A Chessmaster Or A Pawn?

Through much of President Obama's time so far as Commander in Chief many of his supporters including yours truly have likened him to a chessmaster with some of his moves, especially in the area of diplomacy. But now Spencer Ackerman highlights an exchange between Joke Line, uhmm Joe Klein and Bibi Netanyahu along with Secretary Clinton about whether or not a settlement freeze by Israel is still a precondition of peace negotiations with the Palestinians, and asks if for once President Obama himself isn't getting played. I highly recommend you read the post because it asks some tough questions and points out some even tougher potential consequences. It appears for all intents and purposes that Bibi is the one moving towards a checkmate.

The Proper Response To John Bolton

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton does the honor.



Some people deserve to be laughed at, loudly, and on a regular basis. John Bolton DEFINITELY belongs in that category.

Mad Bitch

A few weeks back Dana Milbank was complaining about Huffington Post blogger Nico Pitney getting a question at a Presidential press conference and even went so far as to call him a dick. This was of course all in the name of "journalistic integrity".

Today Milbank and his partner in crime Chris Cilliza released a video joking that our current Secretary of State and former first lady, Hillary Clinton, is a "Mad Bitch".



Hardy fuckin har.

Honestly I don't even want them to be fired or suspended. I want Milbank and Cilliza to be the straw that broke the Washington Post's back and brings them to full on financial ruin and collapse. That's what would happen in a just world.

The Strength Of Soft Power

I am not enough of a wonk on foreign policy to opine with any certainty on what North Korea's nuclear tests and short range missle tests from last weak mean for our national security. But I think the story coming out since the tests have overlooked a critical issue, the fruits of a new era of diplomacy ushered in by President Obama are starting to be revealed.

Forbes magazine ran an article entitled "Is Obama Another Jimmy Carter".

The Boston Globe ran a story that included this quote.

The Obama administration "came into office hopeful that an outreached hand would yield better results," said Michael J. Green, former senior Asia adviser to President George W. Bush. "They are now in a much more sober and realist mood. [North Korea's leaders] mean it when they say they want to establish themselves as a nuclear weapons state."

Peter Wehner, NeoCon supreme had this to say in Commentary:

President Obama now has an opportunity to put his vaunted diplomatic skills to work. We have “turned the page” on the past. President Obama can now negotiate to his heart’s content. He can now meet individually and without precondition with Kim Jong Il and other dictators, as he promised he would. He can do all the careful preparation he needs and let North Korea know exactly where America stands. After all, they will no longer have the excuse of American intransigence. And then we will see if the North Korean leader will bend to Obama’s will and personal charm. The early returns aren’t terribly encouraging.

They just don't seem to get it.

Diplomacy is about the people you are negotiating with, no doubt. But its also about the people on the outside looking in and taking note of how you handle different countries in different situations.

When America is seen as a fair dealer we gain the support of all of our traditional allies and pick up the support of strategic alliances , when America is seen as a bully we lose that major advantage. Reaching out to North Korea and Iran is as much about convincing China and Russia to get on board as it is about pushing those actors to change their ways. And in the situation with North Korea it would seem that the early returns show that this reemergence of soft power through diplomacy is starting to work.

Here is an excerpt of an article from "The Hill" which quotes National Security Advisor Jim Jones extensively:

Retired Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, in his first speech on the administration’s approach to national security, said that the “imminent threat” posed by North Korea is that of the proliferation of nuclear technologies to other countries and terrorist organizations.

North Korea still has “a long way” to “weaponize” and work on the delivery of its nuclear missiles before they pose a threat to U.S. security, Jones said in a discussion hosted by the Atlantic Council.

“Nothing that the North Koreans did surprised us,” Jones said. “We knew that they were going to do this, they said so, so no reason not to believe them.”

But the Obama administration is in a tough position with regards to North Korea and in the coming weeks administration officials will try to reach a “global consensus” on how to handle North Korea, Jones indicated. Two key players on the issue, Russia and China, both showed a much harder line against North Korea’s most recent nuclear tests.

One of the crucial conclusions drawn after North Korea’s tests early this week is that there is a growing consensus that states such as North Korea “should not be permitted” to have those nuclear capabilities, Jones said. North Korea’s nuclear ambitions will be on the list of discussion for Obama’s visit to Russia in July, Jones said.

Meanwhile, China’s foreign ministry this week said the country “resolutely opposes” North Korea’s nuclear test. China agreed with the U.S., Japan and Russia to work toward a U.N. resolution censuring North Korea for its nuclear test and missile launches.

As far as I can discern there are no good or easy options when it comes to dealing with North Korea. However having China starting to pressure Kim Jong Il to step back in line is a great step in the right direction. With our military committed to wars in two foreign lands we are stretched pretty thin as it is. What we do not need right now is another major military engagement where we end up bearing the overwhelming majority of the load. By showing the willingness to reach out to North Korea in good faith, the Obama Administration has made that a lot less likely. Now you see not only China but also Russia willing to seriously condemn North Korea for their actions as well as also having a willingness to put some actions behind those words. When the UN Security Council passes a resolution laying down sanctions against North Korea that have real teeth, thats when you will see the true power of President Obama's plan to use diplomacy.

As strong as our military is, we can't handle every problem all on our own. We are going to need some help going forward not only in the war on terror but also to contain rogue nations like North Korea and Iran. That is going to be one of the keys to our having a strong national defense and protecting the homeland. So far I would have to say that the approach the Obama administration is taking is moving us in the right direction.

Break Out The NeoCon Fainting Couch

Cross posted at Attackerman


Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria has an article online making a very strong case that Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon. I realize that there is a split in this country between those who believe Iran is trying to get a nuke and those who think they aren't, but I myself have never heard the argument made against them wanting a bomb, for these particular reasons.

Everything you know about Iran is wrong, or at least more complicated than you think. Take the bomb. The regime wants to be a nuclear power but could well be happy with a peaceful civilian program (which could make the challenge it poses more complex). What's the evidence? Well, over the last five years, senior Iranian officials at every level have repeatedly asserted that they do not intend to build nuclear weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has quoted the regime's founding father, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who asserted that such weapons were "un-Islamic." The country's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa in 2004 describing the use of nuclear weapons as immoral. In a subsequent sermon, he declared that "developing, producing or stockpiling nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam." Last year Khamenei reiterated all these points after meeting with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei. Now, of course, they could all be lying. But it seems odd for a regime that derives its legitimacy from its fidelity to Islam to declare constantly that these weapons are un-Islamic if it intends to develop them. It would be far shrewder to stop reminding people of Khomeini's statements and stop issuing new fatwas against nukes.

Following a civilian nuclear strategy has big benefits. The country would remain within international law, simply asserting its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a position that has much support across the world. That would make comprehensive sanctions against Iran impossible. And if Tehran's aim is to expand its regional influence, it doesn't need a bomb to do so. Simply having a clear "breakout" capacity—the ability to weaponize within a few months—would allow it to operate with much greater latitude and impunity in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Iranians aren't suicidal. In an interview last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the Iranian regime as "a messianic, apocalyptic cult." In fact, Iran has tended to behave in a shrewd, calculating manner, advancing its interests when possible, retreating when necessary. The Iranians allied with the United States and against the Taliban in 2001, assisting in the creation of the Karzai government. They worked against the United States in Iraq, where they feared the creation of a pro-U.S. puppet on their border. Earlier this year, during the Gaza war, Israel warned Hizbullah not to launch rockets against it, and there is much evidence that Iran played a role in reining in their proxies. Iran's ruling elite is obsessed with gathering wealth and maintaining power. The argument made by those—including many Israelis for coercive sanctions against Iran is that many in the regime have been squirreling away money into bank accounts in Dubai and Switzerland for their children and grandchildren. These are not actions associated with people who believe that the world is going to end soon.

One of Netanyahu's advisers said of Iran, "Think Amalek." The Bible says that the Amalekites were dedicated enemies of the Jewish people. In 1 Samuel 15, God says, "Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." Now, were the president of Iran and his advisers to have cited a religious text that gave divine sanction for the annihilation of an entire race, they would be called, well, messianic.

Now the religious angle of this issue might be the most persuasive if you ask me. The Supreme Leader can not get up and preach against the morality of nuclear weapons and call them "un-Islamic" and then wink and nod to his followers and have everything work out fine. One of the consequences of a theistic society is that the citizens follow the leader's spirtual teachings for better or for worse. So how would they even find someone to work on a program that they have been taught will guarantee them a corner of Hell? And as Zakaria points out this isn't something that Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has just said in passing. Its something that has been reiterated several time over the years.

Now we have to be honest with ourselves here. If Zakaria can figure this out then obviously people in the WhiteHouse and in Congress surely can and have as well. I think the question now is how much will President Obama and his administration focus on the facts of the situation rather than continuing to rail against Iran for seeking a weapon that they have good reason to believe they aren't actually trying to develop. I was one of those whom cheered on then Senator Obama's position that he would try diplomacy with Iran and give that a chance. But honestly since he has taken office I have been more than a little disturbed with the rhetoric coming from both President Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, when it comes to Iran. Yes there has been outreach but there has also been all of the hyperbole about Iran's supposed pursuit of nuclear weapons.

I realize much of that has to do with our government's relationship with Israel but the problem is people believe what a President says. That's why they are usually the biggest movers of public opinion. So when President Obama or Secretary Clinton makes allusions to Iran seeking a nuclear weapon, the average citizen hears that and believes its a foregone conclusion. Just look at how reports of Iran test firing a conventional missle got conflated into "nuclear test" recently. People who aren't political junkies or policy wonks don't spend their time googling NIEs and transcripts of Congressional hearings. So what happens when public opinion grows for strikes against Iran even if they have done nothing to warrant them? What happens if Israel launches a strike on Iran preemptively and public opinion is that Iran deserved even if they decidely didn't? This has nothing to do with coming to the aid of Israel should she come under attack. In that event we will no doubt stand by her side. But this has everything to do with the old Bush doctrine of preemptive war on countries that have not attacked us or our allies.


I don't believe our national security interests are being served well by the use of over the top rhetoric. Its about time that we demand to hear of any evidence our government has that Iran is truly seeking a nuclear weapon. And if there is none its about time that that fact was made well known to the public. We have enough enemies in this world that are real threats to our security without trying to invent one. And I think at this point we have all seen what happens when lies get repeated over and over so many times that they become accepted as the truth. We don't need the kind of march to war with Iran that we had on the march to war with Iraq.

Now I am not saying that Zakaria is the the foremost authority on this issue and that just because he said it makes it true. However what I AM saying is that nobody has made a credible argument for why Iranians would be seeking a bomb other than something along the lines of "they are crazy mooslems". And yet our elected leaders are allowed to repeatedly make statements to the effect that they are seeking a weapon without ever having to quantify their position. It would be nice if our mainstream media sources would press our elected leaders to either put up or shut up. Especially after the embarrasment of the 2007 NIE which also said that Iran wasn't seeking a weapon after years and years of politicians telling us they were. Either give the American people a plausible explanation for why they believe Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon or, if they can't, knock off the fear mongering. This is one movie that doesn't need a sequel.

Sometimes You Have To Remind These Fools

Elections have consequences.

Meet Pro Torturist Congressman Dan Burton

Scared of his own shadow, repeating lies about nonexistent plots, lobbying for torture. What else is there left for me to say?

A New Day

There is encouraging news coming from the international conference at "The Hague" concerning Iran and their cooperation with respect to Afghanistan.

U.S. Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke held a "brief and cordial exchange" with the head of the Iranian delegation attending an international conference here at The Hague, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at a press conference.

Clinton said that she did not have any direct contact with the Iranian delegation herself. But she said that at her request, a letter was passed to the Iranian government here today asking for assistance finding or gaining the release of three Americans held or believed missing in Iran, including former FBI officer Robert Levinson and U.S. journalist Roxana Saberi.

"During the course of the conference, representative Holbrooke held a brief and cordial exchange with the head of the Iranian delegation," Clinton said in answer to a question. She said the meeting was not "substantive."

snip

Iran is being represented at the "big tent" Afghanistan conference, which involves diplomats from 72 countries, by Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammed Mehdi Akhundzadeh.

In his speech to the conference, Akhundzadeh, dressed in a dark pin stripe suit and white Nehru collar jacket, outlined Iran's support for contributing to regional efforts to combat drug trafficking and improve security on the Iranian Afghan border.

“Welcoming the proposals for joint cooperation offered by the countries contributing to Afghanistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran is fully prepared to participate in the projects aimed at combating drug trafficking and the plans in line with developing and reconstructing Afghansitan,” the deputy foreign minister said.

He also described the U.S. and NATO miiltary mission in Afghanistan as "ineffective," arguing instead for the Afghanization of that nation's security. “The presence of foreign forces has not improved things in the country and it seems that an increase in the number of foreign forces will prove ineffective too," Akhundzadeh said. "The military expenses need to be redirected to the training of the Afghan police and Afghanization should lead the government building process.”

(British sources at the conference said Akhundzadeh had been a frequent interlocutor of the British over the years. A British newspaper report Monday said that Akhundzadeh had met with U.S. official Patrick Moon in Moscow last week under a Russian initiative to discuss international efforts to improve security in Afghanistan.)


Clinton spoke in a somewhat guarded but cautiously positive way about what she called the "Iranian intervention" at the conference, without naming the Iranian official who spoke and while trying to keep the focus on Afghanistan. "The U.S., Iran, and all the nations here today have a mutual interest in a stable and secure Afghanistan," Clinton said. "The intervention by the Iranian representative set forth clear ideas" on countering drug trafficking and improving border security that Clinton said the United States would listen to.

This comes as newly installed prime minister of Israel Bibi Netanyahu ups the ante with his rhetoric towards Iran. Hopefully we can work to build a better relationship with Iran and using diplomacy succeed in reigning them in without the specter of war.