Yes, yes, I know, I’m making some assumptions. Assumption A) Noko was actually able to launch a “satellite”. Assumption B) they’ve actually built a real nuclear device that works and downsized it enough to be launched. And assumption C) they’d do what I think they would do for no other reason than they can. See the link below:
And what is our military being directed to do? Well they’ve been directed to integrate women into combat jobs and prioritize “climate change” in all of our military operations. Or said another way, its about ideology over national security.
EMP is a real threat, a cheap and easy way for those with low yield nuclear weapons to have a huge and potentially devastating effect on a large and more dangerous enemy. But, instead of concentrating on real threats, we’re involved in potentially capability degrading social engineering and ideological masturbation.
Do I think the potential number of 300 million dead in the US is probable (as outlined in the clip)? No. I don’t. We have neighbors and allies (unless they too are all hit with the same sort of attack, which would be unlikely). But it would likely cost us millions of lives. There’s no question the effect would be pretty devastating on the national infrastructure – something no one in government has addressed adequately. In fact, preparation for EMP attacks is nonexistent. And, in the case of such an attack, as a side effect, you can expect the bad actors in the world to take advantage of the attack to advance their agendas as well.
Will NoKo do it? Under the right circumstances (that means should it ever enter the whack-a-do leader’s head), yes. Do I think it will happen? Well it depends on assumptions A and B. And the “experts” seem to think that they at least haven’t been able to do B. I don’t disagree.
But NoKo isn’t the only rogue nation out there trying to develop this sort of capability. The article above talks about “delivery” of nuclear weapons in a conventional sense, i.e. ground to ground. And it claims NoKo has a long way to go to do that. But, as I’m suggesting, do they really need to do that if they can set up the EMP attack? Same with Iran?
Of course, should NoKo and/or Iran screw up such an attack, I’m sure they’re aware that they’d cease to exist as a functioning state as the retaliation from a real nuclear capable nation would be devastating. And our biggest deterrent (besides the overwhelming ability to strike them) may be the fact that they are unsure of the effect or reliability of their technology.
That doesn’t change the fact that we’ve done nothing to prepare for a threat that a nations like NoKo or Iran (or any other nuclear capable nation) are building. I’ve heard it discussed as a serious problem for decades and we’ve still done nothing about it. If this crew in charge right now want to actually do something to benefit national security, they ought to knock off the social engineering and ideological nonsense and prepare the military and the nation’s infrastructure to resist an EMP attack.
That would actually be useful.
“Who would have imagined we would be giving up the conventional arms and ballistic missile embargoes on Iran? In nuclear negotiations?”
That’s the question Charles Krauthammer asked today.
Anyone care to make a guess?
When asked Wednesday at his news conference why there is nothing in the deal about the American hostages being held by Iran, President Obama explained that this is a separate issue, not part of nuclear talks.
Are conventional weapons not a separate issue? After all, conventional, by definition, means non-nuclear. Why are we giving up the embargoes?
Because Iran, joined by Russia — our “reset” partner — sprung the demand at the last minute, calculating that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were so desperate for a deal that they would cave. They did. And have convinced themselves that they scored a victory by delaying the lifting by five to eight years. (Ostensibly. The language is murky. The interval could be considerably shorter.)
There is the second pregnant question – if the hostages are a separate issue, so are conventional weapons, aren’t they?
But then, you find out that both Obama and Kerry fell victim to a negotiating trick that only a rookie would cave too. The tactic is well known and has been associated with Cold War USSR negotiations for decades. They teach it in Negotiating 101. This is what they always do and you have to know your opponent well enough to expect it and have a strategy to counteract it. As usual, Obama and Kerry were unprepared.
What Obama said about the hostages, if he really believes it, was the perfect answer to the Iranians when they sprang this on them.
But desperation is what the Iranians and Russians were counting on. Anything to make the deal. They knew how desperate these two were. So they held one of the most outrageous demands until the seeming end of the negotiations. When the end was tantalizingly in sight and time was running out. The Iranians gauged well the desperate desire for an agreement that the Obama/Kerry cabal had.
And so they used it against them to make a mockery of the deal.
Stunning. The incompetence and ineptness aren’t what stun anyone – that’s been demonstrated so many times in the past 6 years it’s the new normal for this administration. What’s stunning is what they gave away when they didn’t have too.
But then, this is the Obama administration and the Secretary of State is John Kerry.
Abe Greenwald explains:
As far as legacy, what politician doesn’t want one? For Obama, a nominal nuclear deal may make him feel as if he’s earned the Nobel Prize once furnished him as election swag. John Kerry’s own efforts to earn a Nobel by brokering Middle East peace became another footnote in the story of Palestinian obstinacy. He too had something to prove.
From the administration’s standpoint, the deal was a grand slam. If it left Iran as an official nuclear power on the perpetual verge of a breakout, well, that was always the bargaining chip to get everything else. And with the United States having shown extraordinary cooperation and forgiveness, the thinking goes, even a nuclear Iran will become a less bellicose and more collegial member of the community of nations. What good the deal has already done, the administration believes, will continue to pay dividends. As is his wont, Obama is now declaring as much. But by the time his vision is upended by facts, he’ll be out of office, and we won’t have the luxury of fighting reality with abstractions.
Obama is desperate for a positive legacy. Obamacare is the White Elephant in the room. It will, one day, be declared the disaster it really is (but that will require the time for it to really demonstrate how horrendous a piece of legislation it truly was … it’s getting there). The man who wanted to make “government cool” has managed to make it not only cool but the butt of jokes. Ratings for all branches of government have plunged on his watch. Race relations and corruption are worse on his watch. And his foreign policy has been clueless. It has also be reactive and rudderless. Just as respect for government has plunged, so has respect for the US (even Jimmy Carter admits this).
So yeah, two guys who have accomplished little or nothing in their lives are wanting to leave a mark.
Too bad it will more likely resemble a skid mark in a pair underwear, when all is said and done, than any mark of accomplishment. But then, we’ve always known the left was more into style than substance. And Obama and Kerry have built in some blame shifting room in the Iran agreement. If, 8 or 10 years out, Iran has the bomb, it will be the fault of whoever is in the White House (and GW Bush, if they can swing it), not them.
John Kerry, alleged Secretary of State for the United States, wants everyone to stay calm as the day approaches for Bibi Netanyahu to speak before the co-equal branch of government, the US Congress.
He doesn’t want the political football turned into a political football.
He believes that the fine record of the administration’s diplomacy with Iran warrants us giving the administration the benefit of the doubt as the clowns, sorry, negotiators work towards a long term nuclear deal, (say these words a few times and count to, say, a thousand, it will help you stay calm – long term, nuclear, Iran….).
Our good friends, Russia, and China, are going to help with this, and it will all be fine.
Stay calm gang.
I mean, don’t let anything give you a jaded point of view on the probability of goodness coming out of these Iranian nuclear negotiations.
Don’t let your faith in the Iranian desire for peace be confused by their recent video demonstration of an attack on a mock up US carrier last week.
Don’t go getting all excited that a senior Iranian cleric wanted to help the negotiations by telling us the Islamic flag would fly over the White House a couple days ago.
The Iranians are doing everything they can to demonstrate their absolute friendship with the US. Sorta Pyongyang style, you know, give us what we want or we’ll blow something up.
By the way, check out the US media coverage of either of those two events. My being an anglophile isn’t the reason I used links to the Daily Mail in the UK. Maybe our media thought the flag thing was old news, I mean, they only threaten to fly the Islamic flag over the White House every couple of years anyway. Maybe John Stewart didn’t have time to cover it, maybe Brian Williams was busy taking out Iraqi jets with an MPAD and couldn’t get a story filed. Maybe worrying about what Scott Walker believes about what Rudy Giuliani believes about what Barack Obama believes kept them all too occupied to report on it.
And definitely don’t let the latest story that’s circulating in Israel, that our President might have threatened to shoot down our alleged allies jets…. make you think that diplomacy is just not going to work and that we’re taking the Israeli fear of a nuclear weapon armed Iran seriously.
“We are going to test whether or not diplomacy can prevent this weapon from being created, so you don’t have to turn to additional measures including the possibility of a military confrontation,” Kerry told ABC’s “This Week.”
Our hope is that diplomacy can work. And I believe, given our success of the interim agreement, we deserve the benefit of the doubt to find out whether or not we can get a similarly good agreement with respect to the future.”
Testing testing, 1, 2, 3, testing, testing.
With nuclear capacity. We’re going to test whether or not diplomacy can prevent this.
If we’re wrong and part of Haifa goes up in a nuclear cloud, well, I guess Old Christmas in Cambodia Lurch will be sorry.
and we’ll draft a firm, possibly angry even, letter to Iran and ask them if they can account for the nukes they weren’t supposed to have, and they’ll smile and threaten to fly the flag of Islam over the White House.
In 1917, the United States found a casus belli to enter World War I in the Zimmerman Telegram. Prior to this, President Wilson ran for re-election in 1916 on the slogan “He kept us out of the war.”. A year later we were belligerent in that war.
What we know now is that the European nations had bled each other white since August, 1914. There were already discussions in all the belligerent capitals about a negotiated end to the war that would have ended the war with the status quo ante intact.. America’s entry changed all that, and eventually forced the surrender of Germany. That victory led directly to an unwisely humiliating peace imposed on Germany, which caused the resentments that led directly to the rise of nationalist radicalism. Which nationalism led, in turn, to the Nazis gaining control of the country. Nazi government in Germany led directly to WWII, a war the Nazis planned beginning in 1933. Whatever suffering WWI caused, WWII was substantially worse. An argument can be made that American intervention is the ultimate cause of WWII in Europe.
Similarly, in 1991, America led a coalition to intervene in Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Since then, American forces have been a more or less constant presence in the region of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. By Osama bin Laden’s account, the presence of infidel Christians in Muslim lands was the reason for his dispute with Saudi Arabia and the United States, and the genesis of his animus against the United States. That animus led to 9/11, from which followed the last 13 years of…unpleasantness. One could, if one wished, make a parallel between American intervention in WWI and in the Gulf War.
Intervention has ripples, like pebbles tossed into a still pond, that reverberate long after the event. It can be argued that ISIS/ISIL is the latest ripple in the US’ Gulf War intervention.
So, nasty video images aside, what is it about ISIS that requires a US intervention in the Mideast again? Saddam Hussein ran a particularly nasty terror state, with rape rooms where suspect’s wives and daughters were brutally gang-raped in front of them as they were forced to watch. Dissidents were routinely dissolved alive in acid. Mothers were forced to watch as their children were shot, and their infants had their heads dashed against cement walls. Uday Hussein famously fed people who displeased him feet first into wood chippers. There is no way in which Saddam Hussein’s government was, in any way, objectively more humane or less brutal than ISIS.
ISIS seems to actively want a US intervention in the region, based on their publicly released media and statements. If they desire this, why should we be so keen to do what they wish, without at least seriously examining why they wish us to do it? In fact, I have several questions about a possible intervention against ISIS.
1. In what way is ISIS a greater threat, or indeed as much of a threat, as Saddam Hussein was from 1991 to 2003?
2. Why are both Republicans and Democrats willing to cede the President the authority to intervene in the Mideast again, without explicit Congressional approval?
3. What do we accomplish by intervening in Iraq, and not in Saudi Arabia, from whence ISIS receives funding? Indeed, what do we accomplish at all without cutting of Saudi money to fundamentalists? How do we cut that money off?
4. How likely is it that intervention against ISIS in Iraq will require intervention in Syria to defeat ISIS?
5. How likely is it to defeat ISIS without a substantial ground presence of American combat troops?
6. If ISIS is such a threat, why isn’t Israel doing anything about them?
7. How much of ISIS’ existence is part of a proxy war between Sunni states against Iran, especially as the end result of US intervention was increased Iranian influence in largely Shi’a Iraq?
8. What is the desired end state of US intervention against ISIS? Mustn’t it not simply be ISIS’ defeat, but also foreclose the rise of future ISI-like groups, lest we gain nothing but a little time?
9. Does “fighting them over there” actually make us safer from ISIS over here, or does it simply exacerbate Arab resentment, increasing the chance of terror attacks against the US?
10. How much blood and treasure are we willing to spend, and for what length of time, are we willing to commit to this intervention?
11. Would spending that blood and treasure in increasing border and port security have a greater effect on ensuring our security than military intervention?
12. Has the region become more or less stable since America began intervening in the Mideast in 1991?
13. Has the threat from the region increased or decreased since 1991?
14. Is the current situation the result of the current president’s inaction, or rather, the result of entirely too much action over the past few decades?
Frankly, the result of American intervention in the Mideast seems to have accomplished little. Yes, Kuwait was liberated, and Saddam Hussein hung but at what cost? So far, it’s been 23 years of more or less constant presence in the Mideast, during which the region has become less stable, not more. It seems that the answer to dealing with the results of our intervention in the Mideast has become more intervention.
It’s all beginning to remind me of the War on Drugs. “If only we increase prison sentences, we’ll reduce drug use.” “If only we seize assets, we’ll cripple the drug lords.” “If only we make it hard to deposit more than $10,000 in cash, we’ll shut down money laundering.” Meanwhile, we’re going through more cocaine than Hunter Thompson in Vegas, cops are using SWAT teams to serve no-knock warrants, and people’s legal cash is being seized.
Sure, I’d love to stomp ISIS flat, with a big ol’ American boot on their neck, as they gasp their last breath, while watching us kill their pet goat. I’m not really sure that’s the best answer, anymore, though.
That’s what our intel guys are saying:
U.S. government officials, citing new intelligence, said Iran has developed plans to disrupt international oil trade, including through attacks on oil platforms and tankers.
Officials said the information suggests that Iran could take action against facilities both inside and outside the Persian Gulf, even absent an overt military conflict.
The findings come as American officials closely watch Iran for its reaction to punishing international sanctions and to a drumbeat of Israeli threats to bomb Tehran’s nuclear sites, while talks aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons have slowed.
Now, of course, “developing plans” and actually executing them are entirely different things. But, as irrational as Iran can be sometimes, the development of such plans has to be taken seriously.
If you’ve been paying attention over the past few months, we’ve been creeping any number of assets closer to Iran. So obviously we believe where there is smoke we may see fire.
"Iran is very unpredictable," said a senior defense official. "We have been very clear what we as well as the international community find unacceptable."
The latest findings underscore why many military officials continue to focus on Iran as potentially the most serious U.S. national-security concern in the region, even as the crisis in Syria has deepened and other conflicts, as in Libya, have raged.
Defense officials cautioned there is no evidence that Tehran has moved assets in position to disrupt tankers or attack other sites, but stressed that Iran’s intent appears clear.
Iran has a number of proxies, as we all know, none of whom have much use for the US or the rest of the Western world. What would possibly cause Iran to attempt to strike at outside targets? The belief that they could get away with it:
But U.S. officials said some Iranians believe they could escape a direct counterattack by striking at other oil facilities, including those outside the Persian Gulf, perhaps by using its elite forces or external proxies.
I’m not sure how one thinks they can escape retribution by such tactics, but it is enough to believe you can. And apparently there are some in Iran who do. That’s dangerous, depending on where they sit in the decision making hierarchy.
The officials wouldn’t describe the intelligence or its sources, but analysts said statements in the Iranian press and by lawmakers in Tehran suggest the possibility of more-aggressive action in the Persian Gulf as a response to the new sanctions. Iranian oil sales have dropped and prices have remained low, pinching the government.
So, we wait. And creep more assets into the area. And wait.
As an aside to all the arm-chair defense experts who claim we shouldn’t be developing advanced weaponry because all our future wars are likely to be “just like Afghanistan”.
Iran is supposedly being sternly warned that attempting to close the Straits of Hormuz will not be tolerated. The Iranians have put forward a bill in their Parliament which would require warships from any nation desiring to transit the Straits to get the permission of Iran first.
Of course, the Straits are considered by the rest of the world as “international waters” while the premise of the Iranians is they’re national waters subject to the control of Iran.
Most experts believe that this has been precipitated by sanctions imposed on Iran by much of the world, but especially the Western powers. Closing the Straits of Hormuz would be viewed by most of them as an act of war.
So, per the New York Times, a secret channel has been opened with Iran’s top leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in which he has been informed the US would consider any such attempt to close the Straits as “a red line” that would provoke a response.
DoD has made the position publically official:
Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said this past weekend that the United States would “take action and reopen the strait,” which could be accomplished only by military means, including minesweepers, warship escorts and potentially airstrikes. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told troops in Texas on Thursday that the United States would not tolerate Iran’s closing of the strait.
So the line is drawn. The hand is closed into a fist with a warning. Bluff or promise? Will Iran test it to see?
Here’s why some think they won’t:
Blocking the route for the vast majority of Iran’s petroleum exports — and for its food and consumer imports — would amount to economic suicide.
“They would basically be taking a vow of poverty with themselves,” said Dennis B. Ross, who until last month was one of President Obama’s most influential advisers on Iran. “I don’t think they’re in such a mood of self sacrifice.”
Of course fanatics often don’t think or reason in rational terms, but Ross has a point.
Meanwhile, as the sanctions continue to bite, Iran’s president is finishing up a South American swing to shore up support (and resources one supposes) for his regime from the usual suspects – Chavez, Ortega and their band of merry socialists. China is also a player in all of this, although not a particularly enthusiastic one. Iran exports 450,000 barrels a day of oil, which is now not being bought by Europe or the US. So it sees an opportunity here to up its share of that total. John Foley thinks China will fudge on sanctions, at least partially. That, of course, could extend the drama.
And while all of this is going on, Iranian nuclear scientists are blowing up pointing to some sort of effort by some nation(s) or group to slow and frustrate what everyone believes is Iran’s push for nuclear weapons. That, by the way, may be part of the discussions in South America if you get my drift.
Don’t know if you noticed recently, but the Doomsday Clock has added a minute, the first since 2007 when it subtracted one. We’re no 4 figurative minutes from “Armageddon”. Iran certainly figures in the move.
So far, the “reset” is going just swimmingly, isn’t it?
While the hype and nonsense that usually accompanies primaries continues here, something to keep an eye on is happening a half a world away:
Iran will take action if a U.S. aircraft carrier which left the area because of Iranian naval exercises returns to the Gulf, the state news agency quoted army chief Ataollah Salehi as saying on Tuesday.
"Iran will not repeat its warning … the enemy’s carrier has been moved to the Sea of Oman because of our drill. I recommend and emphasise to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf," Salehi told IRNA.
"I advise, recommend and warn them (the Americans) over the return of this carrier to the Persian Gulf because we are not in the habit of warning more than once," the semi-official Fars news agency quoted Salehi as saying.
Salehi did not name the aircraft carrier or give details of the action Iran might take if it returned.
Iran completed 10 days of naval exercises in the Gulf on Monday, and said during the drills that if foreign powers imposed sanctions on its crude exports it could shut the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40 percent of the world’s traded oil is shipped.
Iran is feeling froggy and is issuing a very thinly veiled threat. In every way, shape and form, any attempt to attack a returning carrier (or close the Straits of Hormuz, something they deny they intend) will be considered an act of war.
And they’re not really being particularly nebulous or coy about this either.
In the world of international power politics, this calls for a response by the threatened side.
This is akin to that 3am call for Obama.
Fold or call their bluff ?
Which will it be?
The 9 year long war in Iraq is officially over. Frankly, I’m fine with that. I think the one lesson we need to have learned from both Iraq and Afghanistan is the meaning of punitive raid or punitive action. If a country attacks us or otherwise deserves to see the “blunt instrument” of national policy used, we need to go in and do what is necessary, then leave.
For whatever reason, we’ve chosen nation building as an end state instead. And while I certainly understand the theory (and the examples where it has worked … such as Japan, West Germany, etc.), it shouldn’t be something we do on a routine basis.
There were certainly valid reasons to do what we did in both Afghanistan and Iraq. And while I supported both actions, the decision to try to build a democracy in both countries has been expensive in both blood and treasure and I’d deem it somewhat successful in Iraq (we’ll see if they can keep it) and at best marginally successful in Afghanistan (where I fully expect the effort to collapse when we withdraw).
So I’m fine with folding the flag and leaving Iraq. And before the Obamabots try to claim it was their man who finally made it happen, Google it. This is the Bush plan, negotiated before he left office and simply executed by this administration. That said, Obama will shamelessly try to take credit for it while also trying to erase the memory of voting not to fund the war while troops were engaged in combat.
It is going to be interesting to see how Iraq turns out. It is an extraordinarily volatile country sitting right next to two countries waging religious war against each other by proxy. Saudi Arabia and Iran are deadly enemies and with the end of the US presence there, I think Iraq will end up being their battleground.
Within a few months I think there will be concerted campaigns of violence aimed at toppling the current government and installing some flavor of Islamist regime there. I hope I’m wrong.
But again, bottom line – I’m happy to see this chapter draw to a close and that we’re getting our troops out of Iraq. It’s time. And to them all, a huge “well done” and “welcome home”.
It appears Iran hatched a plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the US. Fausta has as good a run down on the plot as anyone. Unsurprisingly it involved a Mexican drug cartel and the southern border to the US.
You know, the border the left keeps telling us just isn’t a problem, shouldn’t be a priority, we’re secure enough, etc.
Funny how our enemies seem to be drawn to what they perceive as a weak point like a moth to a flame. And they know who to contact to get what they need or want done to move a plot into the US.
Yes, we lucked out this time – the plotter contacted a confidential informant associated with a drug cartel. The rest follows the expected course and we finally arrested the plotter when he showed up in the US.
But you have to wonder how many of these plots are still undetected and working within the same sorts of organizations in Mexico or other South or Central American drug cartels.
This should be setting off warning sirens all over the place within our law enforcement and intelligence community. And most likely it is. But it should also finally make a point to those who want to waive off border security. It isn’t just about illegal immigration.
It’s about national security as well. And it is high time we started understanding that and making border security there a much higher priority than it is.