Diary of the Mad Pigeon

Iran's Nuclear Program in Question

Bush defends Iran policy amid doubts on new U.N. sanctions
President Bush worked the phones Tuesday to salvage his hard-line policy toward Iran , lobbying foreign leaders for tougher economic sanctions despite a new U.S. intelligence report that concluded that the Islamic republic halted its secret nuclear weapons program four years ago.

Several U.S. officials and experts, however, said that the new National Intelligence Estimate has upended Bush's policy and erased any justification for threatening military strikes. The president will now find it difficult to persuade Russia and China — and even America's European allies— to impose new sanctions on Iran , even though it refuses to heed United Nations demands to stop enriching uranium, they said.

"A new resolution is going to be very hard to get, if not impossible," said a State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly on the matter.  CONTINUED

Iran: Nuke report means US should ease
Iran on Tuesday touted a new U.S. intelligence report as vindication that its nuclear program is peaceful. But it was unclear if the finding would lead to any immediate warming in U.S.-Iranian relations, including on key issues like Iraq.

Iranian officials insisted Washington should take a less hawkish stance and drop attempts to impose new sanctions in light of the report's conclusion that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in late 2003 and has shown no signs of resuming.

President Bush ruled out any change in policy. He said sanctions were still needed to force Iran to stop uranium enrichment, which he warned could be used for building atomic warheads someday. France and Britain also said pressure must be maintained on Tehran.

Even Russia, which urges continued negotiations rather than more sanctions, said Iran must open its nuclear program fully to international scrutiny and keep it under control of the U.N. atomic watchdog agency.  CONTINUED

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As with how Bush sold the Iraq war to the public, I think Iran's still a threat; but we're hyping up the wrong information.  For example, with Iraq we knew Saddam had a chemical weapons program and used the products liberally against Iran and his own people.  Plus, he unilaterally invaded two neighbors.  But instead of telling the US public we were going in to thwart a proven regional aggressor, we sold the war on the premise of overturning rocks to find powdery substances.

In the case of Iran we know Tehran's a signee of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which gives them the right to buy whatever the hell the want.  We also know Iran's foreign policy rests on the destruction of Israel and "death to America," and that Tehran's doubly paranoid with US forces operating inside adjacent countries.  Finally, despite the apparent lack of bomb development, Ahmedinedjad hasn't exactly been open and forthright regarding Iran's nuclear program.

Unfortunately, what I've read on the wires is Bush hyping the bomb threat, which apparently isn't as imminent as we thought.  But is gloating and pointing fingers the right way the approach this issue, given the rest of the available data?  So what the program is now 10-15 years out:  do we wait until year 14 to exhume it?  Hell, even France advocates maintaining pressure (and Israel already stated they're not waiting a decade to find out).

But let's look past the threat and bring up the argument I've raised over and over:  how much of this whole goat rope could we clear up by just putting aside our respective prides and talking?  And I don't mean low-level government functionaries with ill-fitting suits and bad comb-overs:  I'm talking senior policy makers. 

We're not going to dissipate the threat by putting our heads in the sand, nor by building cases that don't exist.  But without dialog, it's to damn easy to find evanescent monsters under the bed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, Wake Up America, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, The Amboy Times, Big Dog's Weblog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Okay, now lemme get THIS straight...

Controversial DNA pioneer's talk halted

LONDON - London's Science Museum canceled a Friday talk by Nobel Prize-winning geneticist James Watson after the co-discoverer of DNA's structure told a newspaper that Africans and Europeans had different levels of intelligence.

James Watson provoked widespread outrage with his comments to The Sunday Times, which quoted the 79-year-old American as saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really."

He told the paper he hoped that everyone was equal, but added: "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."

The comments drew condemnation from British lawmakers, scientists, and civil rights campaigners. On Wednesday The Independent newspaper put Watson on its front page, against the words: "Africans are less intelligent than Westerners, says DNA pioneer."

Watson, who serves as chancellor of the renowned Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., was to deliver a sold-out lecture at the Science Museum, but on Wednesday night the institution said Watson's comments had gone too far and the event had been canceled......

Sooooooo....cancelling the appearance of someone who has made public and extremely questionable claims in a country all onboard (supposedly) with free speech, democracy, etc is okay in this instance,

BUT, somehow cancelling the appearance of Whackjob No 2 (and I rank him as number 2 because we still have The Chonger), a guy who's called for the destruction of an entire people (Israel, for those just tuning in), claims the Holocaust never happened, claims he has no homosexuals in his own country, and gets applauded by the useful idiots, somehow preventing this asshat from speaking would have been a great affront to free speech and our "ideals?"

People will go to the mat to defend your buddy Mahmoud's "right to free speech", but this Watson cat, oh no, we'll ban him...

I'm not done with Columbia U just yet...

And neither is Protein Wisdom, especially when it comes to military recruiters on campus, discrimination against a certain protected class, and hypocrisy

Like a bad joke

Hi, remember me?  I'm MOGS and this is what I think about Columbia University.

This says it all

Ahmedinejad in the News (Again)

Yes, you can thank me for not dragging the ghost of OJ Simpson across The Diary!  (Hasn't he already cashed in his 15 minutes of scandal fame?)

With that, here's the latest Iranian dope:

Iran: Retaliation for any Israeli attack:  Iran has drawn up plans to bomb Israel if the Jewish state should attack, the deputy air force commander said Wednesday, adding to tensions already heated up by an Israeli airstrike on Syria and Western calls for more U.N. sanctions against Tehran.

Other Iranian officials also underlined their country's readiness to fight if the U.S. or Israel attacks, a reflection of concerns in Tehran that demands by the U.S. and its allies for Iran to curtail its nuclear program could escalate into military action.

The Mad Pigeon: Iran threatening to attack Israel?  Man, they've been singing this song and dance routine since 1979.  Ironically, Iran should be more worried about France. 

I like this Sarkozy fellow--he's got cojones (or whatever the equivalent word in French is).

Iran leader denied on WTC wreath request:  Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asked permission to lay a wreath at the World Trade Center site when he comes to New York City next week, but the request was denied, a police official said Wednesday.

Ahmadinejad, who is arriving Sunday to address the United Nations' General Assembly, had asked this month for permission to visit the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, police spokesman Paul Browne said.

The request to enter the fenced-in site was rejected because of ongoing construction there, Browne said. "Requests for the Iranian president to visit the immediate area would also be opposed by the NYPD on security grounds," Browne said.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, told reporters Wednesday that the United States would not support Iran's attempt to use the site for a "photo op."

The Mad Pigeon:  And speaking of cojones, nice shady PR move on uncle Mahmoud's part.

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing Ahmedinejad laying a wreath at the site--after he stopped shaking his tweed-jacketed fists across the Mideast and hashed things out with Pres. Bush over a few beers and a mess of Texas Barbecue.

Iran Holocaust show sympathetic to Jews:  It is Iran's version of "Schindler's List," a miniseries that tells the tale of an Iranian diplomat in Paris who helps Jews escape the Holocaust — and viewers across the country are riveted.

That's surprising enough in a country where hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has questioned whether the Holocaust even took place. What's more surprising is that government media produced the series, and is airing it on state-run television.

The Mad Pigeon:  Of course, this could undo all the theocratic regime's anti-Israeli efforts without any move on our part.  I'm actually curious what convinced the Iranian powers that be to sanction the movie?

U.S. announces major Middle East arms package

Reuters:  The United States on Monday announced military aid packages worth more than $43 billion for Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states in an effort to bolster Mideast allies against Iran and others.

The United States plans to offer a $13 billion package for Egypt over 10 years and a $30 billion package for Israel over the same period, increases over previous military funding, as well as unspecified defense aid to Saudi Arabia and Gulf states, said U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.  The Saudi package is expected to upgrade the country's missile defenses and air force and increase its naval capabilities, a defense official told Reuters on Saturday. The package for Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf countries could reach $20 billion over 10 years, the official said.

The proposed aid packages still have to be approved by Congress and there is expected to be opposition by some lawmakers, particularly over assistance to Saudi Arabia, which is accused of not being helpful in Iraq.  CONTINUED

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have a term in geopolitics that describes this scenario:  Brinkmanship (you can also call it an international game of chicken).

In short, brinkmanship is when Side A builds defenses against Side B, and Side B--thinking Side A is arming for an offensive--arms up against Side A.  The Cold War's probably the best example.

The only way to peacefully defuse brinkmanship is to talk it out--preferably over a beer.  But when neither side is willing to come to the table, it becomes a prisoner's dilemma:  since there's no contact, there's no trust, and without trust each side will act purely on their own interest.

And there's the rub:

1)  If you were Iran, and you just saw the great American Satan arm all your neighbors, would you be inclined to arm yourself?

2)  If you were the US, and you just saw the Great Persian Satan go on a nuclear centrifuge building spree and threaten to wipe Israel of the map, would you be inclined to contain Iran?

Perception is reality, especially without dialogue.

Me?  I'm glad to see US and Iranian functionaries meeting to discuss Iraq; sure, they're still calling each other pigs and snakes, but at least they're talking.  The chances of a worst-case scenario are greater with zero communication than heated communication, in my not-so humble pigeon opinion, because if we DON'T talk... well, there's always the other method of defusing brinkmanship:  fisticuffs. 

Which brings up the other nagging issue with arms sales:  there's nothing like having to face a former ally who owns your stuff, such as the materiel we sold to the Shah of Iran back in the 1960's and 70's while playing chicken with the Soviets.

Looking at the broader "war on terror" view, I've said before my biggest beef with GWOT strategy is we spend too much on fighting the symptoms but not enough on the root causes.  As long as we support Israel, have a military footprint in the Middle East, and directly/indirectly influence Middle Eastern culture, we're going to have terrorist gnats buzzing around. 

No, I'm not saying we should stop supporting Israel, unilaterally pull out of the Middle East, or tear down all our McDonald's arches in downtown Riyadh; such huge shifts in foreign policy are simply unrealistic (although I'm for shifts in regional polcies, to varying degrees).  And yes, as long as there's oil and trade through the Persian Gulf we will be there. 

Given I've highlighted some root causes of tension in the Middle East, does throwing billions of dollars of belt-fed weapons at the problem look like a good idea?   Blasphemy coming from a military officer; but remember I'm not paid to tell the commander what he wants to hear.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Committees of Correspondence, third world county, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Republican National Convention Blog, High Desert Wanderer, Conservative Thoughts, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Always in motion, the future is

The World of Tomorrow....perhaps....

No, the picture doesn't really have all that much to do with the article, but it does help inspire that sense of foreboding doesn't it?  :)

Of course I've often wondered why the future couldn't be a little more...like...well, this View this photo

The new Iraqi WMD and Iranian Technology

AP:  A suicide bomber driving a truck loaded with TNT and toxic chlorine gas crashed into a police checkpoint in western Ramadi on Friday, killing at least 27 people and wounding dozens, police in the Anbar provincial capital said.

In the deep south of the country, the Basra police commander said the type of roadside bomb used in an attack that killed four British soldiers on Thursday had not been seen in the region previously. Maj. Gen. Mohammed al-Moussawi's description of the deadly weapon indicated it was a feared Iranian-designed explosively formed penetrator.  CONTINUED

Here's another article highlighting a March Chlorine gas attack:  Chlorine Gas Sickens 356 in Iraq Bombing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In case you haven't noticed, the insurgency's been employing crude WMD attacks recently, notably using the above-mentioned chlorine gas.  Here's some words on use and effects:

Background: Chlorine gas is a pulmonary irritant with intermediate water solubility that causes acute damage in the upper and lower respiratory tract. Chlorine gas was first used as a chemical weapon at Ypres, France, in 1915. Of the 70,552 American soldiers poisoned with various gases in World War I, 1843 were exposed to chlorine gas.

Chlorine is a greenish-yellow, noncombustible gas at room temperature and atmospheric pressure. The intermediate water solubility of chlorine accounts for its effect on the upper airway and the lower respiratory tract. Exposure to chlorine gas may be prolonged because its moderate water solubility may not cause upper airway symptoms for several minutes. In addition, the density of the gas is greater than that of air, causing it to remain near ground level and increasing exposure time.   CONTINUED

How nice that in the absence of a Saddam-era WMD smoking gun the insurgents are willing to demonstrate the effects of a rudimentary chemical attack to the rest of the world. 

But as usual, no observers outside the military seem to give a [PIGEONED].

In addition, how about them Iranians again?  For my readers who don't know what an explosively formed penetrator is, here's a quick lesson:  Explosively Formed Penetrators in Iraq 

Now tie that to additional information regarding the Iran/UK debacle, and Tehran's "peace and generosity" looks a bit tarnished under the magnifying glass.

The British Debacle

I'm at work today.

No, it's not an April Fool's prank:  I'm the Officer of the Day, i.e. the schlep who has to wander around the Academy for 12 hours and make sure none of the cadets are misbehavin'.

The duty actually isn't that bad.  Yeah, I lose a day of my weekend, but when I'm not snooping around I can hunker down in my office and get ahead on my lesson plans with no interruptions.  And considering my resurgent back pain, the walking around actually feels good.

But enough about me.  To paraphrase Canuckistani, she writes:

No post on the UK/Iran issue Mr.-Iran-studies-dude?  WTF?

Figured it was only a matter of time before someone called me out.

In short, with all my laying around and pounding aspirin like M&M's, I've been out of touch with the news over the last week.  I really didn't know what to think, 'cept why didn't the Queen's Navy defend herself?

Heh... wouldn't you know MOGS just happened to send me this gem while I was convalescing.  I've cut about half the article for space and fair use, but what's left is still quality meat:

Surrender At Sea?  By Jack Kelly

Washington Times
March 28, 2007
Pg. 15

That noise you hear as you pass the crypt at St. Paul's cathedral in London is Lord Horatio Nelson spinning in his grave.

Admiral Nelson was the greatest seaman of a seafaring nation which has produced many. If he had been in command of the HMS Cornwall in the Persian Gulf last Friday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair would not now be begging the mullahs in Tehran for the release of his illegally seized sailors and marines.  "No captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of the enemy," Lord Nelson said.

Lord Nelson, alas, was killed at the battle of Trafalgar in 1805. The captain of the HMS Cornwall is Commodore Nick Lambert, a more modern sort. He did nothing as six Iranian speedboats seized the boarding party from his ship as they were leaving the freighter they had inspected in Iraqi territorial waters.  The 14 men and one woman have been taken to Tehran, where the mullahs are threatening to try them as spies.

[But] Britain has responded to the seizure with stern words. "We have certainly sent the message back to them very clearly indeed," said Prime Minister Tony Blair. "They should not be under any doubts at all about how seriously we regard this act, which is unjustified and wrong."

But actions -- or in this case, inactions -- speak louder. Mr. Blair has a much bigger problem on his hands now than if Commodore Lambert had acted as Lord Nelson would have, and sent the Iranian gunboats to the bottom of the Shatt al Arab.

What Iran did is an act of war. What Iran is threatening -- to try as "spies" sailors in uniform seized on the high seas -- is a clear cut violation of Article 46 of the Geneva Conventions.  If you respond to such provocations only with sternly worded letters of protest, you can be sure there will be more such provocations in the future.

...a firm British response is required. The worst thing Mr. Blair could do is make some kind of trade.

"We wait anxiously to see whether this weakened and discredited Prime Minister has the necessary spine to do what is required, or whether Britain will persist in presenting its weakest aspect to a potential enemy," said the London Telegraph in an editorial Monday.

Jack Kelly, a syndicated columnist, is a former Marine and Green Beret and a former deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan administration. He is national security writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the soldiers issuing apologies on international TV was a nice touch.

For me this was a no-brainer--I'd of sent the Iranians into the drink.  But now Mr. Blair is truly in a pickle:  he can continue sending tersely-worded responses to Tehran, or strike militarily.  The problem is we've already seen how Iran reacts to UN fist shaking, and it'd be a tough call to strike while Tehran holds the sailors as pawns.  I can't see how Blair can get out of this one without looking like a milquetoast.

As I've said before, I don't advocate all-out war with Iran (yet), and diplomacy has it's place.  But this was a clear example of where force was a proper tool.  unfortunately, Iran took action and the UK didn't, and Iran now has the diplomatic upper hand.

A Chat with Iran and Syria

Check this [PIGEONED] out (and I mean it in a good way)...

Iran calls Baghdad talks constructive

Iran said Sunday an international conference in Baghdad where it held direct talks with the United States for the first time in years was a constructive "first step" toward restoring stability to the neighboring country.  Mohammad Ali Hosseini, spokesman for Iran's Foreign Ministry, also said his country hoped a proposed follow-up meeting on Iraq would be successful.  "If such a conference to be held at the foreign minister level happens in the near future in Baghdad, then it is possible to expect success," Hosseini said. He did not say if the Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, would attend. CONTINUED

U.S. official holds talks in Syria on Iraqi refugees

A senior U.S. diplomat held talks on Monday with a Syrian official on how Damascus was coping with a flood of Iraqi refugees, the first such talks in the Syrian capital for more than two years.  Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbreymet is the first U.S. official to visit Damascus since January 2005. Washington has led a campaign to isolate Syria since but signs have emerged recently that an end to its diplomatic isolation is near.  CONTINUED

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it's friggin' fantastic we're talking to Iran and Syria.

I know saying such blasphemy in some circles is considered high treason, but in my line of work even Realists need to talk to achieve objectives.

As I've said on NUMEROUS occasions (to include last week) good foreign policy requires using all the instruments of national power to pursue vital national interests (diplomatic, information, military, and economic, or DIME).  You can't always depend on military might; at the same time, you can't depend on diplomacy without military power or economic incentives to back it up.  In fact, depending too much on military power decreases the effectiveness of diplomatic power--who wants to talk to the neighborhood bully?

What we were experiencing with Syria and Iran is called the Security Dilemma:  neither side trusts one another, nor are they willing to talk.  Without trust or communication, each side prepares for a conflict they don't want, but at the same time refuse to blink (think an international game of chicken and you get the idea).  Without a means to to diffuse the brinkmanship (talks and whiskey usually help) conflict is all but assured.

Call me a traitor, tell me I'm no patriot, but I'll stand by words:  unless we really, really want another Middle East shooting conflict we need to talk.   

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted at Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Mark My Words, Big Dog's Weblog, basil's blog, DragonLady's World, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Faultline USA, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Overtaken by Events, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.