Iran checkmates and are Walt/Mersheimer at war with themselves?

From a friend of a friend so I have to believe not contrived but authentic. The comments of a Marine officer serving in Anbar and his, on the ground, observations.(see 1 below.)

Now that Ahamdinejad has spoken at Columbia and its president has validated freedom of speech is safe and secure on that school's campus, I suspect many of Columbia's alumni will prove they are equally free in determining whether they will continue giving money to their alma matter.

Hamas escalates rocket attacks with longer range ones from Russia. (See 2 below.)

Mark Hanna uses Chess analogies to prove, in Ahmadinejad's mind, why the Great U.S. Satan has been checkmated. (See 3 below.)

Zaki Shalom points out silence among Arab leaders is deafening and thus, validates their growing weakness. He argues they have more to fear from Iran than Israel and need to get their act together and confront Iran. (See 4 below.)

Tony Judt, is concerned liberals might become hawks. (See 5 below.)

For some humor click: Milk ans Cookies.Com/link/69382/detail. Like pacifist Carter, Waltand Mersheimer seem more at war with themselves!



Dick



1)Below is an update from a Battalion Commanding Officer currently serving in

Iraq who served as a Platoon Commander in the 1st Gulf War.

Hello all,

Approaching two months now into this deployment (or "tour" as we say) so
I thought I would bring you up to speed on what's happening. I am well
aware that folks back home are throwing "Al Anbar" around in casual
conversation like it's a new sitcom. We have certainly had our share of
attention of late. Guess everyone loves a winner! I'll tell you (from
someone who has lived more time in Al Anbar than in any of my last four
houses in the States), that things are better than I could have ever
imagined.

What's changed? Mostly Iraqi attitude. And the surge has helped.

Attitude. The people out here have simply decided "enough's enough".
They've had it with AQI's brutality on fellow Iraqis. I'm not
exaggerating when I say AQI has literally been chopping of fingers and
heads for too long. Most every Iraqi I talk to these days has had
someone, sometimes many members of their families killed or kidnapped by
AQI. So we are riding the wave of the "awakening" started by Sunni
tribal leaders over the last year or so (with no small amount of work by
the Marines). This more t han anything has changed everything. "The enemy
of my enemy is my friend" kind of thing. So what has largely gone away
is what these guys used to refer to as the "honorable resistance" that
fought to get us out for years with AQI's assistance. When their
"common goal" became overshadowed by AQI's extremist islamist agenda and
tactics (and we didn't leave!), they turned. The realists among them, I
think, foresaw the stark difference between a Taliban-like future
dominated by AQI versus one with of potential prosperity with the help
of the Americans.

The manifestations of this in our area really just spru ng up in the last
3-4 months and we have worked to expand it. But AQI wasn't giving up
without a fight. The Area of Operations (AO) we assumed was only partly
"pacified"--with the Sheikhs standing up and their men volunteering to
secure their own neighborhoods, and joining the police and army. We
also inherited areas that remained AQI sanctuary from where they
continued to attack and try to roll back the clock. What we have
essentially done in this first month and a half was clear out those
areas, hold them, and allow the fledgling (yet eager) volunteers and ISF
to step up. Which brings me to the surge.

Surge. While Baghdad got all the early press, we had a Marine surge in
Al Anbar as well. This has allowed us to finally stay in those areas we
cleared, and in so doing, give confidence to the fence sitters that we
would not leave them hanging as events in the past years forced us to
do. Ironically, the "new" strategy is not new for us. What General
Petreaus has advocated in Baghdad--get out and protect the populous, is
exactly what the 1st Marine Division did when we fir st came to Al Anbar
in 2004 ("No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy"). Unfortunately, what
started out well, soon was overcome by events such as Fallujah I,
Fallujah II, and the Samarra Mosque bombing which required us to move
forces from cleared areas to address these hotspots. In those early
years we didn't have the ISF to maintain security in great enough
numbers either. The areas we left became sanctuary and killing fields
for AQI and eventually we had to go back in and clear again. The extra
forces we've had over the last 9 months combined with the awakening of
the Sunni Tribes has allowed us to clear, hold, and build. The build is
what is truly key because with the improved security situation, we can
now put resources (ie. Money) against the basic needs of the people so
that they can actually see tangible results. This gives them incentive
to keep standing up and stay part of the security solution. It has also
provi ded a security and economic umbrella under which the Iraqi Security
Forces have been able to further grow and mature. In addition, it has
led to a resurgence of local governance to manage the daily processes of
life here. Still strongly organized around the tribes, we are leveraging
that historic organizational framework to forge government institutions
you'd be more familiar with (mayors, city councils, etc).

While there is still some fighting, it is a fraction of what it was only
months ago, and certainly nothing like my tours here in 2004-05 and
2006. This is hard data I'm sure you heard General Petreaus describe.
Still, you have to step out every day ready for the worst. Even the
youngest Marines in the Battalion walk this fine line between being
ready to kill and treating the Iraqi people with respect everyday. I am
very proud of their ability to grasp the fundamentals of
counter-insurgency--no easy task despite how much we trained for it. We
spend a lot of time patrolling the towns, villages, and farms--a lot of
it on foot, up close and personal. The heat is oppressive still (we have
yet to have a daytime temp below 104)! But we've had very little problem
adapting due to good leadership and planning at the lowest levels. I am
repeatedly impressed with t he maturity and attitude of our Marines and
Sailors. I've watched them enter countless Iraqi homes, collect
information, ask about their needs, hand out sweets and school supplies,
and treat people with respect. The response from the locals is
overwhelmingly positive.. they are so thankful that it is us knocking
and not AQI. The true sign that we are winning is the kids. I have been
all over this area in past tours and rarely saw a kid outside, and even
more rarely had any adult male do so much as glare back at you. Now
everyone waves, barefoot kids line every street and road when they see
us approach--clapping, giving thumbs up and dancing. It is reminiscent
of my travels through recently liberated southern Iraq in 2003. Even
young girls in their flowered dresses are out. Boys (and men too) can
often be seen swimming in the canals in the afternoon. I've been invited
to more meals than I could ever accept...even from the poorest of the
poor. Marine patrols are routinely served tea in Iraqi homes.

Despite the positive atmospherics, it remains sad to see how poor a lot
of these families are. Open sewage, mud floors, and limited electricity
is stil l common. A very basic existence for most. A father once brought
his three year old son to a Marine patrol base while I was there. No
telling how far he walked to get there. The kid was lifeless in his arms
with leukemia or some type of cancer. The Iraqi hospitals could do
nothing more for him and his last hope was that we could do something.
There was nothing we could do for him there, but I promised him I would
go and find out how we could get him some help soon. The kid died that
same day. But life goes on...In sh'allah...it is Gods will...as they
say.

But for the first time, many Iraqis have told me they finally have hope
for a better future. No one expects even a fraction of what you and I
enjoy in America. But they see some light at the end of the tunnel. And
I guess that's what counts.

My company commanders and I spend an inordinate amount of time doing
"leader engagement". That is, meeting, greeting, and eating with our
local tribal, government, and security leaders. It is mind-numbing at
times. There are no short, business-like, get 'er done meetings in Iraq .
There is much talk, plenty of drama, but always with the best Arab
hospitality. It always takes hours, and often the real nugget is
whispered into your ear only as you are leaving. And doing this through
interpreters only increases the challenge. What's different for me on
this tour is seeing the tribal dynamic from the inside. Last year I
dealt mostly with Iraqi Army and Police organizations which were a
little more akin to what Marines are used to dealing with. Now I am
immersed in tribal mysteries with all of its twisted power and family
honor issues. What looks like one contiguous tract of land and people to
us, is really a very complex and intertwined maze of "fiefdoms", pecking
orders, rivalries, and agendas that make one's brain hurt. It's a
strange mix between Medieval Feudalism and the Godfather. As the link to
Coalition security and money--we are always the center of attention
wherever we go-- wooed, courted, lobbied, and patronized, and sometimes
directly challenged from all directions by anyone and everyone seeking
to gain access and favor for their interests. Money is power--it is the
carrot now more than the stick that is our weapon. Trying to figure out
who's who and what their agendas are while shaping thi ngs appropriately
for the future is the biggest challenge we face. Marines are still doing
Marine things, but embedded in each infantry mission (to include the
hundreds of squad level patrols) is economics, governance, human
relations, city management, agriculture, essential services, census
operations, police work, etc, etc. I'm relying some on the
counter-insurgency training we've done, but mostly on the fundamental
knack Marines seem to have for seeing every challenge as a problem to be
solved. They thrive on cracking the case, seeing behind the curtain, and
winning. It's too early to say how this will all turn out in the end.
But, for now, we'll keep moving the ball down the field as best we can.

I've rambled on far too long. So I'll leave it at that for now. Thanks
for all your prayers and support. Hope this gives you some ground truth
from one little neck of the woods over here.

Till the next time...Semper Fi.

2)First extended-range Palestinian missiles to hit Negev town of Netivot early Sunday identified as Russian-made Grad 20-km range surface missile


Russian-made Grad surface missile smuggled by Iran into Gaza



No one was hurt by the four-missile salvo, one of which exploded 90 meters from the town’s western houses. Also attacked Sunday were Sderot and a number of kibbutzim bordering on Gaza by four Qassam missiles and 12 mortar shells, which damaged a house in Kerem Shalom.

Military sources say that whereas until now, the Palestinian organizations their Israeli neighbors from Gaza with Qassam missiles whose maximum range is 10 km, Sunday, Oct. 7 they extended their radius by firing 20-km Grad missiles able to reach towns farther afield and more substantial than Sderot: Netivot (pop. 23,000), first but also Ofakim the center of Ashkelon and the southern fringes of the big port town of Ashdod.

Last week, Hamas tested Israel’s military reflexes by experimenting with extended-range missiles against Kibbutz Yad Mordecai, coupled with the influx of 85 freshly-trained Hamas commandos from Iran and Syria, whose entry to the Gaza Strip was approved by Egypt. After Israel failed to respond, Hamas saw its way clear to further escalating its missile offensive against southwestern Israel.

The Grad medium-range surface missile was introduced to the Gaza Strip, purchased by Iranian agents in Serbia and Bosnia for smuggling in via the Suez Canal and Sinai. Israel made no effort to put a stop to the traffic beyond pleas to Cairo from Jerusalem and Washington which fell on deaf ears.


3) Iran Plans to Checkmate America
By Mark S. Hanna

Moscow, 1985. The world is riveted as the 24th and final game of the World Chess Championship begins with young Kasparov leading the contest 4 - 3. The chess prodigy needs only a draw against his older and more experienced opponent Anatoly Karpov to win his first world title and be crowned the youngest world champion in history.

Karpov begins by executing an aggressive attack against Kasparov’s king. “No price is too great for the scalp of the enemy King,” fellow Russian chess master Koblentz once commented. A win for Karpov would tie the match and foil the boy wonder’s title aspirations. Kasparov observes his opponent’s assault, reasons, calculates, tabulates and then in an amazing turn of play, sacrifices a pawn to block Karpov’s surge. The decade-long champion’s incursion fails; Kasparov wins, stunning the world with his ingenuity and boldness. His sacrificial calculation proved unbeatable and earned him the prize on which he had his eyes since boyhood.

Two decades later another boy wonder has stepped onto the platform with his eyes on the prize. And again the world is riveted to the stage on which this strategic mastermind plays. Only in this game, the stakes are much higher and due to the enormous prize, the gamesman is willing to sacrifice much more than a pawn. The trophy? Regional hegemony and a giant step towards the revolutionary raison d’etre of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

The Constitution, having regard to the Islamic contents of the Iranian Revolution, which was a movement for the victory of all the oppressed over the arrogant, provides a basis for the continuation of that revolution both inside and outside the country. It particularly tries to do this in developing international relations with other Islamic movements and peoples, so as to prepare the way towards a united single world community. (The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran)

For Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, A-Jad for short (no offense to the Yankee prodigy), his “Game 24” has arrived and instead of a chess title, victory means Iran’s irreversible progress as Allah’s divinely ordained tool (a good word here) toward the establishment of the “united single world community” or the Islamic Caliphate - a global Islamic government that would look, taste, feel and breath like the current Islamic Republic of Iran.

A-Jad and his coach, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Hossayni Khamenei, as well as their ½ to 1 million-man army, including 125,000 highly trained Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), have all sworn allegiance to this constitutional mission/mandate. The Religious Army commanded by A-Jad has an even further specific constitutional “responsibility not only for the safeguarding of the frontiers, but also for a religious mission, which is Holy War (JIHAD) along the way of God, and the struggle to extend the supremacy of God's Law in the world.” (Iranian Constitution Preamble)

As with all men with fire in their minds, A-Jad and Team Iran are not only living for this purpose, but will die for it if necessary. And in this most serious final game being played, nuclear technology and weaponry are the keys to their kingdom come.

Sitting opposite A-Jad and Team Iran are the Western powers led by the US which over the last quarter century have arrogantly toyed with their opponent, affording their challenger the respect and credibility of a third rate farm team. But the amateur club now sits at the final table and their star player has not only secured the Kasparov advantage, but in his own mind, has so outplayed his nemesis (as have his team mates for the last 25 years) that, incredulously, he has even declared that his victory is inevitable before the match ends.

“They (his more formidable opponent) do not dare wage war against us and I base this on a double proof…I am an engineer and I am a master in calculation and tabulation. I draw up tables. For hours, I write out different hypotheses. I reject, I reason. I reason with planning and I make a conclusion. They cannot make problems for Iran.”

The ex-engineer, ex-Internal Security Department “Interrogator” of the Revolutionary Guard, ex-Mayor of Tehran’s second proof: “I believe in what Allah says.”

For Team Iran, victory is inevitable because even if their “drunk and arrogant” opponent makes a last ditch surge to capture their prized nuclear queen by going to war, they won’t be able to do it. Team America’s pieces have been depleted, and with A-Jad’s pieces positioned as they are, any move on the part of his opponent is a futile effort. Team Iran’s Lady of Destruction will remain. Mission accomplished.

A-Jad celebrated his fait accompli last month by taking an early victory lap. Arriving in the “The Lion’s Den” of the United States of Babylon, the prodigy was garnered with all the media attention of a hometown hero. Pompously parading through his opponent’s backyard, A-Jad culminated the show with a lengthy, teary-eyed victory speech before a world delegation of admirers at the UN. The oration began with his traditional call to Allah to speed up the arrival of his savior, Imam Al-Mahdi, who is hiding in an old well outside Tehran. He then quickly moved to his self congratulatory announcement:

...By the grace of faith in Allah and national unity, Iran has moved forward step by step and now our country is recognized as one with the capacity for industrial scale fuel cycle production for peaceful uses...

Previously, they (his opponent) illegally insisted on politicizing the Iranian nation's nuclear case, but today, because of the resistance of the Iranian nation, the issue is back to the Agency, and I officially announce that in our opinion the nuclear issue of Iran is now closed and has turned into an ordinary Agency matter.

Many attending the sermon thought A-Jad would conclude with some sort of thanks to his team mates (the Revolutionary Guards), the coach (Khamenei) and the estimated 100,000 twelve to sixteen year old human pawns of the Basij (Iran’s “voluntary” citizen militia), who the late master-coach Aytollah Khomeini forced to march in formation across minefields toward the enemy, clearing a path with their bodies during the Iran/Iraq war of the 80s. He didn’t thank any of them, only the audience for enduring his homily, and Allah who willed that the Basij, the Islamic Republic’s first suicide kid martyrs, wear little green plastic keys (made in Taiwan) tied around their neck as they marched to their gory destruction. The keys, the boys were told, were a symbol reminding them that blowing themselves up opened the doors of paradise. A-Jad then bowed slightly and took his leave. It was official: Iran won, Team America lost and the nuclear issue was closed.

But what makes him so certain the nuclear issue is closed? A-Jad arrives at this conclusion because he sees only two possible outcomes to the nuclear stand-off. Either the US will attack (with or without its allies) or they won’t. Here’s his irrefutable syllogism: The Islamic Republic of Iran will have nuclear weapon making capability if the US does not attack. The US will not attack. Therefore, Iran will have the capability.

Ah ha! you say. This means that if the US attacks, we’ll stop him. Not so fast says Boy Wonder. Even if the US attacks, Iran will still at some point have nuclear weapon making capability. So if the US does attack, Iran still gets its nukes, albeit some day. Only if the US (or some other power) determines to attack and attack and keep attacking will Iran be stopped. No power has the will to do this. The queen will always be there for Iran. Eye on the prize.

Take the first proposition, he reasons: Team America does not go to war against Iran. Implications: the UN sends another letter to coach Khamenei, and sanctions continue (possibly even harsher ones are imposed.) Like Iraq before it (and all other UN sanctioned nations before Iraq) A-Jad simply goes around the unenforceable suggestions and inspection teams, working closely with his friends Chavez, Assad and Kim to get the supplies and resources needed to survive – all the while enriching uranium and multiplying centrifuges. And because Russia and China oppose any further sanctions, they too help A-Jad, reaping the economic and diplomatic rewards of staying “neutral.” It is this unacceptable scenario that has Bush and Cheney in a conniption.

Since this option ends in certain defeat for Team America, the only other possible way to play the game and halt A-Jad’s queen, is to attack Iran like Hersh thinks the Bush Administration is preparing to do. What would be the consequences of this proposition? First, of course, Iran’s known nuclear facilities would be turned into burnt toast, as would their known military facilities, air defenses, arms production centers and terrorist training camps. But as one of A-Jad’s team mates, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) commander Mohammad Ali J'afari, hinted last month,

The intelligence that the West currently has on Iran's nuclear program is limited to the sites accessible to IAEA inspectors, and more than that they do not know... Is the [total] number of Iran's nuclear facilities [really] limited to those facilities that have been reported - so that America can be certain that by destroying them it will destroy Iran's entire nuclear program, or at least set it back for a very long time?

With all the confidence the US has in the international watchdog agency, American intelligence on the whereabouts of Iran’s nuclear and military establishments does go beyond the IAEA. In fact, there is the MEK, the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq, a previously designated terrorist group of Iranian origin that, instead of being radically Islamic like the victors in the 1979 Iranian revolution, were more radically Marxist. They ended up siding with our good friend Saddam Hussein, so of course their intelligence should be good. Yes, they did expose the location of the Natanz enrichment facility as well as the heavy water research reactor in Arak. But wouldn’t Iran know that the MEK knew this and thereby that the US (and the IAEA) would eventually discover these facilities? Chess masters always think many moves ahead.

More reliable intelligence regarding Iran’s capabilities (nuclear and military) have come from defectors, scientists and academics traveling abroad as well as the exile community which regularly travels back and forth to Iran from the US and Europe. Nuclear expert David Albright says this information is more reliable than the faulty information regarding Iraq’s WMD programs that the Iraqi scientists, academics and exile community provided because, “rarely would Iraqi [expatriates] ever go to Iraq. We didn’t have this information.” He doesn’t explain how the US can truly know if the information being offered from the Iranian exile community is compromised or a deliberately planted false flag (Hitler used these deception techniques masterfully in the Venlo Incident.)

Albright does, however, send a warning regarding the possibility of Iran having unknown centrifuge plants: “There’s nothing distinctive about a centrifuge facility, which is impossible to find if a country chooses to hide it.”

A-Jad has used his mathematical mind to tabulate all the other possible consequences to a US attack, all of which he concludes would only make the US weaker at home and abroad and none of which would capture his queen. Take, for starters, international scorn. Barring a 9/11 event directly attributable to Iran, any direct attack on Iran (let alone 2500 sorties) would result in increased world outrage against the US and increased prestige or sympathy for Iran. This is a positive outcome for Iran. Rook takes Knight, G8.

In addition to increased international condemnation, a US attack would also lead to massive retaliation by Iran, certainly in ways that the US cannot completely forecast. One predictable recoil, however, would be the use of Hezbollah as their international IED against America’s interests abroad and at home. According to Barbara Newman and Tom Diaz, authors of Lighting Out of Lebannon, Hezbollah Terrorists on American Soil, the #3 at the FBI is convinced "Hezbollah makes Al-Qaeda look like Sunday-schoolers, children, kindergartners." Additionally, they document that at least 14 US cities where Hezbollah has been under investigation: Boston; New York; Newark; Atlanta; Miami-Fort Lauderdale; Tampa-St. Petersburg; Charlotte; Louisville; Detroit-Dearborn; Chicago; Houston; Los Angeles; San Francisco; and Portland and estimate there are many more investigations they don’t know about.

That Hezbollah is in America and operating is not in dispute among intelligence and law enforcement officials. The question is the extent of their preparation for and willingness to attack. Walid Phares, Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, believes Hezbollah has “already acquired its strategic targets” in America. Executive Director of Central Ohioans Against Terrorism, Patrick Poole documents the litany of recent penetrations, smugglings and illegal entries Hezbollah has made into US territory.

Their own Secretary-General (who studied under coach Khamenei), Hassan Nasrallah does not mince words about the organization’s objectives: "... We reaffirm the slogan of the struggle against the Great Satan and call, like last year: 'Death to America. To the murderers of the prophets, the grandsons of apes and pigs,' we say: ... 'Death to Israel...'"

Undoubtedly, a wave of suicide attacks on US interests would cause significant economic, political and social injury to America. And a weakened, even crippled America and West is not only desired by Team Iran, it is expected at some point as a necessity, and therefore an inevitability, for the global caliphate to be established. Such attacks would be justified by Iran as lex talionis (qisas in Arabic) – an eye for an eye. Pawn takes Rook, D2.

And such a justification, A-Jad knows, brings an even further advance for Iran - possibly the one that would accrue to the greatest advantage in their quest for the caliphate: the increased credibility they would achieve among Islamists and Islamic regimes around the globe. As in the aftermath of 9/11 and Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 2006, posters of A-Jad would likely appear alongside Osama and Nasrallah throughout the Islamic social centers of the Middle East, North Africa and Asia. Jihadist recruitment would sky rocket, more Jihadist organizations would emerge, and maybe most significantly, relations and cooperation between Iran and Al-Qaeda would not only strengthen but could now be openly justified (see Iran's Proxy War Against America by Thomas Joscelyn of the Claremont Institute for details of Iran’s relationship with Al Qaeda and Iran’s involvement in 9/11.) Rook takes Bishop, F4.

Yes there would massive destruction in Iran if the US attacks, but A-Jad and Team Iran know that with these repercussions, the fight would deal a more devastating strategic blow to America. Revolutionary Iran has shown in the past that they are willing to sacrifice more than a pawn to obtain their constitutionally mandated objective of an Islamic world government. In addition to the 100,000+ adolescent martyrs the Islamic Republic sent to their suicidal deaths, the regime may have lost upwards of a million adult men in their war with Iraq. This is on top of the 60,000 “martyrs” Team Iran lost seizing power during the Revolution.

Losing a few hundred thousand in this mother of all matches would not shake the regime. Instead, as with their other losses in the past, it would be considered a glorious blood offering to their god of the Kabba which would only strengthen the resolve of this Republic which invented suicide bombings. (Might Team Iran even be willing to be the first suicide nation?) Knight takes Bishop, C7.

But it is not only the unacceptably high cost that the US will pay that convinces A-Jad that America won’t attack, it is the fact that even with an attack, US and Western objectives cannot be achieved.

A-Jad has ciphered that the maximum loss for Iran in any kind of US air assault would be acceptable on Iran’s cost/benefit scale. Convinced that the US couldn’t possibly send enough boots to fight a successful ground war inside Iran while it continues its contests in Iraq and Afghanistan, Team Iran knows their borders are safe. But even if Team America was foolish enough to try, A-Jad is confident that his ½ to 1 million man army and upwards of 11 million trained Basij militia volunteers will without hesitation give their lives to protect the queen, resist occupation and advance the global Islamic revolution. Such dedication invalidates the possibility of occupation, they ruminate. And this, Team Iran resolves, prevents the royal US objective: regime change. Bishop takes Queen, B6.

The best our Red, White and Blue can hope for, the Persian phenom cogitates, would be to knock out the known targets from the air and by on-going guerilla-type sabotage. But even here, while the bombs dropped and the Special Forces tried to figure out where the real reactors and weapon systems are located, A-Jad and Team Iran would hide securely in their Russian built bunkers that are too deep for our weapons to penetrate. In the meantime, Team Hezbollah and Al Qaeda would jihad American interests at home (possibly with dirty bombs or even suitcase nukes) and around the world sending America (and possibly the world) into an economic tailspin. And after the smart-bomb dust settled, A-Jad would begin to rebuild. Or more likely, while rebuilding, he would continue to enrich his uranium in the centrifuge facilities that he had hidden from us all along. Checkmate.

4) The Iranian bear hug: Arab leaders must form united front to counter Iranian threat before it's too late
By Zaki Shalom


"Why should the Arabs pay the price of the Holocaust carried out against the Jewish people in Europe?" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asked the students who came to hear him speak at Columbia University. This statement was not coincidental and fits together with quite a few references on the part of Iranian leaders regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict: These references express a clear inclination by Iran to position itself as the protector of the Arab world.


Needles to say, this tendency does not express genuine concern on the part of the Persians regarding the Arab community. These two communities never enjoyed a close and fraternal relationship. The Iranian president is conducting himself in a very sophisticated manner in this context, while being aware that such an approach grants Iran several important advantages.


Despite their awareness of the genuine threat posed by Iran against Arab countries, Arab leaders choose to keep silent and remain on the sidelines, as if Iran's nuclear aspirations do not affect them. They very likely know well that Arab countries (and particularly those bordering Iran,) rather than Israel, are at the top of Iran's list of revolutionary targets. We can present at least three reasons to reinforce this assessment:



1. Iran, just like many other countries in the international arena, assumes that Israel possesses nuclear capability that grants it the possibility to destroy Iran, should the latter dare to attack using non-conventional means. Even a zealous leadership such as the one ruling Iran would not wish to pay such terrible price.



2. Iran is well aware that Israel possesses defense systems, which are likely the most advanced in the world, for intercepting ballistic missiles. Therefore, it must take into consideration a scenario whereby the firing of missiles at Israel is thwarted, while Iran itself remains vulnerable to an Israeli response.



3. Iran estimates that the United States would not be able to remain uninvolved in the case of a non-conventional attack against Israel.



Sinking deeper into coma

The deafening silence of Arab leaders in the face of the Iranian "bear hug" is an expression of the great weakening process they underwent in recent years: The days where speeches by Presidents Nasser and Sadat would stir excitement across the world are gone. Today, even Hamas' leaders in Gaza take the liberty to openly ignore Egyptian requests and demands.


The ongoing silence will further weaken the Arab world. A wise, authoritative, and visionary leadership in the Arab world would work to reach an arrangement that would bring about the neutralization, even if temporarily, of the Israeli-Arab conflict in order to stand united in the face of the threat posed by Iran. Indeed, this would not be an ideal solution, but this is the only reasonable solution available to them at this time, assuming that a comprehensive peace agreement is unrealistic, of course.


At the very least, Arab states can make it clear to Iran, both openly and secretly, that they do not need its assistance and patronage in their struggle against Israel. By doing so they would rid themselves of the image of being weak countries that require the protection of a regional "mini-superpower."


Despite this, it appears that Arab states will continue to sink deeper into the coma they have been experiencing for years now, and hope that others do the dirty work for them.

5) From Military Disaster to Moral High Ground
By TONY JUDT


THE “liberal hawks” are back. These, of course, are the politicians and pundits who threw in their lot with George W. Bush in 2003: voting and writing for a “preventive war” — a war of choice that would avenge 9/11, clean up Iraq, stifle Islamic terrorism, spread shock, awe and democracy across the Middle East and re-affirm the credentials of a benevolently interventionist America. For a while afterward, the president’s liberal enablers fell silent, temporarily abashed by their complicity in the worst foreign policy error in American history. But gradually they are returning. And they are in a decidedly self-righteous mood.

Yes, they concede, President Bush messed up his (our) war. But even if the war was a mistake, it was a brave and good mistake and we were right to make it, just as we were right to advocate intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo. (“The difference between Kosovo and Iraq isn’t between a country that wanted peace and one that didn’t,” the Slate editor and onetime war cheerleader Jacob Weisberg, now tells us. “It was a matter of better management and better luck.”) We were right to be wrong — and that’s why you should listen to us now.

In addition, they say, we have the guts to call a spade a spade — to designate Muslim suicide-bombers “Islamic Fascists” (Paul Berman) and “Islamofascists” (Christopher Hitchens) — and to denounce Iranian demagogues as would-be Hitlers. We are the heirs, according to the former New Republic editor Peter Beinart, of the anti-totalitarian struggles of World War II and the cold war, and our battle against terrorism is the defining cause of the age.

We are going to hear much more in this vein in the coming months. And there is a new twist. For all its shortcomings, the Iraq war, we are now reminded, was “justified” (Bob Kerrey, the former Democratic senator) by its impeccable moral credentials. It was supported — and is still — by leading European intellectuals, notably former dissidents like Adam Michnik and Vaclav Havel. They understand evil and the need for America to take a stand. So do we. Our domestic critics simply don’t “get it.” They are appeasers and defeatists.

This is a seductive tale. But before it takes hold in the Democratic Party, here are some dissenting observations. First, we should not be so quick to wrap ourselves in the mantle of the pro-war Eastern European dissidents. The personal courage of these men is beyond question. Not so their political judgment.

Their common outlook was shaped by life under Communism and the need to choose between right and wrong, between good and evil — an uncompromising choice which they (like President Bush) subsequently projected on to the more complex realm of international relations. Vaclav Havel is now a co-chairman of the Committee on the Present Danger, a Washington lobby of ultra cold-warriors recycled as cheerleaders for the “global war on terrorism.”

The case for liberal interventionism — “taking a stand” — had nothing whatever to do with the Iraq war. Those of us who pressed for American-led military action in Bosnia and Kosovo did so for several reasons: because of the refusal of others (the European Union and United Nations) to engage effectively; because there was a demonstrable and immediate threat to rights and lives; and because it was clear we could be effective in this way and in no other.

None of these considerations applied in Iraq, which is why I and many others opposed the war. However, it is true that United States military intervention in urgent cases will be much harder to justify and explain in future. But that, of course, is a consequence of the Iraq debacle.

Liberal hawks have been quick to swoop down on dovish critics of the American military — condemning in particular MoveOn.org’s criticism of Gen. David Petraeus. Quickly, it has become conventional wisdom that liberals should never disparage the military.

But why not? Soldiers have to respect generals. Civilians don’t. In a free society, it is a sign of robust civic health when generals are pilloried for getting into policy issues. Liberal Democrats should ask themselves whether, amid today’s cult of military “heroes,” a president would dare cashier a Douglas MacArthur for insubordination, as Harry Truman did in 1951 — and what our liberal hawks would say if he did.

Finally: In a democracy, war should always be the last resort — no matter how good the cause. “To jaw-jaw,” as Churchill reminded Eisenhower, “is always better than to war-war.” So the next time someone waxes lyrical for armed overseas intervention in the name of liberal ideals or “defining struggles,” remember what Albert Camus had to say about his fellow intellectuals’ propensity for encouraging violence to others at a safe distance from themselves. “Mistaken ideas always end in bloodshed,” he wrote, “but in every case it is someone else’s blood. That is why some of our thinkers feel free to say just about anything.”