LFTC - Letter From The Capitol

LFTC - Index 6/26/09

8 posts: (1) IRAN: Looking Forward and Back--Us v. Them; (2) Hollywood Gets Iraq Right at Last, and Mr. "He-eeere's Johnny!" Passes On--Class & Crass; (3) Economy: Omaha's Sage Speaks--"It's the Earth Stupid!"; (4) Pakistan Air-Strike Awry: America's Challenge--Us v. Them; (5) Health Care: Figures Can Lie & Liars Can Figure--The Home Front; (6) US Census 2010: Don't Ask, Don't Tell--The Home Front; (7) Online Military Sales: EBay for Taliban--Wobble Watch; (8) Iraq: Oil for Sale--"It's the Earth Stupid!"

LFTC - IRAN: Looking Ahead and Back

News Update.  Start with today's Iran headlines.  The NY Times reports that Iran's rulers on Friday declared the election "healthy" (short of a formal certification); but the paper also notes that Thursday only 105 of 290 members--36 percent--of the Majlis, Iran's Parliament, showed up to publicly celebrate President Ahmadinejad's dubious victory, indicating schism within the ruling elite.  Radio Free Europe reports that the regime's crackdown has intensified, with thousands under arrest and targets going beyond protesters.  Senators McCain (R-AZ), Lieberman (I-CT) and Graham (R-SC) called for President Obama to take a stronger stand on Iran.

The Wall Street Journal reports that a theological rift has opened in Mideast Shia communities:

Unrest in Iran has opened a theological rift within the Shiite sect of Islam, undermining the Iranian regime's founding dogma that is shared by millions of fellow Shiites across the Middle East.

The concept, known as wilayat al-faqih -- literally "guardianship by a jurist" -- holds that, in an Islamic state, a divinely anointed scholar of Islamic law must exercise unquestioned authority over elected officials and the rest of the government.

Iran's current such incumbent, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, isn't just the top arbiter of the country's affairs. He also serves as the marjaa, or spiritual guide, for many Shiites outside Iran. Mr. Khamenei's image graces billboards in south Beirut, mosques in Shiite shantytowns of eastern Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, and the walls of Shiite lawmakers' offices in Kuwait.

But, in recent weeks, this moral authority -- and the wilayat al-faqih ideology that underpins it -- has been shaken by Ayatollah Khamenei's handling of Iran's disputed June 12 presidential elections.

The WSJ article notes theological ferment inside Lebanon:

A debate around Shiite clergy's role in affairs of the state has erupted in Lebanon, where a Hezbollah-led coalition lost parliamentary elections to a pro-Western bloc days before the Iranian presidential contest.

The Shiites are the biggest of Lebanon's several religious sects, and most of them vote for Hezbollah. Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, in a speech last week warned critics not to question the wilayat al-faqih ideology. "Wilayat al-faqih ... and such issues for us are a part of our religious belief. Insulting it is an insult to our religious belief," Mr. Nasrallah said.

Syed Ali Amine, the Shiite mufti -- or chief religious authority -- of Tyre and Mount Amel in the south of Lebanon, said Mr. Nasrallah is trying to stop the discussion of wilayat al-faqih because challenging this ideology would undermine Hezbollah's own power in Lebanon.

"Despite Nasrallah's statements, this challenge already happened in the streets of Tehran and several Iranian cities," Mr. Amine said, adding that "unfortunately it was a bloody challenge" because of the police attacks on protesters.

"This is the biggest proof that wilayat al-faqih is not part of the religious beliefs, but it is a power and political ideology," he said. "Those who protested in the streets of Tehran did not offend religion or the Shiite sect."

Looking Ahead.  Zbigniew Brzezinski said yesterday on CNBC "Morning Joe" that he sees " a new war of attrition" underway.  ZB is pessimistic in the short run but optimistic in the long run.  There is bargaining going on inside the regime.  He noted that Iran's movement is far broader than the student movement in China in 1989: women, young professionals, etc.  But Iran is less threatened than the Communist regime in Eastern Europe, where intellectuals, clerics, and nationalist sentiment worked against a hated foreign occupier.  ZB noted that the interlocutor for President Obama would be not President Ahmadinejad, but Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei.  This point rings off key, as negotiation with a discredited cleric could re-legimitize him.

(ZB added an irritating caricature of Iran hardliners as "neocons" with a Manichean view of the world.  This is bad both in applying American political taxonomy but also, worse, it is a grossly unfair portrait of American neocons.  In the event, as neocon godfather Irving Kristol has observed, the term is now so vague the even he cannot presume to define it.)

Opposition leader Mousavi is being pressured by the regime to drop his challenge and being isolated as well.  Claudia Rosett examines a predictably pathetic UN response--verily, a series of non-responses--to the brutal crackdown in Iran.  Hudson scholar Anne Bayevsky skewers Team Obama's yawning words/deeds gap between its lofty human rights pretensions and hands-off deeds.  Michael Barone attributes President 44's policies re engaging Iran & North Korea to 44's adolescent desire to do the opposite of his predecessor (though it is hardly the case--Bush 43 wound up weak on both regimes which originally he had placed along with Saddam in the Axis of Evil).  In a similar vein, Bob Tyrrell assails President 44's flaccid policy toward Iran, noting an anonymous Obama aide's plaintive quote to the Washington Post: "We're trying to promote a foreign policy that advances our interests, not that makes us feel good about ourselves."  John Bolton sees Obama repeating mistakes of earlier Presidents by standing aloof; JB rightly states that 44's is putting negotiation over Iran's nuclear program first, and that if he gets a chance to sit down with the mullahs he will ultimately accept an enrichment-only solution to Iran's uranium program, leaving Iran with the ability to weaponize within weeks.  At Human Events Kathryn Gaines wonders if Iranians will come to resent America for failing ot lift a finger to help them.  On TAS, former top Romanian security chief Ion Marie Pacepa, whose masterful book, Red Horizons, opened a window on a hideous communist tyranny, writes an open letter to the Iran Revolutionary Guard asking them to turn their guns on the regime.  A Washington Post front-pager reports Cairo activists motivated by events inside iran to seek liberalization of Hosni Mubarak's harsh rule.  Reagan-era National Security Adviser Robert "Bud" McFarlane (who went to Iran in 1986 trying to propitiate the mullahs, part of what became known as Iran-Contra) calls on 44 to promote democracy.  Ex-Bush 43 speechwriter Michael Gerson says that democracy promotion is not a mere choice for America; without it, says Gerson, political and economic progress in the Mideast is not possible.  One blogger calls 44 "the great equivocator."

Charles Krauthammer sees Iranian protesters "desperately seeking" a Boris Yeltsin establishment figure turned reformer to lead their movement.  CK castigates 44 for likening Mousavi to Ahmadinekad, because while originally true, revolutions are fluid events that can transform leaders, as happened with Yeltsin.  In a gruesome note, CK identifies Nokia Siemens Networks as the company that supplied Iran's tyrants with technology to suppress cell phone & Internet activity.

For sheer calculated cruelty, consider report from The Guardian on this latest outrage by the Iranian authorities: forcing the parents of martyr Neda Soltan out of their home.  Here are the gory details:

The Iranian authorities have ordered the family of Neda Agha Soltan out of their Tehran home after shocking images of her death were circulated around the world.

Neighbours said that her family no longer lives in the four-floor apartment building on Meshkini Street, in eastern Tehran, having been forced to move since she was killed. The police did not hand the body back to her family, her funeral was cancelled, she was buried without letting her family know and the government banned mourning ceremonies at mosques, the neighbours said.

"We just know that they [the family] were forced to leave their flat," a neighbour said. The Guardian was unable to contact the family directly to confirm if they had been forced to leave.

The government is also accusing protesters of killing Soltan, describing her as a martyr of the Basij militia. Javan, a pro-government newspaper, has gone so far as to blame the recently expelled BBC correspondent, Jon Leyne, of hiring "thugs" to shoot her so he could make a documentary film.

More inhumanity:

Amid scenes of grief in the Soltan household with her father and mother screaming, neighbours not only from their building but from others in the area streamed out to protest at her death. But the police moved in quickly to quell any public displays of grief. They arrived as soon as they found out that a friend of Soltan had come to the family flat.

In accordance with Persian tradition, the family had put up a mourning announcement and attached a black banner to the building.

But the police took them down, refusing to allow the family to show any signs of mourning. The next day they were ordered to move out. Since then, neighbours have received suspicious calls warning them not to discuss her death with anyone and not to make any protest.

An online resource of note is the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center.  At it site is Cntrl+Alt+Delete: Iran's Response to the Internet (May 2009), an 89-page report on the regime's efforts to control and shut down, when needed, Internet access inside Iran.  Check out also Huffington Post's Live Iran Blog for updates during the day.

Looking Back.  Clifford May has followed events in Iran for three decades--he was actually on the tarmac when the Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile in January 1979.  He explains that elections in Iran have never been free and fair.  The late Peter Rodman, vastly experienced in national security, recalls in a must-read 4-pager that corrects numerous misconceptions held on the left and on the right, events during the Carter administration re Iran.

Bottom Line.  The regime's brutal suppression is prevailing in the streets and shutting down to a trickle communications between Iran and the outside world.  The stage of continued struggle is now held by the ruling elite, where deep fissures have emerged.  Over months, perhaps years, the struggle for change in Iran will continue, with the regime's clerical fascist character permanently tarnished.  Perhaps a telling indicator of Iran's youth orientation is that Tweets from Iran were divided since last night between accounts of regime brutality and mourning the death of Michael Jackson.  (Memo to Mullahs: Go ahead, diss the King of Pop and see the revolution explode in your faces!)

LFTC - Hollywood Gets Iraq Right at Last, and Mr "He-eeere's Johnny!" Passes On

BIG EVENT today: a new film, The Hurt Locker (2009), opens at theaters today.  "Hurt locker" is military-speak for where wounded are taken.  It is a gritty, realistic tribute to an Army bomb squad working in Iraq--desperately dangerous and essential to quelling the insurgency.  Here is the film's official website.  The Video tab offers a trailer; the theaters tab gives the schedule.  The film opens first in NY & LA today; a second wave of roll-outs comes July 10, to Washington DC and other major cities.

Hollywood finally has done the right thing by the world's finest military--and America's finest citizens.  Let us hope more like this are on the way.

On an unrelated, softer program note, enjoy Ben Stein's warm tribute to the late Ed McMahon, the superb announcer who served as a perfect foil for the King of Late Night, Johnny Carson.  To those of us who were privileged to watch Johnny & Ed (and Doc Severinsen) in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s, the great days of Carson's 30-year run, Ed was always a class act.  He kept his dignity while serving his boss, with gracious deference, never servile, always remembering who the King was and how much the viewers mattered.  Ed, we will miss you.

LFTC - Economy: Omaha's Sage Speaks

Warren Buffet was interviewed Wednesday by CNBC's Becky Quick.  Omaha's Sage sad that he saw no sign that the economy is moving.

LFTC - Pakistan Air-Strike Awry: America's Challenge

This Guardian report on a recent air-strike miss in Pakistan illustrates a cruel challenge confronting American military commanders: balancing a desire to kill senior Taliban or al-Qaeda leaders against the risk that innocents will be killed due to faulty intelligence or timing.  American military commanders take numerous precautions to ensure as much as possible that only the bad guys are killed.  But intel can be wrong or, more vexing, it can be right but timing is off.  Thus the air-strike against a funeral procession went awry in Pakistan because the senior leader target left the procession shortly before the strike. there is no easy solution to this, and America is being held to standards far stricter than ever before in the history of warfare.  In my view these are unreasonable.  But that does not blunt the practical reality that the locals will judge harshly any mistakes made.

LFTC - Health Care: Figures Can Lie & Liars Can Figure

Start with REAL numbers: the Senate HC plan is estimated to cost $1.6TR, while the House HC plan is priced at $3TR.  See a problem?

Vincent Carroll of AEI debunks the World Health Organization's rankings on health care--America ranks 37th, behind the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Cyprus.  One trick is to compare systems based upon share of household income--affordabilty; market systems spend more because their citizens are wealthier, and desire to spend more on care.  Another trick is to compare what a system achieves with what it, in the evaluator's opinion, could have achieved.  That is a license to finagle numbers and criteria.  WHO has too much real work to do for it to politicize health care.

David Gratzer says Team Obama blew it on health care.  Here are one doctor's thoughts on health care reform; he notes that reimbursements are down as costs go up, and that Medicare's complex forms are easily misread, at risk of federal fraud prosecution.  Robert Reich defends the public option idea that ObamaCare embodies.  Diana Furchtgott-Roth applies a consumer's-eye view to socialized medicine, based upon her time growing up with her native England's National Health Service.  NHS has long lines, no recourse for substandard treatment, rationing, queue jumping and yes, high costs too--between 1997 & 2007 costs for NHS were up 114 percent, versus 99 percent in the US.

LFTC - US Census 2010: Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Congresswoman Michelle Bachman (R-MN) revealed yesterday on Glenn Beck that she is only filling out her name and the number of people living in her household, on the 28-page Census Bureau form that will be mailed to all of us next year.  She will pay the $5,000 fine for refusing to fill it out, rather than answer questions such as what time she leaves for work in the morning.  She then said something hard to believe, but surely she did not make this up.  One question NOT on the Census form is whether the respondent is a US Citizen!!!  This presumably will encourage illegals to answer.  They won't.  Call it "don't ask, don't tell" for illegals.

Rep. Bachman points to Article I, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides, in pertinent part, in Clause 3 within that section--known as the Enumeration Clause): "The actual enumeration shall be made within Three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten [sic] Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."  In Utah v. Evans (2002) the Supreme Court upheld statistical sampling, despite plain textual language in the Enumeration Clause, which may enable ACORN, the Obama-favored fraud factory, to determine how several House seats are apportioned after 2010.

That said, I am dvised by a former Census Bureau chief that the law is settled in favor of the Feds.  YOU DO HAVE TO ANSWER.

LFTC - Online Military Sales: Taliban Market?

The Washington Times reports that Taliban, no less, are buying military equipment online--American equipment, including....infrared patches identifying the wearer as a friend, not as foe.  Sound like a problem we should try to fix?

LFTC - Iraq: Oil for Sale

The Wall Street Journal reports that major oil companies--including China; Sinopec (China Petroleum)--are ready for investment in Iraq, when Iraq auctions off drilling rights for the first time in 30 years.  Sinopec just acquired a Canadian oil firm in the largest overseas acquisition ever by a Chinese company.  This is the latest sign of normalizing economic and political conditions in Iraq, adjudged a lost cause by most observers just 2-1/2 years ago.

LFTC - Index 6/25/09

5 posts: (1) IRAN's Nobel Laureate Protests--Us v. Them; (2) Team Obama Propitiates Terror--Wobble Watch; (3) Taliban Afghan Split?--Wobble Watch; (4) Missile Defense: Will Team Obama Reboot?--The Home Front; (5) Israel: Bibi's Speech; Bush Settlements Accord--Wobble Watch.

LFTC - IRAN: Iran's Nobel Laureate Protests

Al-Jazeera English reports that Iranian expatriate Shirin Ebadi, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2004, is adding her voice to to growing chorus of protest over the Iranian regime's election fraud and violent crackdown.  Fox News reported yesterday that opposition leader Hossein Mousavi renewed his call for a general strike.  CitizenTube is a website within YouTube that carries myriad Iran videos, and is constantly being updated.  Meanwhile, back with the thug-clerics, they have tasked a top thug to go after protest leaders.  And they are convening a special court to deal with protesters.  Fox News reported "quite a great deal of violence" yesterday.  The Financial Times reported violent street clashes.  Radio Free Europe reports in a similar vein, and adds chilling video image of a televised forced confession.  The Guardian reports that Iranian footballers who recently wore green wrist bands during a match have been banned from play.

A report on CNN "American Morning" revealed a shift in regime crackdown strategy: Instead of targeting proxy serves the regime is simply confiscating equipment--people strolling the streets with cell phones are being forced to surrender the devices to police.  Also on the show, CNN reporter Reza Sayah recounted how he had been accosted by an Iranian official and told that he had to sign a statement committing to do no reporting--despite Sayah having obeyed the regime's earlier order banning reporting (for his own safety, to be sure).  Sayah went on to say that the official told him if he refused to sign Sayah would be expelled within 24 hours, banned from returning, and that in the interim the official could not guarantee Sayah's safety.  After consulting with his superiors, Sayah did sign the document.  CNN's Ivan Watson relayed on AM the anguished voice of an Iranian woman giving further harrowing details.

CNN deserves highest praise for its stellar Iran reporting over the past week; while other networks have made worthy  contributions, CNN has been, to date, the best of all networks in getting out the story.

Amir Taheri sees three strategies the opposition is weighing: (1) minimalist one demand at a time, patterned after Solidarity in Poland; (2) brokering a power-sharing arrangement; (3) a broader regime change push.   Where the street is on these, no one yet knows.  One human rights activist sees more revolution to come.  Russian dissident Garry Kasparov calls for outside support to aid the opposition.  A Times Online article examines Iran's focus on the British.

Bill Siegel, a contributing editor at Family Security Matters, sees Team Obama ignoring the role women are playing in a genuine popular revolt.  A similar vein is struck in a Jerusalem Post op-ed, citing martyr Neda Agha Soltan (age 27, and not 16 as reported last week).  Paul Williams, another FSM contributing editor, reviews Jimmy Carter's awful record in promoting the Ayatollah Khomeini at the expense of Shah Reza Pahlavi.

Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger told Andrew Napolitano on Fox yesterday: President Obama is a foreign policy "novice."  He speaks for himself, when the President is supposed to speak for the American people, who clearly desire that more be done.

Pajamas Media picked up on and posted an Iran video link of mine via my Twitter account.  Thanks much to PJ and to Claudia Rosett, journalist par excellence, for posting it.

Bottom Line.  Iran's clerics have taken a harder line and employed more sophisticated strategies along with brute intimidation.  The opposition must chart a perilous course in order to keep pressure up.  Stay tuned.

LFTC - Team Obama Propitiates Terror

NRO's Andy McCarthy details how the new administration is bargaining inside Iraq with a terror group that killed American troops and took foreign hostages, releasing terrorists in the process.  Robert Spencer reveals that that the Justice Department is partnering with a suspect Muslim group for July 4 outreach.  Then of course there is the silly idea Team Obama declined to drop, inviting Iranian diplomats to visit our embassies come July 4.  By such logic, how about inviting North Korean diplomats and stage a Global Kumbaya Day?  (N.B., At 8:17 AM a news flash came across the TV that the White House withdrew its July 4 invitation to iranian diplomats.  I guess that kills my "invite North Korea too" idea.  Better late than never.)

LFTC - Taliban Afghan Split?

Al-Jazeera English reported that a Taliban commander who protested (internally, within the group) after a Taliban attack killed innocent civilians, was executed.

LFTC - Missile Defense: Will Team Obama Reboot?

Heritage Foundation defense expert Baker Spring assesses missile defense options for Team Obama.  As North Korea prepares to launch a missile towards Hawaii, reassessment should be on Team Obama's plate.

LFTC - Israel: Bibi's Speech; Bush Settlements Accord

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin ("Bibi") Netanyahu's June 14 speech at Bar-Ilan University addressed the Palestinian problem, contrasting his view with that of President Obama's.  He offered a vision of economic peace as a predicate to political peace:

I call upon the leaders of the Arab countries to join together with the Palestinians and with us to promote economic peace. Economic peace is not a substitute for peace, but it is a very important component in achieving it. Together we can advance projects that can overcome the problems facing our region. For example, water desalinization. And we can utilize the advantages of our region, such as maximizing the use of solar energy, or utilizing its geographical advantages to lay pipelines, pipelines to Africa and Europe.

Together we can realize the initiatives that I see in the Persian Gulf, which amaze the entire world, and also amaze me. I call upon the talented entrepreneurs of the Arab world, to come and invest here, to assist the Palestinians and us, to give the economy a jump-start. Together we can develop industrial zones, we can create thousands of jobs, and foster tourism that will draw millions, people who want to walk in the footsteps of history, in Nazareth and Bethlehem, in the heights of Jericho and on the walls of Jerusalem, on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, and at the baptismal site of the Jordan. There is a huge potential for the development of tourism potential here. If you only agree to work together.

Bibi bluntly stated the true cause of Israeli-Palestinian conflict--simple rejection of Israel's right to exist:

I now am asking that when we speak of the huge challenge of peace, we must use the simplest words possible, using person to person terms. Even with our eyes on the horizon, we must have our feet on the ground, firmly rooted in truth. The simple truth is that the root of the conflict has been - and remains - the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish People to its own state in its historical homeland.

In 1947 when the United Nations proposed the Partition Plan for a Jewish state and an Arab state, the entire Arab world rejected the proposal, while the Jewish community accepted it with great rejoicing and dancing. The Arabs refused any Jewish state whatsoever, with any borders whatsoever.

Whoever thinks that the continued hostility to Israel is a result of our forces in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is confusing cause and effect. The attacks on us began in the 1920s, became an overall attack in 1948 when the state was declared, continued in the 1950s with the fedaayyin attacks, and reached their climax in 1967 on the eve of the Six-Day War, with the attempt to strangle Israel. All this happened nearly 50 years before a single Israeli soldier went into Judea and Samaria.

To our joy, Egypt and Jordan left this circle of hostility. They signed peace agreements with us which ended their hostility to Israel. It brought about peace. 

Bibi cited the history of Israeli withdrawal yielding Palestinian aggression:

A great many people are telling us that withdrawal is the key to peace with the Palestinians. But the fact is that all our withdrawals were met by huge waves of suicide bombers.

We tried withdrawal by agreement, withdrawal without an agreement, we tried partial withdrawal and full withdrawal. In 2000, and once again last year, the government of Israel, based on good will, tried a nearly complete withdrawal, in exchange for the end of the conflict, and were twice refused.

We withdrew from the Gaza Strip to the last centimeter, we uprooted dozens of settlements and turned thousands of Israelis out of their homes. In exchange, what we received were missiles raining down on our cities, our towns and our children. The argument that withdrawal would bring peace closer did not stand up to the test of reality.

With Hamas in the south and Hezbollah in the north, they keep on saying that they want to 'liberate' Ashkelon in the south and Haifa and Tiberias. Even the moderates among the Palestinians are not ready to say the most simplest things: The State of Israel is the national homeland of the Jewish People and will remain so.

The PM addressed the refugee issue, noting how Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries were granted asylum in Israel:

We want them to say the simplest things, to our people and to their people. This will then open the door to solving other problems, no matter how difficult. The fundamental condition for ending the conflict is the public, binding and sincere Palestinian recognition of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish People.

For this to have practical meaning, we need a clear agreement to solve the Palestinian refugee problem outside of the borders of the State of Israel. For it is clear to all that the demand to settle the Palestinian refugees inside of Israel, contradicts the continued existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish People. We must solve the problem of the Arab refugees. And I believe that it is possible to solve it. Because we have proven that we ourselves solved a similar problem. Tiny Israel took in the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries who were uprooted from their homes.

Therefore, justice and logic dictates that the problem of the Palestinian refugees must be solved outside the borders of the State of Israel. There is broad national agreement on this.

BIbi set two principles for peace: (1) recognition of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, with Jerusalem as its capital; (2) creation of a demilitarized Palestinian state:

I came here tonight to talk about the agreement and security that are broad consensus within Israeli society. This is what guides our policy. This policy must take into account the international situation. We have to recognize international agreements but also principles important to the State of Israel. I spoke tonight about the first principle - recognition. Palestinians must truly recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The second principle is demilitarization. Any area in Palestinian hands has to be demilitarization, with solid security measures. Without this condition, there is a real fear that there will be an armed Palestinian state which will become a terrorist base against Israel, as happened in Gaza. We do not want missiles on Petah Tikva, or Grads on the Ben-Gurion international airport. We want peace.

And, to ensure peace we don?t want them to bring in missiles or rockets or have an army, or control of airspace, or make treaties with countries like Iran, or Hizbullah. There is broad agreement on this in Israel. We cannot be expected to agree to a Palestinian state without ensuring that it is demilitarized. This is crucial to the existence of Israel ? we must provide for our security needs.

This is why we are now asking our friends in the international community, headed by the USA, for what is necessary for our security, that in any peace agreement, the Palestinian area must be demilitarized. No army, no control of air space. Real effective measures to prevent arms coming in, not what?s going on now in Gaza. The Palestinians cannot make military treaties.

Without this, sooner or later, we will have another Hamastan. We can?t agree to this. Israel must govern its own fate and security. I told President Obama in Washington, if we get a guarantee of demilitarization, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, we are ready to agree to a real peace agreement, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state.

Whenever we discuss a permanent arrangement, Israel needs defensible borders with Jerusalem remaining the united capital of Israel.

To understand Bibi's concerns, check out these videos of Palestinian Nazi propaganda.

Settlements Agreement.  Bush 43 senior official Elliott Abrams writes that Hillary is wrong re settlements: the US & Israel reached an understanding that allowed "natural growth" of existing settlements--e.g., putting a wing on a house for added family members (kids).  In addition, Ariel Sharon accepted Palestinian statehood, plus:

In June 2003, Mr. Sharon stood alongside Mr. Bush, King Abdullah II of Jordan, and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas at Aqaba, Jordan, and endorsed Palestinian statehood publicly: "It is in Israel's interest not to govern the Palestinians but for the Palestinians to govern themselves in their own state. A democratic Palestinian state fully at peace with Israel will promote the long-term security and well-being of Israel as a Jewish state." At the end of that year he announced his intention to pull out of the Gaza Strip.

The U.S. government supported all this, but asked Mr. Sharon for two more things. First, that he remove some West Bank settlements; we wanted Israel to show that removing them was not impossible. Second, we wanted him to pull out of Gaza totally -- including every single settlement and the "Philadelphi Strip" separating Gaza from Egypt, even though holding on to this strip would have prevented the smuggling of weapons to Hamas that was feared and has now come to pass. Mr. Sharon agreed on both counts.

Agreement was open:

On the major settlement blocs, Mr. Bush said, "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." Several previous administrations had declared all Israeli settlements beyond the "1967 borders" to be illegal. Here Mr. Bush dropped such language, referring to the 1967 borders -- correctly -- as merely the lines where the fighting stopped in 1949, and saying that in any realistic peace agreement Israel would be able to negotiate keeping those major settlements.

On settlements we also agreed on principles that would permit some continuing growth. Mr. Sharon stated these clearly in a major policy speech in December 2003: "Israel will meet all its obligations with regard to construction in the settlements. There will be no construction beyond the existing construction line, no expropriation of land for construction, no special economic incentives and no construction of new settlements."

Ariel Sharon did not invent those four principles. They emerged from discussions with American officials and were discussed by Messrs. Sharon and Bush at their Aqaba meeting in June 2003.

Lack of a binding legal document is beside the point, which is that there was agreement:

In recent weeks, American officials have denied that any agreement on settlements existed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated on June 17 that "in looking at the history of the Bush administration, there were no informal or oral enforceable agreements. That has been verified by the official record of the administration and by the personnel in the positions of responsibility."

These statements are incorrect. Not only were there agreements, but the prime minister of Israel relied on them in undertaking a wrenching political reorientation -- the dissolution of his government, the removal of every single Israeli citizen, settlement and military position in Gaza, and the removal of four small settlements in the West Bank. This was the first time Israel had ever removed settlements outside the context of a peace treaty, and it was a major step.

It is true that there was no U.S.-Israel "memorandum of understanding," which is presumably what Mrs. Clinton means when she suggests that the "official record of the administration" contains none. But she would do well to consult documents like the Weissglas letter, or the notes of the Aqaba meeting, before suggesting that there was no meeting of the minds.

Mrs. Clinton also said there were no "enforceable" agreements. This is a strange phrase. How exactly would Israel enforce any agreement against an American decision to renege on it? Take it to the International Court in The Hague?

8:52 AM update: Haaretz reports that the Netanyahu government has lifted West Bank roadblocks, rewarding Palestinian Authority cooperation vis-a-vis Hamas.

BTW, here is a great Israel/Mideast history document resource compiled by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Bottom Line.  Prime Minister Netanyahu has set Israel's course in opposition to that of Team Obama: the path to peace is based upon political, not territorial, concessions.  Territorial concessions have brought not peace, but more war.  Until this reality wins--if ever--acceptance outside Israel, look for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to continue.

LFTC - Index 6/24/09

6 posts: (1) IRAN: President Obama Finally Steps Up--Us v. Them; (2) Afghanistan: Precision Targeting Only--Us v. Them; (3) Obama Governance--The Home Front; (4) Islam's Veils: Sarko, Obama & the West--Wobble Watch; (5) Nuclear Power's Newest USA Tour--"It's the Earth Stupid!"; (6) The Ultimate Magic Bullet; Cyberwar Future--The Home Front.

LFTC - IRAN: President Obama Steps Up: Ali Khamenei Steps Back

President Obama's Press Conference Remarks on Iran.  I give the President an B+ for his Iran comments at yesterday's press conference.  I would have preferred a more direct statement that "business as usual" cannot go forward if Iran violently crushes protest.  He declined to withdraw the invitation to Iranian diplomats to visit our embassies on July 4, which suggests that change in regime policy awaits regime change in Iran, and if the mullahs win they will still have the option of dealing with us.  Ronald Reagan managed to apply pressure of this kind to the former Soviet Union, with great success.  Perhaps the Iranians are a tougher nut to crack.

One other quibble: the President once referred to "the Islamic Republic of Iran"; as Iran is becoming less virulently Islamic due to the protests, the phrase confers unwarranted legitimacy on the regime.  It is like referring to North Korea by its official name, the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea.  But other than this quibble, the President's remarks were forceful--he explicitly blamed the regime for violating human rights of the Iranian people, and thus gave moral support to the protesters.

The President repeatedly stressed his concern that the US not give the Iranian regime any pretext to blame their troubles on us.  He ridiculed assertions by the regime already made, anticipated that the CIA would be blamed, etc.  His caution is understandable.  He called the video of Neda, the young woman murdered by a regime sniper, heartbreaking.  44 quoted Dr. Martin Luther King again, re Iran: "The arc of moral universe is long but it bends towards justice."

On balance, he straddled the line but still condemned the violence and reaffirmed his statements from Cairo about the universality of human rights principles.  Ronald Reagan 44 wasn't, but neither was 44 Jimmy Carter.  Perhaps Bill Sammon offered the most intriguing comparison: that of 44's detachment reminding him (Sammon) of the clinical, cold answer candidate Michael Dukakis gave during a 1988 Presidential candidate debate, as to what he would do were his wife raped & murdered; the Duke's detachment was chalk on the blackboard to swing female voters.

The Washington Times reports that in May the Obama administration sent a letter to Ali Khamenei, seeking to lay the groundwork for a dialogue on nuclear and other security matters; the letter was routed via the Swiss embassy, and was ignored by the Iranians.  Hudson Institute's Herb London sees Obama caught by his desire to negotiate with a discredited regime, which would confer legitimacy upon it.  David Ignatius sees street-martyr Neda's side winning.  Ignatius assesses Team Obama's reasoning behind their diplomatic posture:

Behind Obama's cool but confident talk is a judgment that, as one senior White House official puts it, the mullahs "can't put the genie back in the bottle." The official explained: "Iran will never be the same again. You don't have to know how this will end to know that. The regime has been challenged. They are now back on their heels."

A weakened Iran may seek the validation and legitimacy that would come from negotiations with the United States, presenting a diplomatic dilemma for Obama. Several American officials have told me that before the June 12 election, Tehran signaled Washington that it was ready for talks. Obama has tried to keep this door open, stressing at his news conference yesterday: "We have provided a path whereby Iran can reach out to the international community, engage and become part of international norms." But as long as the Basijs are clubbing and shooting protesters in the streets, negotiation will be a nonstarter.

Newt Gingrich calls upon 44 to end negotiations and pull a page from the Reagan playbook.  Newt notes what Polish labor leader Lech Walensa of RR calling the former Soviet Union "evil": “He could not have helped us better.  I don’t think any missiles or any army could have been more effective.”

Egyptian dissident Sadd Eddin Ibrahim sees democracy on the march and Islamists in retreat in the Mideast.

Which brings us to the problem with President Obama's stance: His heart is in the right place, but his head is not yet there.  He obviously deplores the regime's brutality; but he continues to hope for successful engagement with the regime--in effect, business as usual.

Khamenei Retreats--Again.  Yesterday Iran Supremo Ali Khamenei reversed the verdict of the Guardian Council and gave authorities another five days to examine the election results.  Having reversed his original "Divine Miracle" proclamation--known to LFTC readers as the Miracle of the Abacuses Election--he now reinstates the examination of hotly disputed results.  There must be a monster tug-of-war going on behind the scenes among Iran's ruling elite.  Clerical fascist rule in Iran thus has suffered another sharp blow to its theocratic legitimacy.  A National Post article updates events inside Iran, including Iran's expulsion of two British diplomats.

Edward Luttwak, a longtime observer of events in Iran, sees the clerical regime finished--permanently discredited:

What's clear is that after years of humiliating social repression and gross economic mismanagement, the more educated and the more productive citizens of Iran have mostly turned their backs on the regime. Even if personally religious, they now reject the entire post-1979 structure of politicized Shiite Islam with its powerful ayatollahs, officious priests, strutting Revolutionary Guards and low-life Basij militiamen. Many Iranians once inclined to respect clerics now view them as generally corrupt -- including the Ahmadinejad supporters who applauded his attacks on Mr. Rafsanjani.

Had Mr. Mousavi won the election, modest steps to liberalize the system -- he would have allowed women to go out with uncovered heads, for example -- would only have triggered demands for more change, eventually bringing down the entire system of clerical rule. In the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev's very cautious reforms designed to perpetuate the Communist regime ended up destroying it in less than five years. In Iran, the system is much newer, and the process would likely have been faster.

Some important clerics have long suggested that men of religion should strive to regain popular respect by voluntarily giving up political power. That may provide a way out eventually. But for now, Supreme Leader Khamenei is in the impossible position of having to support a president whose authority is not accepted by much of the governing structure itself. Even the extremist Parliament Speaker Ali Larjani has declared that the vote count was biased.

Therefore, even if he remains in office, Ahmadinejad cannot really function as president. For one thing, the parliament is unlikely to confirm his ministerial appointments, and he cannot govern without them. If Khamenei is not removed by the Assembly of Experts and Ahmadinejad is not removed by Khamenei, the government will continue to be paralyzed.

Other Matters.  IranTracker is a website that offers a one-stop resource for Iran news.  NRO interviewed Daniel Pipes yesterday.  Pipes sees Hossein Mousavi transformed from an Islamist hack to a reform politician.  Iran maven Michael Ledeen calls for "a diplomacy of moral support" from America.  Here is NRO's best Q&A from the Ledeen interview:

Lopez: Is it reckless to encourage the protesting when we’re not really in a position to given them any real support?

Ledeen: It’s not encouragement; it’s political and moral support. Goodness knows we didn’t encourage this. It seems to me that Western governments, including our own, were surprised when it happened. I suspect even the participants, including the Mousavis, were a bit surprised at the dimensions of the rage at the regime.

Second, if anyone thinks we can avoid the accusation of "meddling" by doing nothing, he should read the papers. Khamenei (notice how Ahmadinejad has virtually disappeared from public view) has accused us of being behind these demonstrations from the first minute.

Third, most Iranians like America. Tom Friedman called Iran the "only red state in the Middle East," and he’s right. Even Roger Cohen has realized this, on the streets of Tehran. Those who say we would be blamed, or that we would alienate the Iranian people by supporting the at a time they’re being slaughtered in the streets for the "crime" of demanding their freedom, say that because they don’t believe in America, not because they care about the future of the Iranians.

Ali Alfoneh, Iran scholar, writes that a military dictatorship likely will take over from the Shia clergy.  It will be run by veterans of the Iran-Iraq War (which took one million lives during its 1980-1988 run).

Bottom Line.  Kudos to the President, for speaking more forcefully and thus giving some measure of comfort to Iran's brutalized protesters; kudos, to, to Ali Khamenei for another Ayatollah flip-flop, further undermining the aura of theocratic rule in Iran.  Which brings us to the problem with President Obama's stance, as noted above: His heart is in the right place, but his head is not yet there.  He obviously deplores the regime's brutality; but he continues to hope for successful engagement with the regime--in effect, business as usual.  But stay tuned.  As Yogi Berra famously said during a World Series (1973 as a New York Met coach): "It ain't over 'til it's over."

LFTC - Afghanistan: Precision Targeting Only

Afghan commander Gen. Stanley MacChrystal has imposed narrower rules of engagement, that place minimizing collateral damage above killing terrorists.  As the NY Times reports:

In interviews over the past few days, the commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, said the use of airstrikes during firefights would in most cases be allowed only to prevent American and other coalition troops from being overrun.

Even in the cases of active firefights with Taliban forces, he said, airstrikes will be limited if the combat is taking place in populated areas — the very circumstances in which most Afghan civilian deaths have occurred. The restrictions will be especially tight in attacking houses and compounds where insurgents are believed to have taken cover.

“Air power contains the seeds of our own destruction if we do not use it responsibly,” General McChrystal told a group of his senior officers during a video conference last week. “We can lose this fight.”

“When we shoot into a compound, that should only be for the protection of our forces,” he said. “I want everyone to understand that.”

The statements by General McChrystal signaled the latest tightening of the rules for using airstrikes, which, while considered indispensable for protecting troops, have killed hundreds of civilians.

LFTC - Obama Governance

Michael Barone identifies three hallmarks of how 44 governs: (1) he pursues long-range strategies but ignores facts that emerge indicating contrary policy is needed--think Iran & North Korea; (2) he ignores policy nitty-gritty details--think letting Nancy Pelosi & Co. draft his stimulus bill; (3) he rewards friends and spies enemies Chicago-style--think putting the UAW ahead of less favored auto company creditors.  Newsweek also notes that 44 has reneged on his promise for greater transparency in governance.  Politics maven Jay Cost compares Reagan & Obama as to Teflon.

A new Rasumussen daily tracking poll shows a deepening political divide among Americans concerning our iconic Oval Office occupant: 1/3 of voters strongly supporting, but 1/3 of voters strongly opposing the President.  When framed as somewhat approve or disapprove, the President's favorable margin is 55 - 44.

LFTC - Islam's Veils: Sarko, Obama & the West

French President Nicholas Sarkozy has called the wearing of the burqa "a sign of enslavement and debasement" of women.  This places Sarko in stark contrast to 44's Cairo speech, in which 44 defended the right of women to freely choose to wear veils.  There are four kinds of veils worn by Muslim females: ranked from covering most to covering least, the burqa covers everything; the niqab covers all save a slit for the eyes; the jilbab covers all save face & hands; and the hijab covers only the hair.

Few Westerners would begrudge the latter two, but the first two separate females from society, and impede personal interaction, let alone security screening or evaluating witness credibility in a courtroom.  Worse is when these two are forced upon unwilling minor females, who, if they defy their parents, risk severe punishment.

So Sarko has somewhat of a point, but so, to be fair, does 44.  The keys are free choice and limiting covering so as to permit genuine personal interaction.  an exception can easily be made, of course, for those who freely choose physical isolation in a religious sanctuary.

LFTC - Nuclear Power's Newest USA Tour

The Wall Street Journal reported recently that four new American nuclear plants are now slated for construction, beginning the revival of the American nuclear industry.  Construction would begin in 2011, with plants coming online in 2015 or 2016.  Substantial federal subsidies will be needed; in all 7 new plants would be added to the 104 now operating, at a $40B minimum estimated cost.  Team Obama sees nuclear as part of carbon emissions reduction.  The WSJ article listed country shares of electric power provided by nuclear energy: FR 76, GER 28, JAP 25, USA 20, CAN 15, UK 13, MEX 4.

One venture capitalist notes that the new plants are small & modular, unlike the mammoths of earlier generations, thus offering more safety.  While this is heartening news I am advised by one nuclear power maven that there are still better nuclear technology options.  Perhaps these will be given a chance if more plants are approved.

LFTC - The Ultimate Magic Bullet; Cyberwar Future

Our latest military gadget, due to come on line in two years: the XM-25 rifle.  It fires--get this--laser-guided smart bullets.  A Washington Times piece discusses how Internet power increasingly affects war outcomes, as illustrated by Twitter inside Iran.  The NY Times reports on SecDef Gates's establishment of Cybercom to lead efforts to combat cyberwar intrusions into America's virtual war space.

LFTC - Index 6/23/09

4 posts: (1) IRAN: Fusion in the Streets; Fission in the Ruling Class--Us v. Them; (2) Al-Qaeda ISO Pakistani Nukes--Us v. Them; (3) ObamaDoc on ObamaCare: Sickly; Will: Sneaky; CBO: Costly--The Home Front; (4) Petting Big Apple Teachers--The Ap & the Cap.

LFTC - IRAN: Fusion in the Streets; Fission in the Ruling Class

Yesterday the Guardian Council upheld the Iran election result, dismissing irregularities.  A dictatorial regime thus has committed itself to not even bothering to do a partial recount as recently promised, let alone would independent observers be invited to supervise.  Chatham House, a major UK outfit, published a statistical analysis of the vote and finds dubious results.  The prime target of regime blame directed at outsiders has been the BBC, which opened this year a Persian language channel.  Aussie columnist Greg Sheridan reports that sources within Iran say Ahmadinejad finished third in the honest count, and that Mousavi won 58 percent of the vote.

Shepard Smith reported yesterday on Fox that Iran has detained 33 journalists since June 14.  Smith interviewed a representative of Reporters Without Borders.  Iran's nutjob Prez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad received an enthusiastic endorsement from none other than...Hugo Chavez; no doubt Ahmadinejad considers Hugo's praise a plus--others might not be flattered by such an endorser.

Iran is smearing protesters as "terrorists" & "saboteurs"--terms designed to intimidate future protests and that can lay the foundation for a Tiananmen Square, should mere intimidation fail.  Live bullets and tear gas are now being reportedly used against demonstrators.  Here is a YouTube video (1:29) of a protester being beaten and then dumped into a car trunk.  In this YouTube clip (0:59) protesters rescue a policeman being beaten--saving him from getting an additional dose of his own medicine.  The BBC reports that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has called on the regime to end violence against peaceful protest.  English Al-Jazeera reports that Iranians are defying the regime's warning to cease protests.  The late Shah of Iran's son sees the clerical regime threatened by the protest movement.

Will we be blamed for all this?  Christopher Hitchens explains why no matter what we do, we will be blamed--and many Iranians will believe it.  Polling expert Karlyn Bowman assesses the dubious trustworthiness of polls in dictatorships.  The NY Times reports that Team Obama is stymied by the lack of reliable information on events inside Iran.

Here is brilliant analysis by John O'Sullivan on NRO, plus harrowing tales from Iran. His money paragraph:

[T]he Iranian revolt....[is] one of the most important movements of our time. It radically undermines both the realist argument that Muslims are uninterested in democracy and the Jihadist claim to represent the mass of Muslims. And if it continues — whether it is crushed or triumphs in the immediate future — it will add immeasurably to the forces of evolutionary change in the Muslim world since it strikes me as being more like the Glorious, American and “velvet” revolutions (i.e., it is a revolution against a radical revolution) than like the French, Bolshevik, and 1979 revolutions.

Iran expert Ilan Berman sees two critical elements: the coherence of the opposition and the ruthlessness of the regime.  Of the latter there is little doubt.  Of the former, to date Hossein Mousavi has been mostly diffident and avowedly not revolutionary; unless HM steps up to plate, or stronger, more charismatic leaders emerge, the revolution is doomed.  Berman notes that the Ayatollah Khomeini's malignant charisma appealed to millions of disaffected Iranians, and thus persuaded them to clamor for an end to the Shah's rule.  The opposition today remains too diffuse and unfocused to succeed.  Things can change, ut right now the ball is in the mullahs' court.

Amir Taheri sees similarities but also differences between 1979 and 2009.  Similar are three factors: (1) struggle primarily in the streets; (2) both uprisings began as efforts to enforce the constitution--1906 in the Shah's case, 1979 in today's case; (3) a broad coalition opposed then, and opposes now, the regime.  Mousavi has stated that the struggle no longer is about a fraudulent election:

The 1979 movement quickly went beyond its initial aim, re-emerging as a revolutionary bid to change the regime. Today, we're witnessing the rapid transformation of what started as a protest against electoral fraud into a bid for regime change.

Mir Hussein Mousavi, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's leading rival, has put it clearly in his latest statement: "This is no longer just about an election. It is about the nature of the system as a whole."

But the differences, he writes, are greater: (1) in 1979 the ruling elite was united to the end, whereas today it is split; (2) in 1979 clerics played a key role, but today they are in the background; (3) in 1979, the ruling elite could flee the country, whereas today they have nowhere to go; (4) the Shah was not prepared to unleash full-scale repression, but Ali Khamenei is.  It is the latter two factors they may well decide matters.  WSJ pundit Bret Stephens interviews a prominent exiled Iranian cleric and concludes that the Shia clerisy is moving away from Khomeinism.  The course of the revolution is unclear, as to whether it will be liberation without liberty, as happened in 1979, or lead to both liberation and liberty.

But the NY Post reports that Iran's ruling elite is weighing removing from power Ali Khamenei and/or Ahmadinejad, in an effort to buy off the protests.  Anne Applebaum sees the role of Iranian women has a key, unheralded factor, with long-term weakening of the regime as likely:

Not Obama, not Bush and not Twitter, in other words, but years of work and effort lie behind the public display of defiance and, in particular, the number of women on the streets -- and their presence matters. Their presence could strike the deepest blow against the regime. For at the heart of the ideology of the Islamic Republic is its claim to divine inspiration: Its leadership is legitimate, as is its harsh repression of women, because God has decreed that it is so. The outright rejection of this creed by tens of thousands of women, not just over the past weekend but over the past decade, has to weaken the Islamic Republic's claim to invincibility, in Iran and across the Middle East. The regime's political elite knows this well: It is no accident that the two main challengers to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the Iranian presidential campaign promised to repeal some of the laws that discriminate against women, and it is no accident that the leading challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, used his wife, a political scientist and former university chancellor, in his campaign appearances and posters.

NBC News reporter Richard Engel, with Iran experience, says that the key struggle now is between Ali Khamenei and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.  Engel said of American help that while those in the street would want it, the leaders of the opposition do not want it.  He said that deals being negotiated in background will play out over several months.  Stratfor also sees the internecine wars within the regime as ultimately likely to prove decisive.

Fareed Zahkaria writes that while the regime may well survive, the 30-year theocracy in Iran is about to end:

We are watching the fall of Islamic theocracy in Iran. I don't mean by this that the Iranian regime is about to collapse. It may—I certainly hope it will—but repressive regimes can stick around for a long time. We are watching the failure of the ideology that lay at the basis of the Iranian government. The regime's founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, laid out his special interpretation of political Islam in a series of lectures in 1970. In this interpretation of Shia Islam, Islamic jurists were presumed to have divinely ordained powers to rule as guardians of the society, supreme arbiters not only on matters of morality, but politics as well. When Khomeini established the Islamic Republic of Iran, this idea, velayat-e faqih, rule by the Supreme Jurist, was at its heart. Last week that ideology suffered a fatal blow.

FZ ends his column thus:

But the real issue here is not a few words from Obama, but events on the ground in Iran. The faltering of the Islamic Republic will have repercussions all over the Muslim world. Although Iran is Shia and most of the Islamic world is Sunni, Khomeini's rise to power was a shock to every Muslim country, a sign that Islamic fundamentalism was a force to be reckoned with. Some countries, like Saudi Arabia, tried to co-opt that force. Others, like Egypt, repressed it brutally. But everywhere, Iran was the symbol of the rise of political Islam. If it now fails, a 30-year-old tide will have turned.

Bottom Line.  Fusion in the streets, fission in the ruling class, together are destroying the foundations of militant Islamism in Iran.  The Ayatollah Khomeini's atavist clerical theocratic state has been mortally wounded.  Because to date protesters and their leader have not shown sufficient cohesion and strength, the focus of change is within the ruling elite, which is now deeply split.  At present, the most probable outcome will be an illiberal, but more democratic state than now exists.  Iran will continue its nuclear quest, as it is too close to attaining nuclear status to abandon it now.  The best outsiders can hope for is that a less aggressive, no longer avowedly revolutionary (and reactionary) Iran ends support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.  In sum, 2009 is ending the course set in 1979, for the Mideast's most vital geostrategic nation.

LFTC - Al-Qaeda ISO Pakistani Nukes

Reuters reports that an al-Qaeda leader said in a weekend interview that his group would like to use Pakistani nukes against America.  Said Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, head of Al-Qaeda Afghanistan, of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal: "God willing, the nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of the Americans and the mujahideen would take them and use them against the Americans."

LFTC - ObamaDoc on ObamaCare: Sickly; Will: Sneaky; CBO: Costly

President Obama's MD for 22 years in Chicago does not like ObamaCare.  George Will sees a "stealth single-payer agenda" in ObamaCare. The Congressional Budget Office sent a letter with cost caveats for ObamaCare.  CBO bluntly states: "The federal budget is on an unsustainable path, primarily because of rapidly rising spending on health care."

LFTC - Petting Big Apple Teachers

The AP reports that in New York City 700 public school teachers are being paid to do....nothing.  Well, actually, as the AP reports, they are doing things--just not anything that can be called teaching--while they await disciplinary hearings:

Hundreds of New York City public school teachers accused of offenses ranging from insubordination to sexual misconduct are being paid their full salaries to sit around all day playing Scrabble, surfing the Internet or just staring at the wall, if that's what they want to do.

Because their union contract makes it extremely difficult to fire them, the teachers have been banished by the school system to its "rubber rooms" — off-campus office space where they wait months, even years, for their disciplinary hearings.

The 700 or so teachers can practice yoga, work on their novels, paint portraits of their colleagues — pretty much anything but school work. They have summer vacation just like their classroom colleagues and enjoy weekends and holidays through the school year.

The Big Apple spends $65M annually paying these teachers at full salary.  Arbitrators number 23 for the entire city, and they hear cases five--yes, five--days per month.  Teachers commonly hang in limbo for 2 to 4 years, and stays of up to 6 years have been recorded.

Bottom Line.  Perhaps President Obama's desire to federalize education could be applied to the Big Apple, while leaving the rest of the country alone.

LFTC - Index 6/22/09

4 posts: (1) IRAN: Guns Decide--Us v. Them; (2) Twittering IRAN Atwitter--Us v. Them; (3) North Korea: WMD Watch--Us v. Them; (4) PETA: Fly Them to the Moon--Class & Crass.

LFTC - IRAN: Guns Decide

The June 16 letter from Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei warns against violent suppression of peaceful protests, and declares such actions contrary to true Islam--for which violators will answer, if not in this world, in the next.  But for a revolution to succeed, there is one sine qua non: At least some of those armed with guns must side with the revolutionaries.  A tragic truth proven throughout human history is that an armed, ruthless minority can indefinitely tyrannize an unarmed, peaceful majority.  It is that brutally simple.  Many millions of Iranians hate and fear their clerical fascist regime, and desperately desire change.  The guns can come in the form of outside intervention, as America, Britain & Australia came in 2003 to liberate Iraq from Saddam's Stalinist Hell.    Or they can be raised within by the defection of military and police units, as happened in Romania in 1989, toppling Nicole Ceauscescu's Stalinist state.  It was also in 1989 that the converse case was demonstrated, when regular army units perpetrated the massacre in Tiananmen Square, ending the Chinese student spring.

A subsidiary reality is that defections from the regime to the revolution generally come from ordinary units.  Special troops, like the Romanian Securitate--the equivalent of Nazi Germany's SS--fight either to the finish or switch only when the regime's downfall appears certain.  Thus, Iran's Basij unit, which unleashed much of the violence directed at protesters, would clearly remain loyal to the regime.  Only a switch by the powerful Pasdaran--Iran Revolutionary Guard (of which Basij is one unit--the Basiji are, basically, the Iranian equivalent of Nazi SS) or major segments of Iran's regular military could win the day.  The IRG is controlled by Iran's wealthiest, most powerful secular politician, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former President.

Rafsanjani briefly sided with the protesters after the Miracle of the Abacuses vote count, then returned to the regime's side by the time of the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's Friday sermon.  But Sunday came a CNN report that five members of Rafsanjani's family had been arrested, allegedly for participating in demonstrations; they were freed Monday.  The more fissures emerge in Iran's key security apparatus, the better is the chance for real change.

Mideast maven & ex-CIA-er Reuel Marc Gerecht says that the June 12 Revolution marks a watershed in the Mideast:

It's not difficult to foresee the Islamic Republic spiritually unraveling. If it does, the most important experiment of Islamist ideology since the birth of the Muslim Brotherhood will have proven itself--to its own people, to the clerical guardians of the faith, and to the world--a -failure. Unless Mousavi withdraws and leads his followers in a renewed quietist retreat, the Islamic revolution, which shook the Muslim world 30 years ago, will now become either a real laboratory of democracy or a crude and violent dictatorship that might rival the Baathist regimes of Iraq and Syria in its savagery. Either outcome would be momentous.

RMG cautions, however, that Iran's nuclear program will likely survive the fall of its clerical fascist regime:

It's a pity that President Obama has trapped himself in a doomed outreach to Khamenei. Even if Mousavi wins the present tug-of-war, he'll probably support Iran's continued development of nuclear weapons. He was in office when the Islamic Republic first became serious about building the bomb; his powerful backer, Rafsanjani, is the true father of the nuclear program; and there is little reason why Mousavi would want to anger a pro-nuclear Revolutionary Guard Corps that had refrained from downing him.

But for there to be any chance that Iran will cease and desist from its nuclear quest, Mousavi must win the present struggle. If Ahmadinejad and Khamenei triumph, they will not relent. For them, and for the Revolutionary Guard behind them, nuclear weapons are the means to become global players and secure the power they can no longer confidently draw from their own people. Triumphant, the Revolutionary Guard, who have overseen all of the Islamic Republic's outreach efforts to Arab extremists like Hamas and Hezbollah, will surely get nastier abroad as they become more vicious at home.

The principal issue right now inside Iran isn't the nuclear question. It's what it has been since Khomeini died: How do you escape from a religious revolution? Mousavi might, just might, have an answer. Even if he is not our friend--and turns out to be in many ways our enemy--we should all pray that he wins. President Obama would do well to be just a bit more forceful in defending democracy for a people who must surely have earned his respect. Iranians will forgive the president his "meddling." He does carry, after all, the name of the man--Hussein, the prophet's grandson--who long ago defined Shiism's boundless admiration for those who defend their people and their faith from tyranny.

The New York Times reports that the authorities--elections are run by Iran's 12-member Governing Council--now admit "discrepancies" in 3 million votes, including places where there were more votes counted than voters registered.  Christine Amanpour reported that protesters were shouting, "Mousavi, Mousavi, get my vote back for me!"

CNN reporter Ivan Watson, who spent time in Iran explained in detail on Sunday morning how the Basij operate.  They are in mufti, not uniform.  They are Islamist zealots.  They accost people in the streets and attack with chains, clubs, whatever, without any effort to find out if, for example, a boy & girl walking together are dating or merely siblings.  During the Iran-Iraq War they are the types who volunteered to walk into minefields.  Watson described reports from Tehran on the role women have been playing, urging the men on, calling those who hesitated cowards, and yelling "You bastards!" at Basiji clubbing a woman.

Ex-Bush 43 State Department officials Dan Senor & Christian Whiton refute Team Obama's mantra that outside criticism is counterproductive:

As for the notion that American silence is unhelpful to reformers, this simply contradicts historical experience. Successful movements to alter authoritarian and totalitarian regimes almost always depend on internal dissent backed by strong international support. Those key factors are often required to get a regime's enablers — including domestic security forces — to lose confidence and eventually succumb.

Time and again and around the world — from as recently as Tibet in 2008, to Egypt in 2005, to Tiananmen in 1989 — the prospects of reform dim considerably without international support. In fact, we know of no modern democratic evolution or revolution that has succeeded without some support and pressure from the west.

Most famous was the demise of the Eastern Bloc and then the Soviet Union itself, which came on the heels of years of sustained U.S.-led international pressure. Another example is South Korea, where energetic bipartisan U.S. pressure peaked in 1987 when U.S. ambassador Jim Lilley hand delivered a letter from President Reagan urging against a crackdown on protesters. The advice was heeded. Two weeks later the protesters' demands were met, and Korean democracy was born.

Washington Post pundit Jim Hoagland sees Team Obama caught by surprise re Iran:

The most serious challenge that Iran's Islamic rulers have faced in their 30 years in power caught President Obama and many European leaders by surprise. Their intelligence agencies did little to prepare them for a national catharsis that now pits a combustible mixture of youthful, idealistic protesters and older political opportunists against Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

By threatening and then delivering repression blessed by his religious authority, Khamenei has turned an election dispute into a crisis of legitimacy for a regime that claims to be divinely inspired. Obama's decision to stay out of the limelight in responding to the protests is paying off in the sense of keeping the focus on those who cheat and maim Iranians.

But the president and his advisers still have not adjusted policies and tactics being overtaken by events. This is clear both from the initial "caught in the headlights" reaction by Obama as he temporized -- albeit with steely skill -- and from accounts of diplomatic and other official sources here.

The administration's own words suggest that Obama is trapped in a political version of the theory of relativity -- that he moves along a predetermined course that prevents him from seeing the new situation exactly as it occurs. He clings to pre-election ideas and assumptions, acting above all to keep alive the chances for a nuclear deal with any government that sits in Tehran.

Here is the text of the resolution on Iran passed by the House of Representatives Friday:

The House of Representatives expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law; condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cell phones; and affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.

The resolution passed 405-1, with one GOP Member (libertarian Ron Paul) voting against, and two Democrats voting "present."  Jed Babbin of Human Events provides more context on the House vote.  At John McCain's website was a joint statement by Big Mac & Joe Lieberman, upon the voice vote passage of a Senate resolution on Iran.

Senator Lugar said Sunday on CNN State of the Union that the fact that the Iranian regime blames Britain, France & Germany (and the USA) for the protests will backfire, and could lead to a change in Western policy towards the regime.  Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) suggested sanctions might be imposed on refined oil products, and defended President Obama as having struck the right balance.  Liberal pundit E. J. Dionne resolves what he calls a liberal dilemma--hating repression of democracy while pining for negotiations with a tyrannical regime--by calling upon Team Obama to show more resolute support for freedom and change.  Dionne laments that conservatives see this one as an easy call:

For Obama's critics, this one is a no-brainer. Their counsel: Stand tall for freedom and human rights, trash the repressive mullahs, and let the chips fall. If the opposition wins, everybody wins. If the regime cracks down and manages to survive, engagement is dead. That, from the point of view of Obama's critics, is win-win.

The Wall Street Journal editors see Iran's vicious crackdown and rejection of friendly American overtures for negotiation--along with North Korea's belligerence--serving as a wake-up call for our new President:

Going forward, Mr. Obama will have to consider that any negotiations with the current government will lend it legitimacy at the expense of the Iranian people. That would be precisely the kind of "meddling" in Iran's politics that Mr. Obama says he wants to avoid. Opposition leader Mir Hussein Mousavi might not take any less a hard line on Iran's nuclear program than the current government, but he does now represent the aspirations of millions of Iranians. And there is even less chance that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei will bend on nukes now that nationalism and thuggish power are their main claims to legitimacy.

Focused as he is on domestic matters, Mr. Obama no doubt wishes he could return to his campaign illusions about the powers of diplomacy. But the world's rogues have other priorities, and stopping them will take more than an extended handshake.

Mideast expert Fouad Ajami sees 44 getting a "Persian tutorial" out of events since June 12:

President Barack Obama did not "lose" Iran. This is not a Jimmy Carter moment. But the foreign-policy education of America's 44th president has just begun. Hitherto, he had been cavalier about other lands, he had trusted in his own biography as a bridge to distant peoples, he had believed he could talk rogues and ideologues out of deeply held beliefs. His predecessor had drawn lines in the sand. He would look past them.

Thus a man who had been uneasy with his middle name (Hussein) during the presidential campaign would descend on Ankara and Cairo, inserting himself in a raging civil war over Islam itself. An Iranian theocratic regime had launched a bid for dominion in its region; Mr. Obama offered it an olive branch and waited for it to "unclench" its fist.

The tutorial, Ajami writes, will continue, including as to 44's Cairo pretensions:

Mr. Obama's June 4 speech in Cairo did not reshape the Islamic landscape. I was in Saudi Arabia when Mr. Obama traveled to Riyadh and Cairo. The earth did not move, life went on as usual. There were countless people puzzled by the presumption of the entire exercise, an outsider walking into sacred matters of their faith. In Saudi Arabia, and in the Arabic commentaries of other lands, there was unease that so complicated an ideological and cultural terrain could be approached with such ease and haste.

Bottom Line.  The guns have yet to shift--and, in the end, may not do so, allowing the regime to survive.  But Iran, on the fair evidence of it, will never be the same.  The clerical tyranny has lost legitimacy.  The failure of President Obama to strongly condemn violence by the regime relieves the regime of some political cost of cracking down; a more resolute posture could, by raising the political stakes, induce the regime to hesitate, giving the protest time to broaden into a revolution.  And regarding outside interference, the idea that a despotic regime needs a pretext given them from abroad to crack down at home is unsupported by evidence.  Team Obama is right not to directly urge revolution.  But business-as-usual would undercut the forces favoring revolution gathering now in Iran.  An end to the ghastly theocracy established by the Ayatollah Khomeini 30 years ago--whose aim, its leader declared, is to turn the clock back 1,400 years, literally--would be a huge win for freedom in a modernizing Mideast.

LFTC: Twittering IRAN Atwitter

The following links, culled over several days, illustrate what has been going on inside Iran, a bird's-eye view--really, a set of micro-views--of a revolution in progress.  Most are from Twitter, the global chat room service that allows mini-posts (140 character limit) anyone can read.  (Caution: I am unsure how long Twitter postings survive, if the link goes directly to a specific Tweet, or if the link is pushed down as new ones come in.  If the link is pushed down, check out a link near the top.)

Twitter.  Monday's postings include one referring to an Iranian interviewed by CNN, on reaction to human rights violations of police.  A second Monday Tehran posting gives news for the day: lots of roadblocks, little sign of public protest, and that Ali Khamenei will again speak at Friday prayers.  A third Monday posting says the violence will not stop.  Fox News reports that Mousavi called for more protests.

Here is a BBC video (5:52) on "the Beeb's" Farsi station, with chilling footage taken Saturday, of protests and a shooting.  Twitter's Tehran webpage (which I accessed through my own Twitter page, hence my book logo on the left) is updated constantly, with gazillions of posts.  Here is the #Iran Election webpage at Twitter. Ross Laminsky writes at Human Events of Iran's Twitter Revolution.  To be fair, here is a contrarian view from a Washington Post column assessing Twitter as not decisive, and noting efforts by the Iranian, Russian & Chinese governments to use online resources in stifling dissenters. According to a former senior national security official from Team Bush 43, on June 17 (last Wednesday) 221,000 Tweets were posted, and 3,000 videos were uploaded, from Iran.

Here is a video (3:08) taken by an Iranian, live, during Saturday's protests in Tehran.  Here--strong stomachs only--is a horrifying protester street Saturday YouTube video (0;37) that graphically illustrates the price--death--paid by one courageous woman, who has been named Neda (Farsi translation: "divine calling"), after she was reportedly shot through the heart by the police; Neda has become an iconic but tragic symbol, like the young Chinese man who stood in front of a rumbling tank in 1989--of the plea of Iranians for more freedom.  This Twitter poster listed addresses for four embassies in Tehran (Dutch, German, Finnish, Australian); it also advises staying away from hospitals.  A later Twitter post listed all embassy addresses & phone numbers in Tehran.  Here is a heartbreaking poem from a rooftop--I presume, in Tehran--dated June 19 and read by a young woman with night scene & sound video (2:28).  This Twitter post explains how to remove marks put on houses by the Basij (a special Iranian Revolutionary Guard unit--basically, a bunch of Nazi SS types).

Other Online Tools.  Another Twitter tool are #Hashtags, explained at this Wiki website.  They enable easy adding context and "metadata" to Twitter postings; here is geek-level detail on metadata.  Here is the #Hashtags webpage that links to Twitter.  the most widely-used global data service is Short Message Service (SMS), which allows messages up to a short paragraph, and reaches 2.4B users worldwide--3/4 of all wireless phone users and 35 percent of the world's 6.8B population.  Here are Saturday night photos from Flickr, another social networking service, which does high-end online photo management.  Another device is petitioning via Twitter.  Here is a "Twitition" asking Google Earth to update satellite images of Tehran, so that events can be followed accurately.

Old Media.  NBC Chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel noted Sunday that for the first time images of the Supreme Leader are being burned in the streets; this is a challenge to the legitimacy of Ali Khamenei's regime, coming after his Friday stern sermon warning that protests must cease.  Scholar Joshua Muravchik notes that a "junk poll" may have helped the mullahs.  Saturday's White House Presidential statement was posted on the White House's official Twitter Page as well.  New York Times columnist Roger Cohen, who spent much of the past year sucking up to the Iranian regime, offers an eyewitness account from Tehran, plus an assessment.  Of the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Guide since the Ayatollah Khomeini died in 1989, Cohen writes:

He has taunted millions of Iranians by praising their unprecedented participation in an election many now view as a ballot-box putsch. He has ridiculed the notion that an official inquiry into the vote might yield a different result. He has tried pathos and he has tried pounding his lectern. In short, he has lost his aura.

The taboo-breaking response was unequivocal. It’s funny how people’s obsessions come back to bite them. I’ve been hearing about Khamenei’s fear of “velvet revolutions” for months now. There was nothing velvet about Saturday’s clashes. In fact, the initial quest to have Moussavi’s votes properly counted and Ahmadinejad unseated has shifted to a broader confrontation with the regime itself.

Cohen writes of the role of women, and of wavering security forces:

I don’t know where this uprising is leading. I do know some police units are wavering. That commander talking about his family was not alone. There were other policemen complaining about the unruly Basijis. Some security forces just stood and watched. “All together, all together, don’t be scared,” the crowd shouted.

I also know that Iran’s women stand in the vanguard. For days now, I’ve seen them urging less courageous men on. I’ve seen them get beaten and return to the fray. “Why are you sitting there?” one shouted at a couple of men perched on the sidewalk on Saturday. “Get up! Get up!”

Cohen had this poignant exchange with one woman: “Can’t the United Nations help us?” one woman asked me. I said I doubted that very much. “So,” she said, “we are on our own.”

Thomas Friedman compares 2009 to 1979.  He sees a test for those seeking change:

But now, having voted with their ballots, Iranians who want a change will have to vote again with their bodies. A regime like Iran’s can only be brought down or changed if enough Iranians vote as they did in 1979 — in the street. That is what the regime fears most, because then it either has to shoot its own people or cede power. That is why it was no accident that the “supreme leader,” Ayatollah Khamenei, warned protestors in his Friday speech that “street challenge is not acceptable.” That’s a man who knows how he got his job.

And so the gauntlet is now thrown down. If the reformers want change, they are going to have to form a leadership, lay out their vision for Iran and keep voting in the streets — over and over and over. Only if they keep showing up with their bodies, and by so doing saying to their regime “we cannot be bought and we will not be cowed,” will their ballots be made to count.

I am rooting for them and fearing for them. Any real moderation of Iran’s leadership would have a hugely positive effect on the Middle East. But we and the reformers must have no illusions about the bullets and barrels they are up against.

From the Washington Post, here is an eyewitness account from Tehran:

We went today. All the routes were closed but we made it to about a half-mile away from Revolution Square. At every intersection they had riot police dispersing us, trying to make sure we wouldn't get through.

But we managed to get a little further. My guess is that I was among a crowd of 50,000 on the northern side of Enghelab Square. They were using water cannons at the gate of Tehran University.

They kept breaking us up. The regular riot policemen were generally okay but then riot police with army fatigues came and started beating people. They were hitting people on the head; one young woman's head was broken in front of us. We all jumped in the gutter and some of our men protected us from the batons. The girl was in a bad way. We dragged her out and then the police just kept shouting. One of them had really red eyes and was screaming from the bottom of his lungs. Then the tear gas came and we kept running, but then we re-grouped. At some point the younger men among us started chasing them, chanting "Death to the Basij."

But then came more tear gas and batons.

Along a road running north near Tehran University, the Basij mingled with the army types in yellow T-shirts. They all had tear gas canisters. We were separated from our friends on the way. We managed to get to Laleh Park but there were lots of riot police there. At the cross section of Fatemi and Kargar, the robocops were waiting, the ones in black with the rubberized gear.

Robin Wright, who has reported on Mideast maters since 1973, sees the idea of change being given currency in an evolving Mideast.

Richard Dalton, UK Ambassador to Iran 2002-2006, sees democracy eventually triumphing:

One scenario – let's call it continuity – is that the Guardian Council throws a sop to the opposition, announcing a few irregularities and adjusting the voting totals, but without changing the result. More arrests follow and further protests are dispersed violently. Iran gets more of Ahmadinejad's familiar policies.

A variation – call it adjustment – would see the repression tempered by behind-the-scenes understandings that Ahmadinejad will run the government, but that he will shift to the centre a bit. There is a history in Iran of cobbling together internal compromises to get through crises. This contradiction is illustrated by the fact that, in his speech on Friday, Khamenei praised former President Rafsanjani, even though he has allied himself with Mousavi. Iran might get rather sounder economic management and fewer abrasive pronouncements on external affairs under this scenario, and some regulation of the lives of individuals might be eased.

If either scenario turns out to be correct, the system would settle down uncomfortably with Ahmadinejad as its chief executive. Then, come September, when the dust has settled, Iranian interest will reassert itself in exploring both what the US can offer bilaterally and the collective new thinking of the six negotiating countries. There will be cautious exploration of the potential for a deal. Neither side has a better option. Ahmadinejad would not be against this process: he would like to be the one who delivers the potential economic benefits of an opening to the international community.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. Iran's rulers are wrong if they think they can resist this truth. They will be even less able to coerce unity and religion-based adherence to an undemocratic way of ruling. After a crackdown, despair, brain drain, capital flight and under-investment may be even more pervasive.

The big lesson of the election is two-edged: the Iranian system can set aside the democratic elements of the constitution, but that increases its long-term vulnerability. The authorities cannot make the crisis of legitimacy and authority go away, merely suppress it. There will be a next time.

Bottom Line.  What was originally a mere quest for an accurate election recount has morphed into a challenge to the regime's legitimacy.  Reformers using online technology--most notably, Twitter--clearly have put the regime on the defensive.

LFTC - North Korea: WMD Watch

Shadowing a North Korean vessel suspected of carrying contraband cargo pertinent to nuclear proliferation is the USS John S. McCain, an Arleigh Burke class destroyer.  The USS John McCain is named after Senator McCain's two admiral ancestors, his World War II admiral grandfather and Vietnam War Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet (CNCPAC) father.  It was because his dad was CINCPAC that John Sidney McCain III was tortured by the North Vietnamese, when he refused to confess to war crimes, and refused to go home early, lest his father be politically embarrassed.

Here is a report with options for the destroyer after it intercepts the North Korean vessel.  On CBS Face the Nation yesterday Senator McCain called for boarding the vessel if intel indicates it carries nuclear contraband,  The Japanese warned us that the North may use July 4 to fire a test missile towards Hawaii, a 4,500-mile distance.

LFTC - PETA: Fly Them to the Moon

Last week People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) protested after during a TV interview President Obama swatted a fly.  PETA came out with a condemnation of swatting house flies.  In the spirit of song, with apologies to lyricist Bart Howard, herewith my plea re PETA:

"Fly Them to the Moon"

Fly them to the Moon
Let them live among the stars
Let them take their scolding show
To Jupiter and Mars
In other words, PETA gee
To other worlds, PETA get thee