The Conservative Papers » Russia

Sanctions Hurting Assad, but Iran is Stepping In

kalel — Thu, 24 May 2012 04:16:13 +0000

Syrian President Bashar Assad is quickly spending through his cash reserves as sanctions choke off many sources of funding, but the regime is getting help from Iran in bolstering finances, CNN has reported.

Bashar Assad

According to intelligence assessment shared with the news network, Assad likely had about $30 billion in cash reserves to spend when unrest and bloodshed began in March 2011. He’s about down to $6 billion to $9 billion.

Officials told CNN that with the war against his own people costing him about $1 billion a month, Assad should have been out of business by the end of the year. However, sources are also telling CNN that he is getting a cash infusion from Iran, funneled in through banks in Lebanon.

The assessment is that Iran’s support, combined with Russia’s political and economic support, could keep Assad going for months to come.

The assistance is just part of how Iran is helping Syria. The Islamic Republic has already provided further aid including small arms and assistance in helping the Syrian government use computer monitoring to root out the opposition using social media and other Internet tools.

The report said that while troops from 19 countries, including the United States, have converged in Jordan for the Eager Lion military exercise, U.S. and Jordanian elite forces are doing additional training to prepare for potential fallout should Syria’s government collapse.

According to CNN, U.S. Army Green Berets are training Jordanian special forces in a number of so called “worst-case scenarios”, including Syria’s chemical and biological weapons falling out of the control of government forces.

The U.S., Jordan and other allies are worried that opposition forces or groups like al Qaeda could seize some partial control of 20 key chemical and biological sites inside Syria.

Meanwhile on Wednesday, Syria’s oil minister blamed international sanctions for shortages of cooking gas and other basic goods.

According to The Associated Press, Minister Sufian Allaw said the measures have bled $4 billion from the nation’s ailing economy. The U.S. ambassador to Damascus, however, denied that the international sanctions are to blame for the shortages facing Syrians.

“Our sanctions purposefully do not target oil and diesel imports, because we know that the Syrian people need both for their day-to-day lives,” Ambassador Robert Ford wrote on the embassy’s Facebook page.

Ford said the government is using fuel imports for its tanks adding, “If the Assad regime decided to cut its military expenditures, more diesel and oil would be available for the Syrian people to use.”

Allaw, who spoke to reporters in Damascus, said sanctions had cost Syria’s oil sector about $4 billion.

Prices for a tank of cooking gas have spiraled to some $25 as shortages have spread across the country. Allaw said Syria’s gas production covers only half of the country’s needs.

He said that officials are seeking imports from countries not party to the sanctions, noting that a Venezuelan tanker carrying 35,000 tons of fuel docked in Syria on Tuesday. Another is supposed to follow.

He said officials were seeking to arrange further gas imports from Algeria and Iran.Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

U.K. Commitment to Joint Strike Fighter Vital for the Special Relationship

kalel — Thu, 17 May 2012 01:55:10 +0000

Last week, the British government made a decision to change from the Carrier Variant of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) back to the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the JSF—as was originally planned before its 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review. While this move was politically challenging for the coalition government in the U.K., it was the right decision. The assumed cost of equipping the U.K.’s new generation of aircraft carriers with catapults and arrestor gear that are required for the Carrier Variant of the JSF increased from £500 million to £2 billion in only 12 months. To place these figures in context, the U.K.’s Foreign Office budget for this year is only £1.6 billion.

So what does this mean from an American perspective? It doesn’t matter to the Pentagon what variant of the JSF the U.K. chooses, as long as the U.K. stays committed to the JSF program. The U.S. should be concerned about the position of the Labour Party, which currently forms the U.K.’s official opposition.

The Labour Party is polling at its highest level since the May 2010 general election, when it was kicked out of government after 13 years. So far, it is unclear whether it would commit to continuing and funding the U.K.’s involvement in the Joint Strike Fighter program if Labour were to form the next U.K. government. This lack of clarity on such an important aspect of the Special Relationship should be a concern for the Department of Defense and Capitol Hill.

As previous Heritage analysis has pointed out, the Joint Strike Fighter program was one of only four areas the U.S. wanted the U.K. to protect from defense cuts. (The other three areas were U.K. Special Forces, the Royal Navy’s Mine Counter Measure Vessels, and Britain’s nuclear deterrent.) An important part of the Special Relationship between the U.S. and the U.K. is close collaboration on, and joint procurement of, military equipment. Since the U.K. is the JSF program’s only Level 1 partner, the JSF program demonstrates how the Special Relationship works in practice.

Flying a fifth-generation fighter, regardless of what variant it might be, will place the U.K. in the premier league of air power capability—ahead of both Russia and China. It is important that, as the program’s only Level 1 partner and for the sake of the Special Relationship, the U.K. stays committed to the JSF program.Popular Posts:

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

DOD and HASC Disagree over National Defense Authorization Act

kalel — Mon, 14 May 2012 18:08:29 +0000

Last week, Representative Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R–CA), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), took issue with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s criticism of the fiscal year (FY) 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that recently passed the committee by a vote of 56–5. The combination of the President’s FY 2013 budget request and the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) would reduce the military’s personnel levels and force structure to the point that it could no longer protect U.S. vital interests and keep U.S. security commitments around the world. The HASC’s bill seeks to undo this damage.

One of Secretary Panetta’s criticisms is that HASC’s FY2013 NDAA exceeds caps prescribed by the BCA. Chairman McKeon responds that “in proposing a defense budget that exceeds the BCA caps, the President himself acknowledges the BCA caps are too low to meet the core needs of the new defense strategy, much less address any of the vulnerabilities inherent in that strategy” and that the NDAA is designed to prevent these vulnerabilities.

Secretary Panetta “asserted that every dollar added to the defense authorization will come at the expense of another critical national security program.” The chairman’s response proves the Secretary wrong: “In crafting the budget, House Republicans were careful to identify other non-defense budget sources to accommodate the needed increase in national security accounts while complying with the overall BCA budget targets.”

McKeon said the bill does not contain earmarks or “pet projects” in “larger accounts that would force you [Secretary Panetta] to make the tradeoffs to which you referred. Wherever we [the HASC members] have restored programs, platforms, or activities, we have also restored the manpower and operation and maintenance funding needed to sustain them.”

In addition, the HASC version of the bill authorizes $100 million for an environmental study regarding placing ballistic missile defense interceptors on the East Coast. These interceptors would be capable of defending U.S. territory more effectively against ballistic missile attacks, including short-range missiles carrying electromagnetic pulse (EMP) warheads that could be launched from ships. This is a step in the right direction, as the Obama Administration has not only underfunded the missile defense program but also demonstrated a will to cave in to Russian demands. Recently, President Obama told Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would be more “flexible” after the election regarding the missile defense program—while the Russians are objecting to even modest U.S. plans for fielding missile defenses.Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Russia Threatens Arms Race And Preemptive Strike Against ABMs

kalel — Sun, 06 May 2012 06:47:33 +0000

I’m going to violate the first law of punditry by conceding that I don’t get it when addressing Russia’s moves on the eve of a crucial missile defense conference with NATO in Moscow.

McCain with Romney

On the one hand, the Russians are attempting persuasion by presenting computer simulations designed to demonstrate the threat that the missile-defense system poses to the Russian deterrent capacity. This appeal to logic is more than counterbalanced by threats of an arms race in case no agreement is reached to Russia’s satisfaction.

Then Russia’s chief of staff Nikolai Makarov went one better and threatened “a decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken if the situation worsens.”

Even assuming the worst of all Russian fears, namely that the placement of an antimissile system close to Russia’s borders (only if the final building block of Poland is put into place) will provide NATO with a first strike capability by denying Russia the capacity to retaliate, the timing simply does not make sense.

It may have made sense for Vladimir Putin, campaigning for the presidency, to invoke anti-American boilerplate reminiscent of the Soviet era. The Russian elections are over and the US elections,expected to be close, are gathering steam.

Russia has said openly that it prefers four more years of an Obama administration. It was the Obama administration that launched a “reset policy” with a view to smoothing things over with Moscow. Obama was also overheard on a live microphone assuring Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that after he was reelected he would have more flexibility on the missile issue.

Obama’s opponent Mitt Romney, while emphasizing his strong suit on the economic issues, has repeatedly taken potshots at Obama’s Russia policy, claiming that the “reset” has essentially benefited Russia with the US getting little in return and that Putin could not be trusted.

The Russian threats have already elicited a counterattack by Romney surrogate, Senator John McCain, who condemned Russian plans to install advanced missiles in Kaliningrad (the former German Koenigsberg annexed by the Soviet Union after WWII). According to McCain, the Russians were inflating the issue as “an excuse to have a military buildup in this part of the world, which is at peace [and this was] really an egregious example of what might be even viewed as paranoia on the part of Vladimir Putin.”

Russia, with its arms race and missile threats, is defeating its own arguments that the Cold War is over, by employing rhetoric reminiscent of the Brezhnev era.

John McCain’s Putin paranoia explanation is simple and could be correct.

If however we are already back in the USSR, the Russians could possibly think that their threats could prove effective due to what in Soviet times was referred to as the crisis of Western capitalism. Economically, the West is in trouble and its position recalls the 1980s, when Russia was in severe economic collapse and could not sustain an arms race with the United States and particularly in the innovative realm of antimissile defense.

Now with Western Europe countries slashing their defense budgets to the bone and the United States also seeking to economize, the comparatively solvent Russian economy can offer a more credible threat of sustaining an arms race. The European members of NATO definitely would not desire an escalation of tensions with Russia at this moment, particularly given their energy dependence on Russia.

Perhaps somebody in the Kremlin thinks Obama is vulnerable to pressure as well, because it is in his interest to keep relations with Russia on an even keel – at least up to the elections.

If, that is the Russian logic, it can very easily backfire.Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Obama’s Giveaway: Oil-Rich Islands to Russia

kalel — Fri, 04 May 2012 07:23:08 +0000

Exclusive: Joe Miller sounds alarm over deal to put land in hands of Putin’s Kremlin

By Joe Miller

The Obama administration, despite the nation’s economic woes, effectively killed the job-producing Keystone Pipeline last month. The Arab Spring is turning the oil production of Libya and other Arab nations over to the Muslim Brotherhood. Iraq is distancing itself from the U.S. And everyone recognizes that Iran, whose crude supplies are critical to the European economy, will do anything it can to frustrate America’s strategic interests. In the face of all of this, Obama insists on cutting back U.S. oil potential with outrageous restrictions.

Part of Obama’s apparent war against U.S. energy independence includes a foreign-aid program that directly threatens my state’s sovereign territory. Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.

The seven endangered islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.

The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal government itself drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by President Obama or Secretary Clinton.

The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn’t seem to care.

The imperiled Arctic Ocean islands include Wrangel, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta. Wrangel became American in 1881 with the landing of the U.S. Revenue Marine ship Thomas Corwin. The landing party included the famed naturalist John Muir. It is 3,000 square miles in size.

Northwest of Wrangel are the DeLong Islands, named for George Washington DeLong, the captain of USS Jeannette. Also in 1881, he discovered and claimed these three islands for the United States. He named them for the voyage co-sponsor, New York City newspaper publisher James Gordon Bennett. The ship’s crew received a hero’s welcome back in Washington, and Congress awarded them gold medals.

In the Bering Sea at the far west end of the Aleutian chain are Copper Island, Sea Lion Rock and Sea Otter Rock. They were ceded to the U.S. in Seward’s 1867 treaty with Russia.

Now is the time for the Obama administration to stand up for U.S. and Alaskan rights and invaluable resources. The State Department’s maritime agreement is a loser – it gives us nothing in return for giving up Alaska’s sovereign territory and invaluable resources. We won the Cold War and should start acting like it.

The Obama administration must stop the giveaway immediately.

Author’s addendum, Feb. 17, 2012: This is not a new issue. In fact the Bush and Clinton administrations are directly at fault for the same inaction. A maritime agreement negotiated by the U.S. State Department set the Russian boundary on the other side of the disputed islands, but no treaty has ratified this action. Consequently, it is within the president’s power to stop this giveaway. The Alaska delegation’s failure to put pressure on the administration is inexplicable. State Department Watch, an organization that assisted with this article, has confronted each administration and is currently confronting the Obama administration — and has been met by silence. I’m hoping this piece will help reinvigorate efforts to stop this handover.

Joe Miller was the 2010 Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate from Alaska. He is a West Point graduate and decorated combat veteran from the first Gulf War. A former judge, Joe graduated from Yale Law School and was later awarded an advanced economics degree from the University of Alaska. He is presently chairman of Restoring Liberty Alaska PAC and Restoring Liberty Action Committee. Follow Joe at Facebook and Twitter.Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Sino–Russian Naval Exercises: Shape of Things to Come?

kalel — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 05:01:41 +0000

Russian Navy Anti-Submarine

This week, the Chinese and Russian militaries began the first joint naval exercises the two sides have ever conducted.

The exercise, occurring near Qingdao on the Yellow Sea, will involve 16 Chinese surface combatants and two submarines, including five missile destroyers, five missile frigates, and four missile boats, as well as a resupply ship and one of China’s new hospital ships. These are most likely drawn from the Chinese Northern Fleet, which is headquartered in Qingdao.

The Russian contingent is comprised of four surface combatants, including the Slava-class cruiser Varyag and three Udaloy-class anti-submarine destroyers, as well as several supply vessels. The exercises, according to news reports, will include joint air defense, anti-submarine warfare, and search-and-rescue operations, as well as the now de rigueur “anti-terrorist” drills.

While China and Russia have engaged in various military exercises since the first “Peace Mission” exercise in 2005, those have been conducted within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). In most instances, there have been at least nominal contingents from other SCO members. This year, however, the exercises are being staged as purely bilateral operations between Russia and China.

This potentially marks a significant advance in Sino-Russian military cooperation. Taken in conjunction with Sino–Russian diplomatic cooperation on such issues as Syrian sanctions, it may reflect a further deepening of a Moscow–Beijing axis.

Alternatively, however, it may reflect an attempt by both sides to focus attention on one of the few areas of cooperation and away from deeper, systemic problems between the two states. The growth of the Chinese economy, Russian demographics, and a steady return of residents to European Russia from the Russian Far Eastern and Siberian districts has resulted in the economic center of gravity in Asian Russia shifting southwards to China.

Moreover, Russian arms sales to China have dropped in the past decade, both because China’s military industry has become more sophisticated and because Chinese lack of respect for intellectual property rights extends to Russian military equipment.

When coupled with Chinese military modernization, the regional balance of power on the Asian mainland seems to be moving steadily against Moscow. This is sufficiently alarming that some Russian analysts, such as Sergei Rogov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, have openly discussed the growing role of nuclear weapons in safeguarding Russia’s security interests, including in Asia.

It remains to be seen how the incoming Chinese leadership will deal with its neighbors. When Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang take over in the fall, it may presage a Chinese “reset” of its foreign policies—and whether this is the first or last such joint exercise.Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Secret US-Israeli Accord to Iran Revealed; Obama Conceding to Iran

kalel — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:38:51 +0000

debkafile’s Washington sources disclose exclusively that the Obama administration and Netanyahu government have secretly agreed on “Formula of 1,000″ as their final concession at the end of the forthcoming Six Power nuclear talks with Iran which starts Saturday, April 14.

In substance, this formula would let Iran keep 1,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium up to 3.5 percent and stock 1,000 kilograms of the same grade uranium while, aside from a small amount for medical research, giving up its store of 20-percent grade uranium which can be jumped quickly to weapon quality.

US sources told debkafile that Russia and China have accepted the deal.

According to our Iranian sources, Tehran was informed of this formula through its back-channel contacts with Washington (which debkafile has been tracking since mid-February.) That is why in Iranian public statements in the last couple of days have harped on the issue of uranium enriched to 20 percent. US-Israeli permission to keep 3.5 percent grade is in the bag before the talks begin, so Iran is treating it as the starting-point for bargaining, not the end result, and concentrating on raising the ante through the negotiating process to come.

The concession Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak made to the Obama administration, to let Iran to continue to enrich uranium, has not been brought before any Israeli government or military forum. Their remarks Sunday, April 8, conveyed the mistaken impression that there were at odds on the nuclear issue in the run-up to international talks.

Netanyahu said Israel would satisfied with nothing less than the total discontinuance of uranium enrichment and the removal of all quantities out of Iran, while Barak’s words came closer to the secret deal with Washington when he spoke of consenting to Iran continuing to produce low-enriched uranium and holding on to a few hundred kilos.

At his meeting with the new Italian prime minister Mario Monti in Jerusalem, Netanyahu repeated that Israel had not changed its position and that the Six Powers must make Iran stop enrichment entirely.

But in fact, as debkafile reveals here, Israel’s position has undergone a dramatic transformation and given in to Iran except for medical research on a major point of principle, i.e. enrichment.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad walked through the door this opened for him Sunday night and slapped down three fresh demands which Tehran would put before the Six Power negotiators in Istanbul Saturday:

1. Clearance for the new system about to be activated for converting 3.5 enriched uranium to nuclear fuel rods in the first stage and nuclear plates in the second.

Producing 20 percent uranium from nuclear plates is relatively fast, efficient and cheap.

2. Permission for homemade production of nuclear fuel rods for the heavy water plant under construction at Arak.

This would provide Tehran with the option of plutonium in addition to enriched uranium for making weapons.

3. Iran’s first nuclear reactor at Bushehr is now operating at 75 percent capacity under the management of the Russian engineers who built it. Tehran wants Iranian engineers to take over the reactor’s management in full in seven months.

Iran is putting those three demands on the table to counter the US-Israeli insistence on shutting down the underground nuclear plant at Fordow, near Qom.

debkafile’s sources add that the Israeli prime minister, by giving crucial ground on the major sticking point of uranium enrichment, appears to have calculated that after going the extra mile, Obama will not be able to block Israeli military action against Iran’s nuclear sites if Tehran continues nonetheless to play games and cheat the International Atomic Energy Agency and its inspectors.

Netanyahu may have miscalculated the odds. His concession gave Obama enough rope to pull the Iranians to the negotiating table through his back channel to Tehran. That channel will remain open and the US is more likely to be induced by Iranian wiles to make more concessions than it is to give Israel the nod for military action.

via debka.comPopular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Join the forum discussion on this post

Israeli-US Air, Naval Forces Train for Energy War

kalel — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 07:29:18 +0000

Israeli, Greek and U.S. forces are in the midst of a drill in preparation for a possible war over Israel’s huge off-shore gas discoveries, which also may contain commercializable oil. Lebanon and Hizbullah have claimed the fields are in Lebanese territory and that they will “defend” the area against drilling by Israel.

IAF F-16

The week-long drill is simulating air-to-air combat and anti-submarine warfare and is taking place off the coast of Turkey, possibly signaling it not to interfere with Israeli energy operations in the Mediterranean Sea. The “enemy” forces will be similar to those of the Turkish air force, according to the Defencenet.gr website.

Joint exercises also will take place off the coast of Cyprus and at the port in Haifa, with the participation of the famed U.S. Sixth Fleet.

The United States and Israel also are preparing for a massive “Austere Challenge” exercise this summer involving thousands of soldiers from both countries.

Last week, a one-day drill included Israeli soldiers operating the Arrow, the Patriot, Hawk, Stinger, and Iron Dome batteries defense systems, according to DefenseProfessionals.com.

“The ability of the formation to bring together all the defense systems is amazing”, said U.S. Army Col. Stephen Richmond, head of the 10th Army Air and Missile Defense Command. “I’m very impressed with the capabilities presented here,” he was quoted as saying.

Russia is keeping a wary eye on the American-Israeli exercises and is staging its own war drill in a Syrian port, according to DEBKAfile. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned this week against a pre-emptive strike, which he said would violate international law.

A Russian guided missile destroyer reportedly sailed to the Syrian port of Tartus for an exercise with what DEBKAfile said is three-fold message for the United States that Moscow is supplying Syrian President Bashar Assad with defense systems, that the Russian and Iranian support of Assad will continue and that the deployment of the warship illustrates Moscow’s ability for a rapid response to foreign maneuvers.Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Join the forum discussion on this post

Concerns Endure over President Obama’s “Flexibility” Comments

kalel — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 04:35:15 +0000

Heritage’s recent event “Open Microphone: What’s Behind President Obama’s Missile Defense Comments,” hosted by Kim R. Holmes, highlighted some of the concerns regarding President Obama’s recent comments to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have more “flexibility” after the election. Obama went on to say, “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this—this can be solved, but it’s important for him [former and new president-elect Vladimir Putin] to give me space.”

According to Heritage Visiting Fellow Rebeccah Heinrichs, Obama’s comments mean that he is not as committed to missile defense as he pretends to be and that he is willing to bargain it away as soon as he gets a chance. It is likely that Obama understands the American people would not look kindly on his willingness to trade away missile defenses and that their votes would not support such a policy.

President Obama’s comments must be viewed in the context of his arms control policies, according to Heritage’s Baker Spring. The Administration’s position on negotiations regarding the disparity between the tactical nuclear weapons arsenals of Russia and the United States has not been made public yet, despite the President’s certification that he will seek these negotiations pursuant to the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty’s (New START) resolution of ratification.

Ballistic missile defenses are one source of concessions the Administration has to offer, since Russia enjoys a 10:1 advantage over the U.S. in tactical nuclear weapons. Due to past difficulties that New START has faced in the Senate, the President may seek to sign an agreement and bind the United States without submitting it to the Senate for its advice and consent.

Jeff Kueter, president of The George C. Marshall Institute, offered insight into a somewhat overlooked area of arms control—in space. The United States today is tremendously dependent on space for the conduct of its day-to-day civilian and military affairs. Consequentially, U.S. adversaries are trying to find and exploit vulnerabilities in U.S. space systems. Their effort is demonstrated in two areas: first, by procuring space systems, anti-satellite weapons, and cyber capabilities to deny the United States advantages stemming from its superiority in space. Second, by engaging in arms control in space.

The Administration is seeking to join the European Union Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities without the Senate’s advice and consent. This agreement could threaten the dominant U.S position in military and intelligence space capabilities. The code lacks definitions regarding what constitutes a space weapon and opens up the United States to the criticism of creating debris when it tests missile defenses or launches space vehicles.Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Join the forum discussion on this post

What Would Nixon Do?

kalel — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 03:04:55 +0000

By Ben Stein on 4.4.12

Nixon

About Iran, that is.

We face some extremely serious problems today in the foreign policy realm. But now we face a uniquely serious threat from Islamic Iran. They are belligerent. They sponsor terrorism and violent repression everywhere they can, currently on display in the bloodbath in Syria. Far, far worse, they seem to be getting close to having a nuclear bomb. They have promised to use that bomb on Israel right away, and Israel cannot permit that. There can be no second Holocaust. But Israel is restrained by the U.S.’s caution and by the long distance to Iran from Israel.

I keep thinking in this context about my old boss and friend, Richard M. Nixon. Obviously, he had serious problems on the domestic side. But in foreign affairs, he was a wizard… got our prisoners back from North Vietnam, ended the war there, opened relations with China that basically encircled Russia and ended the Cold War, signed the first strategic arms limitation treaty with the Soviet Union.

As he said he would do, he left us with “a generation of peace.”

What would RN do about Iran? Well, he’s been gone now for eight years, so it’s just an educated guess, but here it is.

Richard Nixon above all did not like to see America pushed around. He responded strongly when he felt we were being pushed around — with bombing, especially. He also did not like to see our allies being pushed around. That’s why he sent a lot of highly advanced aid to Israel roughly 40 years ago during the Yom Kippur War to save Israel when things were looking bad. Then peace came between Israel and Egypt.

I think he would do the same now. He would say to Israel, “Look, you have an existential threat. You are our closest ally on the planet. We will let you use our refueling apparatus to get you to the nuclear bomb making sites in Iran. We will let you use our super satellite imaging to find the right spots to hit. We will lend you our superb anti-ground to air missile defense systems. Not only that, but we will let the world know we are doing this. The Europeans will complain, but they always complain. We won’t be pushed around by the Mullahs and we won’t let you be destroyed. If show and tell doesn’t work, we’ll be behind you in the UN after you do the bombing.

“Strength works. After strength, we’ll use diplomacy. That’s when diplomacy works best.”

And that might just do it. Richard Nixon made many mistakes, but he was a superstar in war and peace. What would Richard Nixon do? What makes for peace in the long run, which is sometimes action in the short run.

Or, I could be wrong.Popular Posts:

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Join the forum discussion on this post