No More Diplomatic Solution to Iran.

I think we have finally reached a point where I feel there is no longer a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear ambitions.


I have written on here a number of times that I believe a nuclear armed Iran is a threat to U.S. interests and to the world. We must do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Fox News reports today that the United States has added new restrictions and sanctions on members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. This was in response to Iran's announcement that it has begun enriching a portion of its uranium to the 20% purity level. This level is high enough to be used in a nuclear weapon. Iran claims it wishes to create treatments for cancer patients in Iran.

Iran has used a stall and delay tactic for years now to continue to advance its nuclear program. The United Nations would make demands, Iran would ask for time to respond, or for clarification. The entire time, it continued down the path towards a nuclear weapon. At the same time, Iran has been developing longer and longer range missiles. President Obama has tried very hard to resolve this issue through diplomatic means. He has failed. President Bush tried to resolve Iran's nuclear quest by allowing the European Union to be the primary negotiators. That failed as well.

The toughest sanctions we could possibly use against Iran would be to target their gasoline imports. Iran has very little refinery capabilities, and has to import roughly 40% of its refined petroleum. However, Russia and China have stood in the way of this sanction for some time. Even with the announcement of Iran's increased enrichment a Reuters UK report says that Russia has "...sent its strongest signal yet on Tuesday that it could back a fourth set of U.N. sanctions over Iran's nuclear programme"{emphasis mine} and China is "determined to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons." However, in this same article, China is said to be nervous that talk of sanctions might harm the diplomatic process.

Iran has shown it has no desire to give up its nuclear quest through the typical diplomatic process. China and Russia continue to be roadblocks to the toughest sanctions against Iran. The world has tried the diplomatic solution, including, "... five U.N. Security Council resolutions -- and three sets of U.N. sanctions -- aimed at pressuring it to freeze enrichment, and [Iran] has instead steadily expanded its program." If our goal is to slow down, freeze, or remove Iran's nuclear program, we have failed under both a Democratic and a Republican administration. President Obama has been the picture of diplomacy with Iran. Iran responds to this open hand by seting new enrichment targets. At some point, we have to acknowledge our failures, and try something different. If we don't, Iran will get a nuclear weapon.

A New Road in Iran

Earlier this week,I wrote that Iran is moving in a direction that represents a clear and present danger to the United States. Iran is increasing it's nuclear production by beginning construction on five new enrichment facilities. It is also looking for locations to build an additional five facilities. Iran has also committed to increasing aid to external groups that oppose the West by $20 Million. I believe the bulk of this money will go to Hezbollah and Hamas.

There are "three steps" that make Iran a threat to us. First, Iran is not going to voluntarily stop its nuclear program. Is there anyone who seriously believes Iran will only build nuclear reactors and not nuclear weapons? Secondly, Iran controls and funds Hamas and Hezbollah. Should Iran get a nuclear weapon, it's only a matter of time before one (or both) of these groups gets one. Third, should Hezbollah or Hamas get their hands on a nuclear weapon, they will detonate it in Israel or the United States (or both). With this in mind, here are my solutions:

No more "positive" incentives" for Iran. Iran has shown it really isn't interested in allowing Russia to supply it with nuclear power. We should also drop the notion of enticing Iran with money or with an "entry to the world community". Iran has shown they don't care about any of this. How many years have we been following this path only to arrive with Iran closer to aobtaining a nuclear weapon than ever?

Immediate sanctions against Iran. These need to be real and have teeth. They should include a blockade of oil leaving Iran. Iran has to send its oil out to be refined. Let's put an end to that.

Increase funding to pro-Democracy groups inside of Iran. The Obama administration has opposed this and has actually taken the step of cutting funding to groups that document abuses inside Iran. This in an age when we can increase the money to the National Endowment for the Arts, but groups that are putting pressure on Iran get $0.00?

Keep the Military option on the table. And mention it often. Iran needs to know that we will not accept a world with a nuclear Iran. ALL options should be on the table to prevent that.

Mark Hitchcock in The Apocalypse of Ahmadinejad quotes Kenneth Pollack:

Right now, there are two clocks ticking in Tehran. The first is the clock of regime change. Given the sentiments of the people, it seems likely that there will be further meaningful change in Iran at some point in the future. The second clock is the clock of Iran' s nuclear program. We do not know when the alarm on either of those clocks will go off. History has demonstrated that meaningful change in Iran is likely to take considerable time...the findings of the IAEA suggest that Iran is getting fairly close to having a fully self contained enrichment process, if not actual weapons.

These words were written in 2005. We know the nuclear clock is much closer to going off than it was in 2005. President Obama's actions from this summer and more recently look like he doesn't care when either of these clocks go off. We have to act now. Should Iran get a nuclear weapon, the rest of the President's agenda will be moot. We don't have to use the military. We do need to do more than we are doing now.

The Problem with Iran

I really wanted to write about the now debunked myth of man-made global warming. With the revelations over the last week, the best you can say is that man-made global warming is a scientific theory that has yet to have any serious scientific data to support it. However, as fun as that would be to write, there is a much more significant and deadly issue facing the West.

Iran made two very significant announcements over the weekend. The first you have probably heard about by now. The second seemed to miss most of the big news outlets.

First, Iran announced they will build 10 new enrichment facilities. The first five will begin in the next two months. The sites for these five have already been selected. The sites for the next five will be selected over the next two months. These 1o facilities, along with the one the West has known about, and the one the West just found out about, would give Iran the capability to make 160 nuclear bombs a year.

First-and-a-half, Iran has said time and time again that if it had a nuclear weapon, it would detonate it in Israel even knowing Israel would strike back. Why? First, Ahmadenjad believes that he can create a world Armageddon that would bring the 12th Iman out of hiding. Second, Ahmadenjad also says there are more Muslims in the world than Jews, so he can win a war of attrition.

Second, also from this weekend, Iran approved a bill that will send $20 Million to militant groups who "oppose the West". The majority of this is probably going to go to Hamas and Hezbollah. Both groups are known terrorists groups and both are quite happy to lob any number of rockets, bombs, missiles, and suicide bombers at Israel. Ask yourself, "What would happen if Hamas or Hezbollah got their hands on a nuclear warhead, even a "dirty" one?"

Health Care and Global Warming are very important debates. However, inaction on Iran will render these two issue moot. Threats about Iran not joining the world community or facing serious sanctions this time won't cut it any longer. What will? Stay tuned for the next article...

Hope and Change in Iran?

Imagine a country ruled by an older group of religious experts. They decide the path for the nation. They decide who can and can’t run in elections. They also decide who wins those elections. Now let’s pretend that during the recent election, the citizens of this country get fed up with this religious council’s domination of their lives. They decide to protest in the streets. These protesters are sometimes beaten or shot by military snipers under the control of the religious council. The religious leaders force all foreign journalists to stay under guard in their hotels. They close off access to the outside world for the protestors by shutting down or restricting access to the internet and cell phones. The protestors, led by students and women, continue to demand their voice be heard in spite of increasing violence. As the protests continue, the religious group gets more violent and they begin snatching protest leaders in the dead of night from schools, homes, and even hospitals where they seek treatment for the wounds inflicted by the state controlled police. In this imaginary world, where would a Democratic President, one who campaigned on “hope” and “change”, one who got his rise into politics as a community organizer side? Surely he would work with the students seeking change in their own government through peaceful means.


President Obama has shown us that the obvious answer isn’t always the one he will pick. In the not so thinly veiled references to Iran above, President Obama has decided to align with the Mullahs and with President Ahmadinejad. In trying to look neutral, in trying to avoid “meddling” in Iran, the President has given a victory to the ruling clerics. A silent American President helps the Mullahs and hurts the students.


However, as of this writing, it is not too late. President Obama can still align himself with the protesters and the side of democracy in Iran. He can send a clear message that the United States will support the democratic process in Iran. And he can make a difference. Instead of inviting Iranian ambassadors to a Fourth of July cookout, call opposition leaders in Iran and check on their safety. Instead of sending mixed messages about the “debate” in Iran, get prepaid phone cards into the hands of students and protesters. Instead of saying we can’t be seen as meddlers in Iran, demand international journalists be given the freedom to cover the news inside of Iran.


President Obama can work to promote democracy in Iran and help U.S. interests at the same time, and without using the military. If the protesters have their way, there could be a very different Iran in a short time. If there is regime change from these protests, it will be regime change brought about by the people of Iran, not the United States. However, the protests can’t continue without support from the outside world. There are people friendly to the U.S. inside of Iran. If we support their efforts towards democracy, they may create a friendlier attitude towards our nation.

Quick Notes, Issue One

Here are a few items I have wanted to post on, but haven’t had time to write my normal length post on each. I hope to make more of these types of posts. So as a reader advised (thanks Jayne), I am going to, “…go where my instinct takes me.” Here are some thoughts to discuss with your friends.

1) Iran. Much has been made about the new intelligence that Iran may have stopped its nuclear program a few years ago. I certainly hope this is true. Few things scare me as much as a fanatic who believes he can bring about a divine apocalypse and who might have a nuclear weapon. That is a very bad combination. While I hope the National Intelligence Estimate is correct, I have a few concerns. Many people on both sides of the aisle have questioned our intelligence capability in the Middle East. This is a valid question. The NIE says Iran may not have a nuclear warhead for a few years. Ahmadinejad has said he is willing to use a nuclear weapon against Israel. I say, “When in doubt, take the mad man at his word.” We should continue to act as if Ahmadinejad is pursuing a nuclear weapon. Until the people of Iran force a regime change or Ahmadinejad truly stops pursuing nuclear weapons that is the only safe course for our country.

2) Mike Huckabee. If you are following the 2008 election news at all, by now you know that Huckabee has had a surge in the polling. Many people are trying to figure out why. Some have suggested it is because he is running as a conservative. Some have suggested it is a media conspiracy to get the easiest Republican candidate to beat. Others have suggested that these supporters were always there, just waiting until the right moment to strike. I have a different take. While I disagree with Huckabee on a few key points (such as illegal immigration), he is running on a pro Fair Tax platform. I am a huge supporter of the Fair Tax. There are a lot of Republicans and Libertarians who are as well. I think his surge in numbers is coming from that. Time will tell, but the next time you hear Huckabee or see him at a campaign stop, look for a Fair Tax reference.

3) “Global Warming Kooks”. Last week, Drudge had a link to a British paper that ran an article about women in the UK who were getting sterilized to stop global warming. These women thought having children was the worst thing anyone could do to the environment. If I remember correctly, one was 29 years old and the other was 32. If you follow the global warming argument to its conclusion, this is where you end up. Time will tell how many people are willing to subscribe to this idea. There are a lot of groups who have been preaching this openly for some time. There are other groups who believe it, but are concealing that fact. Just a point to keep in mind the next time someone screams about global warming and starts talking about “solutions”.

I hope you enjoyed this column. Look for more of this type of post in the weeks to come. As always, I welcome civil comments and discussion on these topics, or any others.

The Next Step with Ahmadinejad

Over the last few days Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has continued his dance with the United Nations and the West. His goal is quite simple: a nuclear Iran. He has successfully stalled and bullied the United Nations, all the while racing to get nuclear capability. Every time the United Nations has given Ahmadinejad a deadline, he has given the United Nations the finger, and continued to do what he wishes.

The United States and Israel have both said they will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. France has now gone on the record saying that war may be necessary to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. French President Sarkozy said if the United Nations allows, “Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, we would incur an unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world.” Germany, one of the countries that have stalled sanctions against Iran, is calling for a tougher stance against Iran. The German government has even said they don’t believe sanctions are going to work.

Where does that leave the world? If the world truly believes Iran can’t be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, it is time to make some very difficult decisions. Those decisions may include military action in Iran. The United States and Israel have probably (and hopefully) drawn up a point of no return scenario. This would be a list of criteria that would require an immediate military response. We may not have hit that time yet, but it is fast approaching.

For those who argue against a military action, it is time to get deadly serious with Iran. Former Governor Mitt Romney released his plan for Iran this week. His plan is tough, and works to so isolate Iran that if Ahmadinejad were to continue to press for nuclear technology, the world would have reason to respond militarily. Governor Romney’s plan includes:

1) Putting Iran in a diplomatic isolation.

2) Tougher economic sanctions against Iran.

3) Call on Arab states to join this effort. This would require the Arab states to support the government of Iraq, stop all financial support of Hamas and Hezbollah, and thaw relations with Israel.

4) Communicate to the people of Iran. There are those within Iran that do not share the views of Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs. Governor Romney believes we should do everything in our power to help those people.

5) Create a Partnership with the “entire world of Islam”. Romney argues that, “[o]nly Muslims will be able to permanently defeat the radical jihadist threat. We should help them any way we can.”

The full text of his outline can be found at the National Review Online. Ahmadinejad has made it crystal clear to anyone who is listening that he is going to acquire nuclear technology. He has also made it crystal clear that he intends to destroy both Israel and the United States. If the leader of a nation tells me he wishes to commit genocide and destroy my country, I tend to take him at his word. The current process is failing. The United Nations and the IAEA continue to demand and ask Iran for cooperation when Iran has no intention of giving it. Really isolating Iran may be the only way to avoid a military strike. Once Ahmadinejad has acquired a nuclear weapon is too late.

Ahmadinejad's 2007 U.S. Tour

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran will be speaking at the United Nations next week. I am not comfortable with the thought of our government allowing him to travel to the United States. However, as part of our treaty to host the U.N., we have agreed to allow those who the U.N. calls to speak into our country. What I am more outraged about is Ahmadinejad’s current plans to speak at Columbia University and to visit Ground Zero.

Columbia University was contacted by an Iranian Ambassador and asked to allow the President of Iran to deliver a speech at the University. The President of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, will introduce the man who has denied the holocaust and who has threatened to wipe Israel from the face of the planet. The University describes this as an, “…opportunity for faculty and students to engage the President of Iran.” Mr. Bollinger said he told the Iranians that Ahmadinejad would be introduced with, “…a series of sharp challenges…” on the issues facing Iran. I am sure the thought of facing the President of Columbia University has frightened the man who has given the proverbial finger to the world while he seeks a nuclear program for Iran. Mr. Bollinger also says, “It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible.” Mr. Bollinger has extended this courtesy to a man who is responsible for killing Americans. At the same time, Mr. Bollinger has refused to extend the same courtesy to the ROTC program. While he will allow someone such as Mr. Ahmadinejad the “freedom of speech,” at Columbia University, in 2005 Mr. Bollinger helped defeat an effort to bring the ROTC program back to Columbia. Terrorist and tyrants are apparently welcomed at Columbia University, but not those who would defend against them.

If this doesn’t sound like a PR coup for Iran, then the President’s next stop on his agenda will. The President of the country that helps fund and organize Hezbollah will visit Ground Zero. Think of how these two events will play on Arab television. President Ahmadinejad will be shown addressing a group of America’s Youth. This image will fade to scenes of Ahmadinejad touring the site of the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

So that this doesn’t sound like a simple partisan issue, I thought I would close with statements from a Republican Presidential candidate and a Democratic Presidential candidate. Both quotes come from WABC in New York by way of Matt Drudge:

“Under no circumstances should the NYPD or any other American authority assist President Ahmadinejad in visiting Ground Zero. This is a man who has made threats against America and Israel, is harboring bin Laden’s son and other al-Queda leaders, is shipping arms to Iraqi insurgents and is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. Assisting Ahmadinejad in touring Ground Zero – hallowed ground for all Americans – is outrageous.”

-- Mayor Rudy Giuliani

“It is unacceptable for Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who refuses to renounce and end his own country’s support for terrorism, to visit the site of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil in our nation’s history.”

-- Senator Hillary Clinton

We have agreement on an issue that truly should be offensive to all Americans.

Why we should stay in Iraq

For the past few weeks, the news from Iraq has taken a back seat. The papers have been taken with covering Paris Hilton, Scooter Libby, and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill. Now that those stories seem to have played out, the press and many politicians are back on the attack with Iraq. Unfortunately, they are on the wrong side.

The United States is actively involved in a war that should be easy to support. We have liberated a country from an evil tyrant. We are fighting terrorist who would like any opportunity to kill us. We are fighting a proxy war against Iran. In case you have spent too much time following Paris Hilton, Iran is the country doing everything in it’s power to get a nuclear weapon to use against either a) Israel, b) Europe, c) the United States, or d) any and all of the above.

When boiled down to its basics, there really should be very little reason to oppose the war in Iraq. However, some have lost focus on why we are there, while others believe we have no right to be there. This second group doesn’t care what happens in Iraq. They want us out and they want us out now. For more information on this group, do a Google search for “Sheehan threatens Pelosi”.

The real dirty secret is that the plan we are executing in Iraq is starting to work. We still have a long way to go. In the words of David Kilcullen, “…this is the end of the beginning: we are now starting to put things onto a viable long-term footing.” Mr. Kilcullen would know. According to The Weekly Standard, he is a former Australian officer and an expert on counterinsurgency warfare. He is also finishing a tour of duty in Iraq. All of this puts him in a much better position to characterize what is happening in Iraq than many on the hill. Kilcullen also points out that we are now trying to clear “human terrain” and not physical terrain. The effort is now focused on marginalizing Al-Queda and extremist militias.

Natan Sharansky writes today, “People of goodwill can certainly disagree over how to handle Iraq, but human rights should be a part of any responsible calculus.” We have promised our help to an ally in Iraq. To withdraw now after relatively minor losses would be a terrible thing to do. Mr. Sharansky argues that if we leave now, we should be prepared for a much larger blood bath in both Iraq and the surrounding area. If we leave now, we should expect Iran to become the dominant force in the Middle East. Staying in Iraq, even for a long time, is in our best national interests and is the right thing to do.

Russia aides Iran in Quest for Nuke's

The day after I posted my blog on Iran, a news story broke out of Iran that fit in directly with my post. Iran has instituted a fuel rationing system in expectation of sanctions being placed against it for its nuclear program. There have been riots in the street with buildings and gas pumps being burned. FOX News reported that many Iranians believe they are entitled to cheap gas because of the oil reserves found in Iran. Ahmadinejad is being heavily criticized for both the rationing and the way it was broken to the public.

This morning, another news story appeared that I believe is important. I have argued against the effectiveness of the United Nations. In my post from Tuesday, I commended Peter Schweizer for his article recommending action against Iran. I commended him because he never calls for the United Nations to assist in the economic warfare he lays out against Iran. The riots over gas rationing show that Iran would be hurt if we prevented it from importing gasoline, a news story from this morning shows why we shouldn’t involve the United Nations.

FOX News is reporting that Russian billionaire Mikhail Fridman is attempting to invest heavily in the Iranian market. His company, Alfa Group, is trying to buy a controlling share in an Iranian mobile phone company. Why is this important? Because in doing so, Alfa Group is making financial deals with Bank Saderat. Bank Saderat has been providing funding to Hezbollah. There is evidence that the deal by Alfa group would dilute the control of a political rival of Ahmadinejad’s thereby helping him to consolidate power.

Russia has had a history of both supplying Iran with conventional weapons, and blocking any sanctions against Iran. Russia has also sold Iran a $1 billion nuclear reactor which is currently under construction. Russia has shown it has a vested interest in helping the Iranian government. With Russia working actively against sanctions on Iran, can the United Nations impose any sanction that might actually work to bring Iran back from its nuclear course?

As I said on Tuesday, Iran can not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. Some have offered that we should avoid military action until Iran gets to the testing stage of a nuclear weapon. I counter that by then it would be too late. Ahmadinejad and the mullah’s of Iran believe there is a religious component to their quest for nuclear power. They believe they are preordained to hasten the arrival of the 12^th Imam. They also believe the best way to do that is to begin a war with Israel. With nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad could make his desire to destroy Israel a reality. Because of that, there is no reason to believe Ahmadinejad won’t consider “testing” his nuke’s in Israel. Russia could also give him cover by allowing a test in Russia, and thereby hide the fact he is even testing weapons.

If we continue to wait to act in Iran, Ahmadinejad will get nuclear weapons. Once he gets nuclear weapons, it is only a matter of time before he uses them.

Time for Action against Iran

There are two interesting news articles today that I thought might represent a good departure from the global warming debate. With the temperatures of some of my readers getting high enough to force certain “Anonymous” readers away from my blog, I thought it might be worth discussing something that is more likely to destroy the world than global warming. What is this terror that Al Gore is ignoring? Iran.

I have written previous post on this site arguing that Iran represents a clear and present danger to the United States. I am for the use of the military in Iran if we decide it is the only way to prevent a nuclear Iran. With the mindset of the rulers of Iran what it currently is, I believe Iran would not hesitate to use a nuclear warhead if it was able to get one. Mutually assured destruction means next to nothing if you believe you are preordained to usher in a new world order.

Iran has been at war with the United States and Europe since at least 1979. The latest salvo appears to be the use of the Iranian military to place bombs in Iraq. This story has been reported inThe Sun Online. This is still a developing story as I haven’t seen it reported anywhere else yet. The Sun sites an intelligence source as saying that British forces have seen Iranian helicopters ferrying soldiers into Iraq so they can place IED’s. The Sun says this claim is backed up by, “…very senior military sources.” However, the Sun is the only place reporting this story. Is this enough to go to war with Iran over? No. Unfortunately, this isn’t the only piece of evidence that Iran is at war with the West.

Peter Schweizer has a very good piece in USA Today outlining some of the other marks against Iran. Among other things, Iran is providing military equipment and funding to our enemies in Iraq. They captured British sailors and continue to hold 4 United States citizens. The Iranian President has stated more than once his intention to wipe Israel off the face of the map. I am inclined to take people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at their word. If he wants to destroy the Little Satan because he says he can win a war of attrition between Jews and Muslims, the West should be very concerned.

As I said earlier, I am for a military strike in Iran to keep them from acquiring a nuke. However, Mr. Schweizer lays out an economic war that I could support. He believes in a two prong assault, the first is a full gasoline embargo. This would be enforced by the United States Navy Fifth Fleet. Mr. Schweizer says that Iran imports almost half of its gasoline and is particularly vulnerable in this area. Secondly, he argues that the United States should begin counterfeiting Iranian currency. As I stated in another post attacking China for this very ploy, counterfeiting another nation’s currency is an act of war. However, in this case, Iran has been at war with the United States for decades. We can stick our head in the sand and hope the bully leaves us alone, or we can fight and stand up to these bullies.

The other very interesting part of this article is that Mr. Schweizer never once calls for aid or approval from the United Nations. Whether this course of action is taken or not, Mr. Schweizer should be applauded for this. It is time the United States shows that she is willing to stand up to those who would kill us, and we are willing to do it without international approval. The United States is the lone Superpower in the world. It is time we started acting like it.

Protect your Enemies and Attack your Friends?

With the new funding bill being discussed for Iraq, both Republicans and Democrats are claiming a win. Many Democrats and Republicans have called for benchmarks and timetables for Iraq. The theory seems to be that if we only threaten the Iraqi government, things might go the way we want.

The current threat is if the Iraqi government doesn’t meet certain benchmarks, it jeopardizes reconstruction assistance. While the President has the option to wave these restrictions, the intent of this bill shouldn’t be glossed over. If signed into law, the US would tell Iraq that the Iraqi government must meet certain benchmarks, or the US will stop funding reconstruction projects in Iraq. I think it is imperative that we continue to fight in Iraq without a surrender date. However, what are we really saying to our allies with these benchmarks?

Many Democrats are constantly demanding we negotiate with Iran and Syria regarding Iraq. The Democrats look at Iran, look at its continued involvement in Iraq and its continued UN violations and decide that Iran is a country they can trust. Just today, the IAEA released a report saying Iran continues to violate UN resolutions. The IAEA says it can not assure the world that Iran is pursuing nuclear technology for exclusively peaceful purposes. If only we would negotiate with the leaders of Iran, they would help us in Iraq. How many of the Democratic presidential hopefuls have discussed having a conference in the Middle East to discuss Iraq with Syria and Iran? The Democrats would have us believe we can trust Iran.

However, when the Democrats turn their eyes on Iraq, they insist on benchmarks with teeth. If the Iraqi government can’t pass laws and meet benchmarks by a date set by politicians in DC, then we should stop funding reconstruction efforts in Iraq, or we should withdraw our troops and leave Iraq to the wolves. Let’s not forget that after 200+ years of experience with Democracy here in the US, we still miss the ball. Look at how long it takes our congress to pass laws. However the DNC would have the Iraqi government held to a higher standard.

It seems to me these roles should be reversed. If Iraq is our ally, we should be working with them to get their nation rebuilt. We should protect them from enemies who would assassinate her leaders and enslave her people while raping the nation of its natural resources. Surely the United States can be called on to protect its allies?

If the Democrats insist on passing benchmarks, then let’s look at an Iranian resolution. If the Iranian government can’t prove to the world that it is pursuing a purely peaceful nuclear program in the next 60 days, then we will cut off all economic ties and aid to Iran. I would not advocate using ground forces in Iran, but I read we have three carrier groups near Iran right now. If Iran continues to kill US soldiers in Iraq, then perhaps it is time to see how effectively our military can bomb one country while fighting a war in another one.

The Democrats have taken the saying of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer to a new and corrupted level. The Democrats seem to be saying, “Protect your enemies while attacking your friends.”

It’s Good to be Ahmadinejad

If your name is Ahmadinejad, you have had a very good couple of weeks. First, Iran captured 15 British Sailors and Soldiers. While many in the West followed the plight of these 15, very few seriously condemned the action, and no one really expressed any resolve to do anything about it. Then on Monday, President Ahmadinejad announced to the world that Iran now has 3,000 centrifuges and can push its nuclear energy program even further. And again, with only minor exception, very few in the media or in positions of power seem to have taken much notice.

I would speculate that Iran was trying to see what the West and the rest of the world would do if they captured a few Western sailors. Iran found that the west would do nothing, and they gained an extra PR advantage in the Middle East with the assorted confessions and PR video released to the world. While the West had a few (and I emphasize few) strong words, there was never any threat that the Western response would go past a few words.

Fresh from that success, President Ahmadinejad gave the world, the UN, and anyone not studying Don Imus the collective finger. The Iranian President revealed to the world that Iran has no intension of suspending its uranium enrichment program. The UN had previously given Iran 60 days to stop its program or face tougher sanctions. Since Iran has ignored the last three similar warnings from the UN, no one should have been surprised when they ignored the UN yet again. However, President Ahmadinejad raised the stakes by claiming to have 3,000 centrifuges now operating. This number caught most experts off guard. While Russia and a few others have expressed disbelief at this number, the implications are very ominous if Iran is telling the truth. With 3,000 centrifuges, Iran could be anywhere from 1 to 3 years away from producing 1 to 2 nuclear weapons a year. Personally, I believe we should take our enemies at their word. If they say they have no intention of complying with the UN, and are in fact increasing their production, we should take them at their word. The West should assume at this point that Iran will not stop until it has a usable nuclear weapon. However, most in the media seem to be more distraught over “racially insensitive” comments by Imus.

The West must focus on the important thing and decide what to do with Iran. There are really only two possible outcomes, the West accepts a nuclear Iran, or the West prevents Iran (and by extension Hezbollah, Hamas, and maybe Syria) from getting a nuclear weapon. No matter what the rhetoric, to date both the West and the UN seem willing to grudgingly accept a nuclear Iran. While we have said this is unacceptable, we really haven’t done anything to prevent it from happening.

The second case is the much more difficult one, but the one we really should be following. It would be a terrible thing for the entire world if Iran was able to get a nuclear weapon. Iran has said it would use a nuke in Israel. Iran is accused of helping our enemies in Iraq. Iran has definitely been a huge backer of Hezbollah. I would argue that Iran has been at war with the US since the Islamic revolution and capture of American hostages in the 1970’s. Because of that, Iran represents a terrible threat to the West, to Israel, and to the US.

It is time for the West to wake up and realize that maybe we should take our enemies at thier word. Hitler promised to eliminate the Jews and no one took him at his word. Are we ready to repeat the same mistake?

Is Iran's Position Defendable?

Last week Iranian forces captured 15 British sailors operating in Iraqi waters. The British sailors had just finished inspecting an Indian vessel. Iran immediately claimed the British had entered Iranian wateres. Britain released GPS co-ordinates showing their sailors had been in Iraqi waters. The Indian Captain has been contacted and also confirmed the British were in Iraqi waters. The Iraqi government has said the same thing. Even the Iranian government provided GPS co-ordinates inside of Iraqi waters. Once Britain pointed this out, the Iranian government changed the co-ordinates to within its own waters 24 hours after the first co-ordinates had been released.


Tony Blair has called on the world community to demand the Iranian government return the UK sailors and their equipment. Mr. Blair points out the sailors were enforcing a UN embargo. He has rightly attacked and criticized the Iranian government as it continues to violate Geneva conventions. It is against the Geneva conventions to film and broadcast captured soldiers for publicity. The “confessions” and letters Iran has released are an outrage.


Today I am traveling on vacation with my family and I picked up a copy of the Wall Street Journal. Being the news junkie I am, I needed my fix, and it is hard to get updates from CNN and Fox News while flying from airport to airport. However, I was outraged when I opened the paper to find an article entitled, “History Frames Iran Standoff” with the subtitle Resentment Runs Deep Over Past British Hand in Oil Trade, Governing. While the article doesn’t come out and blame Britain for the capture of her sailors, it does hint that maybe the British Government, and by proxy, the United States share at least some responsibility in the abduction of these sailors.


This is a very slippery slope. This is the same mentality that gives rise to the belief that the United States deserved 9/11. The theory says that somehow the attacks on the Trade Center and the Pentagon were actually the fault of Americans because of our history in the Middle East. The attacks of 9/11 were the fault of 19 Muslims and their supporters. The capturing of these British sailors, and what happens to them, is the responsibility of the Iranian government.


This is the same government that continues to pursue a nuclear program when the world and the UN have told it not to. I have written before that Iran shows no real desire to be part of the world community. While an invasion in Iran might not be the answer, immediate sanctions and isolation are the short term answers for both of these problems. Iran must be taught that there is a way nations act when they wish to be part of the world community, and this isn’t it.

Its time for the US to tell Iran how we feel.

The United States has found explosives, rocket propelled grenades, high-tech rifles, and personnel supplied to the Iraqi insurgents by Iran. Iran has had an active roll in killing American service men and women. A report from the European Union today says it believes the only thing preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is technical limits. The EU now believes that economic sanctions and diplomacy will not prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Iran has been at war with the United States since the early 1980’s. Hezbollah was founded by Iran. Iran continues to direct the “Party of God” today and provide it with support and funding.

Iran through Hezbollah has been responsible for some of the worst terrorist attacks against the United State. Before September 11, 2001, Hezbollah had killed more Americans than any other terrorist group. Perhaps one of the worst Hezbollah attacks was at the Marine Barracks in Beirut in October of 1983. 241 American Military were killed in the attack. Our forces were part of a peace-keeping force during that attack.

What would Iran or Hezbollah do with a nuclear weapon? Is there anyone who doubts they would try to use it? If the EU believes diplomacy will no longer work, then there is very little chance of Iran negotiating with the “Great Satan”.

This leaves us with the question, “What should we do about Iran?” There are very few people out there who would argue for a land invasion of Iran. Realistically, I feel we must strengthen the boarders with Iran. It is also time to consider air strikes on Iranian locations. I have seen reports that a third carrier group is en route that theatre. This should give us plenty of Air power to keep Iran busy and out of Iraq.

Iran must be made to feel that their best interest lies in staying out of Iraq. Iranian officials may enjoy seeing the debate between different political groups within the United States. Iran needs to understand that if they want to provide weapons, training, and men to our enemies, then they will be treated as our enemies.

UPDATE:

After posting this I saw a story on Fox News saying that the Iraqi borders with Iran and with Syria are going to be closed for 72 hours. Curfews are going to be extended as well. I think this is a good step in the right direction, I truly believe this looks like a new strategy in Iraq.

Kick the United Nations out of the United States

The more I follow politics, the more I think the United Nations doesn’t work anymore. If the United Nations doesn’t work, should the United States continue to be a part of the process?

I think I can get agreement from the majority of people out there when I say that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are the three biggest hot spots in the world today. If the UN is to work, they must react quickly and decisively in these three areas. Currently, the US and Britain seem to be the major governments trying to stabilize Iraq. Iran and Syria seem to be the major nations trying to destabilize Iraq. If the UN is going to be the forum for the world to resolve its issues, I would expect the UN to be actively engaged in seeking solutions with the US, the UK, and Iraq, and actively trying to prevent Iran and Syria from influencing Iraq. I don’t see that happening.

The United Nations seems to be very reluctant to do anything in Iran. France, Germany, and Britain are working to impose sanctions against Iran for its nuclear development efforts. Russia and China are working hard to prevent sanctions against a nation they consider to be a valuable trading partner. The United States wants tough sanctions, but is trying to give the European nations a chance to work things out. At face value, this sounds like diplomacy at work. The truth of the matter is that this is a continued failure of diplomacy. The UN Security Council set an August 31st deadline for Iran to stop work on enriching uranium, or face dire consequences. Since August 31st, the Security Council has been unable to reach any decision on what those consequences should be. In the mean time, Iran has been working to expand its nuclear program and continues to thumb its nose at the world community. This week’s elections show that the people of Iran don’t support Ahmadinejad’s policies, but the UN can’t develop a similar message to send to Iran.

Under the UN’s watchful eyes, North Korea has now become a nuclear power. While North Korea has returned to the negotiating table, it has done so with a list of demands for the rest of the world. North Korea currently sees these negotiations not as a chance to become a member of the world community, but as a forum to negotiate bribes for the Kim Jung-Il, and to discuss world wide arms reductions. As North Korea has admitted it broke previous treaties, I don’t hold my breath that anything good could come from this latest round of talks.

There are other reasons the United Nations no longer is a legitimate forum for the US. In the view of the UN, all countries are equal, and all should have an equal voice in how the world works. This is a logical conclusion if you believe that there are no nations that are better than other nations. This basic belief is flawed. The United States is quite simply the greatest nation on the Earth. Any forum that equates the views of the US with every petty dictator throughout the world instantly handicaps the US. We have every responsibility to help those individuals and those nations less fortunate than us. However, we don’t have to do it with a gun to our heads as the UN would have us. We can administer our own foreign aid, and peruse our own diplomatic resolutions.

What more can we give North Korea?

North Korea proudly proclaimed itself a Nuclear Power today. The six party talks resumed today, and as I predicted last month, North Korea showed up with a laundry list of demands. In stead of sounding like a nation interested in becoming a part of the world community, North Korea sounded like a landlord demanding rent.

First, North Korea demanded the US stop all financial sanctions against the “Fearless Leader” and North Korea. This is to include the frozen banks that the US began due to North Korea’s high counterfeiting of the US $100 bill. Secondly, someone other than North Korea is to come build them a nuclear reactor. Next, the rest of the world is to provide power for North Korea until the nuclear reactor is built. After that, North Korea and Kim Jung-Il will consider abandoning their nuclear weapon program. And by the way, since they were able to “successfully” test a nuclear weapon, they want equal treatment as any other nation in the world.

When a child misbehaves, he doesn’t come to the principles office with a list of demands that must be met before he will begin to behave again. If a criminal were to show up at the police station with a list of demands before he would abide by the law, we would all laugh at him. However, because the UN and the rest of the world allow tyrant regimes to do as they wish, more and more dictators come to the UN with demands before they will act like a responsible, equal share holder in the world community.

This is the basic flaw with the modern Democratic Party and the UN. Both treat all individuals (except George Bush) and all nations (except the US) as equal. No matter how you treat others, or how bad your ideas may be, you can’t be called wrong. If you feel it is ok to deny the right of another race of individuals to exist, you’re not condemned and cut off from the rest of the world. You are allowed to present your ideas as if they have merit. If you funnel money, troops, and training into a war zone to kill American and International forces, the Iraq Study Group says the US and the world should negotiate with you and give you an equal share in the fate of your neighbors.

Until the UN or the world at large is willing to hold nations like Iran and North Korea responsible for their actions, these rouge leaders will continue to threaten other nations, kill and starve their own people, and grow fat off the weak knees of the world at large. Maybe we should just ask President Carter what to do.

TIME Falls in Love with Ahmadinejad

I came across an article today on the Drudge Report that really shocked me. Time Magazine is running a second interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad. That didn’t shock me. What shocked me was the opening sentence. Scott MacLeod writes, “In an exclusive interview, the Iranian President – and Person of the Year candidate – discusses his conference questioning the Holocaust, his letter to the American people and the state of his nuclear plans”. I was almost speechless. “Person of the Year candidate”? I couldn’t believe it.

President Ahmadinejad has been pursing nuclear weapons, he has said that Israel needs to be wiped off the map, and last week held a conference arguing that the Holocaust didn’t happen. Regardless of whether Time magazine makes him their Person of the Year or not, even listing him as a candidate soils the reputation of the other nominees and gives weight to everything Ahmadinejad has been saying.

Do the editors and writers of Time believe there was a Holocaust? Do they believe Isreal should be, “wiped off the map?” Would they like the nation of Iran, Hezbollah or Hamas to have nuclear weapons? I have been critical of the Iraq Study Group, but even they say that Iran has been aiding in the flow of arms and training into Iraq. I strive very hard on this site to avoid simply calling people or groups names, but what are the people at Time thinking?

Let’s take this scenario to its possible conclusion. Fast forward to the end of the year when Time announces that President Ahmadinejad is their Person of the Year, complete with flattering glossy photo on the cover. Forget what may or may not be said here in the United States. What will be said in the Middle East? In Iraq? In Iran? Ahmadinejad will hold that issue up for everyone in the Middle East to see and say, “See, even the American people believe Israel should be destroyed. Even the American people believe Iran should have nuclear weapons.” If you don’t think that will happen you are fooling yourself.

The terrorist and leaders in the Middle East pay very close attention to the American media. Even if Time is so short sighted as to not realize this, those in the Middle East will point to this designation of “Potential Man of the Year” and squeeze every bit of PR out of it they can. To list him as a candidate is irresponsible and aides our enemies. I believe in Freedom of Speech, and Time can nominate whomever they wish to. However, I think it tells the American public a lot about who Time is rooting for in the War on Terror.