Iran Caught Photoshopping

They launched “several missiles”.  Or did they?  LGF notices some familiar looking exhaust trails.

Of course, Israel sent over some of its many millions of nuclear warheads, not photoshopped at all:

Israel responds

The Fine Art of Diplomacy

With all the talk on what the US should do with Iran, we should revisit what diplomacy means.  According to online sources:

Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states.

Notice the word “negotiation”.  When I hear the word “negotiation”, I typically think of haggling and attempting to get the best possible trade for your time & money.  In essence, to obtain something, you must offer something of value to the other person.  If you want what they have, then you must offer them something, an incentive, in order to acquiesce to your request.  The key is that the offer must be something of comprable value.

A lot of hay has been made recently about negotiations with Iran.  The State Department has been having parlays with Iran on the topic of nuclear disarmament.  It hasn’t been very successful, but it has shown that negotiations with Iran have clearly lacked any incentive from the US that Iran finds appealing enough to end nuclear enrichment.

Obama says he’ll talk directly to the leader of Iran.  I don’t know what this will accomplish other than put the leader of Iran on equal footing with the leader of the United States.  The Baracka-ites love that idea– making the US seem an equal to Iran.  Nobody should be better than anyone else, right?  Unfortunately it flies in the face of negotiation.  Nowhere in that arrangement is the US put in a position of power.

Bush used the power of the US to form a coalition to invade and topple Saddam.  It was a useful push for power.  Iraq could have forestalled invasion had they simply complied with UN resolutions, but they didn’t, and they got invaded.  They didn’t meet the US at the table, and the US had “invasion” as their big bargaining chip.  Iraq offered nothing of value, so the US invaded.  This negotiation tactic has to be employed with Iran as well.

Should be dangle “invasion” in front of Ahmadinejad?  No.  It’s always an option (NEVER limit your options in negotiation).  But instead of invading, why not strip Iran of its most powerful negotiating piece– oil.  Blockade Iran.  Seize any vessels carrying oil out of Iran.  Some may consider this an act of war, but it’s not an invasion, and it pushes Iran to consider ending their nuclear program.  Note that their nukes cannot be used as trade, and in producing them they’ve drawn money out of other areas of the government.  A blockade to the Iranian economy will trigger an economic crisis.

If the US uses a blockade, it will give the US one big bargaining chip– one that’s equal in size to the Iranian nuke-card.  Iran cannot survive with its primary export blocked.  They could attempt to ship it through Pakistan, but they just wouldn’t have the necessary capacity to make as much money as they do now shipping from Pakistan.  They can’t go through Iraq, and Turkey would probably side with NATO and the US.  There are no other ocean-outlets for tankers.  Iran would be stuck with a greatly diminished oil-shipping capacity.

What’s great about the blockade is that it will be a military solution without invasion.  It worked for Kennedy and Cuba, why not Iran?  Iran could strike out at US forces, but we all know how that will end for Iran, and even then, the US wouldn’t need to invade.

Of course, the UN would never agree to it.  They don’t like embargoes, much less an actual military blockade.  Besides, if the US can do this independent of the UN, it gives us that much more freedom.  If we ask beforehand, it will seem a gracious act.

As for ships carrying Iranian oil, seize them and the oil.  Send a clear message that nothing gets out of Iran.  That and Iran must consider dropping its nuke program

Iran and Nukes

The declassified estimate of Iran’s nuclear potential was a relief and disconcerting at the same time.  Iran won’t have a bomb until 2015.  Whew!  Only 7 more years before they can start lobbing nukes.  See, isn’t that much better?

Some people think the Bush administration is lying about Iran so they can prepare an invasion.  Others think it’s diplomatic muscling to get Iran to stop shipping IEDs to Iraq.

There’s one thing that’s for sure.  Iran wants a bomb, and their centrifuges are designed to build a bomb.  We know this because Iran rejected a Russian offer to use pre-enriched fuel rods at their reactors in exchange for dismantling the centrifuges and the weapons program.  Iran refused.  And the only logical reason to refuse is that the centrifuges are going to be used for something else.  And there’s only one other purpose there– makin’ bombs.

Our intelligence gathering hasn’t been the greatest.  We invaded Iraq and discovered a limited WMD program that was not what we expected.  The CIA seems to be wrong and wrong again when it comes to Middle East affairs, so I am wondering just how right they are about this tidbit.

And can we afford to be wrong about their stopped nuke program, one they swear up and down is still running?  And if we’re lax, will the Israelis be so?

Ahmadinejad Is Going to College

He’s been invited to speak at Columbia University.

I want to know who invited him, and why? Surely it can’t be just one guy saying, “Let’s invite the Ayatollah!” (Yes, I know Ahmadinejad is not the Ayatollah, but it’s funnier than “President of Iran!”) And how can it possibly be that a group of Ivory Tower Intellectuals (ITIs) think it’s kosher to invite the guy who’s people are actively trying to blow up US troops and destabilize Iraq? The same guy who’s denied the Holocaust, made blanket statements about wiping Israel off the map– you know who I’m talkin’ about, Willis!

What’s a real shame is the work that comes from Columbia is truly impressive, from a research standpoint. In the field of chemistry, there’s a few Priestly award winners. There’s Fields medal recipients there. Nobel laureates. The place is an intellectual powerhouse. And it’s clear that the ITI’s of Columbia don’t see any problem with inviting an Islamofacist to their home for a little chat.

Well, if you must ask, it’s all about Bush Derangement Syndrome. The enemy of my enemy and all of that nonsense. Because Ahmadinejad regularly thumbs his nose at the US and Bush, the ITIs at Columbia are just wetting themselves with glee that they can get this guy to come speak and “speak truth to power”. (And, if you’re a conservative at Columbia, don’t bother coming. We don’t want your truth speaking to our power– the ITI administration.)

Jeff Goldstein over at Protein Wisdom sums it up in a quote I want on the wall of my office:

And because there is nothing more intolerant than value judgments, your value judgments will be shunned. In the name of tolerance!

His take on the subject is priceless.

And yes, I know the Littlest Mullah is going over to Ground Zero, and yes, it is an offense. But I’ll remind you of something– the US is a free country. We’re willing (although begrudgingly) to allow him access to Ground Zero because we are free. Can you imagine Bush trying to go to Iran without being captured, attacked, bombed? Never.

Does this mean they’re shutting up?

From IRNA:

Iran-US-Spokesman
Supporters of the Zionist regime will receive their response during the world Qods Day’s rallies, government spokesman, Gholam-Hossein Elham, said Wednesday.

The spokesman made the remarks during his weekly press conference while commenting on the current visit to the occupied Palestine of the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Qods Day is held each year on the last Friday of Muslims fasting month of Ramadan after it was nominated by the late Founder of the Islamic Republic, Imam Khomeini, as a day to voice the protest of the Islamic Ummah against the Zionists.

The day falls on October 12 this year.

“The US loses all opportunities to cooperate with regional and other world states by trying to support a regime (the Zionist regime) which is now at its weakest political and social position,” Elham said.

He warned that Washington’s insistence on its wrong policies and arrogant approaches would have no result “but further political disgrace” for itself.

Referring to the approaching World Qods Day, the spokesman stressed, “Supporters of the Zionist regime will definitely receive the final response for their support on that day.”

So no more whining about Israel after October 12th? Awesome.

But seriously, this has me worried, especially after this most recent declaration. Of course, that declaration could be a response to the Iranian “ammunition dropping” in Syria. (Note to Syria: if the ammunition “drops” on a group of “people” smuggling stuff from “North Korea” and it “explodes”, it’s called a “bombing”.) Or it could be Iran gearing up for Global Jihad. If that’s the case, I call dibs on their flaming oil fields after the Israeli air force is done!

What’s going on in Iraq?

People are out there declaring the latest troop surge a failure. Harry Reid is ready to surrender to Al Queda (I mean, if we’ve lost, let’s just go all the way with it, Harry).

But the operation isn’t about killing the insurgent heads in Iraq as much as it is securing the local population and removing the threat of intimidation. Sounds like Counter Insurgency 101 to me.

Go over to the QandO blog and read all about it.

********************************************************

Meanwhile, in neighboring Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is preparing for the coming of the Mahdi by rationing fuel. Maybe he thinks inciting the population to riot will bring the Mahdi’s coming?

Or maybe not. There are no gas stations on fire. Nothing to see here. Move along.

TP: But- But- Gingrich Said…

Think Progress is comparing apples and oranges. Newt was on Fox News Sunday and Chris Wallace (a fair and balanced journalist if ever there was one) started needling Newt about his statements as speaker on Taiwan and his complaints about Albright and her pro-Palestinian stances, all to try and somehow paint Pelosi’s trip to Syria as anything but the shadow diplomacy it was.
TP also had some on Hastert when Hastert was giving congressional support to our ally in the Drug War.

The elephant in the room is Syria. Syria is a sponsor of terrorism. Taiwan and Colombia are our allies as a democratic state opposed by communist China and a nation with the most to gain (and lose) in battling the drug cartels which thrive in Colombia.

Syria is not an ally. Syria’s actions directly oppose US Foreign Policy. The US will not deal with terrorists. That was Reagan’s policy, Bush’s policy, Clinton’s policy, Bush’s policy– but not Pelosi’s policy! She’ll do whatever she wants to do. The fact 5 Repbulicans accompanied her does nothing to detract from the action that direct meetings with someone we’re trying to isolate directly undermines our interests in the region. Anyone involved in that trip is acting as Chamberlain to Assad.

***********************************

Elsewhere on TP Bill Kristol was lambasted for his remarks that the seizing of British soldiers by Iran should have been handled with military strikes.

I find it amusing that a direct act of war such as seizing military assets of another country is deemed an action that cannot be dealt with in a military manner. It’s this kind of thinking that has emboldened Hezbollah and Hamas. In fact, in order to get their soldier, Gilad Shalit, back,
Israel is considering releasing a list of terrorists that Hamas wants. Iran got their diplomat back (who has accused the US of torture, following the Terrorist Playbook by the letter) and we’re playing around with the idea of releasing the Quds forces who were in Iraq to help establish the current insurgency.

Why is it inconceivable to use military force to counter military force used against us? Why not respond in kind, or even better, in spades. Let’s send a message that discourages this kid of terrorism instead of emboldens it.

Sally Buzbee: Aquanet Moment

That’s what Sally Buzbee, AP Middle East Editor, thinks:

Iran’s abrupt release of 15 British sailors and marines is raising hopes the country might compromise on other disputes, most notably its nuclear program.

The move points to the growing influence of pragmatic conservatives, a faction that backs Iran’s Islamic clerical leadership but is still willing to deal with the West — at least to ensure that the country is not harmed in its confrontations with the U.S. and its allies.

British media credited the breakthrough to Ali Larijani, Iran’s top foreign policy negotiator who leads its diplomatic efforts in dealing with a demand by the West for a freeze in Iranian uranium enrichment.

While a religious conservative, Larijani is seen as a pragmatist with close ties to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He and his allies, including former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, are less anti-Western than Iran’s hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Sally, this had nothing to do with a more pragmatic Iran. This was an abduction intended to embarrass the West and get Iranian Quds forces out of US custody and back on Iranian soil. They attempted this back in September.

It’s a long-standing strategy of Hezbollah and Hamas to kidnap Israeli soldiers then ransom them for the release of 10 times the number of “suspected” militants. Now they are doing the same thing, except this time they’re forcing the hand of the UK to lobby Bush to release the Iranian prisoners. And release them he did. (Can’t blame Bush, really. He does owe Tony Blair a one for all the British support for the past 6 years.) The good news is we’ve had those Quds force members for a couple of months now and have probably gleaned some intel from them.

But to not see that this was not a political change by Iran but the end of a very calculated abduction and release is just idiocy, especially from someone in her position. You’d have to be insane to think the leadership of Iran is becoming more pragmatic. Sally, here’s your lighter & hairspray for your very own Aquanet Moment…. WOOOOSH!

British Sailors to Be Released

It’s about time. It was a very Cold-War style of confrontation. Iran (the USSR) illegally seizes some Westerners. There’s posturing, semantics, and propaganda. Then they’re released, and the deal the West quietly made to allow their release slips under the radar.

I’m sure Blair called Bush and asked for the 5 Iranian Quds members in custody to be released in exchange for the sailors. We’ll see that come down the pipe soon enough.

No surprises for me. We can expect to see similar behavior from the Iranians if we seize more of their operatives in Iran. Now that we know they plan on kidnappings for hostage release (a move they’ve taught Hezbollah), we should be more careful near the Iranian border and shoot-first, ask questions later.

All the latest can be found everywhere on the Internet, but I think you’ll find a succinct version posted by AP at HotAir.

Iran Postures

Iran still has the hostages. I haven’t blogged about it because I think we all know what any sane person’s reaction will be: “Iran’s nuts.”

Yes, they’ve captured soldiers. Yes, they claim illegal intrusion. Yes, Blair is shaking with anger.

Of course Iran will do all of this. This is the SOP of the Iranian propaganda machine. Hezbollah did something similar with Israel, and Israel launched an offensives which turned into a PR nightmare. So they’re goading the UK and the US into doing something similar.

I think Tony’s been unfairly treated. You just don’t bomb Tehran, especially in this politically delicate climate. So he’s using the Instrument of Global Moral Authority, the UN Security Council, to get what he wants done.

Unfortunately, the Russians and Chinese won’t authorize military action against Iran because they’ve landed lucrative contracts with the Iranians. So Blair’s putting diplomatic pressure on the Iranians.

Condi’s already feeling the heat from freezing some Iranian assets. (I’m still amazed at how quickly North Korea caved when the US froze their monetary assets.) And after two weeks, we’ll see the hostages released when it’s obvious the UK and US won’t invade.

But I’d authorize any naval vessels, if they come under fire from Iranian ships in international waters, to sink them. (Unless you’re Rosie and you think the Birts and the Indian merchant vessel were in Iranian waters.) No more pussy-footing around. If Iran wants to kidnap people in international waters then parade them around on camera, they’re going to have to face the possibility of instant reprisal.