Iran Poses No Threat? Guess Again

Better yet, Think!

I was going to write about: Iran; nuclear weapons; the Ayatollah's foreign policy; perceptions and reality.

Someone beat me to it: "Nuclear Iran: Reality Check (ii)" "American Interests.blog" (February 6, 2008)

The "American Interests" post includes

• Five reasons why a nuclear Iran may not be acceptable for the most of the world
• Statements by
  • Foreign leaders and diplomats
  • Non-proliferation experts
  • Newspaper editorials

---

My attention's been drawn to another post on this topic: "Australia Against Fundamentalist Islam" - "Iran's Nuclear Lunge For Power." There's an interesting historical parallel there, involving 3rd-century Rome.

Iranians at Monkey Point: Economic Development, or Monkeying Around?

There's a major project in the works in Central America that could be good news for Nicaragua and, in the long run, America. But I'm very concerned about what may actually be going at Monkey Point.

Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Iran have teamed up to compete with the Panama Canal. Their plan is to set up a deep-water port at Monkey Point on Nicaragua's east coast and run pipelines, a highway, and a railroad to the Pacific coast.


View Larger Map

In strictly economic terms, the project makes sense: to me, at least. I'd like to see every country with a lively domestic economy, and a lot of foreign trade. My motives aren't entirely disinterested. The more comparatively wealthy a nation is, the more likely the people there are to buy American agricultural products, computers, and all the rest of things American companies make. And that will, indirectly, help me.

Nicaragua's economy isn't doing too well these days. It has:

• Among the most unequal distribution of income on Earth.
• The third lowest per capita income in the Western Hemisphere
• Energy shortages that stunt growth

It's not all bad news in Nicaragua. In addition to the Monkey Point project, Nicaragua's getting getting foreign help:

• Foreign debt reduction with the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative
• Over $800 million in debt relief from the Inter-American Development Bank
• Nicaragua has ratified the US-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which should attract foreign business, creating jobs and economic development
  (and, I suspect, news pieces about exploitation and/or unfair foreign competition

Even though it will probably benefit the Nicaraguan economy, not everybody is happy about what I call the Monkey Point Project.

After the second military helicopter in two days came to Monkey Point, a delegation of Rama Indian and Creole locals wanted to know who had landed on their territory. They didn't appreciate the newcomers' refusal to identify themselves, and expressed their displeasure with machetes.

The locals tell time by the sun and tides, live on fish and jungle animals, and aren't at all eager to be dragged through a few thousand years of economic, political, and technological development.

Besides, quite a few of them fought with Contras against the Nicaraguan President Ortega a few years ago, and might be against an Ortegan project, even if they were in a better position to benefit from it.

The people on Monkey Point aren't the only ones who don't like what's happening on their land. The "San Antonio Express-News" reports that Iran may be planning to use its influence in Nicaragua's Monkey Point Project to stage attacks on America.

The idea of Nicaragua as a staging point for terrorist attacks isn't as crazy as it may seem. The country's about a thousand miles away from the American southern states, with regular, convenient commercial flights between Managua and Miami.

Then, there's the reputation that the three "Monkey Point Project" countries have earned:

• Nicaragua
  A corrupt government gave way to Marxist Sandanista rule in the late seventies, then free elections in the nineties ended Sandanista rule, but a 2006 election returned (former?) Sandanista Daniel Ortega Saavedra to power
  President Ortega has said that he isn't Marxist any more, and wants peace.
  That may be true: People change, and the Cold War is over. The Department of Homeland Security didn't seem concerned, a few months ago.
• Venezuela
  More-or-less benevolent generalissimos ran the country for most of the first half of the 20th century. They helped the country's petroleum industry and let some social reforms happen. Elected governments have run the country since 1959. The latest president is Hugo Chavez, who's held the post since 1999. President Chavez has said
  • "I have said it already, I am convinced that the way to build a new and better world is not capitalism. Capitalism leads us straight to hell."
  • "I hereby accuse the North American empire of being the biggest menace to our planet."
  • "A coup happened in Venezuela that was prepared by the U.S. What do they want? Our oil, as they did in Iraq."
  • "The left is back, and it's the only path we have to get out of the spot to which the right has sunken us, ... Socialism builds and capitalism destroys."
  • (In reference to President Bush's September 19, 2006 speech at the U.N.) "The devil came right here... And it still smells of sulfur today."
  • "[The planet] is being destroyed under our own noses by the capitalist model, the destructive engine of development, ... every day there is more hunger, more misery thanks to the neo-liberal, capitalist model."
  If he was a speaker on the American college and university circuit, Hugo Chavez could probably make a good living: although I think he'd have to avoid cracks like that "neo-liberal" remark. As the leader of a nation with significant oil wealth, and one which engages in trafficking in persons - providing women and children for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor to places like Spain, the Netherlands, and Caribbean nations - I'm very uncomfortable with President Chavez's acknowledged beliefs.
• Iran
  The nation was called Persia until 1935, became an Islamic Republic in 1979, and has been ruled by the Supreme Leader, learned Islamic scholar who answers only to to the Assembly of Experts. The current leadership set the tone for its administration by raiding the U.S. embassy and kidnapping the people inside. The current President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made it clear that he doesn't want Israel to exist, a preference that quite possibly extends to many infidel nations.

The idea of these three nations cooperating to set up a globally significant transportation system a few hours south of America should be a concern to people who prefer a free market and religious tolerance to what Presidents Chavez and Ahmadinejad offer. As for President Ortega, he may have found a substitute for his Cold War patron in the anti-American and oil-rich rulers of Venezuela and Iran.

Resolutions "Worthless Papers" - Iran's President Ahmadinejad

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that U.N. Security Council sanctions on Iran are "worthless papers." He declared that Iran will not give up what he calls its right to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel.

In a way, I admire his clear declaration. At least you know where he stands.

The U.N. has imposed sanctions on Iran, twice, and now we're into the second day of talk with the European Union's foreign policy chief, about Tehran's nuclear program: That Tehran didn't acknowledge until it was uncovered several years ago.

America and its allies say that the ayatollahs of Iran want to make nuclear weapons. Iran's rulers say 'no.' They say that the major oil-exporting nation needs nuclear reactors to provide power to its people.

Here's what President Ahmadinejad said: "The so-called dossier at the Security Council is a pile of papers that have no value. They can add to those worthless papers everyday because it has no effect on the will of the Iranian nation," at least according to Iranian state television.

I don't often agree with Ahmadinejad, or the ayatollahs who actually run Iran, but this time I think he's got a point.

Another man, a little over ninety years ago, had a few words about how useful ink on paper is. It was 1914, an eventful year:

• June 28: Archduke Franz Ferdinand assassinated
• August 3: Germany declared war on France
• August 4: Germany declared war on Belgium
• September 15: first western front trenches dug

America's President Franklin Roosevelt wrote a 3,000+ word piece for the New York Times:

"In the first place, events have clearly demonstrated that treaties not backed by force are not worth the paper upon which they are written. Events have clearly shown that it is the idlest folly to assert, and little short of treason against the nation for statesmen who should know better to pretend, that the salvation of any nation under existing world conditions can be trusted to treaties, to little bits of paper with names signed on them, but without any efficient force behind them. The United States will be guilty of criminal misconduct, we of this generation will show ourselves traitors to our children and our children's children, if, as conditions are now, we do not keep ourselves ready to defend our hearths, trusting in great crises not to treaties, not to the ineffective good will of outsiders, but to our own stout hearts and strong hands."

Theodore Roosevelt, writing in The New York Times (October 18, 1914 Magazine Section, Page SM1) (Previewed in The New York Times Archives)

I don't often find myself on the same page as Presidents Ahmadinejad and Theodore Roosevelt. But this is one of those times.

Resolutions and treaties are are effective: as long as the nations affected are law-abiding, and want to cooperate. If the nations affected don't want to comply, resolutions and treaties are no more valuable than so much scrap paper.

Unless there is force to back up the agreements.

I heartily agree with those who believe that it would be nice if everyone were nice.

This isn't a perfect world, though, so accommodations have to be made for nations whose leaders want to bring death and disruption. Unhappily, some of those accommodations involve using military force to stop terrorists and others who don't like freedom.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Putin, Ahmadinejad, Iran, Syria, Israel: Here We Go Again?

President Putin of Russia has been in the news quite a lot lately.

Iran

BBC (October 16, 2007) Putin said "peaceful nuclear activities must be allowed" and he said that force shouldn't figure into sorting out the issue of Iran and nuclear power. In a way, I can't argue with that: it would be nice if force wasn't necessary.

Yahoo! News (October 17, 2007): "During his trip, Putin made an unspecified proposal concerning Iran's nuclear program to the country's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's state news agency IRNA reported."

Pravda (October 18, 2007) says that "Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said Putin had carried a 'special message' that included the nuclear issue in talks with Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei," but that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says there were no proposals dealing with Iran's nuclear program. As president of Iran, my understanding is that Ahmadinejad answers to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: so in principle, there could be a deal that the Iranian president doesn't know about.

So:

• Russia supports Iran's 'peaceful' nuclear program
• Russia made a "nuclear proposal" to Iran while Putin was in Tehran
• There was "no nuclear proposal"

All this excitement shouldn't be a surprise: Putin's trip to Tehran for the big Caspian Nations get-together was the first time a Russian leader went to Iran, since Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt made the trip in 1943.

Syria

Yahoo (October 18, 2007) reports that Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is in Moscow. He flew there today to talk with Russia's President Putin about about Iran's nuclear program - and probably "new arms deals — reportedly Iranian-funded — under which Moscow would supply Syria with advanced surface-to-air and anti-aircraft missiles that Russia has not previously sold to other countries."

My guess is that Syria would love to have that Russian-made high-tech air defense. Their nuclear program that doesn't exist obviously needs more protection. (see "No Radioactive Kimchi: Israel Blew Up a Syrian Reactor" and " 'The Jews Blew Up Our Reactor (Which Does Not Exist)' ")

I'm concerned about Putin's support of Iran and Syria. Not just because of what it could do to the 'Mid East peace process,' but what could happen if nuclear weapons got into the hands of a nation with Iran's policy toward Israel - and other infidels.

The World

President Bush, in a White House press conference, talked about Iran's nuclear program, Russia's statements about not using force, and what's at stake.

"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel" (not just one leader, but let that pass (see "'Hitler Was Right,' and Other Wisdom from Iran") "So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," Bush said."

"WWIII," or World War Three, may be overstating the possibilities, but I don't think so. Looking back to the 1930s, we had situations that aren't all that unlike what we have today.

The similarities aren't quite as dramatic in east Asia. On the other hand, Japanese efforts to re-write history about uncomfortable phenomena like the Rape of Nanking and the drafting of Korean (and at least one Australian "comfort women" suggest that the attitudes which launched Japan's invasions of Manchuria and China are still alive.

More to the point, Islamic terrorists in Malaysia and elsewhere in the east seem eager to help outfits like Al Qaeda.

Europe and the Middle East are another matter. People with a radical ideology are running a relatively powerful country. These radicals have said that the Jews were a big part of Europe's problem. European powers seem horrified at the possibility of war, and insist on approaching the problem with diplomacy, followed by more diplomacy.

I know a little about what was happening in Europe before Chancellor Hitler's Germany invaded Poland. At that point, even the wise heads of Europe recognized a real and present threat.

It would be great, if diplomacy and sweet reason solves the problems of the Middle East, and if Islamic fanatics can be gently persuaded to end their jihad.

I sincerely hope that we do not follow the wisdom of 1930s Europe, waiting to act until an ideologically-driven regime launches an attack that can't be rationalized away.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Wisdom (?) From Iran: Boycott Peace Conference

Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the man President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must answer to, has told Muslims to boycott an American-sponsored peace conference this November.

Iran has shown a sincere interest in solving the Jewish problem in the Middle East before. Among other Iran's efforts are support of

• Hezbollah (Shiite, southern Lebanon
• Hamas (Sunni, Palestine/Gaza)
• Islamic Jihad ((I haven't learned which flavor of Islam), Palestine/Lebanon)

The Supreme Leader of Iran says the peace conference, scheduled to start November 26, at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, is no good because it will hurt the Palestinians.

Since the conference is unlikely to swear death to Israel, death to the Great Satan America, I suppose the Ayatollah Khamenei's attitude is understandable. I could be wrong, but considering Iran's track record and the position of Khamenei's subordinant Ahmadinejad on the destruction of Israel, I don't think so.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Students Demonstrating Against the President: in Iran

Tehran University kicked off the academic year with a something different this year.

About a hundred students demonstrated against the president Monday, October 8. That's hardly noteworthy, except for this detail: it was President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran who they called 'dictator.'

What's even more remarkable is that the students seem to still be alive.

Maybe it isn't so surprising: I've never thought Ahmadinejad was particularly stupid or foolish: and this isn't the time to emulate Burma/Myanmar's direct approach to opposing opinions. Not if Ahmadinejad wants to maintain an image of innocent victim of western oppression, at least.

The non-Ahmadinejad fans chanted "death to the dictator" (in Persian, I assume) while the Iranian president talked about how good science is, and how risky Western-style democracy is.

More conventionally loyal Iranian students chanted "thank you president," while the police stayed safely on the other side of the university gates.

I don't think this is the start of an Iranian "sixties," with student radicals taking over the colleges and universities. For starters, Iran seems to be much too well run for that sort of thing to happen. Besides that, pro-government student groups have more support, and the reform newspapers that haven't been shut down are being discretely muted in their criticism of official Iranian policies.

What's going on in Iran?

I think it's fair to say that not everyone is satisfied with how the ayatollahs are running the place. Which is something to remember, when thinking about what can, and should, be done about the very real danger of Islamic fanatics building nuclear weapons with Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

The Middle East, Princess Di, and the Fayeds: a Multicultural Perspective

In London, an inquest into the death of Princess Diana is in the news.

This has nothing to do, directly, with the war on terror, but I think there's a lesson to be learned here.

A little over ten years ago, Princess Di, her very special friend Dodi Fayed, Fayed's bodyguard, and a sozzled driver shot into a tunnel, along with a swarm of paparazzi. In the tunnel, the car met a concrete pillar, with predictable results. Dodi's bodyguard survived, happily, but Dodi, Di, and the driver were sincerely dead.

Dodi's dad, Mohammed al Fayed, says that Queen Elizabeth II's husband, Prince Philip, told the British secret service to kill Dodi and Di. Even assuming that the elder Fayed is right about his son having gotten Di pregnant, and the British Royal family not wanting a non-Britisher in the family, the assassination angle seems unlikely.

Until you realize that Mohammed al Fayed is from Egypt.

That's a part of the world that reminds me, in some ways, of gangland Chicago. Back around the 11th century, a group of Islamic Persians permanently removed people they didn't approve of: and gave European cultures the word الحشاشين (hashashin) in the process. It came into English as "assassin."

It's easy to get the idea that people in and near today's Middle East are accustomed to settling differences by selective, and occasionally not-so-selective, assassinations. For example,

• Two aides of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's top Shiite cleric, were assassinated within hours of each other last month. It could be part of a Shiite turf war.
• A couple years ago, former Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri, and quite a few others, died when the convoy he was in blew up. His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan strongly condemned" the assassination. Odds are that Syria ordered the hit.

Coming from a region like that, the first thing a bereaved father might think of was that the family of his son's girlfriend had put out a hit.

Sure, it killed Di, too: but honor killings aren't exactly unknown around there, either. Di had, from some points of view, besmirched the family's honor and needed to be killed.

So what? Non-Muslims are dealing with a part of the world, and a culture, that most of us aren't used to. Aside from relatively minor details, like table etiquette, there are major points where people who grew up in a post-Magna-Carta world must remember that other cultures have alternative values.

For example, in America, a woman who was raped is generally regarded as a victim.

In other places, from Syria to Pakistan, a woman who was raped has brought shame to her family, and must be killed to wipe out the shame.

Although I can't condone honor killings and assassinations, I think it's necessary to understand how other cultures deal with conflicts and other issues, in order to properly evaluate how well, or how poorly, political leaders in that part of the world maintain order.

In other words, Baghdad, Damascus, and Riyadh are not Kansas City, Detroit, and Miami.

Back to the Princess Di mess for a moment. As a father myself, I sympathize with Muhammed al Fayed. The loss of a child is a terrible thing, and I grieve with him.

Although I believe that al Fayed has misread British culture, and over-estimated the abilities of the British secret service, It's only reasonable to provide a link to "Al Fayed," Muhammed al Fayed's website.

When Iran's Disappointed, Bad Things Happen

Iran has a nuclear program that it kept quiet for sixteen years. The official line is that Iran needs reactors for peaceful, civilian, power generation. Quite a few people think that the ayatollahs want nuclear weapons.

And, that Supreme Leader Ali Hoseini-Khamenei and company shouldn't get them.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy told the United Nations that it was not acceptable to let Iran acquire nuclear weapons, and that war is a possible consequence if diplomacy doesn't work. That's an oddly strong statement about the current rulers of Iran.

It's doubly amazing, considering what can happen when the current regime in Iran doesn't get what it wants.

Take Argentina, for example. Trade with Iran was a profitable deal for Argentina in the 1970s and 1980s, continuing after the Ayatollahs took over in the late 1970s. Argentina even helped the new regime lay the foundations of its nuclear program.

Then, Argentinian leaders decided that they wanted to stop the nuclear aid. Iran's rulers were understandably miffed.

In 1992, 29 people were killed by a homicide bomber in an truck bomb attacked the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires. In 1994, a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires was bombed: 85 killed. It could be coincidence. But the Argentinian government says that Hezbollah did the actual dirty work: on orders from Tehran.

Argentinian leaders have arrest warrants for nine Iranian officials and Hezbollah leaders, but no one has caught them yet.

So, hats off to President Sarkozy, for risking the Iran's displeasure.

I hope other leaders develop a sense of what's at stake. And are willing to take short-term risks for the sake of long-term survival.

Sources:
"Terrorist base south of border" WorldNetDaily.com
(December 1, 2003)
"Official: Iran Ordered Terrorist Bombing in the Americas" FOXNews.com
(September 27, 2007)

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Peace, Hope, and Jihadists With Nuclear Bombs

The Times Online is running an article headlined "Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran" today.

Following good, journalistic, reverse-pyramid format, the gist of the article is in the first paragraph, "The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians' military capability in three days, according to a national security expert."

The national security expert is Alexis Debat, who spoke a meeting organized by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal.

Debat told the UK newspaper that US military planners had decided: "Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same." Debate added that it was a "very legitimate strategic calculus."

I don't know how mainstream media is handling this yet, but parts of the blogosphere are reacting predictably. Free Republic's post on the article drew comments from the silly

• "Oh, Yeah? Well, I’m formulating my TWO-day plan!"
• "Its disinformation. The plan will take one day."

to the thoughtful

• "An alternative to direct military action would be to continue with the embargoes and keep up the political pressure. I would also encourage the smuggling of electronic communication devices like internet capable laptops into Iran. By educating the youth, who do not remember the cruelty of the Shah, only the cruelty of the Ayatollah, the stage will be set for a new revolution."
• "Airstrikes like these would be too good to be true; therefore, this story is probably just psy-ops. Especially since the source is identified. If it were an anonymous source, like those that the NY Slimes relies on, I’d give it more credibility."

(I said thoughtful, not polite!)

On the other hand, there's yesterday's post in a rather carefully anonymous blog called:

"Meanwhile in Palestine and Iraq (The Obsessive Compulsive's Guide to the Middle East)"

"While the Middle East takes a licking, we keep on ticking: Al Bintein Mudawenetein"

This blog's September 1, 2007 post title is "9/1/07 Meanwhile in the U.S. -- documenting another day of crimes by the American regime.," by "Catholic Sunni Shia." It's a collection of headlines with blurbs . The bomb-Iran headline is in bold. The headlines:

• "Marine killed five unarmed Iraqi men"
• "Marine tells of order to execute Haditha women and children"
• "U.S. Military Censors ThinkProgress"
• "Walt & Mearsheimer's Proof That 'Tail Wagged the Dog'"
• "As Her Star Wanes, Rice Tries to Reshape Legacy"
• "New McCain Push on War, His Candidacy"
• "UPI Poll: U.S. energy source less secure"
• "Civilian prisons coming soon to U.S. Army base near you"
• "Victims of National Security Injustice, The Tragic Ordeal of the Cuban Five"
• "Wives of Saudi militancy suspects want public trial"
• "Pentagon 'Three-Day Blitz' Plan For Iran"
• "USA equipping a private army in preparation for an invasion of Venezuela"
• "'They wanted them poor niggers out of there.'" (don't blame me: that's what was in the post)

That reminds me of my seventies college experience: and the eighties one, too.

(I did a little checking, and found that "Meanwhile in Palestine and Iraq etc." seems to have used a Duluth, Minnesota-based service: Do a "who is" request for inblogs.net, if you're curious. InBlog's purported purpose is to address blogosphere censorship: "Is your blog blocked in India, Pakistan, Iran or China? If Yes then you can still access your blog anytime using inblogs free Blog Gateway." - That's a whole different topic.)

So What?

As usual, I'd appreciate it if people would think before they wrote. (I'd also like a million dollars, tax-free, but that's not going to happen, either.)

More to the point, I'd be dismayed if the Pentagon planners didn't have contingency plans for obliterating the Iranian military.

I'd also be dismayed to discover that they hadn't planned for re-taking San Diego after its capture by hostile forces, and any number of other more-or-less probable scenarios.

• That's what they're supposed to do
• That's what any responsible military organization is supposed to do
• Just because a plan exists, doesn't mean its going to be executed

Unhappily, right now Iran has a nuclear program. The only assurance that it isn't being used to produce usable nuclear weapons is the word of the religious fanatics who run Iran.

Personally, I'd rather have some options other than hoping that the Iranian leaders are more reasonable, open-minded, and tolerant than they were back in 1979, when they broke into the American embassy in Tehran, and held hostages for 444 days.

"Peace For Our Time," or Peace?

The unclassified part of the National Intelligence Estimate released today is coming out in bits and pieces in the news.

The Jerusalem Post concentrated mostly on what the report had to say about Iran, in "US reports bleak political situation in Iran" (August 23, 2007).

The Associated Press article says that:

• Iran will keep developing its nuclear program, which may or may not be producing nuclear weapons
• Iran will continue to "cause problems" in Iraq
• Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim extremist group, will still be backed by Iranian money and weapons
• Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will continue to be Iran's Supreme Leader

I haven't been keeping score, but at least four Iranian-Americans have been arrested by Iran for alleged espionage. The U.S. government has warned American citizens against traveling in Iran.

"Intelligence Assessment Suggests Now Is Not Time to Change Mission in Iraq," on FoxNews.com, paid more attention to what the report had to say about Iraq.

It's not all bad news, but it's not all good, either:

• Iraqi military forces are okay, but they still need coalition support for major operations
• Political and security troubles in Iraq are driven by
• Shia insecurity about keeping the political power they have
• A general Sunni unwillingness to accept the post-Saddam Iraq where they aren't the top power
• Fighting between groups within sectarian communities
• Extremists trying to make the fighting worse
• Civilians are still getting hurt
• Sunni Arab groups and individuals are getting fed up with al Qaeda in Iraq, and are resisting or working against AQI

There's more, of course. Fox News put a .pdf copy of the report online.

The report's authors say that stopping Coalition forces from focusing on fighting terrorists and stabilizing Iraq, and making them a combat support service for the Iraqi forces, "would erode security gains achieved thus far."

I would love to have "peace for our time." The violence in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and everywhere else that al Qaeda and other Islamic fanatics are at work, is terrible. I wish that it would stop.

But wishing doesn't make it so.

Like it or not, there are people who earnestly believe that their god is telling them to conduct a jihad against the people their leaders don't approve of.

And, it's been going on for at least 30 years. The Ayatollahs who run Iran are the same bunch that took over the U.S. Embassy, back in the seventies.

There's no reason to believe that Abu Sayyaf, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Jemaah Islamiyah, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi, or any of the other people who think they're on a sacred mission, will stop because America and other coalition troops stop trying so hard in Iraq.

"We make war that we may live in peace."

To people who grew up in the sixties, or who are still living then, that sounds crazy. But Aristotle was no lunatic, and leaders who don't let terrorists do what they will may not be, either.

---

"Quagmire," the Revolutionary Guard, and the News

Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami is an Iranian cleric who gives the official Friday sermon once a month.

This time, he told thousands of Muslims at Tehran University, and anyone who would listen on the radio, what they should think about news that the United States may name Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist group.

Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami said that this would show that the Guards were doing something right.

U.S. officials have said that Iran's Revolutionary Guard has been involved in attacks inside Iraq. Iran's leaders say 'did not!'

In the real world, if the Revolutionary Guard is put on Washington's official list of terrorist groups, it will be the first time a foreign military unit will share the sort of fame that Hamas and al Qaeda have earned.

The significance of putting the Revolutionary Guard on the terror list would be that the U.S. could then legally interfere with the military unit's finances, Reuters pointed out.

In the news, it's been interesting to note differences between the Associated Press and Reuters coverage. The AP says that the cleric "warned the U.S. that confronting the Guard would lead it into a quagmire."

"Quagmire" doesn't appear in the Reuters article. Reuters does, however, identify Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami "a member of the Assembly of Experts, an influential clerical body which has the power to appoint or dismiss Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."

AP identified him as "a senior Iranian cleric ... who does not hold a government post but once a month delivers the official Friday prayer sermon," giving a somewhat different impression of his position.

I haven't found a transcript of what the "senior cleric" said, and couldn't read it if I did, since I don't know Persian.

Which brings up an interesting question: did the cleric use a term which can reasonably be translated as "quagmire," as in the AP, but not the Reuters, report of his sermon?

One way or another, "quagmire" seems to be a popular word.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Congress Must Decide Who to Protect Americans From

I've heard that this week's temporary update of the FISA bill is carefully worded to guard against law enforcement listening in on Americans who may be involved with plans that organizations like al Qaeda have for killing other Americans.

I suppose I should be glad that our representatives in Washington are working hard to protect our rights. But in cases like this, I'm concerned that many of them don't know what's been happening during the last few years ((From Newsmax.com and BBC.) ):

• 1972, September 5, Munich Olympic Games. Palestinian terrorists kill 11 Israeli athletes.
• 1979, November 4, Teheran. Ayatollah Khomeini supporters take over U.S. embassy. Fifty-three U.S. diplomats held hostage until 1981.
• 1983, April 18, Beirut. Islamic Jihad truck bomb hits U.S. Embassy. 63 dead.
• 1983, October 23, Beirut. Hezbollah truck bomb hits U.S. Marines barracks. 241 dead.
• 1984, December 4, Kuwait Airlines. Hijackers divert flight 221 to Tehran. 2 dead.
• 1985, June 14, TWA flight. Hijackers divert flight 847 to Beirut. 1 dead (U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem, dumped on the airport tarmac).
• 1985, October 7, cruise ship Achille Lauro. 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer and his wheelchair dumped overboard.
• 1987, September 5, Pan Am. Abu Nidal hijacks flight 73 in Pakistan. 20 dead.
• 1988, December 21, Pan Am. Libyan terrorists allegedly blow up flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, 259 dead.
• 1990, November 5, New York City. A group including Ramzi Yousef kills Jewish Defense League leader Rabbi Meir Kahane
• 1994, March 1, Brooklyn. Rashid Bas attacks a van transporting yeshiva students. 1 dead.
• 1996, June 25, Dhahran area, Saudi Arabia. Unknown persons hit Khobar Towers with truck-bomb. 19 dead.
• 1998, August 7, Kenya, Tanzania. Unknown persons hit U.S. embassies with car bombls. 291 dead.
• 1993, February 26, New York. An al-Qaeda-financed group including Mohammed Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmud Abouhalima and Ahmad Ajaj, hit the Twin Towers with car bomb. 6 dead. "The blind sheik," Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, masterminded the bombing.
• 2000, October 12, Yemen. Al-Qaeda may be responsible for attack on USS Cole. 17 dead.
• 2001, September 11, New York City; Arlington County; Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Al-Qaeda affiliates hijack airliners, destroy Twin Towers, damage Pentagon. Fourth airliner brought down in Somerset County field. 2,974 dead.

I'm no accredited expert in international affairs, but I see a pattern here.

I do not believe that foreigners are trying to kill Americans. I believe that Islamic fanatics are trying to kill Americans.

Some of those fanatics are Americans.

Adam Pearlman was born in 1978 and raised on a goat farm in Orange County. His Jewish father converted to Christianity, changing the family name to Gadahn at the same time.

Apparently Adam turned to Islam in his teens, after an enthusiasm for heavy metal. Then he discovered al Qaeda, moved to Pakistan, and Adam Pearl / Adam Gadahn sometimes calls himself Azzam al-Amriki (Adam the American), now that he's an al Qaeda spokesman.

He's featured in an al Qaeda video released today. "We shall continue to target you, at home and abroad, just as you target us, at home and abroad, and these spy dens and military command and control centers from which you plotted your aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq," this American said.

We can't count on all American Muslims who decide to become jihadists to be as obliging as Mr. Gadahn, making his new affiliation so obvious. Some may stay right here in the USA, unobtrusively working on the next big attack.

Personally, I'm not as concerned about people who have sworn to serve and protect as I am about people who have sworn to destroy and kill.