North Korea agonistes

By Carl

A true test of a nation's mettle comes not in how it deals with "existential threats" (i.e., a force equal to or greater than its own) but with the niggling trouble-makers.

Thus enters North Korea:

SEOUL, South Korea — South Korea's defense chief said on Thursday that North Korea had moved to its east coast a missile with a "considerable" range, but that it was not capable of reaching the United States. The disclosure came as the Communist North's military warned that it was ready to strike American military forces with "cutting-edge smaller, lighter and diversified nuclear strike means."

That last likely should be taken with a grain of salt, but clearly not discounted completely. We know they've been working on a nuclear capability for some time now, they have a reactor that is not hooked up to the power grid (so we know it’s not for energy), and they had been in touch with our old fiend, Abdul Qadeer "A.Q." Khan, who likely advanced their ambitions by several decades.

Too, North Korea has been gearing up for some time to "battle" the United States and South Korea.

I put "battle" in quotes for a reason: there's significant cause to believe that Kim Jong-Un is saber-rattling not for international purposes but in order to clamp down dissent domestically. Precious little news of the North ever really gets out, so we have to infer a lot, but here's my thinking in support of this notion.

Read more »

The Republican push for war with Iran

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yesterday on Fox News, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, once John McCain's sidekick and still for some reason considered a serious foreign policy mind by the media, said that with respect to talking to Iran about its nuclear program (with Iran now agreeing to talks), "the time for talking is over."

Okay, but what then? If there shouldn't be any talking, doesn't that mean the only way to stop Iran is war? And that can't just mean a few strategic air strikes. What it must mean is boots on the ground, a long, drawn-out campaign to destroy Iran's nuclear program (and, needless to say, much of Iran with it).

Oh, Graham is too slippery to say that, of course. He talks instead about "demanding transparency and access to their nuclear program," and about "talking to the Israelis" (as if that isn't happening).

But why would Iran just give the U.S. unfettered access? And what exactly should we be discussing with Israel, in Graham's view, if not military action?

This is the point Vice President Biden kept making in his debate with Ryan: You say you disagree with our policies towards Iran and yet you agree with everything we've done. So where's the disagreement? What should we be doing instead?

The implication is clear: war. What else is there?

All this reckless Republican saber-rattling amounts to warmongering -- except Romney and Ryan, like Graham and others, know they can't come clean because war with Iran, and war in general given the Iraq debacle and the ongoing Afghan mission, wars started and grossly mismanaged by a Republican president with Republicans cheerleading at every step, is hugely unpopular with voters.

So they say, like Romney and Ryan in the debates, that Iran is four years closer to a nuclear weapon, when that's a gross oversimplification of Iran's nuclear program*, and so blame Obama for not doing enough apparently to stop Iran. And yet because Obama rebuilt America's alliances he was able to put in place a severe sanctions program that, while not perfect (Iranians suffering when humanitarian aid can't get through, for example), has essentially forced Tehran into talks with the U.S. without putting boots on the ground in Iran.

In that sense, Iran's agreement to sitting down with the U.S. is a clear signal that current U.S. policy is working. Yes, of course, there is every reason to doubt the Iranians' sincerity, but what exactly is the alternative at this point?

Again, Republicans won't say, but it's war.

There's no doubt this will come up in tonight's debate. The president, like the vice president, must not let Romney get away with spewing the same old rhetoric unchallenged.

In case after case, Obama's foreign policy is working, with Republicans begrudgingly agreeing with it. Both Romney and Ryan are talking about the unravelling of that policy and yet offer nothing at all in its place, hoping simply that their reckless jingoism will be enough get them throught the election, with the details coming later.

President Obama must show clearly the alternative Romney, along with Republicans generally, offers. In Iran, as elsewhere, that alternative is war, more war, endless war.
__________

* Think Progress: "Graham is right that Iran continues to enrich uranium, which is in violation of United Nations resolutions calling on the Islamic Republic to suspend enrichment. Iran is currently enriching uranium to up to 20 percent purity. But uranium needs to be enriched to 90 percent purity to be used in a nuclear weapon, and according to U.S. and Israeli intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran's leaders have yet to make the decision to build a nuclear weapon. Moreover, as experts and U.S. officials have said, the international community would know if Iran decides to enrich uranium to bomb-grade purity because its nuclear program is continuously monitored by the IAEA."

The Iranian nuclear talks, part 2: Back to the negotiating table

By Ali Ezzatyar

(For part 1, see here.)

Iran and the international community (read: U.S.) are set to retake their seats at the negotiation table next week in Baghdad. If these were real chairs, one would hope they were made of a durable mahogany, as they have been frequented for ten years by fidgety, tough-talking diplomats on both sides, and there is still no likelihood that they will be retired soon. The talks are seen by both sets of negotiators as a zero-sum game, where no confidence-inspiring measures have been seriously considered -- the other side's threat of force has been the bottom-line motivator for both. As an important diplomatic window opens again, America and the world need to seek a grand bargain with Iran instead of the same old course of action. Think three factors: Assets, Sanctions, and Enrichment.

I argued previously that Iran's nuclear ambitions, while scary to the West, are understandable. They are reasonable from an energy perspective, as Iran can diversify its energy composition for domestic use and boost sales to the outside world of its most valuable natural resource. The nuclear program also offers Iran, even if it fully abides by the legal requirements of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), dual-use capability that allows it to be a potential acquirer of nuclear arms, and hence to have a deterrent. This nuclear policy is supported by a vast majority of Iranian citizens, who otherwise (mostly) disagree with their government on most things.

So while the fundamental calculation for both sides to push full-steam for their objectives has not changed, the constantly changing threat of force from each respective side has colored the way in which negotiations have gone forward. From the U.S. perspective, Iran's temporary halting of uranium enrichment in 2003 was an exceptional step that was not adequately taken advantage of. In 2003, America's aggressiveness in the region was Iran's primary motivating factor to consider this concession. Later, as the U.S. position in Iraq deteriorated, Iran utilized its proxy groups and resources to drive America into an even more precarious position there; this distracted America's attention from Iran's nuclear program almost totally, and even lead to the U.S. asking Iran for help and cooperation in stabilizing Iraq. That was music to Iran's ears, and the death knell of a genuine nuclear diplomatic process as far as the Iranians were concerned.

Today, there is still no clear existential danger in the view of the Islamic Republic. Threats of attack from Israel fall short of a regime-change scenario; the regime is likely to survive even if sanctions continue or get worse; and the United States is largely viewed as being out of the regime-change game, in particular where such a campaign in Iran would make Iraq and Afghanistan seem almost effortless in hindsight. There is one very important consideration in Tehran, however, that in addition to the aggregate effect of the latter annoyances has convinced the Iranian regime to play peace-seeker again.

The on-and-off tinkering of the Syrian regime, the only true regional ally that the Islamic Republic has ever had, is probably the largest existential threat to the Islamic Republic as well. Iran has sacrificed resources, political capital, and even its revolutionary idealism in supporting Bashar al-Assad with his brutal crackdown. The Saudi regime, Iran's primary rival in the region, is seeking not only to oust Assad due to his faithfully anti-Saudi stance on all issues, but also as a blow to its main rival.

From the moment America began dedicating countless resources to preventing Iraq from spiraling into civil war, and its positions in Afghanistan and the region were similarly weakened, Iran has not had a series of pressures that have convinced it that it needs to negotiate. The current tenuousness of Iran's position presents an opportunity. As a result, both sides (but particularly the U.S.) must take the initiative in proposing solutions -- solutions that will be viewed by both sides as painful concessions at home. The reality is, the necessary compromises have been clear from the beginning.

Iran's billions of dollars in frozen assets residing in the U.S. or in U.S. financial institutions must be back on the table as an incentive. There were early discussions of an offer to unfreeze Iran's assets in 2002, but that was soon replaced by a more hawkish stance on the American side that basically only considered more or fewer sanctions as the two options for going forward. The U.S. needs to acknowledge that it doesn't have a kitchen sink to throw at Iran anymore militarily; it needs to offer to repair Iran's refrigerator instead. The partial unfreezing of sanctions needs to be the ultimate carrot, short of restoration of diplomatic relations, to motivate Iran. Talk of this possibility should be brought up early enough to have a fruitful bearing on the conversation, and the appearance of weakness should not be a preoccupation of the American position. 

Speaking of broken refrigerators, a genuine plan to quantifiably reduce or end sanctions against Iran must also be presented as a prize for Iranian cooperation. The sanctions have always had the wrong effect on Iran, preventing ordinary Iranians from procuring key supplies necessary for important medical research, spare parts for civilian aircraft, and other supplies, while actually strengthening the regime's hold on power. While the sanctions are just recently leading to Iranians holding their government responsible for the consequences of sanctions, the people and not the government continue to be the primary group affected by sanctions in Iran's autocracy. Scaling the sanctions back as good reward is a no-brainer.

Iran must be prepared, in return, to freeze its uranium enrichment once again. More importantly, it has to be willing to abide by one of the various plans that have been proposed historically that allow it to develop its technology unhindered, with checks against production of nuclear arms. Such a process might entail having weapons-grade uranium produced offshore and imported at no extra cost to Iran, and will most certainly necessitate frequent inspections by the IAEA that are to some extent a blow to Iran's sovereignty. But the trade-off could be immense, and could (for better or worse) guarantee survival of the Islamic regime while leading to greater prosperity in Iran.

If the U.S. makes the right promises, Iran should take an active step towards easing American fears of a weapons program. This must be reciprocated by a temporary rolling back of certain sanctions against the Iranian regime, while a final plan is worked out for a functioning Iranian nuclear program in line with the NPT. That is the chronology. Ultimately, a full proof process that is acceptable to the world, guaranteeing that Iran cannot develop nuclear arms in the short term, should be reciprocated with Iran's inclusion in the international community.

Surely, critics will say that such proposals are idealistic, technically incomplete and shabby, and naive. But no matter how these negotiations are analyzed, sanctions, assets, and weapons-grade uranium enrichment are the three main factors. Everything else -- accusations of support for terrorist groups in the region and threats against Israel on one side, regional imperialism and an anti-Muslim crusade on the other, will not derail the negotiations if genuine will exists as to those three points.

The Iranian nuclear talks, part 1: Where we are today

By Ali Ezzatyar

I feel like it is difficult to be a casual follower of the Iranian nuclear issue. All related news items are generally tagged with a derivation of one of the following themes: a) Israel is going to attack Iran; or b) the parties are set for nuclear talks. Particularly with respect to the nuclear talks, it is even frustrating for me, an IR nerd of sorts, to see this title every once in a while, as I have every once in a while for the last ten years. Besides dates and parties, they are all a bit of a wash in my head. So let's talk about why no fruit is growing from that tree.

Iran's nuclear program started in the '70s, under the Shah of Iran, with direct support from the United States and other world powers. The idea was that Iran, a large producer and exporter of crude oil, could benefit from a cleaner, cheaper form of energy. It would allow them to sell more of their large but ultimately limited supply of oil, which was good for the world consumer as well, while diversifying their domestic grid. It was tacitly understood at that time that the dual-use nature of nuclear technology as well as Iran's military ambitions meant Iran would one day likely have a nuclear bomb.

The fundamental logic of that energy choice applies even more today than it did in the '70s. The problem is, Iran is now a "rogue state," and so the bomb idea doesn't really fly anymore.

To understand why negotiations have failed, it is essential to recognize that both sides see the entire process as a zero sum game.

News has focused on the potential that Iran will use nuclear technology for the purposes of building a nuclear bomb -- no doubt, that is the biggest concern. But under the zero sum construct and current relations between the two countries, any step Iran takes in the direction of nuclear energy is bad for America; a sworn enemy will have both proven that despite sanctions and a lack of diplomatic relations with the United States, it can accomplish huge technological feats worthy of its desired standing among the world's most powerful nations.

For Iran, every step it takes further emits an aura of self-sufficiency and contentedness that it strives so hard to maintain in the face of what it sees as America's desired monopoly on everything, and dominance of Iran in particular. The threat of having the bomb or the capability to throw one together, Iran's leaders are not too ignorant to notice, has its own cachet.

In a zero-sum game, the only thing that works is force or incentives. Nobody is convincing anyone of anything on the basis of merit. Example: One of the most essential requirements of the United States and other world powers is that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment; what people fail to cite is that Iran did so once, for the purpose of "confidence building," in 2003. It wasn't for confidence building at all; it was because Iran perceived the U.S. as ready, willing, and moderately likely to invade, as they had just done in Afghanistan and Iraq. Force.

As Iraq turned into a quagmire, and Afghanistan too, both with Iran's help, Iran's cooperation dissipated, as if it was tethered to the threat of force which looked more and more unlikely.

Is it any surprise, then, that the recent volume augmentation on the "bomb-bomb Iran" song has led parties back to the table yet again? The difference this time: There is no real threat of force. Simply put, partially for reasons I outlined here, America can destroy Iran's nuclear program and oust its regime (the most scary thought that ruminates under the great Mullah's turban when he sleeps), but won't. And Israel, by the vast majority of accounts, cannot do much alone.

So, then, the second recourse of incentives must be used. A discussion on that in the days to come.

Turkish dislike: The need for a measured response

Guest post by Michael Lieberman

Michael M. Lieberman, a Truman National Security Project fellow, is an associate at Steptoe & Johnson LLP in Washington D.C., where he works on international regulatory and compliance issues. (The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Steptoe & Johnson LLP.)

Ed. note: This is Michael's third post at The Reaction. His first, on how climate change is a real national security threat, is here. His second, on al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Afghan War, is here. This post below was originally published at The Hill's Congress Blog.

**********

While few individuals could make supporters of Israel miss Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is doing his best. In the wake of the Mavi Marmara raid, Turkey's rhetorical molotovs stopped short of saying Israel should be "wiped off the map." But statements like those Erdogan made earlier this week accusing Israel of "a planned terrorist attack to kill out of nothing but hostility," coming as they do from an ostensible ally, make the words bite all the more. Turkey's active efforts to undermine sanctions efforts against Iran have further fueled the embers. What, then, should the U.S. do?

Some in Congress, including House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) believe the U.S. should now pass the controversial Armenian genocide resolution, which Turkey vehemently opposes. The neocon right, which sees every new moon as evidence of jihadist ascendance, believes we should tag Turkey as the new leader of the Islamic front in a great civilizational clash. Some on this side have even suggested Turkey no longer deserves full NATO membership. Responses like these, however, are punitive -- not good policy.

Others reject any talk of "punishment," recognizing that Turkey's history with the West has had its historical ebbs and flows, that Turkey remains rooted in NATO and the G20, and that Turkey's domestic politics all but demand its current path. Yet explaining away Turkey's disturbing trajectory does little to help us deal with it.

Then there are those who argue that the rift has a silver lining. According to this logic, Turkey's recent activities should comfort Israel and its allies. "With Turkey as the central interlocutor between the Islamic/Arab world and Israel and the West," they believe, "Iran will increasingly find it harder to carry out its agenda of destabilizing the region and the globe." This view is attractive, yet over-optimistic. Iran relies on harder currency than public opinion to sow discord. Weapons, cash, and training for the likes of Hezbollah, Hamas, and even the Taliban enjoy a more favorable rate of exchange.

Turkey's eclipse of Iran would be a positive development only if it distinguishes itself by constructive behavior. What good will Turkey's enhanced role be if it calls for a one-state solution? Or if it recognizes a unilaterally declared Palestinian state? Or when, as it has already done, it acts to undercut new sanctions against Iran?

It is no gain to have a more influential and powerful Turkey pursuing causes detrimental to Western interests -- indeed, in this way Turkey's credibility in the Muslim world is a double-edged scimitar.

Turkey has not capitalized on its unique position, for example, by positioning itself as an honest broker between Israel and Syria. In fact, Turkey has taken a number of concrete steps to Israel's detriment. It has canceled official defense deals, threatened to sever diplomatic ties, and adopted a policy of denial on military overflights. This last step is yet another boost to Iran, weakening Israel's deterrent against its nuclear plans.

Despite this bleak picture, the U.S. and its NATO allies should not succumb to alarmist claims that Turkey is "lost" or seek to punish it through emotive, futile gestures. Yet Turkey's provocations ought not go unanswered. It is not "punishment" to remind Turkey of the need to act responsibly, and of the consequences if Turkey truly feels its interests lie so contrary to the West's. A proper answer to Turkey's erratic behavior is thus to remind it subtly of the logic of the security partnership underlying that bond.

On this view, the U.S. might consider re-raising the question of the need for NATO tactical nuclear missiles on Turkish territory. This idea is attractive for several reasons. First, the issue long precedes the current debate, and so could not be painted as a vindictive reaction. Second, it goes to the core of Turkey's security concerns, heightening the specter of a nuclear Iran. And third, it dovetails nicely with President Obama's broader nuclear agenda.

While this issue is part of a larger issue regarding U.S. tactical nukes in allied states, raising it could be warning enough. Along the same lines, the U.S. should veto NATO military exercises on Turkish soil so long as Turkey refuses to host Israel. In either case, the U.S. must not play into the hands of the ruling AKP's current tendency towards demagoguery by taking steps that undermine its secular, military-aligned opposition more than they serve notice on the government.*

While the U.S. must find a mature way to signal its displeasure and the repercussions that should follow Turkey's wayward path, it must avoid walking into the trap Israel did by recklessly precipitating the relationship's current predicament. Lest the U.S. convey acquiescence, however, answer it must.

(* Ed. note: The center-right AKP, or Justice and Development Party, is currently Turkey's dominant political party, with a majority of seats in the Grand National Assembly. Both Prime Minister Erdogan and President Abdullah Gül are AKP.)

Bossa Nova Bomb?

By Capt. Fogg

I struggle to understand why Brazil needs nuclear submarines. It's a country where the interior is extremely difficult to penetrate or control and where the coastal cities have horrifying slums controlled by gangs and where poverty is rampant. How real is the threat of invasion? How real is the desire to be the alpha dog of South America?

Of course one benefit of having nuclear powered subs is that the military can impose secrecy on the fissionable materials it stockpiles as fuel and in that secrecy can use it to make nuclear weapons. There are indications that this is just what they're doing or are about to do, with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva expressing irritation at the US monopoly on nuclear weapons in South America and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

So why the hell does Brazil, it's recovering economy notwithstanding, need the Bomb? I suppose it's because it simply feels it can -- and with the US busy chasing its own tail, hell bent on self-destruction and anarchy, who is to say it can't?

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Breaking ... Obama to launch "Clunkers For Nukes"

By J. Thomas Duffy

In a bombshell announcement this morning, President Obama, following up on his successful Nuclear Security Summit, said that an agreement was reached last evening with the other participating 47 countries, and a new "Clunkers for Nukes" program will be launched.



"Legitimate governments, rogue players, terrorists, they're all eligible to turn in their nuclear weapons, or materials, and have their choice of a pre-owned automobile," stated White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, at an unscheduled briefing this morning.

"We have an overstock situation," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

"We're swimming in used cars ... We lost count, we have so many."

Last year, the Obama Administration instituted a "Cash for Clunkers" program, in an effort to stimulate the economy, and, according to administration officials, was quite successful.



Gibbs further explained, that the "Clunkers for Nukes" program will be scaled, in favor of the client.

"We're offering one car, for every ten-pounds of nuclear material, be it simple, unaltered plutonium, or enhanced, weapons-grade plutonium. It's projected, some potential clients could walk away with three, four, possibly even, five cars with their trade-in."

Gibbs would neither confirm, or deny, that President Obama, in a Rose Garden ceremony, would, symbolically trade in an two old American nuclear warheads, for cars that would be saved for his daughters, when they reach the appropriate age.

News of the "Clunkers for Nukes" program reached the Middle East, as Al Jeezera is reporting that Osama bin Laden is planning on releasing a new audio tape, indicating he is looking for a 1965 Cadillac, and may reach out to U.S. officials.


Bonus Riffs

Top Ten Cloves: Great Things About Obama Taking Over General Motors

What's Good For Tesla Motors ...

Retro Garlic: Is Chrysler Now Adopting The HuffPo Business Plan?




(Cross Posted at The Garlic)

Russia as foil

By Creature

Joe Lieberman's opposition to Obama's new START treaty has nothing to do with the substance of the treaty (or with the reasons stated yesterday) and all to do with keeping relations with Russia chilly. Better relations between the U.S. and Russia means there is less of chance that bombs will fall on Iran. And, in Joe Lieberman's world, that is unacceptable.

A family of nations gathers in Washington, D.C.

By Carol Gee

Barack Obama had a long-standing interest in controlling the building and deployment of nuclear weapons.  Now he has the opportunity to actually do something about the problem of nuclear proliferation.  Terrorists who are willing to commit suicide for their own nihilistic causes would have no problem pushing the bomb's button, nor any worry about how many lives they take.  The more, the better.

The challenge of accounting for loose nuclear fissile material and what it could mean in a world with violent extremists is something that demands concerted efforts by the entire family of nations.  Dozens of countries will be represented at President Obama's nuclear summit.  But not all nations will be there.  In fact several key players are not coming.

But this unfortunate reality does not mean that the President should be deterred in his quest to make the world safer.  And I do not mean safer from "weapons of mass destruction."  The overuse of that phrase in the recent past has so cheapened its core meaning that the words no longer have any usefulness for me.  No, it means safer from people who would dearly love to get their hands on a nuclear weapon, or the materials to make one.

Whatever comes out of the nuclear summit will be dismissed by many of the President's adversaries as weak, not enough, without teeth, etc.  Others will define his efforts as dangerous, misguided or irrational.  But President Obama has made a start. In the wake of the signing of the START treaty, it builds momentum.  And it constructs credibility for this crazy idea that the world will survive more certainly if nuclear weapons are beginning to be seen, even if faintly, as things of the past.

We must believe that the family of nations has the will and the ingenuity to prevent extremists from getting nuclear capability.  Just because some feel that it is impossible does not mean we should not try our best to prevail despite the odds.  We have a consummate despite-the-odds leader in Barack Obama.  He appears willing to tackle the hardest issues. . . getting elected and reforming health care, for example.  His pragmatism, his ability to find common ground among disparate contenders, his energy and intellect all bode well for this project.  We all need to stand in his corner and to wish him well.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Playground bully: Sarah Palin's America and the conservative attack on Obama's new nuclear weapons policy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

You know, Sarah Palin really is incredibly stupid -- and an incredibly ignorant partisan mouthpiece who has clearly not a clue in the world what she's talking about. Appearing on Hannity's smearfest yesterday evening -- and you know that's a combo that scrapes the bottom of the mental barrel -- she launched into an attack on President Obama's new policy restricting the conditions for the use of nuclear weapons:

It's unbelievable. Unbelievable. No administration in America's history would, I think, ever have considered such a step that we just found out President Obama is supporting today. It's kinda like getting out there on a playground, a bunch of kids, getting ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, "Go ahead, punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me."

This sort of propagandistic misrepresentation hardly justifies a response, but let's humour ourselves anyway.

As I wrote the other day, Obama's decision reflects a genuinely civilized understanding of the world and of America's place in it. You see, it's conservatives who think the world is a Hobbesian playground full of moral toddlers in which all that matters is brute force and the imposition of brute force on others, the use and abuse of those who are weaker. In this world, what you want to do, apparently, is strut around with your weapons on full display, smacking down, if not totally annihilating, anyone who gets in your way. This, of course, is the conservative view not just of international relations but of capitalism as well. It's Hobbesian and Darwinian in reductio ad absurdum senses, an anti-morality of might makes right.

For his part, Obama isn't saying that the U.S. will never retaliate, never use force at all. This is Palin's lie, and a vicious one that conservatives are spreading. Indeed, it is ridiculous to suggest that Obama is a pacifist who would let himself get punched in the face. This is the man who has escalated the war in Afghanistan and who continues to direct the use of military force against terrorist targets. Moreover, his new policy allows for exceptions for rogue states like Iran and North Korea. And I suspect that if a terrorist organization, like al Qaeda, attacked the U.S., he would respond with overwhelming force. And if a state were behind the attack, he would launch a determined counter-attack that would severely cripple it.

Among other things, what conservatives like Palin don't get is nuance, the many shades of gray between their extremes of black and white. They also can't understand change, and so they remain stuck in a world that not just no longer exists but never existed the way they imagine. In this case, they remain stuck in the very depths of the Cold War, or more specifically of the Cold War of their delusional partisan imaginings, when what was important was how many nukes you had and whether you had a crazy plan to win a nuclear war. Remember, they never accepted MAD, mutual assured destruction. That was merely a deterrent (that proved successful). What they wanted was to rule the playground, and, to do that, to kick some ass.

What the likes of Sarah Palin and the far more intellectually formidable neocons are all about in military policy terms, with the bravery of being well out of range, is bloodthirsty warmongering. What they clearly want is an America that does the punching, that preemptively strikes and that, when struck, strikes back with thoughtless and unnecessarily disproportionate aggression, an America that does not enter into nuclear weapons reduction treaties with Russia.

This, to me, is not just uncivilized but profoundly un-American, if we consider America to be something other than a big bully on the world stage. It wasn't, under George W. Bush, but Obama has since changed course, preserving American might and defending American national security while also pursuing genuine engagement with the rest of the world and using tools other than brute force to advance America's interests. This will lead to a deeper and more sustained peace, as well as to a capacity to respond to threats, and to attacks, with the credibility and moral authority that comes with being a responsible world power.

This is all way beyond Sarah Palin, of course, as is the hope for, and possibility of, a more civilized world in which nuclear weapons are obsolete and right is no longer simply might. America still won't take any shit, to be sure, and Obama is anything but a pushover, but at least there is now wise and responsible leadership in the White House.

**********

UPDATE: Great response from Obama: "I really have no response to that. The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues," he reminded ABC News. As for his Republican critics, "[w]hat I would say to them is, is that if the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff are comfortable with it, I'm probably going to take my advice from them and not from Sarah Palin."

Civilized leadership: Obama, changing long-standing U.S. policy, wisely restricts conditions for use of nuclear weapons

By Michael J.W. Stickings

NYT:

President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons.

But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for "outliers like Iran and North Korea" that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.

Mr. Obama's strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation's nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.

It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Conservatives, of course, will scream bloody murder -- and already are. At Power Line, for example, John Hinderaker calls the president's decision "unbelievably stupid" and objects to the removal of ambiguity: "The cardinal rule, when it comes to nuclear weapons, is keep 'em guessing. We want our enemies to believe that we may well be crazy enough to vaporize them, given sufficient provocation; one just can't tell."

Oh, come on, please. It's like conservatives think the world is some Hobbesian playground that can be ruled by the bully who's prepared to cause the most harm to others.

Better not cross America... they might nuke us! They're craaaaaaaaazy!!!

Is that really how a civilized country operates? Well, conservatives would argue that that's just the way it is in the real world -- and that Obama is weakening America, and possibly destroying it.

But Obama isn't abandoning the possible use of nuclear weapons. What he's doing is saying that the their use would be heavily restricted. As it should be. Indeed, they should never be used at all, and Obama is certainly working towards the ultimate abolition of such weapons altogether. That may be an unrealizable ideal, but he ought to be applauded for breaking from decades of reckless saber-rattling and using the American example as one for other countries to follow, not to fight against. Sure, it's easier to push for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation when you have so many nuclear weapons yourself than to disarm and trust the U.S. and the other nuclear powers, but it seems to me that Obama is trying to use American power for good, not to scare the shit out of everyone else.

"I'm going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure," he said yesterday. That's fine, but what he seems to understand, unlike most of his predecessors, is that one of those tools is peace. And what kind of peace can there be in a Hobbesian playground?

The fact is, while many conservatives might very well be so crazy as actually to use nuclear weapons even when only mildly provoked, Obama realizes that the U.S. would, should, and could respond to such attacks differently -- with force, perhaps, but not with a potentially suicidal/genocidal counter-aggression that would likely destroy America's credibility and moral authority.

Health-care reform was a genuinely historic accomplishment for the president, and for the Democrats. There are other areas where such progressive change is needed, such as climate change. But in this case, should he succeed in his goal of making nuclear weapons obsolete, tossed into the dustbin of history, or should he even succeed in moving the U.S. away from its reliance on the nuclear threat, using America's renewed credibility and moral authority to allow civilization to triumph over brute force, he will truly have changed the world for the better.

Tsutomu Yamaguchi ... Most fucked person in history dies

By J. Thomas Duffy

Yeah, we know the title is jarring, but, even going that graphic, that in-your-face, doesn't do justice, doesn't begin to come close to what Tsutomu Yamaguchi went through in his life.

His plight, his "lot-in-life," became a wry joke to illustrate just how much a sorry-assed-loser a person might be.

Yet Tsutomu Yamaguchi was anything but a loser:



Tsutomu Yamaguchi, victim of Japan’s two atomic bombs, dies aged 93

He was an impassioned and articulate man, a respected teacher, beloved father and grandfather — but none of these explain the unique distinction of Tsutomu Yamaguchi, who has died in Nagasaki aged 93.

He was the victim of a fate so callous that it almost raises a smile: he was one of a small number of people to fall victim to both of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan.

On August 6, 1945, he was about to leave the city of Hiroshima, where he had been working, when the first bomb exploded, killing 140,000 people. Injured and reeling from the horrors around him, he fled to his home — Nagasaki, 180 miles to the west. There, on August 9, the second atomic bomb exploded over his head.

A few dozen others were in a similar position, but none expressed the experience with as much emotion and fervour. Towards the end of his life, Mr Yamaguchi received another distinction — the only man to be officially registered as a hibakusha, atomic bomb victim, in both cities.

In an interview he did early last year, his only with a British newspaper, Yamaguchi described what happened:

Among them was the young engineer – who was in town on a business trip for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries – who stepped off a tram as the bomb exploded.

Despite being 3km (just under two miles) from Ground Zero, the blast temporarily blinded him, destroyed his left eardrum and inflicted horrific burns over much of the top half of his body. The following morning, he braved another dose of radiation as he ventured into Hiroshima city centre, determined to catch a train home, away from the nightmare.

But home for Mr Yamaguchi was Nagasaki, where two days later the "Fat Man" bomb was dropped, killing 70,000 people and creating a city where, in the words of its mayor, "not even the sound of insects could be heard". In a bitter twist of fate, Yamaguchi was again 3km from the centre of the second explosion. In fact, he was in the office explaining to his boss how he had almost been killed days before, when suddenly the same white light filled the room. "I thought the mushroom cloud had followed me from Hiroshima," Mr Yamaguchi said.

It is nearly incomprehensible, the thought of surviving, not one, but two nuclear blasts.

Was he bitter, did he hate the Americans?

No, he remained a human being.

From Wikipedia:

As he aged his opinions about the use of atomic weapons began to change. In his eighties, he wrote a book about his experiences and was invited to take part in a 2006 documentary about 165 double A-bomb victims called Nijuuhibaku ("Twice Bombed"), which was screened at the United Nations. At the screening he pleaded for the abolition of atomic weapons.

Yamaguchi became a vocal proponent of nuclear disarmament. In an interview he said "The reason that I hate the atomic bomb is because of what it does to the dignity of human beings." Speaking through his daughter during a telephone interview he said; "I can't understand why the world cannot understand the agony of the nuclear bombs, how can they keep developing these weapons?

And this:

"My double radiation exposure is now an official government record," Mr Yamaguchi told reporters.

"It can tell the younger generation the horrifying history of the atomic bombings even after I die."

Yeah, it can tell the younger generation, as well as the current one.

But will they see, will they listen?

Here's hoping Tsutomu Yamaguchi has the absolute best, most tremendous, most peacefully satisfying afterlife ... ever!




(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Troubling blind spot

By Carl

The Bush administration's singleminded focus on Iraq blinded it to some pretty ugly things going on in other parts of the world:

North Korea has fired two more missiles, hours after the UN Security Council unanimously condemned its nuclear test, South Korean reports say.

The Communist state fired two short-range missiles off an east-coast base, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported, citing an official.

The move came as UN diplomats began work on a resolution to punish North Korea for its underground nuclear test.

Translation: When John Bolton warns George Bush you're doing it wrong, U R Doin It Rong!:

In 2002, our intelligence community definitively judged that the regime was working on an industrial-scale enrichment program. Since then we have little new information, reducing the confidence level, but not changing the substantive conclusion, that the North Koreans "have and continue to operate a uranium enrichment program" – as Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell testified in February.

For the Bush administration, however, the lack of new data is an excuse to ignore the entire issue of uranium.

On plutonium, the administration seems content to seek vague statements from the North that "account" for the amount of this fissile material we think it has extracted from its Yongbyon reactor's spent fuel rods over the years. Administration briefings reveal little or no interest in how many plutonium weapons exist; whether there are other plutonium-related facilities hidden in North Korea's vast complex of underground facilities; and what the North's weapons-manufacturing capabilities are.

Proliferation? Perhaps the Bush administration's most wondrous act of magic is to make that problem disappear. The State Department argues that North Korea may have proliferated in the past, but that's all behind us. How do we know? The North Koreans have told us.

Remember this gem of a meme?

Under the final terms of the Agreed Framework approved in October of 1994, Clinton agreed to provide the "Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea" (DPRK) with two light water nuclear reactors and a massive allotment of oil. The U.S. agreed to ship 500,000 metric tons of oil annually in response to the North's pretense that the energy-starved backwater had developed the nuclear facility to generate power. These shipments have cost taxpayers more than $800 million to date - a bargain compared with the $6 billion spent on constructing the nuclear reactors, which now empower North Korea to produce 100 nuclear bombs each year.

All these measures failed to quell the North's atom-lust.

Odds are you won't hear a peep from the right about Bush's complicity in the further development of nuclear arms by the North (absent Bolton's now-year-old OpEd), rather than correctly point out that, of the "Axis of Evil", only Korea had any hopes of developing a nuclear armament program AND legitimate targets to lob them at.

Means, motive, opportunity, the classic tripod on which to hang a conviction in a criminal case apparently holds no weight in the realm of the right wing. We striked out at the country with the least means, the lesser motive, and practically zero opportunity and rattled sabres at the country with slightly more means, slightly more motive, but even less opportunity.

And did nothing about the guy in the ski mask holding a gun at the bank teller window with an open sack.

Smart. Very smart.

What could have been handled six years ago is now looming as a pandemic of pandemonia. The same logic used to invade Iraq could just as easily have been applied to Korea, all the way to the feeble excuse of bringing an international criminal to justice and freeing his citizenry.

Indeed, that charge more applied to Kim Jong Il than to Saddam Hussein. Hussein, at least, never starved his own people, despite gassing large numbers of them.

But now we have what we have, as Strindberg so aptly put it.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

"Ah, so these are the intertubes Ted Stevens was talking about? Where can I get Facebook? Death to Israel!"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Actually, this is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at an Iranian nuclear facility. (Michael Crowley posted the photo at The Plank.)

The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that "the Obama administration has made it clear that it believes there is no question that Tehran is seeking the bomb." Iran now has about 6,000 centrifuges enriching uranium, and it may soon "have enough low-enriched uranium to be able to quickly convert it to weapons-grade material."

All the more reason for direct talks between Washington and Tehran -- and soon.

A negotiated failure

By Creature

WaPo:

The Bush administration will send a senior envoy this weekend to international talks with Iran about its nuclear program in what U.S. officials described as a "one-time deal" designed to demonstrate a serious desire to negotiate a solution to the impasse over Tehran's ambitions.

Color me skeptical. This move is designed for failure. A negotiated failure that would provide cover for this:

President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.

On the less skeptical side, they are sending Undersecretary of State William J. Burns. Burns was responsible for the recent North Korea breakthrough and has been a constant thorn in the side of Dick Cheney, John Bolton, and their neo-con pals (always a good thing). That being said this could be the quid pro quo Cheney was looking for, maybe from Burns himself, after having relented on North Korea. Which puts me back on skeptical footing and wondering if this "one-time deal" is designed to fail and designed to provide we-did-all-we-could cover for the bombing of Iran to begin.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Krazy Kristol and Batty Bolton talk up Iran attack

By Michael J.W. Stickings

These two headlines from Think Progress sum it all up:

-- Kristol: Bush Might Bomb Iran If He 'Thinks Senator Obama's Going To Win'

-- Bolton: Israel Will Attack Iran After U.S. Election But Before Inauguration, Arab States Will Be 'Delighted'

So they both said on Fox News yesterday morning. (Of course.)

They and the warmongering neocons of their ilk have said much the same thing before, of course: There will be military action undertaken against Iran. What is new is the immediacy, in terms of the specific timing of an attack on Iran, of their warmongering rhetoric.

I don't know if either one is right, that is, that either the U.S. or Israel will bomb Iran -- the U.S. if Obama wins (and, presumably, if McCain wins, too), Israel after the election (supposedly with the approval of the monolith known as "the Arab states") -- but what is clear is that they are both pushing for war and talking about it as if it were a foregone conclusion.

What is also clear, according to Krazy Kristol's own admission, is that a McCain presidency would be Bush III (and worse). Here's Steve Benen's response: "As Bill Kristol sees it, if John McCain wins in November (or the White House believes McCain will win in November), Still-President Bush is content leaving a confrontation with Iran to the future. If Barack Obama wins, or appears poised to win, Bush may go ahead and force the issue... All of this is, of course, a friendly reminder that when it comes to sticking to the status quo, and offering more of the same on international relations, Bush is counting on John McCain delivering four more years just like the last eight."

And here's Andrew Sullivan's response to the possibility of a pre-election attack: "[C]ould it happen? Could Bush bomb Iran before the next election and create a sense of international crisis that could cause voters to swing back to McCain? From everything we know and Bush and Cheney, the answer, surely, is yes. His failed policies have left only one option to prevent Iran's going nuclear: war. And Bush must be chafing to see how his legacy could be dramatically changed if Obama wins. We could be facing the mother of all October surprises."

True enough.

**********

As if to prove just how krazy he is, Kristol also "raise[d] the prospect of Saudi Arabia and Egypt going nuclear in response to an Obama presidency," to quote Andrew again.

Remember, the Republicans campaign on fear (and the neocons live on it).

Nothing should surprise us.

NIE reaction round-up

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(My own reaction is here.)

Slate's Fred Kaplan, one of my go-to commentators on military and national security issues, examines the recently-released NIE and admits that "President Bush and the administration's hawkish faction, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, can take some solace from the new intelligence estimate. For instance, the NIE states, again 'with high confidence,' that until the fall of 2003, the Iranians were developing nuclear weapons. It also notes that they are continuing civilian work 'related to uranium conversion and enrichment.'"

However, it was "increasing international scrutiny and pressure" that prompted Iran to halt the militarized component of its nuclear program, not the saber-rattling of Cheney and the warmongers.

Kaplan's very sensible conclusion: "If there was ever a possibility that President George W. Bush would drop bombs on Iran, the chances have now shrunk to nearly zero."

**********

But wait. Not so fast.

As I argued yesterday -- see link above -- Bush's NSA/mouthpiece, Stephen Hadley, responded to the NIE by patting the Bush Administration (and himself?) on the back, by praising his boss's "strategy" (which, as spun, includes aggressive international diplomacy, not gearing up for war), and by issuing, between the lines, a carefully and indeed esoterically presented advocation of the warmongering position.

That advocation continued at Bush's press conference yesterday -- needless to say, the scribes on hand were curious: the NIE seems to refute the claims made by Cheney and the warmongers with respect to Iran's nuclear intentions and current capacity. In response to the first question, the president said this: "Here's what we know. We know that they're still trying to learn how to enrich uranium. We know that enriching uranium is an important step in a country who wants to develop a weapon. We know they had a program. We know the program is halted."

In other words, fuck the NIE.

The militarized component of the program may have been halted, but Iran still seeks nuclear weapons and therefore remains a serious threat. Note that this was one of the revisionist arguments made in support of the Iraq War: Saddam may not have had any WMDs, but he once had them and may have sought them again and was therefore a threat -- and so pre-emptive war was justified. The case for immediate war -- Cheney's case -- may have suffered a serious blow with the release of this NIE, but the case for war, according to the warmongers, remains.

To Bush's credit, however, he praised the intelligence community for its "good work" and declared that ongoing international pressure is required -- on the latter point, I agree; on the former point, I assume the intelligence community got this right and is therefore deserving of praise. Still, he argued that "[t]he best diplomacy, effective diplomacy, is one of which all options are on the table" -- this is the thin end of the wedge, an opening for the warmongers. If and when the U.S. determines that diplomacy is not working and/or that Iran is not negotiating in good faith, the "option" of pre-emptive military action can be triggered.

And for all the pro-diplomacy talk from the president, I return to a point made by Kevin Drum (among others): "This NIE was apparently finished a year ago, and its basic parameters were almost certainly common knowledge in the White House well before that. This means that all the leaks, all the World War III stuff, all the blustering about the IAEA -- all of it was approved for public consumption after Cheney/Bush/Rice/etc. knew perfectly well it was mostly baseless." Which means that Bush and his top officials have essentially been lying about, or at the very least misrepresenting, the Iranian threat for at least the past year -- but probably for much longer.

**********

Some important articles/posts to check out:

Scott Horton, Harper's: "[We] have been pointing for the better part of the year to the very strange goings-on surrounding the preparation and issuance of a vital intelligence report on the state of Iran’s nuclear project. The White House, and particularly Vice President Cheney, has been feverishly attempting to stop its issuance. The Director of National Intelligence, McConnell, has been at odds to oppose its declassification. In sum, something was there and the war party was intensely upset about it."

Think Progress: According to The New Yorker's Sy Hersh, "Bush actually knew about the NIE at least two days earlier and had a 'private discussion' about it with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert before the Middle East peace summit in Annapolis, MD, last week."

Think Progress: At his press conference yesterday, Bush admitted this: "I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was John -- Mike McConnell came in and said, We have some new information. He didn’t tell me what the information was. He did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze." So McConnell didn't tell and Bush didn't ask? About something as important as Iran's nuclear program?

TP: "At the same time Bush was ratcheting up the rhetoric on Iran, he was told by his National Intelligence Director that that [sic] have 'some new information.' Yet Bush wants the public to believe he never learned what the information was, nor was he interested." More, WaPo is reporting that "intelligence officials began briefing senior members of the Bush administration" as early as July. Which means that Bush and the warmongers were making their case against Iran even after the new intelligence was first disseminated.

**********

None of this is stopping the warmongers, however. It didn't stop them earlier this year, and it certainly isn't now.

At Commentary, leading neocon Norman Podhoretz is attacking the intelligence community -- blaming the messenger, that is, and thereby casting doubt on the intelligence itself. It is "bending over backward" to avoid another Iraq fiasco, giving Iran the benefit of the doubt, and seeking to undermine Bush, against whom it has a serious grudge.

The Weekly Standard, home to neocon saber-rattling at its most grotesque, picks up on Podhoretz's sophistic attack and runs with it.

Bush at least talks positively about diplomacy, about the intelligence community, and about keeping all options on the table -- however insincerely. The neocons have no such diplomatic touch themselves. From the weeds of their rags, from the luxury of their think tanks, they can afford to be more blunt.

The drumbeat for war is as loud and as demanding as ever.

**********

Andrew Sullivan: "My hunch is that this is the final collapse of the neocon wing of the Bush administration. They simply couldn't survive Iraq."

I'm not so sure. Not yet. (See above.)

Glenn Greenwald:

Over the past year, the rhetoric from our Serious Foreign Policy establishment regarding the supposed threat posed by Iran's active pursuit of nuclear weapons has severely escalated both in terms of shrillness and threats. Opposition to this building hysteria has been led by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who -- exactly as he did prior to the invasion of Iraq -- has been relentlessly warning that there is no real evidence to support these war-fueling allegations.

Because of that, he has been relentlessly attacked and smeared by our Serious Foreign Policy elite -- yet again. And yet again, ElBaradei has been completely vindicated, and our Serious Foriegn Policy Experts exposed as serial fabricators, fear-mongerers and hysterics.

A long and rewarding post. Make sure to read it all.

Josh Marshall: "If you look closely at what President Bush said this morning about the Iran intelligence, his dodge about what he knew and when is actually worse than the charge he was trying to deny."

John Aravosis: "Bush lied to the media and got us into a war with Iraq. The media refused to do their job, and led us into that war. Now Bush has been caught lying to us again, repeatedly, about going to war with Iran, and the media has, again, rolled over and kicked its legs up in the air.

Not that one should expect much else from the White House press corps.

Steve Benen: "So, let’s review what we’ve learned from the White House over the last 24 hours. The DNI told Bush there was important new information on Iran, but the president didn’t ask what it was. The president was, and was not, told to “stand down” when it came to Iran, advice he both ignored and did not receive. All the while, the White House was publicly making assessments of the Iranian threat, all of which contradicted the evidence they did, and did not, see. Just when it seemed as if the Bush gang couldn’t get any more embarrassing, these guys manage to kick things up a notch. It’s almost impressive."

For more see more Benen, Matt Yglesias, Cernig, Damozel, Clammyc, Kyle Moore here and here, Libby Spencer here and here, and much else at Memeorandum.

Warmongering fabrications: White House spin and the truth about Iran

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The top story at Memeorandum right now -- and, indeed, one of the top stories anywhere and everywhere -- remains yesterday's stunning release of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that directly contradicts, and refutes, the claims made by Cheney and the warmongers with respect to the Iranian nuclear situation. (Creature commented on it briefly yesterday afternoon.) From the NYT:

A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.

The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran's nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy.

The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is likely keeping its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies "do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is designed for civilian purposes. The new estimate says that enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates.

But the new estimate declares with "high confidence" that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform that raw material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003, and also says with high confidence that the halt "was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure."

This is clearly not what Cheney and the warmongers wanted. What they wanted was, at most, ambiguity -- and enough of it to justify pre-emptive military action.

Although the NIE cites "international scrutiny and pressure" -- and not specifically American scrutiny and pressure -- as the reason Iran backed away from its militarized nuclear program, Bush could take credit for Iran's move, or at least try to. It could be argued, after all, if not without stretching credibility to the point of self-annihilation, that it was precisely Bush's toughness that ultimately kept Tehran under control. In these terms, Iran could be presented as another Libya.

But, again, the warmongers -- and Bush may be sympathetic to their position, if not necessarily among them -- want war. They certainly do not want diplomacy, and they certainly do not want to be told that international diplomacy, which they loathe with venomous irrationality, worked.

So what to do? How to respond?

Evidently, walk a fine line between acknowledging the NIE's findings and continuing to play up the Iranian threat. This is exactly what Bush's national security advisor, Stephen Hadley, did. Again from the NYT -- this time verbatim:

Today's National Intelligence Estimate offers some positive news. It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons. It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen.

But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem. The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically — without the use of force — as the Administration has been trying to do. And it suggests that the President has the right strategy: intensified international pressure along with a willingness to negotiate a solution that serves Iranian interests while ensuring that the world will never have to face a nuclear armed Iran.

The bottom line is this: for that strategy to succeed, the international community has to turn up the pressure on Iran — with diplomatic isolation, United Nations sanctions, and with other financial pressure — and Iran has to decide it wants to negotiate a solution.

In other words: Iran was developing nuclear weapons, we were right there, but we -- note the use of the first person here -- we have slowed them down. Note that Hadley does not say that Iran was but is not now seeding nuclear weapons. The implication is that Iran may still be seeking them. We "were right to be worried," and we still are. Furthermore, the threat remains. There is a "risk" that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, just as there was a risk that Saddam would. But the world is full of risks. Are they all meant to be met with a military response?

Hadley goes on to spin the White House line. Of course we're not out for war, of course we don't want to use force, of course it is diplomacy that is at the forefront, of course Bush is right.

But what is not said here? Read between the lines. There is an admission here that diplomacy worked, but it is hardly a ringing endorsement of concerted international action. For what if "the international community" does not "turn up the pressure," if the U.N. does not enforce sanctions, if Iran does not want to negotiate? More to the point, what if the pressure is not turned up to Bush's liking, or if the sanctions aren't strong enough in Bush's view, if Iran goes not negotiate in good faith according to Bush? Who will ultimately judge whether there is enough pressure, whether the sanctions are strong enough, whether Iran is negotiating in good faith? Bush will, of course. He and the warmongers, in and out of his White House bubble, in and out of his administration.

Yes, what seems to be an admission that diplomacy worked, and may continue to work, is actually, upon reflection, a carefully and indeed esoterically presented advocation of the warmongering position.

**********

An mportant question pertaining to the NIE remains, however, and Kevin Drum (among others) asks it: Why was it released now?

• "This NIE was apparently finished a year ago, and its basic parameters were almost certainly common knowledge in the White House well before that. This means that all the leaks, all the World War III stuff, all the blustering about the IAEA — all of it was approved for public consumption after Cheney/Bush/Rice/etc. knew perfectly well it was mostly baseless."
• "Why were the key judgments finally released? Cheney didn't want them released, Bush surely didn't want them released, and DNI Mike McConnell told Congress a few weeks ago that he didn't want them released. So who did?"

It may have been "congressional pressure," Kevin speculates, and maybe he's right, we'll have to see. But what is certainly the case is that Bush and the top officials have essentially been lying about, or at the very least misrepresenting, the Iranian threat for at least the past year -- but probably much longer. They have been trying to build a case (to fabricate one, more correctly) against Iran -- developing a militarized nuclear weapons program, supplying arms to hostile Iraqi groups, supporting terrorism around the world, operating a terroristic military, threatening its neighbours and, indeed, the entire region -- as apparent preparation for war. In this respect, Iran is very much the new Iraq.

Unfortunately for them, but fortunately for the rest of us, and regardless of the spin coming out of the White House, this NIE has effectively overcome their fabrications with the truth.