Tuesday, November 03, 2009

"As long as Iran has friends like Russia and China, Iran can afford to be dismissive."



An interesting synopsis of why the US policy towards Iran is failing. I have bulleted the points made by the author. The entire article follows the outline:

China and Iran
  • Washington has done little to pull the world economy out of the doldrums. That task -- performed by the U.S. in recent recessions -- has fallen willy-nilly to China. History repeatedly shows that such economic clout sooner or later translates into diplomatic power.
  • Chinese oil companies have committed an estimated $120 billion dollars -- so far -- to Iran's energy industry.
  • Iran, with the second largest oil as well as gas reserves in the world, looms large in the strategic plans of Beijing.
  • Chinese oil corporations have already started shipping gasoline to Iran to fill the gap caused by a stoppage of supplies from British and Indian companies anticipating Washington's possible move.
  • Iran's national oil corporation has also invited its Chinese counterparts to participate in a $42.8 billion project to construct seven oil refineries and a 1,000 mile trans-Iran pipeline that will facilitate pumping petroleum to China. The Chinese want to import Iran's petroleum and natural gas through pipelines across Central Asia, thus circumventing sea routes vulnerable to U.S. naval interdiction.
Russia and Iran
  • Russia is far more concerned with the actual threat posed by some of Pakistan's estimated 75 nuclear weapons falling into militant Islamist hands than with the theoretical one from Tehran.
  • A sub-structure of pipelines and economic alliances between hydrocarbon-rich Russia, Iran, and energy-hungry China is now being forged.
  • Russia is making serious money from its dealings with Iran.
The US and Iran
  • Iranians watched the Bush administration invade neighboring Iraq and overthrow its president, Saddam Hussein, on trumped-up charges involving his supposed program to produce weapons of mass destruction.
  • Bush authorized a clandestine CIA program with a budget of $400 million to destabilize the Iranian regime.
  • Insecure regimes seek security in nuclear arms. History shows that joining the nuclear club has, in fact, proven an effective strategy for survival. Israel and North Korea provide striking examples of this.
  • Israel has acquired an arsenal of 80 to 200 nuclear weapons.
  • Once North Korea tested its first atomic bomb in October 2006, the Bush administration softened its stance towards it.
  • North Korea got its name removed from the Bush State Department's list of nations that support international terrorism.
  • Under eight years of George Bush the United States effectively went broke while Chinese and Russian wealth and influence exploded.
_____________________
October 29, 2009

Why Obama’s Iran Policy Will Fail

Dilip Hiro: The Administration Remains Stuck in Bush Mode in a Changed World

CBS
While the tone of the Obama administration is different from that of its predecessor, and some of its foreign policies diverge from those of George W. Bush, at their core both administrations subscribe to the same doctrine: Whatever the White House perceives as a threat -- whether it be Iran, North Korea, or the proliferation of long-range missiles -- must be viewed as such by Moscow and Beijing.

In addition, by the evidence available, Barack Obama has not drawn the right conclusion from his predecessor's failed Iran policy. A paradigm of sticks-and-carrots simply is not going to work in the case of the Islamic Republic. Here, a lesson is readily available, if only the Obama White House were willing to consider Iran's recent history. It is unrealistic to expect that a regime which fought Saddam Hussein's Iraq (then backed by the United States) to a standstill in a bloody eight-year war in the 1980s, unaided by any foreign power, and has for 30 years withstood the consequences of U.S.-imposed economic sanctions will be alarmed by Washington's fresh threats of "crippling sanctions."

Most important, the Obama administration is ignoring the altered international order that has emerged in the wake of the global financial crisis triggered by Wall Street's excesses. While its stimulus package, funded by taxpayers and foreign borrowing, has arrested the decline in the nation's gross domestic product, Washington has done little to pull the world economy out of the doldrums. That task -- performed by the U.S. in recent recessions -- has fallen willy-nilly to China. History repeatedly shows that such economic clout sooner or later translates into diplomatic power.

Backed by more than $2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, the state-owned Chinese oil corporations have been locking up hydrocarbon resources as far away as Brazil. Not surprisingly, Iran, with the second largest oil as well as gas reserves in the world, looms large in the strategic plans of Beijing. The Chinese want to import Iran's petroleum and natural gas through pipelines across Central Asia, thus circumventing sea routes vulnerable to U.S. naval interdiction. As this is an integral part of China's energy security policy, little wonder that Chinese oil companies have committed an estimated $120 billion dollars -- so far -- to Iran's energy industry.

During a recent meeting with Iran's first vice president, Muhammad Reza Rahimi, in Beijing, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao stressed the importance of cooperation between the two countries when it comes to hydrocarbons and trade (at $29 billion a year, and rising), as well as "greater coordination in international affairs." Little wonder, then, that China has already moved to neutralize any sanctions that the United States -- backed by Britain, France and Germany -- might impose on Iran without United Nations authorization.
Foremost among these would be a ban on the export of gasoline to Iran, whose oil refining capacity falls significantly short of domestic demand. Chinese oil corporations have already started shipping gasoline to Iran to fill the gap caused by a stoppage of supplies from British and Indian companies anticipating Washington's possible move. Between June and August 2009, China signed $8 billion worth of contracts with Iran to help expand two existing Iranian oil refineries to produce more gasoline domestically and to help develop the gigantic South Pars natural gas field. Iran's national oil corporation has also invited its Chinese counterparts to participate in a $42.8 billion project to construct seven oil refineries and a 1,000 mile trans-Iran pipeline that will facilitate pumping petroleum to China.

Tehran and Moscow

When it comes to Russia, Tehran and Moscow have a long history of close relations, going back to Tsarist times. During that period and the subsequent Soviet era, the two states shared the inland Caspian Sea. Now, as two of the five littoral states of the Caspian, Iran and Russia still share a common fluvial border.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, relations between the Islamic Republic and Russia warmed. Defying pressures from both the Clinton and Bush administrations, Russia's state-owned nuclear power company continued building a civilian nuclear power plant near the Iranian port city of Bushehr. It is scheduled to begin generating electricity next year.

As for nuclear threats, the Kremlin's perspective varies from Washington's. It is far more concerned with the actual threat posed by some of Pakistan's estimated 75 nuclear weapons falling into militant Islamist hands than with the theoretical one from Tehran. Significantly, it was during his recent trip to Beijing to conclude ambitious hydrocarbon agreements with China that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said, "If we speak about some kind of sanctions [on Iran] now, before we take concrete steps, we will fail to create favorable conditions for negotiations. That is why we consider such talk premature."

The negotiations that Putin mentioned are now ongoing between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (the U.S., Britain, China, France, and Russia) as well as Germany. According to Western sources, the agenda of the talks is initially to center on a "freeze for freeze"agreement. Iran would suspend its nuclear enrichment program in exchange for the U.N. Security Council not strengthening its present nominal economic sanctions. If these reports are accurate, then the chances of a major breakthrough may be slim indeed.

At the heart of this issue lies Iran's potential ability to enrich uranium to a level usable as fuel for a nuclear weapon. This, in turn, is linked to the way Iran's leaders view national security. As a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is, in fact, entitled to enrich uranium. The key point is the degree of enrichment: 5% enriched uranium for use as fuel in an electricity generating plant (called low enriched uranium, LEU); 20% enriched for use as feedstock for producing medical isotopes (categorized as medium enriched uranium, MEU); and 90%-plus for bomb-grade fuel (known as high enriched uranium, HEU).

So far, what Iran has produced at its Natanz nuclear plant is LEU. At the Iran-Six Powers meeting in Geneva on October 1st, Iran agreed in principle to send three-quarters of its present stock of 1,600 kilograms (3,500 pounds) of LEU to Russia to be enriched into MEU and shipped back to its existing Tehran Research Reactor to produce medical isotopes. If this agreement is fleshed out and finalized by all the parties under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency, then the proportion of Iran's LEU with a potential of being turned into HEU would diminish dramatically.

When it comes to the nuclear conundrum, what distinguishes China and Russia from the U.S. is that they have conferred unconditional diplomatic recognition and acceptance on the Islamic Republic of Iran. So their is far more concerned with the actual threat posed by some of Pakistan's estimated 75 nuclear weapons falling into militant Islamist hands than with the theoretical one from Tehran.. Indeed, a sub-structure of pipelines and economic alliances between hydrocarbon-rich Russia, Iran, and energy-hungry China is now being forged. In other words, the foundation is being laid for the emergence of a Russia-Iran-China diplomatic triad in the not-too-distant future, while Washington remains stuck in an old groove of imposing "punishing"sanctions against Tehran for its nuclear program.

Tehran and Washington

There is, of course, a deep and painful legacy of animosity and ill-feeling between the 30-year-old Islamic Republic of Iran and the U.S. Iran was an early victim of Washington's subversive activities when the six-year-old CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Muhammad Mussadiq in 1953. That scar on Iran's body politic has not healed yet. Half a century later, the Iranians watched the Bush administration invade neighboring Iraq and overthrow its president, Saddam Hussein, on trumped-up charges involving his supposed program to produce weapons of mass destruction.

Iran's leaders know that during his second term in office -- as Seymour Hersh revealed in the New Yorker -- Bush authorized a clandestine CIA program with a budget of $400 million to destabilize the Iranian regime. They are also aware that the CIA has focused on stoking disaffection among Sunni ethnic minorities in Shiite-ruled Iran. These include ethnic Arabs in the oil-rich province of Khuzistan adjoining Iraq, and ethnic Baluchis in Sistan-Baluchistan Province abutting the Pakistani province of Baluchistan.

Little wonder that Tehran pointed an accusing finger at the U.S. for the recent assassination of six commanders of its Revolutionary Guard Corps in Sistan-Baluchistan by two suicide bombers belonging to Jundallah (the Army of Allah), an extremist Sunni organization. As yet, there is no sign, overt or covert, that President Obama has canceled or repudiated his predecessor's program to destabilize the Iranian regime.

Insecure regimes seek security in nuclear arms. History shows that joining the nuclear club has, in fact, proven an effective strategy for survival. Israel and North Korea provide striking examples of this.

Unsure of Western military assistance in a conventional war with Arab nations, and of its ability to maintain its traditional armed superiority over its Arab adversaries, Israel's leaders embarked on a nuclear weapons program in the mid-1950s. They succeeded in their project a decade later. Since then Israel has acquired an arsenal of 80 to 200 nuclear weapons.

In the North Korean case, once the country had tested its first atomic bomb in October 2006, the Bush administration softened its stance towards it. In the bargaining that followed, North Korea got its name removed from the State Department's list of nations that support international terrorism. In the on-again-off-again bilateral negotiations that followed, the Pyongyang regime as an official nuclear state has been seeking a guarantee against attack or subversion by the United States.

Without saying so publicly, Iran's leaders want a similar guarantee from the U.S. Conversely, unless Washington ends its clandestine program to destabilize the Iranian state, and caps it with an offer of diplomatic acceptance and normal relations, there is no prospect of Tehran abandoning its right to enrich uranium. On the other hand, the continuation of a policy of destabilization, coupled with ongoing threats of "crippling"sanctions and military strikes (whether by the Pentagon or Israel), can only drive the Iranians toward a nuclear breakout capability.

During George W. Bush's eight-year presidency, the U.S. position in the world underwent a sea change. From the Clinton administration, Bush had inherited a legacy of 92 months of continuous economic prosperity, a budget in surplus, and the transformation of the U.N. Security Council into a handmaiden of the State Department. What he passed on to Barack Obama was the Great Recession in a world where America's popularity had hit rock bottom and its economic strength was visibly ebbing. All this paved the way for the economic and political rise of China, as well as the strengthening of Russia as an energy giant capable of extending its influence in Europe and challenging American dominance in the Middle East.

In this new environment expecting the leaders of Iran, backed by China and Russia, to do the bidding of Washington means placing a bet on the inconceivable.



64 comments:

  1. George Bush effectively did nothing to improve the wealth and prosperity of the US nor the solvency of the US Treasury. Barack Obama does not appear to be much better and is potentially worse.

    Meanwhile the communists and ex-communists seem to be doing just fine.

    How did that happen?

    ReplyDelete
  2. How many spending bills did GWB veto?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think the guy's article is mostly b.s. as far as the U.S. and Iran is concerned. The idea seems to be

    Without saying so publicly, Iran's leaders want a similar guarantee from the U.S. Conversely, unless Washington ends its clandestine program to destabilize the Iranian state, and caps it with an offer of diplomatic acceptance and normal relations, there is no prospect of Tehran abandoning its right to enrich uranium. On the other hand, the continuation of a policy of destabilization, coupled with ongoing threats of "crippling"sanctions and military strikes (whether by the Pentagon or Israel), can only drive the Iranians toward a nuclear breakout capability.

    it's all our fault, if we'd just be nice and reasonable, so would they. I think that's non-sense. They're going to try and get their blessed bomb no matter what anyone does. I think it's foolish to think otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  4. We have an administration that idolizes consensus and multilateralism. Given that, and the economic interests of China and Russia with Iran, and that both China and Russia have a truly scary nuclear power on their border in Pakistan, is it likely Russia and China will support meaningful sanctions against Iran?

    Will the US ignore China and Russia without consideration of consequences?

    Given the current self inflicted economic damage done by the United States to itself, and the further damage that the US will suffer if it strikes Iran, is the US ging to do something that will drive oil prices above $200 a barrel?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I did not know until I heard it today that BHO has canceled the Airborn Laser Program!
    Brilliant move.
    For those that want us dead.

    ReplyDelete
  6. At War: The M-16 Argument Heats Up, Again

    One Marine warrant officer put it this way during training that I observed at Camp Lejeune in 2006:
    Anyone worth shooting once,” he said,
    Is worth shooting twice.”

    ReplyDelete
  7. Since 1945, which power that seriously wanted the bomb has been stopped from getting it? Libya and South Africa?

    The US does not have the diplomatic muscle to stop them and the consequences of an unsuccessful military attempt would be catastrophic. It would make Carter's burned out transport planes and helicopters smoldering in Iranian sands look like military genius.

    Using military power ineffectually produces calamity.

    What use of American air power would inspire confidence that the Iranians would be put out of business? What recent use of Israeli air power would inspire similar confidence?

    Do you think that the recent waves of suicide bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan would go up or go down after a strike against Iran?

    I would bet more than half our casualties are caused by suicide bombings. We cannot control them now.

    How would political support of the American public go with a third war in the Middle East and massive suicide bombings on two fronts and in American shopping malls?

    If Iran wants the bomb, they will get it and we will have to live with it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Did American air power stop AQ retreating from Tora Bora?

    Don't fall for strategies that are based on wishful thinking when you can smell the harsh breath of liklihood.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ford Posts an Unexpected Profit of $997 Million

    Union responds:
    "Oh Yeah?
    Well you don't get the concessions we gave to GM and Chrysler"

    Success must be punished until failure is attained.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nope, we're not going to be attacking Iran, it's not even on the table for discussion now. O will probably end up sending some more troops to Afghanistan, that's the extent of it. He'll probably split the difference, making the worst choice of all, between something that might have some chance of working, and just getting out. Seems like it's up to Israel, and they probably haven't the capacity.

    Cancelled the laser, huh? Not surprising, really. Not much surprises these days.

    Here's hoping all the good (better) guys give them a thrashing today.

    Nothng on the ballot here to vote for or against, really. Day just to watch.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 32. buddy larsen said,

    ...and a goodly portion of them are public employees, Gary –a fact that could come a sticky wicket as more and more plain folk understand that they are directly subsidizing their own robbery –”Here’s my wallet –go buy a gun and come back for my house!”
    ---
    Doug said...

    Steyn says Britain's NIH is the third largest enterprise in the World.
    Think how many times larger Government Medicine of America would be:
    The Juiciest Prize of All:
    Millions of Government Workers replacing, and far exceeding the number presently employed by Insurance Companies.
    Millions of new Public Employee Members!
    Game, Set, and Match.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Welcome to reality, Elephant Bar.

    There is not much the US can do, if its' business partners say "No".

    And the US's business partners and bankers, they are saying "No", when it comes to Iran.

    The Russians, they are nervous about the Wahabbists, not the Shia. Ivan knowing than Islam is not monolithic and whom their "war" is against.
    It is not Iran or Shia Islam.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The National Mediation Board proposed a rule change Monday that would allow airline and railroad workers to unionize, even if a majority of workers don't participate in the election...

    The change would overturn more than 75 years of precedent. It would eliminate a requirement that a majority of workers must participate in a unionization election for it to be valid.

    The proposal is opposed by airlines, which maintain that only Congress has the power to implement such a sweeping change. They're also concerned that unlike non-transportation unions that report to the National Labor Relations Board, airline and railroad workers would have no recourse to decertify a labor union under the new rule.



    Airlines Opposes Mediation Board Proposal


    Who needs Card Check?

    ReplyDelete
  14. What the South Africans learned, painfully, was that nuclear weapons are worthless against internal political opponents.

    That they are worthless in asymmetric conflicts is becoming clear to the Isreali, as well.

    If the Iranians wish to waste their limited assets on pursuing nuclear balance, we should not try to stand in their way.
    We'll fail to stop them, militarily, if we make the attempt. Looking foolish and giving away our "status", for nothing if we do.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It's what you get when you elect the son of a crazy white woman and a Kenyan raised by an Indonesian befriended by Frank Davis and tutored by Wright and cuts his teeth in Chicago politics. Who's surprised?

    ReplyDelete
  16. The thing is, they got this thing about the guy in the well, they're crazy, and they do seem to mean what they say.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Their guy is coming out of a well, the Mormon's is walking down the stairs from heaven, to some town in Missouri.

    The Jewish are still on the lookout for their messiah and Christ is due back to lead the armies of the righteous against evil doers, in the valley at Armageddon.

    All the Abrahamics are nuts, bob,

    ReplyDelete
  18. You forgot "funded by Lester Crown", in your litany of Obama's past mentors and experiences, bob.

    The most important of the fellas, left off the list.

    Why?

    ReplyDelete
  19. No one willing to address the General Dynamic aspect of Obama's cancellation of the F22 program.

    A big bone thrown to Mr Crown.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Becareful for what you wish for....

    A world that Russia, Iran & China dominate?

    What could possibly go wrong?

    Maybe a PAKI nuke explodes over Russia some where?

    Maybe the 3 rivers gorge cracks open during an earthquake?

    Maybe that 30% unemployed in Iran who get none of the wealth being generated by oil riot?

    It's all great looking in the glass ball proclaiming America's death but the "law of unintended consequences" tells me there is more to the story...

    China racing around the globe buying up assets and then acting like the BORG when it gets to those assets will cause the locals in Africa to bitch.. How likely will China be in sending troops to 127 nations to protect it's assets?

    And what happens when Rat's hero, the Iranians, get a NUKE and threatens that small country that Rat is incapable of spelling (Israel)?

    What happens to the billions invested in Iran when it's destroyed....

    Look to interesting times, look for imports from china to flatten if not decline...

    As the Yuan appreciates (it still has a ways to go) the dollar falls, gas prices will surge above 200 dollars a barrels maybe the magic of Russia and China will dim?

    It wasnt long ago when Russia was close to being completely broke...

    Russia, China and Iran deserve the limelight and the crown that they shall inherit...

    With the crown comes the new opportunity for people to knock the crown off...

    What we should be asking is...

    What are the traditional enemies of Russia, China and Iran and HOW or WHY will they upset the apple cart....

    Russia and China BOTH have an Islam problem....

    Iran has many issues and many more enemies...

    The collected national investment in Iran COULD evaporate in a nanosecond given the right situation...

    North Korea is a wild card...

    Natural disasters are a wild card...

    Both china and iran had devastating earthquakes in last 5 years, both much ignored by the west...

    Now that the world order has changed who is going to PAY the continued black mail to North Korea in fuel & food?

    What happens of Egypt falls to the moslem brotherhood and CLOSES the suez?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thing is, they take it seriously, most of the Christians, Jews and Mormons don't, least not the ones that I know. It's an old theme, looking for interventions, when things are bad. Natives Americans went through that too, when things were bad. Things are out of whack, something needs to happen to put things back in whack.

    I'm going back to bed. The heart only has so many beats. If you want to live longer, take a nap, slow the heart beat down, don't waste time arguing about the Abrahamics with Rat, isn't worth it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Just IN:

    North Korea said Tuesday that it has completed reprocessing thousands of spent nuclear fuel rods to extract plutonium to bolster its atomic stockpile, raising the stakes in an apparent effort to get the US into direct negotiations.

    The North's official Korean Central News Agency said in a dispatch that the country finished reprocessing 8,000 spent fuel rods, which experts say yields enough plutonium for at least one atomic bomb.

    The North is believed to already be in possession of enough plutonium to make at least half a dozen nuclear weapons. The latest announcement raises concern that the regime could enlarge its atomic stockpile.

    The announcement came a day after North Korea's Foreign Ministry pressured Washington to accept its demand for direct nuclear talks.

    North Korea restarted its once-mothballed nuclear facilities at its Yongbyon complex in April in anger over a UN rebuke of its rocket launch, which was denounced as a test of its long-range missile technology. It has also kicked out international nuclear monitors before conducting nuclear and missile tests.

    In September, the North said it was in the final stage of reprocessing spent fuel rods. The North claimed at the time that it succeeded in uranium enrichment - which would give the communist regime a second way of building atomic bombs.

    North Korea has been demanding direct talks with the United States to resolve the nuclear standoff.

    Washington has said it is willing to meet one-on-one with the North - if it leads to the resumption of six-party talks involving China, Japan, the two Koreas, Russia and the US.

    But the US has not made any decision on whether to hold direct talks, prompting Pyongyang to threaten to increase its nuclear arsenal unless its demand is met.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Rat loves to throw stones but NEVER says what he stands for....


    I wonder what form of narcissism theology he holds dear?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Marxism...Abrahamic(?)?

    Leninism...Abrahamic?

    Stalinism...Abrahamic?

    Pol Pot...Abrahamic?

    Fascism...Abrahamic?

    NAZIism...Abrahamic?

    Nihon gunkoku shugi...Abrahamic?

    Maoism...Abrahamic?

    The real killer paradigms have what to do with Abraham, O brilliant ones?

    NEVER AGAIN! Get it?! Get over it!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Khamenei rejects talks if outcome fixed by US, marks embassy hostage anniversary
    DEBKAfile Special Report
    November 3, 2009, 4:23 PM (GMT+02:00)


    Iran's all-powerful ayatollah says no
    "We do not want any negotiation the result of which is predetermined by the United States," said Iran's spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the clearest rejection yet of the world powers' UN-brokered proposal for Iran to ship three-quarters of its enriched uranium overseas for reprocessing.
    "Giving the US a veto over the nuclear talks would be like a sheep and wolf relation, which the late imam (Khomeini) has said 'we do not want,"" he said.
    To drive his anti-US message home, the ayatollah spoke Tuesday, Nov. 3, the eve of the 30th anniversary of the US embassy seizure by radical students on Nov. 4, 1979 shortly after Khomeini's Islamic revolution - pouring salt on a sensitive landmark in Iranian-US relations. The 53 Americans were held hostage 444 days before being freed on Jan. 1981, but relations were never restored.
    President Barack Obama and his engagement policy were singled out by Khameini for a smack in the face when he said: "Whenever the U.S offers a smile, it hides a dagger in his back." The level of unrelenting anti-US rhetoric heard from the all-powerful spiritual ruler was exceptional even in Iranian terms.
    DEBKAfile's Iranian sources report that the all-powerful Ayatollah may have left a wafer-thin crack more divisive than constructive open for the negotiations begun in Geneva last month to continue. The United States must have no say in their outcome, he insisted in the hope of isolating the US from its fellow negotiators, Russia, China, the UK, France and Germany.
    US secretary of state Hillary Clinton said Tuesday: "This is a pivotal moment for Iran. Acceptance fully of this proposal (overseas uranium enrichment) would be a good indication that Iran does not wish to be isolated and does wish to cooperate."
    Monday, Nov. 2, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner warned that the six world powers negotiating with Iran would not tolerate delaying tactics. "If the Iranian response is to stall, as it seems to be, we will not accept this," he told journalists in Paris.

    ReplyDelete
  26. UAW won't renegotiate after Ford deal fails

    The rejection doesn't hurt Ford in the short term, but it could signal that Ford workers will no longer accept the same concessions as GM and Chrysler workers, said David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, an Ann Arbor think tank.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Taking out the Norkor's Nuke capability would not have many of the negative consequences of doing same to Iran.
    Too easy.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Doug said...
    Taking out the Norkor's Nuke capability would not have many of the negative consequences of doing same to Iran.
    Too easy.


    North Korea actually has nukes which could be lobbed on south korea... not to mention 100's of thousands of conventional rockets aimed at south korea...

    I kinda think that Iran would be easier to screw with...

    ReplyDelete
  29. Could happen, I guess.
    ...I was thinking about Norkor's inability to supply the troops in war.
    ...but a madman could still order those mortars to be fired.

    ReplyDelete
  30. If Iran wants the bomb, they will get it and we will have to live with it.

    Tue Nov 03, 06:47:00 AM EST

    Well, hey, just cut to the chase and deliver one to their fucking door.

    Spare us all the agonized to-and-fro-ing, hm?

    The only losers will be hotels in Vienna.

    Too extreme?

    Okay. Just tell them, "Look, if you want the bomb, we're not going to attempt to stand in your way. We'll all live with it."

    Then we can focus fully on slinking out of Afghanistan.

    Then we can all gear up for the "Whither America" symposiums.

    ReplyDelete
  31. No, "misdirection" the NorKs do not have a nuclear device that they can "lob" at Seoul.

    That is not an accurate statement.

    They have, perhaps, detonated a small device, but at this stage of their development it has not been weaponized, and especially not to a point that it would be ScudIII capable.

    Your have fears that are beyond your facts.

    As to what I am for, that does not matter, to the whirled.
    Definitely does not matter to the powers that be, that's fer sure.

    I was for busting Syria up, back when we could have, domestically. Taken the key strategic ground from the State Sponsors of Terror.
    But that window of opportunity was nailed shut by Mr Bush and "Five Deferment" Cheney.

    As to the other crazies in the whirled, that were not Abrahamics, I fail to see a connection between any Abrahamic sect and the NAZIs, except that they are all think that they've been chosen by God and as such, are special people.

    ReplyDelete
  32. What the NorKs do have, and have had for decades, chemical weapons that can be delivered by artillery to the Seoul metropolitan area.

    Capable of producing a mass casualty event.

    But that is an old capability, a small nuke would not add much to the casualty mix. Except from a propaganda perspective. A trap that we've fallen into, ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  33. culbate generale--there, that's the term I was tring to think of, when the good guys come out on top, when out of whack is back in whack


    And, every people has thought they were special people, every American Indian tribe thought so, too.


    Anybody need anything in Moscow? Tickets to the game? If not, I'm outta here.

    ReplyDelete
  34. desert rat said...
    No, "misdirection" the NorKs do not have a nuclear device that they can "lob" at Seoul.



    How the hell would you know?

    Who the f*ck are you to KNOW the actual abilities of the NorKs

    WE DO KNOW that the NorKs have solid fuel rockets...

    We DO KNOW they HAVE the FUEL for a bomb

    WE do KNOW they have been working on the war heads for over a decade with AG KHAN's help...

    We do KNOW that they world with the syrians, iranians and others.....

    So oh great one... "Messiah Rat" I trust your actual knowledge of what select really terrible countries and bad guys can and cannot do as much as a stripper whispering to me that she ONLY strips for college tuition.... Actually I trust her more.....

    ReplyDelete
  35. "I fail to see a connection between any Abrahamic sect and the NAZIs, except that they are all think that they've been chosen by God and as such, are special people."

    This is a joke...right?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anon wrote:

    "every American Indian tribe thought so, too."

    While it has been MANY years, I recall that most of the tribes' names and/or descriptors were some variation of "the real/true people/men".Vaguely, I recall having owned a book speaking to this subject.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I do believe that George W. Bush needs to be thoroughly forgotten for the time being. Thoroughly. We were dicked (no pun intended) on his watch but his successor certainly wasn't forced into assuming responsibility for the many messes he went on and on and on about. Nor is it accurate to say that he "inherited" them. It's been remarked plenty of times before, with or without a touch of schadenfreude, that the day Obama was sworn into the office that he freely chose and ambitiously pursued, those messes DID become his. He was and is the active "grabber" rather than passive recipient of the many piles of crap to be somehow contended with.

    And here we are, almost a year in. Does it feel that way? "Locally," yes; in the bigger picture, not at all. And maybe it's only to me that that is as good an indicator as any that we are in virtual stasis. Stuck somewhere back in mid-Spring.

    But the world marches on.

    ReplyDelete
  38. President Barack Obama's top budget official promised Tuesday that the administration will try next year to wrestle the skyrocketing budget deficit under control to avoid higher interest rates and putting the health of the economy in jeopardy.

    ...

    Orszag promised that Obama's budget submission next February will propose solutions to shrink the deficit to sustainable levels. At $650 billion, the 2013 deficit would equal almost 4 percent of the size of the economy, a major improvement from this year's $1.4 trillion deficit, which registered at 10 percent of gross domestic product.

    ...

    "As the economy recovers, we must pull together — as a nation — and make the tough decisions to put our country back on a solid fiscal foundation," Orszag said. "None of this will be easy.


    Tackle Deficit

    ReplyDelete
  39. "I will continue whipping my colleagues to oppose bringing the bill to the floor for a vote until a clean vote against public funding for abortion is allowed," Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Monday in a statement. He said last week that 40 Democrats could vote with him to oppose the legislation -- enough to derail the bill.

    ...

    Conservative groups such as National Right to Life have also blasted allowing the government-insurance option to cover abortions. They say the cost of such abortions would be paid through the government because it would run the plan.

    In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) signed by 183 lawmakers who Stupak helped organize, a group of mainly Republicans wrote: "The U.S. government should not be in the business of promoting abortion as health care. Real health care is about saving and nurturing life, not about taking life."


    Health Bill

    ReplyDelete
  40. Republicans seeking a comeback from recent losses may pick up the governors' seats in Virginia and New Jersey on Tuesday in campaigns that tested the limits of U.S. President Barack Obama's influence.

    ...

    In New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie has been running neck-and-neck with Democratic Governor Jon Corzine, the former Wall Street executive who has pumped $23 million of his own money into his campaign. A poll released on Monday gave the Republican a slight lead.

    ...

    A wild race was taking place in New York's 23rd congressional district for a House seat left vacant when Obama picked Republican John McHugh as his Army secretary.


    Obama's Clout

    ReplyDelete
  41. I recall that most of the tribes' names and/or descriptors were some variation of "the real/true people/men".

    Exactly right, we're the 'real people' the folks over there aren't.

    ReplyDelete
  42. 2164th: If Iran wants the bomb, they will get it and we will have to live with it.

    If I was President, the Teresita Doctrine would be that nations which do not nuke up only get attacked with US conventional weapons. Nations which nuke up get the full meal deal.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I'm hoping our local version of Nancy Pelosi, Nancy Chaney, goes down to humiliating, final defeat tonight.

    Here's the contrast, put succinctly:

    John's after vote party is in the Corner Club.

    Nancy's is in The One World Cafe.

    ReplyDelete
  44. J. Alexander Thier

    Grade on Afghanistan and Pakistan policy: B+

    The Obama administration gets an A for effort on Afghanistan and Pakistan policy. It has taken the issues of stability in these two countries, of paramount importance to U.S. foreign policy, off the back burner where they were boiling over while unwatched.

    ...

    Paul Pillar

    Grade: B+

    The overall attitude and approach might warrant a higher grade, particularly as a stark and refreshing change from what came before. The Obama administration, unlike its predecessor, recognizes that foreign attitudes and relationships matter, that diplomacy is a tool to be used rather than a reward to be bestowed, and that a policy process is a better basis than relying on a leader's gut for making major decisions of war and peace.

    ...

    Dmitri Trenin

    Grade: B+

    As president-elect, Barack Obama moved to reset the entire U.S. foreign policy. A year later, he is still committed to winding down U.S. military involvement in Iraq; defeating al Qaeda while stabilizing Afghanistan, and helping Pakistan stabilize itself; helping a Palestinian state emerge, in peace with Israel; engaging Iran in an effort to prevent it from going nuclear; negotiating away North Korea’s nukes; jointly reducing strategic arsenals with Russia and building a case for ratifying the comprehensive test ban treaty; and addressing climate change.


    Grading Obama

    ReplyDelete
  45. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  46. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  47. A MAN is to be beheaded and crucified after he raped five children and left one of them, a three-year-old boy, to die in the desert.

    ...

    Saudi Arabia has executed 56 people this year under laws that allow the death penalty for rape, murder, apostasy, armed robbery and drug trafficking.

    In extreme cases, the convict is executed and his body crucified in public.


    Sex Attacks

    ReplyDelete
  48. I know that, "misdirection" because I read the public reports of those testing for atmospheric radiation and other "tells" of a subterranean nuclear blast.

    I "know" what anyone that cares to know, can know. Because "misdirecton" the threat is not a nuclear weapon that is "lobbed" like a softball, but one that can be hand delivered.Delivered by UPS or FedEx.

    Worry all you want about EMP attacks over Kansas, the real threat is from weapons that can deliver 1- to 15-kilotons worth of ooomph!

    The entire unit (including warhead) weighed less than 400 pounds and was deployed from 1965 to 1986.

    But then, I forget, you and the dentists are experts at military engineering.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Yes, trish, as I predicted here for quite a while before the election ....

    Nothing much has changed.
    Nothing much will.

    Different margin notes, is about all.

    ReplyDelete
  50. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  51. WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday condemned as biased a U.N. report accusing Israel and Hamas of war crimes in Gaza, and urged President Obama to oppose U.N. endorsement of its findings.

    The House acted despite a written protest to lawmakers by South African jurist Richard Goldstone, who said his report on the December-January war in the Gaza Strip was misrepresented.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I think that it was in The Hitchkiker's Guide To The Galaxy that someone was condemned to an eternity of personally insulting everyone in the universe. In alphabetical order.


    That comes to mind sometimes.










    There are people like that.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Did they cut the funding to the UN, when that happens, it'd be news.

    Their "position" on the UN report is unimportant, otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  54. The exit polls showed that more than 8 in 10 voters are worried about the direction of the country’s economy in the next year, including half who said they were very worried. The economy and unemployment were the most important issues in the election to nearly half of voters, far outstripping health care, taxes or transportation.

    Most voters who said the economy was their top issue backed Mr. McDonnell.

    One of Mr. McDonnell’s first jobs when he takes office will probably be to propose deep cuts in state spending to deal with a $1 billion budget shortfall caused by the recession, declining state revenues and the state’s growing Medicaid payments.


    Republican Wins

    ReplyDelete
  55. desert rat said...
    I know that, "misdirection" because I read the public reports of those testing for atmospheric radiation and other "tells" of a subterranean nuclear blast.
    I "know" what anyone that cares to know, can know. Because "misdirecton" the threat is not a nuclear weapon that is "lobbed" like a softball, but one that can be hand delivered.Delivered by UPS or FedEx.
    Worry all you want about EMP attacks over Kansas, the real threat is from weapons that can deliver 1- to 15-kilotons worth of ooomph!
    The entire unit (including warhead) weighed less than 400 pounds and was deployed from 1965 to 1986.
    But then, I forget, you and the dentists are experts at military engineering.



    THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO RAT....


    North Korea is nothing to worry about...

    North Korea has NOTHING atomic to fear...

    Everything is a-ok except? The Country "Isreal" and that man of Misdirection....

    The Rat has spoken...

    All should bow at the Rat's ass beg humble forgiveness that we should question his knowledge...

    after all HE READS the PUBLIC reports and has DEEMED that NORTH KOREA is no threat when it comes to any NUKE...

    Man I will sleep GOOD tonight KNOWING that RAT is on our side...

    /off sarcasm

    hey rat, do you really believe the crap that your shoveling? or do you just love to downplay the north koreas, iranians & jihadists of the world?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Does anyone have a practical solution to preventing Iran from getting the bomb with a 75% chance of success and at an acceptable price?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Reverend Wright, Obama's pastor for 20 years, admits he appreciates Marx. He's bucking for a Czar position.

    ReplyDelete
  58. 2164th said...
    Does anyone have a practical solution to preventing Iran from getting the bomb with a 75% chance of success and at an acceptable price?


    Blanket Iran with 2 EMP's...

    ReplyDelete

  59. 2164th said...

    Does anyone have a practical solution to preventing Iran from getting the bomb with a 75% chance of success and at an acceptable price?


    The entire US population rides bikes or telecommutes to work, grows victory gardens and gets a wood or corncob stove.

    Then we bomb the everloving shit out of the Iranian nuke sites - unannounced - with a hit on mullah central in a decap strike. Cruise missile swarm attack on all of the Silkworm sites in the straight of Hormuz and Persian Gulf.

    Berlin airlift iPods and iBooks with MiFi hubs to the urban centers of Iran. Tell all the freedom-loving youth to get their freak on. Throw a rave.

    Tell the Russkies and Charlie Chicom that they are welcome to supply peacekeepers to the fledgling Iranian secular republic and put in whatever pipelines they want.

    Cut the bastards in on the deal.

    We're not getting the Iranian oil anyway. All we care about is waxing the mullahs and keeping Allah's A-bomb out of their hands.

    The "system administrator" is getting tired of shedding his blood for global, investor-grade, AAA kumbaya. Let the other assholes get their guys IED'd in the Arc of Assholery.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Arc of Assholery has a nice ring to it.

    It's not going to happen deuce, so I won't even try to figure out what might be 'practical' and 'acceptable'. It would mean going to war with Iran, that's not practical or acceptable to the crowd in power now.

    Drudge has Christie ahead by alot with about half the votes counted.

    ReplyDelete