France Pressuring for Sanctions Against Iran

France is again calling for sanctions against Iran.

From the article:

"Kouchner told Europe 1 radio that the situation in Iran was dangerous and that a nuclear-armed Iran would make the situation in the Middle East even more complicated.

"While the European dialogue continues...we have to work on sanctions so as to be taken seriously," Kouchner said."

The points may be moot, due in large part to Israeli objections to Western planning. Israel cannot afford to allow a nation that vows to exterminate Jews to own nuclear weapons. We, as Israel's strongest ally, should not allow it either.

The moves by the French are welcome. But until the world begins to recognize how serious this problem truly is, talks are useless.

Egypt and Iran Moving to Normalize Relations?

During the past seven years or so, Egypt and Iran have been moving towards a reconciliation that might furrow a few brows. The thaw began with trade relations about a decade ago. Bilateral relations between Egypt and Iran were "frozen" in l979 after the Iranian revolution. Egypt gave asylum to the deposed Shah, and when Egypt signed the Camp David Accord, the Ayatollah Khomeni "gave instructions that formal relations with Egypt be severed. MENA, the official news agency reported that Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit said on Wednesday that "we seek to normalize relations with Tehran through constructive consultations."

"Abul Gheit said he would meet his Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki at the deliberations of the Non-Aligned Movement or Group of 15 meetings, but ruled out talks on the sidelines of the upcoming United Nations General Assembly meeting.

As for Iran’s disputed nuclear issue, Abul Gheit said Egypt supports a peaceful settlement and expressed Egypt’s rejection of any military action against Iran.

“Egypt supports a peaceful settlement to Iran’s nuclear file through negotiations that would allow Iran to use atomic energy for peaceful purposes in accordance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,“ he said. . . .."

Picture the map of the Middle East, and think of Iran's stated plans to bomb Israel.

For an older background analysis in the relationship between Egypt and Iran, see "Egypt and Iran: Regional Rivals at Diplomatic Odds" by Dr. Wm Millward, on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service's website, (May, 1992).

Russia Sides With Iran Against France

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner

From the Full Story at the Gaurdian:

"Russia today joined the chorus of concern at the possibility of war in Iran while conflicts continued in Iraq and Afghanistan.
At a news briefing in Moscow, the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said: "We are worried by reports that there is serious consideration being given to military action in Iran. That is a threat to a region where there are already grave problems in Iraq and Afghanistan."

His comments, after a meeting with his French counterpart, Bernard Kouchner, followed a stark warning yesterday from the UN's chief nuclear weapons inspector aimed at the US.

"I would not talk about any use of force," Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters at the International Atomic Energy Agency headquarters in Vienna. "There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons."

We can take a couple of facts from the above paragraphs. First, when the heat is on, Russia will come down with terrorists if it serves their agenda. For a country that produced Joseph Stalin, that is no surprise.

Next, the U.N. is obviously so corrupt that it cannot be seen as anything more than a tool of corrupt and tyrannical regimes. Where did ElBaradei get his casualty numbers? Why would he call Iraq a mistake? Was he a fan of Saddam, Qusay and the thugs?

The world is coming close to a full scale conflict.

On a side note, I am really beginning to like the sounds coming from the new French government. After a few years of Jihadi anarchy, I guess they've taken the issues at stake to heart.

IISS: Al Qaeda is Back?

HT: [Drudge]


Ayman al-Zawahiri

From the Full Story at the Guardian:

"Al-Qaida has revived, extended its influence, and has the capacity to carry out a spectacular strike similar to the September 11 attacks on America, one of the world's leading security thinktanks warned yesterday.
There is increasing evidence "that 'core' al-Qaida is proving adaptable and resilient, and has retained an ability to plan and coordinate large-scale attacks in the western world despite the attrition it has suffered", said the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). "The threat from Islamist terrorism remains as high as ever, and looks set to get worse," it added.

"The US and its allies have failed to deal a death blow to al-Qaida; the organisation's ideology appears to have taken root to such a degree that it will require decades to eradicate," it continued.

The warning came in the latest annual review of world affairs by the IISS. Its strategic survey paints a bleak picture of global security in the future and warned:

· Iran could have a nuclear weapon by 2009 or 2010, though this remains the "worst-case prediction";

· the US suffered a loss of authority as a result of the failure to impose order in Iraq. "The strategic hole the US found itself in [in 2007] did not have any obvious escape";

· there are serious doubts about the ability of Nuri al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister, but any replacement would probably come too late to "halt the draining of American willpower to 'stay the course' ".

· that if climate change is allowed to continue unchecked, its affects will be catastrophic "on the level of nuclear war".

The last sentence essentially makes the report null and void from a strategic standpoint. If the writers are equating global warming with Iran toting a nuclear bomb, then the report is likely filled with so many flaws that it isn't worth reading.

The fact is that 500 scientists have challenged the bunk about the "closed" Global Warming debate, and the debate has little to do with national security. As an aside, if you're seeking the most accurate meteorological work on the planet, Accuweather.com is a good start.

Back to the IISS. From their own About Us page:

"The IISS is the primary source of accurate, objective information on international strategic issues for politicians and diplomats, foreign affairs analysts, international business, economists, the military, defence commentators, journalists, academics and the informed public. The Institute owes no allegiance to any government, or to any political or other organisation.

The Institute’s high-profile publications are both timely and authoritative. They are universally regarded as providing the best independent, internationally sourced information and commentary on the main strategic events touching on national, regional and global security.

The Institute's conference activities are considered to be at the forefront of public policy development, especially given that its convening power is such that it can often bring government officials and others together in formats and circumstances that they could not easily manage for themselves." - Emphasis Added

It appears from the text above that the IISS is prone to wild overstatement.

Have a look at their board for more background.

The point? Al Qaeda may have regrouped, but I'll judge that with the NIE, not the IISS report. Drudge should be more careful with his sources sometimes.

Iran Supplying Weapons in Iraq?

Iranian Soldiers Gossestep in Parade Formation

From the Full Story in the Wall Street Journal:

"The U.S. said a fatal attack two days ago against a major U.S. military base in Iraq was carried out using a type of weapon provided to Shiites by Iran.

Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner said military exerts had so far determined that the 240 mm rocket's markings and manufacture were "consistent with" Iranian produced munitions. He insisted the U.S. had a "good sense" of the rocket's source. He said Shiite extremist leaders under U.S. detention had acknowledged that Iranian Quds Force operatives were providing 240 mm rockets to Shiite militias." - Emphasis Added

Iran is continuing in its provocations. Syria may have nuclear materials. The situation is tense on all fronts and is difficult to manage. We are one stupid decision on a madman's part away from a widened conflict.

I wonder how the Democratic caucus will deal with the growing threat.

Trust Mohamed: Iranian Leaders are Honest and Will Cooperate

Mohamed ElBaradei

I'd like to volunteer my services as a "backseat driver" as well.

From Reuters:

"The head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog body on Friday rebuffed Western critics of a cooperation deal it struck with Iran as "back-seat drivers" and accused U.S. media of a campaign to discredit him.

Under the Aug. 21 deal, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency and Tehran agreed on a rough timetable for addressing lingering questions about Iran's nuclear activities.

IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei said his agency would scrutinise Iran's promise to cooperate by the end of the year and demand documents and other proof of its good faith.

If Iran reneged, it would jeopardise any grounds for future trust, he said.

This is plain stupidity. If Mohamed ElBaradei thinks that criticism of his deal is out of line, he can appeal to the security council for intervention. They might just be willing to attack civilians and governments of democratic countries.

The point is simple: We are now at an all or nothing juncture with Iran. We cannot allow a country who is openly sworn to destroying another country to possess nuclear power or weaponry. Our continued waffling only heightens the long-term conflict that is, barring a change of course, inevitable.

All of Saddam Hussein's promises and "compliance" ultimately led to a state of confusion so profound that nobody knew how many weapons he had developed, or what kind. Iran can drop nuclear buildup or be forced to drop it against their will. Those are the available options.

And nobody, aside from Mahmoud and a few of the more strident obfuscators, believes Mohamed can do anything one way or the other. So I could care less if the criticism bugs him. He's wrong and we should continue to behave as though he doesn't matter until the Iranians quit their illegal push.

Iran and Turkey Meet

The IranDaily reported on the 21st that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met with Turkey’s Energy Minister Hilmi Guler in Tehran on Monday. Ahmadinejad was reported to have said, “Advances and victories of the Turkish nation make Iranians happy." One wonders if he is alluding to the tensions between Turkey and the Kurds in northern Iraq.
. . . .
"Noting that Iran-Turkey cooperation in energy sector is important, Guler expressed his country’s readiness to promote relations in other areas as well.

Turkey has signed a deal with Iran to annually import 3-6 billion kilowatt/hours of electricity from the Islamic Republic, Turkey’s Energy Minister said on Monday.

“Details regarding the production and import of the electricity are still to be worked out,“ he said."

Iran is working to extend its influence in the region--while it develops its nuclear capacities.

The Turkish Daily News reported on the 20th that Iran and Turkey have significantly developed their relationship through the memorandum of understanding.

"Energy Minister Hilmi Güler held talks in Tehran with his Iranian counterpart, Parviz Fattah, and Iran's acting oil minister to put the final touches on a preliminary agreement with Tehran on natural gas cooperation, despite objections from the United States. Washington openly opposed the energy deal.

. . .
Nozari said Turkey will allow Iran to use its territory to transfer 35 billion cubic meters of Iranian gas to Europe and in return, Iran will let Turkmenistan gas flow to Turkey via an Iranian pipeline.

Güler's visit comes after Ankara and Tehran signed a Memorandum of Understanding in the Turkish capital in July to transport natural gas from Iran and Turkmenistan to Europe. Last week delegations from the two countries held discussions to prepare the technical framework of the memorandum.

Güler said the objective was to develop the existing energy lines with Iran and to strengthen them through new investments. He said the parties involved agreed to establish three separate thermal power plants during their talks in Turkey. Asked whether the ministry was considering cooperation with Iran in the area of water, Güler said the Turkish private sector might build dams in Iran, a subject that was already discussed during the talks."

These are all joint projects, which means increasing interedependence. It is easy to see why the US would be opposed to these arrangements. If Turkey finds itself relying on Iran, the likelihood is great that cooperation with the US would suffer if Iran puts sufficient pressure on Turkey. Moreover, a pipeline bringing Iranian gas to Europe will not only give Iran additional financial resources, but even impact the dependence of Europe on Iran's natural gas. The pipeline will make isolating Iran nearly impossible.

Iran's Ahmadinejad to Visit Azerbaijan

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will make his first official visit to the Azerbaijan Republic, according to the spokesman for the Iranian Embasy in Baku. He hopes to drive a wedge between Azerbaijan and the United States.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will begin an official visit to neighboring Azerbaijan Republic on Tuesday, August 21, seeking to counter US influence in the oil-rich, fellow Muslim country.

Officials said a number of bilateral agreements would be signed with Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev during the two-day visit, including energy and transportation deals.

Azerbaijan has close diplomatic and trade relations with Iran, with which it shares strong historical and religious ties. But the country is also a key US ally in the strategic Caucasus, which is wedged between Iran and Russia.

The US has strongly backed a corridor of pipelines to deliver Azerbaijani oil and gas through Turkey to Western markets.
Washington has also provided military assistance and held joint exercises with Azerbaijan which, in turn, allows its airspace to be used by NATO planes for crucial access to Central Asia and Afghanistan.Washington has expressed interest in obtaining the use of airfields in Azerbaijan for military purposes. This is while Azerbaijan has categorically rejected rumors that it would let US troops use its territory to attack neighboring countries. He said Iran and Turkey can take big strides for further national development."

Iran Seeking Bargaining Chips?

With the news of the United States placing the Revolutionary Guard on the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, Iran is becoming predictably unstable. It would make sense for them to attempt to drive a wedge in the International community, playing the fears of conflict on one side against the resolve to prevent nuclear holocaust on the other. It appears that they may be making such an attempt.

Iranian authorities have arrested 2 Chinese citizens, charging them with spying on Iranian facilities. The quote from the New York Times reads:

"“The Chinese nationals were detained while photographing and recording video of a military complex in Arak city,” said the spokesman, Alireza Jamshidi, according to the news agency ISNA. Mr. Jamshidi said the two had entered the country at Kish Island, a resort island in southern Iran on the Persian Gulf.

Mr. Jamshidi said their case was under initial investigation at a court in Arak, but he would not give further details about the arrest or the suspects’ identities."

Iran could not have a much better business partner than China, owing a great deal of missile technology and small arms to the Red Government of Beijing. This could be a naked attempt to strain Sino-American relations as the noose tightens around the government of the mullahs. It could also be an attempt to gain leverage in securing uninterrupted trade with China, a country not known for ethical business practices.

This is a developing story worth watching.

United States Can Sustain Surge

From Voice of America:

"General George Casey told the National Press Club he wants to ease the strain on the U.S. army by ending the extended 15-month deployments to combat zones. But he says he will not be able to do that until the U.S. troop commitment to Iraq comes down.

There are currently about 162,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, most of them from the army. General Casey noted that the number will come down automatically in the spring when the deployments of the extra forces sent earlier this year expire, unless there is an order to send more troops to replace them.

"The surge was and remains a temporary function," said General Casey. "I think we're on record here as saying the surge can be sustained through the spring without changes to the existing mobilization and deployment policies. And that's where we are. And we're going to wait and see here what happens, what our commanders on the ground recommend in the coming months."

The General also says that the United States needs the will to carry out a winning strategy, which could take years to implement. Again, the surge is a temporary fix to gain stability. With the new designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, the military may now extend the cover for Iraq's fledgling government and place stern pressure on the out of control regime in Tehran.

It appears that the surge is working, and with perserverance, the war for the soul of Iraq could end with a victory for decency and democracy in the end.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard Designated Terrorists

Iran's Revolutionary Guard is now on the list of foreign terrorist organizations. The implications of such a move are immediately financial, though the military ramifications are unclear. Some will argue that this is a precursor to legitimize military action against Iran, however, it should be noted that the State Department has a substantial list of organizations (the list is included below) on its current list and many have not been the recipients of military intervention.

From the Washington Post:

"The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances.

The Bush administration has chosen to move against the Revolutionary Guard Corps because of what U.S. officials have described as its growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its support for extremists throughout the Middle East, the sources said. The decision follows congressional pressure on the administration to toughen its stance against Tehran, as well as U.S. frustration with the ineffectiveness of U.N. resolutions against Iran's nuclear program, officials said."

The State Department has the following organizations on it's Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations:

Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
Abu Sayyaf Group
Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
Ansar al-Islam
Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
Asbat al-Ansar
Aum Shinrikyo
Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA)
Continuity Irish Republican Army
Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group)
HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)
Hizballah (Party of God)
Islamic Jihad Group
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) (Army of Mohammed)
Jemaah Islamiya organization (JI)
al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad)
Kahane Chai (Kach)
Kongra-Gel (KGK, formerly Kurdistan Workers' Party, PKK, KADEK)
Lashkar-e Tayyiba (LT) (Army of the Righteous)
Lashkar i Jhangvi
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)
Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM)
Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK)
National Liberation Army (ELN)
Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLF)
PFLP-General Command (PFLP-GC)
al-Qa’ida
Real IRA
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
Revolutionary Nuclei (formerly ELA)
Revolutionary Organization 17 November
Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C)
Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC)
Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL)
Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) (al-Qaida in Iraq) (formerly Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'al-Jihad, JTJ, al-Zarqawi Network)
United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)


Barack Obama recently urged unilateral military action against Pakistan.

It will be interesting to guage the Democrats' response to this announcement, given their presidential candidates' recent saber rattling with regard to foreign nations. Barack Obama has been hawkish on Pakistan, but will he support action against Iranian elements aiding, abetting and participating in the attacks on American soldiers in Iraq? We'll soon find out how the candidates spin this story.

Missing Weapons a Symptom of Corruption

Right Truth has coverage of a story about a significant cache of weapons that have gone missing. One of the biggest problems our military faces in Iraq is a corrupt leadership still mired in the old way of doing business under Saddam. These habits don't just go away. It will take time and energy to build a reliable government.

It may also take a few cruise missiles planted in Iranian bases of operations for Shi'a militants.

Shanghai Cooperative Organization (SCO) Plans Memorandum of Understanding with Collective Security Treaty Organization (SCTO)

On August 1, the Shanghai Cooperative Organization (SCO) announced that it is about to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (SCTO). This is especially significant because, if the speculation that Iran will become a full member of the SCO is correct--the resulting military alliance will include potential nuclear threat.

" The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation are about to sign a memorandum of understanding, the CSTO Secretary-General Nikolai Bordyuzha told during a telebridge linking the Moscow headquarters of RIA-Novosti news agency and the Russian Press Centre in Beijing.

“The MoU between SCTO and SCO due to be signed in the coming weeks will outline areas of cooperation between the two organisations”, - Bordyuzha said. These include not only military cooperation as such, but also all kinds of security issues facing the states in our region that we must tackle together”, - he stressed. [Emphasis added.]

At the same time Nikolai Bordyuzha thinks it would be expedient to conduct a joint military exercise within the SCO-CSTO framework. “This would be an interesting activity. This would not only enable us to carry out tasks of strictly military cooperation during such drills, but also to set up a good interaction between the two organisations operating in the security field in the same region”, the CSTO chief explained.

Speaking of the SCO-sponsored Peace Mission 2007 counterterrorism exercise due to be held in Chelyabinsk region in the first half of August, Bordyuzha noted: “The exercise that is being prepared by all the members of the SCO is a very interesting activity designed not only to carry out tasks of joint activity, but also to deepen contacts among the military at all levels”.

In his words, “the CSTO stands ready to bring its interaction with the SCO to the highest possible level”.

Member nations of the SCO are: Republic of Kazakhstan, the People’s Republic of China, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Tajikistan and the Republic of Uzbekistan.

Member nations of the CSTO are Russia,[the Russian Federation] Belarus, Armenia, [Republic of] Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, [The Kyrgyz Republic] [Republic of] Tajikistan and [Republic of] Uzbekistan. The main purpose of the is, according to the Central Asian Gateway,

"coordination and deepening of military and political cooperation, development of multilateral structures and mechanisms of cooperation for ensuring national security of the member-states on collective basis, providing assistance, including military one, to the member-states who has fallen a victim of aggression...

In Article 2, the Treaty indicates: "In case of threat to security, territorial integrity and sovereignty of one or several member-states or threat to international peace and security, the member-states will immediately put into action the mechanism of joint consultations with a view to coordinating their positions and taking measures to eliminate the threat that has emerged".

The Article 4 simultaneously stipulates that: "In case an act of aggression is committed against any of the member-states, all other member-states will render it necessary assistance, including military one, as well as provide support with the means at their disposal through an exercise of the right to collective defense in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter".

The doctrinal plan of CSTO expresses only defensive orientation of military policy of the member-states with a priority of political ways of prevention and liquidation of military conflicts. The content of the Treaty shows that it is first of all the factor of military and political restraint. The member-states of the Treaty consider nobody as an enemy and support mutually beneficial cooperation with all states. Membership in the Organization is open to any State which shares its purposes and principles and is prepared to undertake the obligations set forth in the CSTO Charter and other international treaties and decisions which are in effect within the framework of the Organization.

Regional character of the Treaty on Collective Security

The essence, the principles, the forms of CSTO cooperation and the declared positions provide a real opportunity for the Organization to become a component of the common and universal security system in Europe and Asia.

"Uniting the efforts in the sphere of collective security, the member-states create a system of collective security as a component of the all-European security system and a part of a possible security system in Asia also..."

Saudi Arabia not Happy with Iraqi Progress?

From the Full Story at Swissinfo via Reuters:

"The main Sunni Arab political bloc quit the Iraqi cabinet on Wednesday, plunging the government into crisis on a day when suicide bombers killed more than 70 people with massive strikes in the capital.

The Sunni Accordance Front said its five cabinet members and deputy Prime Minister Salam al-Zobaie would resign from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government.

"This is probably the most serious political crisis we have faced since the passage of the constitution. If unresolved the implications are grave," the remaining deputy prime minister, Barhim Salih, a Kurd, told Reuters.

Maliki's office said the premier regretted the decision and would remain in "permanent contact" with all parties, including the Front."

It isn't factually concrete, but many suspect that a large segment of the Sunni Bloc serves as a proxy for the Saudi regime. They want a strong Sunni government buffering between Saudi Arabia and a powerful (perhaps nuclear) Iran, which is Shi'a dominated.

This may be the time to lean on the Saudis. Oil at record prices? Sunnis quitting Iraqi government? Two way threats against Israel? The wahabbists are not our friends. They are allies of convenience.

Suddenly, Joe Biden with a "soft partition" plan and heavily armed Kurds looks like a political genius. Maybe the ointment is to let the surge complete and rebuild the government from the ground up. The elites had their shot and they sold the "back yard" to the neighbors. It is likely the perfect time to put the Iraqi people in charge. They're fighting with us. That's a long way better than the political machine in Baghdad.

United States Embassy in Jerusalem?

“If George W. Bush wanted to send a signal to Hamas tomorrow morning, he could move the embassy to Jerusalem tomorrow…” So goes another great quote by Newt Gingrich that confirms my theory that he is most powerfully persuasive as an innovator, not administrator. His words underpin a commitment, too often unspoken, to the one democracy in the Middle East that Americans have long worked to preserve, but have occasionally left on the precipice alone. Gingrich understands that a core value of American foreign policy, overlooked by the more radical elements on the left, is a strong support of nations that engender and embrace the spirit of individual liberty and democracy.

But he also has a valid point. Why not move the embassy to Jerusalem? It would be a clear and unmistakable gesture of support for Israel, and a psychological blow to the radicals in Hamas and their weaker sister, Fatah al-Islam. It would also demonstrate our absolute disregard for arguments advanced with violence.

And what do we do about the objections?

1. It would harm the peace process. What peace process? The Palestinians elected Hamas, and they’ve done precious little to destabilize the radical elements within their ranks. Hamas is sworn to the destruction of Israel. Voting with hatred should be allowed as long as the price tag – in this case the loss of the West Bank and Jerusalem permanently – is paid in full.

2. It would destabilize the region. I think I can avoid too many words here. See: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan and Afghanistan. For those disinclined to accept reality, World War 3 has already begun. We should be trying to win it, not manage it.

3. It would harm our relations with other nations in the region. Bunk. Not a day goes by that the Saudi Regime doesn’t bow toward Mecca and thank Allah that the United States has a massive force between them and Iran. Turkey has to play nice, or else an independent and hostile Kurdistan appears on their Southern Border. We don’t need to be settling down with Iran and Syria until the Totalitarian Islamists go the way of every tyrant before them, and we won’t hear a peep out of Jordan for the same reason as the Saudis understand.

Will we move our embassy? Not likely, given our too cordial relationship with the funding agents for the Wahabbists who are trying to kill us. But we could make a gesture. We could make a public request to move our embassy and Israel could cordially decline it in the interest of peace.

The symbolic gesture would be even better, and less costly in money and lives, than the actual move for now. And the symbolism wouldn’t be lost on the killers who are causing this conflict to begin with, the radicals like Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel, suffering through its own crisis of confidence at present, would also be reminded that a great ally stands at the ready. Gingrich understands the power of those symbolic moves.

Do the rest of us?

Republican Burnout: Senators Wrong on the War

From the Full Story at ABC News:

"ABC News has been told the White House is in "panic mode" over the recent defections of Republican senators on the president's stay-the-course policy in Iraq.

Senior Bush administration officials are deep in discussion about how to find a compromise that will "appease Democrats and keep wobbly Republicans onboard," a senior White House official told ABC News.

The official said the White House "is in panic mode," despite Monday's on-the-record briefing by White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, who played down any concern over the recent spate of GOP senators who have spoken out publicly in support of changing course in Iraq.

The Republican defections are seen as "a crack in the dike," according to the senior White House official, and National Security Adviser Steven Hadley is most concerned."

It really shouldn't be this hard to get it right as a Republican. But the constituency is back to square one on the war. It was bad enough we had to hold the line on immigration when a disastrous set of ideas were proposed. Now we have to convince Senators that the war is worth winning?

Here are the vitals:

- The Iraqis may be chiming in a bit too late. Suddenly, their parliament doesn't want us to leave. They should have been saying this loudly and clearly all along.

- The surge, which only 3 weeks ago reached full strength, is performing better than we expected. Why on earth should we bail out when things are beginning to go right for us?

- The Democrats, who seem to be willing to stop at nothing to hammer the war, are wrong about practically everything related to the war, so why join them? Do the Republican defectors think that somehow they can get ahead of the Democrats in surrender mode?

I don't know if the White House is in panic mode, but I do know that some senators have been publicly backing down on their support for our troops and the mission they now seem to be accomplishing. From all reliable accounts, Iraq is far better off now and the surge is working.

If you're a regular reader of the Bill T Blog, you've followed the series When America Quits by Four Inch Heels. This series outlines the plight of the Hmong people who were abandoned when we quit on Vietnam. The injustice of that decision on our part was grave.

We can't do it in Iraq. If the Republicans in the Senate do decide to quit on Iraq, then we don't deserve to be in the majority. Maybe the party is in a complete meltdown.

We need to begin to place pressure on the Senate again. And in the meantime, we need to find some real Republicans to replace the current batch of misfits bailing out on the most important issue facing us today.

Foreign Militants in Pakistani Mosque

From the Full Story at the BBC:

"Speaking at a news conference, Mr ul-Haq said up to 250 militants - including foreign radicals - were leading the fighting."

This is becoming more and more common. Find the countries that are exporting all of these "foreign radicals" and one isolates the problem. Pakistan is nuclear. We can't afford to allow Iran to continue to meddle in and destabilize Pakistan. Unless, of course, one believes Paraguay is behind this uprising. Get the idea?

300 Islamic Militants Killed in Fighting

First, I can't run this story without saying that I believe had Israel been doing the shooting, the headline would be 300 innocent civilians slain by Israeli onslaught.

From the Full Story at the Washington Post via Associated Press:

"Some 300 Islamic militants have been killed or wounded in the monthlong battle with Lebanese troops in a Palestinian refugee camp, leaving only a few dozen fighters still hiding in the besieged camp, Defense Minister Elias Murr said Tuesday.

In an interview with the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television, Murr said the Lebanese army has cornered the remaining members of the al-Qaida-inspired Fatah Islam group in a small section of the Nahr el-Bared camp, located near the northern port city of Tripoli."

The article also points out that fighters from many nationalities are among the dead or captured. This has the markings of a proxy war set up to entrap Israel again, only Syria hasn't been able to sufficiently suppress Lebanese desire to keep their country from being the battleground for all nasty wars. Should this trend continue, Iran will only have Gaza as a central front against Israel.

The logistics of that aren't practical, which is why Israel is arguing to have the Syria-Lebanon border shored up to prevent free flow of arms to Hezbollah. This is shaping up to be a nasty summer, but at least the early reports are identifying militants correctly.

Egypt: Iran Crossing Lines in Conflict

From the Full Story in The Telegraph:

"The crisis in the Palestinian territories threatened to spill across the Middle East last night after Egypt accused Iran of sponsoring Hamas in its takeover of Gaza and said that Teheran now posed a threat to its own national security.

The Egyptian government, which reinforced its military presence on its border with the Gaza Strip last week, said that it would do everything possible to prevent an Islamist regime from cementing control of the territory.

The warning came as it was announced that President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt will host a summit on Monday attended by Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president, and King Abdullah of Jordan.

Egypt's control of its border with Gaza is likely to be a major subject for discussion, as well as the need to prop up the beleaguered administration led by Mr Abbas and his Fatah faction from its West Bank headquarters in Ramallah."

Iran continues to press its agenda in Gaza. I suspect that this issue will cause division for months to come. I also suspect that the bloodshed is only just beginning.

This is a civil war that won't be ended easily.

Egypt Makes Play For Gaza Resolution

I predicted somewhere, unfortunately not here or I'd have a record, that Egypt would make a play to mediate the Gaza civil war.

From the Full Story at Forbes via Associated Press:

"Egypt's president has invited the Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian leaders to a peace summit, officials said Thursday, the biggest show of support yet by moderate Arab states for beleaguered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

The meeting will take place Monday in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, said Israeli government spokeswoman Miri Eisin. Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Jordan's King Abdullah have been invited.

Abbas will call for a resumption of peace talks with Israel, arguing that only progress toward Palestinian statehood can serve as a true buffer against Hamas, which took control of Gaza by force last week, Abbas aide Saeb Erekat said."

Egypt has a huge stake in Gaza stability, since they would ultimately be saddled with the refugees. It appears that Hamas will be pushed out of the loop.

In related news, 75% of Palestinians favor a new election. I will predict here that an election won't solve this problem. No way will Iran surrender a forward base for the destruction of Israel to something as whimsical as a democratic process.

Iran will use every man, woman and child, down to its last proxy option to hold sway over its forward base in Gaza.

The real losers in this are the cannon fodder trapped between Iranian ambitions and the collective psychosis of Hamas and the Israeli civilians within rocket range. Israel would be well served to find a solution and implement it quickly. Many argue that they lost their deterrent ability in last summer's indecisive war. Others say they haven't.

Either way, Iran won't quit until they don't exist and Hamas is Hamas. Whatever the solution, Irael needs it soon.

Moqtada al Sadr Calls for Marches

The cleric is back in the news again. With powerful ties in Iran, it can only be assumed that he is in full proxy mode.

From the Full Story in the Washington Post:

"Another Sunni mosque in the Basra area of southern Iraq was destroyed Saturday, as a leading Shiite cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr, called on his followers to march to the Sunni town of Samarra next month to a revered Shiite shrine that was attacked Wednesday.

The call for a pilgrimage to the Askariya shrine, also known as the Golden Mosque, could draw tens of thousands of Shiites into an area north of Baghdad that is a stronghold of the Sunni extremist group al-Qaeda in Iraq."

This is a piece in the larger civil war within Islam, but it is also a piece in the proxy war between Iran and the West. I suspect, though I still cannot locate hard evidence, that Iran fears an imminent action against their nuclear capability.

Iran and Britain in Row Over Rushdie

From the Full Story at Forbes via Associated Press:

"Iran on Sunday condemned Britain's decision to knight Salman Rushdie, the author who was forced into hiding for a decade after the leader of the Iranian revolution ordered his assassination.

Iran Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said granting Britain's highest honor to Rushdie, whose novel "The Satanic Verses" sparked the death threat, insulted the Muslim world. His comments came during a time of especially tense relations between the Islamic republic and the West.

"Awarding a person who is among the most detested characters in the Islamic society is obvious proof of anti-Islamism by ranking British officials," Hosseini said at his weekly press conference.

Rushdie went into hiding after Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a 1989 fatwa, or religious edict, ordering Muslims to kill the author because of contents in "The Satanic Verses" were offensive to Islam.

The Iranian government declared in 1998 that it would not support but could not rescind the fatwa. Rushdie says he receives a "sort of Valentine's card" from Iran each year on Feb. 14 letting him know the country has not forgotten the vow to end his life."

I don't know what is more absurd. On the one hand, a government wants a man dead over a book about a religion. On the other hand, someone in that government send him a Valentine's card each year.

No doubt "The Satanic Verses" paints a picture Totalitarian Islamists don't appreciate. But their reaction is instructive. We must help the moderates defeat the madmen.

Too much is happening too fast right now. I suspect, though I have no evidence of it, that something big is going on and Iran will feel the effects soon enough.

Volatile Middle East: Possible Iran Connection

I'll repeat my assertion from yesterday: I think it is possible that Iran is pulling every string it can to divert attention from their nuclear program at present. They're also trying to further confuse the issues.

From the Full Story at Bloomberg:

"Iran isn't willing to suspend its nuclear program, calling itself a ``master'' of uranium enrichment technology and accusing some UN atomic agency members of having an agenda to widen inspections in the Islamic Republic.

``Iran is the master of enrichment technology,'' said Iran's Ambassador to the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency, Aliasghar Soltanieh, at a news conference in Vienna today. The UN Security Council's call for suspension, ``which had no legal or technical ground, now has lost its political merit. There is no way that suspension could be justified.''

The IAEA's 35-member board, which enforces the nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, met to discuss Iran's atomic work this week in Vienna. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei told the UN Security Council on May 23 that the Islamic Republic continued enriching uranium, contravening UN demands to stop. The Security Council is gearing up for a new round of even tighter sanctions against Iran, Group of Eight leaders said June 8 in Germany."

I've heard reasonable arguments both ways on sanctions, but the final analysis on what to do with Iran boils down to what one's goals reflect. If one's principal goal is to avoid war, then sanctions are the only option. This position is fool-hardy.

If one's goal is to prevent a nuclear Iran, all options MUST be available. Sanctions may serve a purpose as a function of a wider strategy. As a stand-alone policy, they are inadequate. But I strongly suspect that current events are the Iranian response to the threat of sanctions. A plausible threat of force against Iran might well calm tensions in Lebanon and Gaza.

I'll do some research on this tonight and hopefully have something for tomorrow's blogging.