French and Israeli Tanks Stand Toe-to-Toe in Lebanon Showdown

OK, I took some journalistic license with the title to this blog entry, but the following Debka release is why it may not be such a great idea to put "neutral" European military forces, with unclear military directives (as previously reported here from a NY Times dispatch), on the Israeli-Lebanese border. Hezbollah penetrates the border and attacks Israel, Israel attempts to retaliate (or in this case to purportedly recapture siezed weaponry as well -- which was confirmed by other journalistic sources), and European "peacekeeping" forces prevent Israeli forces from achieving its mission or maintaining its deterrent posture. See my release yesterday on the recent Washington Institute seminar on the importance of deterrence ("Deterrence in the Mideast: Consequences of the Lebanon War ....").

I know why the European (cum UN) forces are supposedly there, and if they did the job they were orignally to do (i.e., to assist the Lebanese in disarming Hezbollah) it would be great, but they are doing no such thing. There is a side of me (and many Americans) who wouldn't mind seeing the back of a French tank aflame (though this would be a serious international incident).

---

DEBKAfile Exclusive: French tanks obstruct Israeli tanks over suspected Hizballah robbery of Israeli weapons store September 30, 2006, 11:50 AM (GMT+02:00) The south Lebanese village of Merwahin was the stage Thursday, Sept 28 of the first near-showdown between UN and Israeli forces. DEBKAfile publishes here the first photo of an encounter between 4 French Leclerc and at least 5 Israeli Merkava tanks in that Lebanese village. Despite the photographic evidence, Israel officially denies the incident. DEBKAfile reports the French force sought to prevent the Israeli unit from combing through the Hizballah-dominated village in search of the raiders who crossed into Israel and broke into the IDF’s Kibbutz Shomera arms store last week. They made off with a large quantity of side-arms, anti-tank weapons, LAU rockets and hundreds of combat grenades, which the Israeli force was determined to recover. American and German correspondents who witnessed the incident report that the two tank units held menacing positions 50 meters apart for about half an hour, after which the French tanks broke off contact and turned tail. The French commander claims the Israel tanks retreated first. DEBKAfile’s military sources note that this was the second incidence of French backing for Hizballah. On Sept 22, French fighter jets were seen cruising in Beirut’s skies above the podium of Hassan Nasrallah’s “victory speech.” He boasted then that he was not afraid to address the masses directly instead of through armored glass.

Copyright 2000-2006 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.

VOA News - US Says Hezbollah Still Strong After War With Israel

Hezbollah as the Barely Deniable Long Arm of Iranian Global Power Projection: This article from Voice of America discusses Hezbollah's global terrorism threat against US interests as well as its increasing involvment in organized crime in the US (i.e., credit card fraud, drug trafficking, money laundering, etc...), as well as in Latin American drug operations -- so much for the purported religious morality of this Islamist group.

This is one reason why the US was so dissapointed with Israel's effort during the Summer War.

VOA News - US Says Hezbollah Still Strong After War With Israel

see also Hezbollah "an Octopus" with Tentacles Around World, Officials Say

Deterrence in the Mideast: Consequences of the Lebanon War ...

...and implications vis a vis Iran. I attended this session two weeks ago in Washington, and it was a captivating, extremely well-reasoned conversation by a panel of three Israelis from across the political spectrum about the theory of deterrence generally, and with regard to threats to Israel, in particular (the panel was moderated by a very thoughtful and entertaining Jim Roche, former U.S. Air Force Secretary). The statements made about Iran were particularly concerning.

If you'd goes back to my articles from July and August (and all the way back to my high school and college papers), you'd know that I have been fascinated with the issue of deterrence for a long time. The problem is, it works somewhat differently today (we think) than it did during the Cold War, when we were fighting an adversary who was "more like us" (deterrence is psychological, not physical, and "an ounce of deterrence" affects different people differently). Accordingly, I found this to be a fascinating event. Now through the magic of the Internet, you can share in it with me...

Click on the link below entitled "Events", and if you really want a treat and have 60 minutes or so and an ability to focus, click on the "View the Video" link on that page beneath the picture of the panelists. This was better than any college lecture on the subject.

Events

The Grand Delusion - New York Times

This is a very well written op-ed by David Brooks of the Times, and well worth reading, about the battle of civilizations being between societies who have begun to measure their success in terms of economic prowess, versus those who "define [their] greatness negatively through acts of anti-Western defiance" and traditional zero sum nationalism. He does a good job calling out the incompetence and venality of all our leaders, Republican and Democrat, in failing to be up to the challenge, so far.

I once heard David Brooks describe himself as a "poor man's Thomas Friedman" policy wonk. In many respects he is, though perhaps more willing to call out our extremist enemies, rather than Friedman, who prefers to look at the corrupt Arab governments who are the biggest cause of the extremists (yes, in my opinion, a much deeper and more serious cause for the growth of extremism than our failed implementation of nation-building policies in Iraq). Read the article below.

The Grand Delusion - New York Times

Vanity Fair: The Egyptian Volcano

As the article from Vanity Fair about Egypt (linked below) implies, economic development and opportunity for burgeoning Middle Eastern populations, as well as the control of widespread government corruption that breeds cynicism, is going to be key if we are to defeat the expansion of Islamo-fascism. We have given the Egyptians $2+ Billion per year for the past 15+ years to allow them to build one of the mightiest armed forces in the Middle East, but the place is a mess.

"Egypt, the most populous nation in the Arab world, is the birthplace of nearly every major political and religious force to spread through the region in the past century. Islamic jihad has its roots there. Osama bin Laden took his disgruntled worldview global after his tutelage by an Egyptian spiritual mentor. One of the masterminds behind the first World Trade Center bombing was Egyptian, as was one of the ringleaders of 9/11. And yet Egypt’s government and its Western friends would have us believe that this is a place of progress, a placid land of pharaohs and sphinxes eager to welcome well-heeled tourists. Writer Scott Anderson and photographer Paolo Pellegrin visited Egypt for the October issue of Vanity Fair and found a country sowing the seeds of fundamentalism. Pellegrin’s images of sullen faces and shrouded cityscapes reveal a place burdened by the past, and a poverty-stricken people, many seething with resentment". —AUSTIN MERRILL

VIEW THE PHOTO ESSAY

READ SCOTT ANDERSON ON EGYPT

Fill ’Er Up With Dictators - Thomas L. Friedman - New York Times

Thanks to PN for the article referenced below from Thomas Friedman. Petro-authoritarianism anyone?

As I have said before, there are two overriding reasons to develop alternative forms of energy -- environmental (global warming) and national security reasons. This is critical to the future of our children. Where is our elected leadership?

See my post from August: "Our National Security Requires a Solution to Our Total Energy Dependence Upon Hydrocarbons".

Friedman's latest article:

Fill ’Er Up With Dictators - Thomas L. Friedman - New York Times

Terrorists: More Sophisticated Tools of the Trade

The following is from Debka. As an editor from the Jane's defense and intelligence publishing house recently said to me, some of Debka's material is plain fantasy, some of it is spot on true, and some of it is grounded in fact but has some imagination attached for good measure. The dispatch below is totally believable and points out how ingenious and difficult a foe we face and how unrelenting this war is -- withdrawing from Iraq alone is not going to make it go away (though that is something we have to do -- I will continue that article later this week when I have time).

---

DEBKAfile Exclusive: Al Qaeda’s novel death technique: Detonating hundreds of simultaneous explosions through cell phone and Internet

September 27, 2006, 1:46 PM (GMT+02:00)

DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources report extreme concern among security services in the United States, Europe, the Far East and Israel, after the source of 350 multiple attacks in Bangladesh on Aug. 17, 2005, was traced to Tripoli, Lebanon

French counter-terror experts leading an international inquiry into the attacks discovered that a facility, set up there by Abu Musab al Zarqawi, al Qaeda’s late Iraq commander, had developed the new design which works through Internet messengers like Skype or MSN.

Network-connected mobile phones can remotely detonate over the Internet simultaneous explosions hundreds of miles apart, anywhere on the world. US forces located and killed Zarqawi on June 7, 2006.

This system, seen only in Bangladesh so far, is more complex than any used by al Qaeda before. A year ago, some 350 explosions in quick succession in 36 districts hit government facilities and hotels in Dhaka and 16 other Bangladeshi towns. One person was killed and 115 people injured.

The French team was led to Tripoli by a tip-off that al Qaeda operative Kaci Warab, seen at Bangladesh’s international Zia airport shortly after the multiple blasts and followed since, had turned up in the north Lebanese city. The materials found at the al Qaeda lab there were removed to forensic facilities in Paris and produced the following picture:

For its Bangladesh operation, al Qaeda had prepared 350 cell phones. Communications software was installed in each, together with a simple interface program designed in the Tripoli lab. Loaded onto the master computer in Tripoli linked to global Internet was the readily available Skype or MSN software. The cell phones were given 350 different usernames – or rather the same one with a different numeral, e.g. Tom1, Tom2, and so forth up to Tom350. The program was relayed to the mobile phones which then transmitted the operational signal to detonate the explosives.

The Bangladesh method would be hard to apply in the United States, Europe or Israel. Anti-terror security measures are more stringent there and would make it difficult to plant 350 hidden bombs without some being detected. On the other hand, DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources point out that setting off 20 or even 10 simultaneous explosions would have a disastrous effect if the bombs were planted, say, on express trains in different countries. So far, this has not happened, but it is possible that Al Qaeda’s hi-tech experts are working on improvements to the system, such as adapting it to satellite phones.

Israeli PM threatens to fire ministers for airing deviant views | Jerusalem Post

This article could also be entitled, " Captian Queeg: Who Stole the Strawberries?".

Olmert has lost control of his cabinet, too many of his people are asking uncomfortable questions that require some leadership ("Why HAVE the Egyptian allowed the Sinai to be a giant arms conduit ot Gazan terrorists and Al Qaeda operatives? Why DOES Sderot still get hit by Gazan Qassam rockets on a daily basis? And then there are the left wing ideas in his cabinet of rewarding the Syrians for supporting Hizbullah by giving back the Golan Heights).

America -- and Israel -- needs a strong and competent leader at the helm in Israel quickly if we are to jointly confront the battle over Iranian nukes properly. Israel needs strong leadership for other reasons as well. Olmert and his political opportunist party has got to go. It was built around one comatose man and a failed idea (unilateral disengagement). It is no longer valid.

PM threatens to fire ministers for airing deviant views | Jerusalem Post

U.N. Force Is Treading Lightly on Lebanese Soil - New York Times

Face saving for all, security for none.

U.N. Force Is Treading Lightly on Lebanese Soil - New York Times

U.S. Foreign Debt Shows Its Teeth As Rates Climb - Net Payments Remain Small But Pose Long-Term Threat To Nation's Living Standards

U.S. Foreign Debt Shows Its Teeth As Rates Climb - WSJ.com

The Pope and Muslim Reaction

What is it about the Muslim world, that it is capable of going to violent contortions over mere words? See the first article linked below for examples of Church burnings and other "expressions of Muslim outrage" prompted by the Pope's words, and the second article below showing the childish and stupid Muslim "tit for tat" reaction against the Christian world (akin to the Iranian government campaign of some months ago to find the funniest Holocaust cartoons following the Danish Muslim cartoon furor). What lack of positive self image does an entire people and its leaders have that they are prepared to kill over any verbal slight, real or imagined? What do we have in common with them and how do we reach an accomodation where we can at least live on the same planet, particularly as they obtain all sorts of more dangerous weapons and the means to deliver them?

We know that not all Muslims are this crazy (though public opinion polls would indicate that too may of them are), but we do not see enough leadership from Muslim moderates, many of whom are cowed into silence by threatening radicals. So, to follow up on my posting of this morning ("The Islamization of Morocco"), how do we help the moderates obtain a stronger voice and prevail? How do we help dampen the urge to Islamic extremism? Is it even possible?

It might help a bit to ask the Pope to stop making bonehead comments (even if somewhat true today), but there is more to it than that -- some positive progress can come from our own actions and words (as I start to write in "The Islamization of Morocco"), but a lot of it must come from the reformation of the Muslim world's thought processes and absolutist, uncompromising world view. One (our words and actions) will hopefully help the other along, or we are in big trouble and will be forced to think in more violent alternatives.


Demagogue: The Pope and Muslim Reaction

Is it More Insulting to Portray the Pope as a Nazi than the Prophet Muhammed as a Suicide Bomber?

Battle of Civilizations, Part 2 -- In Beirut, Large Rally Against Hezbollah

Lebanon Population Composition Note:

According to the CIA Factbook and similar sources, Lebanon is 35-40% Shiite, 35-39% Christian ( including Greek Orthodox), 20%-23% Sunni and 5-7% Druze.

AP - In Beirut, Large Rally Against Hezbollah

The Islamization of Morocco and the Battle of Civilizations

The article linked below is disturbing. Morocco, led by its king, has long been a moderate member of the Arab world. Now, apparently, the same disease that has infected the Middle East has begun eating away at its fringes with these developments in Morocco. Like in Saudi Arabia, we are not only talking about the poor and dissaffected becoming part of this anti-Western effort -- the people mentioned in this latest plot in Morocco include government workers, military men, policemen, "society women" and, of course, two imams.

How do we stop this? How do we help our moderate friends in the Muslim world turn this tide (beccause we can't do it ourselves)? Can we win this battle of minds by non-violent action? Can we win it by violent action?

There are several basic aggravating factors today that exascerbate Islamic extremism, pretty much in this order:

1. The lack of economic progress in the Arab and broader Islamic world, particularly in the oil states, where expectations are (justifiably) higher,

2. Anti-Americanism, stoked mostly by our failed presence in Iraq (President Musharraf of Pakistan and the CIA apparently agree on this point), and

3. the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Items 1 and 2 point to a failed perception by the neo-cons that democratic development in a society is a be-all and end-all. I think the administration is starting to see that economic development needs to come first, particularly in the highly tribal, less educated societies of the Middle East. In contrast, when we went straight to democratization in Eastern Europe at the end of the Cold War, on a track parallel or even ahead of economic liberalization, we were abel to be successful, for the most part, because we were fortunate enough to have going for us countries with relatively advanced educational systems that had become one people, with one national system and some uniform rule of law, earlier in their histories (except out Yugoslavia -- which is what Iraq is quickly becoming -- as a nation that was not really one nation to start with). The promise of inclusion in a greater European economic system (the EU) and defense arrangment (NATO) was also a hell of a carrot. In addition, for less developed, tribal nations (as you find in the Mideast) economic development first is important because it yields a legal system that protects property rights better than before, and hence the legal underpinnings which create a more fertile soil for the development of a democratic system.

It is clearly becoming apparent that the Chinese model of economic and legal development first, followed at some point in the future by democratization in bite-sized morsels, may be a better model for much of the Arab and Islamic world. Real economic development that improves the lives of a significant portion of society will ultimately lead to democratic pressures, yet at the same time, people will see progress and will have something to lose if things become less stable, and therefore may be less likely to do "stupid" things as they push for democracy (this exact argument was made to me two years ago by a leading Chinese telecom entrepeneur during a 24 hour stay in Shanghai about his country). There will be corruption and inequity, but as long as most boats rise, a spirit of optimism can be established (developing a spirit of optimism in a society is a key point that Americans take for granted -- hopelessness in the Islamic world is our enemy -- it makes becoming a shahid (martyr) a more atttractive option than staying in their current world).

The Jordanians, for one, are trying to move in the direction of broadbased economic development, the Egyptians are stuck in a rut of paralysis and corruption, and the Saudis, who are responsible to the greatest extent of encouraging the genie of Sunni Islamism to leave its bottle, don't seem to know what to do without destroying their society, and also must focus at the same time on the rising tide of Shiite extremism, in the hands of Iran (it is difficult, when you are in the center of a conflict, to step back and focus your efforts on battling some of the root causes of your problem rather than the effects of them). To some extent, the Lebanese were moving in the right direction of economic development (Lebanon is a country with strong roots in this regard), except that the government never really extended its reaches -- and the development of its economy -- to the Shiite south, and foreign ideological interference from Iran was permitted to flourish and lead to tragedy.

With respect to the Saudis and Iran, it is also useful to note the corrosive influence of oil on any economy in the developing world -- it is hard to pick out a developing economy that has oil and isn't totally screwed up or unstable, from our perspective (Nigeria, Iran, Venezuela, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc...). Power corrupts, but vast sums of money in societies lacking in transparent and operating legal and political systems corrupt even more and provide the monetary fuel for mischief, and at least one motivating factor behind the leaders of Islamic extremism is control of oil wealth (look at UBL's earlier pronouncements where he makes very clear that Western control of Saudi oil was a big burr under his saddle). The sooner the greater economies of the world evolve from being oil-based to a better balance of something else, the better chance we will have of helping these countries develop into more normal nations, not to speak of the environmental benefits.

Anyway, I have to go to work now. In this article I have attempted to begin to frame the issue regarding the most important facilitating factor for Islamism in the Arab world, the lack of economic opportunity and development, not the lack of democracy (though I still believe that economic modernization creates fertile ground for the later development of a democratic system, whci benefits all of us). People in our government are now realizing this, and hopefully, still have some capital left to help Middle Eastern institutions develop flourishing and more rational (i.e., less oil-contorted) economies and legal systems. We will touch on some specifics in this regard in the future, but also will address the other two facilitating factors to the growth of Islamic extremism today -- hatred of the US, mostly over Iraq (today), and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (whcih is also a secondary source of that hatred of the US).

See the article below.

The Islamization of Morocco

The coronation of Kofi By Bush and Olmert

See the link below to Carline Glick's article regarding the abdication of responsiblity to the UN by both a spent President Bush, and a feckless Prime Minister Olmert of Israel. Ms. Glick sums up by saying, "What is clear enough however is that with the Israeli government authorizing the UN to "solve" its problems in Lebanon, and the Bush administration authorizing the UN to "solve" the Iranian nuclear crisis, the Israeli people find ourselves in unprecedented peril. We face existential threats without leaders willing to do what is necessary to protect us."

While I think Ms. Glick is being a bit too rough on President Bush, we are in for a crucial 12-18 months where, more than any time since perhaps the era of Saladin, leadership qualities may well decide the future of the Middle East for the next several hundred years.

The coronation of Kofi By Caroline B. Glick

NEWS FOR MY READERS --GET AUTOMATIC EMAILS OF MY UPDATES

Do you ever wish that you could just see my pearls of wisdom in your email inbox, without having to visit my blog site? Now you can subscribe to receive email updates of each new posting (or postings, once a day). Simply fill-in your email address in the "Enter Your Email" box to the right of this posting (beneath my Profile and above my Links), and hit the Subscribe button. An email will be sent to you to complete registration, and then you will receive a daily or weekly newsletter of my latest musings. This is a free service, and the company that provides it swears that they do not sell email addresses or spam.

You can also forward emails of specific postings to others by using the envelope icon beneath each posting, but getting people to subscribe is much better.

Have a happy new year.

WSJ.com - U.N. Charades on Iran

As I say in my posting immediately below this one, the Wall Street Journal points out in this editorial that the UN, watching its resolutions flouted by Iran, is preparing for a world with a nuclear Iran -- a very dangerous thing. Egypt with the bomb next, anyone?

Please, read my article below this one, "Jacques Chirac the Frenchman, on Iran this Time". The world is on the way to an Iranian hell, as a result of a combination of appeasement, avarice, malevalent power struggles and poor world leadership. A.L., I will keep my promise and still try to spin a more positive alternate reality in the next 4-5 days, but it gets harder by the day.

Happy and healthy New Year everyone!

WSJ.com - U.N. Charades

Jacques Chirac the Frenchman, on Iran this Time

"There will be no war against Iran," Chirac is reported in the article below to have told a special emissary of the Islamic Republic who visited him in Paris last week. "Anything other than negotiations would be resolutely opposed by France."

If Chirac, who may currently be the least popular president of the Fifth Republic, holds to this position more stridently, expect the Russians and Chinese to happily follow in line. By taking this position, Chirac could undermine any attempt to use diplomacy to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis, by whittling down Bush's "stick" of economic sanctions and military action. As most followers of diplomacy understand, you must have a carrot and a stick to effectively conduct diplomacy -- carrots alone rarely do it, especially against an Islamo-Fascist madman.

Chirac makes President Bush's job harder, further isolating Mr. Bush on this subject. Mr. Bush, a good man with strong values and beliefs and a strong backbone, who has tended to suffer from lousy execution, is now faced with one hell of a dilemma -- if the die is already cast among our "allies" and others to allow the Iranians to obtain nuclear weapons and "learn to live with it" after diplomacy is permitted to ultimately fail (a natural result of Chirac's statement), what does President Bush do in late 2007-early 2008, when many feel the Iranian nuclear clock can be at 5 minutes to midnite? (No one really knows how close the Iranians are or will be by then -- but do you want to be the one to wait too long?) Does Mr. Bush go it alone militarily (with no assurance of success) and risk further international isolation and unpopularity, particularly as we enter an election year, as well as other repurcussions, especially if our troops are still in Iraq (as they will most likely be)? If he doesn't pursue a military option, does he risk watching the Israelis attacking the Iranians, potentially turning the Middle East into a firestorm? It is important to note several things with regard to the Israelis at this point:

1. Israeli leaders, following the existential wake-up call of the Summer War with Iran/Hezbullah, seem to be fairly united, from the Right to the Left, in viewing the Iranian nuclear threat as presenting a serious threat of a second holocaust, and if they have to "go it alone", seem to be preparing to do so. I have heard several politicians and generals, including prominent Laborites, declare most convincingly recently that Israel would do ANYTHING necessary to stop the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weaponry. Shimon Peres, the great dove, Nobel Peace Prize winner -- and father of the Israeli nuclear program -- has recently declared matter-of-factly that, just as the Iranians warn that they can destroy Israel, the Iranians should be mindful that Israel can destroy Iran. The Israelis have never come as close as they are today to threatening to use their nuclear arsenal, but the body language is there. Looking into the eyes of some of these guys, you can see the fear, determination, and sense of history that perhaps only a fellow Jew can understand.

2. The Israelis have a less capable military than ours to cause the necessary level of damage to the Iranians' capabilities, and therefore, the inclination to use overpowering and extreme measures -- ultimately their nuclear force -- to attack the Iranians, is a distinct and greater possiblity. This is especially so following the Summer War, when Israel was shocked by the ineffectiveness of its air force's ability to take out Katyusha rockets from the air.

So the bottom line is that things were just made worse, not better, by Chirac's malevalent statement (he is too smart a guy to call it just a "boneheaded" statement). Diplomacy must succeed, but the right environment must exist to permit it to succeed, and that is to create a credible and significant cost to the Iranians if they continue to pursue their course to armageddon (with Iran's president threatening every other week to destroy Israel, it is not hyperbole to use the word "armageddon"). We can try to force Israel to "make peace" with the Palestinians who want no such thing (or at least that is the platform of Hamas, which is the party that the Palestinian people democratically elected into office -- when are we going to start taking people at their word, rather than wishing alternate realities?). But that is not going to stop the Iranians or, apparently, bring the French back in line on sanctions or, G-d for bid, military action. As I heard a senior German foreign policy official say quite candidly last weekend, the two issues of Iranian nuclearization and resolution of the Palestinian problem are unrelated -- the Iranians want to be a regional superpower and rule the Islamic world globally no matter what happens with the Palestinians, and nuclear weapons are their ultimate tool to achieve those ends.

Thanks Jacques.


Eye of the Storm: The house that Jacques unbuilt | Jerusalem Post

Council on Foreign Relations Hosts Hitler

The following is from Phyllis and Bud. We believe in listening to our adversaries, but this guy gets enough airplay already, and doesn't need more encouragement by "reputable organizations". If you are inthe city today, attend the rally.

ACTION ALERT :: Protest the Council on Foreign Relations

Pres. Ahmadinejad (Photo: DanielPipes.org)

Dear Friend of Jerusalem,

One Jerusalem has confirmed that the President of the Council on Foreign Relations, a Left-leaning establishment organization in New York, is inviting major civic, business, and political leaders to meet Iran's tyrannical President Ahmadinejad this week, when he is in New York.

Ahmadinejad will be coming to New York from Cuba where he continued his denunciation of the United States.

While tens of thousands are prepared to march against Ahmadinejad at this Wednesday's (Sep. 20) rally in front of the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations is trying to play the role of legitimizing Iran's outlaw President and regime.

So what can you do?

1) Let the Council know that you protest their actions. Email the Council now, fax their main office: +1-202-986.2984, or phone them: Tel. +1-202-518.3400.

2) Send around this post to family and friends. Don't be caught sitting on the sidelines. Stand up for the United States, Israel, and the oppressed people of Iran today.

3) Attend Wednesday's rally. See info here. (Listen to our interview with organizer Malcolm Hoenlein.)

Nasrallah's Malaise

See attached article on Nasrallah. Interesting; hopefully Nasrallah's mental state is more telling than a bunch of press reports and "friend of Israel" (myself included) handwringing.

Anyway, I've been on an airplane non-stop for the past week, but am back now. Give me a day or two to catch up, and the blog will be back to work. I have a lot to talk about.
Article or Op-Ed

Reminder that there is an "Axis of Evil" and a "Global War on Terror"

The article below from Debka, relatignto an intercepted North Korean arms shipment to Iran/Syria, probably for the use of Hizbullah, if it is true, provides merely the latest evidence and a reminder that there is an "Axis of Evil" that we confront in the war on terror. It also reminds us that while a "bad guy" country might just seem to be a bad guy country, but not a driect actor in the war on terror, there is a well-developed mutual support network among these countries, driven by both mercantilism and ideology. This network must be disrupted, or the bad guy eliminated, in order to protect ourselves from terrorism. As the President says, "you're either with us or against us" on this one.

Going to the President's 9/11 speech last night, tying Saddam Hussein to the war on terrorism, we cannot know how deep Saddam's involvement was in supporting our adversaries, but we do know definitively that he provided monetary support, and safe haven training camps, to a variety of terrorist organizations. Was Saddam the worst one out there in this regard? No. Did Bush severely bungle the aftermath of the war? Definitely. Would the military and democracy-building economic resources have been better deployed elswhere in the war on terror? Most probably. And Mr. Bush and the Republicans (as well as the numerous Democrats who supported him without question) deserve to be judged on these things. However, it is likewise true that Saddam has a track record of miscalculating and "gambling big" in supporting both "greater Iraqi" and anti-US interests, he was not exactly a citizen in good standing in his lack of cooperation with the UN, particularly during the toothless Clinton years, and it is clearly possible that he could be drawn into greater terrorist involvement against the US. So seeing things from Mr. Bush's post-9/11 mindset of the global war on terror, the Iraqi invasion fit in just fine, in flawed.

In light of this terrorist support network, an important question facing the next US leader is how close we let that thug Chavez in Venezuela get to the Iranians, Syrians and their terrorist proxies. This is coming, as his megalomania and anti-Americanism increases. His diplomatic and material support for these anti-Western forces has already been established. When he opens terror training camps in Venezuela, allows the basing of Al Qaeda "naval units" or allows his embassies to be used by terrorists, what do we do? This is coming, and it will yield the same set of questions over our attack of Iraq -- merely bad guy or terrorist, or something in between?

To close up, in the Cold War we were dealing with an adversary where certain rules were followed in the conflict. This allowed us to wage the war by using a strategy of containment, rather than all-out war, involving proxy wars, propaganda, diplomatic war. We have not reached this luxury in the war against terrorism yet. Maybe we'll reach it if and when the Iranians get their nukes, drawing an analogy to the Soviet-era theory of mutually assured destruction -- or perhaps the more relevant theory of France's nuclear deterrence, "Force de Frappe". I think not, because by that point they KNOW we won't risk worse destruction. Our war against terrorism is much more of an "all-out" war than the Cold War, closer to our war with the Nazis was, yet we are not quite there yet psychologically because the raw military threat is not as great (asymmetrical warfare). Putting aside the politics, the President I think, was trying to get that point across last night.

---

Cyprus detains a ship bound for Syria from North Korea - on Interpol and Israeli tip-off about military cargo

September 12, 2006, 11:24 AM (GMT+02:00)

DEBKAfile’s military sources report the 18 truck-mounted mobile radar systems and three command vehicles, billed as “weather-observation equipment,” were a part of a consignment Iran purchased from North Korea for Hizballah.

The shipment was billed as weather-observation equipment on the freight manifest of the Panamanian-flagged Gregorio 1. Syria was not listed as the consignee. But the Syrian government asked Cyprus to release the seized consignment.

This is the first irrefutable proof that Syria and Iran are in blatant violation of the arms embargo laid down in Security Council resolution 1701.

There is no embargo on arms shipments from North Korea or Cyprus to Syria and it is not clear if the Cypriot authorities intend to impound the cargo in view of the discrepancy between the manifest and the freight.

However, intelligence sources believe the systems aboard the Grigorio 1 are intended to complement the anti-air missiles which have already reached Hizballah via Syria, the main conduit of arms to the Lebanese Shiite terrorists.

The Gregorio 1 which set out from North Korea reached Port Said in Egypt and was on its way to the Syrian port of Latakia when it put into Cyprus to refuel.

WSJ.com - Armed Militants Attempt to Storm U.S. Embassy in Damascus

WSJ.com - Armed Militants Attempt to Storm U.S. Embassy in Damascus

Also:

---

At least four gunmen try to storm US embassy in Damascus Tuesday - day after anniversary of al Qaeda’s 9/11 assaults on America and threats of fresh attacks

September 12, 2006, 1:42 PM (GMT+02:00)

According to some reports, the assailants threw hand grenades and opened heavy automatic fire on the Syrian guards outside the embassy. They came in two cars one loaded with pipe bombs linked to gas canisters. US diplomats are reported unhurt, but several Syrian guards were killed.

DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources add the assault team, almost certainly Al Qaeda, was larger than Syria has given out. It was big enough to attack the US embassy compound from several directions and plant bomb devices around the building. Three terrorists were killed and one injured and captured. Syrian security forces have thrown a dragnet over Damascus to search for the fugitives.

US Marines in the embassy are said to have taken part in the gunfight. As thick black smoke rose above the embassy, heavy Syrian forces surrounded the building. Ambulances and fire engines rushed to the scene. The terror alert has been raised at US embassies in Europe, Middle East and Persian Gulf.

There is no US ambassador in place in Damascus. She was withdrawn more than a year ago after the US accused Damascus of involvement in the Rafiq Hariri assassination in Beirut. The embassy is run by a large consular staff and low-ranking diplomats.

WSJ.com - Jack Bauer Insurance

"The Washington Post reported yesterday that more CIA counterterrorism officers are signing up for private insurance that would pay for civil judgments and legal costs if they are sued or charged with a crime. These are the agents who interrogated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and other jihadis, using what President Bush last week called methods that were legal but "tough." Those methods succeeded in breaking these men into divulging information that led to the arrest of other al Qaeda bigs, and to the foiling of plots that could have killed thousands."

What the hell is wrong with our country? How can we defeat our enemy if the point of the spear (versus all the bureacrats, lawyers, media pundits, ACLU-ers, media types and, of course, politicians standing behind their protctive umbrella) has to buy insurance to protect themselves?

We will lose this war unless we start tatin it like a war. G-d save the world and ou children if that comes to pass.

See the article below.

WSJ.com - Jack Bauer Insurance

9/11 --Solidarity and Common Sense

See the link below as we remember this day and try to learn from our mistakes to protect future generations.

WSJ.com - Solidarity

And Now for Something Completely Different -- Other Fish to Fry - New York Times

Bottom line: For the environment's sake, eat vegetarian fish like tilapia, carp and (yuchhh!) catfish.

Other Fish to Fry - New York Times

Iran's space program: The next genie in a bottle?

The attached somewhat rambling but interesting article points out three motives for Iranian development of a space program:

1. Create national pride and unity behind Iran's modernism as the first Islamic nation to penetrate the stratosphere (modernism is NOT the same thing as Westernism);
2. To enhance Iran's defensive capabilities against US forces in the Middle East and Israeli forces by providing total visibility afforded by satellite intelligence; and
3. Most ominously, to perfect a missile platform weapon capabilities for offensive operations against US, Israeli, European and Arab countries.

We always think of the third reason stated above for ominous Iranian behavior, but never the other two. It would be a grave disservice to understate the importance of the other two factors in pursuing behavior-modifying strategies with regard to Iran. In my "Global Predictions, Part 2" article earlier this week I talk about the idea of America applying genuine, respectful diplomatic outreach to the Iranians -- at the same time that we apply pressure with other means -- in an attempt to create a dialog with the Iranian people and elements of their government that MIGHT lead to a breakthrough before we get to the nuclear precipice with them. Now admittedly, I am a bit too much of a pessimist in human nature, and the prisons that we create for ourselves in our world views, to expect an effective breakthrough at this late hour with the Iranians. A.L. has called me on this pessimism by gently reminding me, after Global Predictions, Part 2 came out, that "war is always the least desirable of outcomes" (well, maybe Iran having nukes is worse, but I get where he is going with this -- he feels that my lack of confidence in our world leaders and human nature make the diplomatic course a pre-ordained loser, and I just fast forward in my heart, if not on paper, to the military solution as the only likely effective one, even though it will just creat more problems down the road). Accordingly, in spite of my pessimism, in the coming days I will provide an alternate history to the Iranian situation that will make A.L., and most people of good conscience, happy.


Iran's space program: The next genie in a bottle? | Jerusalem Post

Israel's Confused (and Confusing) Government May Lead to Dangerous Miscalculations As Iranian Moment of Truth Approaches

You have to feel for the Israelis. On one hand, they want to make the UN happy and don't want to get enmeshed in Lebanon again, as they were between 1982 and 2000, when countless soldiers were killed an wounded in a culturally corrosive Chinese water torture of occupation. On the other hand, they must try to neutralize Hizbullah in Lebanon, for both broader deterrent purposes and to prepare for the next, deadly battle to come within the year, when Hizbullah forces will most likely be deployed again with more ominous weaponry by Iran against Israel, as part of a deterrent or retaliatory attack in regard to Israeli or Western intervention in Iran's nuclear pursuits. This is a tough situation to be in.

Unfortunately, Israel's government, in announcing that it is giving up the blockade of Lebanon to uncertain (to say the least) UN promises to stop the further importation of Hizbullah weaponry (see two Debka reports, below), continues to show an incredible flexibility in the face of its principles that can easily be confused with spinelessness and indecision, but more importantly hurts Israel in ways that were not conceivable several months ago, namely:

--it reinforces Arab opinion that not only has Israel's military been degraded in capability, as demonstrated by its ineffectiveness in Lebanon (more a crisis of leadership and training that will undoubtably be fixed), but that Israel also lacks any political will and moral strength to stand by its demands and core values -- in this case, the release of Israeli soldiers whose abduction started this war. All of this, of course, leads to a marked deterioration in Israel's deterrence capability, as I have written about before on this blog; and

--more importantly, and I don't see any Western or Israeli commentators discussing this, is the impact on Western (especially US) confidence in Israel's ability and determination to do what it says it is going to do and to achieve its objectives. Why is this important? Israel relies upon US support for its very survival today, particularly the confidence and support of George Bush and the Christian right. The US is under enormous pressure from our European allies to throw Israel over the side of the boat at every turn (anyone who has read the "private" views, as well as public declarations, of European policymakers and looked at their changing national demographics will not doubt this statement). While the history of statements and fatwas by Islamo-Fascist leaders of both the Sunni and Shiite pursuasion would convincingly argue that Israel is merely one irritant in the clash of cultures between the West and the Islamic world, and not its root cause, it is all too easy for our Arab moderate friends and Europeans alike to focus on Israel rather than face the broader problem of the ugly truth of anti-Christian, anti-Western dimentia that holds sway among broad swaths of the Muslim world that has little to do with Israel.

Here is the problem: President Bush faces a fateful appointment with destiny over the next year as to how to deal with Iran's nuclear arms program if diplomacy doesn't work (see my recent peace on this blog, on September 3rd, "Global Predictions, Part 2"). The pressure to do nothing and learn to live with Iranian nukes, hoping that democracy and cooler heads ultimately overtakes the Iranian revolution, is going to be great. President Bush knows that Israel's survival, and the stability of the Middle East and our oil supplies, is at stake. However, if he has any doubt in Israel's ability to be an effective and dependable ally militarily in that conflict, both from a capabilities and determination viewpoint, he has got to rethink how he will confront the Iranian nuclear threat.

However, there is not only an Israeli cooperative element to influencing US policy, per the above, but a coercive one as well, where President Bush's arm can be twisted by the belief in Israel's intent to independently and unilaterally adhere to its historical model of defending itself and attacking disproportionately, come hell or high water, regardless of popular opinion in the UN. If the Iranian's miscalculate (or correctly calculate) Western and Islamic world response, and detonate a small nuclear device in Haifa harbor, or if Hizbullah missiles armed with sarin gas hit Tel Aviv, is Israel willing to unleash WW III in the Mideast, attack Iran and Syria with missiles armed either conventionally or with who-knows-what, and seek to take out its leaders, or does it simply hit Hizbullah strongholds in Lebanon and go wimpering to the UN like the historical Jewish victim crying for peace? If a weakened President Bush and other Western leaders believe that the Olmert government (if still in power) is capable of the former, strong, possibly reckless, traditional Israeli response borne of its roots in the Holocaust, then the odds of the US itself taking a more vigorous approach to Iranian nukes is more likely, in order to avoid the Middle East's (and the world's oil supply) being plunged into darkness by Israel's response. On the other hand, if Israel took the latter course and acted like it did during the Lebanese conflict, indecisive and incrementralist, relying upon an after-the-fact, undoubtably ineffective multilateralist solution to assure its own security, President Bush would have to be less likely to take on the Iranians because the alternative would be more palatable.

Israel's conduct of the war in Lebanon throws into doubt future Israeli action, and could lead to dangerous miscalculations by all concerned. Because of this, ironically, global stability in the coming days of fateful decisions over Iran, may best be served by the election in Israel of a "predicatable" right-wing government.

* * * * * * *

DEBKAfile: Israel lifts its air, sea and land embargo of Lebanon Thursday. Olmert reneges on his war commitments and responsiblity for kidnapped soldiers

"September 6, 2006, 10:53 PM (GMT+02:00)

The embargo which was in any case fading will be lifted at 1500 GMT Thursday, 7 Sept. 7. Prime minister Ehud Olmert and defense minister Amir Peretz folded under intense pressure from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan without the UN, Lebanon or Hizballah meeting any of Israel’s six conditions for ending the embargo (and accepting the August ceasefire):

1. No sign of life was elicited from Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, whose abduction by Hizballah July 11, triggered the Lebanon war – or even a Red Cross visit. This has left a bad feeling in the army over the fate of men falling into enemy hands.

2. Hizballah will not be evacuated from South Lebanon or disarmed.

3. The deployment of UNIFIL-2 and its European components in South Lebanon is being used by Olmert and foreign minister Tzipi Livni as a ploy to pull Israel’s troops out of Lebanon without achieving any of their avowed goals.

4. The prime minister’s office in Jerusalem Wednesday night, Sept. 6, cited the UN and US as assuring Israel that UN forces are prepared to begin executing their mission. No mission description was attached to the notice, because the European contingents have made it abundantly clear that they have no intention of disarming Hizballah.

5. Neither are the “peacekeepers” lifting a finger to halt Iranian and Syrian weapons consignments to Hizballah. Indeed the flow of arms has increased since their arrival, making a mockery of UN Resolution 1701 which ordered an embargo on such arms at the same time as it mandated their deployment.

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the smuggled arms supplies to Hizballah, far from halting have been stepped up. Iran and Hizballah are further pumping arms into the Gaza Strip. This week alone, Palestinian terrorists took delivery of 400 RPG anti-tank rockets and 15 Grad missiles.

Egyptian border forces and European monitors posted at the Rafah terminal provided no bar to the traffic.

Given the missed goals of Israel’s venture into the Lebanon war, it is no wonder that Binyamin Ben Eliezer, minister of infrastructure in the Olmert cabinet and a former defense minister, said bluntly Wednesday Sept. 6 that this was Israel’s worst defeat in all the wars it fought. Domestic criticism of the government spreads day by day as the bizarre, muddled and incomprehensible nature of the prime minister’s war decisions continues to mark his actions three weeks later."

DebkaFile report #2: German Chancellor’s office contradicts Israeli government claim that German naval forces are ready to secure the Lebanese coast under UN flag

September 7, 2006, 10:56 AM (GMT+02:00)

London similarly denied that British naval units would take part in monitoring Lebanese shores against arms smuggling.

DEBKAfile adds: Confusing preconditions and delays by the Lebanese government are holding up the German deployment. Berlin has offered to lead the UNIFIL naval component securing the Lebanese coast but the Siniora government under Hizballah pressure only agrees to its deployment seven miles offshore and therefore unable to search for arms smugglers. Beirut is also holding back its formal application for this force to the UN and the German government – claiming to be waiting for the Israeli embargo to be lifted. The Olmert government agreed to end the embargo Thursday claiming UN assurances that international monitors were ready to take over embargo missions. This is far from the case and the lifting of the embargo was therefore opposed by the Israeli military.

Germany insists on a clear request from Beirut, coupled with a robust mandate from the United Nations, to prevent sea-based arms smuggling mainly from Syria to Hezbollah militants, before submitting the request to parliamentary approval.

Berlin is reportedly prepared to allocate up to 3,000 sea and air troops and some 13 vessels to the task. Even then, two weeks would be needed to bring them to the Middle East.

Merkel, in an address to the Bundestag, indicated that the German forces' main task would be monitoring the sea exits. She would wait for several days before taking a final decision on their deployment. She stressed that the national forces must not be put "in confusing conditions or at risks. German troops, the Chancellor said, should not be engaged in combat missions "or open fire at the Israelis."

German experts are due in Lebanon by the end of this week to arrange logistics with the Lebanese army, but the defense ministry in Berlin stated they are not an advance contingent to prepare for the main mission.

WSJ.com - Hostage to Fortune

An interesting article on several levels.

"No leader since Napoleon has roiled the Middle East as has George W. Bush. By invading Iraq, President Bush set history in motion. By doing so without a strategy for governing it afterwards, he did not plan for the worst, and so the worst has happened. Iraq has become the pivot for strengthening the radical forces that the invasion should have weakened. Yet to assume history follows a straight path is fatalism, not analysis...."

Believing that we could bring democracy to Iraq without doing any of the institutional or cultural spadework (or placing enough boots on the ground) was a disaster, but not the end of the world. Lets keep our eye on the ball of preventing an enormous tragedy over Iran, as well as the further unraveling of any stability that ever existed in the Arab world. As I suggest in a recent piece, this will require that we work closely with our Arab Sunni "moderate" dictatorial allies. How we square this with our commitment to the blooming of democracy in the Mideast must wait until after the Iran showdown is behind us.

WSJ.com - Hostage to Fortune

El Al planes can't refuel in Europe | Jerusalem Post

"European countries have been refusing to allow planes carrying IDF supplies to refuel at their airports, according to the El Al Pilots Union.

Italy, Britain, Portugal, Spain and Germany refuse to allow El Al cargo planes transporting US military equipment to Israel to land and refuel, El Al Pilots Union chairman Itai Regev wrote in a letter sent Sunday to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert."

The Israelis seem very upset and surprised about this, questioning which side the Europeans take in the war on terror. This is really just par for the course, and the Israelis should not be surprised by now -- the Europeans view of Israel, as confirmed by their own polls, is somewhere between annoyance at Israel for wanting to survive and out-and-out Antisemitism.

Besides, we (the US) suffer the same types of boycotts of overflight privileges and the like by the Europeans while we continue to defend their asses, and have suffered this indignity for decades (remember Ronald Reagan's attack of Quaddafi's tents in Libya -- the French refused our planes the ability to fly over French territory).

See remainder of story at:

El Al planes can't refuel in Europe | Jerusalem Post

See remainder of story at:

DEBKAfile - “Lebanese Security” Is the Pretext for the Naval Babel around Lebanon’s Shores

Interesting development -- I disagree that this buildup could be in connection with US-led developments regarding Iran between now and November. Nothing is happening before the US elections. Rather, this may be both an overwhelming show of muscleflexing by the cowardly Europeans (who must do SOMETHING with all that expensive military hardware), and perhaps a dress rehearsal for an action to retrieve or support their UNIFIL trooops in Lebanon, should Hizbullah/Syria/Iran do what they did in the 80's and target these Western forces in Lebanon to score more points in the Arab world and take pressure off of Iran (as the Hizbullah-Israeli war temporarily did). As to Debka's contention that these forces are there for Iran, they also might be there as a dress rehearsal to take on Syria in 2007, as its interference in Lebanon goes unabated. Stay tuned.

DEBKAfile - “Lebanese Security” Is the Pretext for the Naval Babel around Lebanon’s Shores

Global Predictions, Part 2

OK, a couple of days ago I predicted what I thought was going to happen on the stock market during the coming 3-4 months -- a generally up market, as the world took a geopolitical breather, the Fed halted its interest rate rises for a while and hedgies and private equity buyout guys drove stocks up one last time, before signs of stagflation set in during the first half of 2007, corporate earnings start to slow in earnest, housing defaults start really looking serious (PS, I see the harbingers of this already in our (Full Circle's) subprime real estate lending portfolio, which was also reported in the Journal last week), and the geopolitical situation starts looking scary. Barron's came out this weekend totally disagreeing with me, seeing the rest of 2006 as being a non-event, but another uptick of a bull market in 2007. I hope they are right and I am wrong.

This article, Part 2 in this series, will talk about the geopolitical situation that we will face in 2007, and what we can or should be doing about it.

Where can we start other than with Iran. Sure, some other, potentially global crisis can arise in an unrelated part of the world. The most likely examples in my opinion center around East Asia, and in each case pointing to the urgent need for Japan to accelerate their efforts to strengthen their military and create a blue water navy:

--Taiwanese fighting words of independence as China approaches its 2008 coming out party at the 2008 Beijing Olympics (a bit too early, but possible),
--Japanese, Vietnamese or Taiwanese conflict with China over navigation and oil exploration rights relating to disputed islands, leading to uncertainty in Asian shipping lanes,
--Further unpredictable action from the North Koreans (so unpredictable are they that they have become predictable), or
--Russian muscleflexing conflict with Japan over contested islands.

However, I still believe that Iran will be the place upon which to focus in 2007.

The last time I was down in Washington, in May, the feeling was expressed by a panel of plugged-in experts that the Bush administration, tired and weakened by Iraq, was pursuing a diplomatic course on Iran simply in order to position the next administration to deal conclusively with Iran (the feeling being that no amount of diplomacy was going to wrest the Iranians from their nuclear destiny -- the talk was only to give the US and Britain, and perhaps NATO, diplomatic air cover to ultimately do what had to be done). Basically, recognizing their lack of international credibility to ultimately pursue military action (after all the multilateral talking), the Bush administartion was planning on kicking the can down the road.

Knowledgable insiders in Washington now believe that the Hizbullah-Israeli War changed this view by the administration, and that George Bush is now committed to seeing the Iranian nuclear situation through on his watch. George Bush is a man of very strongly held convictions, and he saw all that he needed to see in the Hizbullah war to conclude that the Iranians could not be trusted to be rational with nuclear weapons. The President is not only thinking about Israel's survival and likely reaction to a nuclear attack, but also about the viability of the West's oil supplies from the Arabian peninsula, and the further threat of nuclear proliferation throughout the Arab world (a pretty scary thought, huh?).

So what now? Likely, the slow grinding wheels of diplomacy and international sanctions for the next six months, at least. At the risk of sounding like my dear friend A.L., I hope the Bush administration "goes for broke" in reaching out directly to the Iranians with bilateral talks, putting alot of substance on the table, rather than hanging cautiously with the multilateral pack. I don't think he will do it, but I would like to see Bush reach out to Iran and offer the following grand deal:

1. We will not actively seek your violent overthrow if you limit your nuclear pursuits to peaceful and verifiable development in conjunction with full international supervision (the Russian plan is a good place to start). This Iranian regime, with restive Kurdish and Arab minorities and an unhappy, underemployed and vocal younger generation, lives in constant fear of overthrow by the US, following our invasions of Afganistan and Iraq, even though both those actions ironically worked in Iran's interests by deposing their Sunni enemies.

2. If you stop arming Hizbullah and the Shiite irredentist movement in Iraq, we will allow significant liberalization of economic and technolgical ties; and

3. If you genuinely democratize, we are willing to work to bring Iran fully into the community of nations.

Following the Libyan example, items 2 and 3 above may be combined, but you get the idea.

This would be bold action on the international stage, and to the extent that it was vigorously announced by the US to the world and the Iranian people, could start a potentially revolutionary internal debate in Iran about its future. For once, we would have taken the initiative and not be reacting to our enemy's agenda, but they to ours.

Optimistic talk without the application of pressure is not enough. One element of pressure is to keep the sanctions ball rolling (which the Iranians do not seem to take terribly seriously, given the lack of success of sanctions against Saddam Hussein and the venality and mercantilism of significant world players dependent upon Iranian oil and desirous of its trade, like Russia, China, India and Turkey). In addition, we must maintain the quickening drumbeat of public speculation as to military planning and our expected deadlines to attack Iran. At the same time, there are other actions that we should be taking to put the Iranians on the defensive, and take some of the wind out of their sails that has been provided by the Hizbullah "victory" in militarily stalemating the Israelis in battle. These actions would include:

1. Seriously stepping up our actions and support of the Arab minorities that have been perpretrated bombings and other terrorist actions in Iran (while Shiites make up over 90% of the population, Iran has an Arab minority that suffers from discrimination and other pressures). For more on the problem potentially posed to Iran by irredentist Arab groups, see http://www.rferl.org/features/features_Article.aspx?m=04&y=2005&id=CA90306F-22A2-4DB7-947D-464ED56495C0 ;

2. encouraging more assertive action and talk by the Kurds, who pose their own irredentist threat to Iranian territories. This is not going to make the Turks too happy, who are hypersensitive about our support for the Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq and anything that might be construed as encouraging Kurdish nationalism that could spill across the border into Turkey. That being said, this Turkish government has taken Turkey a tremendous step backwards in its relations with the US, undoubtably reinforced by Turkey's ruling party's Islamic value system (where is Ataturkism when you need it?), it has been unsupportive of our mission in Iraq and diplomatically and economically supportive of Iran, and a little pressure on Turkey at this time could help put more pressure on Iran; and

3. Make the best of a terrible situation in Iraq. Following the November election, we announce our plan to begin drawing down troops in Iraq more vigorously in 2007, to be replaced by Iraqi forces, but planning on maintaining a significant force in the area for some time to come by repositioning to the Kurdish region of Iraq and to other Arab states that ask for our presence. At the same time, we would announce to our Sunni friends in Saudi Arabia and Jordan that it is up to the Arab world and the Iraqi leadership to decide whether they believe that Iraq would best be served by national unity or division into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish cantons, and work together towards that goal with them. Perhaps the Arab League will be prepared to replace US troops as peacekeepers in Iraqi hotspots, perhaps not. Perhaps the Iraqi governemnt can keep things together, undoubtably requiring them to unsheath their swords (it will be messy), but it will be hard for us to judge the morality and "proportionality" of their actions at that point. This course of action will achieve several objectives. We have to get our boys and girls out of Iraq, the sooner, the better, and this Iraqi civil war is not getting any better with us sitting in the middle of it. It is regrettable what we have done to that country, but it wasn't in such great shape beforehand, and arguable we have given it a chance at its own self-determination. Let the Arab world and the Iraqi leadership pick up the pieces. To the extent that the Iranians stir up trouble and try to capitalize at the further expense of the Sunni Iraqis, our military sits in Kurdistan, a dagger pointed at the heart of the Iranians (in their minds), and they run the risk of further alienating themselves from Sunni elements of the Arab world.

The last point is one that has to be stressed -- we must create wedges between the Persian Iranians and the Arab world, and between Sunnis and the Iranian Shiites. We cannot allow a common anti-US attitude in the Arab world to give Iran more of a leadership position than they already possess, following the success of Hizbullah/Iran against Israel. We are not going to eradicate that anti-US sentiment overnight; but we can instead work to sow the seeds of division between the Iranians and Arab nations, between Sunnis and Shiites. Saudi Arabia's remarkable, tacit support for Israel's cutting Hizbullah (and Iran) down to size points to a wedge that can be driven in the Arab world between bad and worse. In addition, Syria becomes irrelevant with a tamed, or at least more cautious Iran.

How will Iran react to this carrot and stick approach, and multi-task the range of choices it faces in this high stakes game of chess?

No one knows. If they try to go on the attack, they can redeploy Hizbulla against Israel, but this time firing over the heads of Europeans in Lebanon (not terribly helpful to their cause) or attack Israel directly, in a shrill attempt to consolidate their support in the Arab Street (and reinforcing the need, and giving the US and Israel the jsutification, to destroy their nuclear capbility). They can employ a European-wide string of terrorist attacks, to cow the weak-kneed Europeans into submission.

Notwithstanding these possible results, which could lead to a full blown, military conflict, a critical rule of conflict resolution is to allow your adversary an escape hatch where they are permitted to maintain their honor, while retreating. The "carrot" part of these tactics, employed to a great extent publicly, leaves Iran an exit point with honor and tacit protection of their regime from outside (though not from the ferment that will grow from within), and gives them the opportunity to attain an even stronger position in Iraq (at the cost of putting them in greater conflict with the Arab world -- a good balance, from our perspective). It could get messy in Iraq, but it was going to be messy there anyway -- we are not going to stay there forever. The Sunni Saudis and the Arab gulf states will beg us to stay in the region to protect them. The Arab world has the opportunity to recapture a bit of pan-Arab honor by being part of the solution to our Iraq mess by deploying their own peacekeepers to shore up a last hope, unified Iraqi governemnt.

Hopefully this is how it plays out, but if it doesn't, I anticipate a strong military attempt to set back Iran's nuclear program by NATO, the US and/or Israel, by the end of June 2007. After that gets too close to what some analysts believe may be the "point of no return" for the Iranians, from a nuclear technical ability perspective. Israel cannot accept a nuclear Iran, and I do not believe that the West can afford that result either. Fortunately, I believe that George Bush is of the same opinion.

Fact or Fiction? Spy fever sweeps Hizballah after breaking up two Israeli Mossad rings which included Lebanese Shiite agents

Fact or fiction (my hunch is that it is probably a combination of the two), the following report from Debka makes for interesting and entertaining reading. It is worth noting that Hizbullah's organizational dynamics have for some time been compared to the Stalinist Soviet Union, with purges and paranoid suspicion abound (much like their Iranian overlords). Therefore, it would not be beyond the pale of expectation that Western (particularly Israeli) security services spend a good amount of time not only trying to infiltrate this organization, but also spreading suspicion within Hizbullah about loyal Hizbullah-ites with the intention of causing harmful purges and other counterproductive behavior to their cause.

Wars are fought at many levels in the Mideast...

DEBKAfile Exclusive: Spy fever sweeps Hizballah after breaking up two Israeli Mossad rings which included Lebanese Shiite agents

September 1, 2006, 10:39 PM (GMT+02:00)

Hizballah’s dreaded Special Security Apparatus is reported by our intelligence sources in Beirut and Israel as having broken up two spy rings of Lebanese agents which the Israeli Mossad planted inside Hizballah before and during the Lebanon war.

One worked out of Beirut, the second in South Lebanon.

The two networks, according to DEBKAfile’s sources, planted bugs and surveillance equipment at Hizballah command posts before and during the war. They also sprinkled special phosphorus powder outside buildings housing Hizballah’s war commands and rocket-launchers as markers for air strikes.

Israel warplanes and helicopters were able to hit these locations with great accuracy.

Well before the war, the Beirut ring had penetrated the inner circles of Hizballah high-ups and was reporting on their activities and movements to Israeli controllers. Its center was located in Beirut’s Shiite district of Dahya, the Hizballah stronghold. Short anonymous phone calls would give agents their rendezvous for picking up orders and spy equipment and dead drops for relaying their information.

The second network was composed of two cells operating out of the village of Itrun opposite Kibbutz Yaron and Bint Jubeil further west. Run by veterans of the South Lebanese Army (the force Israel created during its occupation), its job was to “paint” targets for the Israeli Air Force and artillery.

Their leader was Mahmoud al-Jemayel. Envelopes with their orders and espionage devices were left at a pre-assigned spot along the security fence on the Lebanese-Israeli border.

Halil Mantsur, an Itrin villager, was in charge of communications through the security fence; Muhammed Bassem, a Shiite from Bin Jubeil, ran field operations. The ring had 20 operatives recruited from South Lebanese villages and a number of Palestinians from the camps around Tyre and Sidon. They were paid $500 per month for spying on Hizballah. A local taxi driver drove the operatives to their assignments and returned them to their homes.

The Beirut ring was the more sophisticated. In addition to tactical intelligence-gathering, its wings spread outside Lebanon. Its leader, Faisal Mukleid, 29, a Shiite from Jarjuara village, was captain of small freighters which carried smuggled drugs and stolen goods between Mediterranean ports on the Italian and Egyptian coasts.

In 2000, Mukleid was picked up by the Italian navy in a customs raid. In a cell awaiting trial, he was contacted by the Mossad. In no time, he was sprung and flown to Israel where he spent several months learning how to use eavesdropping and surveillance equipment.

The Lebanese Shiite sea-captain’s first mission in Lebanon was to recruit relatives and fellow Shiites and get them planted inside the Hizballah leadership. Towards the end of the year, he and his wife joined up as members of Hizballah. Their devotion and zeal was such that they were soon promoted to the high ranks of the organization. Together with the agents they recruited, they quickly reached positions on the personal staffs of top political and military leaders, whom they accompanied more than once on trips to Tehran.

Exposing the Israeli spy rings in their midst has made Hizballah’s top people extremely jumpy and suspicious. One of their discoveries from an inquest of the war they fought with Israel in July and August is that their command structures in South Lebanon were heavily penetrated by agents working for Israel intelligence. Now they are looking over their shoulders for spies they may have missed. Tuesday night, Aug. 29, Hizballahs’ security officials detained two non-Lebanese Arabs wandering around the ruined Dahya district, taking photos and drawing maps. Several forged passports were found in their possession.

The captured Israeli agents are locked up in Hizballah jails awaiting their fate. The Hizballah security service has drawn up dossiers for their indictment, but is uncertain how to proceed. The Lebanese prosecution authorities, once dominated by Syrian influence, can no longer be counted on for convictions.