Turkey: No Friend to the West?

Read this post if you want to understand the growing problem the West--specifically the U.S.and Israel--have with Turkey.

Turkey is deliberately helping the Iranians to undermine U.S. policy in the Middle East, and by sending a flotilla to Gaza, in defiance of Israel's blockade, is tantamount to an act of war, it seems to me. There was nothing humanitarian about the trip, because as William Jacobson notes, humanitarian aid can come over land. That this group tried to get through the blockade speaks to more sinister aims to bring weapons into Gaza.

Our president's throwing our allies under the bus, including Israel. More here, including the fact that the group responsible for the flotilla supports--surprise!--radical Islam.

Shocker! Iran Now Capable of Making Weapons Grade Uranium

Congratulations, Barack Obama and Democrats. This morning, Ahmadinejad announced Iran can make weapons grade uranium.

e said it had produced its first batch of 20 per cent enriched uranium - and had the capability to enrich to far higher levels at its Natanz plant.

But not to worry. The international community is really coming down on Mahmoud for the announcement.

The international community has warned Iran against further enrichment activities, threatening new UN sanctions.

That'll stop 'em!

John Bolton Was Right

I really hate when conservatives are right about these things, since it just means we're in that much greater danger of dangerous stuff...like a nuclear armed Iran.

When the Obama Administration proclaimed victory on October 1st by announcing that a break-through had been reached in Geneva and that Iran had committed to shipping 2,600 pounds of fuel to Russia, expert Iran watchers were appropriately cynical. Bolton cautioned, yet again, that the Iranians had used some of the same diplomatic nuances they had been using for years to successfully buy more time to continue enriching uranium and fake cooperation with the international community.

Usually, the Europeans were the first to take the bait but this time the Obama Administration got hooked first. Bolton, however, was the first to stand up and call the Iranian pronouncement a sham - and he did it within hours of the announcement.

But as Obama officials were rushing to pat themselves on the back and the New York Times was proclaiming atop the paper "Iran Agrees to Send Enriched Uranium to Russia," Iranian officials were telling reporters that they had not committed to anything. The Iranians called it "an agreement in principle" - code words for "we'd like to but…"

The Times' reporter in Geneva, however, was taking what the Obama officials were saying and running wildly with the incredible news. Surprisingly, or maybe not, the Times had either not checked with Iranian officials or ignored their warnings in favor of the Obama Administration's good news. Roughly a month later, the Iranian official statements confirmed the fact that the Obama Administration had been duped. The Times subsequently inched its way back to reality through multiple follow-up stories that increasingly showed skepticism in the Victory claims culminating with October 30th's headline "Tehran Rejects Nuclear Accord."

Today, while the Iranians reprocess more fuel, the Obama team continues to compromise and offer even more incentives to them. No wonder Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is waiting - the deal keeps getting sweeter. President Obama has offered the Iranians more time, more sites to place their illegal fuel, more personal correspondence with the Ayatollah, more excuses as to what happened to the original deal they announced and no Chinese and Russian arm-twisting. The Obama team also keeps claiming that if Iran ships 2600 pounds of fuel out to Russia for re-processing then Iran will be unable to pose a nuclear threat for at least a year.

It's tough to keep giving Democrats the benefit of the doubt on these issues. The evidence keeps mounting that they either (a) don't mind Iranian mullahs having nuclear weapons cuz, geez, America is the only country to ever use nukes, or (b) they are so stupid that they actually think the Iranian government won't lie about their nuclear ambitions. Either way, the threat is great.

That Obama Diplomacy Is Working So Well

Iran’s Foreign Minister Rejects Nuclear Deal

Today Iranian Foreign Minister Manochehr Mottaki publicly rejected the U.N.-backed proposal to send about 70 percent of Iran’s known supplies of enriched uranium out of the country. Mottaki suggested that instead Iran would exchange its low-enriched uranium for an equivalent amount of slightly higher enriched uranium, but only on its own territory. This clearly would be unacceptable since it would put Iran closer, rather than slightly farther away from, acquiring sufficient quantities of enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon, if the uranium were to be further enriched.

And this is only the beginning!

Obama's Smart Diplomacy Looks More Like Chamberlain All The Time

Read this synopsis of President Obama's "smart diplomacy" with Iran over its nuclear enrichment program and you'll immediately noticed how we were played. But the post also links to this comment that I found even more interesting.

Now we know why Obama turned his back on Iranian protesters. Note that the secret negotiations began in June. What else went on in June in Iran? Oh yeah... those pesky election results protests.

Basically, he turned his back on the Iranian people because that whole free election fight of theirs wasn't nearly as important as the nuclear deal he was working out with Iran's regime. Too bad the regime couldn't be trusted to actually live up to its end of the bargain. Big surprise there, that you can't trust political leaders who believe in silencing their own people...

Maybe that should serve as an object lesson to us about Obama...

There was considerable confusion in June about why President Obama wasn't more forceful with Ahmedinejad regarding the peaceful protests in that country. We were told that it "wasn't our business" and that there were irregularities in our own elections, so, using that favorite false equivalency of the left, "we can't tell others how to run their elections."

But I find these developments more sinister than mere isolationism. The fact that President Obama was unwilling to condemn the harsh treatment of political protesters in Iran was most likely tied to these negotiations. How can any peacenik support a president who is willing to sell common citizens out this way?

Netanyahu Speaks the Truth

Oh, if we only heard a speech like this from President Obama:

Iran and the British Plot

It's good to find that there's somebody more evil than America in the Islamic world, and it's our closest ally, the British. This emnity dates back a couple of hundred years to British imperialism and still rages to this day.

Hitchens article is fascinating for what it says about Iranian culture (who knew they have a book mocking their own paranoia?) and the Iranians' response to their own government. But Hitchens also argues why Obama's "finesse" isn't really finessing; it's because Obama doesn't understand Iranian culture and events anymore than his predecessors.

Want to take a noninterventionist position? All right, then, take a noninterventionist position. This would mean not referring to Khamenei in fawning tones as the supreme leader and not calling Iran itself by the tyrannical title of "the Islamic republic." But be aware that nothing will stop the theocrats from slandering you for interfering anyway. Also try to bear in mind that one day you will have to face the young Iranian democrats who risked their all in the battle and explain to them just what you were doing when they were being beaten and gassed. (Hint: Don't make your sole reference to Iranian dictatorship an allusion to a British-organized coup in 1953; the mullahs think that it proves their main point, and this generation has more immediate enemies to confront.)

Dana has argued that President Obama is using the appropriate response to the unrest in Iran, but I disagree. As Sean Hannity noted on his program, this is not how Ronald Reagan confronted tyranny.

Someone has said that when anyone is denied freedom, then freedom for everyone is threatened. The struggle in the world today for the hearts and minds of mankind is based on one simple question: Is man born to be free, or slave? In country after country, people have long known the answer to that question. We are free by divine right. We are the masters of our fate, and we create governments for our convenience. Those who would have it otherwise commit a crime and a sin against God and man.

There is no good reason for President Obama to pay obeisance to the Iranian mullahs by giving them honor and respect. That group of thugs will never respect America, no matter what we do. Instead, we should be demanding that the people be allowed free, fair and open elections, with results they believe in. This is not necessarily siding with anyone, but acknowledging what Americans have always knows: we have a God-given right to freedom and individual choice. Why should we demand less for others because they aren't American?

So, Does the Pope Get to Give an Alternative Message During Ramadan?

Holocaust denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivers his alternative message on the second holiest day in the Christian year.

All Prophets called for the worship of God, for love and brotherhood, for the establishment of justice and for love in human society. Jesus, the Son of Mary, is the standard-bearer of justice, of love for our fellow human beings, of the fight against tyranny, discrimination and injustice.

All the problems that have bedevilled humanity throughout the ages came about because humanity followed an evil path and disregarded the message of the Prophets.

Now as human society faces a myriad of problems and a succession of complex crises, the root causes can be found in humanity's rejection of that message, in particular the indifference of some governments and powers towards the teachings of the divine Prophets, especially those of Jesus Christ.

The crises in society, the family, morality, politics, security and the economy which have made life hard for humanity and continue to put great pressure on all nations have come about because the Prophets have been forgotten, the Almighty has been forgotten and some leaders are estranged from God.

If Christ were on Earth today, undoubtedly He would stand with the people in opposition to bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers.

If Christ were on Earth today, undoubtedly He would hoist the banner of justice and love for humanity to oppose warmongers, occupiers, terrorists and bullies the world over.

If Christ were on Earth today, undoubtedly He would fight against the tyrannical policies of prevailing global economic and political systems, as He did in His lifetime. The solution to today's problems is a return to the call of the divine Prophets. The solution to these crises is to follow the Prophets - they were sent by the Almighty for the good of humanity.

Jesus Christ wasn't just a prophet. Not to Christians. Jesus Christ was God come to Earth in human form. He lived a perfect life, died on the cross for the sins of mankind and rose again from the dead. To call him simply a prophet on the same level with Mohammed is an insult to Christianity.

As is trying to weave a narrative whereby the U.S. taking out an evil dictator and trying to establish democracy in a country which never had it with tyranny.

If Ahmadinejad wanted to display the peace and understanding of Christ, he could start with not denying the most horrific event of the 20th Century. He could stop threatening Israel. He could stop suppressing freedom in his own borders.

From Hot Air:

If it’s all about insight into “alternative world views,” why not just interview him and run it on Friday? Why give him the Christmas slot? There’s no way to read this except as a middle finger.

Now They Trust the NIE

Moonbats are howling that the latest NIE directly contradicts administration claims that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. But why do they trust this report more than previous reports which didn't support their positions? Talk about selective intelligence!

UPDATE: John Bolton has an excellent op-ed piece dissecting the NIE.

Secret Squirrel Comes to Iran

I don't envy the reporter who had to write about the Iranian squirrel round-up.

Police in Iran are reported to have taken 14 squirrels into custody - because they are suspected of spying.

Britain's latest secret weapon? The rodents were found near the Iranian border allegedly equipped with eavesdropping devices.

The reports have come from the official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).

When asked about the confiscation of the spy squirrels, the national police chief said: "I have heard about it, but I do not have precise information."

The IRNA said that the squirrels were kitted out by foreign intelligence services - but they were captured two weeks ago by police officers.

Who knew squirrels could be trained this way? Sounds like they weren't any better at staying undercover than Valerie Plame.

The British Have "Gone Wobbly"

During the first Gulf War, Margaret Thatcher famously told George Bush's father that "this was no time to go wobbly."

Unfortunately for Lady Thatcher, Britain has "gone wobbly." In the worst way.

Apparently, two of the British sailors taken hostage by the Iranians sold their stories to the tabloids. And it wasn't a pretty story of heroism, bravery, and that whole "stiff upper lip" stuff.

No, the story they told was of whining, blubbering, and capitulation. For 100,000 pounds or so.

So, what can we conclude from all this? Strategically, Iran has been emboldened. It has made Britain and its armed forces a laughing stock, gained prestige in the Middle East and learnt that illegal actions against the West can yield dividends.

There is now a real danger that a similar escapade will be attempted against American forces. That is very likely to result in a bloodbath - American troops would not surrender and confess in this way - and could be the incident that ratchets the temperature up towards war.

I've already written about humiliation of the Navy and Marines and the spinelessness of the Defence Secretary, Chief of Defence Staff and First Sea Lord. Is too much to expect any of these will resign or be sacked? Probably.

Judging by the hundreds of blog comments and emails I've received on this subject, there is a widespread sense that something was terribly wrong about the way the personnel from HMS Cornwall behaved.

And- more fundamentally - about the way the Government and armed services dealt with them in terms of training, tasking, rules of engagement, leadership and example, the lot really.

Some have concluded that Britain has become "Dianafied", terminally sentimental, a nation that needs a collective "mother hug" (Princess Diana, by the way, launched HMS Cornwall). I fear there is something in this but the reactions I've received, and herard and read elsewhere, offer hope that all is not lost.

I would call this the modern face of the European approach to the military. Call it the "Frenchification," if you will.

I stated previously that there are reasons the Iranians took British hostages and not American ones. The Iranians could be fairly sure that the British would negotiate and not bomb, while the Americans would negotiate and bomb.

Our friends on the left made much hay over the weekend over the fact that Tony Blair passed up George Bush's offer of military help. They said it showed that the president couldn't be "trusted" on the world stage.

But the truth is, what this incident has shown is that the U.S. is the only country that wouldn't put up with this sort of crap without a military reprisal. Because the Iranians see diplomacy as weakness. When will the Europeans and their American wannabees see that?

Yep, That Diplomatic Strategy Worked Soooo Well

As I discussed yesterday, President Bush offered the British our military help in the recent British hostage crisis with Iran. Blair turned that help down and asked President Bush to turn down the rhetoric.

The idiots at KOS took this to mean that diplomacy won out and boy, don't the Americans (President Bush specifically) look like neanderthal stooges. Because diplomacy worked oh, so well.

Well, not so fast. According to this Telegraph article, the Iranians are planning to take more hostages (via Memeorandum).

Hardliners in the Iranian regime have warned that the seizure of British naval personnel demonstrates that they can make trouble for the West whenever they want to and do so with impunity.


President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: a PR bounce


The bullish reaction from Teheran will reinforce the fears of western diplomats and military officials that more kidnap attempts may be planned.

The British handling of the crisis has been regarded with some concern in Washington, and a Pentagon defence official told The Sunday Telegraph: "The fear now is that this could be the first of many. If the Brits don't change their rules of engagement, the Iranians could take more hostages almost at will.

"Iran has come out of this looking reasonable. If I were the Iranians, I would keep playing the same game. They have very successfully muddied the waters and bought themselves some more time. And in parts of the Middle East they will be seen as the good guys. They could do it time and again if they wanted to."

Americans also expressed dismay that the British had suspended boarding operations in the Gulf while its tactics are reassessed.

advertisement"Iran has got what it wants. They have secured free passage for smuggling weapons into Iraq without a fight," one US defence department official said.

It is also clear that the Iranian government believes that the outcome has strengthened its position over such contentious issues as its nuclear programme. Hardliners within the regime have been lining up to crow about Britain's humiliation, and indicated that the operation was planned.

Conservative parliamentarian Amir Hassankhani, a former member of the country's Revolutionary Guard and supporter of the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told the country's semi-official Fars news agency: "The arrest and release of the British sailors proved that if Iran's issues and demands are overlooked at the international level, the Islamic republic can create different challenges for the other side."

Westerners tend to forget what such tactics look like in a culture that admires strongmen. While I said Iran blinked (and, indeed, from a western perspective, they did), to other Middle Eastern countries, Iran came out of this smelling like a rose.

Britain was in a damned-if-they-do/damned-if-they-don't situation anyway. Had they reacted militarily, they would have been accused of bullying. But by not reacting militarily, they look weak and vulnerable. As Captain Ed points out:

People keep insisting that the Iranians didn't win anything in this confrontation. The Telegraph quotes other British sources that conclude that the Iranians lost ground with other nations that may have supported their right to the nuclear cycle. That analysis figures that Iran may have a more difficult time making enriched uranium if more nations disapprove of the mullahcracy.

That's simply ludicrous. Iran committed an act of war on the United Kingdom. It then violated the Geneva Convention on several occasions. For these acts, it received no negative consequences whatsoever. Britain pressed the US to reduce its military profile in the Gulf, and the British themselves stopped their interdiction patrols. In return, Iran released the hostages and made themselves look like moderates in doing so, and strengthened the political position of the hardliners at home.

Did the Iranians earn the disapproval of the global community? Hardly. Even the EU, of which Britain is a member, refused to stop trading with the Iranians. The UN offered a finger wag at Teheran and nothing more, and even that took a Herculean effort by Tony Blair and the US. Has anyone stopped trading with the Iranians as a result of their act of war and GC violations? Has any nation taken a new position against Iran's nuclear program?

People who think Britain won anything in this standoff need to re-read Winston Churchill's first volume of The Second World War and the first half of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. The West has given the hardliners in Teheran a tremendous boost in their reaction to this hostaging, and they can expect more of it in the future.

We Offered Our Muscle to Britain Because That's What Friends Do

According to this article in the Guardian, the Bush administration offered to perform "aggressive patrols" of Iranian airspace during the British hostage crisis if the British government had requested it.

In the first few days after the captives were seized and British diplomats were getting no news from Tehran on their whereabouts, Pentagon officials asked their British counterparts: what do you want us to do? They offered a series of military options, a list which remains top secret given the mounting risk of war between the US and Iran. But one of the options was for US combat aircraft to mount aggressive patrols over Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases in Iran, to underline the seriousness of the situation.


The British declined the offer and said the US could calm the situation by staying out of it. London also asked the US to tone down military exercises that were already under way in the Gulf. Three days before the capture of the 15 Britons , a second carrier group arrived having been ordered there by president George Bush in January. The aim was to add to pressure on Iran over its nuclear programme and alleged operations inside Iraq against coalition forces.
At the request of the British, the two US carrier groups, totalling 40 ships plus aircraft, modified their exercises to make them less confrontational.

The British government also asked the US administration from Mr Bush down to be cautious in its use of rhetoric, which was relatively restrained throughout.

The incident was a reminder of how inflammatory the situation in the Gulf is. According to some US and British officers, there is already a proxy war under way between their forces and elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard...

With the crisis now over, a remarkable degree of consensus is emerging among British, Iranian and Iraqi officials about what happened over 13 nervous days - namely that the decision to seize the Britons was taken locally, and was not part of a grander scheme cooked up in Tehran.

"My best guess is that this was a local incident which became an international incident," said one British source closely involved in the crisis.

I'm not sure anyone didn't guess this before, particularly when Ahmadinejad was nowhere to be seen in the first few days. It was the Iranian hostage crisis all over again.

Except, of course, we wouldn't have allowed our allies to twist in the wind like they let us back then. But hey, if our country was dumb enough to have Jimmy Carter as president, we probably deserved for them not to get involved.

The usual useful idiots prove once again that they can't read.

From today's Guardian, we learn that the Bush administration wanted to escalate tensions with Iran after the 15 British sailors were seized two weeks ago. How predictable; for Bush and Cheney, any resort to diplomacy is a token of weakness. Bush offered to use American naval forces provocatively in order to threaten Iran.

Instead, Blair told them to stay out of it. He also asked Bush & Co. to tone down the rhetoric while Britain tried to free the hostages without provoking a war.

Hence Bush's closest ally in his Middle East fiasco has concluded that he cannot be trusted with any sensitive issues. No wonder that the success of the British negotiations has sent Bush's apologists into orbit. It's an insult to everything their guy stands for, not to give war a chance.

Obviously the KOS nuts don't understand that offering someone your muscle and them deciding to use other tactics first isn't "conclud(ing) that (Bush) cannot be trusted with any sensitive issues." It means the British government needed to save face by taking the lead in the conflict. President Bush offered Tony Blair the thing the British have little of anymore: military might. The dismantling of the British navy has been going on for several years now. The navy that once "ruled the waves," will be little more than the Coast Guard shortly. Don't think that has been lost on anyone, either.

Michael P.F. van der Galiën says Bush's response was "exactly the response the U.S. should have given," which is what I think, too. That the British wanted the Americans to stay in the background while they tried to negotiate is a no-brainer. I doubt we would want other countries taking the lead for us.

But that doesn't mean the Iranians didn't know we were the 800-lb. gorilla in the room. Which is why Ahmadinejad backed down so quickly.

Is the New York Times Going to Blast the Iranians for Torture?

Mock executions. Solitary confinement. Left in a cell without contact for six days. Lied to.

Just another day in Iranian captivity.

All 15 of them had been blindfolded, handcuffed and pushed against a wall by their Iranian captors.

Then they heard the sound of guns being cocked - and believed they were about to be shot by firing squad.

The most terrifying moment of the British hostages' 13 days in captivity was revealed yesterday as seven of them faced a press conference.

The mock execution happened the day after the Navy sailors and Royal Marines had been seized while patrolling at the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which divides Iran and Iraq...

"I assumed we were all going to be executed. We were all standing there waiting for it to happen," (said 21-year-old Royal Marine Joe Tindell.)

"I just thought that was the end of it. It was the only time in my life I really felt scared.

"From there we were rushed into a room and then stuffed into a cell and didn't see another human being for six days"...

The men said the hostages were subjected to "constant psychological pressure" which Lt Carman described as amounting to "torture". While it stopped short of physical abuse, it helps explain their apparent willingness to appear in Iranian propaganda broadcasts before their release on Thursday.

Their captors said the choice was clear - admit they had strayed into Iranian waters or face seven years in a Tehran jail.

Leading Seaman Turney, a 26-year-old mother, was not present at the press conference at the Royal Marines Base at Chivenor, north Devon.

But her fellow prisoners described how she was put in solitary confinement and, for four days, told by her jailers that the rest of the group had been sent home and she was the only captive left in Iran.

Are the moonbats going to be screaming about this like they did about a naked human pyramid.

Iran Blinks

In a performance worthy of the Oscar, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pardoned the 15 innocent British sailors and said they can go free.

In other words, Iran blinked.

It's not particularly surprising. The seizure of the sailors who were clearly in Iraqi water doing things they were supposed to be doing has scandalized and united the western world in a way not seen much these days.

Ahmadinejad had to do something quick before the United States pledged military support to free the sailors, so he came up with this "gesture."

An Iranian diplomat in London told The Associated Press that the 15 would be handed over to the British Embassy in Tehran. It is unclear when that handover would take place.

According to the president's office, the Britons will leave Tehran at 8 a.m. Thursday.

Captain Ed has this analysis:

Ahmadinejad makes the most out of the reversal. Facing the threat of a blockade if Iran pressed this any further, he gets to look magnanimous while still maintaining the notion that he could have tried the sailors for espionage, even while dressed in uniform. It's a net win, allowing the Iranians to feel as though they won a tactical victory while avoiding having to back up their rhetoric with action.

Whether this is a win for Tony Blair remains to be seen. He stuck with negotiations and got the 15 back, and he didn't have to apologize for a violation that never occurred. On the surface, it looks great -- an end to the crisis without a shot being fired. It's what happened below the surface and behind the scenes that will determine how Blair fared against Ahmadinejad. What did the British have to give up in order to get their personnel back?

It's curious, since we don't know what the British gave up. So far, the U.S. has given up nothing, although there's talk that the Iranians have requested to meet with the Iranian detainees we hold. So far, I've not seen anything saying that the State Department has agreed to that.

Gosh, Now They Need American Might

The Iranian hostage crisis redux shows what happens when America isn't flexing its muscle.

As this article points out, the options are few for the British.

The Government has few options if it wants to pressure Iran into releasing the captured Britons.

Military action is unfeasible without American support and so is a military blockade of the Gulf. Unless the United Nations shows more rigour, sanctions are unlikely to hurt Iran in the short term.

There is a feeling that the 15 could be in for a long stay in Iran and face the nightmare prospect for Britain of a show trial.

advertisementWashington has remained largely subdued on the crisis but some commentators have made clear that the situation would have been very different if it had been 15 American sailors.

Yes, indeed, things would have been different if the Iranians had kidnapped Americans. That's exactly why the Iranians didn't kidnap Americans. As Captain Ed points out, had the Iranians captured American soldiers, diplomacy would have been given hours, not days, to work, followed by bombing of strategic sites, particularly their nuclear facilities, until the soldiers were given back. But the British aren't going to unleash their military power (such as it is) on the Iranians. They haven't the ability to do so alone, and as the recent tepid condemnation from the U.N. shows, getting anything stronger from that all-important international body (when Russia and China are so interdependent with Iran) is virtually impossible.

According to the article's author, Thomas Harding, the British have several options, but none are palatable, and none of them will work unless the Americans climb onboard.

More from Captain Ed:

Even America has no particular rush to provide support for the UK. The Bush administration would probably love nothing better than to start taking out Iran's suspected nuclear facilities, but they have a big problem in Congress. The Democrats want to blame a century-old genocide on a country that didn't even exist at the time, but they're willing to flirt with a government that supports terrorism now while refusing to condemn Iran's actions. With such a schizophrenic sense of foreign policy, the Bush administration has its hands tied, at least for the moment.

This gives an object lesson on why the unilateral dismantling of the military by a global power makes no sense. The American nation learned from Pearl Harbor that it takes a strong military to keep troublemakers from causing headaches. Paper tigers get burned quickly -- and the UK has had its status as a power center exposed as exactly that. If they have no willingness to defend their own patrols, no one will consider them a threat at all -- and Britain can look forward to many more such tweakings in their future.

It's sad to say that one could see this one coming from a mile away, but one actually could. And regardless of what America does, we will be the problem, I'm sure.

Bringing Iran to Heel

Dick Morris has an interesting column endorsing the Dodd-Lantos bill "mandating economic sanctions on any foreign company that aids Iran’s energy industry." Domestic businesses already operate under such rules.

This Democratic bill, cosponsored by Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) and Rep. Tom Lantos (Calif.), is a bold piece of legislation that strikes at the core of Iranian vulnerability.

And, in a singular act of courage and dedication to principle, Republican presidential candidate Congressman Duncan Hunter (Calif.) has added his name to the legislation as a cosponsor. Hunter’s action is particularly admirable since the bill is designed to force the Bush administration to impose sanctions passed in the 1990s but disregarded by both presidents, Clinton and Bush, ever since.

The Dodd-Lantos bill would omit the national security waiver Clinton used twice to stop the sanctions from taking effect. The waiver was inserted at the insistence of then-National Security Advisor Sandy Berger (before he started stealing documents in his socks). For his part, President Bush has not even waived the law, he just hasn’t applied it at all.

The original sanctions legislation provided a variety of punishments that the president had to impose on foreign companies that invest in Iran’s oil and gas industries. These ranged from barring their participation in underwriting Treasury issues to prohibiting them from receiving export-import financing, as well as certain government contracts. The sanctions were so effective that they triggered howls of outrage from European governments that objected to what they called "extraterritorial" assertions of American power...

But as Dodd, Lantos, and Hunter all realize, once the president and the secretary of state are stripped of the ability to waive the sanctions, they become a potent tool to stop European companies like Royal Dutch Shell, BNP, Total and Repsol from helping Iran tap its massive oil and gas reserves. The Bush administration people can plead that Congress is forcing their hand and foreign governments would just have to live with the consequences. Like the old Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which forced presidents to deal harshly with the Soviet Union as long as it barred Jewish emigration, the Dodd-Lantos bill would be a very effective tool in bringing Iran to heel.

Morris points out that Iran is quite susceptible to such sanctions, given its utter dependence on its oil industry. Plus, passage of this bill would give Democrats at least a fig leave of credibility that they are serious about stopping Iranian nuclear activity.

Unfortunately, the Democrats are discovering how difficult governing can be. Even though both the House and Senate passed cut-and-run legislation, the legislation doesn't look the same, and to reconcile the two bills will lose significant support regardless of which way the bill ends up. Democrats have little to show for their first 100 days, and it is doubtful that taking such a brazen step to force Iran off the nuclear track will be embraced by the Dems. It would be a nice surprise, though.

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.