Concerns About Stability
This is interesting. Concerns about stability in the region stalled attack on Syrian nuke facility.
I’m not sure which stability they’re talking about. There’s the stability enforced by dictatorial regimes in places as Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. There’s the stability places like Lebanon and Iraq are barely managing to maintain … no thanks to Syria, Iran, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Palestinians, etc., but thanks in large part to the Lebanese Army, the Israeli Defense Forces and the United States military. There’s the stability of Gaza, accomplished in part when one group of Palestinian terrorists decided to throw the other group of Palestinian terrorists off rooftops, but really thanks to the Israeli Defense Forces, which make it impossible for either group to be much more than a nuisance. There’s the stability of the West Bank, where they’ve had enough.
Anyway, so Israel gets the nod, blows up the Syrian nukes, and what happens? Nothing. Syria is hardly likely to want another humiliating ass-kicking. That leaves terrorism. … That’d be different.
Just kidding. Except that ever since Israel introduced some stability to Lebanon, Hezbollah hasn’t been quite on its game. The Lebs, meanwhile, appear to have watched and learned from the Israelis. Blowing the crap out of terrorists and those who harbor them works. It can actually introduce stability to places where stability had been wanting. So the Lebs have been taking care of business in the camps.
Which brings us to the big question. What’s the big holdup on Iran and its nukes? Concerns about stability?
Concerns that the Euros might get upset? Some of them will. Some of them will pretend like they are. A number of them have indicated they have no problem. Anyway, who cares what they think? If we cared what they think, we’d be worrying about Saddam Hussein’s nukes as well as Iran’s nukes right now.
Concerns that the Arabs might be upset? They’re looking across the Gulf, not liking what their seeing, and firing up their own “peaceful” nuke programs.
Concerns that the United Nations might get upset? That’d be different. Anyway, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Concerns that Iran might launch a massive conventional counterattack? Could happen. It would be a big mistake on Iran’s part … just ask Syria … but it could happen. The concern that Iran might launch terrorist attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, on Israel from Lebanon, Gaza?
That’d be different.
… Just kidding. You know what I think? The failure to act against Iran in any meaningful way over the past 28 years has given Iran the idea it can do what it wants, and we won’t do anything. Especially now that Iran is under the mistaken impression that we are tied up in Iraq. I think action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iran’s terrorist training camps, and the infrastructure that supports Iranian terrorism would go a long way toward creating stability in the Middle East.
Case in point: Petraeus re wolves, sled.
Section9 in comments raises a couple of good points. Story is undoubtedly more complex than this brief ABC report reflects, including ABC’s failure to mention the well-publicized North Korean angle. So, when whacking a Syrian nuke site and establishing that the K’s have shipped out their stuff, why no repercussions on the K’s, no hit on the ship(s) in the first place? A suckup to Kim to maintain that wretched deal with an utterly unreliable negotiating partner?
That scenario assumes they had actionable intelligence on any transport and the contents of their holds. Also assumes it is more advantageous to attack the transport enroute or in port rather than see where it is going and what they are planning to do with the contents. Instead, they opted to take out a WMD facility, serving notice in the process to three parties, Syrian, Iranian, and Korean. Threefer. Fourfer, actually, because all the Arabs get to see that the U.S. and Israel will do what they need to do. Fivefer, because the rest of the world is informed there are active WMD programs in the region and that the US and Israel, presumeably chastened and in military disarray as a result of Iraq, Lebanon, will do something about it. Whether the rest of the world likes it or believe it or not. For all we know, this incident may in fact have come up in discussions with the K’s, to encourage them to stay on the correct path.
Re Kim, it’s beyond me why they want to enable his murderous regime, rather than let it rot on the vine. It makes the neighbors feel better, and maybe this time they think they’ve got him on a short leash. Good luck with that. But given the potential of massive devastation of heavily populated areas in South Korean, a straight-ahead regime-change program is not on the books. I suppose there’s the humanitarian argument of giving the millions he is starving to death a chance to simply live, sort of like the argument for dropping sanctions against that other WMD enthusiast, Saddam Hussein.
Welcome, Instapundit, etal. Andrew Sullivan readers, howbout that. Come on in, you might learn something. Like for starters, the evil David Frum is my fondly regarded and respected cousin-in-law, not brother-in-law. Someone tell Andrew he needs to get his facts straight. Again. Anyway, Happy Columbus Day. Here’s someone else who needs to re-revisit their history. Big question, did this guy do Larry Craig or is he trying to do us? I don’t know about that, but here’s a crowd it’s nice to see get done. Before there was Chimpy McHitlerburton, there was the evil FDR administration. I bet they had pinheads back then, too. Sometimes, it isn’t just about the monkey urine. Meanwhile, in other primate news.
Topics: Iran, Israel, Korea, Syria
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 7:27 pm on Saturday, October 6, 2007
16 Responses to “Concerns About Stability”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
I find it immensely frustrating, and humiliating, that Israel (as much as I admire them) must take the lead on something like this. Of course, because their survival is at stake, they don’t have the luxury of vacillation. But they make our leaders look like hand-wringing ninnies.
Condi Rice has lost all my respect.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
I think it was stability in Iraq. The White House, well Foggy Bottom, was concerned about the possibility of Syria ramping up support for the insurgents.
I’m convinced that the only goal left in this Administration is to stabilize Iraq. No attacks on Iran, keep the peace process (hah!) at least superficially alive re Israel and the Palestinians, and hope that nothing else blows up.
Here Hillary/Rudy, the keys are your’s. I’ve got some biking and brush clearing to do in Crawford.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
The State Department is a collection of Jimmy Carter wannabes. I don’t think any employee of that organization has had a backbone since, perhaps, 1945.
October 7th, 2007 at 12:34 am
on the one hand, it’s important to win the war in Iraq (at least).
on the other hand, it’s important to win the 2008 Election.
oh well, maybe the Israelis will come through. Especially if the telephone/internet connections between Tel Aviv and Washington are cut.
October 7th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Bush doesn’t care ablout Europe, the Arabs, the UN or much of anything else. His problem is right here, Pelosi, Reid,and the rest of those lunatics. The Democrat leadership will gladly trade millions of lives to get their power back. If it’s lives in Israel or Iraq, they don’t care. If Iran bombs anyone they’ll start screeching how Bush should have stopped it. If Bush bombs the Iranian nuke sites they’ll start impeachment proceedings.
October 7th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Secretary Rice lost my respect as soon as our policy changed back to the “realist” (was there ever such a misnomer applied to an outlook?) hogwash that helped to get us to 9-11 in the first place.
Too bad they got the Pentagon instead of Foggy Bottom. Perhaps an object lesson might have exploded their beloved myths. Perhaps not. They’ve had people kidnapped, blown-up, and otherwise murdered by these thugs for some time now and it hasn’t seemed to make a dent. As far as I’m concerned, that in itself is enough to kick in mandatory competence hearings. Even a mule will pay attention if you knock him up the side of the head.
October 7th, 2007 at 5:30 am
I like the unrealist policy of screw up and we send in the Marines.
I do believe Iran has screwed up. Big time.
Semper Fi.
October 7th, 2007 at 5:31 am
BTW Jules one of your very best!
October 7th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
The charade of IAEA and Iranian “peaceful” only nuclear program has been going on for over 2 decades.
Meanwhile, the fact that Iran isn’t apparently yet weapons capable is rather amazing.
(might have been partially all that second rate nuclear “stuff” that Pakistan’s AQ Khan sold them. I remember when the Iranians complained about that.)
Amir Taheri (Iranian by birth) spells it out:
The revelation that the Islamic Republic began seeking a nuclear deterrent as early as 1988 is nothing new to seasoned Iran-watchers.
http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/region/10072055.html
October 7th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
This is interesting.
For the power struggle in Iran that will be on the horizon when the old (reportedly quite unhealthy) America hating Ayotollah Khomenei kicks the bucket.
Iran is hardly a single, unified entity bent on the insane view of chaos, erasure of Israel and the return of the Mahdi.
http://www.pajamasmedia.com/2007/10/sick_on_lehrer.php
October 7th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Khomenei
KhAmenei
October 7th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
One more story, mea (frigging) culpa for all the links.
You’ve gotta admit that the idea of the failure of Russian built radar systems (”don’t worry, it won’t work”) is appealing.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3456456,00.html
October 7th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
I really believe that a lot of the Usual Suspects on the conservative side of the aisle are buying a planted story like gullible fools. I strongly suspect that this story is a heck of a lot more complex than the narrative that has been presented by the Israelis (or Cheney’s office, whomever are the guys who planted this hit job).
I can buy into the notion that Rice might be cautious about believing intelligence produced by the CIA. Anyone should. Those clowns can’t put the hearse in the right place in a two car funeral. However, there is a missing element to the story that was there earlier: the North Koreans.
Remember, the Izzies didn’t attack until the North Korean ship docked and the materials got to the Syrian plant, or whatever it was. I strongly suspect that we a being fed a bill of goods to hide or mask the North Korean role in all this to save the Six Party Agreement and allow Kim to walk away with his winnings from a deal that he made with the Iranians.
Jules, if you want to buy into disinformation, go right ahead, but I suspect that this was manufactured to spare Kim the embarrassment felt by Captain Renaud at Rick’s Cafe Americain after having been presented with his winnings at the Baccarat Table. This story is a big, shiny pony in which there is no mention of a North Korean ship at all. Only that some of the material might have been North Korean in origin.
Did anyone notice that?
Kim made a deal with the Persians to tranship his enriched uranium to the Persians. We and the Israelis knew about it. Kim knew that we knew. Once he got his cash, he screwed his partners in return for a payoff or some other form of protection. He looks innocent because the Syrians, the middleman on the whole deal, got their finders fee and actually collected the uranium. Unfortunately for the Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Jews showed up and bombed everything and got away with the stuff. Score another victory for the Sayeret Metkal, imho.
The uranium is either in Damona or at Los Alamos. Kim still has his money. The Boy President is embarrassed that his Russian radars don’t work, but he has his finder’s fee, and the Iranians are out several hundred million dollars. They suck: for the first time in a long time, the Rug Merchants got taken to the cleaners by someone smarter than them-the Koreans.
Eventually, Kim gets diplomatic recognition and a No Regime Change promise. I will bet you the Miami Dolphins First Round draft choice that Kim played ball with us. His price was steep, but he played ball.
October 7th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
[...] Jules Crittenden wonders what kind of stability the State Department was trying to protect. [...]
October 8th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
section 8, so it sounds like “the dumbest guy in the world boy president” avoided war by some clever behind the scenes manipulations. I thought that was the whole point of the Left’s kvetching since Sept 12th, 2001.
The Code Pinkos, human shields and World Workers Party ought to be dancing in the streets!
October 8th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
It thrills me to think that part of this operation could have been set up to sting Iran as Section9 ourlines above! Perhaps the concerns about “stability” were nothing more than a way to hold things up until Kim had his money in the bank before Israel went ahead with the next step.