Geopolitics of the Persian Gulf

Assad Homayoun of the Defense and Foreign Affairs Daily presents an interesting assessment of the current situation in the Persian Gulf, and specifically what the US should do about Iran. I completely agree with him that the way that the EU-3 are handling the nuclear issue "should be seen as being patently ludicrous, as it was for North Korea". Yet his prescription for what to do is somewhat unsatisfying.

The only thing the Iranians need is open U.S. moral and political support give them the psychological impetus to act.

Unless something radical happens in Iran, specifically a revolution, his prescription means allowing Iran to go nuclear and then hope that the people themselves will change the regime. I think that something more than hope is the necessary policy.

The New Cabinet

John Podhoretz has a response to all the Democrats' complaints that Bush's new cabinet is made up entirely of "yes men (and women)".

There's no question that "healthy debate" is an important part of every serious enterprise. But let's not beat around the Bush. When these characters talk about the need for "debate," they mean one thing and one thing only: They fear Bush won't be forced to take account of opinions and judgments they like and will instead fall back on opinions and judgments he likes.

Defusing Iran?

Richard Cohen, after trying to validate Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon, comes up with a "solution" as to how to make sure that they will not succeed in their goal.

[T]he United States had better change its approach. It ought, right off, to join with its European allies -- Britain, France and Germany -- in offering Iran a package of goodies to induce it to abandon its nuclear dreams. Instead, Washington has declared itself "agnostic" about these talks, which is hardly a rousing endorsement.

Maybe more important, the Bush administration had better wake up and smell the importance of international organizations and the rule of (international) law.

This is simply absurd. Why is it that the Left's "solution" to virtually any problem is to accede to the demands of the adversary? Didn't anyone learn anything from Carter's "peace in our time" compromise with North Korea? Cohen's "solution" is to try the exact same arrangement with Iran. What makes people think that it would succeed this time? The fact is that relying on "international law" when dealing with a rogue regime is crazy. The fact that they are a rogue regime, by definition, means that they will not abide by the law no matter what we do.

Scrappleface has a good description of the proposed arrangement.

Iran today said it had suspended uranium enrichment as part of a deal negotiated with several European Union countries which, for their part, have agreed to suspend disbelief.

Love thy Rummy

Friend of mine reminded me of some classic rummy from a press conference a few weeks back (11/8/2004). Thought I'd pass along.

Rummy: Listen, these folks are determined. These are killers - they chop people's heads off. They are getting money from around the world. They are getting recruits ...

Reporter: ... but are we going to see a number of Fuluja-type invasions as they go city to city or do you think that you can squelch a lot of the insurgency today or this week?

Rummy: We've answered that, but let me repeat it because it's important. No one can know the answer to that question. We can know of certain knowledges that you can not have a country that is free and democratic and respectable of all of the people in the country if you have safe havens for people who go around chopping people's heads off. You can't have a country if that's the case. Therefore, the government, and those assisting it, in this case the coalitiontent people think that is an option and try to do that, they will find it is not an option. The only option that exists for those folks is to decide that they have a stake in the future of that country and to become a part of the political process. And when I use this phrase tipping, people don't go from here over to there. They move this way and that way just a slight bit, and pretty soon the overwhelming majority are over in this area - recognizing that that's the future. The future is not a dark future of cutting people's heads off. The future's a bright future for them, where they can participate in it. They might not have exactly the same degree of control they had previously, because it won't be a dictatorship. Well, too bad. It's a different world.

Democracy versus Elections

President Bush has made democracy a prerequisite of his support for a Palestinian state. With the Palestinians holding elections in a few weeks, there will be much pressure to declare them democratized as a result and therefore ready for the next step. Obviously democracy involves a lot more than simply holding an election. Meyrav Wurmser believes that elections should not occur now, and should wait for a free society to be built first.

On the surface, elections appear to be a step that will further Palestinian democracy and President Bush's vision of a free and democratic Palestinian society. In reality, however, the election, scheduled for January 9, 2005, would be part of the smoke and mirrors that is Palestinian politics. It would merely dress an enduring dictatorship with democratic robes.

Powell's Resignation

The Jerusalem Post carries a report about the reason Colin Powell resigned as Secretary of State: Powell resigned over US-Israel ties. Apparently, Powell wanted the focus of US policy to be pressuring Israel into a compromise with the Palestinians. Dick Cheney and Undersecretary of State John Bolton disagreed, wanting to focus on Iran and Islamic terrorism. Cheney and Bolton won out. The article goes on to mention Condoleeza Rice and her views of the Middle East.

Meanwhile, the Sunday Times reported that Rice is said to be sympathetic to the Palestinians' plight and has said she will work tirelessly for a democratic settlement.

It is interesting that the focus of the Bush Administration has publicly become more and more about democracy in the Middle East. In his press conference with Blair, Bush responded to a question about the peace process by once again talking about a "democratic Palestinian state". It seems to me that what this means is that a Palestinian state is very far off in the future. As long as the Palestinians politically remain what they are - and it seems that this is pretty much a given at the moment - they will not be democratic and therefore talk of a Palestinian state will die down. The new PA will not be very different from the old PA, and therefore Israeli concessions and the pressure for concession (at least from the US) will be minimal. Israel's Interior Minister, Avraham Poraz, seems to confirm this in this interview.

Love or Hate

In his column on the death of Arafat, Jeff Jacoby stepped into a theological debate by questioning how President Bush could have said "God bless his soul" upon being told of Arafat's death. Apparently, he received a number of letters in response, as well as a column by Pat Buchanan, justifying Bush's response in term of Christian doctrine. In today's column he responds to those letters.

IS HATRED of others always a sin? Are we obliged to love every human being, even those who do great evil or behave with unspeakable cruelty? Must we believe, as one reader wrote to me last week, that "God loves even the bad people" -- even the very worst people -- and that we must strive to do the same?
[...]
Jewish tradition holds, with Ecclesiastes, that there is a time to love and a time to hate. The Hebrew Bible enjoins us to love our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18) and to love the stranger (Deuteronomy 10:19), but that love has its limits. We are not expected to love savage thugs or to ask God's mercy on them. On the contrary, we loathe the unrepentantly cruel because we believe God loathes them too.

It defies reason and upends morality to claim that God loves both Saddam Hussein and the innocent Kurds he gassed to death -- that He bestows His love on Osama bin Laden no less than on the 3,000 souls he butchered on 9/11. Of course we should pray that an evildoer will repent and atone for his crimes. But to love him even when he hasn't? To bless him when he dies? God forbid! To bless the Hitlers and the Arafats of this world is to betray their victims. That we must never do.

It seems to me that the fight against evil, that Bush has undertaken in the form of the GWOT, is diametrically opposed to the idea of loving your enemy. How can one love something that one acknowledges to be evil? What redeeming qualities does a suicide bomber, who looks in the face of children before murdering them, actually have? I understand the Christian ideal that we are all God's children, but by committing an act such as that, or by sanctioning the murder of thousands of innocents - as Arafat did - one takes oneself outside of the community of God, and binds oneself inextricably to the work of Satan. If a religion acknowledges the existence of evil, how can it bless that evil? The only response to evil can be hatred. And

"Hate allows us to keep our guard up, to protect us. When we are facing those who seek nothing but our destruction, our hate reminds us who we are dealing with. When hate is appropriate, then it is not only virtuous, but essential."

Stand by Your Man

Many commentators have noted that one of the key characteristics of this President and Administration has been the demand for loyalty from all members. Below, President Bush demonstrates his loyalty by rescuing one of his Secret Service bodyguards from Chilean Security.
The Washington Times has a good write-up of this incident.

A few seconds later, after posing for yet more pictures about 15 feet inside the doorway, Mr. Bush and the rest of the party turned to enter the dining room. But the president quickly turned his head to the growing din just outside.

Mr. Bush calmly turned right as the other three continued on and inserted himself into the fight. The president reached over two rows of Chilean security guards, grabbed his lead agent by the shoulder of his suit jacket and began to pull.

The tape of the incident, viewed by reporters last night, could not pick up any words the president might have been saying as he worked to get the agent through the line.

Last Obituary of Arafat

I seemed to have missed this David Warren column when it was first published. But Little Green Footballs linked to it, and it is the perfect description of Arafat and those Westerners who wept for him. After this one, I don't think I will be posting any more of these "tributes" to that terrorist.

There was no excuse for anyone to flatter or appease this monster, in life or in death. His narcissism and corruption were his most attractive qualities. He left bloodlakes behind him when he was taken in and sheltered in Amman, and Beirut. His Black September pioneered the modern arts of aircraft hijacking, and hostage butchery. The Intifadas he launched ended or destroyed the lives of countless innocents, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim alike.

The hushed tones of respect -- whether from the CBC and affiliates, or from Kofi Annan, Nelson Mandela, Jimmy Carter, Jacques Chirac -- is indicative of a posturing moral attitude that stinks to heaven.
[...]
It should be said that the person who spits at the mention of George W. Bush, but weeps for Arafat, is beyond twitting. Such a person is sick in the head. He represents a form of judgement so totally inverted as to be indistinguishable from madness. And yet among our intellectuals, this inversion is commonplace.
[...]
At the moment U.S. Marines and Army, with freshly-trained Iraqi units, are picking their way house by house through Fallujah, trying to save Iraq from the ministrations of another generation of Arafat's terrorist progeny, now matured into full religious crazies. Good and brave men and women have put their lives on the line, to prevent another triumph of evil.

It is not as if the world lacks heroes. There is no need to elevate a skunk.

Doug Mac and Cheese

A friend sent me one of those cheesy internet petitions that I never sign. Took an extra few out of my life for this one, however, and was actually struck by the power of the following Douglas MacArthur quote that was attached.

"The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for
he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war."

Iranian Diplomacy Over

As more news comes out about Iran's nuclear program, including the fact that Iran continues to produce uranium hexaflouride gas that could be used to make weapons despite the agreement with the EU-3, the rest of the civilized world must decide what is the next step. From their past history it is clear that Iran has no intention of abiding by the agreement it made. Their goal right now is to stall until they have produced everything necessary to make nukes. The response of the world so far has been very similar to the responses to terrorists prior to 9/11 - threaten, and then ultimately do nothing. With Iran, this is not a good option. A nuclear Iran is undoubtedly a large negative for US national security, and goals in the Middle East. Caroline Glick makes a very persuasive argument that diplomacy is no longer possible.

Given this state of affairs, it is clear that the newest deal with the mullahs has removed diplomacy from the box of tools that can be used against Iran. In the unlikely event that the issue is ever turned over to the Security Council, France will veto sanctions even if Russia and China could be bought off to abstain. As the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal has shown, even if sanctions were to be levied, there is no credible way to enforce them.

Jack Straw's statement

"I don't see any circumstances in which military action would be justified against Iran, full stop."

only adds to Glick's argument that further diplomacy is not an option. For diplomacy to succeed, there needs to be some threat; and once there is no threat, there is nothing to compel the Iranians to abide by any agreement.

So where does this leave things? It seems that Europe has resigned itself to a nuclear Iran - following its tried and true course of surrendering to any aggressor. The US has publicly stated that such an outcome is not acceptable, but US action is somewhat constrained by Europe and by our engagement in Iraq. And for both the US and for Europe, a nuclear Iran is not an existential question (at least in the mind of Europeans). For Israel however, it is, and therefore the burden of resolving another nuclear issue falls on her.

So where does this leave the Jews who, in the event that Iran goes nuclear, will face the threat of annihilation? Crunch time has arrived. It is time for Israel's leaders to go to Washington and ask the Americans point blank if they plan to defend Europe as Europe defends Iran's ability to attain the wherewithal to destroy the Jewish state. It must be made very clear to the White House that the hour of diplomacy faded away with the European Trio's latest ridiculous agreement with the mullahs. There is no UN option. Europe has cast its lot with the enemy of civilization itself.

The prevailing wisdom in Washington these days seems to be that the US is waiting for an Israeli attack on Iran. There is some logic to such a policy. No doubt, the Arabs and the Iranians will all blame America anyway, but they are not America's chief concern here. Britain and Germany are.
[...]
On the other hand, if the Bush administration does not accept Israeli reasoning, the fact will still remain: Israel cannot accept a nuclear Iran.

The Power of Nudnik

Yesterday's Nudnik post "'Cuff Kofi" was clearly read over in Manhattan. Sounds like the wolves have turned on their own.

UN staff ready historic no-confidence vote in Annan

"Kofi Annan is surrounded by corruption, a gang of criminals responsible for some of the worst things that happened to mankind in the 20th century," said one angry staffer.

Not sure what would make me happier... civil war in the territories or exposed corruption within the UN.

"The evidence before the court is incontrovertible. There’s no need for the jury to retire. In all my years of judging I have never heard before, of someone more deserving of the full penalty of law. The way you made them suffer, your exquisite wife and mother, fills me with the urge to defecate. Since... my friend... you have revealed your deepest fear. I sentence you to be exposed before your peers."

The "Democratic Show"

The post-9/11 plan of the Bush administration has been a fairly straightforward one - the wholesale transformation of the Arab Middle East. The creation of democracy has been the goal, and it has informed most of the actions the US has taken in the region. The first two targets of this transformation have been Afghanistan, which just held its first elections in its history, and Iraq which will hold elections soon. This attempt at transformation has proceeded despite the protestations criticisms of the very people one would expect would support such radical change - the self proclaimed "progressives" of the world. And despite all the ankle-biting, President Bush has pushed on with this agenda. It is interesting to note how Natan Sharansky described this determination in his discussion with Bush..

"I told the president, 'There is a great difference between politicians and dissidents. Politicians are focused on polls and the press. They are constantly making compromises. But dissidents focus on ideas. They have a message burning inside of them. They would stand up for their convictions no matter what the consequences.'

"I told the president, 'In spite of all the polls warning you that talking about spreading democracy in the Middle East might be a losing issue - despite all the critics and the resistance you faced - you kept talking about the importance of free societies and free elections. You kept explaining that democracy is for everybody. You kept saying that only democracy will truly pave the way to peace and security. You, Mr. President, are a dissident among the leaders of the free world.'"

Victor Hanson describes the US, in the pursuit of spreading democracy, as The Real Humanists.

In truth, George Bush's radical efforts to cleanse the world of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, bring democracy to the heart of the Arab world, and isolate Yasser Arafat were the most risky and humane developments in the Middle East in a century - old-fashioned idealism backed with force in a postmodern age of abject cynicism and nihilism.

Undoubtedly bringing democracy to the Middle East will not be easy, there seems to be some progress towards it already. Amir Taheri shows that there is reason for hope.

Nevertheless, the overall picture is encouraging. Even the most reactionary elements, which once deemed elections "a Jewish-Christian trick" to divide Muslims, are now prepared to pay at least lip service to the practice.

More important: Elections of an acceptable nature, though certainly not fully free and fair, have become part of life in a number of countries, such as Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Yemen, Jordan, Algeria and Morocco. Afghanistan's first free elections ever, held last month, has had a big impact on the entire region: If the Afghans did it, why not us?

Terrorism? What's That

The New York Times in today's editorial continues its long tradition of being clueless. According to the "newspaper of record", since Arafat has died and Abu Mazen hasn't explicitly come out and endorsed jihad, its now Israel's turn to make concessions.

The first order of business is to give the moderate Mr. Abbas something tangible to help him shore up his credibility with the Palestinian people. Mr. Sharon should immediately announce a complete freeze on settlement activity in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
[...]
Next, Mr. Sharon has got to do all he can to expedite free, full and fair elections involving all Palestinians - including those in East Jerusalem.

And after that, Israel should give up all the West Bank and Gaza, as well as half of Jerusalem.

Lost in the NYT's prescriptions for peace is the essential problem - terrorism. No word on the Palestinians dismantling terrorist organizations or stopping attacks on Israel. They still haven't figured out that the key reason why there is no peace is not because of settlements or Jerusalem or "refugees". These are all just codewords for the Palestinians for their true desire - the destruction of Israel. Until the Arabs accept Israel as a permanent feature of the landscape of the Middle East, and until they decide that they would rather build their own society rather than destroy someone else's, there will be no peace. The New York Times's prescription for peace is that Israel surrender.

Tit for tat

Sweet Chelsea, standing in the pouring rain. Drenched, yet makeup curiously unblemished.

Thumb presses down on the pause button on the Tivo remote control. Eyes pan (down of course) revealing...

Oh yes... black leather miniskirt mischievously covering the genetic gift (in the form of a prematurely plump trunk fulla'junk) from mom. Black leather mini in the middle of a torrential downpour to commemorate the opening of the Hilary Clinton 2008 Arkansas campaign headquarters by day / Bill Clinton after-hours brothel? Where’s Joan Rivers when you need her?

Thumb to rewind... pause... play... drink... rewind... pause... play...

Bill Clinton? That man soiled one of ours. I know she was the crippled fledgling antelope that the heard abandoned for self preservation... but she was still one of my minions. And thus, the ancient laws dictate that I must now have the seed of his loins. So yes, if there is a God (and I am of the opinion that there is; reference Krispy Kreme donuts), flash forward to a scene involving the Elder, a bottle of Johnny Blue, a humidor and sweet Chelsea. See if Egypt makes a movie about that?

One More Reason

Anne Bayefsky writes about one more reason why the UN should be shut down.

[T]he Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and Unesco invited a group of experts to Barcelona last week. Their mission: to provide the U.N. special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Doudou Diéne, with advice on anti-Semitism as well as "Christianophobia and Islamophobia."

And what did they figure out from all these experts?

Simply put, Jews are responsible for anti-Semitism. Or, if it weren't for Israel's annoying insistence on defending itself, on the same terms as would be applied to any other state faced with five decades of wars and terrorism aimed at its obliteration, Jews would be better off.

There is absolutely no reason why the US should be paying Billions of Dollars to this cesspool of dictators and thugs. The US should simply state that the UN will receive no more money, and that the building where it sits is now once again the property of New York City. Its sitting on prime real estate; I'm sure any real estate developer would love to put up some luxury condos there.

'Cuff Kofi

Jed Babbin has a great idea - take the UN to court. While its true that it and its "diplomats" enjoy diplomatic immunity, there may be a way of getting around that.

Alan Gerson, an international-law expert, has been a leader in the litigation of antiterrorist cases. He told me that when a person or an entity — even a government — has aided and abetted terrorism, its immunity can be bypassed in legal proceedings. When someone violates the "commitment to peremptory norms" — i.e., when it helps fund terrorism — it effectively gives up its immunity from legal action. The president can and should act on this idea.

There would be very few sights as sweeter as seeing Kofi Annan being walked, in handcuffs, into Federal District Court.

The Enforcer

An interesting interview with Michael Koubim, Shin Bet's chief interrogator from 1987-1993. I'm not entirely convinced that no physical pressure is ever used during interrogations, but he insists that he never did.

Laws of War

The MSM continues to hype the story of the Marine shooting a terrorist in a mosque in Fallujah. Their intent is clear - to delegitimize the war in Iraq, and by extension further taint the Bush Administration. To them, the context of what happened is not important, the whole message is in the image. There is no gray, only black and white, and this from the people who purport to be "nuanced" and berate Bush for his absolutism. But there is more of a story there than the video shows. This email from a Marine in Iraq, posted by Powerline tells much more of the story than the MSM ever will.

The Middle-East, Post-Arafat

An excellent article on the Middle East and Israel and the reason the Arabs are where they are.

The Oslo era is over. Israel has resolved to act unilaterally, a wise and overdue decision. This is now Israel’s policy: exit the Gaza Strip, build a fence and kill the terrorists. Israel has every right to hunt those who murder its citizens as surely as we hunt bin Laden and al-Zarqawi. Terrorists have no right to trial or due process nor protection from the Geneva Conventions. Israel owes the Palestinians nothing except the right to live in their own independent state. However cruel it may sound, the truth is that Palestine will never really be free. Israeli occupation will eventually end, yes, but its replacement? The character of the future government of Palestine will resemble, depending on the outcome of the impending civil war, lawlessness or theocratic tyranny, or something in between, the only certainty being an oppression rooted in Arafat’s long and corrupt tenure. Palestinian society reflects the same blend of corruption, gender apartheid, religious intolerance and conspiratorialism that has left the region impoverished and shackled.