Enough already! Here's a piece from the Federalist saying the whole Iran deal will come a cropper because Iran will escort inspectors at Parchin, its military base. The flaw in the Iran Deal even a child could see. Nothing from the author's background suggests any expertise on these issues. But that doesn't stop conservative pundits from making fools of themselves.
Lots of problems with the piece. I might start by saying as a military base, Parchin has always been outside the normal areas for IAEA inspection. Iran was in its legal right to deny inspectors there, and everyone knew it. But no one thought it was doing anything on the nuclear program there for a long time. So why spend any time focusing on it?
Actually, Parchin is not key to this problem. The key is the amount of fissile material Iran is allowed to have. Iran already was past threshold for nuclear weapons. The deal is to roll this back. Might work; might not. But doing nothing meant Iran was already there!
Also, conservative pundits: stop reminding us how nasty Iran is. We got it! We negotiated with the Russians for years over this nuclear stuff--and maintain diplomatic relations with them--even though we knew they were supporting insurgencies and, yes, terrorism. This is different, okay?!?
Dare I say that Trump has been the only Republican candidate who has made sense on this issue? He said he would ensure Iran lives up to the deal. Right! (Even Trump gets it. Have conservatives gone nuts?)
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Monday, August 10, 2015
The Iran Deal Will Work
I've reprinted below the best explanation I could find defending the new Iran deal. Energy Secretary Moniz is a nuclear scientist and helped negotiate the agreement. I think we got more from the Iranians than I would have expected going in. If they break this deal, they can expect very tough sanctions and a loss of global support. They'll be the bad guys, not us.
Ernest Moniz: Why the Iran deal will work
The Tribune Editorial Board has expressed skepticism about the Iran nuclear deal. An editorial Sunday claimed that the deal allows Iran to keep secret some of its earlier nuclear weapons program and hinders full access to nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Unfortunately, the Tribune editorial cites problems that don't exist and demands new conditions that aren't necessary. Let me explain.
This deal between the United States and other great powers and Iran commits Iran not to develop or acquire a nuclear weapon. President Barack Obama and, I expect, future presidents will hold Iran to this commitment. Congress shares this resolve.
It expands the current two- to three-month breakout period to at least a year — enough time for a strong allied preventive response — and will not provide sanctions relief until Iran complies with the nuclear restrictions in the JCPOA.
Quite the opposite of enabling Iran to move to a bomb, it pulls Iran away from the threshold of being able to do so.
The unity of purpose by the signatories — China, Russia, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United States — should not be underestimated.
It is rooted in a self-interest in preserving a strong nonproliferation regime based on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It was this unity of the international community that imposed severe economic sanctions on Iran for the purpose of forcing negotiations that would eliminate the Iranian nuclear weapon threat.
This gives us confidence that the international community would again be united in a swift and strong response to Iranian cheating toward a nuclear weapon.
The flip side is that a unilateral undercutting of the JCPOA by the United States would instantaneously squander our position of advantage gained through years of diplomacy.
The JCPOA blocks Iran's pathways to the nuclear material needed for a nuclear weapon. It drastically reduces Iran's enriched uranium stockpile, currently enough for at least 10 weapons, by 98 percent and eliminates all stockpiled 20 percent-enriched uranium not required for its current research reactor.
It cuts back installed centrifuges by well over two-thirds, allows enrichment only with Iran's least capable centrifuge for 10 years and nearly eliminates the extensive ongoing research and development program on the next-generation centrifuge for that period.
Iran will convert the Arak reactor, capable of producing enough weapons-grade plutonium for one to two weapons per year, to produce an order of magnitude less plutonium. For added protection, Iran will send out of the country all spent fuel that could be used for plutonium production.
It also establishes unprecedented verification measures.
At all of Iran's nuclear facilities, IAEA inspectors will have regular access with short notice. At undeclared locations, inspectors will have access in as few as 24 hours.
If Iran tries to stall, this agreement provides a first: a process to provide access within a fixed time, 24 days — well within our window of high confidence to detect the traces of nuclear materials used. This includes military sites suspected of nuclear related activity.
The IAEA will be able to use advanced monitoring technologies, many developed at U.S. labs. The Los Alamos lab also provides training courses for every IAEA inspector. As the director of national intelligence has said, while no agreement could give us 100 percent certainty, the JCPOA gives us better visibility into Iran's program, providing a strong deterrent to cheating.
The Tribune editorial's characterization of secret side deals is a myth. The JCPOA requires Iran to finally cooperate with the IAEA to allow it to complete its work on the possible military dimensions of Iran's previous nuclear activity and to carry out its responsibilities by Oct. 15.
As with any country, the IAEA then works out a confidential protocol to carry out the needed inspections. The IAEA can then complete its report, which has been many years in the making, by mid-December for submission to its board of governors, including the United States.
The entire global nonproliferation regime rests on countries' willingness to share their sensitive nuclear information with the IAEA and in turn the assurance that the organization will safeguard that information.
In order for the IAEA to accomplish its critical nuclear security and nonproliferation work in the 188 countries that are parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the IAEA must uphold its reputation as an impartial and independent organization.
Make no mistake, Iran was a nuclear threshold state before the negotiations, and this deal moves it back from that threshold.
The United States remains the world's economic, military and diplomatic leader, and Israel and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries remain our friends and allies in the region. This deal draws on that collective strength to ensure that Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz was a negotiator on the nuclear agreement with Iran.
Unfortunately, the Tribune editorial cites problems that don't exist and demands new conditions that aren't necessary. Let me explain.
This deal between the United States and other great powers and Iran commits Iran not to develop or acquire a nuclear weapon. President Barack Obama and, I expect, future presidents will hold Iran to this commitment. Congress shares this resolve.
It expands the current two- to three-month breakout period to at least a year — enough time for a strong allied preventive response — and will not provide sanctions relief until Iran complies with the nuclear restrictions in the JCPOA.
Quite the opposite of enabling Iran to move to a bomb, it pulls Iran away from the threshold of being able to do so.
The unity of purpose by the signatories — China, Russia, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United States — should not be underestimated.
It is rooted in a self-interest in preserving a strong nonproliferation regime based on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It was this unity of the international community that imposed severe economic sanctions on Iran for the purpose of forcing negotiations that would eliminate the Iranian nuclear weapon threat.
This gives us confidence that the international community would again be united in a swift and strong response to Iranian cheating toward a nuclear weapon.
The flip side is that a unilateral undercutting of the JCPOA by the United States would instantaneously squander our position of advantage gained through years of diplomacy.
The JCPOA blocks Iran's pathways to the nuclear material needed for a nuclear weapon. It drastically reduces Iran's enriched uranium stockpile, currently enough for at least 10 weapons, by 98 percent and eliminates all stockpiled 20 percent-enriched uranium not required for its current research reactor.
It cuts back installed centrifuges by well over two-thirds, allows enrichment only with Iran's least capable centrifuge for 10 years and nearly eliminates the extensive ongoing research and development program on the next-generation centrifuge for that period.
It also establishes unprecedented verification measures.
At all of Iran's nuclear facilities, IAEA inspectors will have regular access with short notice. At undeclared locations, inspectors will have access in as few as 24 hours.
If Iran tries to stall, this agreement provides a first: a process to provide access within a fixed time, 24 days — well within our window of high confidence to detect the traces of nuclear materials used. This includes military sites suspected of nuclear related activity.
The IAEA will be able to use advanced monitoring technologies, many developed at U.S. labs. The Los Alamos lab also provides training courses for every IAEA inspector. As the director of national intelligence has said, while no agreement could give us 100 percent certainty, the JCPOA gives us better visibility into Iran's program, providing a strong deterrent to cheating.
The Tribune editorial's characterization of secret side deals is a myth. The JCPOA requires Iran to finally cooperate with the IAEA to allow it to complete its work on the possible military dimensions of Iran's previous nuclear activity and to carry out its responsibilities by Oct. 15.
As with any country, the IAEA then works out a confidential protocol to carry out the needed inspections. The IAEA can then complete its report, which has been many years in the making, by mid-December for submission to its board of governors, including the United States.
In order for the IAEA to accomplish its critical nuclear security and nonproliferation work in the 188 countries that are parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the IAEA must uphold its reputation as an impartial and independent organization.
Make no mistake, Iran was a nuclear threshold state before the negotiations, and this deal moves it back from that threshold.
The United States remains the world's economic, military and diplomatic leader, and Israel and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries remain our friends and allies in the region. This deal draws on that collective strength to ensure that Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz was a negotiator on the nuclear agreement with Iran.
Saturday, August 8, 2015
Dump Trump
Donald Trump, the real estate developer and media personality, is running for president as a Republican. This looks like a Democratic Party "black bag operation" to me. Trump literally holds NO views which could be described as conservative. Some believe Bill Clinton put him up to running; it wouldn't surprise me.
Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel took Trump down Friday, accusing him accurately of being a overt liberal and a crony capitalist. Yeah, pretty much.
Some columnists like Pat Buchanan have identified Trump with the populist tradition in American politics. He is, but only in the sense that he's running outside the established party system. Otherwise, he is a system player to a tee.
Trump made waves with his incendiary comments about illegal immigration and claims that we wouldn't even be talking about this issue if it weren't for him. He must have missed the Republican primaries in 2011-12; the issue was old hat even then. (As Mighty Whig has noted in prior posts, illegal immigration is well below its historic highs of 15-20 years ago.)
Trump might hang around for awhile. He's a billionaire and totally impervious to criticism or self-reflection. Not even a sex scandal would make a dent on him.
In short, this guy has nothing to offer the American people except for cheap entertainment and voyeurism. This guy's the political equivalent of Caitlyn Jenner.
Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel took Trump down Friday, accusing him accurately of being a overt liberal and a crony capitalist. Yeah, pretty much.
Some columnists like Pat Buchanan have identified Trump with the populist tradition in American politics. He is, but only in the sense that he's running outside the established party system. Otherwise, he is a system player to a tee.
Trump made waves with his incendiary comments about illegal immigration and claims that we wouldn't even be talking about this issue if it weren't for him. He must have missed the Republican primaries in 2011-12; the issue was old hat even then. (As Mighty Whig has noted in prior posts, illegal immigration is well below its historic highs of 15-20 years ago.)
Trump might hang around for awhile. He's a billionaire and totally impervious to criticism or self-reflection. Not even a sex scandal would make a dent on him.
In short, this guy has nothing to offer the American people except for cheap entertainment and voyeurism. This guy's the political equivalent of Caitlyn Jenner.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Hiroshima and the American "Democratic Jihad"
The seventieth anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima is today. Hard to overstate the importance of the event, but it won't be commemorated here in the US. We moved the "Enola Gay" out of the Air and Space Museum on the Washington, DC Mall years ago.
In Japan, they are holding some "die-ins." I read these are organized by those who support Japan's pacifist constitution. Perhaps for them this ceremony is not merely to express their victimhood, but to remember the actions that got them there.
Hiroshima was destroyed by the Bomb. But that's just a small part of the whole price the war cost Japan. Try finding a pre-1945 building in Tokyo.
Which brings us to the concept of American "democratic jihad," a phrase used extensively by T.R. Fehrenbach. In America, we wage two types of war: "democratic jihad" and "national policy." On the one hand, democratic jihad is a war the whole country is behind--morally--and we are in it to win it. World War II and the American Civil War from the North's perspective are the best examples.
On the other hand, wars of "national policy" are those in which we are trying to shape an outcome. Sure, we'd like to win, but it's not the be all and end all. Korea, as Fehrenbach wrote in "This Kind of War" was the transition between democratic jihad and war of national policy.
Pretty much all are wars since 1945 have been for national policy, and our track record has been so-so, to say the least.
Back to Hiroshima. It is okay if you think it was wrong to drop the Bomb. In his WWII memoir about fighting in Burma, "Quartered Safe Out Here," George Macdonald Fraser (the "Flashman" author) discusses in later life being on panels with professors who decried the use of the Bomb. Fraser says he probably would agree with them, but notes that, while on patrol, late in the summer of 1945, a naked Japanese soldier charged his squad with nothing but a sharpened stick. "He was not ready to surrender that day," Fraser says.
On August 6th 1945, the Japanese were not ready to surrender.
In Japan, they are holding some "die-ins." I read these are organized by those who support Japan's pacifist constitution. Perhaps for them this ceremony is not merely to express their victimhood, but to remember the actions that got them there.
Hiroshima was destroyed by the Bomb. But that's just a small part of the whole price the war cost Japan. Try finding a pre-1945 building in Tokyo.
Which brings us to the concept of American "democratic jihad," a phrase used extensively by T.R. Fehrenbach. In America, we wage two types of war: "democratic jihad" and "national policy." On the one hand, democratic jihad is a war the whole country is behind--morally--and we are in it to win it. World War II and the American Civil War from the North's perspective are the best examples.
On the other hand, wars of "national policy" are those in which we are trying to shape an outcome. Sure, we'd like to win, but it's not the be all and end all. Korea, as Fehrenbach wrote in "This Kind of War" was the transition between democratic jihad and war of national policy.
Pretty much all are wars since 1945 have been for national policy, and our track record has been so-so, to say the least.
Back to Hiroshima. It is okay if you think it was wrong to drop the Bomb. In his WWII memoir about fighting in Burma, "Quartered Safe Out Here," George Macdonald Fraser (the "Flashman" author) discusses in later life being on panels with professors who decried the use of the Bomb. Fraser says he probably would agree with them, but notes that, while on patrol, late in the summer of 1945, a naked Japanese soldier charged his squad with nothing but a sharpened stick. "He was not ready to surrender that day," Fraser says.
On August 6th 1945, the Japanese were not ready to surrender.
Friday, July 31, 2015
Pat Buchanan Talks Turkey
The Turks have been playing a double game with us. They permitted ISIS to attack the Assad regime and they are now attacking the Kurdish PKK, which has been the most successful fighting element against ISIS.
This good column by Pat Buchanan lays it all out. We shouldn't let our allies--the Turks--tell us who are enemies are. Focus on ISIS, forget about the PKK.
This good column by Pat Buchanan lays it all out. We shouldn't let our allies--the Turks--tell us who are enemies are. Focus on ISIS, forget about the PKK.
Now the Turks Are All In
Friday - July 31, 2015 at 12:26 am
By Patrick J. Buchanan
All through the Cold War, the Turks were among America’s most reliable allies.
After World War II, when Stalin encroached upon Turkey and Greece, Harry Truman came to the rescue. Turkey reciprocated by sending thousands of troops to fight alongside our GIs in Korea.
Turkey joined NATO and let the U.S. station Jupiter missiles in their country. When JFK secretly traded away the Jupiters for removal of the Soviet missiles in Cuba, the Turks went along.
Early this century, under Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey seemed to be emerging as a major power, a land bridge between Europe and the Islamic world, a friend to its neighbors, and future member of the EU.
But, recently, a U.S. diplomat blurted, “The Turks are out of their lane!”
And that describes the situation succinctly and well.
When rebels rose up to overthrow Bashar Assad in Syria, and Assad elected to fight not quit, Erdogan turned on him and began to permit jihadists to enter Syria.
When ISIS terrorists seized Raqqa in Syria, and Mosul and Anbar in Iraq, Erdogan refused to let U.S. planes based at Incirlik bomb them.
When America supported Syrian Kurds with air power, enabling them to hold off an ISIS attack on Kobani on the Syria-Turkish border, Erdogan denounced the Kurds as the greater threat.
But 10 days ago came an ISIS atrocity in Suruc, Turkey, just north of Kobani. Thirty-two young Turkish Kurds who were planning to help rebuild Kobani were massacred, and a hundred wounded.
Instantly, Erdogan permitted U.S. planes at Incirlik to attack ISIS targets in Syria and launched air strikes himself. It appeared that, at long last, the U.S. and Turkey were again on the same page, seeing ISIS as the primary enemy, and acting jointly against it.
But the Turkish attacks on ISIS proved to be pinpricks. And the Turks began a major air assault on Kurdish forces in exile in Iraq, the PKK, who had fled Turkey after the recent civil war.
Where does this leave Turkey today?
Erdogan demands that Assad be overthrown. He has declared war on ISIS. He has broken off peace talks with the PKK in Turkey. He is attacking the exiled Kurds in the mountains of Iraq, enraging Baghdad, and his own Kurdish minority of 14 million.
He has been vilifying his former Israeli friends since the Mavi Marmara incident, where eight Turkish aid workers on a relief ship headed for Gaza were killed by Israeli commandos in 2010.
The Washington Times reports that Egypt is charging Turkey with sending agents to work with Islamic State on the Sinai Peninsula, which has been killing Egyptian soldiers and firing rockets into Israel.
There has been bad blood between Cairo and Ankara since Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, a former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, was overthrown by the army of Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi in 2013. Gen. el-Sissi is now President el-Sissi and President Morsi is now on death row.
What is Erdogan up to? With his attacks on the Kurds and ISIS both, he is inviting blowback in the form of terrorist reprisals from ISIS and the PKK inside his own country, as happened at Suruc.
The speculation is that Erdogan is going to war for political reasons. When a Kurdish Party captured 13 percent of the vote in the June 7 elections, it broke Erdogan’s parliamentary majority, blocking his path to the presidential republic of his dreams and designs.
Critics believe he is provoking conflict with the Kurds before new elections, so he can cast himself as a fearless warrior against Arab terrorists and Kurdish traitors, discredit the small Kurdish party, and capture a sufficient majority to create his all-powerful presidency.
Turkey’s actions demonstrate, as do those of other allies in the region, that their enemies are not always our enemies, and that, as they single-mindedly pursue their national goals, so should we.
The Iraqi Kurds have been friends of the United States since Desert Storm. The Syrian Kurds, the YPG, have provided fighting troops whom we have supported with air power against ISIS. Both are de facto allies, no matter what the Turks say.
As for the PKK, we may have designated them a terrorist organization at the urging of the Turks, but if they are not attacking us, we ought not to be attacking them.
We must stop allowing our friends to choose our enemies in the Middle East. We are fully capable of doing that ourselves, without their assistance.
All our allies in that most war-torn of regions would like us to come fight their battles for them. We should let them fight their wars themselves, for the prospect of peace any time soon in that blood-soaked region is more than remote.
Our enemies are al-Qaida, which slaughtered 3,000 of our people, and its progeny. Our enemies are ISIS, which has beheaded Americans, and threatens us, our allies and friends.
Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
All through the Cold War, the Turks were among America’s most reliable allies.
After World War II, when Stalin encroached upon Turkey and Greece, Harry Truman came to the rescue. Turkey reciprocated by sending thousands of troops to fight alongside our GIs in Korea.
Turkey joined NATO and let the U.S. station Jupiter missiles in their country. When JFK secretly traded away the Jupiters for removal of the Soviet missiles in Cuba, the Turks went along.
Early this century, under Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey seemed to be emerging as a major power, a land bridge between Europe and the Islamic world, a friend to its neighbors, and future member of the EU.
But, recently, a U.S. diplomat blurted, “The Turks are out of their lane!”
And that describes the situation succinctly and well.
When rebels rose up to overthrow Bashar Assad in Syria, and Assad elected to fight not quit, Erdogan turned on him and began to permit jihadists to enter Syria.
When ISIS terrorists seized Raqqa in Syria, and Mosul and Anbar in Iraq, Erdogan refused to let U.S. planes based at Incirlik bomb them.
When America supported Syrian Kurds with air power, enabling them to hold off an ISIS attack on Kobani on the Syria-Turkish border, Erdogan denounced the Kurds as the greater threat.
But 10 days ago came an ISIS atrocity in Suruc, Turkey, just north of Kobani. Thirty-two young Turkish Kurds who were planning to help rebuild Kobani were massacred, and a hundred wounded.
Instantly, Erdogan permitted U.S. planes at Incirlik to attack ISIS targets in Syria and launched air strikes himself. It appeared that, at long last, the U.S. and Turkey were again on the same page, seeing ISIS as the primary enemy, and acting jointly against it.
But the Turkish attacks on ISIS proved to be pinpricks. And the Turks began a major air assault on Kurdish forces in exile in Iraq, the PKK, who had fled Turkey after the recent civil war.
Where does this leave Turkey today?
Erdogan demands that Assad be overthrown. He has declared war on ISIS. He has broken off peace talks with the PKK in Turkey. He is attacking the exiled Kurds in the mountains of Iraq, enraging Baghdad, and his own Kurdish minority of 14 million.
He has been vilifying his former Israeli friends since the Mavi Marmara incident, where eight Turkish aid workers on a relief ship headed for Gaza were killed by Israeli commandos in 2010.
The Washington Times reports that Egypt is charging Turkey with sending agents to work with Islamic State on the Sinai Peninsula, which has been killing Egyptian soldiers and firing rockets into Israel.
There has been bad blood between Cairo and Ankara since Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, a former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, was overthrown by the army of Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi in 2013. Gen. el-Sissi is now President el-Sissi and President Morsi is now on death row.
What is Erdogan up to? With his attacks on the Kurds and ISIS both, he is inviting blowback in the form of terrorist reprisals from ISIS and the PKK inside his own country, as happened at Suruc.
The speculation is that Erdogan is going to war for political reasons. When a Kurdish Party captured 13 percent of the vote in the June 7 elections, it broke Erdogan’s parliamentary majority, blocking his path to the presidential republic of his dreams and designs.
Critics believe he is provoking conflict with the Kurds before new elections, so he can cast himself as a fearless warrior against Arab terrorists and Kurdish traitors, discredit the small Kurdish party, and capture a sufficient majority to create his all-powerful presidency.
Turkey’s actions demonstrate, as do those of other allies in the region, that their enemies are not always our enemies, and that, as they single-mindedly pursue their national goals, so should we.
The Iraqi Kurds have been friends of the United States since Desert Storm. The Syrian Kurds, the YPG, have provided fighting troops whom we have supported with air power against ISIS. Both are de facto allies, no matter what the Turks say.
As for the PKK, we may have designated them a terrorist organization at the urging of the Turks, but if they are not attacking us, we ought not to be attacking them.
We must stop allowing our friends to choose our enemies in the Middle East. We are fully capable of doing that ourselves, without their assistance.
All our allies in that most war-torn of regions would like us to come fight their battles for them. We should let them fight their wars themselves, for the prospect of peace any time soon in that blood-soaked region is more than remote.
Our enemies are al-Qaida, which slaughtered 3,000 of our people, and its progeny. Our enemies are ISIS, which has beheaded Americans, and threatens us, our allies and friends.
Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Pollard Gets His Freedom; a Nation Yawns
Jonathan Jay Pollard, the notorious convicted spy, will be freed in November after nearly 30 years in the big house. (Always with the three names, just like John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald. But you can call him Jay, or you can call him Johnny, or you can call him JJ...) Instead of this being a political decision, the U.S. Parole Board made the call that he should be released.
I'm satisfied he's being released. Thirty years seems like enough. He was initially given a life sentence. Thirty years is a long time. Ain't that right, Edward Snowden? (No middle name?)
Pollard offered to spy for Israel when he was working for the Office of Naval Intelligence. He had previously attempted to establish a relationship with the South African service, a little tidbit which has always made his claims of Israeli patriotism a bit suspect.
Pollard should never have been in the intel community in the first place. He was a drug user in the 1970s and couldn't get into the CIA because of it. His superiors at ONI wanted to fire him before the mess got started. All the warning signs were there.
High officials in the American intelligence community (IC) of always resisted--sometimes violently--the idea that Pollard should be released because he spied for an ally. I believe George Tenet threatened to resign as DCI when Clinton contemplated it.
But now the IC seems rather quiet. Maybe because recent spy controversies have gotten more serious over the years?
Here's a column by Noah Feldman summing up the conflict a lot of American Jews have had with the Pollard case: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-07-28/jonathan-pollard-s-release-and-the-shame-of-american-jews
I'm satisfied he's being released. Thirty years seems like enough. He was initially given a life sentence. Thirty years is a long time. Ain't that right, Edward Snowden? (No middle name?)
Pollard offered to spy for Israel when he was working for the Office of Naval Intelligence. He had previously attempted to establish a relationship with the South African service, a little tidbit which has always made his claims of Israeli patriotism a bit suspect.
Pollard should never have been in the intel community in the first place. He was a drug user in the 1970s and couldn't get into the CIA because of it. His superiors at ONI wanted to fire him before the mess got started. All the warning signs were there.
High officials in the American intelligence community (IC) of always resisted--sometimes violently--the idea that Pollard should be released because he spied for an ally. I believe George Tenet threatened to resign as DCI when Clinton contemplated it.
But now the IC seems rather quiet. Maybe because recent spy controversies have gotten more serious over the years?
Here's a column by Noah Feldman summing up the conflict a lot of American Jews have had with the Pollard case: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-07-28/jonathan-pollard-s-release-and-the-shame-of-american-jews
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
No, Iran is not Nazi Germany...
...and the nuclear inspection agreement is not "Munich." Please give us a break, Dennis Prager. See his piece here: Iran Deal a 1938 Repeat
Prager's piece is ridiculous on many levels, but it is worth pointing to as an example of the reductio ad Hitlerum argument that many "opinion leaders" often use.
I would hope even my ten year old would spot the differences: Britain was forced by Germany to the table; the US forced Iran to the table. Chamberlain negotiated from a position of weakness; Hitler from strength. Obama is negotiating from strength, the Iranian regime from weakness.
As for the possible consequences? We know what happened when Germany reneged. Britain did nothing. If Iran reneges, we have a host of escalation options, and we can use them too.
Does Iran want to dominate the Middle East like Hitler wanted to dominate (really, conquer) Europe? Maybe. But it better get cracking, because after 36 years of revolution, it hasn't made much progress. Sure it influences Baghdad (thanks to us) and Syria (thanks to Israel and us), but otherwise, its foreign policy is small beer. It looks pretty clear that Iran tries to support Shia or Shia-like minorities wherever it can. In some places, like Bahrain and Yemen, they might not even be the bad guys.
Does Iran have American blood on its hands? You bet. Tehran has supported Shia militias that killed some of our troops in Iraq, to say nothing of terrorism over the years. I agree, they are dirty bastards and I have nothing good to say about that regime.
But to credit the Iranians with obvious Al Qaeda attacks? Get real, Prager. The evidence just isn't there. We already know the Iranians do some nasty things; we don't have to make up stuff.
But negotiating with a regime you don't like doesn't mean embracing it. This is elemental to diplomacy.
How many Americans did the PLA kill in Korea? Yet we negotiated with Beijing 20 years later. It was in our interest, just as this is.
Prager's piece is ridiculous on many levels, but it is worth pointing to as an example of the reductio ad Hitlerum argument that many "opinion leaders" often use.
I would hope even my ten year old would spot the differences: Britain was forced by Germany to the table; the US forced Iran to the table. Chamberlain negotiated from a position of weakness; Hitler from strength. Obama is negotiating from strength, the Iranian regime from weakness.
As for the possible consequences? We know what happened when Germany reneged. Britain did nothing. If Iran reneges, we have a host of escalation options, and we can use them too.
Does Iran want to dominate the Middle East like Hitler wanted to dominate (really, conquer) Europe? Maybe. But it better get cracking, because after 36 years of revolution, it hasn't made much progress. Sure it influences Baghdad (thanks to us) and Syria (thanks to Israel and us), but otherwise, its foreign policy is small beer. It looks pretty clear that Iran tries to support Shia or Shia-like minorities wherever it can. In some places, like Bahrain and Yemen, they might not even be the bad guys.
Does Iran have American blood on its hands? You bet. Tehran has supported Shia militias that killed some of our troops in Iraq, to say nothing of terrorism over the years. I agree, they are dirty bastards and I have nothing good to say about that regime.
But to credit the Iranians with obvious Al Qaeda attacks? Get real, Prager. The evidence just isn't there. We already know the Iranians do some nasty things; we don't have to make up stuff.
But negotiating with a regime you don't like doesn't mean embracing it. This is elemental to diplomacy.
How many Americans did the PLA kill in Korea? Yet we negotiated with Beijing 20 years later. It was in our interest, just as this is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)