Sunday, December 31, 2006

DEBKAfile - Foreign Intercession in Somalia’s War Could Presage Foreign Free-for-All in Iraq

Wow!! This article can make your head spin! Get to the last paragraph for the part that might count the most to us.

DEBKAfile - Foreign Intercession in Somalia’s War Could Presage Foreign Free-for-All in Iraq

Friday, December 29, 2006

Syria poised to assert itself - baltimoresun.com

Another view on Syria is linked below, to complement my article on Syria yesterday ("What is Really Going on with Syria -- Iran’s Strong Ties With Syria Complicate U.S. Overtures").

My oldest son and I had lunch with the author of this Baltimore Sun op-ed, Seth Wikas, at a Washington Institute conference several months ago -- a bright young man, Princeton educated and Jewish, he had just returned from a year of Arabic study in Damascus, of all places. He described it as a fascinating time, very, very safe for foreigners (a by-product of an authoritarian state and periodically being followed by a secret service escort), great historic sites that were virtually untouched by history -- and unvisited. I almost wanted to go there by the time he was done. Great to see a young generation pursue these interests, and cheers to the Washington Institute for helping encourage their growth.

Syria poised to assert itself - baltimoresun.com

Somalia Forces Retake Capital From Islamists - New York Times

Read the following article for an account for a rare victory in the war against Islamism. Somalia Forces Retake Capital From Islamists - New York Times .Ruthless military action, while seemingly inhumane at the moment, can be more humane in the long run by avoiding massive suffering (see: Iraq) and yields results in Somalia. Congratulations to the Ethiopians and Somalians. Let's now see if a combination of force and outreach can be maintained to keep the Islamists down in Somalia.

Excerpt from the Times article:

"All that changed on Sunday when Ethiopia, with tacit approval from the United States, carried out an aggressive counterattack against the Islamist forces. Ethiopia sided with the government because the Islamists had vowed to invade Somali-speaking areas of Ethiopia and wage a holy war against it.

By Wednesday, the Islamist military had been decimated by Ethiopian airstrikes and mass desertions. Clan elders, traditionally the pillars of Somali society, pulled their troops and firepower out of the Union of Islamic Courts, or U.I.C., after a string of back-to-back military loses in which more than 1,000 fighters, mostly teenage boys, were quickly mowed down by the better-trained and equipped Ethiopian-backed forces.

“Our children were getting annihilated,” said Abdi Hulow, an elder with the powerful Hawiye clan. “We couldn’t sustain it.”"


Iranian Revolutionary Guards Takn Prisoner In Iraq for Aiding Insurgency - washingtonpost.com

We are at war with Iran today on several fronts.

AP: "Two Iranians detained by U.S. forces in Iraq were senior members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards and had coordinated attacks against coalition troops and Iraqi civilians, the head of an Iranian opposition group said Thursday.

The White House said earlier this week that U.S. troops had caught a group of Iranians in a raid on suspected insurgents in Iraq. Two of the men had diplomatic immunity and were released them to Iran, but the other two were kept in custody."

Iranians Were Part of Elite Force - washingtonpost.com

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Web Hoaxism: German arms embargo on Israel Hoax- Zionism-Israel Web Log

My Mother unknowingly sent me a web hoax email condemning Germany for placing an arms embargo on Israel. I knew that I would have heard about this if it was true, so I googled it and found the attached explanation that this was simply a stupid web hoax (see German arms embargo on Israel Hoax- Zionism-Israel Web Log), which like many hoaxes, had its roots in a sliver of truth -- partial German suspension in 2002 of the sale of certain spare tank parts to Israel, under a much different German government, at a much different time (during the Intifada).

It is important for American Jews today to realize that Germany has a special relationship with Israel that is taken very seriously by Germany's foreign policy elite, which also radiates throughout German society. While German society may have its share of anti-Semitism (though a lot less so than its neighbors) and, like any friend, their government is not always going to be in lock-step agreement with Israel's, it is stupid and self-destructive for certain ignorant Jews to keep "fighting the last war" and attempt, through slander and libel, to push away one of Israel's best friends in the world. In short, Europe is a very bad place for Israel for a whole host of reasons; today's Germany is not one of them.

Question For My Christian Friends As We Enter the New Year

Some of you do not believe that we are engaged in a war of civilizations against Islamist radicalism that cannot tolerate the existence of "the other" in its midst. Some of you say, "if the Israelis would just act more reasonably everything would be OK...".

Then explain for me the following: why is it that Christians accounted for upwards of 90 percent of Bethlehem for years until the Palestinian Authority took control of the city in 1995. Immediately Christians started fleeing the city under "alleged" political persecution, personal violence, rape, theft of property by Palestinian Muslim neighbors. Now the population is about 20 to 25 percent Christian (these statistics are confirmed by Palestinian leaders). Hezbullah is attempting to finish off the destruction of Christian Lebanon, and Christian presence in the Arab world has dropped precipitously during the past 25 years -- precisely the period during which the Islamist movement has become powerful.

Does this not tell us something about the Islamist agenda?

Why Ethiopia is Winning in Somalia -- Lessons for the US in Iraq (or Perhaps Lessons From US Failure in Iraq)

Thanks to Joel for the following very interesting commentary, as a deeper follow-up analysis on my posting of the other day ("Another Front Opens inthe Battle Between Civilizations: Ethiopia Launches Offensive Against Somalia's Islamic Movement - WSJ.com"). Good to see someone as accomplished as Gartenstein-Ross also posts as replete with typos as I do.

Why Ethiopia is Winning in Somalia
The keys to a surprising military campaign.
http://www.pajamasmedia.com/2006/12/why_ethiopia_is_winning_in_som.php
by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross for Pajamas Media
Edited by Richard Miniter

The startlingly rapid retreat of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), a Taliban-like group linked to Osama bin Laden, surprised military intelligence officers who less than a week ago were predicting a total route of Somalia's secular transitional federal government.

The intensity of air strikes by Ethiopia, which has long been allied with the transitional government, has helped turn the tide. Ethiopia's ground forces, already based in Somalia, have also played a critical role.

Ethiopia's success was not inevitable: This past week an American military intelligence officer told Pajamas Media that the ICU "will overrun Baidoa," where the transitional government has been headquartered, and that the only question was when Baidoa would fall. Pajamas Media spoke with the same officer yesterday. He is now optimistic about the Ethiopians' chances, with one caveat: "Unless you kill the ICU, it will come back. My worry is they'll drive the ICU out and it will come back in a couple of months."

There may be lessons for the United States in Ethiopia's success. Abdiweli Ali, an assistant professor at Niagara University who is in contact with transitional government military commanders on the ground, says that Ethiopia has less concern than the U.S. about civilian casualties. There is no reliable estimate of civilian deaths, but the number is believed to be in the hundreds. "We're fighting wars with one hand tied behind our backs," Professor Ali says. "In Iraq we're trying to be nice, thinking we'll give candy to people on the streets and they'll love us. But people will understand later on if you just win now and provide them with security."

A second lesson relates to the media. The Ethiopian government is generally less sensitive to media criticism than the U.S. government—and is likely to encounter far less criticism in the first place, since the press traditionally gives short shrift to coverage of Africa.

The American intelligence officer who earlier predicted the transitional government's defeat tells Pajamas Media that there are two major reasons why both he and the ICU underestimated the Ethiopian military.

First, Ethiopia's air power was decisive. Over the weekend, Ethiopian jets attacked several airports used by the ICU, and struck recruiting centers and other strategic targets in ICU-run towns. Professor Ali reports that the ICU's shoulder-fired anti-aircraft weapons are unable to hit Ethiopia's aircraft at high altitudes. While the ICU may have some surface-to-air missiles, these devices would be quite old—and complex Soviet weaponry tends to degrade.

But even more important than the fighter jets, the intelligence officer said, is Ethiopia's use of Mi-24 Hind helicopter gun ships that can target the ICU's ground forces. While the ICU might use rocket-propelled grenades against helicopters, as we saw in the 1993 Black Hawk Down incident, thus far the ICU claims to have shot down a single Ethiopian helicopter.

Second, the military intelligence officer said that he underestimated Ethiopia's willingness to commit to the fight against the ICU. "This campaign is far more far-sighted than we expected," he said. "They didn't just do this on the fly; they had to have been planning this for several weeks. This is a major commitment."

Dahir Jibreel, the transitional government's permanent secretary in charge of international cooperation, is in constant contact with transitional government leaders who are conducting the military campaign. He says two other factors were critical in Ethiopia's military success. One is that the ICU committed a strategic blunder by spreading its forces too thin. About 1500 kilometers (some 750 miles) separates Kismayo, a strategic port city that the ICU had captured, from Galkayo, the capital of Puntland that the ICU has been trying to overrun. The roads between these cities are poor to nonexistent. The ICU has tried to hold most of the strategic locations that separate the two cities: Jibreel says they simply lack the manpower to do so.

Moreover, Jibreel says that the ICU's collapse has been hastened by its growing unpopularity. "The ICU was terrorizing villages and towns using technicals [pickups with heavy weponry mounted in the rear bed] that the population can't stand up and fight against," Jibreel tells Pajamas Media. "But they were not wanted by the people. They were alien. They were trying to use an alien ideology of fanatic Islam, and they had no clan backing."

One of the ICU's major blunders was decreeing that women couldn't leave the house without a mahram (male relative who would act as a guard). Professor Ali explains that because of the civil war that enveloped Somalia in the 1990s, more than half of the breadwinners in the country are women. This decree crippled their ability to earn a living. Nor was this the most draconian of the ICU's rules: in one southern Somali town, the Islamic Courts threatened to behead citizens who failed to pray five times a day.

For that reason, Professor Ali and figures in the transitional government report that Somalis have reacted well when the transitional government has taken over their cities.

While the present situation favors the Ethiopians and the transitional government, a few military considerations should be carefully watched. Sheikh Sharif Sheik Ahmed, who heads the ICU's executive council, has already called for insurgent operations against the Ethiopians. And a confidential United Nations report warns that "the ICU is fully capable of turning Somalia into what is currently an Iraq-type scenario, replete with roadside and suicide bombers, assassinations and other forms of terrorist and insurgent-type activities."

The transitional government, however, believes that this is an unlikely scenario. Jibreel outlines a number of reasons that he thinks an insurgency can be prevented. Initially, he thinks the transitional government can "seal the airspace and the coast" and thus prevent the Islamic Courts leadership from leaving the country to set up insurgent operations. Moreover, he thinks that Somalis will reject attempts to establish an insurgent movement, since the ICU preaches a strict version of Islam that is alien to Somalia.

Some bloggers are unconvinced by the transitional government's argument. Bill Roggio, a military analyst who has carefully followed the clash between the ICU and Ethiopian military at The Fourth Rail, tells Pajamas Media that he believes that the ICU will be able to establish an insurgent campaign. However, he thinks the transitional government and Ethiopians will have an easier time fighting it than the U.S. has had in Iraq because "they're not under the scrutiny of the international media."

A second consideration for the Ethiopians' war is the potential for international pressure. A military intelligence officer tells Pajamas Media that serious pressure from Europe could force Ethiopia to stop its attack. "That would be a disaster," he comments.

To recap: the ICU began a massive attack against Baidoa, the south-central Somali city where the transitional government is located, last week. Over the past few days, the ICU has retreated from such key strategic towns as Burhakaba and Dinsor. The ICU's retreat seems hasty: ICU forces have even abandoned their weaponry and technicals as they flee.

If Ethiopia can successfully complete its military campaign, it is worth recalling the factors that allowed the ICU to rise to power in the first place, such as the lawlessness of the warlords' rule. Professor Ali says that the transitional government has a plan to avoid repeating the problem. Currently, it is in the process of establishing a "civilian and security administration" in every city it captures, in an effort to establish civil society and guarantee security.

But Professor Ali says that one critical factor is the U.S.'s willingness to provide Somalia with nation-building aid. "Believe me," he tells Pajamas Media, "just one million dollars to the TFG to take care of this will go a long way."

Jibreel also emphasizes the importance of aid to the transitional government. He stresses the need to establish a national security apparatus, and institute a federal structure and constitution that includes Somaliland and Puntland. He also foresees national elections within two years, as well as comprehensive efforts to reconcile the various clans in the wake of Somalia's civil war.

"If we don't do this swiftly," he warns, "we may win the war but lose the peace."


Daveed Gartenstein-Ross is the author of My Year Inside Radical Islam (Tarcher/Penguin 2007). His articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal Europe, Commentary, The Weekly Standard, and The Washington Times.

What is Really Going on with Syria -- Iran’s Strong Ties With Syria Complicate U.S. Overtures - New York Times

This article (Iran’s Strong Ties With Syria Complicate U.S. Overtures - New York Times) is a very interesting presentation of the close ties between Iran and Syria -- right down to an allusion to efforts there to convert Sunnis to Shias (this has been going on for a while, alot of it voluntarily, as middle class Syrians read the tea leaves of conversion to Shiism as a way to "get ahead" -- interesting how limited Saudi influence (or desire to influence) is in Syria, isn't it?).

Anyway, this article just begs the question of why James Baker, an otherwise intelligent and crafty international player, would do something so seemingly worthless as to advocate a serious attempt to talk with Syria. Would there really be any chance to pull them away from the Iranians or from supporting the strife in Iraq or Lebanon? Isn't he smoking something to believe this, in light of the close ties between Iran and Syria enumerated in this NY Times article? Perhaps not. I personally do not believe Baker is that naiive or stupid -- there has to be something else there, and I equally don't think it is just his historically documented disdain for Israel that would lead him to wanting to strengthen Syria's hand vis a vis Israel.

Could it be that Baker and our intelligence establishment have indications of a genuine power struggle in Syrian leadership between, on one hand, Assad and his wife, a Western leaning guy married to a former Morgan Stanley banker, and, on the other hand, Assad's military and intelligence establishment, who find their greatest material sustenance at the hands of the Iranians (which could ironically be the seeds of their own destruction, with the potential Islamization of their power structures)? Was Assad's "reach out with no pre-conditions" proposal to talk with the Israelis a genuine proposal to find a way out and forward towards the West, and preserve his power as an independent leader, or was it simply stage two (the Hizbullah-Israeli Summer War was stage one) in an elaborate plan to buy Iran time for its nuclear development and further weaken the Zionist entity politically?

Assad's father, who only Mike Wallace could eulogize in a positive way, maintained that Syria had little to offer the world to make it wealthy -- it had little oil, not much of an economy (especially after the Syrian Jewish community fled) and not the greatest geography for trade either, absent its control of Lebanon (and/or peace with Israel). Accordingly, Assad Sr. concluded that what Syria DID have to offer was politics and the "spoiler position". He used his border with Israel and Jordan as a way to extract great wealth out of the Soviets, his border with Iraq as a way to then get benefits from the West and the Saudis during and after Gulf War I and then from the Russians, French, Iraqis etc. during the "sanctions" period against Iraq, and finally, from an interesting combination of the Iranians and Sunni radicals during the post-Gulf War II phase. It is important to note throughout this history that Syria maintained its freedom of action (in Lebanon and elsewhere) by NOT becoming a reliable lapdog to any patron, and instead playing all sides to maximize its gains and flexibility to adapt to new opportunities. It loses influence over a patron by becoming "reliable". Perhaps this wile has roots geopolitically, or perhaps it stems from Assad's (and the ruling elite) Alawite minority status in Syria, and hence the need to couple flexibility with brutal repression (which has gone a bit lax under Assad Jr. -- a dangerous softness for his power base).

Assad Jr. faces the problem today of becoming increasingly cornered by the international community in Iran's camp, and in spite of the relative fecklisness of the Western response to Iran so far, he may feel it is an opportune time to cover some of Syria's Iranian bet and perhaps bring himself closer to the West; it also might not be lost on him that this might not only be a defensive move, vis a vis the Iranians, but also good for Syria's economic developent in the modern world -- remember, the Assads are secularists and a lot of Assad Jr.'s personal development is Western- based. He could have approved the Gemayel bombing several weeks ago (which would partially go against thesis that he may want to tack to the West, except as a spoiler to enhance his relevance or to molify his own elite), or it could have been perpretrated without his control by Syrian intelligence elements -- don't assume he controls the show completely like his father did, and don't assume that everything he says in public is what he means in private. I think Bernard Lewis once said something like, "In the Arab world, trust what you see some of the time, trust what you hear -- especially publicly -- none of the time". Disciplined operators of statecraft (versus wishful thinkers or fools) never forget this in dealing with Arabs.

So can you talk with Syria without empowering Iran, but rather, at its expense? Baker might think we can, or at least that it will show well for us in the Arab world....

Sunday, December 24, 2006

Egyptian FM: Eilat to remain Israeli | Jerusalem Post

As if there should be any question? This article is instructive if, for no other reason, to help us realize that peace treaties and borders are not forever is Muslim culture, and it is a well known aspect of negotiating tactics enunciated inthe Koran to employ Hudnas --temporary truces -- as a useful tool in applying "salami tactics" to dismembering your foe, piece at a time.

Egyptian FM: Eilat to remain Israeli | Jerusalem Post

Another Front Opens inthe Battle Between Civilizations: Ethiopia Launches Offensive Against Somalia's Islamic Movement - WSJ.com

Trust me, this one is gong to be missed by the Western news organizations, who, amidst their chest-beating liberalism, couldn't give a crap what type of suffering befalls the black people of Africa at the hands of radical Islamism (Darfur, anyone?). Here, in a new front of the war between Islamic radicalism and Christian civilization (yes, Ethiopia is mostly, and deeply, Christian, though in its own kind of way), Ethiopia is apparently coming to the defense of the Somalian President against the Islamists, who have been consolidating power there. Arab fighters are already on the ground, according to the AP (which DEBKA reported some time ago).

Look at your maps -- this is an important battle for control of the key chokepoint to the Suez Canal (American, NATO and Israeli naval vessels share responsibility for terrorist interdiction activity between Africa and the Arabian Peninsula now in that region). Expect to see the Russian merchant of death Putin siding with the Islamists -- among other things, this war, if it develops into a full fledged conflaguration, could help make Russia's energy assets more strategically important to the Western world.

Hopefully, the West stands with Ethiopia on this one.

Ethiopia Launches Offensive Against Somalia's Islamic Movement - WSJ.com

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Israel's Domestic Enemy - December 19, 2006 - The New York Sun

Well written piece by Daniel Pipes, reminds supporters of Israel of some things we'd rather not think of, but wholly logical.
Israel's Domestic Enemy - December 19, 2006 - The New York Sun

Friday, December 22, 2006

Iran's Tectonic Elections

See the attached article from the National Interest. The most interesting part is not about the elections per se, but regards the possible successor to Iran's "Supreme Leader", who is apparently ill, but who ultimately calls the shots. Iran has an interesting political system -- there is a national leader, elected (more or less) by the populace, and the Supreme Leader, akin to the Communist Party Secretary in the old Soviet Union (who also wore the other hat as Premier, so the analogy isn't perfect).
The National Interest

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Exclusive: Syria builds 'death trap' villages along border in preparation for War| Jerusalem Post

It is also worth noting plans for deployment of another US aircraft carrier in the Gulf (does that make it three plus several helicopter carriers?). President Bush may be less than competent, but he knows who the Syrians are, unlike the Europeans and Baker (unless they are simply playing the cynical game of "Throw the Jews Over the Side of the Boat"). Israel had better change its government quickly to one capable of using overwhelming force to destroy its enemy's civilization without any self-doubt (no, Lebanon was careful childs lay to what the Israelis could have, and should have done to Syria in the last war).

Exclusive: Syria builds 'death trap' villages along border in preparation for... | Jerusalem Post

Don't Expect an Able Iraqi Army Soon

Attached is a very clearheaded, but disturbing analysis of "conventional wisdom" as it applies to our supposed exit strategy for stabilizing Iraq (i.e., more trainers for the Iraqi army, amidst a civil war of which the soldiers cannot help but be a part). A minority of talking heads instead insist that we have to find a way to get the Sunni insurgency under control, because THAT has been the thing that has militarized the Shiites more than anything else.

The author, Andrew Exum, is a bright, earnest, totally stand-up young man whom my oldest son and I met several months ago. He attended my alma mater (Penn), and enlisted into the Army after 9/11 (see David, not EVERYONE from Penn is a raging, flag burning leftist!). Worth a read.
"Don't Expect an Able Iraqi Army Soon"

Washington Institute: Iran’s Doctrine of Asymmetric Naval Warfare

Summary: For more than a decade, Iran has lavished a considerable share of its defense budget on its naval forces (which consist of both regular and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps units), believing that the Persian Gulf will be its front line in the event of a confrontation with the United States. Following a naval war-fighting doctrine that suits its revolutionary ethos, Iran has developed innovative, asymmetric naval warfare tactics that exploit its favorable geographic situation, build on its strengths, and target the vulnerabilities of its enemies.
Washington Institute: "Iran’s Doctrine of Asymmetric Naval Warfare"

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Stratfor: Changing Views of Nuclear Proliferation

GEOPOLITICAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT
12.19.2006

Changing Views of Nuclear Proliferation

By Rodger Baker

The six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program have restarted in Beijing, with Pyongyang demanding acceptance as the world's latest nuclear power. This is clearly a nonstarter, given the number of times the U.S. chief negotiator to the talks, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, has made clear that the United States will not accept North Korea as a nuclear power.

Perhaps coincidentally, on the same day the six-party talks resumed, U.S. President George W. Bush signed the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act, the formalization of the March 2 handshake agreement between Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. With this deal, India gains access to nuclear technology from members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group despite its failure to accede to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The special dispensation for New Delhi effectively ends U.S. punishment of India following its 1998 nuclear tests, when India unilaterally declared itself a nuclear weapons state.

While there are innumerable differences between India and North Korea, including their relations with the United States and their international positions, the dichotomy in U.S. action raises a question: Is it a viable assumption that nuclear states will refrain from the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology or act to prevent the spread of such systems? This becomes an even more critical question amid Iran's very public efforts to pursue civilian nuclear technology (and only thinly veiled efforts to seek nuclear weapons), and as Japan more openly confronts its own prohibition on the development of a nuclear weapons capability.

The 1945 use of nuclear weapons by the United States against Hiroshima and Nagasaki began a new era in warfare -- one in which an entire enemy city could be destroyed by a single strike. This triggered a nuclear race among other major nations, with Russia testing its first nuclear weapon in 1949, followed by the United Kingdom in 1952, France in 1960 and China in 1964. Israel is believed to have gone nuclear only a few years later. In these early years of nuclear weapons development, the investment necessary to join the nuclear club -- measured not only in financial terms but also in resources and brain power -- was rather substantial, thus limiting the number of countries able to develop nuclear weapons.

By the 1960s, as the Cold War settled into a routine and nuclear weapons delivery systems shifted from land- and air-based to sea-based as well, completing the nuclear triad, the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD) became well-established, in theory if not in name. The balance of nuclear power between the United States and the Soviet Union led to the building of frameworks to avoid any "accidental discharges" of nuclear weapons and to control the proliferation of such weapons (particularly following the Cuban missile crisis). As technology and resources became more readily available, more attention was paid to preventing additional countries from joining the nuclear club.

There was another spurt of nuclear activity in the 1970s by second-tier nations, including South Korea, South Africa and Iraq, as well as India and Pakistan. Seoul's program was stopped by U.S. threats to vacate the peninsula (and leave South Korea undefended against potential North Korean aggression). Baghdad's development program was cut short by an Israeli airstrike in 1981. South Africa ultimately developed and produced a few nuclear weapons (only to later disable them after the end of the apartheid era). India's nuclear program came to fruition in the 1970s, with Pakistan developing the capability to produce a weapon in the late 1980s.

With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union came a new international urgency to rein in the number of nuclear weapons on the planet and constrain the number of countries that possess such systems. The only former Soviet state "allowed" to keep nuclear weapons was Russia, which, incidentally, also retained MAD parity with the United States. As if to test this new push to reduce nuclear weapons access, North Korea accelerated its program in the late 1980s, creating at least a rudimentary device by the early 1990s. This sparked the first of a series of nuclear "crises" that served as bargaining chips for the regime on the international scene -- particularly in Pyongyang's relations with Washington.

As the first of these nuclear crises heated up, the United States, under then-President Bill Clinton, began preparing for a strike against North Korea -- potentially with nuclear weapons. Such was the intensity with which the United States opposed the proliferation of nuclear weapons and technology. While a negotiated settlement was eventually achieved (the so-called Agreed Framework), Washington made it very clear that it would never accept North Korea as a nuclear state and threatened, even if unofficially, a first-strike option to keep Pyongyang from crossing the nuclear Rubicon by testing a device.

This threat stood for more than a decade, and it served in part to constrain North Korea's actions. For Pyongyang, ambiguity in its nuclear capability meant it had room to negotiate. Confirmation of nuclear capability was a bridge too far -- something that would invite U.S. military action. North Korea wanted to be threatening enough to force negotiations, but not cross the line into being threatening enough to force military action. That line was always the testing of a weapon. In October 2006, however, that line was crossed -- and the result was a resounding nothingness, aside from sanctions on iPods and expensive liquor. Something apparently had changed.

North Korea looked to the examples of India and Pakistan when making its decision to test. When India and Pakistan carried out their nuclear tests in 1998, there was an international outcry as the two states broke into the nuclear club -- and a high level of concern that the already contentious relations between India and Pakistan could quickly degrade into a nuclear exchange. While the latter fear has not (yet) come true -- even as India and Pakistan engaged in the 1999 Kargil conflict -- what perhaps has been even more notable is the general acceptance of both India and Pakistan as nuclear states. Despite initial sanctions, strictures and demands for accession to international nuclear conventions, neither New Delhi nor Islamabad have been severely isolated or punished for breaking the taboo and testing weapons.

In part, this was because it was a known secret that India and Pakistan had developed nuclear devices and weapons even before the 1998 tests, which were more verifications than true breakthroughs in capability. But there were larger issues at play. A decade after the Cold War structures began crumbling, the United States had begun looking at India in a different light, no longer viewing it as a nonaligned nation leaning left but as a potential ally on the international arena, particularly amid growing concern over the rise of China. The United States decoupled its relations with Islamabad and New Delhi, making it clear during the Kargil crisis that there was no longer a zero-sum set of relationships.

The 9/11 attacks against the United States quickly altered Washington's slow movement away from Pakistan as well, making Islamabad's cooperation key to U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. One of the first steps in this was to ensure that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal was secure. And this the United States did, though in a relatively low-key manner. With a handle on Pakistan's nuclear program and a need for Islamabad's continued acquiescence to U.S. operations in Afghanistan, Washington was then more free to move forward with redefining its relations with India -- and accepting India's role as a nuclear-capable state. The verbal nuclear agreement between Bush and Singh in March 2006 demonstrated that a new line of thinking on U.S. nuclear policy had already taken hold.

Two key elements of U.S. nuclear policy became apparent under the post-9/11 Bush administration. First, Washington was shifting from the MAD concept to the very real possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons as practical military tools (e.g., for bunker-busting) and not just as symbols of deterrence or as weapons to destroy whole cities. The second was that Washington, while strongly opposed to proliferation, would use negotiations as a tactic to deal with existing nuclear states, and would seriously consider military operations for dealing with states attempting to develop nuclear weapons. The combination of minimal punishment for Pakistan, preferential treatment for India and the sense that proven nuclear capability would prevent pre-emptive U.S. strikes caused Pyongyang to significantly rethink its own nuclear negotiating strategy.

But Pyongyang was not alone in its decision-making process. Beijing also played a critical role, and Moscow a secondary one. Patrons from the Cold-War era, China and Russia are longtime allies of North Korea. Both states still wield a fair amount of influence on the country, and while they might not be fully able to shape North Korean behavior, they can dissuade Pyongyang from taking certain actions -- such as testing a nuclear device. North Korea's July missile tests, in the face of international warnings and U.S. threats to test anti-missile systems on any North Korean launch, were a probe by both North Korea and China to see the full extent of U.S. capability and willingness to follow through on its threats. The answer was that Washington, while willing to threaten, was apparently not willing to act.

The sanctions and strongly worded statements toward North Korea after the missile tests did little but embolden Pyongyang. And Beijing supported the course of action leading toward the nuclear test -- despite public protestations to the contrary. North Korea's entry into the nuclear club (whether officially accepted or not) has clearly become a de facto reality. China did not oppose the test in any meaningful way, and more likely gave tacit support. Surely Beijing could have put more pressure on North Korea if it had truly opposed the impending test. And the United States, by not reacting in any concrete way, has basically accepted the reality of a North Korean nuclear capability, six-party talks notwithstanding.

There has been a significant shift, then, in global nuclear posturing. North Korea has become a demonstrated nuclear state. While it might not have had the most successful of nuclear tests, there is little doubt that North Korea can explode a nuclear device -- even if delivery options remain limited. The impact of the test on North Korea has been a few condemnations, minimally enforced sanctions and the restart of a multistate dialogue on North Korean nuclear capabilities, which gives North Korea a place at the big boys' table. There is little that could encourage or force Pyongyang to give up the nuclear capability now that it has demonstrated it.

If India can be given access to nuclear technologies despite refusing to accede to international nuclear treaties, and if North Korea can carry out a nuclear test without any punitive response, what now prevents other states, such as Iran, from accelerating their nuclear programs? And has Washington in its deal with India, and Beijing and Moscow in their tacit approval of the North Korean nuclear test, shown that public opposition to the spread of nuclear weapons is more noise than substance?

This shift in the actions of the major nuclear powers has not gone unnoticed elsewhere. Germany has effectively said it expects that the world will soon have to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, and that sanctions, while necessary, will do little to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability. And Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in his "slip" on the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons, reminded the United States, Russia and China that Israel is not willing to accept a change in Iran's nuclear status, even if these three powers are resigned to (or are tacitly encouraging) a nuclear-armed Iran. Olmert was voicing the concern in Israel -- and elsewhere -- that the prohibition on the proliferation of nuclear weapons might be weakening, and that the law of nuclear deterrence may not hold if pre-emptive measures need to be taken.

This concern was also seen in outgoing U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's Dec. 18 parting comments to Japan on the 50th anniversary of Tokyo's entrance into the United Nations. Annan urged Japan to stick to its non-nuclear stance, saying a country does not need nuclear weapons to achieve greatness. That Japan, the only nation to be on the receiving end of nuclear weapons, has allowed a public debate on developing nuclear weapons is perhaps the most striking example of the changing view of nuclear weapons acquisition. Tokyo wants its own nukes, even if it continues to profess a non-nuclear stance. And Japan has the capability and resources to produce nuclear weapons in short order, and the capability to deliver such weapons in a time of conflict.

And this brings us back to that post-Cold War shift in international relations. While the initial response was a rush to prevent the further proliferation of nuclear weapons to new and "rogue" states, there was another shift taking place at the same time -- the tattering of the nuclear umbrella. Without the threat of global war from any regional conflict, the nuclear protection extended by the United States or the Soviets to their allies -- and to states within their respective spheres of influence -- was no longer a given. The major powers came to view such protection as more of a strategic cost-benefit analysis. Would Washington risk a nuclear exchange over the future of South Korea, for example, if it didn't necessarily impact the global balance with another superpower?

This concern already has been seen clearly in the realm of conventional weapons, with countries like South Korea and Japan pursuing significant arms purchases, technological advancements and military restructuring to take into account the change in the U.S. strategic outlook. It is no surprise, then, that this concern moves into the nuclear realm as well. North Korea certainly considered its loss of ensured military support from China and Russia in its decision to pursue a nuclear program. Japan, South Korea and others are undoubtedly considering similar paths, if only in hushed voices in dimly lit rooms. And former Soviet states, particularly those in Central Asia, could be looking at their own future security and balancing their own interests between three nuclear powers -- Russia, China and the United States.

Nuclear proliferation has long been an international concern -- at least publicly. The transfer of technology and nuclear materials, international safeguards and inspection protocols, social and moral concerns and retaliatory fears have all played a role in keeping the number of nuclear states at a minimum. But the fear of retaliation is beginning to fade at the same time North Korea shows that even the most isolated and technologically limited of states can develop such weapons systems. And once a nation crosses the nuclear threshold, giving up nuclear weapons must be an internal choice (as seen previously in South Africa). Forcing a country to give up such weapons is only possible if one is willing to risk a nuclear exchange.

DEBKAfile - Assad Is in Moscow with Half-Billion Iranian Dollars to Upgrade His Army

DEBKAfile - Assad Is in Moscow with Half-Billion Iranian Dollars to Upgrade His Army

On Iraq and the Long Run

In looking at Iraq, it is important to determine whether it is an important battle in the Global War on terrorism or merely a destructive sidebar to it. I personally believe that, whether it was good or not to get involved in the first place, if we depart today from Iraq with no solution we will leave the Middle East a much worse and dangerous place, no matter how we rationalize our departure, and thereby endanger the rest of the world that much more. We must ignore the personalities and the fact that "Bush ain't no Roosevelt", and focus on the apparent inevitability of history, from the Islamists' mindset, where they are winning and we are losing, and what that will mean to our children if we cut and run with no solution. With that in mind, set forth below is an excellent piece from Bud and Phyllis about what would have happened if Baker's Iraq Study Group had been formed in 1943:

Imagine the progress Franklin D. Roosevelt might have made as commander-in-chief of American forces during the Second World War if only he could have had the benefit of advice from James Baker, Lee Hamilton and the other members of the Iraq Study Group. Today's column applies its lessons--indeed, whole sections of its text--to that earlier quagmire:





February 25, 1943
Washington, D.C.






Mr. President:

It is an honor and privilege to present you and the Congress with the attached 79 recommendations which are detailed in the following 50 pages. In addition you will find a 40-page preface summarizing the state of the current conflict, plus maps, lists of the experts whose advice contributed to our disinterested conclusions, and full biographies of the commissioners who participated in this bipartisan study. (Autographed photographs are available on request.)


After long and arduous study at a generally safe distance, and by matching the self-evident with the undeniable, offsetting every platitude with a generality, and scrupulously avoiding unhelpful and provocative concepts like honor and victory, we now have reached a carefully balanced bipartisan consensus sure to give no offense or risk dangerous specifics, to wit:


The situation worldwide is grave and deteriorating. There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved. During the past nine months we have considered a full range of approaches for moving forward. All have flaws. Our recommended course has shortcomings, but we firmly believe that it includes the best strategies and tactics to positively influence the outcome.


Despite the greatest mass mobilization in our country's history, the enemy remains on the offensive and is proceeding to expand its earlier gains. To quote one of the distinguished historians on our extensive panel of consultants: "So swift and far-reaching were the Axis victories during the first six months of 1942 that it seemed the United Nations had lost the war…." — Arthur S. Link, professor of history, Northwestern University, in his "American Epoch."

Within days of their disastrously effective attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese opened a successful offensive all across the Pacific, and as of this writing control Hong Kong, Malaya, the Philippines, and a number of lesser outposts. Guam, Wake Island and Singapore have been overrun. Most of Burma is lost, and India and Ceylon are threatened. The Japanese navy largely controls the Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal. Except for a remnant that has made its way to Australia, the Allied fleet has been destroyed in the Java Sea campaign.


In view of Japanese dominance in the Pacific theater, it is time to open negotiations looking to a stable and enduring peace in the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The results of Operation TORCH in North Africa have proved no less disheartening. Despite early progress, the outlook is bleak, as this week's news from Kasserine Pass illustrates.


With only some exceptions, our allies falter and retreat. In contrast to early and overly optimistic reports from the boisterous General Geo. S. Patton, enemy forces under the command of a seasoned and daring strategist, Field Marshal Erwin J.E. Rommel, aka The Desert Fox, continue to inflict heavy damage and threaten the progress of our arms.


Appeals to Wilsonian ideals like freedom and self-determination cannot compete with traditional European and Asiatic modes of thinking that emphasize nationalism and obedience to a strong leader. We have become involved in lands whose culture and languages are woefully beyond our understanding, and with which we have little if anything in common.


All of continental Europe is in Axis hands, and the Free French represent little more than a paper army compared to Vichy under Marshal Petain. Our British ally is exhausted despite the bravado shown by their unrealistic and ineffective leader, whatever his oratorical gifts. At best we may hope to make alliances with disaffected or captured leaders of the enemy like the late Admiral Darlan, and even such "allies" may not prove reliable as the tides of war turn.


What course do we recommend? Given the weakness of our allies, the United States should launch a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability, reconciliation and the reconstruction of Europe and Asia. The ambitions of Germany, Italy and Japan should be left to a revitalized League of Nations to deal with while we strive to reach a modus vivendi with their leaders.


There must be a renewed and sustained commitment to a three-state solution in the Balkan tinderbox, which remains a central issue in this worldwide conflict. Until the peace process there is reinvigorated through U.S. intervention at the highest levels, there is little hope for a broader peace. The U.S. commitment must include direct talks with, by and between Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and any other Balkan nations that recognize each other's right to exist.


There is no magic formula to solve the world's problems. However, there are actions that can be taken to improve the situation and protect American interests. Many Americans are dissatisfied, as the midterm elections of 1942 demonstrated, not just with the war but with the state of our political debate regarding the war.


Our political leaders must build a bipartisan approach to bring a responsible conclusion to what has become a costly conflict. Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric, and a policy that is adequately funded and sustainable. The president and Congress must work together. Our leaders must be candid and forthright with the American people in order to win their support.


No one can guarantee that any course of action at this point will stop the growing violence or a slide toward chaos. If current trends continue, the potential consequences are severe. Despite a massive effort, stability remains elusive and the situation is deteriorating. The ability of the United States to shape outcomes is diminishing. Time is running out. Because none of the operations conducted by U.S. and Allied forces are fundamentally changing the conditions encouraging the violence, U.S. forces seem to be caught in a mission that has no foreseeable end.


Because of the role and responsibility of the United States, and the commitments our government has made, the United States has special obligations. Mr. President, if you're still with us, our country must address as best as possible the world's many problems. The United States has long-term relationships and interests at stake in the world and needs to stay engaged.


Respectfully submitted….


Monday, December 18, 2006

PM: US holding Israel back on Syria | Jerusalem Post

This is a fascinating article, with interesting analyiss that shows the policy constraints of loyalty on an ally's actions.
PM: US holding Israel back on Syria | Jerusalem Post

U.S.-Iran Tension Colors Palestinian Crisis - WSJ.com

Interesting headline for an article that catalogs how the secular-religious situation in the Palestinian territories can quickly spinout fo control.
U.S.-Iran Tension Colors Palestinian Crisis - WSJ.com

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Stratfor: Venezuelan as a Terrorism Transit Point

TERRORISM INTELLIGENCE REPORT
12.12.2006

Venezuela: Documenting the Threat

By Fred Burton

With another election under his belt, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez appears destined to remain in power until at least 2013 -- and, if his attempts to amend the constitution to abolish term limits succeed, perhaps even longer. Obviously, so long as Chavez -- one of the most colorful and strident leftist leaders in Latin America -- remains in power and touting the appeals of his Bolivarian Revolution, there will be no appreciable change in the tenor of U.S. relations with Caracas.

One of the more serious sticking points in the relationship in recent years has been the role Venezuela plays in fueling illegal immigration into the United States. A House subcommittee report released in October -- titled "A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border" -- noted that U.S. military and intelligence officials believe Venezuela is emerging as "a potential hub of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere" because "the Venezuelan government is issuing identity documents that could subsequently be used to obtain a U.S. visa and enter the country." The theme and tone of the congressional report are similar to those struck by the State Department's principal deputy coordinator for counterterrorism, Frank Urbancic Jr., who testified before Congress in July on the topic: "Venezuela: Terrorism Hub of South America?"

Washington has very real cause to be concerned in this regard. For years, Venezuela has been one of the most significant ports of entry into the Americas for aliens from other parts of the world -- including many "special interest" aliens from countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan -- due to lax visa laws and a culture of official corruption. However, any true assessment of Venezuela as a security threat to the United States must be kept separate from the political issues related to Chavez and his purposely annoying anti-U.S. rhetoric. For one thing, Venezuela's role as a transit point for aliens being smuggled into the United States predates Chavez and his leftist regime. For another, the Venezuelan president would incur unnecessary risk to his position and his country if he were to knowingly assist jihadists planning a strike on U.S. soil. More to the point, the jihadists would gain nothing from fostering such a relationship either.

As it stands, there is plenty of opportunity for illegal immigrants and more sinister types of criminals to transit Venezuela -- and obtain Venezuelan identity documents there -- without any government assistance whatsoever.

Venezuela as Hemispheric Gateway

Since long before Chavez came to power, Venezuela has served as an important portal for people seeking to immigrate illegally into the United States -- and as a hub of activity for the criminal smuggling organizations that make billions of dollars in assisting them. Large numbers of Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis and immigrants from other Asian and South Asian countries routinely can be seen passing through Caracas on their way to the "promised land."

With this, as with other types of illicit smuggling, precise figures as to the scope of the problem simply do not exist. However, figures from the U.S. Border Patrol can begin to shed light on at least some aspects of the situation: In 2005, the Border Patrol apprehended about 1.2 million illegal aliens -- 165,000 of whom were from countries "other than Mexico" (known as OTM aliens). Of those 165,000, a tiny fraction -- about 650 -- were labeled as coming from "special interest countries," meaning those the intelligence community believes could be exporters of terrorism.

There are two important points to bear in mind when considering such figures. First, they obviously refer only to the number of apprehensions -- a figure that the Border Patrol believes represents only 10 percent to 30 percent of the actual number of people who attempt to cross the U.S. border illegally each year. Second, immigrants with enough cash to purchase travel documents from a secondary country (such as Venezuela, in this case) are far more likely to enter the United States in some way other than sneaking over the border under cover of darkness.

Certainly, Venezuela is not the only landing port in the Americas for OTM aliens from other regions; they might access the region via other countries such as Guatemala, Belize, the Dominican Republic and Mexico. However, Venezuela is known as a major transit hub, and an entire industry has developed in Venezuela around the practice of illegal alien smuggling. There is an "underground railroad" of sorts that begins in Caracas and stretches along the various air, land and sea routes used to move migrants into the United States. This network consists of facilitators, document vendors, pilots, bus and truck drivers, sea captains, small hotels, money exchanges, restaurants and stores that all cater to illegal immigrants.

As a whole, alien smuggling is a multibillion-dollar industry. Some immigrants from Asia are thought to pay tens of thousands of dollars for their passage to the United States -- a price sufficiently high that alien smugglers have plenty of cash on hand to make bribes and "gifts" that help to lubricate the routes of passage. The money goes to immigration inspectors, visa clerks -- and to politicians who can be persuaded not to pass or seek the enforcement of laws against alien smuggling in critical "transit" countries.

This kind of government corruption was established in Venezuela long before Chavez came to power -- and government workers with a capitalistic bent have continued these practices, despite the socialistic ideals of the Bolivarian Revolution.

Mapping the Process

Alien smugglers naturally coalesce around would-be emigrants in a home, or "sending," country. These smugglers can be grouped into two types of businesspeople: those who promise direct immigration from the sending country to the United States and those who use indirect routes involving transit countries (routes that often end with immigrants crossing by land over the U.S.-Mexican border). Those who offer the direct route typically charge a much higher fee for their services, since the overhead involved in the type of fraud required (such as paying an American consular officer to issue a genuine U.S. visa) is considerable. Therefore, entering the United States from a transit country such as Venezuela commonly is seen as the "discount" route.


Obtaining travel documents is an important part of the smuggler's services on several legs of the process. For instance, many smugglers help their passengers apply for passports. Would-be immigrants have legitimate rights to such passports but frequently are illiterate and cannot complete the application forms without assistance. Alternatively, alien smugglers might use counterfeit passports, genuine but altered passports or even genuine passports that are fraudulently obtained from the transit country. However, genuine passports from the sending country are generally the cheapest, easiest and safest.

The next step in the process -- after gathering passports and the crucial down payments from the customers -- frequently is obtaining visas for the transit country. This is not always a requirement: For instance, Chinese citizens do not need visas to enter Venezuela as tourists, but the residents of many other "sending" countries do. Once the smuggler has visas in hand, he can move his load of aliens to the first transit country in the Americas. This is a critical passage, and often the longest leg of the journey.

From that point, movements become more difficult to track. Alien smuggling is a fluid process that shifts frequently, following the path of least resistance. If an operation that takes aliens over the U.S. border into Arizona is shut down, the smugglers are likely to divert to another crossing -- perhaps over the border into Texas or via sea into Puerto Rico or Florida. In other words, once the aliens arrive in their first transit country, they could end up leaving it for several different destinations, using different modes of transportation. Therefore, the smugglers often will not worry about obtaining visas for the second transit country until the last minute, lest they waste their money pursuing an obsolete route.

Once the path of the second leg has been determined, alien smugglers either will set about securing visas from the requisite embassy within the first transit country or -- as is often the case -- express mail the immigrants' passports to a third country to be stamped if they have a friendly visa clerk on the payroll there. Therefore, it is not unusual for a batch of Pakistani passports to be mailed or hand-carried from Caracas to a place like San Salvador, where Guatemalan visas can be obtained, if the smugglers are having problems getting them issued at the Guatemalan Embassy in Caracas.

While waiting for their visas, the immigrants are put up in small hotels and boarding houses. Transit countries are rife with such establishments. Hotels in places such as Caracas and Guatemala City are often filled with Chinese, Indian, Pakistani or Afghan immigrants making their way illicitly to the United States.

Of course, not all alien smugglers go to the trouble of obtaining visas for every transit country. This is particularly true of smugglers who take their immigrants over land borders, where security is far more porous than it is at international airports. It is often easier (and cheaper) to bribe border guards, convincing them to look away while a bus or truck of aliens passes by their checkpoint.

A Jihadist Precedent

Clearly, there is a great deal of corruption in the "socialist worker's paradise" of Bolivarian Venezuela. Alien smugglers, including those whose clientele might include terrorist operatives, can use this to their advantage, and need not rely on a left-leaning or anti-U.S. government for assistance, as a 1993 case in Nicaragua illustrated.

In March 1993, shortly after the bombing of the World Trade Center, U.S. federal agents executed a search warrant at the address listed on the driver's license of Mohammed Salameh, the Palestinian jihadist who rented the van used in the bombing. Living at the address was Ibrahim Elgabrowny, an Egyptian who attempted to assault one of the agents executing the search warrant. Upon arresting him, the agents found a packet of Nicaraguan identity documents in Elgabrowny's jacket pocket.

The documents -- birth certificates, passports, cedulas (national identity cards) and driver's licenses -- had been issued under innocuous names, but all bore the photos or names of Elgabrowny's cousin, El Sayyid Nosair, his wife Karen and their three children. At the time of this discovery, Nosair already had been sentenced to a prison term for a conviction related to the 1990 assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane, but investigators had not yet learned of a plan his cohorts had been working on to free him from New York's Attica prison. Had those plans been carried out, fraudulent identity documents for Nosair and his family clearly would have become useful.

Initially, there was suspicion that the Sandinista government of Nicaragua had knowingly assisted the militants in issuing the documents. Certainly, the Sandinistas had offered citizenship to hundreds of militants from Marxist groups such as ETA, the Italian Red Brigades, the Tupamaros and Montoneros of South America and even Middle Eastern Marxists such as the PLO CQ. The Sandinistas also maintained close relations with Libya (whose embassy in Managua dwarfed that of the United States) and Iraq, and received large quantities of cash from Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gaddhafi through their "special ambassador to the Middle East" -- Palestinian militant George Hallaq.

However, an exhaustive U.S. government investigation determined that the documents found in Elgabrowny's possession had been issued in a very different way from those knowingly issued to militant groups by the Sandinistas. In this case -- and much to the disappointment of some U.S. politicians, who had hoped somehow to tie the Sandinistas in with the bombing plot in New York -- it was just plain old fraud. But from an operational standpoint, this was perfectly logical. There was no reason for the militants involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to have incurred the security risks involved in taking the Sandinistas into their confidence. And making it obvious that they were obtaining documents for Nosair would have been a clear indication that they were laying plans of some kind for his freedom.

Conclusion

Nothing in this argument is intended to deny the aid and support that the Venezuelan government knowingly provides to members of Marxist groups from Colombia and other states, thus contributing to security risks in the region. Nor is there any denial that al Qaeda and other Islamist groups, such as Hezbollah, have a history of operations (financial and otherwise) in Latin America. However, there is no sincere argument to be made by national security conservatives in the United States that Chavez himself poses a threat to the United States by knowingly aiding and abetting jihadists. The premise might be tempting for policy wonks, should Washington (which has been prone to ignoring Chavez while focusing on weightier matters like Iraq) come to the end of its patience, but the logic of the situation simply would not support it.

If one has the right connections, it is relatively easy and inexpensive to purchase genuine Venezuelan birth certificates, cedulas and passports on the street in Caracas. These same documents can be purchased almost as easily (though at higher prices) through document vendors in places like Brooklyn, Miami, London, Beijing, Karachi or Madrid. As a result, there doubtless are many "special interest" aliens -- and perhaps even some actual terrorist operatives -- who are transiting through Venezuela and who might obtain legitimate Venezuelan identification documents. In this case, the "right connections" need not be wired into the political system at all.

Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.

Saudis Say They Might Back Sunnis if U.S. Leaves Iraq - New York Times

As I have said previously, our best hope in the Middle East might be to watch the Sunnis (perhaps financed by the Saudis and manned by the Egyptians) create a firewall against radical Iranian Shiite ascendency. The article below at least suggests that this might be happening. While this could just add to the explosiveness of the situation, it is undoubtably better than allowing a vacuum to develop in our wake as we start to withdraw from the Iraqi maelstrom, which would be filled by the Iranians and their ilk.

The siding of Sunnis against Iranian-led radical Shiism could also be a savior for the otherwise hapless Israeli leadership. When the Iranians decide in the second or third quarter of 2007 to launch their next proxy war against the Israelis, through Hamas in Gaza, Hezbullah in Lebanon and/or Syria, it is not outside the realm of possibility that Saudi, Egyptian and Jordanian irregulars could be fighting Iranians proxies in Iraq, Lebanon and perhaps in Iran itself, supporting the myriad of irredentist groups and pissed off minoritiesliving in Iran. The best defense is usually a good offense. Fancy that Mr. Baker...
Saudis Say They Might Back Sunnis if U.S. Leaves Iraq - New York Times

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Lieberman advocates aid to Palestinians | Jerusalem Post

Keep an eye on Lieberman. While he seduces Washington by sounding reasonable(Lieberman advocates aid to Palestinians | Jerusalem Post), these soundbites represent only part of his much better grasp of the mindset of Israel's enemies than that of the polished idiot politicians currently running Israel (led by the prime idiot, Olmert, who deserves to be shot for treason or idiocy for his latest statement regarding Israel's nuclear status).

Israel and the West are losing to or being outflanked by Islamist extremists in one battle after another. If you are the Iranians, you can taste the victory and be intoxicated by your success. This can lead to tragic miscalculation. In Afganistan, Iraq and Lebanon the winning cards have just been falling into the Iranians' hands, as if from Allah himself. This may be the most dangerous time for Israel since the second or third day of hte Yom Kippur War -- existentially dangerous. while Israel's economy soars, too many of its elite are simply not focussed on how dangerous it is to let their country be led by Olmert at a time like this. The West and the US is preparing itself to get accustomed to a nuclear Iran, which pronounces daily, for all to hear, that Israel has no future. Increasingly, Western diplomats consider the alternative of a world where Israel at some point ceases to exist (I have heard several market players say this, including the venerable Henry Kissinger). Israel will most probably have to go it alone on Iran. This coming Summer Israeli intelligence expects a new Hezbullah onslaught, coupled with a takeover by them of Lebanon and perhaps a Syrian attempt to retake the Golan Heights, or at least to support Hezbulah with missile fire. Of course, Iran is behind all of this, to take everyone's attention off of their nuclear arms pursuit (like last summer) and to further burnish their reputation as the slayer of the Israeli giant. Forget about what Lieberman says in Washington -- read what he says in Israel about what Israel has to do to stem this tide -- shed its Western liberal ambivalence, act like the Soviets in Chechnya and absolutely brutalize their enemy, without regard to the political consequences, by making the enemy bleed one thousand times over for its attacks on Israel, to truly deter the other side and send a strong message, while offering a hardnosed solution to the base problem (i.e., population and land swap -- or "ethnic cleansing" to those without the intellect to weigh competing ills). North Korea and Iran have gained much by acting extreme, unpredictable and somewhat unbalanced. Is it time for Israel to show a bit of the same behavior to get its way? Isn't this the best way to get the West to fight its fight in Iran, not by acting "reasonable" and standing behind multilateral (non)actions?

This is the missing piece of deterrence in today's Israel. Iran may be right about Israel's future -- unless Israel re-obtains the political resolve necessary to do some pretty nasty things on its own in the next year (and that includes attacking Iran's leadership and/or its nuclear capabilities), Israel may indeed not have much of a future 20 years from now, something unimaginable but increasingly real. Israel's fate is in the hands of the Israeli public, and Lieberman, a boorish, hamfisted, presumably tough Russian, may represent the beginning of the road back from the brink.

The Cost of an Overheated Planet - New York Times

The Cost of an Overheated Planet - New York Times

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Mideast: On Target - Cease Fire: Until a Child is Killed

Great article by Elliot Chodoff, who is also a fascinating tour guide of Israel. Basically, he is pointing out the immoral lack of responsibility by Israel's leaders to protect their people. Ultimately, we in America cannot be responsible for protecting the Israelis from their own stupid decisions.
Mideast: On Target - Cease Fire: Until a Child is Killed

Group to fight Red Sea Dead Sea Conduit | Jerusalem Post

This seemingly purely environmental article, while importnat on that basis, also points to one of the big underlying issues in theIsraeli-Arab conflict -- water. with more efficient desalinization technologies increasingly available, the world Bank and others should help reduce one source of Arab-Israeli tension --water.

Group to fight Red Sea Dead Sea Conduit | Jerusalem Post

Caroline Glick on the Iranian Nuclear Threat and Israel's Impending Need to Act, Because Washington Just Abdicated Responsibility

Jews, Wake Up!

By Caroline B. Glick


When the history of our times is written, this week will be remembered as the week that Washington decided to let the Islamic Republic of Iran go nuclear. Hopefully it will also be remembered as the moment the Jews arose and refused to allow Iran to go nuclear.

With the publication of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group chaired by former US secretary of state James Baker III and former congressman Lee Hamilton, the debate about the war in Iraq changed. From a war for victory against Islamofascism and for democracy and freedom, the war was reduced to a conflict to be managed by appeasing the US's sworn enemies in the interests of stability and at the expense of America's allies.


Baker and his associates claim that the US cannot win the war in Iraq and so the US must negotiate with its primary enemies in Iraq and throughout the world - Iran and Syria -- in the hopes that they will be persuaded to hold their fire for long enough to facilitate an "honorable" American retreat from the country.


Like his unsupported assertion that the US cannot win in Iraq, Baker also asserts - in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary - that Iran and Syria share America's "interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq." Because of this supposed shared interest, Baker maintains that with the proper incentives, Iran and Syria can be persuaded to cooperate with a US withdrawal from Iraq ahead of the 2008 presidential primaries.


The main incentive Baker advocates offering is Israel.


Baker believes that Iran will agree to temporarily hold its fire in Iraq in exchange for US acceptance of Iran as a nuclear power and an American pledge not to topple the regime. Syria will assist the US in exchange for US pressure on Israel to hand over the Golan Heights to Syria and Judea and Samaria to Hamas.


Obviously, if implemented, the Baker-Hamilton group's recommendations will be disastrous for Israel. Just the fact that they now form the basis for the public debate on the war is a great blow. But it isn't only Israel that is harmed by their actions. The US too, will be imperiled if their views become administration policy.


Although Baker - and incoming Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who served on his commission until Bush announced his appointment last month - believes that there is a deal to be done that will end Iranian and Syrian aggression against the US, its vital interests and its allies, that fact of the matter is that there is no such deal. Contrary to what the Baker report argues and what Gates said in his Senate confirmation hearing Tuesday, Iran is not analogous to the Soviet Union and the war against the global jihad is not a new cold war.


Even if the US were to somehow get them to agree to certain understandings about Iraq, there is no reason to believe that the Iranians and Syrians would keep their word. Not only would the US be approaching them as a supplicant and so emboldening
them, but to date the US has never credibly threatened anything either Syria or Iran value. Indeed, through supporting negotiations between the EU and Iran; empowering the UN to deal with Iran's nuclear program; and forcing Israel to accept a ceasefire with Hizbullah last summer that effectively gave victory to Syria and Iran's proxy, the US has consistently rewarded the two countries' aggression.


Worse than that, from a US perspective, although Gates admitted Tuesday that he cannot guarantee that Iran will not attack Israel with nuclear weapons, he ignored the fact that Iran - whose President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad daily calls for the destruction of the US - may also attack the US with nuclear weapons.


Gates admitted in his Senate hearing that Iran is producing many bombs - not just one.


Since it is possible to destroy Israel with just one bomb, the Americans should be asking themselves what Iran needs all those other bombs for. There are senior military sources in the US who have been warning the administration to take into consideration that the day that Iran attacks Israel with a nuclear bomb, ten cities in the US and Europe are liable to also be attacked with nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, no one is listening to these voices today.


It is particularly upsetting that Washington has chosen now of all times to turn its back on the war. Ahmadinejad hinted Monday that Iran has completed the nuclear fuel cycle and so has passed the point of no return on its nuclear program. He also made a statement indicating that Iran will have its nuclear arsenal up and running by March - just four months away.


Serious disagreement exists in Washington over the status of the Iranian program. Some claim that Iran is four or five years away from nuclear weapons capabilities. Other maintain that Iran has recently experienced serious technical setbacks in their uranium enrichment activities and that the North Korean nuclear bomb test in October in which Iranian officials participated, was a failure.


But there are also engaged officials who agree with Ahmadinejad's assessment of Iran's nuclear progress. Those officials maintain first that the North Korean-Iranian test in October was successful and should be taken as a sign that Iran already has a nuclear arsenal. Second, they warn that the US and Israel have six months to act against Iran's nuclear installations and to overthrow the regime or face the prospect of the annihilation of Israel and the destruction of several US cities as a result of an Iranian nuclear offensive.


Obviously, Israel cannot risk the possibility that the last group of officials is correct. And since Washington has decided to go to sleep, it is up to Israel alone to act.

What must Israel do? First, it must plan an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities and regime command and control centers. To pave the way for such an attack, the IDF must move now to neutralize second order threats like the Palestinian rocket squads and the Syrian ballistic missile arsenals in order to limit the public's exposure to attack during the course of or in the aftermath of an Israeli attack on Iran.


Second, Israel must work to topple the Iranian regime. As the Defense Minister's Advisor Uri Lubrani told Ha'aretz last week, the regime in Iran is far from stable today and ripe for overthrow.


The overwhelming majority of Iranians despise the regime. There are rebellious groups in every ethnic group and province in the country - Azeris, Kurds, Ahwazi Arabs, Baluchis, Turkmen and even Persians - that are actively working to destabilize the regime. Everyday there are strikes of workers, women and students. Every few weeks there are reports of violent clashes between anti-regime groups and regime forces. Recently, oil pipelines were sabotaged in the oil-rich Khuzestan province in the south where the Ahwazi Arabs are systematically persecuted by the regime. Westerners who recently visited Iran claim that Israel, operating alone could overthrow the regime by extending its assistance to these people.


Thirdly, in his testimony in the Senate on Tuesday, Gates casually mentioned that Israel has nuclear weapons. In so doing, he unceremoniously removed four decades of ambiguity over Israel's nuclear status. While his statement caused dismay in Jerusalem, perhaps Israel should see this as an opportunity.


With the threat of nuclear destruction hanging over us, it makes sense to conduct a debate about an Israeli second strike. While such a discussion will not dissuade Iran's fanatical leaders from attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, it could influence the Iranian nation to rise up against their leaders.


Moreover, such a debate could influence other regimes in the region like Saudi Arabia which today behave as if Israel's annihilation will have no adverse impact on them. Americans like Baker, Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and their European friends need to understand that as goes Israel so go the Persian Gulf's oil fields. Such an understanding may influence their willingness to enable Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.


Tragically, in these perilous times, we are being led by the worst, most incompetent government we have ever had.


Prime Minister Olmert's way of dealing with the Iranian threat is to pretend that it is none of his business. During his visit to the US last month, Olmert abdicated responsibility for safeguarding Israel from nuclear destruction to President Bush. It didn't bother him that Bush didn't accept the responsibility. By mindlessly adhering to non-existent ceasefires with Iranian proxies in Gaza and Lebanon and squawking about peace with them, Olmert continues to behave as if this is someone else's problem.


For her part, reacting to the possibility of national extinction, Education Minister Yuli Tamir this week cocked her pedagogical pistol and shot at her rear. By ordering the public schools to demarcate the 1949 armistice lines on the official maps and so wipe Israel off maps of Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights, Tamir worked to divide the nation over second order issues at a time when unity of purpose is most essential. Olmert, who refused to overturn her scandalous decree, was doubtlessly pleased with her political stunt. For two days the media devoted itself entirely to stirring up internal divisions and so ignored the threat hanging over our heads and Olmert's refusal to deal with it.


Next Thursday, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, Malcolm Honlein, Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, and former ambassador to the UN Dore Gold will hold a press conference in New York where they will call for the US to indict Ahmadinejad under the International Convention against Genocide for his call to annihilate Israel. This is doubtlessly a welcome initiative. But it is insufficient.


In a few months, Iran may well be in possession of nuclear weapons which it will use to destroy the Jewish state. With the US withdrawing from the war and Israel in the hands of incompetents, the time has come for the Jewish people to rise up.


Our struggle for survival begins with each of us deciding that we are willing to fight to survive. And today the challenge facing us is clear. Either the Iranian regime is toppled and its nuclear installations are destroyed or Israel will be annihilated. The Jews in the Diaspora must launch mass demonstrations and demand that their governments take real action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.


The citizens of the State of Israel must also take to the streets. The government that led us to defeat in Lebanon this summer is now leading us to a disaster of another order entirely. All citizens must demand that Olmert, his ministers and the generals in the IDF General Staff make an immediate decision. They now hold the responsibility for acting against Iran. They must either act or resign and make way for others who will defend us.


America just abdicated its responsibility to defend itself against Iran and so left Israel high and dry. Nevertheless, the Jewish people is far from powerless. And the State of Israel is also capable of defending itself. But we must act and act immediately.