Sunday, December 30, 2007

US Appeasement & Weakness on Iran -- Again & Again

The point is, it was a US President who used the term "Axis of Evil" with Iran regime amongst one of the Evils that must be confronted. But instead, several years after his speech, we are making deals with Iranian regime, and appeasing them every chance we get. And we have not done anything drastic or really threatening to the existence of that "Evil" regime, either. That is something we have to face.

We have switched between soft and hard (only in rhetoric) policy so many times with Iran since 2001, that it is enough to spin any mullah's head and ultimately make him laugh out loud at our painfully transparent and ineffective policy towards them.

Not only we have not helped the opposition to overthrow the regime, but we have been actively seeking --desperately I might add -- to make deals and compromises with this member of the now hollow term "Axis of Evil".

We have also failed to do much with another "Axis of Evil" member, North Korea; as we have managed to make Iraq into a blazing quagmire for which we now seek and need another "Axis of Evil" member, Iran's help to "fix"? What happened to our high and mighty goals for the region here?

It's high time we faced our own evils, our inconsistent foreign policy, and failure in achieving what we set out to do.

As John Bolton said recently, our foreign policy is in a "free fall". He must be congratulated on his straight forward realism in seeing things as they really are.

But, the fact is that our on-again/ off-again, confused, and extremely inconsistent policy towards Iran has created the perfect breeding grounds for all sorts of theories to emerge.

Another one of these theories is that in US's latest round of "play nice" with Iran recently, Iran's "help" in Iraq (to quell violence that Iran itself started), could have been part of a back-door deal between US and the regime in Tehran. The deal was purportedly exchanged releasing some (10) remaining Iranian "POWs" in Iraq, and more importantly US finally giving the "go ahead" to Russia to deliver the nuclear fuel that Iran had been begging from Russia for over a year.

I think the best way to prevent people from coming up with theories is to fix our own policy towards Iran, which has been -quiet frankly- a disastrous failure.

Bush's 'Axis of Evil' Scorecard & Failure on Iran

December 21, 2007
Bush's 'Axis of Evil' ScorecardBy Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Just four months after 9/11, George Bush identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the "axis of evil" and declared that defanging these rogue regimes was America's most urgent national security task. Bush will be judged on whether he succeeded.
Six years later and with time running out on this administration, the Bush legacy is clear: one for three. Contrary to current public opinion, Bush will have succeeded on Iraq, failed on Iran and fought North Korea to a draw.

Iran. Bush has thrown in the towel on Iran's nuclear program because the intelligence bureaucracy, in a spectacularly successful coup, seized control of the policy with a National Intelligence Estimate that very misleadingly trumpeted the claim that Iran had halted its nuclear program. In fact, Iran only halted the least important component of its nuclear program, namely weaponization.

GA_googleFillSlot("RCP_Article_Middle_300x250");
The hard part is the production of the nuclear fuel. Iran continues enriching uranium with 3,000 centrifuges at work in open defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Once you have the necessary fuel, you can make the bomb in only a few months.

Thus to even speak of the Iranian program as having been stopped while enrichment continues is absurd. And that is true even if you discount recent dissidents' reports that the weaponization program, suspended in 2003, in fact resumed the following year -- contrary to the current NIE estimate, offered with only "moderate confidence," that it has never been restarted.
The administration had to immediately release and accept the NIE's sensational conclusions because the report would have been leaked and the administration then accused of covering up good news to justify going to war, the assumption being that George Bush and Dick Cheney have a Patton-like lust for the smell of battle.

The administration understands that the NIE's distorted message that Iran has given up pursuing nukes has not only taken any military option off the table but jeopardized any further sanctions against Iran. Making the best of the lost cause, Bush will now go through the motions until the end of his term, leaving the Iranian bomb to his successor.

North Korea. We did get Kim Jong Il to disable his plutonium-producing program. The next step is for Pyongyang to disclose all nuclear activities. This means coming clean on past proliferation and on the clandestine uranium enrichment program that North Korea had once admitted but now denies.

Knowing we have no credible threats against North Korea, we now come bearing carrots. President Bush writes a personal letter to Kim Jong Il, in essence entreating him to come clean on his nuclear program so we can proceed to full normalization.

Disabling the plutonium reactor is an achievement and we do gain badly needed intelligence by simply being there on the ground to inspect. There is, however, no hope of North Korea giving up its existing nuclear weapons stockpile, and little assurance that we will find, let alone disable, any clandestine programs. But lacking sticks, we take what we can.

Iraq is a different story. Whatever our subsequent difficulties, our initial success definitively rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his monstrous sons. The Hussein dynasty will not -- as it would have, absent the U.S. invasion -- rebuild, rearm and threaten the world.
The taking down of Saddam led directly to Libya's full nuclear disarmament and, undoubtedly, to Iran's 2003 suspension of weaponization. As for Iraq itself, after three years of disorientation, the U.S. has finally found a winning counterinsurgency strategy.

It took Bush three years to find his general (as it did Lincoln) and turn a losing war into a winnable one. Baghdad and Washington are currently discussing a long-term basing agreement that could give the United States permanent military presence in the region and a close cooperative relationship with the most important country in the Middle East heartland -- a major strategic achievement.

Nonetheless, the pressure on this administration and the next to get out prematurely will remain. There are those for whom our only objective in Iraq is reducing troop levels rather than securing a potentially critical Arab ally in a region of supreme strategic significance.
On North Korea and Iran, with no real options at hand, the Bush administration heads to the finish line doing what Sen. George Aiken once suggested for Vietnam: Declare victory and go home. With no good options available, those decisions are entirely understandable. But if Bush or his successor does an Aiken on Iraq, where success is a real option, history will judge him severely.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Regime Change? What Regime Change?

Suddenly, Iran is helping quell the violence in Iraq, US is talking ‘talks’ and compromise with Iran, Iraq violence subsides, and Iranian regime gets its long awaited nuclear fuel shipment from Russia for its Bushehr nuclear plan (which incidentally, President Bush actually praised since he said it meant that Iran does not have to continue with enrichment anymore.) What?!

What could be the possible reasons for such sudden White House playing happy times with Iran?

The White House says Iran is helping quell violence in Iraq since the Iranians have realized that the violence they instigated was turning the Shiite masses. A weak argument at best, since Tehran regime has never shied away from mass opposition to it. Case in point are the Iranian people themselves who have been by a large majority against the regime, yet the regime keeps on persecuting them un-flinched for almost 29 years.

The most plausible reason for this sudden semi-détente with Tehran is what the Bush administration has not told us about. And that is, a back door, behind-the-scene deal between US and Iran: Help us bring back peace to Iraq in exchange for US backing out a notch on your nuclear program. The Iranians brought up their POWs in Iraq, and their long awaited nuclear fuel shipment from Russia that has been blocked by the US so far. In return, US agreed to deliver, releasing Iranian POWs in Iraq, and signaling to Russia that it was now OK to release the first shipment of nuclear fuel to the Bushehr nuclear power plant.

So are we ready to send Condi Rice to Tehran to sing Kumbaya with the mullahs now? Perhaps not, but we are certainly laying the foundation for having the option to not to oppose it later.

Furthermore, it could seem that US, in a tactical move, is cooperating with Iran in order to quiet down Iraqi violence for political reasons, most likely for the 2008 presidential elections. When Iraq calms down, US troops will be relocated to Afghanistan which will help boost Bush’s poll numbers. The Bush administration is trying to create an atmosphere in which the next Republican presidential nominee (most likely McCain) could actually win.

If true, it could be deduced then, that any serious, drastic action against the Iranian regime –if it ever happens at all—is being postponed until the next Republican president takes hold of the White House in January 2009.

The new Republican president, if he does get elected, may –some time in his term-- initiate military action against Iranian regime for the purpose of regime change, or just surgical strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites.

On the other hand, depending on how many more Iran-appeasing deals Condi Rice makes with the mullahs between now and 2009, and whether the internal political structure in Iran changes in favor of the ‘reformist’ Khatami/Rafsanjani crowd (who have EU ties), we could be setting the stage for shelving the ‘regime change’ idea permanently in favor of ‘peaceful co-existence’ with Iran for the foreseeable future. And naturally, this will be especially true if an Obama, or a Chelsea’s Mama get into the White House in 2009.

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Condi Rice: Wrong Place at the Wrong Time

Thanks to Condi Rice, what is actually happening vis a vis Iran right now is about 180 degrees in opposition with any sort of 'regime change'.

The President has, sadly, given up the helm of our most critical foreign policies, both substantively and directionally, to appeasers and deal-makers like Condi Rice, Robert Gates, et al.

"US Has No Permanent Enemies", asserted our esteemed secretary of state on December 21, 2007. "I continue to say that if Iran will just do the one thing...— and that is suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities — then I'm prepared to meet my counterpart any place and anytime and anywhere and we can talk about anything.", Rice continued. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/12/21/national/w073848S16.DTL

By emphasizing only one condition to start getting chummy with Iran and begin the Libya-nization of the Iranian regime, Rice has been betraying the initial 'axis of evil' directive to overthrow the 'axis of evil' regimes. Instead, she has long been extremely eager to sit down at the table and please the Iranians at any and all cost. Rice and her cohorts have betrayed the original 'axis of evil' policy set by the President, as well as our interest in the region.

But Rice has done more than that: She has also betrayed the secular democracy movement in Iran.

Instead of supporting Iran's secular democratic opposition by any and every means at our disposal, we are actually trying our damnest to make deals with a rotting, wobbly, medieval despotic Theocracy in Tehran. By saying last week that it is time for those who oppose Uranium enrichment in Iran to step forward, Rice is only hoping for the return of the Iranian "reformists" like Khatami and Rafsanjani, the mullahs in the regime who have European ties.

So basically, Rice’s version of ‘regime change’ in Iran is ‘No’ to Ahmadinejad, but a big ‘Yes’ to Khatami and/or Rafsanjani and their Euro-mullah crowd.

Seems some in the Bush administration are so desperate to leave some sort of a legacy behind that they are quiet willing to sacrifice not only our national security, but even democracy itself to achieve their fantasized and hollow legacy.

Questions that should be asked by serious observers here are these: Is this really our policy towards Iran? Is this what we wanted from the start?

Thursday, December 20, 2007

NIE, US Deal with Iran on Iraq, and the "Axis of Leeway"

Well, the NIE is just another sign of the forces of Iran-appeasement taken over the US policy. Condi, Gates, Admiral Fallon, the whole of state department, liberal Dems, all backed by Iran operatives in US media like Trita Parsi, Ray Takyeh, Vali Nasr, etc.

They are all collectively staging a COUP against Bush on Iran. And Bush himself has given in to Condi and state department's Iran-appeasing policy.

What's more, there are rumblings of a DEAL made with the Iranian regime: Iraq peace in return for US leaving the regime alone on nuclear issue, regime change, etc.
It seems to be working. Iraq is quieter now, and US released more Iranian prisoners in Iraq today (See http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-12-19-voa26.cfm).

Also, Bush praised Russian nuclear fuel shipment to Iran last week. Add the Dovish statements coming out of US officials on Iran, and it all points to a White House/State Department/Iran Regime deal.

Meanwhile, not a BEEP from VP Cheney who has been dealt a major blow on Iran.

This is a big blow for secular democracy in Iran and its supporters. So much for Bush’s “Axis of Evil”. It turned out more like the “Axis of Leeway.”

There is no hope for Bush et al. to do anything of value against the Iranian regime for the remainder of their stay.

If we get lucky, we will have a Giuliani/McCain ticket (or vice versa) sweep into power in 2009 who will surely not be coy against the despotic Theocracy in Tehran.

Otherwise, Hussein Obama or Chelsea's Mama, will both throw the baby with the bath water on Iran; that much is for sure.

Saturday, December 15, 2007

NIE Setting Stage for the Return of Euro-Mullahs in Iran

Strengthened by the NIE, the regime 'Reformists', i.e., mullahs with EU ties, are already coiling to pounce back into power by setting Ahmadinejad aside in the upcoming spring 2008 Majlis elections. See: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22928071-5005961,00.html
And, http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071214/wl_nm/iran_reformists_dc

If and when EU's favorite mullahs Khatami and Rafsanjani take back the helm inside the regime, the chances of EU support for 'regime change' will die off completely.

It is all meshing in well with what is going on in the US vis a vis Iran. We seem to have made up our minds to go towards making deals with Ahmadinejad's Euro-mullah replacements in Iran. We seem to be hanging our hopes on that right now.

Our misguided and timid Iran policies have led to a situation where all signs are pointing to an upcoming new lease on life for the Islamist-Fascist regime in Iran in the foreseeable future. Albeit, this time around, it will be "Back to the Future" with smiling "reformist" Euro-mullahs like Khatami back in charge again.

SIDE NOTE: Ahmadinejad has been invited by the Saudis to perform the annual HAJJ ceremonies in Mecca, starting Dec. 18th. Now, there are rumors circulating in the net that he may not make it back to Iran intact from this trip to Mecca...

The stage is set. The handwriting seems to be well on the wall: the Iran 'regime change' effort is pretty much over, and has turned into a sham and a scam.

Too bad for Iranians secular democracy aspirations. Thanks to our wishy-washy Iran policy under Bush and company.

The Grand Bargain Again

I wrote about the Leveretts in my Iran blog at http://mor2com.blogspot.com/. Check under previous posts where I referred to them as what they were: Iran Appeasers.
The fact is that the disgruntled Leveretts have personal axes to grind with the Bush administration, and yes, they also support the "grand bargain" scenario.

But Hey, we do not even have to go that far out (or down so low) to find Iran "grand bargain" advocates: Look here, our own Ms. Condi Rice is one, too. Talk about a contradictory administration pulling the Iran cart in opposite directions. No wonder nothing serious got done on Iran in 7 years under Bush.

The NIE was concocted by the same groups who are Iran "grand bargainers".

NIE was basically a political "coup" against VP Cheney's Iran policy, as well as a loud warning to the President and the VP not to even think of pursuing the military option against the Iran-Appeasers beloved Islamist-Fascist Iranian regime.

We have been nurturing the enemy in our own home.

What's more, the NIE may have succeeded in what it intended to do. It has dealt a major blow to the administration's already wobbly, ineffective, and quiet frankly very timid Iran policy.

What’s worse is what may follow, even Ahmadinejad wants to do a “grand bargain” now: He said in a speech the other day that the NIE was a “good step forward” and if the US takes 2 or 3 similar “positive steps” towards Iran, he is willing to talk deal with US and make good. Bravo State Department. Congradulations to Condi.

What is even more horrifying, and the possible next shoe to drop, could be the return of the European mullahs--a.k.a. "Reformists", like Khatami and Rafsanjani, back at the helm in Iran by spring 2008 (scheduled Majlis members elections.) If that happens, all bets are off on anything near 'regime change' being supported by EU.

In fact, after that, the only thing that could complement the return of the Euro-mullahs in Iran will be a Hussein Obama, or a Chelsea's Mama in the White House in '09 who will promptly strike a “grand bargain’ with the Islamist-Fascists regime in Tehran.

All because our President, who used to have thunder in his voice in the ‘axis of evil’ days, has given up and given in our Iran policy to Iran Appeasers like Condi Rice –(who is frankly utterly unqualified for ANY foreign policy capacity)—and has stooped to no resolve and timidity in dealing with the Iranian regime.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

European Mullahs To Return & Save the Regime?

The real coming danger in Iran is the return of Rafsanjani and/or Khatami to power, come spring 2008 majlis elections, or thereafter.

With such European mullahs--so-called "Reformists"-- back in power, the regime change option will be utterly lost for foreseeable future. But yet, that strategy is exactly what a lot of European political elite tied to Khatami and Rafsanjani; as well as their American co-conspirators inside US government, are working on right now.

If the "Reformists" and their backers are successful in conducting a "coup" and take over, it will be a worse situation than Ahmadinejad, since it will buy the Islamist-Fascists regime in Tehran another 29 years at the helm.

But, of course, you will see a smiling Euro-mullah Khatami or oil Mafia Rafsanjani's "shark" face, instead of the true face of the regime as reflected in Ahmadinejad's right now.

US's on-again/off-again hollow rhetorics, timid, and contradictory policy towards Iran has made the possibility of the Euro-mullahs in the regime coming back to "save the regime" much more likely; thanks to Condi Rice and her appeasement and incompetence on Iran, as well as the President's playing the indifferent observer when it comes to dealing seriously with the Iranian regime.

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Our Failed Iran Non-Policy & the Price to Pay

This is what happens when one gives the Iran policy helm to a novice, foreign policy screw-upper like Condi Rice. Condi has been in search of a legacy for herself, and she tried to appease the Iranian regime as much as she was able to, so she can leave office saying “Hey, I did it.” But the Iranians did not bite (point in case: the disastrous Condi run-in with Tehran officials in the Egypt regional peace conference earlier this year.)

I was a strong proponent of her in the start when she first became Secretary of Sate. But it took me some time, after witnessing her clumsy appeasing ways towards Iran regime, to see her for her true colors vis a vis Iran. She is of the school of Madeline Albright when it comes to Iran, namely, Sleep with the Mullahs and strike a “Grand Bargain” with them at any cost. If it were not for strong admonitions by the Vice President, she would have probably sold the house to the Iranian regime by now. Never mind that this Iran appeasement policy is diagonally opposite what she was told to do by the White House. As the President kept (and is even now) cutting her slack on Iran. Condi is just not cut out to be a Secretary of State of ANY country. She should go back to teaching in college, or head a basketball team, or something. Better yet, she should resign immediately, so perhaps we could have the shadow of a chance of a REAL Iran policy with someone else in charge.

Regarding the NIE, it is now known (today) that the 3 state department employees, who wrote it, based their "findings" that Iran stopped their WMD program in 2003, from non other than intercepted conversations amongst Iranian top military officials!
Of course, the problem with that is that the Iranians are no dummies. They knew that UK intelligence was listening in on their military communications, so they planted this piece of disinformation in their conversations to throw off the west on their real nuclear weapons program. But the “realist” liberals only too gleeful to publish this, irregardless of its flawed sources.

But regardless, the damage is now done.

The current administrations' already timid and abysmal Iran policy, with its total lack of support for Iranian democratic opposition, was already failing big anyway. This NIE just provided the last stake into the heart of its Iran policy. Condi should be fired for this.

No doubt, we will feel the repercussions of their Iran failure for years to come, long after "W" and Condi leave office.

IRAN BLOG at: http://mor2com.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Path Towards the Legitimization of MEK?

Dick Armey, former House Leader, is now calling for the legitimization of the MEK opposition group against the Iranian regime. http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071204/EDITORIAL/112040004

MEK has already gained a lot of momentum and support in Europe towards their goal of being legitimized as a viable opposition to the regime in Tehran.

Their popular support within Iran amongst Iranians seems to be negative to neutral, at best. But given a choice, the Iranians may again grow to like MEK, especially if MEK starts making some real and physical waves (covert operations with selected targets inside Iran and the Theocratic leadership) against the regime. (In other words, why should all the explosions and assassinations be happening only in Iraq against the Iraqi government?)
Could we be getting ready to be going towards what Dick Armey and a lot of European political elite are now concurring on? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. But at least Armey has a direction and logic to his strategy, which is diagonally opposed to the kind of rudderless Iran policy by Condi and cohorts.

No one is promoting MEK as a democratic alternative opposition here. But right or wrong, it is a breath of fresh air to see that some in Washington actually have a direction in their thoughts and strategies towards Iran as opposed to the hodge-podge Condi-diplomacy. It makes one wish that a decisive, focused, and clear-minded official like Dick Armey was actually in charge of our Iran policy. Oh well.

Iran Blog at: http://mor2com.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

President Bush's News Conference after Iran NIE bombshell: Adding Insult to Injury

President Bush said something even more disturbing than his utterly failed Condi-led Iran policy today in his news conference:

He said something to the effect that the time before Ahamdinejad, (meaning at the time when the Europeans' favorite mullah Khatami's was still President), "was a HOPEFUL era (time?)"

Absolutely amazing! I could not believe my ears. It seems that our once clear-minded President (on Iran) has now lost his way more than we thought. He has now emerged on the side of the EU's Iran policy, which is namely, no regime change, but only bringing back Khatami, Rafsanjani, and the rest of the European mullahs back into power, and call it good as the "HOEPFUL" times will be here again afterwards!

Also, in his statement referring to Khatami's reign as president of the regime in Iran as "a HOPEFUL time", President Bush must have forgotten that it was during Khatami's presidency, according to the NIE itself, that Iran's nuclear weapon program started (and then stopped in 2003).

Gives a whole new meaning to the word "HOPEFUL", doesn't it?

What a cop-out! And a major decline in this Presidency, a total free fall of our failed foreign policy towards Iran. Thanks to Condi and the rest of the Iran-softies, and Iran-appeasers surrounding the President.

These defeatist, and desperate statements by us will have major repercussions for our interest in the region, as well as for Iranian secular democracy movement. We will feel the ripple effects of Condi's misguided Iran policy across the Islamist-Fascist world long after "W" is out of the office.

Then, the only question that will be left for a new US president on Iran will be: Shall we serve the "Grand Bargain" on a gold or silver platter to the mullahs?

What a shame and a disaster this administration has made out of our Iran policy.

NIE on Iran: A Left Wing Conspiracy

Once again, the “Intelligence Community” has proven that they are not intelligent at all, and the term is an oxymoronic one. What's more, they have now become pawns for our own Iran appeasers. You know, the usual suspects, the border-line pro-Islamist Democrats (Barrack Hussein Obama with his grand sleeping-with-the-enemy fantasies when he becomes President, Kerry who has a soft spot in his heart for the Euro-mullah Khatami/“Reformists” in Iran; etc. Furthermore, the "Intelligence Community" has now also become pawns for the Administration's own Iran-Appeasers and "Grand Bargain" advocates (the likes of the grand foreign policy screw-upper Condi et al., Robert Gates the sentimentally reluctant Defense Minister, Admiral Fallon who actually promotes doing nothing militarily against Iran, etc.)

In the style of Hillary, it should be said that it is indeed a vast “Intelligence Community/Iran Appeasers” Left Wing conspiracy.

But it is not as important that the NIE report on Iran is a total farce. It is.
What is more important is that it already has damaged further an already weak Iran policy that was on the verge of collapse anyway. And that’s no matter how the President tries to spin it the other way in his news conferences. It shows again this administration’s failed Iran policy. That's what happens when one lets go of the helm to Condi et al.

And so Tehran wins another round again.