Monk

♠
Caroline Glick gives the dire side of the fallout from the National Intelligence Estimate clearing Iran of hard nuclear intentions. I like to think she goes a bit far in arguing that we are abandoning Israel, but I'm afraid that the compromised state of the Bush Administration has left Israel more vulnerable to a very nasty future.

( column )

xXx

♠
The Times has an excellent article on the story of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear development and its reversal. I come away impressed by how easy it should be to fool these intelligence agencies with planted evidence, as they base so much on so little, a stolen lap top here, an intercepted note there. How can one be "highly confident" about anything?

( article and more )



xXx

♠
Andrew Sullivan and Norman Podhoretz are in an Internet tussle.

Can Iran be trusted with nuclear weapons? That is, would Iran be deterred from using nuclear weapons with the promise of retaliation? Podhoretz has the more hawkish position and does not believe that Iran is constrained by worldly-rational prudence.

A couple of statements from Iranian leaders suggest not, and that it's messianic spirit may rule.

Ayatollah Khomeini's statement:

We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.

Former President Rafsanjani's statement:

If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession . . . application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.

Both statements are disputed.

I'm afraid we may get the answer to this question, as the West, including America, lacks the will to squelch Iran's nuclear ambitions, willing to rely on good faith that Iran will act prudently and maintain the peace.


(source: Norman Podhoretz at Commentary)

xXx

♠
I'm going to get down Dowd's treatment of Ahmadinejad's visit to America.

I think she underestimates the threat and volatiliy of the Iranian situation. She notes how Reagan could talk with the Soviet Union with dignity even though they already had an ample nuclear arsenal, but the Soviets were sane materialists who were not religious zealots gung-ho about a happier afterlife, and Reagan did call them the Evil Empire, after all. Moreover, we did not negotiate with the Soviets while our troops were locked in a hot war in which the Soviets were actively helping the enemy.

Nevertheless, her account of the visit has a lot of sharply humorous moments.

Though, I do take her point about the hazards of seeming to be insulting to the Iranian people who naturally hunger for pride. It needs to be clear that we are talking about the Iranian regime rather than the Iranian people, people who also are at odds with their theocratic, terror-sponsoring government.

( Dowd )

xXx

♠
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is visiting the United States. The charismatic leader always strikes a provocative note:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday that the American people are eager for different opinions about the world, and he is looking forward to providing them with ''correct and clear information,'' state media reported.

Hmm, I wonder if this means that he will inform us of what Iran has been up to in furthering hostilities in the Iraq war. I'm not going to hold my breath. At first, the gall of the man only piques my anger, but then you just have to laugh at the absurdity. It would be entirely funny if it were not so tragic.

The man has got balls, though. He is apparently opening himself up to an open Q&A session at Columbia University, which sadly is something that our Dubya won't do. But Hitler also had some weighty balls. Maybe it is a requirement for homicidal leaders.


(Source: Associated Press)

( article added on Sept. 24th )

xXx

♠
In America, public opinion is in no mood for war with Iran. In Washington, Congress is focused on finding the most politically advantageous way to lose in Iraq. In Europe, they've already psychologically accepted the Iranian nuclear umbrella. In the Western world, where talks are not the means to the end but an end in themselves, we find it hard despite the evidence of 30 years to accept that Iran talks the talk and walks the walk. Once it goes nuclear, do you think there will be fewer fatwas on writers, stonings of homosexuals, kidnappings in international waters, forced confessions of American hostages and bankrolling of terror groups worldwide? These latest hostages are part of a decades-old pattern of behavior. The longer it goes without being stopped, the worse it will be.

-- Mark Steyn for The O.C. Register

Ahhh, nothing like the optimistic air of Mark Steyn to refreshen one's hopes for the Middle East!

He has a knack for hitting on the absurdity in the way we tend to treat the likes of an Iran with kid gloves and expect the West to appease the fanatic humor of the Islamists. One does have to wonder where such a game can lead.

( Steyn Bomb )

xXx

♠
Iran’s Islamic penal code, which is a parallel system to its civic code, says murder charges can be dropped if the accused can prove the killing was carried out because the victim was morally corrupt.

-- Nazli Fathi for The New York Times

Here is another little taste of the wonder of Islam. Iran's Supreme Court has exonerated the killings of a state militia under this code. Here is an example of that militia's work:

The last victims, for example, were a young couple engaged to be married who the killers claimed were walking together in public.

But there is a lot of public reaction against this outcome, and the case is not necessarily over yet. Still, it makes you think.

Let's just hope this Islamic code doesn't make it to America, or else we're all pretty much fucking dead!

xXx

Andrew Sullivan posted about women's softball in Iran, noting the progressive tendencies of the people over the regressiveness of the regime.

We're still some years away from hot shorts and tube tops (a Hooters type of uniform), but we are getting there. Oooh, we're so evil!


(Source: Andrew Sullivan)

xXx

♠
I haven't mentioned the latest, greatest twist in our Middle East soap opera: As the Apocalypse Turns. Iran has seized some British sailors. Prime Minister Tony Blair is responding:

"I hope we manage to get them (the Iranian government) to realize they have to release them," Blair said in an interview with GMTV. "If not, then this will move into a different phase."

Asked what that meant, Blair said: "Well, we will just have to see, but what they should understand is that we cannot have a situation where our servicemen and women are seized when actually they are in Iraqi waters under a U.N. mandate, patrolling perfectly rightly and in accordance with that mandate, and then effectively captured and taken to Iran."

I don't know. That's pretty understated. I suppose that's part of what they mean by diplomatic efforts; you don't want to wield the stick very ostentatiously, yet.

I only wonder what Iran is thinking. They don't think we're eager enough to strike at them already? It does seem like they are begging for military action. Like they want to go to the next phase. Let slip the dogs of war and cry havoc! Set free the four horses and let the end begin!

Whatever.


(Source: Associated Press)

xXx

♠
Faced with a steadily nuclearizing Iran, Israel must consider whether it can rely entirely upon a suitable combination of deterrence and active defenses or whether it must also prepare for preemption. The results of this essential consideration will have existential consequences for the Jewish state.

... Israel still faces certain state enemies whose undisguised preparations for attacking the Jewish state are genocidal, and who may not always be rational. Israel has every right to act preemptively when facing an existential assault. Known as "anticipatory self-defense," this general right is affirmed in both codified and customary international law, including the 1996 Advisory Opinion issued by the International Court of Justice.

... Left alone in its nuclear plan, Iran would probably share certain of its atomic munitions with assorted anti-Israeli proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. Ballistic missile defense is indispensable for Israel, but it is also critical for both Jerusalem and Washington that Iran's nuclear infrastructures be destroyed at their source.

-- Louis Rene Beres and Thomas McInerney for The Christian Science Monitor

There is a lot of heat against the of the possibility of the Bush Administration attacking Iran. In light of Iraq, that seems like a no-brainer. But it really is not that easy.

xXx