The Obama Administration Inherits the Iran Threat. 
The New York Times reports for Sunday 11 that the Bush administration nixed an Israeli request in 2007-2008 for bunker buster bombs (left) and permission to fly over Iraq. The US presumption was that the IDF was going to launch an air strike on the nuclear fuel cycle program at the Natanz site (right) Instead, goes the report, the Bush administration approved a covert operation to interrupt the supply chain for the Iranian nuclear fuel cycle and to slow down the development of a nuclear weapon. These details are left out of the article. Identified of special interest is an Iranian nuke weaponeer named Mohsen
Fakrizadeh, who is said to be leading the weapons building team. The IAEA at Vienna is said to have briefed on one of Mihsen Fakrizadeh's projects that was a missile launch that ended with a warhead exploding 650 yards above ground -- "approximately the altitude from which the bomb dropped on Hiroshima exploded."
Why this Report Now?
The NYT is giving enough detail to convince anyone that Tehran has an active nuclear weapons program. This is not news except perhaps to the American electorate (and to candidate Obama?) that wanted to ignore the fact and use the 2007 bizarrely misleading NIE report as a genuine document. What this report does now is make the very good case that the Bush administration chose to ignore and avoid Tehran's nukes these last years. Why? My best signals source calls it "the Faustian deal." The US promised Tehran that we would not attack its nukes, or challenge its long term plans in the region, in exchange for Tehran letting the US leave Iraq with a victory. Or at least leave Iraq with the Iraqis who work for Tehran (P.M. Maliki is the Iranian viceroy in Iraq) in charge. The bargain worked. The Bush administration ends its watch with the Iraqi army taking control of the Green Zone and Iraq security. At the same time, Tehran has an estimated 4000 or more P2 centrifuges working which will soon enough produce material for many bombs.
Waiting for Tehran
What is not part of the bargain is the IDF's campaign against Hamas in Gaza. This is a blow to Tehran's plans to surround and defeat Israel and establish Iran as the regional hegemon.
My best signals source tells me that the Wednesday 7 meeting between Tehran's agent Ali Larijani and Hamas boss Khaled Meshal (right, with M. Ahmadinejad) in Damascus was to discuss Tehran's response to Israel's aggression. Tehran has been caught unprepared for the IDF's offensive. The small rockets into northern Israel were a calling card. In this news cycle, Meshal announced from Damascus that Hamas will never surrender and that the IDF action is a holocaust and that this ends any chance for a settlement. Strong words. Perhaps he is trying to influence Tehran's decision. The IDF says that it wants another 20 days to degrade and destroy Hamas and its rocket capability. The UN resolution did not try to solve the rockets or the smuggling. Cairo wants Hamas destroyed but at the same time is aware that Tehran remains a long term threat. Everyone in the region looks to be waiting for Tehran. Is the Obama administration waiting, too? Mrs. Clinton testifies to the Senate panel on her nomination next week. What will she say about Tehran's nukes, about Tehran's support for Hamas, about the threat of Tehran to Israel? Is the Clinton Doctrine a new Tehran Doctrine? Or is it the Bush Doctrine of no decision?
What is wit this Obessesion with Iran?
I dont understand....
If the Superpowers lead by example they would get rid of the nuclear warheads since they are obsolete anyway. The big powers, Russia and USA have more deadly weapons in the tool box which are far scarier then nukes.
It will WWIII if Israel attacks Iran. A) Russia/China are backing Iran up. B) USA will support Israel no matter whatever attack they do. Congress supported the latest slaughter of Palestians by supporting Israel. Moreove, the US has shipped 30 tons or so of new guns, ammo, helicopters and F16s as of yesterday.
C) Conclusion will be WWIII. D) US needs a war to help it's ailing economic woes. US did it for WWII so why would this be any different.
When will this MADNESS stop!!
It is hypocrisy to the highest degree, North Korea cant have nukes, Iran cant have nukes but Israel can. If there is going to be a balance of power then Iran needs nukes or take Israel's away.
My belief that the Inmates are running the madhouse now.
The Arab street is afraid that "the Jews have gone crazy." I srael finally realized that they won't have Bush covering their back for making stupid concessions, so they decided to take matters into their own hands prior to Obama's ascendancy.
Like Father Wright, and Blagovich, Israel is laying its markers down before he is in. Israel also know is that O is talk only and that all poltics is local. That is why Obama talks about stimulus package and has no comments on Middle East.
At this point, what Obama has been doing is the best advice let Israel take care of business and see how Iran reacts. The rest of Arab world more terrified of Iran than Israel and Iran loses face if it can not protect its proxy Hamas.
Also Israel technology is surpassing Russian and Chinese in this latest round. In addition in the current recession the oil threat does not come into play although the Russians are doing the natural gas gambit versus Western Europe.
One way to keep a conflict from widening is to stay out of it, a point lost on the formerly Great Powers of August 1914 as well as on the soon-to-be ex-superpower called America.
It will prove to be a world-historical tragedy that America chose not to listen to the Paleocons who advocated a policy of careful disengagement from Europe, Korea, and the Middle East.
Now, as this nascent depression makes our imperial war machine too costly to sustain, the necessary changes will prove to be far more painful and chaotic than they need have been.
Sam, unlike Iran who has unambiguously declared intentions to use their nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the map, no such threats or suggestions of that nature have been issued by any responsible government in possession of nuclear warheads.
JB wrote: "The NYT is giving enough detail to convince anyone that Tehran has an active nuclear weapons program. This is not news except perhaps to the American electorate (and to candidate Obama?) that wanted to ignore the fact and use the 2007 bizarrely misleading NIE report as a genuine document. What this report does now is make the very good case that the Bush administration chose to ignore and avoid Tehran's nukes these last years."
Nobody believed that 2007 NIE report except the media and left, i.e., the parties for whom the report was crafted and leaked. It essentially skunked whatever sentiment in the Bush administration had existed for taking out the nuclear installations in Iran. I put the question to anyone who cares to answer it: given the media's, the liberals', and the Democrats' monumental and largely successful efforts to delegitimize the Bush administration from its installation in 2001, with only a brief interruption after 9/11, what administration official in his right mind would risk the upheaval guaranteed by any attempt to do the right thing vis Iran? The spine went completely out of the administration with the publication of that report. And who can say that Bush wouldn't have been impeached by the rabid Democrats if he'd tried it? Anyone?
Sam, put down the Kool-Aid pitcher and step away from the table . . .
Corlyss D - Precisely right! Bush had many enemies - from Tehran to Wall Street to Washington - during his term. All of them operating pretty much with impunity under cover of the MSM. Little wonder that our country now finds itself in a shambles. He consistently refused to defend himself - seeing it as a pointless distraction - foolishly believing that their attacks were so illogical and transparent (which they were) that no one would seriously believe the lies told over and over again, X to the nth number of times. But people did believe it and he never had the support he needed to do what he needed to do. Impeachment or some version of it - like being brought up at The Hague on "crimes against humanity" charges" – is still a distinct possibility. There's nothing the left wants more than the public crucifixion and humiliation of a man - a Republican; a Christian; leader of the free world – who it considers to be a representation of the last bulwark left standing in the way of its quest for world domination.
Bush and co..cant go anywhere without being held for war crimes. UNFORTUNATELY, the US did sign onto the International Justice Tribual, ie, the Hague. Bush believed that the US could solve it's own crimes and not let some foreign country dictate to the US how it should conduct its' affairs.
ric/spencer already your act is getting tired..who pays your salary? CIA/NSA
Obsession? Iran Took over our embassy for 44 days, is building nuclear bomb technology, funds Hammas and Hezbullah, and has eliminated Homosexuals and Christians in their country.
Sam you obviously have a deep seated hatred against Israel, and possibly Jews. I suggest you speak to a therapist to deal with the issues you are having. Such irrational statements are beyond disturbing.
Peter - I don't think Bush failed to defend himself because it was pointless - after all, he held the bully pulpit of the Presidency. There is real power there and it could have been devastating. I think bringing back the Alien and Sedition Acts might be an arguable response! Instead, I think it was simply a case of him living his Christianty. He turned the other cheek. I think he simply declined to sink to the level of his opposition, and in doing so increased their level of derangement. I have deep respect for him for managing to control himself, as self described hot head at a younger age. He gets the big picture.
Novanglus, you are right. The depth of Bush’s thinking goes far deeper than any of his critics can imagine. He flashed some of it during the Dubai ports deal (which was sabotaged by the liberal press whose analytic acumen runs no deeper than an oil slick on water).
Why do we ourselves continue to comment when we know that the American people have torn their history books to shreds in favor of a new international Utopia that can never be? It’s much like spitting into the wind these days.
It’s perhaps interesting to speculate what it will take to get Americans to turn it around and once again regain their footing. Will four years of consistent and abject failure on the domestic and international stage be enough to reset the parameters of reasonable objectives and policy? When will the media’s stranglehold on the American mind be broken? What single event would be of sufficient import, capable of sweeping out the bias against America’s legitimate self-interest for once and for all?
What would it take? An Arab oil embargo, perhaps? Total economic collapse a la Zimbabwe? Implementation of the “fairness doctrine”? The final and total defeat of Israel? Nuclear holocaust in Pakistan and/or India (or both)? A dirty bomb in New York City? Or would any or all these events, even in conjunction, fail to mobilize sanity?
My own guess is that America will soon awaken from her swoon. She is not comatose, after all. You yourself are proof of that. And when she does, you will see a revolution in reverse of the Marxist model.
HRC is reasonable and understands.
Why do we ourselves continue to comment when we know that the American people have torn their history books to shreds in favor of a new international Utopia that can never be? It’s much like spitting into the wind these days.
Because we have no choice! And we have it easy. Think Solzhenitsyn, Sharansky, Walesa, Harry Wu, and Vaclav Havel. My wife left the old CCCP to come to a free country 30 years ago. Her family tells me that America today is very much like what they left a lifetime ago. I teach my daughters the values of the original America. In fact, my younger daughter is in AP US History and is choosing a term paper topic. She will investigate the Panic of 1819 and whether the actions taken by the Federal government were constitutional. All we can do is pass our values on to the next generation and never give up the fight to keep America, American.
Regarding your prediction of a revolution in reverse, I call that The Great American Reaction. We have watched the "progressives" hack away at our Constitution and Liberty for 100 years and more. It's time we push the pendulum back in the other direction. I live in a Blue State - my friends think I am crazy - they prefer to talk about Dancing with the Stars. And some of these are professionals with graduate degrees in law and medicine, too! They think I am paranoid and a little crazy. But when we start talking specifics, they quickly concede that they aren't aware of many of the details. They live in their consumer bubble. That is in the process of popping and contracting around them. In time they will inch forward - they are too smart not to do so.
Hooraa Hooraa!!!
Thank you Novanglus
I missed last night's show so all of this most likely answered.
Iran's nuc's--I saw Bill Gertz interviewed on CSPAN. His stance, well documented, is that the Intel Est 2007 was cooked up by CIA elements and sprung on the president. sure looks that way. Maybe Bush wanted it that way to clean up in Iraq but I just don't see him as that cynical and cunning.
Revolution in Reverse--let's hope it will happen but there seem to be many things against it. The media are incompetent and leftist; journalism schools are run by lefties, taught by lefties and the students entering are lefties.
High schools and grade schools are generally taught by left leaning, union loving, history-distorting, intellectually inferior elements of our society. but they get to program the kids' minds in prep for an even "leftier" university experience.
Lefties put up more attractive, charismatic candidates and pander to the current pop culture. The conservatives are genetically uncharismatic and linguistically challenged (Bush, Bush, McCain, Dole, l...).
Finally, I could keep track on this blog if "sam" and "simply stupid" would sway names.
novanglus - I'm glad you have confidence in your friends. However, much of what we see today is not based on reason. Emotion rules! How quickly emotions can be ginned up by unscrupulous politicians and demagogues! Christ Himself was said to have been given a chance to slip the cross. But the mob sealed His fate by choosing Barabbas - a terrorist - to be released from Roman custody instead.
Look at Venezuela where a populist leader was elected in good faith by a majority. Many of those pie-in-the-sky socialists who elected him with the promise of better days in mind are now scratching their heads. It has now become apparent that their decision at the voting booth was final. Today, there is no turning back. Chavez has used his time well to solidify his power base, insuring his own rule in perpetuity.
All I'm saying is that once freedoms are lost, they're hard to win back. Our own dabbling with socialism in the form of Obama (and others) - out of malaise, boredom, ignorance, fatigue, whatever - may yet come back to bite us. By the time your friends realize they made a mistake, it may well be too late.
You might say, ‘It can’t happen here’, your friends (the nation) are way too smart. But look how much has happened already! We’ve already allowed for so much - in increments. Now all the stuff on the table has grown so heavy. It’s reached critical mass. The table itself is in danger of collapsing. Who will fix it once it’s broke? …not the same guys who broke it, I hope. - Excuse me, I’m dreaming.
NotMe -- Iran had a democracy before a CIA toppled the regime in 1953. Iran was going to nationalize thier oil and the Brits/US didnt like that.
Iran is far from perfect internally with their policy towards homosexuals but then look at what happened in California where the Mormons spend millions on thier vote on gay marriage. There's no gay marriage in the States, I think. The Christian Right/Evangelicals all oppose gays although some of gays themselves.
Iran will not have nukes in five years or more.
Once again Israel can have nukes, but not North Korea nor Iran. Besides Iran having nukes will give the region some balance. Why not Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia or Jordan having nuclear bombs?
I dont hate Israel; I dislike their current maaaacre in Gaza; constantly breaking treaties and waging war on their neighbouring countries. Their constant oppression of the Palestians since 1948 who were ingenious to the region. Check out Occuption 101 on google video and you tell me Israel is not practing these about facts.
Hasn't Iran been telling the world that it has no desire to build A BOMB? They just want some energy for their peeps. Me, myself, and I think they already have one or two, but, their rocket tech program would insure that they would inadvertently nuke themselves if they tried to deliver one across the way... I'm sure I can prove this if I look on the internet long enough.
Oh yeah, let's give one to every country that wants one for a present. We need a good balance in the world so everyone can be on equal footing. We ourselves have too many of those pesky contraptions and we should, in all fairness, spread the wealth around and put them to good use. After all, we are the most generous nation on Earth.
I have a sinking feeling that you are correct about Bush's 'Faustian bargain,' as much as I would like to believe otherwise. I have read the same thing recently in a book by Robert Baer. Although liberals are too partisan to give Bush any credit for a victory in Iraq, many conservatives are clinging to the belief that we have won a great victory, made even bigger by the fact that Bush was fighting a large fifth column at home that favored an American defeat.
In fact, I am afraid that at some level, a deal was struck with the mullahs (not Ahmadinejad, who is a figurehead). When the dust has settled, Iran will be in control of all the Shia-oriented portion of Iraq, greatly increasing her influence. This is a tragic blunder, because Iran was at least as big a threat to world stability than Saddam's regime, and in removing Saddam, we removed the force that tended to keep Iranian ambitions in check.
What if the NYT story is fiction and just the opposite is the fact of the matter?
Instead of a deal with the Devil maybe it's a real devil of a deal (with no fine print) that is designed to prevent Israel from introducing Natanz to the nuclear weapon Teheran says it doesn't want and Israel said it would never use (even if they have one). The need for "BunkerBuster" as being acceptable to make the point rather than some version of a "LittleBoy"... at this juncture anyway.
Still, Hell is the destination. "All 'board!"
Well, Obama's willingness to negotiate with the Iranians is off to a hot start!
Yes, that may be so, but here in India it actually helps us if Iran gets the nuke. Hence I wished in my last article, Mohsen Fakrizadeh and his team "GODSPEED".