Week in Review Part III: Foreign Affairs

: There is no doubt that sanctions have been effective in applying increasing pressure on the Iranian economy, and on this the Obama administration, Congress (especially) and Western Europe are to be commended. I agree with commentator Michael Gerson who writes on Friday in the Washington Post:

“Sanctions have not caused Iran to back down, but the approach is not yet exhausted. It is worth another twist of the tourniquet to reduce significant exceptions and exemptions.”

And that’s the thing. The White House has a June deadline for compliance with U.S. sanctions in terms of Iran’s customers and oil, but the United States can’t wait forever, nor can Israel, and it was highly disturbing that Secretary of State Clinton said a letter Iran sent to the P5+1 – the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, Britain, France, U.S., Russia and China, plus Germany – was what she had been looking for as Iran expressed that it wants talks on the nuclear issue.

But this letter becomes an issue the same week the International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors were blocked by Iran’s leadership on their second visit from seeing the military site at Parchin, as well as interviewing selected key scientists, plus there are reports of expanded nuclear activity at the Fordow underground site; while Iran announced new military exercises, suspended oil sales to Britain and France (admittedly negligible…last year France bought only 3% of its oil from Iran and the UK imported even less), and reiterated threats to close the Strait, as well as saying Iran itself could launch a preemptive strike.

As noted above, the IAEA then issued a revised report on Iran’s activities, while earlier, both the U.S. and Britain urged Israel not to attack.

U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, told CNN that while Israel has the ability to strike Iran, it would delay them “probably for a couple of years. But some of the targets are probably beyond their reach.” Dempsey expressed concern an Israeli attack would spark reprisals against U.S. targets in the Gulf or Afghanistan. “That’s the question with which we all wrestle. And the reason that we think that it’s not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran.” Dempsey also described Iran as a “rational actor.”

British Foreign Minister William Hague said: “I don’t think a wise thing at this moment is for Israel to launch a military attack on Iran. I think Israel like everyone else in the world should be giving a real chance to the approach we have adopted on very serious economic sanctions and economic pressure and the readiness to negotiate with Iran.”

I find it highly distressing that top Obama administration and defense officials continue to voice their opinions on this topic in public rather than privately. At the same time, Israeli officials should keep their mouths shut as well.

The preferred type of dialogue was actually exhibited by Dan Shapiro, U.S. Ambassador to Israel, on Thursday in Jerusalem.

“It is clear that Iran is under significant economic strain…(but the sanctions have) not yet achieved the goal, which is to get that nuclear program stopped…For both us and for Israel this is the preferred strategy, to achieve that all-important objective.

“It’s also true, as the president has said…we are coordinating with our Israeli partners…that other options, all other options, are on the table to achieve that goal…[and] the necessary planning has been done to ensure that those options are actually available if at any time they become necessary,” he stated.

There. That’s more like it. A balanced statement that keeps Iran guessing.

Editorial / Wall Street Journal

“In a single sound bite, General Dempsey managed to tell the Iranians they can breathe easier because Israel’s main ally is opposed to an attack on Iran, such attack isn’t likely to work in any case, and the U.S. fears Iran’s retaliation. It’s as if General Dempsey wanted to ratify Iran’s rhetoric that the regime is a fearsome global military threat.

“If the U.S. really wanted its diplomacy to work in lieu of force, it would say and do whatever it can to increase Iran’s fear of an attack….America’s top military officer in particular should say that if Iran escalates in response to an Israeli attack, the U.S. would have no choice but to intervene on behalf of its ally….
“The general is not a free-lancer, so his message was almost certainly guided by the White House. His remarks only make strategic sense if President Obama’s real priority is to contain Israel first – especially before the November election….

“Like most of Mr. Obama’s Iran policy, General Dempsey’s comments will have the effect of making war more likely, not less. They will increase Israel’s anxiety about U.S. support, especially if Mr. Obama is re-elected and he has a freer political hand. This may drive Israel’s leadership to strike sooner. Weakness invites war, and General Dempsey has helped the administration send a message of weakness to Israel and Iran.”

Ray Takeyh / Washington Post

“From Tehran’s perspective, protracted diplomacy has the advantage of potentially dividing the international community, shielding Iran’s facilities from military retribution and easing economic sanctions. Iran may have to be patient in its quest to get the bomb; it may have to offer confidence-building measures and placate its allies in Beijing and Moscow. Any concessions it makes will probably be reversible and symbolic so as not to derail the overall trajectory of the nuclear program.

“Can Tehran be pressed into conceding to a viable arms-control treaty? On the surface, it is hard to see how Iran’s leaders could easily reconsider their national interest. The international community is confronting an Islamic republic in which moderate voices have been excised from power.

“However, it may still be possible to disarm Iran without using force. The key figure remains (Supreme Leader Ayatollah) Khamenei, who maintains the authority and stature to impose a decision on his reluctant disciples. A coercive strategy that exploits not just Khamenei’s economic distress but his political vulnerabilities may cause him to reach beyond his narrow circle, broaden his coalition and inject a measure of pragmatism into his state’s deliberations. As with most ideologies, Iran’s supreme leader worries more about political dissent than economic privation. Such a strategy requires not additional sanctions but considerable imagination.”

Michael Gerson / Washington Post

“The president probably recognizes that the containment of an Iran with nuclear weapons is not a serious option, because advocates for this approach are confused about the meaning of containment. Obama could make clear that an Iranian nuclear attack on America would result in the death of every Iranian citizen. The promise of lopsided assured destruction would deter a direct attack on the American homeland. But it would not contain Iran. Behind a uranium shield, the Iranian regime would increase its support for terrorism and destabilize its neighbors, who would find a nuclear deterrent of their own highly desirable. And how would promises of future containment be minimally credible? If Western nations did nothing before Iran had nuclear weapons, why would they become more determined after Iran possesses them? Permitting a nuclear Iran would mean that everyone, including America and Israel, was bluffing – except Iran.

“Obama can’t do nothing. But it is not advisable or practical to launch a multi-week conventional air and naval campaign. So the national security adviser, the defense secretary and intelligence officials need to provide their boss something better than this dismal, binary choice….

“A limited strike, it is true, would only buy time. The message, however, would be clear enough: If you keep at it, we’ll do it again. In the meantime, an oppressive and increasingly desperate regime may lose its grip on power….

“Obama wants to be known for winding down long wars. But he has shown no hesitance when it comes to shorter, Israel-style operations. He is a special ops hawk, a drone militarist.

“Iran should take this fact seriously as it calculates its next move.”

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is meeting with President Obama on March 5. As the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin notes:

“(Netanyahu) will probably take the time to remind Obama that the president has staked his own credibility and that of the United States on preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The only way to ensure that that pledge is fulfilled, and for the United States to remain relevant in the region, is to make clear that the United States is prepared – with the cooperation of states in the Mideast (surely the Saudis must be as nervous as Netanyahu about Obama’s fecklessness) – to take military action if needed to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman rebuffed both Washington and Moscow, the latter’s Deputy Foreign Minister Gennyadi Gatilov having expressed an Israeli strike “would be a catastrophe not only for the region but for the whole system of international relations.”

“The security of the citizens of Israel, the future of the state of Israel, this is the responsibility of the Israeli government,” Lieberman said. “We will make the best decision for the Israeli interest.”

Last fall I said President Obama would strike Iran in the spring. If Israel goes first, we will be there with them. I am not changing that stance. Those saying the president is just hoping to hold off until after the election simply don’t get it. If Iran were to test a nuclear weapon in, say, September, Obama goes down in flames at the polls. He cannot risk that. Acting preemptively, even if it just sets back Iran’s program a few years, gives him time to deal with the blowback.

As for Israel, I also continue to maintain that anyone thinking Benjamin Netanyahu will let Iran continue with their nuclear program just doesn’t understand the man. He is the last Israeli that would let Iran get the bomb under his watch.

Of course all the preceding is moot should Iran make a stupid mistake first, like a suicide mission on one of the U.S. naval vessels in the Gulf. As noted last week, maybe this is what Ayatollah Khamenei wants, thinking any conflict would be limited while he rallies his people and lets his proxies battle it out with Israel.
More next time as we continue to game it out, including my take on Saturday’s New York Times story on how U.S. intelligence agencies don’t think Iran is working on a warhead; as if the CIA has any clue.

Syria: The situation here deteriorated further as the international community, led by the Red Cross, in actuality, sought a ceasefire in Homs where President Bashar Assad continued to butcher the people there, including two Western journalists this week. The Red Cross is seeking a two-hour daily truce for the delivery of emergency medical and food supplies, this as Sec. of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday that Syrian opposition forces will become “increasingly capable” of carrying out offensive operations.

“They will, from somewhere, somehow, find the means to defend themselves, as well as begin offensive measures,” but she didn’t endorse arming the opposition.
I admit arming the rebels is troublesome because we don’t have a handle on who the leaders of the Syrian opposition are. Oh, we know who some of the spokesmen are, many of whom have been in exile for years, not just the past 11 months, but they don’t get along with each other, plus you have the al-Qaeda element.

But humanitarian assistance is one of America’s hallmarks and we must do everything we can to aid the Red Cross, for crying out loud!

Meanwhile, the United Nations named former UN secretary general Kofi Annan as joint special envoy for the UN and the Arab League. Mr. Annan is hardly an imposing figure. I’ve noted in the past he’d make for a good neighbor, like take in your mail and water the flowers when you’re away. As leader of the UN, though, he was an utter disaster. Ask the residents of Rwanda, when he was responsible for the UN Peacekeeping Force there in 1994.

Philip Collins / London Times

“There is a lot that is species-shaming but not much that is surprising about the actions of President Assad’s thugs. Bizarre as it now seems, Assad was greeted in the summer of 2000 as a herald of reform in what was called, with optimism that is now gruesome, the Damascus Spring. In the autumn of 2001, he clamped the intellectuals in jail and, ever since, his regime has practiced the full arbitrary panoply of detention, torture and citizens who vanish off the face of the Earth.

“And yet, in Syria today the case for standing by and doing nothing is very close to being persuasive. The Syrian Army is eight times larger than the Libyan Army. A weak, split opposition controls no territory. There is no obvious dissident body to inherit power. Even if the end were imminent. Assad might well be prepared, like Samson, to bring the temple down with him. The Russians and the Chinese will not grant a UN mandate for action and there is a risk, in any case, of a full-scale war in which Russia and Iran would stand with Syria and Hizbullah against the West in a horrible rerun of the power blocks of the Great War.

“Intervention, in other words, will mean chaos. But there is chaos already. We have to trade these risks against the following certainty. Six thousand are dead and the upshot of standing by is the gang rape of a young boy. The upshot of inaction is murder. The rhetorical naivety in this appeal is deliberate. When you see children slaughtered by state-backed monsters, there is nothing wrong with being reduced to cliché. This cannot be allowed to happen. Not in my name. Something must be done.

“The revulsion is too profound to be written off as adolescent or unrealistic. For those of us who are not religious, the suffering of other human beings is the deepest mark of common human heritage. So it is important to add weight to our moral impulse rather than to dismiss it as naïve and foolish. Where does revulsion meet practical reality? That is the central question….

“The practical arguments against military intervention in Syria are overwhelming. But there is a lot that can be done short of marching in. The success of our intervention in Libya and the absence of intervention in Syria is redeeming the argument that was lost in Iraq.

“The lesson is simple. If you take on a fascist you get chaos. If you don’t take on a fascist you get chaos. It’s the nature of the beast and sometimes we forget that it’s the fascist that’s the beast, not us. We’re better than that and in our actions we will show it.”

Senator John McCain:

“To somehow sit by and watch this massacre continue without exploring and employing every option that we possibly can to stop it is a betrayal of everything the United States stands for and believes in.”

Michael Young / Daily Star (Beirut)

“The administration of President Barack Obama has often been ridiculed for what is described as ‘leading from behind.’ More often than not this has been an excuse for not leading at all, and nowhere has American vacillation been more on display than in Syria….

“Washington has been all over the place. In an interview with France 24 just over a week ago, the U.S. ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, said that the Obama administration was looking for a ‘peaceful political solution’ in Syria. ‘Even the Syrian people do not want a military solution to this crisis,’ he said, before adding: ‘We believe [President] Assad should step down, but at the end of the day the Syrian people will make the decision, not the U.S.’

“A few days later, Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman, sounded less affirmative. While also defending a political solution, she observed, ‘If we can’t get Assad to yield to the pressure that we are all bringing to bear, we may have to consider additional measures.’ To many people this suggested that the U.S. might possibly endorse arming Syria’s opposition if that became necessary. Evidently, the Obama administration – amid the carnage in Homs and elsewhere in Syria – feared that it would fall behind the policy curve.

“There are no easy answers in Syria but Washington’s trouble is that it has no strategy for the country. This is proving very damaging indeed, given that the Russians and Iranians do have one, and it can be summarized quite simply: Actively support the repression by the Syrian army and security services, bringing the opposition, or a portion of the opposition, to the negotiating table. Introduce reforms, albeit cosmetic reforms, to return the political initiative to Assad. Integrate willing opposition figures into a national unity government, thereby neutralizing the discontent on the ground. And give the regime the latitude to govern again, in order to snuff out pockets of dissent.

“The scheme is unlikely to work, but at least it is straightforward. Moscow and Tehran have dispatched military and intelligence units to Syria to impose their will. There are reports that the U.S. has also sent people into Syria to organize the Syrian opposition, but apparently in numbers so infinitesimal as to be virtually useless….

“A Syrian civil war is a fearful prospect, but American indecision is not going to prevent one from taking place. If Washington and the Europeans dither, the Gulf states won’t, and weapons will enter Syria anyway, as they already are. Better for the Obama administration to devise a political approach that embraces, while also controlling, a military dimension that would push Assad to reconsider his options….

“Washington needs to get a grip. Its policy toward Syria has been strangely disconnected from its other regional priority, namely containing Iran. It took many months for the administration to acknowledge the Syrian crisis as a major issue. By insisting, on the record and off, that there is nothing they can do in Syria, American officials have effectively ensured that they will do nothing. Their performance has been craven and one-dimensional – in a word, pathetic.”

Lastly, journalist Marie Colvin, who was killed in Homs this week, worked for the Sunday Times of London. An editorial in that paper concluded:

“Mr. Assad has begun something that he cannot finish, started a war that he will not win. Marie Colvin gave her life to bear witness to his cruelty and barbarism. It is up to those she left behind to bring an end to it.”

Afghanistan: Violence exploded across the country as a result of an incredibly stupid act, the burning of Korans by U.S. soldiers. I’m sorry. You know my support for our military, but you also know of my disdain for some in the higher command and it is the responsibility of our generals, and the immediate levels below them, to ensure that our men and women are sensitive to the issues where they serve.

Editorial / London Times

“In a calm and tolerant country, where the pervasive national debate is mature, worldly and peaceable in tone, the inadvertent burning of a holy book could be expected to cause only minor offense, quickly forgotten.

“Afghanistan is not such a country. Yesterday, a crowd of thousands gathered outside Bagram airbase, after scores of Korans were burnt inside. This, reportedly, was the routine disposal of the former possessions of detainees held at the base, and no offense was intended. One must ask, nonetheless, how ignorant, naïve and stupid were those responsible, who had not considered that offense might be caused. This is a fight both predictable and not worth having.

“In April of last year, ten people were killed in protests unleashed by the decision of Terry Jones, an imbecilic pastor, to burn a Koran in Florida. He, at least, knew what he was doing.  The West’s war in Afghanistan has never been a war on Islam. Rather, it was a war against a network that preached a perversion of that faith and used it to inspire murder and mayhem in the free world.

“Fundamentalist Islam is a grim pursuit, antithetical to basic liberty, but the Taliban became the West’s enemy only because they were al-Qaeda’s friends. On human rights, in particular, the rights of women, some clash of values was inevitable and indeed morally desirable. The burning of the Koran is a pointless provocation, creating friction and outrage for no reason at all.

“ISAF and NATO forces have been in that country for ten years and by now ought to know a little about it. Yes, Afghans should be able to better control themselves. But what manner of fools failed to anticipate that they might not?”

Two U.S. soldiers were killed in rioting on Thursday, while further protests around the country claimed another seven lives, as of Friday. [I see there has been further bloodshed as I go to post on Saturday.] The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen, traveled to the base where an Afghan soldier opened fire on U.S. troops, leading to the two deaths.

Allen told the troops: “There will be moments like this when you’re searching for the meaning of this loss. There will be moments like this when your emotions are governed by anger and a desire to strike back. Now is not the time for revenge. Now is not the time for vengeance. Now is the time to look deep inside your souls, remember your mission, remember your discipline, remember who you are.”

Iraq: It had been relatively quiet for a few weeks but then on Thursday there was a wave of attacks across Baghdad that killed 55 and wounded more than 200. The attacks unfolded over a 2 ½ hour period, to heighten the sheer terror of it all. Last Sunday, a suicide car bomber took out 20 police recruits in Baghdad.

North/South Korea: The United States and North Korea held their first formal talks since last year, even as South Korea began live-fire military drills near its disputed border with the North. Pyongyang threatened retaliation but none was forthcoming. On the negotiation front, Washington is trying to steer the new regime of Kim Jong Un, or whoever is in charge, back to the negotiating table, but there were no breakthroughs. As noted before, all the North wants now is food aid. Like 300,000 tons of the stuff. The Obama administration is prepared to provide it if North Korea will suspend its uranium enrichment program. But of course any deal on this front must include UN monitors to verify any freeze.

China: Vice President Xi received favorable reviews back home for his trip to the United States, especially among ordinary people, as reported by the Washington Post’s Keith B. Richburg from Beijing. Xi “struck a chord by using the simple everyday language of most Chinese and sprinkling his speeches with common cultural references, including a line from a pop song and an advertising jingle….It’s not an image Chinese are used to after the decade-long presidency of the stiff and formal-looking Hu Jintao, who often comes across in photos as a typical Communist Party bureaucrat. And many here noticed the difference.”

Russia: You know who’s a real pain in the butt these days, even more so than before? Vladimir Putin. With no real opposition, it now looks like he’ll gain the 50% necessary to avoid a run-off in the March 4 presidential vote as the latest poll from the reputable Levada Center has him suddenly at 66% of decided voters, compared with 15% for Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov. [New Jersey Nets owner Mikhail Prokhorov, the billionaire, is only polling at 6%.]

This week, in final campaign appearances, Putin vowed that if he’s re-elected to the office he once held for 8 years, he would pursue the largest arms buildup the country has experienced since the end of the Cold War, some $772 billion, including the acquisition of 400 shiny new ICBMs and eight strategic ballistic missile submarines, which is highly worrisome, seeing as the Russkies have an abysmal safety record when it comes to their nuclear subs. By the way, you know that one that had a fire recently? The Russians first denied there were nukes on board. Now the story is there were.

Putin explained why the big build-up is necessary.

“We are forced to take decisive steps to bolster our national aerospace defense system to counter the U.S. and NATO efforts in the deployment of missile defense. One cannot be ‘too patriotic’ about this issue,” Putin wrote in an article. “Russia’s military response to the global U.S. missile shield…will be effective and asymmetrical, a match for U.S. missile defense policy.” [Christian Science Monitor]

Putin also said at a Thursday campaign rally:

“We ask everyone not to look abroad, not to run to the other side and not to deceive your motherland, but to join us.”

Then he warned the West: “We won’t allow anyone to meddle in our affairs or impose their will upon us, because we have a will of our own.”

Geezuz, Vlad. Just shut up.

Separately, we note that Latvian voters resoundingly rejected a proposal to give official status to Russian, the mother tongue of their former Soviet occupiers. The thing is, Russian is the first language of about a third of the country’s 2.1 million people. But ethnic Latvians saw the referendum as a brazen attempt to infringe on their sovereignty, which was restored two decades ago following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ethnic Russians say they have faced 20 years of discrimination. The schism between the two will only widen now.

France: President Nicolas Sarkozy has narrowed Socialist Party candidate Francois Hollande’s lead to just one or two points…27% for Sarko, 28/29% for Hollande…though voters still have Hollande then prevailing in a run-off, 56-44. National Front candidate Marine Le Pen remains in third at 17%. However, Ms. Le Pen faces a big challenge in just getting on the ballot as she is falling short thus far and has until March 16 to meet the requirement of submitting 500 signatures of supporters among mayors and other local officials, with the signatures to be made public. And therein lies the sticking point.

For his part, Sarkozy is projecting himself as a man of the people, going back to the formula that first made him successful. “When you love France, you tell the truth to the French,” he told a crowd of 10,000 in Marseilles. Wife Carla Bruni is being featured prominently in the campaign and I’ve seen tons of photos where she is careful to be seen giving him an adoring eye, or laying her head on his shoulder.

Actually, I don’t dislike Sarko. I just wanted Le Pen to be in the thick of things to make it all more interesting and I really did believe she would upset the president and gain the run-off against Hollande, whereupon she’d get her clock cleaned.

But what is amazing about French politics is just how close the voters were to electing Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the presumptive Socialist standard-bearer before he was charged with rape in New York while leading the International Monetary Fund. This week he was held by police for questioning in a prostitution ring before being released. According to police, Strauss-Kahn had some connection to sex parties at luxury hotels in the city of Lille. Messing around with prostitutes is legal in France, but supplying them to others isn’t. He could be called back for further questioning in March.

Australia: Big story here. On Monday, Australia’s ruling party is holding a Labor leadership vote on Monday with former prime minister, and just resigned foreign minister, Kevin Rudd, going up against current Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Rudd resigned under pressure from “faceless men” and senior ministers in the party, as he put it, saying he could only serve if he had the confidence of the prime minister. Gillard is confident she will win and remain in office until the next election, 2013.

It was Gillard and her supporters who ousted Rudd in a coup in 2010. I can’t say I follow Aussie politics as closely as, say, Russia, but Rudd always struck me as being superior to Gillard. Both, however, have a solid record of achievement. I mean for crying out loud, Australia is far from a basket case, which is what makes the political drama all the more interesting.

Venezuela: President Hugo Chavez shook up the country again in announcing he needed further cancer surgery after doctors discovered a lesion during medical tests in Cuba. Last year he had two operations to remove a cancerous tumor from his pelvis. The lesion is in the same area. Chavez told the nation in a television address it was a small lesion that hadn’t metastasized.

So will Chavez even be in any shape to sustain a high-energy campaign for re-election, the vote taking place in October? You also have to wonder just how loyal those around him will be if they sense he could be defeated due to his medical condition. Do they oust him and put up another candidate to save their jobs? There’s only one problem with that scenario. Chavez controls everything. Those behind him are hardly well known among the people.

Argentina: The nation is in mourning over a horrible commuter train crash that killed 49. The conductor appeared to be struggling with the brakes when the train, loaded with 1,200 passengers, slammed into a metal barrier as it hurtled uncontrollably until it met the end of the line. You can imagine the scene as the victims, packed into the first two cars to get ahead of the rush-hour crowds on arrival, were squeezed into each other. 461 were hospitalized. The conductor/motorman, survived the crash. The train had just left the shop a day before and was said to be in good order.

Mexico: Just another week in this killing field. 44 died in a prison riot that it turns out was cover for a massive jailbreak by members of the deadly gang, the Zetas. 30 Zetas henchmen escaped from the maximum-security prison during the fighting. Prison guards were clearly complicit, for starters. All of those killed were from the Zetas’ rival, the Gulf cartel. The two are at war for control of part of the drug trade and other criminal enterprises.

And in the city of Monterrey, which you’ll recall up until about a year ago was a relatively peaceful, thriving industrial city where Major League Baseball used to hold an annual game, five taxi-drivers were gunned down with assault rifles as they waited for passengers in the mid-morning. It turns out the Zetas and Gulf cartels are battling over Monterrey.

India: Talk about a disgrace, a safety panel in India said 15,000 people die annually while crossing railroad tracks; around 6,000 on Mumbai’s crowded railroad alone. A government report concluded: “No civilized society can accept such massacre on their railway system.” The country badly needs overpasses, for starters.