WarSclerotic

The day it happens… – YouTube.

When Israel is finally forced to launch against Iran’s nuclear program.

God be with us…

–

Charles Krauthammer: Woe to U.S. allies – The Washington Post.

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: December 6

Three crises, one president, many bewildered friends.

The first crisis, barely noticed here, is Ukraine’s sudden turn away from Europe and back to the Russian embrace.

After years of negotiations for a major trading agreement with the European Union, Ukraine succumbed to characteristically blunt and brutal economic threats from Russia and abruptly walked away. Ukraine is instead considering joining the Moscow-centered Customs Union with Russia’s fellow dictatorships Belarus and Kazakhstan.

This is no trivial matter. Ukraine is not just the largest European country, it’s the linchpin for Vladimir Putin’s dream of a renewed imperial Russia, hegemonic in its neighborhood and rolling back the quarter-century advancement of the “Europe whole and free” bequeathed by America’s victory in the Cold War.

The U.S. response? Almost imperceptible. As with Iran’s ruthlessly crushed Green Revolution of 2009, the hundreds of thousands of protesters who’ve turned out to reverse this betrayal of Ukrainian independence have found no voice in Washington. Can’t this administration even rhetorically support those seeking a democratic future, as we did during Ukraine’s Orange Revolution of 2004?

A Post online headline explains: “With Russia in mind, U.S. takes cautious approach on Ukraine unrest.” We must not offend Putin. We must not jeopardize Obama’s precious “reset,” a farce that has yielded nothing but the well-earned distrust of allies such as Poland and the Czech Republic whom we wantonly undercut in a vain effort to appease Russia on missile defense.

Why not outbid Putin? We’re talking about a $10 billion to $15 billion package from Western economies with more than $30 trillion in GDP to alter the strategic balance between a free Europe and an aggressively authoritarian Russia — and prevent a barely solvent Russian kleptocracy living off oil, gas and vodka, from blackmailing its way to regional hegemony.

The second crisis is the Middle East — the collapse of confidence of U.S. allies as America romances Iran.

The Gulf Arabs are stunned at their double abandonment. In the nuclear negotiations with Iran, the U.S. has overthrown seven years of Security Council resolutions prohibiting uranium enrichment and effectively recognized Iran as a threshold nuclear state. This follows our near-abandonment of the Syrian revolution and de facto recognition of both the Assad regime and Iran’s “Shiite Crescent” of client states stretching to the Mediterranean.

Equally dumbfounded are the Israelis, now trapped by an agreement designed less to stop the Iranian nuclear program than to prevent the Israeli Air Force from stopping the Iranian nuclear program.

Neither Arab nor Israeli can quite fathom Obama’s naivete in imagining some strategic condominium with a regime that defines its very purpose as overthrowing American power and expelling it from the region.

Better diplomacy than war, say Obama’s apologists, an adolescent response implying that all diplomacy is the same, as if a diplomacy of capitulation is no different from a diplomacy of pressure.

What to do? Apply pressure. Congress should immediately pass punishing new sanctions to be implemented exactly six months hence — when the current interim accord is supposed to end — if the Iranians have not lived up to the agreement and refuse to negotiate a final deal that fully liquidates their nuclear weapons program.

The third crisis is unfolding over the East China Sea, where, in open challenge to Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” China has brazenly declared a huge expansion of its airspace into waters claimed by Japan and South Korea.

Obama’s first response — sending B-52s through that airspace without acknowledging the Chinese — was quick and firm. Japan and South Korea followed suit. But when Japan then told its civilian carriers not to comply with Chinese demands for identification, the State Department (and FAA) told U.S. air carriers to submit.

Which, of course, left the Japanese hanging. It got worse. During Vice President Biden’s visit to China, the administration buckled. Rather than insisting on a withdrawal of China’s outrageous claim, we began urging mere nonenforcement.

Again leaving our friends stunned. They need an ally, not an intermediary. Here is the U.S. again going over the heads of allies to accommodate a common adversary. We should be declaring the Chinese claim null and void, ordering our commercial airlines to join Japan in acting accordingly, and supplying them with joint military escorts if necessary.

This would not be an exercise in belligerence but a demonstration that if other countries unilaterally overturn the status quo, they will meet a firm, united, multilateral response from the West.

Led by us. From in front.

No one’s asking for a JFK-like commitment to “bear any burden” to “assure the . . . success of liberty.” Or a Reaganesque tearing down of walls. Or even a Clintonian assertion of America as the indispensable nation. America’s allies are seeking simply a reconsideration of the policy of retreat that marks this administration’s response to red-line challenges all over the world — and leaves them naked.

George Will: Containing Iran is the least awful choice – The Washington Post.

By George F. Will, Saturday, December 7, 3:04 AM

In his disproportionate praise of the six-month agreement with Iran, Barack Obama said: “For the first time in nearly a decade, we have halted the progress of the Iranian nuclear program.”

But if the program, now several decades old, had really been “halted” shortly after U.S. forces invaded neighboring Iraq, we would not be desperately pursuing agreements to stop it now, as about 10,000 centrifuges spin to enrich uranium.

If Denmark wanted to develop nuclear weapons, we would consider that nation daft but not dangerous. Iran’s nuclear program is alarming because Iran’s regime is opaque in its decision-making, frightening in its motives (measured by its rhetoric) and barbaric in its behavior. “Manes,” writes Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution, “from whose name the word manichean derives, was a Persian who conceived of the world as being divided into good and evil.” But Pollack says suicidal tendencies are not among the irrationalities of the Iranian leadership, who are not “insane millenarians.”

In “Unthinkable: Iran, the Bomb, and American Strategy,” Pollack argues that Iran’s nuclear program has been, so far, more beneficial to the United States than to Iran. Because of the anxieties and sanctions the program has triggered, Iran is more isolated, weak, impoverished and internally divided than at any time since it became a U.S. adversary in 1979. And one possible — Pollack thinks probable — result of Iran acquiring a nuclear arsenal would be Saudi Arabia doing so. Pollack considers this perhaps “the most compelling reason” for Iran to stop just short of weaponization.

Writing several months before the recent agreement was reached, Pollack said that, given Iran’s adamant refusal to give up all enrichment, it will retain at least a “breakout capability” — the ability to dash to weaponization in a matter of months, even weeks. Hence the need to plan serious, aggressive containment.

In September 2012, the Senate voted 90 to 1 for a nonbinding resolution “ruling out any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.” The implication was that containment is a tepid and passive policy. But it was not such during the 45 years the United States contained the Soviet Union. And containment can involve much more than mere deterrence of Iran, against which the United States has already waged cyberwarfare.

Pollack believes that, were it not for Israel “repeatedly sounding the alarm,” Iran “probably would have crossed the nuclear threshold long ago.” But if a nuclear Iran is for Israel unthinkable because it is uncontainable, Israel’s only self-reliant recourse — a nuclear attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure — is unthinkable. And, Pollack thinks, unnecessary. The existence of Israel’s nuclear arsenal is a sufficient deterrent: The Iranian leadership is “aggressive, anti-American, anti-status quo, anti-Semitic, duplicitous, and murderous, but it is not irrational, and overall, it is not imprudent.”

There will be no constitutional impropriety if Congress recoils against the easing of sanctions and votes to impose even stiffer ones on Iran. The president has primary but not exclusive responsibility for foreign policy. It is time for a debate about the role of sanctions in a containment policy whose ultimate objective is regime change. For many decades prior to 1989, humanity was haunted by the possibility that facets of modernity — bureaucracy and propaganda technologies — could produce permanent tyrannies impervious to change. (See Hannah Arendt’s “The Origins of Totalitarianism.”) In “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” George Orwell wrote, “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — for ever.” Since 1989, however, tyrannies seem more brittle. And Pollack believes “the basic ingredients of regime change exist in Iran,” which “today is a land of labor protests and political demonstrations.”

Pollack may be too sanguine when he says that, since the brutal smashing of the Green Revolution of June 2009, “the Islamic Republic has been delegitimized and is starting to hollow out.” His fear is that even massive U.S. air strikes would only delay the danger that provoked them and thus might “prove to be nothing more than a prelude to invasion, as they were in Iraq and almost were in Kosovo.”

The logic of nuclear deterrence has not yet failed in the 64 years since the world acquired its second nuclear power. This logic does not guarantee certainty, but, says Pollack, “the small residual doubt cannot be allowed to be determinative.” His basic point is: “Our choices are awful, but choose we must.” Containment is the least awful response to Iran’s coming nuclear capability.

BBC News – Hagel: US military power must back Iran nuclear deal.

Chuck Hagel sought to reassure regional leaders of continued US support

Diplomacy with Iran must be backed by military power, US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel has said.

Mr Hagel, speaking in Bahrain, said Washington was committed to maintaining a strong force in the Gulf region.

Iran recently agreed to curb some nuclear activities for six months in return for sanctions relief.

Analysts say Washington’s Gulf Arab partners are worried the US will lose focus on the Middle East as it boosts its presence in Asia.

Mr Hagel told the Manama Dialogue – a regional security forum – the US has more than 35,000 military personnel in the region and would not reduce that number.

“We know diplomacy cannot operate in a vacuum,” Mr Hagel said.

“Our success will continue to hinge on America’s military power, and the credibility of our assurances to our allies and partners in the Middle East.”

“Iran has been a profoundly destabilising influence and a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an unacceptable threat to regional and global stability,” he added.

Under the interim deal agreed with six world powers in Geneva, Tehran will receive some $7bn (£4.3bn) in sanctions relief while talks continue to find a more permanent agreement.

Although the accord was generally welcomed, Israel said it was a “historic mistake” and some US senators have said it is too soft on Iran.

Mr Hagel said the agreement “bought time for meaningful negotiation, not for deception”.

He said US diplomacy would ultimately be backed up by military commitments and co-operation with regional partners.

Heightened tension

“As America emerges from a long period of war, it will not shirk its responsibilities,” Mr Hagel said.

“America’s commitment to this region is proven. And it is enduring.”

Mr Hagel’s remarks came at a time of heightened tension between Washington and its Gulf Arab partners.

Saudi Arabia reacted angrily when the US backed down from launching a military strike against Syria in September following chemical weapons attacks near Damascus.

Saudi officials very publicly criticised Washington for what they perceived as its timid approach to the region.

Mr Hagel told the Manama Dialogue that while the US would continue to provide aid to Syrian refugees and the neighbouring countries of Jordan and Turkey, the rise of violent extremism among rebel groups in Syria had to be addressed.

“We will continue to work with partners throughout the region to help bring about a political settlement to end this conflict,” he said.

However, he called for efforts to ensure that aid for the opposition “does not fall into the wrong hands.”

The Obama administration has signalled a strategic shift in its foreign policy towards the Pacific region, in recognition of China’s growing military power.

Articles: The Iranian Agreement and the Strategy of Deterrence.

By Abraham H. Miller

P5+1 talks on Iran’s nukes to resume on Monday | The Times of Israel.

Moving from Geneva to Vienna, latest round of talks is not the final step before the implementation of last month’s interim deal

By Rebecca Shimoni Stoil December 7, 2013, 8:38 am

Delegates from the P5+1 and Iran meet in Geneva, at the start of two days of talks regarding Tehran’s nuclear program, Tuesday, October 15, 2013 (photo credit: AP/Fabrice Coffrini)

WASHINGTON – Talks between the P5+1 to work out “technical details” left undetermined by last month’s interim deal to slow down Iran’s nuclear progress will resume Monday, changing venue from Geneva to Vienna, Austria, the US State Department revealed Friday.

State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf confirmed that although talks will resume for the first time since the deal was struck, there is still no date set for an upper-level meeting that will be held before the initiation of the six-month-long slowdown period.

It was unclear whether Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman will attend the talks in Vienna, which will most likely include “technical” negotiators who have specific expertise either in nuclear development or in the financial underpinnings of the current sanctions regime.

Sherman, who briefed Arab ambassadors on the Iran talks on Thursday, is scheduled to appear before Congress in the upcoming week as part of the administration’s efforts to make its case for the interim agreement before the unruly legislature.

The Senate will be returning from its Thanksgiving break, and may take up additional Iran sanctions legislation during the brief remainder of the session before the Christmas recess. The Obama administration has slammed senators, Democrat and Republican alike, for threatening additional sanctions which the administrations say will undermine the ongoing talks.

Harf confirmed that in addition to her regular updates before Congress, Sherman also briefed both Israel and ambassadors from the Persian Gulf states about the course of the negotiations.

According to the State Department, the next step on the road to the interim agreement will be a “political directors meeting”, but the date for that meeting has not yet been set. Harf said that she believes that scheduling that meeting will be one of the topics discussed during the “technical talks” that start on Monday.

Moving the talks from Geneva to Vienna emphasizes the anticipated role of the International Atomic Energy Agency in policing any sort of a formal agreement reached between Iran and the P5+1 states. The IAEA itself has expressed concern that its inspectors will not be able to begin the many tasks anticipated for them before the beginning of 2014.

During her Friday press briefing, Harf was asked whether the topic of inflammatory language used by Iranian officials against Israel had been addressed in the course of the negotiations. She said that although the negotiations had not addressed the topic, “we have been very clear publicly that those statements are unacceptable, they’re reprehensible, they’re abhorrent; we don’t, obviously, think they have any place in international discourse.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, speaking at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy’s annual Saban Forum later Friday reinforced this point. Extending an olive branch toward a US administration that has come under fire for failing to take Israel’s interests into consideration while negotiating with Iran, Liberman said that it was, in fact, only Secretary of State John Kerry who spoke out against Ayatollah Khamenei’s recent likening of Israel to “rabid dogs”.

Liberman criticized the interim deal as impotent, complaining that “”The centrifuges were spinning before the agreement and they are spinning today,” but added that while “it is impossible to conceal differences between us and America on the Iran deal,” it is also “crucial to cool the atmosphere.”

“it’s unnecessary to discuss disagreements publicly.” Liberman emphasized.

Hagel outlines new weapons sale plan for Gulf | The Times of Israel.

Washington lays out steps to boost US-friendly states’ ability to counter Iran’s ballistic missiles, even as nuke deal inked

US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, left, meets with King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa of Bahrain on Friday at the Safriya Palace, Sadad, Bahrain, southwest of the capital of Manama. Secretary Hagel is visiting Bahrain during a six-day tour to the middle east. (AP Photo/Mark Wilson)

MANAMA, Bahrain (AP) — US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel opened the door for the US to sell missile defense and other weapons systems to US-friendly Gulf nations, with an eye toward boosting their abilities to counter Iran’s ballistic missiles, even as global powers ink a nuclear deal with Tehran.

In a speech Saturday to Gulf leaders, Hagel made it clear that the emerging global agreement that would limit Iran’s nuclear program doesn’t mean the security threat from Iran is over.

Instead, he laid out steps to beef up defense cooperation in the Gulf region, while at the same time insisting that America’s military commitment to the Middle East will continue.

“I am under no illusions, like all of you, about the daily threats facing this region, or the current anxieties that I know exist here in the Gulf,” Hagel told a security conference. “These anxieties have emerged as the United States pursues diplomatic openings on some of the region’s most difficult problems and most complex issues, including Iran’s nuclear program and the conflict in Syria.”

He said the interim deal is just a first step that has bought time for meaningful negotiations, adding that “all of us are clear-eyed, very clear-eyed about the challenges that remain” to reaching a nuclear solution with Iran.

And he pointed to the ongoing plan to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons as diplomacy made possible by America’s military threat. He said President Barack Obama’s threat to strike Syria after a chemical weapons attack believed to be the work of Bashar Assad’s government led to the ultimate deal to remove and destroy the arsenal.

But Hagel argued that the emphasis on diplomacy must not be misinterpreted.

“We know diplomacy cannot operate in a vacuum,” Hagel said. “Our success will continue to hinge on America’s military power, and the credibility of our assurances to our allies and partners in the Middle East that we will use it.”

And, he warned that with America’s sophisticated weapons, “no target is beyond our reach.”

As part of the security effort, he said the U.S. wants to take steps to beef up the Gulf region’s ability to defense itself.

Washington has pushed for more than 20 years, particularly after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, for better defenses among a group of Gulf nations that includes long-time allies Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. The latter hosts the US Navy’s 5th Fleet. Progress has been limited, in part because of their reluctance to collaborate.

Hagel’s speech continued a theme he has repeated over the past two days in private meetings with Gulf leaders and in remarks to troops aboard the Navy’s USS Ponce warship at the nearby US base. He is countering apprehension in the region that the Iran nuclear deal, coupled with U.S. budget pressures and the drawdown in Afghanistan, could signal a decline in America’s commitment to the region.

The interim Iran agreement carved out less than two weeks ago by major nations, including the US, would freeze parts of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for some relief from crippling Western economic sanctions. The deal may open the door to warmer relations with the West, but it has escalated tensions in the Gulf region, where leaders worry that it could embolden Iran and destabilize the area.

Hagel was speaking at an annual international security forum known as the Manama Dialogue, just across the water from Iran. His broader message was that while Iran’s nuclear program is a critical worry, its other conventional missile threats, terrorism links and occasional provocative maritime behavior also greatly concern the U.S. and the region. And those threats are not addressed by the nuclear agreement.

Hagel was challenged at one point during a question-and-answer session by a former Iranian nuclear negotiator over why his address failed to mention Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons. Hossein Mousavian, who is now a scholar at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, told Hagel he “didn’t mention a single word about the major threat of nuclear bombs in the region, which is Israel.”

Hagel replied by noting that Iran is in violation of “many United Nations resolutions.”

Israel is widely understood to possess nuclear weapons but declines to confirm it.

Hagel spent a chunk of the speech detailing the strength of the U.S. military in the area, including more than 35,000 air, land and sea forces in and immediately around the Gulf. They include about 10,000 Army troops, advanced jet fighters, more than 40 ships, sophisticated surveillance and intelligence systems, and a broad missile defense umbrella made up of ships, Patriot missile batteries and radars.

The most concrete proposal Hagel outlined is the Pentagon’s plan to allow military sales to the Gulf Cooperation Council, so the six-member nations can have more coordinated radars, sensors and early warning missile defense systems. While the U.S. can sell to the individual nations, Hagel is arguing that selling the systems to the GCC will ensure that the countries will be able to communicate and coordinate better.

It is unclear, however, how effective that plan will be considering it can be difficult for the six sometimes-combative nations of the GCC — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman — to reach agreements.

Hagel also said he wants the Gulf nations to participate in an annual defense ministers’ conference, and would like the first meeting to happen in the next six months.

Hagel is expected to visit Qatar and Saudi Arabia to meet with leaders in the coming days.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.