WarSclerotic

Off Topic: Convergence of the Twain – The Washington Free Beacon.

Column: Why American foreign policy is headed for disaster

In Iran, It’s the Guys With the Guns Who Call the Shots – The Weekly Standard.

Talking to Michael Rubin about his new book, Dancing with the Devil: The Perils of Engaging with Rogue Regimes.

9:31 AM, Feb 22, 2014 • By LEE SMITH

Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and senior lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School, has just published a very timely book— especially for anyone interested in the likely success of the Obama administration’s diplomatic engagement with Iran. Dancing with the Devil: The Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes is a historical survey of American engagement that makes a powerful counterargument to the State Department’s mantra that “it never hurts to talk to enemies.” As often as not, as Rubin shows, this piece of conventional wisdom is dead wrong. Recently I spoke with the former Pentagon official about his new book.

Are there any hopes for engaging the rogue regime in Tehran?

Yes. Twice, Ayatollah Khomeini did an about-face on policy: First, with regard to what it would take to release American hostages, and the second was with regard to ending the Iran-Iraq War. While former Carter aides said it was the triumph of diplomacy that led to the hostages’ release, this is nonsense. It was Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran that raised the cost of Iranian isolation to be too great to bear.

Iran, North Korea Discuss Expansion of Ties, Fars News Agency, February 24, 2014

(Peaceful humanitarian nations seeking only world-wide peace, prosperity and tranquility, Iran wants nukes at least as good as North Korea’s. To achieve those noble ends they need to help each other. — DM)

“The people and government of (North) Korea have always wanted the success and increasing progress of Iran; they have always supported Iran’s peaceful nuclear policy and opposed imposition of political and economic pressures on the country,” the North Korean deputy foreign minister said.

TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in a meeting with North Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Ri Gil Song in Tehran on Monday underlined the need for the further expansion of bilateral relations.

During the meeting in the Iranian capital today, the Iranian foreign minister and the North Korean deputy foreign minister explored avenues for bolstering and reinvigorating the two countries’ bilateral ties.

Noting the two states’ common views over a number of regional and international issues, the Iranian foreign minister stressed Tehran’s determination to establish sustainable relations with Pyongyang, and said continued consultations and exchange of views between the two countries’ senior officials is a necessity to this end.

He also reiterated Iran’s continued support for the reunification of the two Koreas, and expressed the hope that the North and the South would remove their misunderstanding through peaceful means, specially through talks.

The Iranian foreign minister reminded that resolution of misunderstandings in the Peninsula would serve the interests of both nations and help preserve peace, security and stability in the region.

Zarif stressed Iran’s firm stance on global nuclear disarmament, but meantime underlined all countries’ entitlement to the right to benefit from the peaceful nuclear technology.

The North Korean deputy foreign minister, for his part, said that Pyongyang’s high-ranking officials pay special attention to the consolidation and expansion of ties with Iran.

“The people and government of (North) Korea have always wanted the success and increasing progress of Iran; they have always supported Iran’s peaceful nuclear policy and opposed imposition of political and economic pressures on the country,” the North Korean deputy foreign minister said.

Last year, Iran’s former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Tehran’s readiness to play a mediating role in East Asia to soothe escalating tensions between the two Koreas.”I ask you as a friend to settle the problems wisely and through talks and negotiations as in the past,” Ahmadinejad said last April, addressing East Asian countries, including China, Japan and South and North Koreas.

“You should be vigilant and Iran is ready to do mediation to help resolve problems through talks and negotiations,” he added.

Ahmadinejad warned that enemies of East Asian states had plotted to prevent these countries’ further progress through staging a devastating war in the region, and said, “You shouldn’t allow the enemies of humanity to destroy you in a bid to improve their own conditions.”

Tensions began escalating on the Korean Peninsula after international sanctions were imposed on North Korea in response to a long-range rocket launch in December, 2012, which world powers condemned as a ballistic missile test. North Korea responded by carrying out a third nuclear test in February, which was followed by more sanctions.

Pyongyang threatened pre-emptive nuclear strikes against the US mainland and US military bases in the region.

North Korea has also repeatedly blamed its neighbors, but ultimately the US for the escalating tension.

In the meantime, Washington has indeed been increasing its presence around the Korean Peninsula.

Yet, tensions in the Korean Peninsula have deflated and the situation has improved to some extent in the last few weeks after the two sides allowed family reunions to be resumed.

Iraq signs deal to buy arms, ammunition from Iran | JPost | Israel News.

By REUTERS

02/24/2014 16:46

According to report, deal worth $195 million, would break UN embargo on weapons sales by Tehran.

Iran has signed a deal to sell Iraq arms and ammunition worth $195 million, according to documents seen by Reuters – a move that would break a UN embargo on weapons sales by Tehran.

The agreement was reached at the end of November, the documents showed, just weeks after Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki returned from Washington, where he lobbied the Obama administration for extra weapons to fight al-Qaida-linked militants.

Some in Washington are nervous about providing sensitive US military equipment to a country they worry is becoming too close to Iran. Several Iraqi lawmakers said Maliki had made the deal because he was fed up with delays to US arms deliveries.

A spokesman for the Iraqi prime minister would not confirm or deny the sale, but said such a deal would be understandable given Iraq’s current security troubles.

“We are launching a war against terrorism and we want to win this war. Nothing prevents us from buying arms and ammunition from any party and it’s only ammunition helping us to fight terrorists,” said the spokesman, Ali Mussawi.

The Iranian government denied any knowledge of a deal to sell arms to Iraq. It would be the first official arms deal between Shi’ite Iran and Iraq’s Shi’ite-led government and highlight the growing bond between them in the two years since the departure of US troops from Iraq.

One US official, told of Reuters’ findings, said such a deal could further complicate Washington’s approach to negotiating with Iran on easing international sanctions over its nuclear program, which the West suspects is aimed at producing bombs. Iran says its aims are purely peaceful.

“If true, this would raise serious concerns,” the US official said. “Any transfer of arms from Iran to a third country is in direct violation of Iran’s obligations under UNSCR 1747.”

POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The official documents seen by Reuters showed that six of eight contracts were signed with Iran’s Defense Industries Organization to supply Iraq with light and medium arms, mortar launchers, ammunition for tanks as well as artillery and mortars.

A final two contracts were agreed to with the state-owned Iran Electronic Industries for night vision goggles, communications equipment and mortar guiding devices.

One of the contracts includes equipment to protect against chemical agents. An Iraqi army major with knowledge of procurement issues said that would include items such as gas masks and gloves, as well as injections. Baghdad has expressed fear the militants will use such agents against its forces.

Officials from the Iraqi and Iranian defense ministries signed the agreements, according to the documents. They did not list a timetable for deliveries and it was not possible to confirm whether they had taken place.

Maliki is engaged in a nearly two-month-old battle in western Iraq against Sunni al-Qaida-inspired militants and rebellious tribesmen. The prime minister has blamed the unrest in Anbar on the conflict spilling over from neighboring Syria.

One Western security official said US government experts believed an Iranian-Iraqi arms deal had been in the works for some time.

The growing friendship between the two countries is discomfiting for the United States, which has accused Iran of having shipped arms to the Syrian government through Iraq.

Iran already supplies Baghdad with electricity and gas and reiterated an offer of military assistance in January.

The weapons purchases amount to a drop in the ocean for Iraq, which receives most of its arms from the United States and has also bought weapons and helicopters from Russia and other countries.

But they are politically significant as Maliki purses a third term in office.

Iraqi politicians consider Iran’s blessing as a necessity for seeking power. Maliki won his second term in 2010 only after the Iranians exerted pressure on recalcitrant Shi’ite parties on his behalf.

Many Iraqis accuse Iran of funding Iraqi Shi’ite militias who have seen a resurgence in the last two years as Iraq’s security has deteriorated.

Images of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei now decorate posters seen around Baghdad of Iraqi Shiite fighters slain fighting in Syria.

“We have here a political and not a military deal,” said Amman-based Iraq analyst Yahya al-Kubaisay from the Iraqi Center for Strategic Studies, a think tank filled with political opponents of the Shiite-led Iraqi government. “On one hand it is aimed at financing Iran, which is desperately in need of dollars, and on the other it is clearly aimed at winning Tehran’s support for Maliki’s third term.”

MALIKI’S MESSAGE

Three Iraqi lawmakers, who said they had knowledge of the deals, argued they were due to Maliki’s unhappiness with Washington’s response to his request to supply Iraq with arms and ammunition to fight militant groups during his visit late last year. Iraq has long complained the timetable for US weapons and aircraft delivery was too slow.

“The Americans were obviously dragging their feet from implementing the arms deals signed with Baghdad and under different pretexts, and that was a reason to get urgent shipments from Tehran,” said one of the lawmakers, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the subject.

Russian units transferred from securing the Sochi games to the Ukraine border.

Russian airborne forces

debkafile’s military sources report that units of the Russian forces which formed a steel ring around the Olympic Winter Games that ended in Sochi Sunday were flown and shipped Monday, Feb. 24 to Russian bases at the Ukrainian Crimean port of Sevastopol, as Moscow refused to recognize the legitimacy of the new authorities in Kiev.
Giant Russian Air Force transports and rapid deployment forces were placed on alert at the Rostov on-Don base east of the predominantly Russian-speaking southeastern Ukrainian town of Donetsk.

Russian military movements were also sighted near Belgorod, a Russian town 40 kilometers from the Ukraine border and north of its second largest town of Kharkov. There, too, most of the inhabitants are Russian speaking with a strong affinity to Moscow – in contrast to their European-oriented compatriots in the capital, Kiev.

These military movements were accompanied by sharp Russian rhetoric in Moscow’s first direct response to the tumult in Kiev and ouster of the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych, against whom Kiev police Monday issued a warrant for mass murder.
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said Monday: “Today I see no legitimate Ukrainian partners for a dialogue. If people crossing Kyiv in black masks and Kalashnikov rifles are considered a government, it will be difficult for us to work with such a government,” he said, calling it “the result of a mutiny.”
The prime minister spoke of a “real threat to our interests, and to our citizens’ lives and health.”
With these comments, the Russian leader laid down a pretext for Russian military intervention in Ukraine. It was Moscow’s response to the warning issued by US National Security Adviser Susan Rice Sunday, Feb. 23, that “it would be a grave mistake for Russia to send military force.”
An area emerging as a potential flashpoint in the Ukraine crisis is the Crimean peninsula in the south.

This territory and its port of Sevastopol was part of Russian imperial might from the 18th century until in 1954 when Nikita Khrushchev, an ethnic Ukrainian, transferred it to Ukrainian control – a step bitterly resented by Russians ever since.

When Ukraine broke away from the Soviet Union in 1991, it took Crimea with it. Moscow has since leased the strategically critical naval base as a deep-water port for the Russian Black Sea Fleet, with easy access to the Mediterranean. The lease is paid up to 2042. Ethnic Russians make up almost 60 per cent of the population, with Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars accounting for the rest. If Ukrainian turmoil continues and it faces a real threat of breaking up, Vladimir Putin may seize the opportunity to recover the peninsula. The Russian military force in Sebastopol was already beefed up Monday.

Israel Hayom | Iran to top Netanyahu’s agenda in US visit.

How the US brought the Middle East to the brink of Armageddon | Jerusalem Post – Blogs.

David Turner

“We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program… We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.” (U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, 2007)

After four years of vacillating regarding Iran’s nuclear program, difficult years for Israel and Arabs alike, in 2007 the collective wisdom of America’s intelligence agencies arrived at what at minimum was a controversial “assessment” contradicting nearly all national intelligence agency around the world; at best a transparent fig leaf allowing President Bush a legitimate excuse to not carry through his four years threat to use military force if Iran failed to shut down its nuclear weapons program. Thanks to the CIA & Co. According to reports Bush reluctantly admitted that regarding a “military option,” the NIE report had tied his hands. And so the “gung-ho” Republican passed the baton of “military option” to the “anti war” Democrat.

Behind the scenes in bright daylight was America’s military represented by serial defense secretaries and chiefs of the Joint Chiefs strongly opposing the possibility of yet a third failure of arms in the Middle East. Whether the Gates/Mullen mantra warning of “unforeseen consequences” for attacking Iran referred to the world’s economy, or their own lack of confidence in the ability of the military they commanded was never made clear. What is public knowledge is that even with a more tough-talking defense secretary in Chuck Hagel, the same message is still heard:

“General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, said in a television interview that it was “not prudent at this point” to attack Iran, and “a strike at this time would be destabilizing.””

What is at stake here is America’s credibility as “superpower.” The immediate response by observers domestic and foreign was that the 2007 NIE was tailored to allow Bush a less embarrassing retreat from his constant drum roll of threats to deal with the obvious fact that not only was the Islamic Republic developing a nuclear weapon, but the delivery system to reach not just targets local but, with its ballistic missile program, globally. As if the threat to American interests in the Arabian Gulf and Suez were not sufficient motivation; if the impending threat of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East was not enough Bush, and his successor Obama, seem committed at all costs to exit the region as quickly as possible. In the words of one observer responding to Bush and that 2007 NIE,

“The root issue for many critics comes down to credibility: Credibility of the estimate, credibility of the intelligence community that developed it and the credibility of the administration[s] for whom those agencies work.”

What was stated above is a critique America’s position in the world no longer just “plausible”: the American president threatened to punish Assad for crossing Obama’s “red line” for the August, 2013 massacre of civilians. Syria waited with baited breath for the attack… and waited. And then Obama decided he needed “Congressional approval” to use force which was a transparent retreat from his threat, and abandonment of whatever claim to credibility the U.S. retained as ”superpower.” As appeared today,

“Obama has no inclination to challenge Putin [over Ukraine], at the risk of losing his understandings with Iran and a free ride out of the Middle East by courtesy of Russia’s entry… His warning of “consequences if people step over the line” was meant to sound grave, but people remembered his warning to Syrian President Bashar Assad seven months ago since when Assad is still going strong. “

Instead Obama and Putin agreed that Assad would turn over all chemical stores for destruction with a deadline for completion today long past. And today 20 Feb 2014, after months of, what even U.S. intelligence describes as delaying tactics,

“The Syrian government may have again gassed its own people last month, but alleged survivors are having a tough time convincing the Obama administration it happened… “When we told the State Department, they really didn’t seem to care that much,” a medical official in Daraya said. “They just advised us to take pictures as if we were in a CSI episode.” All that’s for certain is Syria still hasn’t given up all of its chemical weapons despite an agreement.”

No longer is there doubt that, however dressed up, whatever the White House spin, America has been avoiding acting on Syria (and Iran), has been in retreat from the Middle East since roughly Day Two of Bush’s misconceived invasion of Iraq. And the costs to America, and particularly the Middle East for the retreat are very high. The Iraq War alone increased the U.S. debt by more than one trillion dollars because Bush chose to pay for the war with off-the-books loans; the invasion immediately triggered today’s inflated oil prices which, like falling dominoes, likely set the conditions for the Great Recession that followed. As for the cost in human lives, a low total estimate from the invasion in 2003 until 2013 is 174,000, including 123,000 civilians. 4500 U.S. military personnel died in Iraq between the invasion and 2012. But the costs of the Iraq war go far beyond that country.

President Obama may not deserve sole blame for the impending Middle East nuclear arms race. Certainly George W, mirror opposite of Obama, was first to permit and cover the ayatollahs in their pursuit of regional hegemony possibly explainable by Iranian support of the Shi’ite insurgency threatening American battlefield casualties. So, Mr. Obama may not deserve full blame for the impending regional nuclear arms race. But it is ironic that Candidate Obama promised the American electorate and that enthusiastic audience of 200,000 Berlin youths, “This is the moment to secure the peace of the world without nuclear weapons.”

Instead of peace and stability the Middle East today sits at the brink of what could be another One Hundred Years War, this between Sunni and Shiite. But more likely the war triggered by America’s abandonment of responsibilities for regional commitments (now that the U.S. has its own oil reserves) and is willing to achieve “peace in our time” without concern for the consequences for the “locals.”

Two American presidents from two opposing political parties; two men with opposite social and global ideologies: Bush, with questionable motives and little strategic understanding set in motion the Arab Spring by attacking Sadam Hussein which provided Iran an ally in the heart of Arabia; Obama, anti-proliferation and anti-war encouraging a nuclear arms race in his headlong race to a détente with Iran; voluntarily surrendering the region to Vladimir Putin fifty years after America managed to get them expelled.

Follows are several headlines describing the background to this article:

20 February, 2014: US State Department rules out ‘boots on the ground’ in Syria: All other policy options ‘remain on the table here,’ says spokeswoman; Assad behind schedule on shipping out stockpiles of chemical weapons.

18 February, 2014: US asks Pakistan to halt nuclear transfer to Saudis in respect of talks with Iran: Trapped in a paradox, the Obama administration asks Pakistan to hold back its nuclear arms transfer to Saudi Arabia to avoid upsetting the six-power nuclear talks with Iran. This is hugely ironic. Washington seeks to curb the nuclear race triggered by its own acquiescence to Iran’s price for diplomacy – recognizing its right to enrich uranium. The Pakistani-Saudi nuclear deal is one outcome of Obama’s inconsistent regional policies.

6 November 2013: Saudi nuclear weapons ‘on order’ from Pakistan: Since 2009, when King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia warned visiting US special envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross that if Iran crossed the threshold, “we will get nuclear weapons”, the kingdom has sent the Americans numerous signals of its intentions.

11 May 2010: Pakistan’s bomb and Saudi Arabia: The great anxiety underpinning this month’s NPT talks in New York, and the deepening crisis over Iranian nuclear aspirations, is the fear that if and when Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, it would trigger an arms race across the Middle East.

17 December, 2006: Saudis “to buy nuclear bomb” from Pakistan to counter Iranian threat: “Western intelligence services are now convinced that Saudi Arabia played a large role in financing Pakistan’s nuclear bomb project. Riyadh’s aim was to guarantee it immediate access to a nuclear arsenal to counter the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran… British Intelligence (MI6) already regards Saudi Arabia as a surrogate nuclear power, able to join the club whenever it chooses.”

JPost tonight (23 Feb) is leading off with a story under the banner: “Steinitz, after meeting US’s top negotiator: Israel reserves right to act independently.” Now, that may be taken as just a prod to Iran, another round of the role play. And it likely serves that purpose. But I suspect it carries also the bottom line for Israel that, if the talks do not end with an agreement that satisfies Israel, that Israel would rather face Iran sooner rather than later.

What is already suggest in my article is that the region is standing at the cliff of a nuclear arms race. And even if it turns out that Iran, in the end, only intends a threat rather than a massive war, the impact of even a proximal bomb by the Shiite state already is motivation enough for the Saudis to go nuclear and then Turkey, and then Egypt. And in the end Israel would be surrounded with nuclear threats.

Nobody wants to see a major conflict in the region but Israel is known for pre-emption. Better to strike the lone threat than allow it to snowball into that which I described.

The threat is real. The time is short. Bad cop can and will act alone, has done so in the past against US warnings.

US take note!

Steinitz after meeting US’s top Iran negotiator: Israel reserves right to act independently | JPost | Israel News.

By HERB KEINON

02/24/2014 03:14

Netanyahu: Iran believes it can “realize its plan to be a nuclear threshold state.”

Israel reserves the right to assess the Iranian situation and make the necessary decisions independently, Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said Sunday after emerging from some five hours of talks with Wendy Sherman, Washington’s top Iran negotiator.

“Israel reiterated and made clear its position that an agreement with Iran must include dismantling its ability to progress toward a nuclear weapon,” Steinitz said, using code for Israel’s long-standing position that the world needed to insist that Iran dismantle all it’s uranium enrichment capabilities. This position clashes with that of the world powers currently negotiating with Iran, which is now seemingly willing to allow Iran some enrichment capability.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu made the same point publicly at the opening of the weekly cabinet meeting, saying he was concerned Iran believed it could “realize its plan to be a nuclear threshold state, with an enrichment capability that it thinks cannot be touched, and with the ability to develop both nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles, which it is continuing to work on unhindered.” “This combination of enrichment, weapons and launch capabilities, means that Iran is, in effect, receiving everything and giving almost nothing,” he said. “That is the current situation.” Netanyahu said that the long-term agreement now being negotiated between the P5+1 (the US, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany) and Iran cannot be allowed to render permanent this current state of affairs.

The long term agreement, he said, must “dismantle the Iranian ability to either produce or launch nuclear weapons, and this has yet to be achieved, and without the insistence of the major powers, it will not be achieved.” Sherman, the US Under Secretary of State who led Washington’s delegation to the recent talks in Vienna, briefed Steinitz and National Security Council head Yossi Cohen and staff members from various other government and intelligence agencies on the Vienna talks.

Steinitz said the dialogue with Sherman dealt in “great detail” with diplomatic, intelligence and technical aspects of the Iranian nuclear program, and was part of Israel’s ongoing strategic dialogue with the US.

Sherman has made it a practice of coming to Jerusalem after every round of talks with the Iranians to immediately brief Israel. She made clear Saturday night, however, that she does not agree with Israel’s position that Iran must not be allowed any uranium enrichment capability, saying Iran might be allowed a “limited” nuclear program “that addresses practical needs.” “I would like there to be zero enrichment,” she said. “I would like there to be no facilities, I would like there not to be an indigenous program. I would like many things in life. But that does not mean I will get them.” Sherman will also be briefing officials in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates this week, states which are as concerned as Israel at the prospect of Iran gaining nuclear capabilities.

Over the last two weeks Netanyahu has once again stepped up the rhetoric against Iran’s nuclear program, saying that the country has not altered any of its aggressive policies. This is expected to be the item on the top of his agenda when he is scheduled to meet US President Barack Obama in Washington next Monday.