Max Boot and Michael Pregent, "Appeasing Iran hurts us in Iraq, too": Trading Hostages for Airplanes?

Tweet

One week ago, while Jason Rezaian and four other American prisoners were being released by Iran, Shiite militiamen abducted three Americans from the Dora neighborhood of southern Baghdad. As reported by Erin Cunningham and Mustafa Salim in a Washington Post article entitled "Iraqi official: 3 Americans missing in Baghdad were kidnapped by gunmen":

"The area from which they were taken is controlled by Shiite militias, including Iran-backed Asaib Ahl al-Haq, or League of the Righteous, [a Baghdad police colonel] said.

. . . .

The colonel said the group had been invited to the home of their Iraqi interpreter. But a resident of the apartment building where the Americans were reportedly seized said they were taken from a second-story apartment that he described as a well-known brothel.

. . . .

The resident said the apartment is subject to frequent raids by Asaib Ahl ­al-Haq, although typically the men found inside are simply told to leave."

The three Americans were taken from a well-known brothel? Oh really? One of the three abducted Americans is a woman.

More to the point, Tehran knows exactly where these Americans are being held.

Today, in a must-read Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Appeasing Iran hurts us in Iraq, too," Max Boot (author of "War Made New" on the bookshelf opposite me) and Michael Pregent say of this kidnapping:

"AAH [Asaib Ahl al-Haq] is a wholly owned subsidiary of Iran’s Quds Force. It is inconceivable that it could kidnap and hold Americans — a course of action with significant international repercussions — without at least the acquiescence, and probably the active support, of Tehran. Yet the Obama administration is doing all it can to obfuscate that reality. Reuters cited 'U.S. government sources' in reporting that 'Washington had no reason to believe Tehran was involved in the kidnapping and did not believe the trio were being held in Iran, which borders Iraq.'

. . . .

If another news report is to be believed, the administration is pretty sure who is responsible for the kidnapping but just won’t say so in public. CBS News reports: 'Officials in Washington had hoped the Iranian government would tell the militia group to hold off because of all the negotiations surrounding the prisoner swap that saw the release of five Americans. The State Department source said the fear was that one of the groups might have ‘gone off the reservation.’'"

The Shiite militiamen acted against the wishes of Tehran? Not a chance.

Meanwhile, Iranian Transport Minister Abbas Akhoundi suggested yesterday that Iran might be interested in acquiring aircraft from Boeing. Why not? After all, the Obama administration just paid $1.7 billion for the release of Rezaian and the other four Americans, so why not trade these new American captives for the cost of some new planes?

Do you remember how, just eight days ago, Obama declared that the release of Rezaian and the four other prisoners held by Iran resulted from "smart, patient and disciplined" diplomacy? Obama still doesn't understand that he is being played for a fool by Khamenei and friends.

Washington Post Editorial, "Iran must pay a price for detaining Jason Rezaian": US to Pay Iran $50 Billion to Sign Nuclear Deal

In an editorial entitled "Iran must pay a price for detaining Jason Rezaian," The Washington Post begins:

"PRESIDENT OBAMA offered encouragement to the family and colleagues of Post reporter Jason Rezaian last weekend, saying, 'We will not rest until we bring him home to his family, safe and sound.' We hope Mr. Rezaian, who had been imprisoned in Iran for 281 days as of Wednesday, will hear of the president’s words. More important, though, they should be weighed by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who must realize that the unjust detention of an American journalist is only harming his regime."

The Washington Post hopes the Rezaian heard Obama's words? Obama, a dyed-in-the-wool narcissist who won't let anything stand in the way of his "legacy," is as serious about this commitment as he was concerning a "red line" involving the use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians.

WaPo's conclusion:

"Mr. Obama has declined to make the release of Mr. Rezaian and other imprisoned Americans a condition for going forward with the nuclear accord. According to Haleh Esfandiari, a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center who was held prisoner in Iran for 105 days in 2007, doing so might play into the hands of those responsible for Mr. Rezaian’s detention, who may hope to use his case to block any U.S.-Iranian detente. But Mr. Obama should look for other ways to make clear to Mr. Khamenei that he is serious about the commitment he made to the Rezaian family. As long as the journalist is held, Iran should pay a price."

"Iran should pay a price"? Quite the contrary. Obama is preparing to free up $50 billion of frozen Iranian bank deposits in order to induce Khamenei to agree to the nuclear deal with the P5+1 by the June 30 deadline. Meanwhile, Iran is growing more contemptuous of the US by the day.

What a horror story!

Roger Cohen, "Netanyahu’s Iran Thing": Roger "Iran Is Not Totalitarian" Cohen Is Back!

Do you remember how Roger Cohen waged a campaign during the first six months of 2009 to convince us that Iran is "not totalitarian"? Well, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Netanyahu’s Iran Thing," Cohen is back with more asinine claims, intended to support Obama's pending nuclear agreement with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei. Cohen begins:

"[Netanyahu] portrays a rampaging Islamic Republic that 'now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sana,' a nation 'gobbling' other countries on a “march of conquest, subjugation and terror.' Then, in the same speech, he describes Iran as 'a very vulnerable regime' on the brink of folding.

Well, which is it?"

So, you can't be "rampaging" and "vulnerable" at the same time? Nazi Germany certainly "rampaged," but at the same time was "vulnerable" owing to the dependence of its war machine upon Romanian oil and Swedish iron ore.

Is a rampaging Iran also vulnerable? For example, is Iranian support of Hamas and Hezbollah affected by its finances, i.e. the low price of oil? Absolutely. As reported by Newsweek in a January 15, 2015 article entitled "Is Hezbollah Going Broke?" by Jeff Neumann:

"But the good times may now be over for Hezbollah and its supporters. Iranian oil profits, which have lubricated the proxy group with hundreds of millions of dollars a year, appear to be drying up. Western sanctions, imposed on Tehran due to its nuclear program, coupled with falling oil prices, have emptied the coffers of the Islamic Republic. Crude now trades at less than $50 per barrel, down from more than $100 in June, due to lower global demand, oversupply in the Middle East and the rise of the American fracking industry. Meanwhile, Iran has reportedly seen its oil exports fall by 60 percent since 2011, and the country’s budget deficit has climbed to an astounding $9 billion."

Cohen continues, "Netanyahu knows the first thing that will happen if talks collapse is that Russia and China will undermine the solidarity behind effective Iran sanctions." Sorry, Roger, but after Obama softened the sanctions regime against Iran in 2014, Russia and Iran have already held joint naval exercises. However, hope is not lost. Russia is also being impacted by the dramatic decline in the price of oil and is susceptible to American pressure.

Cohen goes on to say:

"Netanyahu lambastes the notion of a nuclear deal lasting 10 years (President Obama has suggested this is a minimum). He portrays that decade as a period in which, inevitably, Iran’s 'voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year.' He thereby dismisses the more plausible notion that greater economic contact with the world and the gradual emergence of a young generation of Iranians drawn to the West — as well as the inevitable dimming of the ardor of Iran’s revolution — will attenuate such aggression."

Got it: The US and Israel should pin all its hopes upon the emergence of a more moderate generation of Iranians. Needless to say, in another decade the Iranian Revolutionary Guard will simply fade into the sunset. Yeah, right.

Next, Cohen tells us:

"What better assures Israel’s security, a decade of strict limitation and inspection of Iran’s nuclear program that prevents it making a bomb, or a war that delays the program a couple of years, locks in the most radical factions in Tehran, and intensifies Middle Eastern violence? It’s a no-brainer."

A "no-brainer"? Oh really? As Max Boot writes in a Commentary item entitled "Why Obama Thinks He Can’t Get a Better Iran Deal":

"The U.S. intelligence community has a terrible track record of detecting nuclear work in other countries. We were caught off guard by the first Soviet nuclear test in 1949, the first Indian test in 1974, the first Pakistani test in 1998, the first North Korean test in 2006. Likewise, we were surprised by the extent of the Iraqi nuclear program in 1992.

Is there cause to hope that we would be better informed about the Iranian program? Only if we get truly intrusive inspection that allows international monitors to roam the country at will with no need to announce visits in advance. I am skeptical whether the mullahs will agree to that. The 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea shows how easily a state can cheat on a nuclear accord: The North agreed to shut down a plutonium reactor at Yongbyon but proceeded with the secret enrichment of uranium."

"[A] decade of strict limitation and inspection of Iran’s nuclear program"? Keep dreaming, Roger!

And then there is Cohen's reference to Nancy Pelosi:

"No wonder Representative Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Party’s House Leader, saw Netanyahu’s speech to Congress as an 'insult to the intelligence of the United States.'"

This is the same Nancy Pelosi who, in 2007, listened in rapture to mass murderer Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, and declared after meeting him:

"We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. He’s ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel."

Finally, there is Cohen's declaration that "Iranian help today furthers America’s strategic priority of defeating those knife-wielding slayers [i.e. ISIS]." Those "knife-wielding slayers"? Cohen fails to observe that Iran stones to death women accused of adultery and hangs homosexuals. Also, forgotten by Cohen is the fact that some 20 percent of American casualties in Iraq were caused by Iran's Quds forces. Nevertheless, the US should now be grateful for the help of the mullahs in combating ISIS.

Cohen turns my stomach. Enough said.

Maureen Dowd, "Is Barry Whiffing?": Mighty Casey Has Struck Out

"But there is no joy in Mudville — mighty Casey has struck out."

- "Casey at the Bat," Ernest Thayer, 1888

Obama's foreign policy is a strikeout, and Americans are getting wise to it. According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/post-abc-news-poll-shows-democrats-at-risk-in-november-as-obamas-approval-rating-falls/2014/04/28/2a448b04-cf07-11e3-b812-0c92213941f4_story.html), only "34 percent approve of his handling of the situation involving Ukraine and Russia."

But the Ukraine is just the least of it. As Max Boot tells us in a Commentary opinion piece entitled "A Bad Metaphor, But an Even Worse Excuse" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/04/29/a-bad-metaphor-but-an-even-worse-excuse/):

"There hasn’t been a substantial foreign-policy victory since Osama bin Laden and Moammar Gaddafi were killed in 2011. As I note in the Wall Street Journal today, 'Hopes for a peace accord between the Israelis and Palestinians have been dashed, the civil war continues to rage in Syria, chaos engulfs Libya, Russia has invaded Ukraine and China’s aggressive behavior in the South China Sea has leaders in Japan and the Philippines drawing analogies to the 1930s.'

That’s actually only a partial listing of the setbacks we have suffered. I had no room to list other bad news: the emergence of a new military dictatorship in Egypt, a crackdown on civil liberties in Turkey, growing instability in Lebanon, new reports of chemical-weapons use in Syria, advances of Islamic insurgents in Pakistan, crumbling economic sanctions on Iran in return for empty promises to slow down their nuclear program, new North Korean belligerence, and declining American credibility from allowing red lines to be crossed from Syria to Crimea and (an overlooked issue) from allowing our defense budget to be slashed precipitously.

Perhaps worst of all is the resurgence of al-Qaeda."

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Is Barry Whiffing?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/opinion/dowd-is-barry-whiffing.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), Maureen Dowd also takes a swing at Obama's feeble defense of his foreign policy from the Philippines (where the president traveled after failing to reach a trade agreement with Japan): "You hit singles; you hit doubles; every once in a while, we may be able to hit a home run." Dowd's rejoinder:

"Stop whining, Mr. President.

And stop whiffing.

Don’t whinge off the record with columnists and definitely don’t do it at a press conference with another world leader. It is disorienting to everybody, here at home and around the world.

. . . .

It doesn’t feel like leadership. It doesn’t feel like you’re in command of your world.

How can we accept these reduced expectations and truculent passivity from the man who offered himself up as the moral beacon of the world, even before he was elected?"

Is only Obama to blame for this mess? I'm afraid so. He was the one who brought a moronic Chuck Hagel, who can't find his way to first base, and a vain John Kerry, who is unable to come to terms with his balks, onto the team.

"Wait ’til next year!" was once the unofficial slogan of the Brooklyn Dodgers. Well, it's not going to get any better next year. Putin, who was promised "flexibility" by Obama, and all of the world's other tyrants know that Obama talks a mean game, but only lobs softballs.

Can Team America regroup following this fiasco? Let's see who is selected as the new manager in 2016, and if the US is able to climb out of the cellar.

New York Times Editorial, "A Diplomatic Proposal for Syria": Obama Desperate to Climb Down from His Tree

Obama is desperate to climb down from his tree, and The New York Times, always ready to put out the flames for his administration, is, in this instance, happy to provide a ladder.

In an editorial entitled "A Diplomatic Proposal for Syria" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/opinion/a-diplomatic-proposal-for-syria.html?_r=0), The New York Times endorses a Russian proposal for "international control" over Syria's chemical weapons arsenal and its "subsequent destruction." The Times claims:

"The removal and destruction of stockpiles of weapons would ensure greater safety for the Syrian people."

No arguing with that, but what about "international control" over the removal? Can we realistically expect the likes of Russia, China, Iran, Sudan and Venezuela to faithfully supervise such "control"?

"Subsequent destruction"? Such destruction could easily prove open-ended, particularly when we're talking about a war zone. And if it doesn't happen almost immediately, does anyone really expect that Obama, chastened by the UN, the Arab League and the US Congress, will climb back up his tree? Believe me, he's happier on the links, puttering with his balls.

The New York Times declares:

"To have any measure of credibility, Mr. Assad will need to allow monitors into the country immediately. That would be a gesture to the world that his government will abide by international laws against chemical weapons use. The Russians will have to work closely with the United States and the United Nations to create a plan to catalog and verify Syria’s chemical weapons and set forth a specific timetable for the removal and destruction of those weapons under international auspices.

Russia and the United States should propose a formal resolution by the United Nations Security Council — of which both are members — to condemn the use of chemical weapons in Syria, support this plan and put its full authority behind carrying it out, as well as establish consequences if Syria reneged. It would be impossible to destroy the entire stockpile instantly, but that task must be done with care and speed because those weapons cannot be allowed to fall into other murderous hands in the conflict."

First, mass murderer Bashar al-Assad doesn't have the slightest "measure of credibility." Moreover, if the Russian proposal should even get that far, he can be expected to play cat and mouse with anyone responsible for overseeing such an agreement, in much the same way that Iran plays with IAEA inspectors.

Second, regarding the issue of implementation of such a scheme, Max Boot observes in Commentary (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/09/09/kerrys-unserious-proposal/#more-832882):

"Even if we knew where all the stockpiles were, removing them and destroying them–presumably a process that would have to occur outside the country–would be an enormous undertaking that could easily involve thousands of foreign workers along with thousands, even tens of thousands, of soldiers to protect them. It is hard to imagine such an undertaking occurring in wartime; few if any nations will risk their troops on the ground in Syria to make the process possible and Syria’s government would be unlikely to grant them permission to do so."

Is Russia's proposal ridiculous? You bet, but Obama wants down from that tree!

The Times concludes:

"The diplomatic proposal creates at least a pause in the action. It could mean that the United States would not have to go it alone in standing firm against the Syrian regime. And it could open up a broader channel to a political settlement between Mr. Assad and the rebels — the only practical way to end this war. It could also be a boon for Mr. Obama, personally, because he could take credit for pushing Syria and Russia into making this move."

Yup, that Obama is one heck of a tough negotiator and has established his decisiveness, credibility and backbone around the globe . . . not.

Game, set, match, Putin.

Syria: Obama Again Leads From Behind

As reported by the Los Angeles Times in an article, written by Paul Richter, entitled "U.S. softens its criticism of Syria" (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-us-syria-20110720,0,5436104.story), the US is now backtracking from its demands for Syrian President Assad to step down. As stated in the article:

"After sharply escalating its criticism of Syria's bloody crackdown on pro-democracy protesters, the Obama administration has abruptly scaled back its condemnations, showing fresh uncertainty about its willingness to confront President Bashar Assad's regime.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton declared last week that Assad's government had 'lost legitimacy,' diplomatic language that implied a break with the government in Damascus. Analysts said they expected the White House to demand Assad's ouster, as it did earlier this year with Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi and former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

But Clinton backed off on Saturday, saying the administration still hopes that Assad's regime will stop the violence and work with protesters to carry out political reforms. On Monday, European Union ministers also called on Assad to implement reforms and made it clear they still hoped he would do so.

. . . .

The change in tone reflects the continuing debate over whether Syria's ruler is likely to survive the current turmoil, and how best to use the limited diplomatic tools available to pressure him."

Given that the number of Syrian civilians butchered by Assad over recent months exceeds 1,400, and with more dead every day, is this the time for Obama to backtrack?

Hezbollah is also now threatening to bombard all Israeli cities, including Eilat, with Scud missiles supplied by Assad (see: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=230286). Does Obama continue to believe that by "making nice" to misunderstood despots, such as Ahmadinejad and Assad, he can somehow influence their behavior and that of their stooges, e.g., Hezbollah's Nasrallah?

Indictments and warrants for the arrest of four members of Hezbollah were recently issued by the UN tribunal investigating the 2005 murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a friend of the US (see: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/07/02/hezbollah-hariri-nasrallah.html). Among those indicted is Mustafa Badreddine, who also participated in the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, which killed 241 Americans. Both bombings were instigated and approved by Syria, but why should this matter to Obama, who continues to procrastinate?

As observed by Max Boot, writing for Commentary (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/07/20/u-s-sitting-on-sidelines-about-syria/):

"There might be circumstances where it would be appropriate to risk charges of hypocrisy so as not to undermine a valued ally such as Bahrain. But c’mon, guys, this is Syria we’re talking about–Iran’s ally, Hezbollah’s sponsor. That the administration can’t make up its mind about whether to push for Assad’s removal is beyond appalling. It’s puzzling. This is about as big an opportunity as we have faced in the region in decades–and the administration is sitting on the sidelines, mulling its options."

Actually, it's not puzzling at all. Obama can never decide.

Maybe the brutal events which will occur throughout Syria tomorrow will succeed in penetrating Obama's psyche.

Afghanistan: What is Winning?

We await President Obama's speech on Tuesday, which will delineate future plans for expanded American involvement in Afghanistan. In this regard, I recently read Mr. Max Boot's article, "How We Can Win in Afghanistan", in the November 2009 issue of Commentary (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/how-we-can-win-in-afghanistan-15257), and came out on the other side of the COIN (short for "counterinsurgency" - excuse the dreadful pun).

As noted by Mr. Boot:

"In recent polling, only 4 percent of Afghans express a desire to see the Taliban return to power. Sixty-two percent have a positive impression of the United States, and 82 percent have a favorable view of our chief on-the-ground ally—the Afghan National Army."

If so, given the goal of expanding the Afghan "army from 92,000 to 240,000, and the national police from 84,000 to 160,000", why have American commanders "said it could be years before Afghan units can take the lead in the fighting in the most hotly-contested areas like Helmand"? Motivation is obviously lacking among America's Afghan allies.

Mr. Boot writes:

"NATO’s war effort [in Afghanistan] has in fact been under-resourced for years, 'operating in a culture of poverty,' as McChrystal puts it. That has made it impossible to carry out classic counterinsurgency operations, because those typically require a ratio of roughly 1 counterinsurgent per 50 civilians. Given Afghanistan’s population of 30 million, 600,000 counterinsurgents would be necessary. At the moment, the total is roughly 270,000 (170,000 Afghans, 64,000 Americans, 35,000 from other nations). Actual force planning, however, is too intricate to be reduced to such back-of-the-envelope calculations. Unique local characteristics have to be taken into account, such as the fact that the insurgency is largely confined to the Pashtun, an ethnic group that comprises 42 percent of the population."

Query: What is the minimum amount these troop numbers are going to cost? Stated otherwise, what is the point of temporarily attempting to win over Afghani hearts and minds, if this is going to impoverish or even bankrupt American democracy?

Mr. Boot writes:

"What we have tried is the other strategy, the counterterrorism strategy, and it has been found wanting. This should not come as a surprise, because it is hard to point to any place where pure CT has defeated a determined terrorist or guerrilla group. This is the strategy that Israel has used against Hamas and Hezbollah. The result is that Hamas controls Gaza, and Hezbollah controls southern Lebanon."

My response: Israel is never going to win over the hearts and minds of Lebanon's Shiites or Gaza's Palestinians. Viewed differently, Israel is engaged in a 60-year-old war of independence, and although it has won several battles, the war is still being fought. The final outcome of this conflict will only be determined by my continued willingness and that of my children to don our uniforms and make the ultimate sacrifice.

Wars are no longer won and lost as in the past, and the Taliban is not going to sign surrender documents aboard the Battleship Missouri. The U.S. needs to weigh its objectives and pick its fights in accordance with tactical strength and strategic necessity. Notwithstanding Mr. Boot's scholarly piece, I remain a headhunter at heart. No need to bring McDonald's to Kabul. Instead, let's chase bin Laden to the ends of the earth and put some lead beween his eyebrows.

[Although I disagree with his conclusions in this particular article in Commentary, I strongly recommend Mr. Boot's book, "War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History, 1500 to Today".]