NewsAndAnalysis.org

Al Qaeda-inspired doctors may portend a biological attack

05 July 2007

 

David Ignatius makes the following observation about the recent UK car-bomb attempts:

 

A chilling measure of Muslim anger is that several of the suspected bomb plotters arrested by the British are medical doctors.  What kind of rage would lead a physician trained in the healing arts to pack together nails, explosives and propane gas in a mix that would shatter bones and rip apart human flesh?  This is a revolt of the privileged, the uprooted, the disconnected.  It speaks of self-mutilation, as much as mayhem against others.

 

Our efforts to grasp the origins of this behavior are largely unfulfilled.  Our analysis of this threat suggests that the harm that can be planned by the better educated among us, such as these doctors, is logically greater than the harm that can be planned by the ignorant.  Although, the botched result of the UK plot suggests that even the medically-trained do not necessarily make adept bomb-makers.

 

The threat from terrorist-inspired doctors is not that they will step out of their hospitals and into a SUV laden with explosives, a feat that does not require medical expertise.  The threat from doctors is that they will remain in their hospitals and laboratories, gain access to cultures of harmful or lethal biological agents, and then use their access to a wide spectrum of patients to distribute those agents to a wider segment of the population.  Imagine pharmacists who contaminate the pills they dispense or nurses who use intentionally infected needles.

 

The recent warning by an Iraqi extremist that “Those who cure you are going to kill you” need not only refer to a car-bomb plot.  The plots in the UK by doctors may be the best warning the West can get that something more sinister is looming on the horizon.

 

 

Buffer: Why the Mullahs in Iran are safe and secure

02 July 2007

 

A recurring argument that reemerged today in a Washington Times OpEd implies that internal difficulties in Iran, such as widespread regime corruption and recent gas rationing, resemble the problems that led to the 1979 revolution and therefore, could result in an uprising against Iran's theocratic regime, which is headed by its Supreme Leader.  Two differences between then and now make all the difference.

 

The first difference is that the current regime's internal security elements are far more prolific than those under the Shah prior to the 1979 "revolution."  The current regime learned from the failures of the last regime and has set up layers of ideologically driven protectors.  Serious challenges to regime control are dealt with harshly and decisively.

 

The second, and most important, difference is that the current regime ("mullahs") have a political buffer between themselves and the problems the country now faces.  That buffer is Iran's president Ahmadinejad.  If internal unrest reaches a threshold, then the mullahs will fire Ahmadinejad, which is within their constitutionally-granted authority, and blame him for the country's ills.  This act would likely reduce domestic unrest and continue to shield the mullahs - the true power brokers in Iran - from the mess they have created in that increasingly repressed country.

 

 

Dubious judgments: Terror and the Environment

25 February 2007

 

The Telegraph reports today: "The terrorist threat facing Britain from home-grown al-Qaeda agents is higher than at any time since the September 11 attacks in 2001, secret intelligence documents reveal."  The Telegraph provides two quotes from these intelligence documents that suggest such an assessment.  They are:

 

The scale of al-Qaeda's ambitions towards attacking the UK and the number of UK extremists prepared to participate in attacks are even greater than we had previously judged.

 

We still believe that AQ [al-Qaeda] will continue to seek opportunities for mass casualty attacks against soft targets and key infrastructure.  These attacks are likely to involve the use of suicide operatives.

 

The Telegraph offers the following additional information:

 

Eliza Manningham-Buller, the director general of MI5, warned recently that there were more than 1,600 "identified individuals" actively engaged in plotting terrorist attacks.  There were 200 known networks involved in at least 30 terrorist plots.  It is thought that the number of British citizens involved in plots could be well in excess of 2,000.

 

Yet, at no point does the Telegraph cite the documents as coming to the same conclusion that the threat "is higher than at any time since the September 11 attacks."  As such, it is unclear to the reader whether this conclusion is that of the Telegraph or that of the "intelligence documents."  Such a conclusion seems dubious because the terrorist threat facing Britain since the 9/11 attacks was likely highest at the precise moment of the attack in London on 7 July 2005.  Until another attack actually occurs in Britain, one can likely conclude that the threat is not higher, unless it is determined that a more catastrophic event is imminent, which the Telegraph does not suggest to be the case.

 

On another front, Presidential hopeful Senator John McCain coauthored with Senator Joseph Lieberman an Op/Ed on the need for passing environmental legislation sponsored by McCain and Lieberman.  In their Op/Ed, the Senators make the following claims about the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, a bill they introduced:

 

The bill, which has growing bipartisan support, would harness the power of the free market and the engine of American innovation to reduce the nation's greenhouse gas emissions substantially enough and quickly enough to forestall catastrophic global warming.

 

Working in a bi-partisan fashion, Congress will enact a law that curbs global warming even as it strengthens the economy.

 

Then they go on to ask: "How can Congress close the deal to prevent catastrophic global warming while it still has the chance?"

 

Most dubious, perhaps, is the judgment that a piece of U.S. legislation - if passed by Congress - will "prevent" or "forestall" catastrophic global warming.  Even if the bill is effective, what about China, India, and other major and increasing contributors to greenhouse gas emissions?  Their claim implies that the U.S. alone can prevent global warming and that a single piece of legislation can bring about maximum U.S. contributions to this effort.  Congress has "solved" few major issues in its long history.  A more tempered assessment may be appropriate.

 

Lastly, decide for yourself whether their claim that the bill "curbs global warming even as it strengthens the economy" is too good to be true.

 

 

Green liberals and hawkish conservatives find common ground in Bush's plan

24 January 2007

 

Today, the day after the President's State of the Union address, Time magazine makes the following claim:

 

Bush goes green?  His State of the Union had some bold environmental themes, and one large admission: climate change is real.

 

And this one:

 

What Bush did say tonight—loudly, clearly and in a more auspicious venue than he ever had before—were the words "climate change," acknowledging that the battle to reverse it must lie at the center of everything the U.S. does about energy from now on.

 

To begin, climate change is real; it always has been real and - dare I predict the weather - the climate will always be changing.  The president did not say "global warming."  Time's observation is in this sense meaningless.  It is also misleading in several ways.  The President made only brief mention of the environment during a long discussion about his plan to reduce America's fuel consumption and increase its strategic petroleum reserve.  (Full speech)

 

As an afterthought to the President's long discussion about methods for reducing America's dependence on foreign oil - a geopolitical and national security liability, he argued - he added this one sentence:

 

And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.

 

The claim by Time is dubious at best and at worst reveals an agenda furthered by its over-emphasis of an afterthought.  Time's assertion that the President acknowledged that reversing climate change is "at the center of everything the U.S. now does about energy from now on" verges on a reckless misstatement of the facts.

 

Yet, the President's words do reveal that common ground exists between two typically opposing camps: the green liberals and the hawkish conservatives.

 

Reducing America's dependence on oil may lessen its need to consider oil a strategic asset.  "No blood for oil," they say.  The technologies and behaviors that promise to lessen U.S. dependence on oil also promise to lessen America's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.

 

 

2006 recap: "Hitler" up, scientists down

04 January 2007

 

Do you remember this scientific report?

 

"The Northeast is staring down the barrel of a gun," said Joe Bastardi, Chief Forecaster of the AccuWeather.com Hurricane Center. "The Northeast coast is long overdue for a powerful hurricane, and with the weather patterns and hydrology we're seeing in the oceans, the likelihood of a major hurricane making landfall in the Northeast is not a question of if but when."

 

Other such alarms were sounded by scientists leading up to the "record" calm of the 2006 hurricane season.  Now they're at it again:

 

A resurgent El Nino and persistently high levels of greenhouse gases are likely to make 2007 the world's hottest year ever recorded, British climate scientists said Thursday.  Britain's Meteorological Office said there was a 60 percent probability that 2007 would break the [temperature] record set by 1998, which was 1.20 degrees over the long-term average.

 

I suppose we'll find out in a few months.

 

And there are those who extend their predictions even further: "As many as 87,000 extra deaths a year would occur annually by 2071 [due to climate change in Europe]".  Yet some disagree: "Climate chaos? Don't believe it."  Meteorologists seem barely able to predict the weather next Thursday, let alone in 2071.

 

I suppose we'll find out in 65 years.

 

As the "inconvenient truth" of global warming and the pros and cons of stem cell research and other quasi-scientific debates leaked their way further into the political mainstream, science - that process formerly known as objective - suffered in reputation.

 

But all wasn't down in 2006.  Hitler's reputation - by incessant comparison - improved.

 

Consider recent comments by Democratic Party activist Carla Vela about the arrest of 1300 illegal immigrants using stolen identities:

 

"This unfortunately reminds me of when Hitler began rounding up the Jews for no reason and locking them up... Now they're coming for the Latinos.  Who will they come for next?"

 

The Feds are now Hitleresque.  Who will they come for next?

 

Or consider a sign at a recent protest in Allentown that read, "Global business creates slavery," and below that read, "Adolf Bush."  Of course, it's common knowledge that Bush is worse than Hitler.  Huh?  Hitler: not so bad a guy, I guess?

 

Or how about that time in 2006 that Germany - yes that Germany - likened Iranian president Ahmadinejad to Hitler?  I suppose Hitler would have also opposed the state of Israel, had it existed at the time.  Or perhaps not.  Instead of killing Jews, perhaps Hitler would have merely deported them to Israel.  Ahmadinejad certainly dresses worse than Hitler.

 

The point is that efforts to adhere to an ethical system that distinguishes between "good" and "evil" acts benefit from clear examples of good and evil.  These examples help adherents understand the accepted definitions of right and wrong.  For decades, Hitler's acts have been synonymous with evil.  His prejudice, his calculated acts of genocide, and his unmitigated quest for dominance by any means serve as examples of behaviors that are detrimental to humankind's quest for coexistence.  Consequently, to compare something to Hitler was once important; it evoked a true sense of evil and was reserved for extreme acts comparable to Hitler's monumental accomplishments (in the pejorative sense, of course).  However, the last few years seem to have ushered in a more relaxed threshold for evoking a comparison to Hitler.  Our ethical standard is left to suffer.

 

As for science, let's consider a few words from a scientist who proved himself more intelligent than any of us:

 

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.

 

The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.

 

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.

 

Equations are more important to me, because politics is for the present, but an equation is something for eternity.

 

And to those who believe they now understand - or can even predict -from several decades of observed data the worldwide weather patterns that evolve over hundreds of years:

 

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.

 

- Albert Einstein

 

 

Strategy, not hatred, fuels Iran's Holocaust revisionism

12 December 2006

 

There is little doubt that Iran's bombastic president dislikes Israel.  Perhaps even he hates Jews.  But Iran is not unique among Middle East - or dare I say world - nations that harbor sizable pockets of anti-Semitism.

 

Judgments by media and political figures that Ahmadinejad's Holocaust conference is triggered by mere hatred of Jews or Israel reflect a common underestimation of Iran's strategic competency.  Iran promotes Holocaust revisionism because the Holocaust is the most widely accepted justification for Israel's existence.  Undermining the Holocaust undermines Israel, particularly in the eyes of Europeans and non-Jewish Americans - or so Iran has calculated.  Let us take Manouchehr Mottaki, Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs, at his word.  During his opening remarks at the Holocaust conference he said, "If the official version of the Holocaust is thrown into doubt, then the identity and nature of Israel will be thrown into doubt."

 

As Mottaki is well aware, ending Israel's existence is one of Iran's four primary foreign policy objectives.  Its long-standing support for Sunni and Shia terrorism against Israel is its primary tactic toward this end, but Holocaust revisionism can now be added to the mix.

 

Iran's other objectives, by the way, are negating Iraq as a regional power, spreading "the revolution," and obtaining a nuclear deterrent.  Israel is concerned that Iran will soon add a nuclear deterrent shield to its cadre of tools for ending Israel's existence.  Israel should be supremely concerned that the U.S. will withdraw from Iraq leaving Iran a land-bridge to Syria through which it could transport weapons and fighters.

 

Read more:

The lights are off in Washington

Iran finalizing its control of Iraq

The geopolitical importance of Iran

Reasons for U.S. and EU opposition to Iran's nuclear program

Why Deny the Holocaust?

 

 

ISG report addresses symptoms of Iraqi conflict, not the disease

07 December 2006

 

The insurgency in Iraq is a symptom of the Iranian problem.  Iran fuels the Shiite insurgency in Iraq and Syria supports the Sunni insurgency*.  Since Syria is beholden to Iran, the Sunni-Shiite conflict points back to Iran.  More broadly, since Iran is the primary backer of Hizballah and Hamas, the growing civil unrest in Lebanon and the continued intifada against Israel also point back to Iran.  Peace will not be seen in Iraq, Lebanon, or Israel-Palestine without a cure for Iran.

 

The release yesterday of the Iraq Study Group report reignites the debate about the future of Iraq and U.S. options for ending its occupation while accomplishing its objectives.  The ISG report met expectations in its assessment that "The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating" and that "There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved."  The ISG suggests the following potential dire outcome:

 

If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe.  A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq’s government and a humanitarian catastrophe.  Neighboring countries could intervene.  Sunni-Shia clashes could spread.  Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations.  The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized.

 

As this excerpt illustrates, the ISG report ignores the immediate strategic threat posed by Iran.  NewsAndAnalysis.org assesses that the ISG report reiterates stale judgments about the consequences of a U.S. failure in Iraq and therefore, neglects the most important point: Iran is the key obstacle to Middle East stability and poses an immediate and significant threat to U.S. influence in the region.

 

Contemporary group-think about Iraq and Iran focuses on:

• Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons

• Training the Iraqi military so that it may assume control from U.S. forces

• Pressuring the Iraqi government to more proactively combat the insurgency

• Possibly engaging Iran and Syria to "assist" in stabilizing Iraq because - they say - a civil war in Iraq is contrary to Iran's interests

U.S. concerns about Iran should not center on its nuclear program, which will merely be an enabler for its other hegemonic activities.   The U.S. should focus on Iran's many proxy wars and the strategic geopolitical threat they pose.  Iran's support for Shiite militias in Iraq, Hizballah in Lebanon and elsewhere, and Hamas in the Palestinian territories aims to establish Iran as the hegemonic power in the Middle East.  Iran's goals are nearly met.  NewsAndAnalysis.org offered the following possible dire outcome for Iraq in our report Iran finalizing its control of Iraq:

 

An outcome in Iraq that leaves the U.S. impotent and maintains Iran’s current level of influence would be a disaster for everyone except Iran, Syria, Hizballah, and Hamas.  Iraq could serve as a land bridge between Iran and Syria (e.g., for transporting weaponry) and a conduit for escalating Iran’s proxy war – via Hizballah and Hamas – against Israel.  The Palestinians and Lebanese would suffer from this escalation because they are the pawns.  Israel may decide it has no option but to attack Iran, which could inflame the region and likely instigate unacknowledged or overt U.S. involvement.  Syria, bound by a defense pact with Iran, would likely join the fight.  Iran-backed Shia militias (“death squads”) in Iraq would be freer to increase their slaughter of Sunnis throughout Iraq.  Resultant fear within Iraq’s Kurdish community could spread to Turkey and prompt an always-possible Turkish invasion of northern Iraq.  Saudi Arabia, another state susceptible to extremist takeover, could seek to restore the regional balance of power by acquiring nuclear weapons, which has been a possibility for years.  U.S. credibility as a military and political force in the region would be severely damaged.

 

Transferring responsibility to Iraq's military - as is recommended in the ISG report - will mark a strategic victory for Iran, since Iran has strong influence over powerful elements within the Iraqi military and the political ministries that control the military.  Further, pressuring the Iraqi government will not yield the results the U.S. seeks.  Iran has significant control over the dominant Shiite political parties in Iraq and aims to maintain that control.  Iran is already using this leverage to pressure Iraq to expel U.S. forces: Iran tells Talabani that US-led forces must leave Iraq.  Seeking Iran's "assistance" in stabilizing Iraq will only provide Iran greater opportunity to remove U.S. forces from their neighboring country.  Further, a civil war in Iraq is not contrary to Iran's interests.  Iran seeks a weak Iraq and a distracted U.S.  The civil unrest in Iraq promotes both of these interests.  Iran is satisfied as long as Iraq's civil war does not spread to Iran.

 

The U.S. should not expect to quell the insurgency in Iraq without countering Iran's broader aims.  The insurgency in Iraq is a symptom of the Iranian problem.  Iran fuels the Shiite insurgency in Iraq; Syria supports the Sunni insurgency.  Since Syria is beholden to Iran, the Sunni-Shiite conflict points back to Iran.  Because the ISG report ignores the importance of Iran and its instigating role in the broader Middle East conflict, the report represents a step back from achieving U.S. objectives in Iraq and the Middle East.

 

* Iran's support for Shiite militias in Iraq is well documented and not in doubt.  Our judgment that Syria supports the Sunni insurgency stems from two points: (1) Syria provides safe-haven for former Ba'athist elements that fled Iraq following the U.S. invasion and provide crucial support the Iraqi Sunni insurgency (planning, funding, personnel, etc.), and (2) Syria provides safe-haven for al Qaeda foreign fighters before their entry into Iraq.  Syria is a majority Sunni state yet takes its cues - somewhat counter-intuitively - from Shiite Iran.

 

Related:

Iran finalizing its control of Iraq

The geopolitical importance of Iran

Reasons for U.S. and EU opposition to Iran's nuclear program

 

 

Leak of “stalking” China submarine incident highlights shipbuilding debate

02 December 2006

 

The submarine service, aka the redheaded stepchild of “big Navy," has been pushing “West Pac,” i.e., a potential conflict with China, as its raison d’etra since the end of the Cold War.  The U.S. submarine community has argued that China is rapidly increasing the size and capabilities of its submarine force in preparation for staving off a U.S. response to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.  Chinese submarines would be a crucial element of a blockade of the Taiwan Strait in support of an amphibious attack from the mainland.  Further, their presence would keep U.S. carriers at a distance that would complicate air strikes in support of Taiwan.  Finding and destroying China’s submarines would be a complicated and time-consuming task.  An immediate and decisive response would be needed for the U.S. to prevent a Chinese defeat of Taiwan, so China would benefit from any U.S. delay caused by China’s submarines.

 

This argument by U.S. submarine advocates has only been mildly successful as the U.S. submarine force has significantly diminished in size over the last 15 years.  An attempted return to normalcy vis-à-vis submarine building was seen with the Virginia program, wherein the Navy intends to build one submarine every year or so.  Yet, this program has also been cut back.  Consider these excerpts from a Navy-related publication, The Day:

 

With the Navy's shipbuilding budget for the 2006 fiscal year slashed to a fraction of what would be needed to maintain the U.S. fleet, Electric Boat and shipyard supporters breathed a sigh of relief Monday when they learned the federal spending plan includes one Virginia-class submarine.

 

Submarine advocates, however, were discouraged that the Navy has indefinitely postponed a plan to bump production of the Virginia class from one to two submarines a year.  EB and its partner in the Virginia program, Northrop Grumman Newport News in Virginia, say such an increase is needed for the shipyards to achieve maximum efficiency.

 

American Shipbuilding Association President Cynthia L. Brown said that after a string of disappointing shipbuilding budgets, the 2006 version is the worst yet.  The association has warned that at the rate China is building ships, it will have twice as many submarines as the United States in just five years, and its combined fleet will surpass the size of the U.S. fleet by 2015 at the latest.

 

This recent incident involving a Chinese submarine seems likely to have been leaked by submarine advocates because the leak of an incident that occurred several weeks earlier happened to coincide with the visit of a “big Navy" Admiral to China, who was promoting closer military ties between the U.S. and China and thus, downplaying the West Pac scenario.  This incident has raised the importance of the debate about anti-submarine warfare, which is a mission best performed by U.S. submarines, and may reinvigorate congressional spending for new submarines.

 

Related:

"Big Navy" agenda: US admiral urges closer China ties

Incident: China sub stalked U.S. fleet

Downplay: US admiral says China submarine incident not dangerous

Advocates: Statement of Senator Joe Lieberman on Submarine Production

 

 

The new Internet bubble: betting long-term on teen fads

07 November 2006

 

As any person mildly cognizant of business issues knows, the late 1990s saw an unprecedented rise and fall of "tech" stocks driven by speculative investments in the fad at the time: Internet commerce.  Few companies, such as Amazon.com, survived that era of widespread speculation as - seemingly - any person with an idea and a basic set of programming skills was awarded venture capital.

 

Today's Internet bubble is taking a different, more focused form.  Investors learned from the Internet crash of 2000 that broadly following fads leads to calamity.  Hence, they are being more careful and selective this time around.

 

Technology is witnessing a resurgence.  The NASDAQ composite index, which is tech heavy, is up more than 5% this year.  Google is the standout among tech stocks, with some analysts expecting it to soar past its current level near $475.  Tech companies are leaner than in 2000 and more focused on the bottom line.  Yet upstart Internet sites are back in play.  News Corp paid $580 million for MySpace.com, a social networking website, and Google offered $1.65 billion for YouTube.com, a video sharing website.

 

These purchases reflect the corporate world's efforts to profit from the emerging Internet markets, which focus on networking, file sharing, and the follow-on to e-commerce: e-advertising.  Yet, these sites also risk a sudden drop in relevance as their primarily teen users move on to new interests.

 

Attempts by corporations to make long-term predictions about these quickly and incrementally evolving technologies may be as futile as predicting the stock market or betting on the weather.  Ideas and interests (particularly of youth) are prone to wild fluctuations.  Such volatility may demand smaller investments and hedging strategies rather than $1.65 billion investments.  If the fickle young minds of the YouTube and MySpace generation shift directions, the tech giants that are betting on them may left reeling from a costly error.

 

Related:

Web blows another bubble

In Teens' Web World, MySpace Is So Last Year

 

 

Pro-choice advocates should recast abortion debate

06 October 2006

Pro-choice advocates harm their cause with any campaign that appeals to the notion that having an abortion is morally just. The current abortion debate is framed in the context of extremes: right or wrong. This approach places the pro-choice movement in the untenable position of defending the morality of an act that is - by definition - the termination of a fertilized embryo. Among the many arguable reasons to have an abortion, that it is "right" is likely the least appealing. As such, the framing of the abortion debate in right/wrong extremes was a strategic victory for the pro-life movement.

The pro-choice movement will benefit from recasting the debate. Instead of debating, "Is abortion right or wrong?" debate, "Should abortion be legal?" Some persons may consider it unfortunate, but there is a difference between morality (right/wrong) and legality (legal/illegal). The killing of another person, for example, is an act that is almost universally considered wrong, but is legal under certain circumstances and less punishable under others, e.g., first degree murder vs. involuntary manslaughter. Someone who killed an assailant in self-defense might proclaim, "My killing of that person was wrong, but it was in self-defense and therefore, legal." Abortion can be similarly examined. Is abortion wrong? A pro-choice advocate could answer, "Abortion is morally wrong and regrettable, but it should be legal under certain circumstances." This approach disarms the morality issue and focuses on the nuances that determine legality. In other words, persons who have an abortion need not be morally justified to have made the best decision given the circumstances they faced. It is arguable that an abortion, in some cases, is the best among only bad available options. The extreme end of the pro-life movement is unlikely to budge, but a debate that separates legality from morality may better engage the open-minded middle.

Who will best exploit the comparison of the Pope to Hitler?

15 September 2006

 

If a clash of civilizations is coming, as Kissinger recently remarked, the tensions developing between the Muslim community and Catholics may be its start.  Although Bin Laden calls Bush a crusader, the label originated with the Catholic church.  Its one-billion loyal followers largely come from parts of the world not currently engaged in Bush's battles against militant Islamic fundamentalism.  Perhaps this attack on the Pope will begin to mobilize their interest.

 

Several weeks after minor frustrations arose from the Danish cartoons that mocked Muhammad, prominent anti-Western Islamic fundamentalists, such as the Iranian regime and al Qaeda leadership, began exploiting the controversy for their gain.  Namely, they succeeded in inflaming Muslim sentiment to the - increasingly typical - point of violence.  Related: Clash Over Cartoons, Protesters burn Danish consulate over cartoons, Muslim cartoon fury claims lives in Afghanistan.

 

Iran and al Qaeda will likely exploit the Muslim-Catholic tensions to their violent ends.  We can expect that Zawahiri and Ahmadinejad are penning their diatribes now.  Hamas and Hizballah have already begun to weigh in.  The question remains whether this potential for anti-Muslim sentiment within the Catholic community will be exploited to mobilize South America, Eastern Europe, and Boston in the "war on terror."  Is the CIA's propaganda machine up to the challenge?

 

Related:

Danish cartoon publisher speaks out on Europe's Politics of Victimology

 

 

At what cost is Iran's "worst case" worth preventing?

15 September 2006

 

Charles Krauthammer, a conservative and often hawkish columnist, lays out the worst case scenarios for a U.S. attack on Iran and continued "diplomacy" in The Tehran Calculus.  Other, less catastrophic, outcomes appear less likely as time passes, in part because the "diplomacy" preached by China and Russia amounts to nothing more than talking or providing Iran with incentives without the guarantee of Iranian compliance.  Further, without Russian and Chinese support, sanctions agreed upon by the U.S. and several EU nations will do little to alter Iran's behavior.  The U.S. already sanctions Iran to a great extent, so little will change here.  The Russians and the Chinese will likely continue to provide economic and military support to Iran and provide it international political top cover.  China and Iran are increasingly attached economically and China has no interest in reversing this trend.

 

Iran has little or nothing to gain from suspending its nuclear activities and a great deal to gain from continuing them.  In light of Iran's historic efforts for regional domination, a goal still ingrained in the Iranian mind, and its President's recent declaration of natural international leadership, one cannot rationally discount the possibility that Iran's nuclear ambitions include regional hegemony.  Considering Iran's long history of supporting proxy wars (Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, etc.), its claims and past actions taken to control the Strait of Hormuz (through which more than 20% of the world's oil and 90% of Persian gulf oil is transported), and its vocal support for martyrdom, the risks of appeasing Iran are very high.  Despite the ever-present threat of military strikes from Israel and the U.S., Iran backs Hizballah and Hamas and funded and helped plan attacks against the U.S. in Beirut and at Khobar towers.  One can only imagine what Iran's future aggressions will be when they are protected by a nuclear shield.

 

Examining alternatives to the worst case scenario quickly devolve from pragmatic to the realm of hope, largely because Tehran has yet to respond positively to any diplomatic measures, including lucrative incentive packages, and continues to state clearly that it intends to enrich Uranium and advance its nuclear program.  At this point, Tehran should be taken at its word.  Negotiations are likely stalling tactics as it pursues its "sovereign right" to nuclear power.  Beyond diplomacy, some believe that Iran's population - it's average citizen - has the ability to either temper its regime's behavior or even overthrow the Mullahs if desired.  This idea is "hope" in its purest form.  The fundamentalist regime that fully controls Iran's Potemkin electoral process also fully controls the arms of power.  The Mullahs have further solidified power over the last year as "reformers" - most of whom are not reformers by Western standards - have been replaced by backers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran's elite military and intelligence service with a history of black market business deals and support for the world's premier terrorist organizations.  The IRGC, unlike Iran's traditional military, reports to the Supreme Leader, not the Iranian president, although the current president is former IRGC.  The average Iranian citizen, many of whom seek Western amenities, has no source of power to promote change and lives under one of the most repressive and efficiently controlled state security systems in the world.

 

The likelihood of the "worst case" becoming a reality increases as diplomatic efforts continue between the West and Iran and as these efforts continue to fail or be deferred.  At some point, likely before the 2008 elections, the U.S. president will be faced with the difficult decision to either attack Iran's nuclear program or merely hope that they use the technology peacefully.

 

Related:

Hezbollah, Illegal Immigration, and the Next 9/11

Khobar Towers 10th anniversary (indictment)

U.S. accuses Iran of meddling in Iraq (again)

Reasons for U.S. and EU opposition to Iran's nuclear program

 

 

The growing marginalization of major political parties

15 September 2006

 

Party affiliation is dropping.  Since 2004, the percentage of Americans that do not affiliate themselves with any party - independents - has risen from 26.1% in 2004 to 28.8% in 2005 to 30.4% in 2006 (poll).

 

In 2005, the Pew Research Trusts completed a survey report entitled "Beyond Red vs. Blue" that revealed "major fissures within one or both parties" for several issues: environmentalism, government regulation, isolationism vs. global activism, and immigration.  Read the Pew report and see where you fall here.  An insightful summary of the report can be found here.

 

In the context of current news reporting, Pew's findings are not surprising.  Democrats are highly split on the war in Iraq and other fundamental issues while Republicans are battling over immigration, interrogation laws, fiscal conservatism, and the environment.

 

Given the current political climate and the incoherence of the two major parties, the candidates in the 2006 elections must rely more heavily on the notion that "all politics is local," because no national ideology is available.

 

As the 2008 presidential election approaches, it is helpful to note the fundamental purpose of a political party: to present a governing ideology with which people can align and offer candidates that represent that ideology.  Since neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have a clear ideology at this time, it is premature to begin offering specific candidates.  The following article outlines the dilemma and proposes a unique survey to better understand the ideologies that American's seek from their political parties: Asking "Who in '08?" is premature; First ask "What in '08?"

 

 

NewsAndAnalysis.org Articles

Bush's Iran strategy: Trading Russian support for a missile shield? By pledging to build a missile shield in Europe, a proposition Russia abhors, Bush has manufactured an opportunity to make a fair trade with Russia: the U.S. will halt its missile shield if Russia halts its support for Iran.   Basing executive compensation on stock price creates a dangerous motivation Using stock price as the metric for determining executive compensation creates a motivation for the executive to focus on improving the perception of the company's value and not necessarily on increasing the actual value of the company.  Forcing executives to share in fickle stock market risk invites dangerous scheming.   The lights are off in Washington Very soon, Iran may have finalized its control of Iraq and established a territorial foothold extending from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea via Iraq and Syria.  America’s political and media establishments have almost entirely ignored this geopolitical nightmare. Report: 5,000 Iran agents behind Shi'ite death squads in Iraq Iran's Secret Plan For Mayhem To Win in Baghdad, Strike at Tehran Imperialist Iran Recognizing Iran as a Strategic Threat Iran FM: Iran will help US withdraw from Iraq Blair to urge Middle East states to rein in Iran Saudis report Shi'ite 'state' inside of Iraq Iran has no interest in existence and stability of Iraq Mahdi Army more dangerous than al Qaeda in Iraq   Iran finalizing its control of Iraq Iran - not al Qaeda or the insurgency - is the primary threat to Iraq's democratic viability and is an immediate threat to U.S. influence in the Middle East.  Iran's upper hand means it has no need for compromise.  Options for combating Iran's influence are assessed.   The geopolitical importance of Iran Iran is quickly becoming one of the most geopolitically important players on the international scene.  Its strategic initiatives include obtaining a nuclear deterrent, negating Iraq as a regional power, ending Israel's existence, and spreading the revolution.   Political climate makes 2008 McCain-Lieberman ticket viable The unique cross-party support for McCain and Lieberman, the mid-term power grab by centrist candidates, and the mid-term muscle-flexing by independent voters suggests that a McCain-Lieberman ticket is viable and could not only win the 2008 presidential election, but also manufacture the post-election political coalitions needed to effectively govern.   U.S. policy toward North Korea nearing checkmate The Bush administration's longstanding policy of inaction toward North Korea, while not instantly gratifying, is gradually leading Pyongyang to escalate its provocations - one of which may eventually cross the "red lines" of the other six-party nations, prompting stronger support, and legitimizing a strong U.S. response. "China has begun drawing up plans to attack North Korea"   UN partly to blame for peacekeepers' deaths Not only was the UN “peacekeeping” force unable or unwilling to keep the peace, but also it was unwilling to prevent itself from being used as a shield for Hizballah outposts on the Lebanon-Israel border.  As the photo inside illustrates, Hizballah deliberately constructed its border outposts so that they were adjacent to UN outposts, making an arrant strike an inevitability. It is likely that such a calculation was central to Hizballah's strategy.   Asking "Who in '08?" is premature; First ask "What in '08?" The political ideologies of the two major parties are becoming less clear, so seeking candidates to represent those ideologies is premature.  For some political issues, such as Iraq and immigration, we can go so far as to claim that the parties are fracturing.  Given the lack of clear ideologies for America's political parties, a new type of survey is needed to determine what today's voters want. What does Barak Obama's appeal tell us about this article?   Israel's Exit Strategy Dilemma; Options Proposed Current reporting claims that Israel has scaled back its conditions for a cease-fire.  Rather than requiring the complete disarmament of Hizballah, Prime Minister Olmert will agree to a cease-fire with Hizballah and Lebanon if its two soldiers are released, Hizballah's rocket attacks end, and Hizballah is replaced along Lebanon's southern border by the Lebanese army, thus providing a buffer between Israel and Hizballah.  A premature cease-fire will likely lead to a repeat of this crisis with deadlier consequences.   State-tolerated terrorism brews another storm Israel acknowledges that the government of Lebanon has little control over Hizballah, which operates from its territory.  Yet, Israel demands that the Lebanese government take greater steps toward disarming Hizballah and holds the Lebanese government responsible for Hizballah's actions.  Tolerance by Lebanon for Hizballah, Israel claims, is unacceptable.  Now, India claims that the terrorists who killed more than 200 people on July 11 in Mumbai were given support from within Pakistan.  As with Israel, India is holding Pakistan accountable for terrorists operating from its soil, and the tenuous peace between two nuclear rivals could be affected.   Proxy War: Iran's imperial double-standard If suspicions are correct that Iran is behind Hizballah's unprovoked intrusion into Israel to kidnap two Israeli soldiers, then Iran has firmly planted itself among Imperialists and Cold Warriors alike, who have used the people and lands of other nations to fight their wars.  Iran is also engaged in a proxy war against the U.S. and Iraqi Sunnis in an attempt to establish a Shia-controlled Iraqi government that is favorable to Iran's interests.  By Iran's definition, these are the acts of an imperial power.   Homeland Security Allocates Security Funds Documents: How Homeland Made Its Antiterror Grants Complaints have sprung up over DHS's allocation of funds.  Places like New York City and Washington DC will receive less money next year.  Consider that national interests may be served by providing funds not only to places that are targets (like NYC), but also to places that may have been under funded in the past.  The size of the gap between the threat expected and the security already in place is a metric for determining the funds a location may receive.  NYC and Washington DC have been well funded since 9/11 and have likely narrowed that gap.   DoD report on Iraq invasion and WMD The media largely ignored this insider report.  Learn Saddam's leadership style, his delusions about the U.S. invasion, and his reasons for deception about WMD. Summary article in Foreign Affairs Download complete report

In Depth

Toward the "facts" about pre-war intelligence The bitter debate continues regarding what the U.S. knew about Iraq's WMD programs and connections to terrorism prior to the March 2003 invasion.  Below are three sources that aim to settle that debate. Iraq WMD: What Bush and Congress knew and when Revisionist History: Antiwar myths about Iraq U.S. WMD Commission   9/11 Commission Report The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States   Roadmap for Readers How to identify bias, sensationalism, and poor analysis   Defining terrorism Non-combatants using violence or sabotage for political ends   Prevention is the Mission; Intelligence is a Tool Better intelligence alone is not an end   The MANPAD Threat - a comparative assessment This report presents a comparative assessment of MANPADS potentially available to terrorists intent on attacking U.S. targets and recommends a course of action based on those posing the greatest overall threat.

Get your facts right...

Accuracy in Media (aim.org) "a non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that... sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage."   FactCheck.org "a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 'consumer advocate' for voters that... monitor[s] the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases."   STATS.org "monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted."   PollingReport.com "An independent, nonpartisan resource on trends in American public opinion."