Richard Cohen:
"Nations have doctrines. The Soviet Union had the Brezhnev Doctrine and the United States had the Monroe Doctrine, among others. Even little Israel has one. I call it the Maybe the Dog Will Talk Doctrine and it is based on a folk tale of the rabbi who makes a preposterous deal with a tyrant: If the tyrant spares the lives of local Jews, the rabbi will teach the tyrant’s dog to talk. When the rabbi tells his wife what he has done, she calls him a fool. But, he says, “A year is a long time. In a year, the tyrant could die or I could die” — and here he gives her a sly wise rabbi smile — “or maybe the dog will talk.”
All sorts of people — defense intellectuals, military officers and even the president of the United States — either have not heard of the Maybe the Dog Will Talk Doctrine or do not recognize its importance. (It was cited to me by an Israeli official.) Both Barack Obama and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have characterized any Israeli attempt to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program as a short-term affair. An Israeli raid “wouldn’t achieve their long-term objectives,” Dempsey said on CNN — and he is surely right.
But Israel also has a short-term objective — and that is to play for time. Israel notes that its 1981 bombing of a nuclear reactor in Iraq set back Saddam Hussein’s program — and did not result in some sort of massive retaliation. Something similar happened with the 2007 bombing of a Syrian installation. Neither operation was conceived as a long-term solution, but both accomplished short-term goals. In a year or two, much could change in the Middle East. The region’s in turmoil. Dogs are talking all over the place.....
.......Sanctions may cause Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program, if indeed that’s where it is now heading. But critics of Israel’s approach have to understand that Iran’s program looks different from Tel Aviv than it does from Washington. In the long run, an Israeli attack on Iran will accomplish nothing. In the short run, it could accomplish quite a lot...." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
Showing posts with label Iranian nuclear program. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iranian nuclear program. Show all posts
March 15, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Intellectual Conservative "Book Review: James Rickards 'Currency Wars' "
Ralph Benko:
"In virtually every airport bookstore in America right now you will find a little sleeper of a book in the business section which is as riveting as a thriller and as hard to put down. James Rickards Currency Wars made this reader remember what Secretary of the Navy John Lehman so vividly told Tom Clancy after reading his multi-million-seller Hunt for Red October: “Who the hell cleared this?”
At the end of the Cold, and Middle East, wars, we have entered a perilous new world. Currency Wars is as relevant as tomorrow’s headlines. No sleepy tome on monetary policy, Currency Wars is a white-knuckle exercise. It begins three years ago with a war game carried out by the Pentagon in a secret facility just outside of Washington DC.
“The Applied Physics Laboratory, located on four hundred acres of former farmland about halfway between Baltimore and Washington, D.C., is one of the crown jewels of America’s system of top secret, high-tech applied physics and weapons research facilities..." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"In virtually every airport bookstore in America right now you will find a little sleeper of a book in the business section which is as riveting as a thriller and as hard to put down. James Rickards Currency Wars made this reader remember what Secretary of the Navy John Lehman so vividly told Tom Clancy after reading his multi-million-seller Hunt for Red October: “Who the hell cleared this?”
At the end of the Cold, and Middle East, wars, we have entered a perilous new world. Currency Wars is as relevant as tomorrow’s headlines. No sleepy tome on monetary policy, Currency Wars is a white-knuckle exercise. It begins three years ago with a war game carried out by the Pentagon in a secret facility just outside of Washington DC.
“The Applied Physics Laboratory, located on four hundred acres of former farmland about halfway between Baltimore and Washington, D.C., is one of the crown jewels of America’s system of top secret, high-tech applied physics and weapons research facilities..." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
SandBoxBlogs: Aspen Times "Melanie Sturm - What if Iran means it?"
Melanie Sturm:
"With options dwindling to curtail Iran and time running out, there are no good remedies. Nevertheless, we have overwhelming bipartisan agreement in both the House and the Senate that it is a vital U.S. interest to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear-capable — a threshold far closer than possession of such weapons and one Iran has nearly crossed.
Unfortunately, differing timetables are a source of tension between America and Israel. Because the U.S. Air Force is comparatively better equipped — with an advanced fleet of aircraft and bunker busting bombs — its capability and moment of decision is beyond Israel's. However, given election-year politics and the likelihood a military strike would cause further escalation in already high oil prices, it's hard for Israel to trust that America will act in time.
While the prospect of $10-per-gallon gasoline might be a price too high for American politicians to stomach, it's a tradeoff Israel will accept to prevent a second Holocaust. “As Prime Minister of Israel,” Benjamin Netanyahu said last week, “I will never let my people live in the shadow of annihilation.”
So when Israel strikes Iran's nuclear facilities, as it struck Iraq's in 1981 and Syria's in 2007, Think Again before complaining of temporarily high gas prices. Not only will Israel have saved America and the world from the specter of a nuclear-capable Iran, it will give the Iranian people their best chance since 2009 of overthrowing their tyrannical oppressors...." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"With options dwindling to curtail Iran and time running out, there are no good remedies. Nevertheless, we have overwhelming bipartisan agreement in both the House and the Senate that it is a vital U.S. interest to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear-capable — a threshold far closer than possession of such weapons and one Iran has nearly crossed.
Unfortunately, differing timetables are a source of tension between America and Israel. Because the U.S. Air Force is comparatively better equipped — with an advanced fleet of aircraft and bunker busting bombs — its capability and moment of decision is beyond Israel's. However, given election-year politics and the likelihood a military strike would cause further escalation in already high oil prices, it's hard for Israel to trust that America will act in time.
While the prospect of $10-per-gallon gasoline might be a price too high for American politicians to stomach, it's a tradeoff Israel will accept to prevent a second Holocaust. “As Prime Minister of Israel,” Benjamin Netanyahu said last week, “I will never let my people live in the shadow of annihilation.”
So when Israel strikes Iran's nuclear facilities, as it struck Iraq's in 1981 and Syria's in 2007, Think Again before complaining of temporarily high gas prices. Not only will Israel have saved America and the world from the specter of a nuclear-capable Iran, it will give the Iranian people their best chance since 2009 of overthrowing their tyrannical oppressors...." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
February 22, 2012
SandBox Comments: Commentary Magazine "Contentions "NYTimes: War, Again?" "
Seth Mandel:
"The New York Times has a “news analysis”–usually code for “front-page, signed editorial”–lamenting the American public’s appetite for countering the Iranian regime’s attempts to build nuclear weapons. The conceit of the story is that this is a rerun of the war in Iraq, where the supposed existence of a nuclear weapons program spurred the West to form a coalition to depose Saddam Hussein.
“Echoes of the period leading up to the Iraq war in 2003 are unmistakable,” Scott Shane tells us, “igniting a familiar debate over whether journalists are overstating Iran’s progress toward a bomb.” And who is debating the veracity of reporters’ accounts? “Both the ombudsman of the Washington Post and the public editor of the New York Times in his online blog have scolded their newspapers since December for overstating the current evidence against Iran in particular headlines and stories.” So it is the New York Times accusing the New York Times of beating the drums of war. Let’s take a look at some of the other parallels.
“The intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, which was one of the Bush administration’s main rationales for the invasion, proved to be devastatingly wrong,” Shane writes. Not just wrong, but devastatingly wrong. I’ll leave it to others to check the Times style guide for the spectrum of wrongness, but “devastatingly wrong” must be among the wrongest you can be, in the Times’s opinion....
....In any event, the intelligence on Iran isn’t all that murky. What the Times is saying is that even when we can all agree on what the intelligence shows, we can’t trust it, because of Iraq. The Times is actually building a case here against military action even if Iran is about to achieve nuclear capability. As the article notes, however, that’s a view shared by some academics from Harvard and Columbia, but opposed by a majority of Americans...."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"The New York Times has a “news analysis”–usually code for “front-page, signed editorial”–lamenting the American public’s appetite for countering the Iranian regime’s attempts to build nuclear weapons. The conceit of the story is that this is a rerun of the war in Iraq, where the supposed existence of a nuclear weapons program spurred the West to form a coalition to depose Saddam Hussein.
“Echoes of the period leading up to the Iraq war in 2003 are unmistakable,” Scott Shane tells us, “igniting a familiar debate over whether journalists are overstating Iran’s progress toward a bomb.” And who is debating the veracity of reporters’ accounts? “Both the ombudsman of the Washington Post and the public editor of the New York Times in his online blog have scolded their newspapers since December for overstating the current evidence against Iran in particular headlines and stories.” So it is the New York Times accusing the New York Times of beating the drums of war. Let’s take a look at some of the other parallels.
“The intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, which was one of the Bush administration’s main rationales for the invasion, proved to be devastatingly wrong,” Shane writes. Not just wrong, but devastatingly wrong. I’ll leave it to others to check the Times style guide for the spectrum of wrongness, but “devastatingly wrong” must be among the wrongest you can be, in the Times’s opinion....
....In any event, the intelligence on Iran isn’t all that murky. What the Times is saying is that even when we can all agree on what the intelligence shows, we can’t trust it, because of Iraq. The Times is actually building a case here against military action even if Iran is about to achieve nuclear capability. As the article notes, however, that’s a view shared by some academics from Harvard and Columbia, but opposed by a majority of Americans...."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
February 21, 2012
SandBox Comments: Glenwood Springs Post Independent "Iran will go nuclear without U.S. strength and leadership"
James Kellogg:
"...Short of a military strike, what can the U.S. do about Iran? We could start by assisting the rebels in Syria. With Bashar Assad in power, that nation is a key regional ally for Iran. That's why Iranian forces are aiding Syrian troops in their campaign against rebel forces. Overthrowing Assad and promoting a new opposition government would intensify Iran's isolation and demonstrate that America will not tolerate rogue regimes.
But it's not likely the Obama administration will act decisively with regard to Syria. Earlier this month, Russia and China opposed U.N. initiatives to remove Assad. Aiding the rebels would probably provoke a response from Russia.
It's like a standoff before a gunfight in the old American West. Russia and China are waiting to see if the United States will draw. So far, our government is backing down from a confrontation.
Out of answers, the Obama administration is assembling a group of “like-minded” nations led by Arab governments to coordinate a strategy against Assad. We're not even leading this wishy-washy endeavor. Iran's nuclear ambitions will remain unchecked.
This is a time in history when American strength is imperative. Military might, and the willingness to use it if necessary, is the only deterrent to rogue nations and their allies. The ancient Romans used to say, “If you want peace, prepare for war.” Once Iran goes nuclear, there will likely be no peace..."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"...Short of a military strike, what can the U.S. do about Iran? We could start by assisting the rebels in Syria. With Bashar Assad in power, that nation is a key regional ally for Iran. That's why Iranian forces are aiding Syrian troops in their campaign against rebel forces. Overthrowing Assad and promoting a new opposition government would intensify Iran's isolation and demonstrate that America will not tolerate rogue regimes.
But it's not likely the Obama administration will act decisively with regard to Syria. Earlier this month, Russia and China opposed U.N. initiatives to remove Assad. Aiding the rebels would probably provoke a response from Russia.
It's like a standoff before a gunfight in the old American West. Russia and China are waiting to see if the United States will draw. So far, our government is backing down from a confrontation.
Out of answers, the Obama administration is assembling a group of “like-minded” nations led by Arab governments to coordinate a strategy against Assad. We're not even leading this wishy-washy endeavor. Iran's nuclear ambitions will remain unchecked.
This is a time in history when American strength is imperative. Military might, and the willingness to use it if necessary, is the only deterrent to rogue nations and their allies. The ancient Romans used to say, “If you want peace, prepare for war.” Once Iran goes nuclear, there will likely be no peace..."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
February 15, 2012
SandBox Comments: Denver Post "Defiant Iran claims major steps in nuclear fuel"
After nearly four years of the most inept foreign policy we have ever had sitting in the Oval Office, what does Western Colorado GOP do at caucus?
Stand for the one candidate that cannot possibly beat Barack Obama in November 2012. Mitt Romney.
Is Rick Santorum, who the rest of Colorado went for, any better? He at least stands a chance to win because he is a conservative, not a progressive like Romney. Is he right for the job? Absolutely not. Santorum has little to no foreign policy experience and has yet to define his foreign policy platform into anything that makes sense. It's weak, at best.
Where does the Colorado Tea Party go at caucus time? To Ron Paul. Who has the most dangerous to Americans foreign policy in history.
Remember Dan Maes. That shining example of what a divided Colorado is capable of. The worst showing in a poltical contest in our history.
Mitt Romney is Colorado's Dan Maes. Ron Paul is Colorado's Tom Tancredo.
(Read up on Iran? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
Stand for the one candidate that cannot possibly beat Barack Obama in November 2012. Mitt Romney.
Is Rick Santorum, who the rest of Colorado went for, any better? He at least stands a chance to win because he is a conservative, not a progressive like Romney. Is he right for the job? Absolutely not. Santorum has little to no foreign policy experience and has yet to define his foreign policy platform into anything that makes sense. It's weak, at best.
Where does the Colorado Tea Party go at caucus time? To Ron Paul. Who has the most dangerous to Americans foreign policy in history.
Remember Dan Maes. That shining example of what a divided Colorado is capable of. The worst showing in a poltical contest in our history.
Mitt Romney is Colorado's Dan Maes. Ron Paul is Colorado's Tom Tancredo.
(Read up on Iran? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
November 7, 2011
SandBox Comments: Newsmax "Condi Rice: 'I Have No Doubt Israel Will Defend Itself Against Iran'"
What a wonderful interview with former Secretary of State Condi Rice. Be sure to watch all the way through.
“...I don’t have any doubt that the Israelis will defend themselves if the Iranians look as if they really are about to cross that nuclear threshold.
“There is some not bad news — it looks as if there are problems in the Iranian nuclear program. But pressure on the Iranian regime is an absolute must, because the unintended consequences of an attack by Israel on Iran, the very fact that we talk about something like that, shows how extremely crucial this issue is....”
(Newsmax)
(Read more? Click title. Comment to start discussion)
“...I don’t have any doubt that the Israelis will defend themselves if the Iranians look as if they really are about to cross that nuclear threshold.
“There is some not bad news — it looks as if there are problems in the Iranian nuclear program. But pressure on the Iranian regime is an absolute must, because the unintended consequences of an attack by Israel on Iran, the very fact that we talk about something like that, shows how extremely crucial this issue is....”
(Newsmax)
(Read more? Click title. Comment to start discussion)
"Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
November 2, 2011
SandBox Comments: Circle of Blue "Plumbing WikiLeaks: Saudi Arabia Fears Iranian Nuclear Meltdown and Potential Terrorism to Desalination "
"Classified cables show that Saudi and U.S. officials believe water supplies along the Persian Gulf are at high-risk for terrorist attacks and possible contamination from nearby nuclear plants. This is the first of a new series that will analyze the water-related U.S. embassy cables published by WikiLeaks."
(Circle of Blue, Brett Walton)
(Learn more about this incredible report? Click title. Comment to start discussion)
(Circle of Blue, Brett Walton)
(Learn more about this incredible report? Click title. Comment to start discussion)
"Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)