the New York Times. In August, he announced a nuclear agreement he had reached with Iran's mullahs, without consulting his political superiors at the agency. Even the Europeans protested that one. We're funding these outfits and spending millions to host them and staff our portion. I've said a hundred times that the UN could have stopped the Iraq war if not for Oil for Food. Now they are setting themselves up to ensure that no peaceful resolution or restrictions on Iran can be affected. Where is the blogswarm that scuttled the Dubai ports deal? A legitimate, profitable, and honorable business deal is immolated by populist fury, but I don't hear anybody complaining that International Agencies we finance are financing war against us.
Posted by jk at 1:36 PM
| Comments (0)
October 11, 2007Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb IranJohn Morgan, Senator Robert P. Casey is trying to explain his vote on the Lieberman/Kyl Amendment granting George W. Bush the authority to begin military combat operations against Iran. He sounds a lot like Hillary Clinton meaning our most esteemed representatives in Washington are completely susceptible to brainwashing and are utterly incapable of reading an actual text before voting. The overwhelming majority of blogospheric traffic about this is on the left, and it's generally dripping with hysterics. Meaning it's likely a mountain out of a molehill. Indeed, despite doing a good job of posting the scary text of the bill, he does so without a) providing a link b) providing a few more paragraphs of context... probably because it would blow the outrage right out the door. The words he (along with the rest of the liberal bloggers) neglected to post: "It is the sense of the Senate". Sense of the Senate (or House) aren't very "toothy" declarations of anything! But don't believe me. Believe C-SPAN. SENSE OF THE SENATE is legislative language which offers the opinion of the Senate, but does not make law. Bed wetting is so tacky once you're older than two or three.
Posted by AlexC at 11:29 AM
| Comments (2)
But John Morgan thinks:
The text of the entire Amendment and a link are contained in an earlier article about the vote which my regular readers are familiar with. Posted by: John Morgan at October 11, 2007 12:02 PM
But AlexC thinks:
You linked, but did you read? Surely you would have noticed the Sense of the Senate text? Isn't that rather important to the imminence of the invasion? Posted by: AlexC at October 11, 2007 12:35 PMJune 3, 2007Nothing to See Here...President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who triggered outrage in the West two years ago when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map", has often referred to the destruction of the Jewish state but says Iran is not a threat. While the media and Europe might not be taking Mr Ahmadinejad seriously, you can be Israel and our "diplomats" who just visited with Iranians are. But I have to ask... at what point does his rhetoric become cause for action? Because inaction would be national suicide.
Posted by AlexC at 12:11 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
Michael Ledeen reminds that Iran now holds five American Hostages and that our inaction emboldens the hard-liners against democratic moderates. Again, I fear that we need a president who can politically lead us into involvement in Iran. President Bush may have the strength and will, but somebody is going to have to tell the American people what is at stake. With any luck, Iran will be the chief issue in 2008 and President Giuliani or Thompson will have the mandate to put substantive pressure on Ahmadinejad. Discussing the "Department of Peace" with my beloved moonbat sister-in-law, I used a Hitler analogy to demonstrate the occasional need for war (I'm not proud that I went straight to Hitler, but my time was limited). She said things were different then. I ask today's peace at any cost folks to name three substantive differences between Hitler and Ahmadinejad -- the ones I know make the Iranian leader look worse. March 26, 2007Iran Hostage Crisis - Day 3We can only hope that the 15 British servicemen taken hostage on March 23 by Mahmoud and the boys will be released unharmed faster than the 52 Americans taken hostage at our own embassy during Jimmy Carter's presidency. This certainly seems to be a return to form by the Iranian president who, many claim, took part in that very kidnapping in 1979. For his part, British PM Blair is getting tough. "The Iranians should not be in any doubt over how seriously we take this act, which was unjustified and wrong." At the same time, an American lieutenant commander echoes a question that occured to me when I first heard of this: "Why didn't your guys defend themselves?" "I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact, but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation." If they had a reputation for defending themselves, perhaps they would not have been the target of Iranian Revolutionary Guards' elaborate plot to manufacture an international crisis.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:01 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
Nice post. Many things might have deterred this, but I fear that Ahmadinijad might have correctly surmised that Britain and the US are too fatigued to pursue a military solution. I don't think the military is, but they do get CNN and see a new Congress trying to extricate us from the MidEast. Are they right? December 19, 2006Peace in Our Time (Again)LMAO! (tip to HotAir)
Posted by AlexC at 1:12 PM
| Comments (2)
But TrekMedic251 thinks:
That'll be cross-posted by the end of the week! Posted by: TrekMedic251 at December 19, 2006 9:47 PM
But johngalt thinks:
This is far too close to the truth to be funny. "50 million dead" may be a slight exaggeration, but only slight. Posted by: johngalt at December 20, 2006 12:47 AMPerson of the YearSome people are upset about my selection as Times' Person of the Year
Perhaps it was Ahmadinejad's hosting of a conference of Holocaust skeptics, including David Duke, that caused Time to recoil. Perhaps it was fear that the face of the Iranian president on the cover of Time would repel the American people and be death for sales. Surely that was the reasoning behind Time's refusal to name Osama bin Laden in 2001, choosing Rudy Giuliani instead, though history is unlikely to conclude that Rudy, his crowded hour notwithstanding, was the central figure of that annus horribilis. Richard Stengel, editor of Time, as much as concedes he could not bring himself to choose by the traditional standard, if that meant choosing Ahmadinejad: "It just felt to me a little off selecting him." Understandably. But the refusal to select Ahmadinejad reveals an unwillingness to confront hard truths. For putting his face on Time's cover would have done a useful service, jolting America to a painful realization. Not only George Bush, but the United States, its Arab allies and Israel, had a dreadful year, as Iran emerged as first beneficiary of a war fought by this country at a cost of 25,000 dead and wounded.
Posted by AlexC at 12:54 AM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
Richard Stengel will never be featured on Stephen Colbert's "Profiles in Balls." Posted by: johngalt at December 19, 2006 3:03 PMDecember 7, 2006Iraq "Surrender" Group Report" . . . more than six people cannot agree on anything, three is better -- and one is perfect for a job that one can do. This is why parliamentary bodies all through history, when they accomplished anything, owed it to a few strong men who dominated the rest. Never fear, son, this Ad-Hoc Congress will do nothing . . . or if they do pass something through sheer fatigue, it will be so loaded with contradictions that it will have to be thrown out." --Bernardo de la Paz, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, pg 162 [Robert A. Heinlein] I've been waiting all week for someone to blog the celebrated Iraq Study Group report, for I have a comment I'd like to make about it. Alas, nobody has obliged on these pages. But with each passing day I've come to realize that the real blogging is taking place on the front pages of the major dailies. They took the slap dash 97 page report as their kernel and proceeded to concoct every sort of meaning from it in their headlines. Every one, that is, except for making the world safe for liberty. Well, here goes. Let's start with part I, subpart D: Achieving Our Goals: We agree with the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq, as stated by the President: an Iraq that can “govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.” In our view, this definition entails an Iraq with a broadly representative government that maintains its territorial integrity, is at peace with its neighbors, denies terrorism a sanctuary, and doesn’t brutalize its own people. Given the current situation in Iraq, achieving this goal will require much time and will depend primarily on the actions of the Iraqi people. It is critically important to understand that, with Saddam gone, Iraq matters little in the present war between civilization and archaic totalitarianism. Re-read the passage above and replace "Iraq" with "America." An America that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself. [...] Given the current situation in America, achieving this goal will require much time and will depend primarily on the actions of the American people." And where America represents civilization in this war, the seat of archaic totalitarianism today is... anyone? anyone? Bueller? That's right: Iran. Now re-read the passage above replacing "Iraq" with "Iran." In our view, this definition entails an Iran with a broadly representative government that maintains its territorial integrity, is at peace with its neighbors, denies terrorism a sanctuary, and doesn’t brutalize its own people. Now, what actions of the American people can do anything to help Iraq "govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself?"
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:10 PM
| Comments (5)
But jk thinks:
Speaking for myself, I was so happy that the report wasn't worse. I think it significantly undercuts the cut and run crowd and can be used more to the President’s favor than his detractors. The idea of using Iran and Syria seems tedious but there is an interesting context. I don't know if you saw Brit Hume's panel discussion on this (you get kicked out of the VRWC if you don't watch 4x a week) but Secretary Baker believes that Syria might be incentivized to help us and the Sunnis. "Flip Syria" he said to Brit as they were packing up their cameras. It's a long shot and I hate to think of the price but it is not necessarily "nuts."
But AlexC thinks:
They want peace in the middle east. That's a bold vision. How much did we pay for this, again? Posted by: AlexC at December 7, 2006 11:54 PM
But johngalt thinks:
And now, my long awaited comment. With respect to diplomacy with Iran, or even Syria: "Do steers sign treaties with meat packers?" -Robert A. Heinlein I agree with John Murtha. It is time to redeploy coalition forces to "another region in the Middle East." TEHRAN Posted by: johngalt at December 8, 2006 8:51 AM
But jk thinks:
I also resent the implication that ThreeSources was behind in commenting on the ISF. We hit the idea of Syria help on November 21. Posted by: jk at December 8, 2006 11:51 AM
But johngalt thinks:
Credit duly noted. And that post also reminded us what we get whenever we employ "realpolitik" when killing people and breaking things is in order. Posted by: johngalt at December 8, 2006 3:09 PMNovember 13, 2006Nothing to See HereIranian President Ahmadinejad:
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert:
Asked whether his country was considering a preemptive strike targeting Tehran's nuclear facilities, Olmert answered: "I hope we don't have to reach that stage." But the Israel leader said his first choice is a negotiated resolution. "Every compromise that will stop Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities, which will be acceptable to President Bush, would be acceptable to me." Ahmadinejad isn't bluffing. When he pulls the trigger, some will say "I told you so," and some will say "we didn't think he was serious." Unfortunately, there are too many of the latter in power around the world. Olmert and Israel are in no position to bluff. Expect this to flare up in the spring during another Israel / Lebanon / Hezbollah flare up.
Posted by AlexC at 11:45 AM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
I don't think they'll admit "we didn't think he was serious." Instead I expect it will be Bush's fault, even if he's left office. "The Iranians would not have felt such an action was necessary if the Chimpmeister hadn't invaded their neighbor for no good reason." Yeah. Posted by: johngalt at November 13, 2006 2:52 PMNovember 1, 2006Cartoon Contest Winner!In case you missed it, the Iran-government sponsored "Anti-Semitic" cartoon contest winner was decided.
Teheran has several times announced plans to host a conference to examine the scientific evidence supporting the Holocaust, dismissing it as exaggerated. Its most recent announcement came in September during Annan's visit to the Iranian capital, where he said he discussed the cartoon show with officials.
Just in case anyone ever tells you Iran isn't going to be a problem. (tip to HotAir)
Posted by AlexC at 10:16 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
If this is the winner, I think we can call the Cartoon Wars safely won by the Danes. Posted by: jk at November 2, 2006 10:18 AMOctober 19, 2006In Case You Were WonderingCrazy guy in Iran who happens to be President.
"The big powers have created this fraud regime and allowed it to commit all kind of crimes to guarantee their interests," he added. A guy who works for a crazy guy in North Korea.
If only we had a topical quotation from Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe or Fidel Castro, then we'd have a crazy trifecta. A general who impliments policies of a government who's crazy to respect a religion that can't respect itself, or it's gays, or it's women, or religious minorities, or... or... or... ad nauseum.[1]
The spike in violence during the Islamic holy month of fasting was "disheartening" and the Americans were working with Iraqi authorities to "refocus" security measures, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell said. Note 1: Out of respect, weren't we supposed to scale back our military activities around Islamic holy days? I'm glad the other side got the message. As a reward, we should treat their prisoners nicely. Maybe they'll stop the beheadings.
Posted by AlexC at 11:51 AM
September 15, 2006Sharansky & IranThreesources' favorite Natan Sharansky has a piece up in the La Times discussing non-state actors and their patrons. It's a "must read the whole thing in it's entirety" kind of commentary.
Considering the apocalyptic fanaticism of Iran's leader, it is an open question whether the current regime in Tehran is capable of being deterred through the threat of mutually assured destruction. But given how the world has responded to Hezbollah, the point may be academic. For surely Iran would be better served by using proxies to wage a nuclear war against Israel. And if there is no accountability, why stop with Israel? The road to a suitcase bomb in Tel Aviv, Paris or New York just got a whole lot shorter.
Posted by AlexC at 11:54 AM
August 27, 2006Capabilities vs Rights
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was speaking just days before an August 31 deadline set by the U.N. Security Council for Iran to halt uranium enrichment -- the West's biggest worry in Iran's atomic program -- or face possible sanctions. "No one can deprive a nation of its rights based on its capabilities," Ahmadinejad said in his speech to inaugurate the heavy water project. I did not know that rights were capability based. I'll make sure to remember that next time Israel retaliates (invoking it's right of self-defense) in a way which makes the liberal comentariat complain that there is no proportionality.
Posted by AlexC at 6:01 PM
August 22, 2006Blood for Oil
An Iranian naval vessel fired on the rig owned by Romania's Grup Servicii Petroliere (GSP) in the Salman field and took control of its radio room at about 7:00 a.m. local time, Lulu Tabanesku, Grup's representative in the United Arab Emirates said in a phone interview from Dubai today. ``The Iranians fired at the rig's crane with machine guns,'' Tabanesku said. ``They are in control now and we can't contact the rig.'' The Romanian company has 26 workers on the platform, he said. Iran, which holds the world's second-largest oil and gas reserves, is due to respond today to a European Union-led offer of incentives aimed at persuading it to halt uranium enrichment activities that are crucial to its nuclear program. Wonderful. Let's continue diplomacy.
Posted by AlexC at 2:34 PM
August 20, 2006Damn the TorpedoesWhy do we bother with these people? They're a perfect example of why diplomacy without muscle to back it up, is worthless.
Iran says it will formally respond by Tuesday to proposals made by the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany. The six have offered incentives for Iran to suspend enrichment, a process that has both military and civilian uses. Tehran, which insists its nuclear aims are purely civilian, shows no sign of accepting the package. "We are not going to suspend (enrichment). The issue was that everything should come out of negotiations, but suspension of uranium enrichment is not on our agenda," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told a weekly news conference. They're not going to stop. At that point, why don't the diplomats hang it up?
Posted by AlexC at 9:01 PM
| Comments (3)
But jk thinks:
At what point will the United States refuse to be sandbagged again? The UN solution in Lebanon is an insult to the IDF forces. The diplomats have no incentive to hang it up. However badly they screw up the world, they can stay in New York and eat at fine restaurants, and not pay parking tickets. Who'd hang up that gig?
But johngalt thinks:
I propose it's time for the United States to become a "rogue state." Iran and North Korea can do whatever they want and all they get is, "stop that or we'll sanction you" from the western world. Fine. Let's fire 10 missiles of our own, but ours have MIRV nuclear warheads. It's well beyond time for the tyrants of the world to know that we WILL defend our lives and our property. Dozens of mushroom clouds visible from every square inch of Iran and North Korea should effect a new cooperation from these heretofore unaccountable bullies. Posted by: johngalt at August 21, 2006 3:15 PM
But silence dogood thinks:
"Dozens of mushroom clouds visible from every square inch of Iran and North Korea should effect a new cooperation from these heretofore unaccountable bullies." In the land of the martyr? Care to place a wager on that? Posted by: silence dogood at August 25, 2006 4:10 AMJuly 19, 2006World War?I thought the DNC talking points after the renewal of combat in Lebanon included the line that "This is World War III." I surmised that they wanted to be able to claim that World War III began under Bush's leadership... that warmongery begets warfare. I just listened to former supreme commander of NATO, General Wesley Clark in an interview with a local talk radio show. The first questions for the general were, "Who is our enemy and what is the name of the war we are currently in." Simple enough questions, right? Fat chance. Clark said only Republicans like Newt Gingrich or (can't remember the other guy) call this "World War III" or "World War IV" respectively. Alternately, the General says we are not even engaged in a war. Instead, we have a "loose conglomeration of individuals trying to pursue their own ends." He admitted that they use terrorism as their method, but his solutions were all "law enforcement." The natural question then is, "Whose laws?" The big picture of the Clark interview is that he can't see the big picture in human events. Doesn't he read the Australian newspapers? (Or he sees it but is forced to deny it because Bush named it first: Axis of Evil.) Those who deny any link between al Qaida and Iraq also deny any link between either of them and Hamas or Hezbollah. Or Iran. In answer to the questions the General never answered: OUr enemy is every nation, organization, or "loose conglomeration of individuals" who practice Islamofascism and attempt to impose it on others by force. The name of the war is "The Islamist War." There, now let's go win the frackin' thing. UPDATE: On last night's show, Bill O'Reilly said, and I paraphrase, "Regarding the war on terror, Americans can be divided into three camps: One says bomb the crap out of them, the second says it's all America's fault, and the third says I don't want to hear about it, let's go to the beach." Dagny and I are proud members of the "bomb the crap out of them" camp.
Posted by JohnGalt at 10:57 AM
| Comments (5)
But jk thinks:
The WSJ Ed Page suggested that September 11, 2001 was the start of World War IV, WWIII being The Cold War. This Republican is happy with that terminology. I worry more that people forget there is a war than they think it started under President Bush. The World War appellation ties in 9-11, London, Madrid, Mumbai, and the current Israeli two front conflict. Posted by: jk at July 19, 2006 11:19 AM
But mdmhvonpa thinks:
The Islamist War ... a bit like our 2 conflicts with Iraq ... seems to be an extension of the Crusades. A clash of ideologies. Posted by: mdmhvonpa at July 19, 2006 11:57 AM
But jk thinks:
Bill O'Reilly would be another good reason not to get AlexC's 103" plasma screen. I favor a muscular response but would be loathe to characterize it as "bombing the crap out of 'em." We've said some harsh words about President Bush over the years but I have to say that I am bursting with pride. His unwillingness to reach moral relativism, his unscripted comments with PM Blair that were caught on mic -- he is doing it right and we are very lucky to have him in the White House.
But johngalt thinks:
Like I said, I was paraphrasing. I think "bomb the crap out of them" was just the way I remembered it. As for the president, I very much agree. (I'm biting my tongue now to prevent mention of the pending stem-cell bill veto. Let's debate that in a separate thread.) Posted by: johngalt at July 19, 2006 12:42 PM
But jk thinks:
I missed the paraphrase bit, mea culpa. I would still suggest that there is more nuance in the BTCOOT demographic. Israel will lose ground as Reuters and the BBC highlight civilian casualties over the campaign. (New post above for stem cells, BTW) Posted by: jk at July 19, 2006 1:31 PMJuly 18, 2006The World We Don't WantThe lead editorial in today's Wall Street Journal (Free link) presciently correlates the current Israeli conflict with the Ghost of Iran future if Tehran's nuclear ambitions are not stopped. The war between Hezbollah and Israel is a tragedy for its victims, but it could also be a clarifying moment if the world draws the proper lessons. To wit, this is a preview of what the Middle East will look like if Iran succeeds in going nuclear. All the more reason to let the superior Israeli armed forces establish superiority and damage the arms turned against them. The better and necessary response is to let Israel's counterattacks continue until Hezbollah's military power is substantially degraded. As for the G-8 and the U.N., they can be constructive by moving swiftly to impose sanctions on Iran for rejecting the generous offer to negotiate directly with the U.S. It's clear now that Tehran perceived that offer, which was promoted by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Undersecretary Nicholas Burns, as a show of weakness.
Posted by jk at 11:17 AM
July 17, 2006Stand with Israel Rally - NYCPamela from Atlas Shrugs attended the Stand With Israel Rally in NYC today and gives a weblog report. She has great coverage on her site 'Atlas Shrugs' including some great photos of Hillary swallowing her bile when Elie Wiesel said, "Thank God Bush is in the White House." Great stuff Pamela! Check it out. UPDATE: Here's the Rush Limbaugh program transcript of Pamela's "breathless" call to the show on Monday. Man, she was on fire! (And if you look close on Pamela's post, you'll see that the very first trackback ping is: Three Sources!)
Posted by JohnGalt at 4:37 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
Not many times I wish I lived in New York, but I would have liked to have been there. Posted by: jk at July 17, 2006 11:04 PMJuly 16, 2006Iranian Nukes? We'll Soon KnowWe knew this was coming sooner rather than later when we witnessed the "elections" of Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. When the "imperialist" American administration and the "Hitler" and "Ghengis Khan" like Israelis did nothing to provoke open warfare with Iran, those swell Iranian mullahs grew tired of waiting. As Robert Tracinski writes, "If, in the face of repeated threats and provocation by an aggressive dictatorship, you refuse to go to war, the war will eventually come to you." Two years after the 'forward strategy of freedom' swept the Syrian army out of Lebanon, Hezbollah was under growing pressure to leave as well. No reasonable person should have expected them to leave peacefully. (What do you think they are, pluralistic democrats? No, they're Islamofascists you fools!) A timely example of such a fool is Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, who said on Fox News Sunday this morning that, essentially, it's Bush's fault! Dodd attributes the military action in south Lebanon to diplomatic failure: "It seems to be that you have to go beyond just understanding the friendship, which is important, but for Israel's benefit and our own, we have missed, I think over the last number of years, the ability to really engage in the kind of diplomatic efforts in the middle east. From 1967 up until the end of the Clinton administration, every administration has remained very, very engaged in the middle east. This administration unfortunately has seen the word diplomacy and negotiation as somehow a favor to your enemies. I think unfortunately we've allowed this time to elapse over the last several years, the resolution 1559 was adopted two years ago, and the administration's done nothing in my view to really insist that the Lebanese rid southern Lebanon of Hezbollah and so this time has gone through without really engaging in the process thus we find ourselves today, Israel certainly has the right to defend itself. What it's doing is absolutely necessary. If Lebanon and Syria will recognize that those soldiers need to be returned and also Hezbollah has to get out of southern Lebanon then I think you could bring a cease-fire about." To be fair, it has been nearly five years since Islamofascists unilaterally slaughtered 3000 American civilians with airliners. But despite this, why is Dodd still endorsing the realpolitik appeasement cum stability strategy of the past thirty years? Does he genuinely believe that it will lead to regional and worldwide peace if we just give it another decade or three to work itself out? I can't say whether it is a symptom or a cause of America's confusion in general, or Dodd's in particular, but there is clearly a filter in place between the events of the mideast and the front pages of America's news media. Compare some recent news excerpts in America to those in, notably, Australia: WSJ- 'World Leadership Reacts To Escalating Mideast Violence' AP (via Houston Chronicle)- 'Hezbollah rocket barrage kills 8 in Haifa' And, in the most offensive of my three examples, Chigago Tribune- '2 dead on Israeli warship; jets attack Lebanon anew' Meanwhile, Israeli warplanes renewed attacks on Lebanon early Saturday, targeting bridges, fuel depots and gas stations in the east and south, security officials said." [...] ""You wanted an open war and we are ready for an open war," Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said in a taped statement broadcast Friday. He vowed to strike even deeper into Israel with rockets." The clear message to American voters: The "cycle of violence" continues and Hezbollah/Lebanon are defending their sovereignty from Israeli aggression. In contrast, Australians read the following headlines: The Australian- 'Militants' missile hits ship with Iranian troops' help' [...] "A military official said the group was also believed to have longer-range projectiles that could hit the Israeli commercial hub of Tel Aviv." The Australian- 'Strikes to intensify in four-stage strategy' Fifty caches, some hidden underground and in private homes, were reportedly destroyed. It is unclear what percentage of the 13,000 missiles known to be in Hezbollah hands that accounts for." [...] "In the second stage, which began early on Friday, warplanes attacked the heart of Hezbollah power, shattering high-rise buildings in south Beirut housing the militia's command structure as well as the home of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who was reportedly trapped for a while in the underground command centre when the building above it collapsed." "The third and fourth stages are still secret. However, the sources said the operation calls for each of the four stages to be more powerful than the previous one." [...] "Israeli officials say the international community will not force Israel to stop before its goals are achieved." Sydney Morning Herald- 'With US backing, Israel determined to go for the kill' Whatever the outrage on the Arab streets, Washington believes it has strong behind-the-scenes support among key Arab leaders also nervous about the populist militants - with a tacit agreement that the timing is right to strike." [...] "Israel and the US would like to hold out until Hezbollah is crippled. "It seems like we will go to the end now," said Israel's ambassador to the US, Daniel Ayalon. "We will not go part way and be held hostage again. We'll have to go for the kill - Hezbollah's neutralisation." These stories give a far different perspective on the current munitions exchanges: Israel is under attack by Iran-sponsored terrorists embedded in a third nation, Lebanon. Hezbollah rockets target Israeli civilians while Israeli laser-guided bombs target, Hezbollah rockets. Contrary to the protestations and accusations of one Christopher Dodd, the Bush adminstration has clearly been working in concert with regional and world governments to lay the groundwork for Israel to help Lebanon exorcise Hezbollah from its cities and countryside without manic diplomatic attempts to protect the terrorists. Dodd warns that, "This could spin out of control to such a degree that we have a major, major war in the middle east." The reality is that the cold phase of that war has been raging since at least 1979, with Iran's Islamic revolution. Iran has decided it is time to turn up the heat on this war and it certainly appears that Israel, the Bush adminstration and key western governments anticipated it, were prepared for it, and are in the process of winning it. There is little reason for concern that Israel's defense forces will fail in this effort. The two areas of concern are that diplomatic failures will allow allies like France and Russia to reverse course and, more ominously, that Iran's threat that attacking Syria " ... will definitely face the Zionist regime with unimaginable damages" portends their possession and imminent detonation of a nuclear bomb. Let us hope that western intelligence and military authorities have this matter as well in hand as they appear to have Hezbollah's rockets.
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:59 PM
| Comments (3)
But jk thinks:
I hate to respond to a thoughtful post with an anecdote, but I have been thinking about Senator Dodd all week. I did not know he was on FNS, I have that TiVoed and will watch it soon. I have been considering the Senator from Connecticut who is still respected by his party because I purchased some Contra Cafe coffee on July 4, and it recently showed up. The coffee is great and is grown by former freedom fighters in Nicaragua. I think of Senator Dodd because I remember his fighting President Reagan tooth and nail. I think of he and Kris Kristofferson as leading the pro-Sandinista movement in the US. Rather than admit he was wrong, Dodd -- 20 years later -- opposed the nomination of Otto Reich to be Assistant Secretary of State. His crime? Supporting democracy against communism in the Western Hemisphere.
But jk thinks:
And one quibble. I would disagree with conflating the Iranian and Palestinian elections. The election in Iran was a farce and remains worthy of scare quotes. The election in palestinian-controlled-Isreal, however, was legitimate. I'm not happy that they chose Hamas, though people should remember the other choice was Fatah. They were, however, real and legitimate elections and their constituencies are getting the government they deserve. I include their number in my accounting of folks living under self elected government.
But johngalt thinks:
Yes, I hesitated to group them together for the reasons you mentioned, but I was trying to economize on words in this post, believe it or not. In defense I'll point out that when your democratic choices are limited by force or by "belief in unproven things" it is not a free election in either case. I can live with this quibble though. My charming bride said she wasn't sure she shares my sanquinity that western intelligence and military authorities have this matter "well in hand." That comment forced me to consider the source of my optimism. I re-read my own post to find the answer: The unprecented combination of Israeli resolve to "to to the end now," and not go "part way and be held hostage again," coupled with supportive words from key Arab leaders. The Israelis are implementing the Bush Doctrine and no one of consequence - not the multiculturalists of Old Europe nor the Islamic apologists of Egypt or Saudi Arabia - dares, strike that, chooses, to stand in their way. Selfishly, they all want Hezbollah "crippled" or, better yet, "neutralized." Posted by: johngalt at July 16, 2006 7:33 PMJune 26, 2006Khobar TowersThe Wall Street Journal reminds us that it's been 10 years since the Khobar Towers were bombed by pig-tailed girl scouts. Oh, I'm sorry.
We later learned that senior members of the Iranian government, including Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Intelligence and Security and the Spiritual Leader's office had selected Khobar as their target and commissioned the Saudi Hezbollah to carry out the operation. The Saudi police told us that FBI agents had to interview the bombers in custody in order to make our case. To make this happen, however, the U.S. president would need to make a personal request to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. So for 30 months, I wrote and rewrote the same set of simple talking points for the president, Mr. Berger, and others to press the FBI's request to go inside a Saudi prison and interview the Khobar bombers. And for 30 months nothing happened. The Saudis reported back to us that the president and Mr. Berger would either fail to raise the matter with the crown prince or raise it without making any request. On one such occasion, our commander in chief instead hit up Prince Abdullah for a contribution to his library. Mr. Berger never once, in the course of the five-year investigation which coincided with his tenure, even asked how the investigation was going. Please read all of former FBI Director Louis Freeh's op-ed.
Posted by AlexC at 5:55 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
(Keep in mind millions of pig tailed girl scouts never blow up a U.S. Embassy. Be careful not to paint with a broad brush.) I may surprise some folks around here, but I thought Director Freeh may have been too tough on the Clinton Administration. While the record is clear on their fecklessness, it was the Chief Executive's decision whether to publicly implicate a foreign country, not the FBI's. I do not appreciate the current CIA's setting their own policy in opposition to the Bush Administration, I can't condone the FBI's doing the same to the previous administration. Can I? I'd like to. June 2, 2006Effective sanctions?Pardon a little skepticism. William P. Kucewicz pens a guest editorial in the beloved WSJ today (Free link, click away!) In it, he is pretty upbeat about the opportunity for effective sanctions against Iran Condoleezza Rice, in signaling a new U.S. willingness to negotiate with Iran, also warned that "international isolation and progressively stronger political and economic sanctions" would follow if Tehran defies its international obligations by continuing to develop nuclear weapons. Although the likelihood of those sanctions increased yesterday after the Iranian regime rejected the U.S. offer, it has been the threat of such sanctions, and the crippling effect an international embargo would have on Iran's economy and exchequer, that have always been the likely catalysts for any possible negotiation. Were we not still in the wake of "Oil for Food," I'd hop onboard the sanguine-train. Oh, and if China and Russia weren't pandering to Iran and Sudan, I'd feel better. And if I couldn't buy Cuban cigars and coffee (their coffee rocks!) in Ireland. The fact is, somebody will end-around any sanctions to buy cheap oil. This will create a humanitarian crisis, yet will further enrich connected folks. Certainly long enough to develop noo-cyoo-lur weapons. Again, Bullwinkle? That trick never works!
Posted by jk at 10:43 AM
| Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:
It would work with an Allied naval blockade. The best point made by this article is that the mighty industrial juggernaut (USA) is not, in fact, impotent against this puny but ambitious theonutcracy whose oil exports produce 90% of total export earnings. And another thing... Where the H. is Al Gore on the intolerable policies is Iran? Forget about nuclear warheads, they not only don't tax gasoline, they subsidize it! Their domestic consumption (of imported gasoline) has been growing by 8-10% annually. And why not - it only costs 40 cents per gallon. Posted by: johngalt at June 2, 2006 2:23 PM
But Silence Dogood thinks:
Yes, isn't that the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Posted by: Silence Dogood at June 2, 2006 9:48 PMMay 30, 2006Iran: Spreading Its TentaclesJihad Watch -- yet again :) -- reports on an AP news release: TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - To Iran's west lies a natural ally and perhaps its most potent weapon in the international fray over its nuclear program. While Iran and Iraq were arch enemies during the rule of Saddam Hussein, all signs point to an increasingly robust relationship now that Shiites have achieved a dominant role in the Iraqi leadership. "Iran has ties with Iraq which have not been mobilized as they could have been," Ingram said. "The militias based in Iraq received much of their training from Iran and they have not taken any instructions yet." While the jihadists and Islamofascists plan and prepare, we slumber...
Posted by Cyrano at 3:04 AM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
It's good to see right-wingers finding Professor Juan Cole so useful. Any port in a storm, I suppose. And for the gloom-and-doomers, it is always stormy. There are no shortage of things that could go wrong in a post war Iraq, and a tighter Iraq-Iran bond is high on the list. Yet the dominoes could more easily fall the other way. If we create a free, stable, and prosperous Iraq, the democracy advocates to their East will have more opportunity and motivation to expel theocracy. Posted by: jk at May 30, 2006 12:16 PMTwo Things: Islam and the Rule of the ClericsSince the American media is too busy attacking the American military and America, making a big deal about lies coming out of Guantanamo, we don't hear stories about real abuses which occur in prisons. The UK Telegraph reports: A leading Iranian pro-democracy and women's activist, who was jailed on trumped-up charges last year, has revealed how the clerical regime cynically deploys systemic sexual violence against female dissidents in the name of Islam. Compare this story to flushing a Koran down the toilet (most to all of those stories were fabricated, or actually were perpetrated on one prisoner by another) -- and ask: why is the American media not all over this?? Their behavior, their silence on issues such as this Telegraph story, speaks volumes. Now what is going to be left, if the American media has its way, and America is anhilated, while Iran still stands? Who will then win, and who will loose -- good or evil? And remember the line "When I asked how he could do this to me, he said that he believed in only two things - " -- straight from the mouth of the "religion of peace..." Invocation of Islam to justify such atrocities is not isolated to this example... HT: Jihad Watch
Posted by Cyrano at 2:30 AM
Riots In Iran, IIThe BBC also had an article about the riots in NW Iran. Since AlexC did not talk about the "inflamatory" cartoon in his post, I thought I'd have the honor: Azeris said the cartoon, which was published earlier this month, compared them to cockroaches. ... The cartoon was published in a state-owned newspaper. So as to show that they were not stupid, thousands of Azeris went into the streets and proved their worth by...acting stupid: Reports from the cities of Ardebil, Naqadeh and Meshkin Shahr say Iranian security forces fired on demonstrators, killing at least five people. Hey, Azeris!! Quit acting like barbarians, and write a letter to the editor or something!! Write a paper showing the achievements of your people, your great standardized test scores, the thoughts of your philosophic geniuses, the wonders of technology you have brought into the workld, the marvels of medicine of your doctors, or the great art your artists, ahead of their time and breaking new ground, have raised up to the world!!! Or at least learn how to write and how to behave wth civility, and let the rest of us get on with our lives...
Posted by Cyrano at 2:11 AM
May 29, 2006Riots in IranIn case you missed it.
The deadly protests occurred last Thursday in the city of Naghadeh, and followed other demonstrations in Ardabil. On Sunday, about 2,000 Azeris demonstrated in Tehran outside Parliament and were dispersed by the police, the reports said. In a show of defiance that appears to have unnerved the government, demonstrators chanted in Turkish Azeri, as the language is known here for its close relation to Turkish, and demanded that it be taught in schools.
Posted by AlexC at 1:49 PM
May 26, 2006Response to Ahmadinejad's Letter To Bush“A Letter to Ahmadinejad” by Ebrahim Nabavi Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad President of the Islamic Republic of Iran My dear son Mahmoud!
HT: The Objective Standard Blog.
Posted by Cyrano at 9:46 PM
May 19, 2006Never Again?Canada's National Post
"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis." Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical "standard Islamic garments." The law, which must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims. Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth. I think this calls for another round of diplomacy. How long till people start doing the calculus of "It's only 25,000 .... etc.... " It's disgusting. Yet there are people willing to turn a blind eye this week. Last week, last month, last year, and I fear in the future as well.
Posted by AlexC at 10:24 AM
| Comments (5)
But mdmhvonpa thinks:
This has to be intended as a 'shock-jock' move. On the other hand, Good Lord! Posted by: mdmhvonpa at May 19, 2006 1:36 PM
But johngalt thinks:
First, a qualifier: Various reports have contradicted the validity of this story. Still others have claimed the law originally passed 2 years ago but hadn't yet been implemented. I have to correct Rabbi Hier who said, "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis." Iran adopted the ideology of the Nazis about 27 years ago with the so-called "Islamic Revolution." What they're moving closer to is the same fate that befell the Nazis - their own destruction. Posted by: johngalt at May 20, 2006 11:23 AM
But TrekMedic251 thinks:
Fire up the Daisy Cutters! This lunatic needs to die,..now! Posted by: TrekMedic251 at May 20, 2006 8:23 PM
But howard thinks:
"Various reports have contradicted the validity of this story" -including organization that reported it.
But TrekMedic251 thinks:
Howard, I posted your comment into the body of my original post. Thanx for the heads-up! Posted by: TrekMedic251 at May 22, 2006 9:00 PMApril 17, 2006UN, Hard at WorkAbout those top ten stories...
... It happened on the same day that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised his people "good news" about the country's nuclear program. The following day, Iran announced that it had managed to enrich uranium, a key ingredient in the production of a nuclear bomb. No, it's not a joke. (tip to Tammy Bruce)
Posted by AlexC at 9:21 PM
| Comments (1)
But mdmhvonpa thinks:
Makes perfect sense. I mean, who knows more about how to hide nukes than these guys!? Same reason we should have had Pol Pot and his ilk chairing the Human Rights commission. Posted by: mdmhvonpa at April 18, 2006 1:15 PMA Damned Thing
That's how it goes with the Iranians. The more they claim they've gone nuclear, the more U.S. intelligence experts -- oops, where are my quote marks? -- the more U.S. intelligence "experts" insist no, no, it won't be for another 10 years yet. The more they conclusively demonstrate their non-compliance with the IAEA, the more the international community warns sternly that, if it were proved that Iran were in non-compliance, that could have very grave consequences. But, fortunately, no matter how thoroughly the Iranians non-comply it's never quite non-compliant enough to rise to the level of grave consequences. You can't blame Ahmadinejad for thinking "our enemies cannot do a damned thing." Pretty much.
Posted by AlexC at 4:08 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
PERFECT! I love to see these guys on TV look right into the camera and assure us that it will take Iran five or ten years to create a weapon. If the experts are certain, I'll sleep well at night... Posted by: jk at April 17, 2006 5:42 PMApril 8, 2006VDHI spent the whole week waiting for Friday to get my fill of Victor Davis Hansen.
So far the Iranian president has posed as someone 90-percent crazy and 10-percent sane, hoping we would fear his overt madness and delicately appeal to his small reservoirs of reason. But he should understand that if his Western enemies appear 90-percent children of the Enlightenment, they are still effused with vestigial traces of the emotional and unpredictable. And military history shows that the irrational 10 percent of the Western mind is a lot scarier than anything Islamic fanaticism has to offer. So, please, Mr. Ahmadinejad, cool the rhetoric fast — before you needlessly push once reasonable people against the wall, and thus talk your way into a sky full of very angry and righteous jets.
Posted by AlexC at 1:01 AM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
Someone recently trotted out one of my favorite dicta from General Eisenhower: if a problem is intractable, enlarge it. I fear that serious escalation of the Iraq war into Iran may be necessary before it is ever stabilized. Perhaps that will not have to be soon, and perhaps the internal, Iranian democrats can be leveraged but it appears that it must be done. Great post. Very stirring words about the march to freedom. March 10, 2006Not Tough EnoughIsrael is saying that the US is not tough enough when it comes to Iran.
"America needs to get its act together," the official said. "Until now the US administration has just been talking tough but the time has come for the Americans to begin to take tough action." The only real way to stop Teheran's race to obtain the bomb apart from military action was through tough economic sanctions that caused the Iranian people to suffer. "Once the people understand that their government is bringing upon them a disaster will they realize that the [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad's regime needs to be replaced," the official said. In other words, here's your chance to get the job done, or we will. If Israel steps up and takes charge of the Iranian situation, the world will breathe a sigh of relief, but the Islamic world will rise up in rage.
Posted by AlexC at 1:02 PM
| Comments (3)
But Silence Dogood thinks:
So when exactly have economic sanctions caused the people to rise up and change a regime? And hey, the mugger is in your neighborhood, you deal with him. Posted by: Silence Dogood at March 10, 2006 1:56 PM
But jk thinks:
Lefties may disagree but American weakness is bad for the world. I agree that we're not tough enough but it is difficult to see how we could be much more bellicose. The President's poll numbers are down, Iraq is "a quagmire" how can this country be led into a larger and more difficult war? A commentator on FOXNews used my favorite Gen/Pres Eisenhower dictum: "If a problem is intractable, enlarge it." Perhaps the reason we cannot solve Iraq is that we're not "solving" Iran and Syria. Scary days.
But AlexC thinks:
Silence, we only need to look 90 miles to the south. Cuban's rose up and ousted their dictator so many years ago, I forgot. 45 was it? Posted by: AlexC at March 10, 2006 4:42 PMMarch 5, 2006Willing DupesIt's hard to believe that the EU3 can be so stupid. It had to be on purpose.
He boasted that while talks were taking place in Teheran, Iran was able to complete the installation of equipment for conversion of yellowcake - a key stage in the nuclear fuel process - at its Isfahan plant but at the same time convince European diplomats that nothing was afoot. "From the outset, the Americans kept telling the Europeans, 'The Iranians are lying and deceiving you and they have not told you everything.' The Europeans used to respond, 'We trust them'," he said. So what now? I vote for another round of strongly worded condemnations laced with the threats of additional strongly worded condemnations. What Would Chamberlain Do?
Posted by AlexC at 1:45 PM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
This is serious. I'd say VERY strongly worded. Posted by: jk at March 5, 2006 4:05 PM
But AlexC thinks:
I think Israel is going to step up with their own letters of condemnation. They'll be delivered by missile. Posted by: AlexC at March 5, 2006 4:27 PM |