My apologies.  I've changed the address.  Although if anyone notices, I'll be shocked.

http://mgraves.townhall.com/ formerly crows.townhall.com/

 Diplomacy requires a minimum of two rational actors. These rational actors will conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether or not to accept the proffered deal. The key is for each party to be able to increase the costs to the opposition at a rate disproportionate to the decrease in benefits to themselves. As it has been said, a good compromise leaves everyone unhappy. This is a situation in which each party was unable to increase the costs to the opposition party in a manner disproportionate to the decrease in benefit to themselves.

In the case of Iran, we have a rational actor. Iran is behaving in a manner to maximize the benefits to itself, while limiting the costs to itself. At the moment, Iran perceives no cost to pursuing nuclear weapons. In order for diplomacy with Iran to work, Iran must begin to perceive the costs of pursuing nuclear weapons to outweigh the benefits to be derived from nuclear weapons.

Let us look at the benefits Iran would realize if it were to achieve the status of nuclear weapons. The first benefit is that of the status of being a nuclear power. Iran would cement itself as a Mid-East power. Iran would also be able to seek supremacy as the holder of the Islamic bomb. Pakistan is far too co-operative with the US in the GWOT to be the rightful holder of the Islamic bomb. Iran could seize the mantle of the Islamic world. Iran already holds the status of the first nation to undergo an Islamic revolution (ignoring the influence of the Soviets and indigenous communists in the overthrow of the Shah). Now Iran would have the bomb as well. The Islamic bomb would also serve to protect the regime by providing a source of nationalist pride in a nation that is not ethnically homogeneous.

Secondly, Iran could use the nuclear energy used to produce the nuclear material to power the country. Iran needs to maximize its infrastructure in order to take advantage of the increased energy production. If it were to be able to modernize infrastructure, it would do wonders for Iran’s economy, which could, in turn, settle down the unemployed youth. This would strengthen the regime and extend its life many years.

Iran could also produce more income by exporting more oil and natural gas, by switching to nuclear energy to provide electricity. Iran could also produce more income by exporting nuclear technology and possibly nuclear weapons. Chavez would probably appreciate the ability to “deter” the imperialist US.

Lastly, nuclear weapons would act as a force multiplier. Even if Iran is unable to modernize its infrastructure and rescue its economy by providing jobs to the unemployed youth, Iran would be able to project power disproportionate to its status. Iran could provide the bombs to “non-state” actors (read: Iranian sponsored terrorist organizations) to threaten or harm Iran’s enemies. Iran could also use its ballistic missile capability to extort nearby nations.

What are the costs that Iran perceives, at present? The US already does no business with Iran and no other country is economically secure enough to be able to reject trade with any nation that is willing to trade with it. Further, Iran’s oil is necessary to the world oil market. China will buy Iran’s oil regardless; as will Russia. Therefore, there is no economic cost to Iran to pursue nuclear weapons.

The US is engaged, militarily, in Afghanistan and Iraq and the US political establishment is unwilling to muster the courage to pursue US interests abroad. Australia and the UK have similar difficulties. No other nation, aside from Israel, has the capabilities to confront Iran.

A bombing campaign is not guaranteed to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability and is likely to have further negative consequences. Iran’s pro-American youth would turn against the US, more likely than not. Nearby regimes would be agitated in such a manner that the US could no longer count on their limiting their support for anti-West terrorists; these regimes would likely go all-out in supporting anti-West terrorists. Iran’s nuclear capability likely would not be destroyed and American interests in the region would be damaged badly (and Kofi Annan would whine, which is just so annoying). In the end, Iran’s mullah regime would be strengthened and Iran would still have its nuclear program.

In the end, there are two ways to confront Iran: diplomatically, by mustering the political will to invade Iran, if necessary, and to prepare for such an occasion; or secondly, by fermenting internal regime change, by supplying and supporting internal dissident groups in Iran. Time is running out on both of these options. When time runs out, we will be left with the options of invading a nuclear power or accepting an irresponsible nuclear power.

If I may quote Michael Ledeen: “Faster, please.”

See also Stanley Kurtz on nuclear proliferation.

UPDATE: NRO editorial Stopping the bomb

Right-wing nationalist tide threatens Japan

Japan is not in a nice neighborhood. China is an imperialist dictatorship, having gobbled up Nepal, and Tibet, launched two wars against Viet Nam, and the PRC is constantly threatening Taiwan.

NKorea is a brutal dictatorship. NKorea makes a nasty habit of kidnapping Japanese citizens. NKorea is a state sponsor of terrorism. NKorea is involved in the sale of nuclear and ballistic technology to rogue regimes. NKorea is test launching ballistic missiles.

Russia is an enigma. Democracy is being rolled back, or it would be, if Russia had made anything more than cosmetic advances to democracy after the fall of communism. Russia supported Saddam and is supporting Iran. Russia is blocking action on NKorea and Iran.

And further, as the article states, Japan has pre-existing territorial disputes with each of the three name countries.

The article cites six disturbing trends providing evidence of the growing right-wing tide of nationalism spreading over the nation:

¦ Foreigners [are] being targeted by police in anti-crime crackdowns.

¦ [p]opular new books with anti-Chinese and anti-Korean themes.

¦ Claims by journalists and scholars who criticise political and social trends that they are being intimidated and censored.

¦ A strong push to delete the pacifist clause from the constitution and elevate the status of the defence agency to a fully fledged ministry.

¦ Changes to education with a syllabus that instils [sic] in students "an attitude that respects tradition and culture, and love of the nation and homeland".

¦ School teachers ordered to sing the national anthem and stand for the flag or be suspended and have their pay cut.

Taking each of these one at a time, the first seems to be a bit alarmist. Perhaps more discussion of the trend is needed, but it seems to me that this may be no more than Japan’s police responding to a trend in crime. Even if foreigners are not becoming more involved in crime in Japan, there may be an appearance that they are which may lead to a crackdown. Causality is difficult to determine. Did perception guide the crackdown, or did the crackdown guide the perception?

More information concerning the first trend needs to be discussed.

The second trend sounds like nothing more than a degrading of the popular culture. It may be indicative of scapegoating, but considering Japan’s economic success and demographics this seems unlikely. Japan is a representative democracy, with a stable economy, that has little need to force disagreement outward to protect the regime. I’ll admit I haven’t studied Japan’s situation very well, but the absence of bad economic news tends to support my conclusion. Japan is undergoing a shift to more American-style employment, with less job security, but if this is the case, the scapegoating should be directed to the United States. Perhaps it is easier to shift the blame to an old adversary, rather than to a young country, such as the US. In light of the anti-Americanism in the world today, however, it would seem to be more likely that any scapegoating would be directed at the US.

The third trend is entirely subjective. The Dixie Chicks claimed they were being censored and intimidated, when, in fact, the market was sick of them at the time. I have a difficult time believing any accusations of censorship in a free society. Perhaps I’ve been desensitized by claims of victimization in the US. In which case, the only people being harmed by frivolous claims of censorship and intimidation are those who may actually be the victims of censorship (they can thank Al Gore).

The fourth trend is something that the US should support. Japan is a free society and a responsible democracy. Japan is a world power and should not be bound by the restrictions placed on her, militarily, 60 years ago after Japan’s militarism of WWII. Japan has shown itself to be responsible and, considering its neighborhood should increase is military capability.

The fifth trend is laughable if it is really considered to be negative. Japanese schoolchildren can be taught that Japan is a great country, worth of respect because it is true. If flaws of Japan’s history are papered over, yes that is negative. Japan would be emulating Saudi Arabia and the Mid-East dictatorships. All entities (with the exception of the Almighty) are a mixture of good and ill, but it is only when the ill outweighs the good that we need to be worried. Japan’s good outweighs its ill and its schoolchildren should be taught that.

The sixth trend is odd. Aren’t Japanese schoolteachers government employees? Shouldn’t they, then, be required to show respect to their employer? Would a private sector Japanese employer be permitted to show disrespect to his/her employer? I doubt it.

In sum, the trends are either in need of fleshing out, or are alarmist. The fifth trend is the only one that has the potential to be more negative than positive (disregarding the coarsening of Japanese culture reflected in the second trend, which is, of course, negative, but not dangerous, in a responsible democracy).

Japan does have experience with terrorism, being the first nation to suffer a chemical attack from a non-state actor. Japan is well able to look after itself. Japan has shown itself to be responsible, on the world stage, for 60 years. Japan gets far more rope than if these were trends in a nation that did not have a track record of responsibility. (Granted some of these trends would demonstrate improvements in most Mid-East dictatorships, such as censorship and intimidation, rather than imprisonment and decapitation).

Chavez has shown us the way to victory in Iraq. Cut off diplomatic relations with the only stable democracy in the Middle East.

Brilliance!

Or not. But this glowing portrayal of Chavez says something rather disgusting about the political situation in the Middle East. A buffoon is held in high esteem because he cuts off relations with a stable democracy and attacks the US as an imperialist threat to the world.

Venezuela is an oil producing nation experiencing many of the same social ills as are the dictatorships of the Middle East. Venezuela has an unstable political situation and suffers from a stagnant economy reliant on one product. Venezuela has problems with terrorism. Venezuela has an unbalanced demographic situation, with no employment for far too many of its young people. Venezuela makes arms purchases, it cannot afford, more to protect the regime than to defend against external threats. Venezuela’s regime requires a scapegoat to distract the populations from the myriad problems at home.

The scapegoat of the Chavez regime is US imperialism. Chavez makes deals with some of the most odious regimes of the world, which is appropriate considering the Chavez regime is among the most odious. Chavez aims to bolster the Axis of Evil with his presence (see Chavez and the East and Axis of Evil, part II).

There is just something wrong with that statement. Restore implies that there is some basic stability to restore to. Perhaps the UN intends to install brutal dictators to re-establish the stability that Saddam supplied. Anti-warriors are always reminding us that Saddam was a “stabilizing” force in the region. Maybe that is the model the UN will shoot for.

Of course, identifying the state of affairs under Saddam as “stability” ignores: the demographic time bomb; the economic basket-case that Iraq was; the past history of aggression of Saddam; and the inevitable breakdown of the sanctions regime that guaranteed “stability” (and starved the Iraqi people to death).  Saddam's Iraq was a timebomb sitting on the powder keg that is the Mid-East.

Secondly, hasn’t the UN been trying to establish stability in the region since the inception of the UN, beginning with the establishment of Israel? Hasn’t the UN been deployed in Lebanon for two decades, doing nothing about the Syrian military and intelligence presence or the existence of Hezb’Allah? What has the UN been doing for the last two decades?

Unity government in Palestine

Imagine that: two terrorist bodies have managed to put aside their differences (HAMAS is a religious party and Fatah is a secular party) and unite behind a common goal. Granted, their common goal is the destruction of Israel; they just disagree with tactics. Fatah has adopted the “phased plan” which calls for the establishment of a Palestinian State on the occupied territories from which to launch attacks to destroy Israel (PLO Charter and Phased Plan). HAMAS has thus far shown itself to be unwilling to accept any intermediate stages in the destruction of Israel (HAMAS Charter).

This just goes to show that a secular entity would never co-operate with a religious entity. Oh, wait; it doesn’t show that, does it?

Iran chief beneficiary of War on Terror

Let us look at the evidence.

Iran has been more assertive regionally. Iran has been deploying terrorists to Iraq and Lebanon. Iran has hosted Al Qaida leadership. Iran has provided arms to terrorists in the Palestinian territories.

Meanwhile, back in Iran, the mullahs have brazenly continued their nuclear program. The mullahs have elected one of the former hostage takers at the US Embassy as their president (and don’t blame this one on the people; they stayed home in droves). The mullahs have continued to jail and torture dissidents and crack down on any signs of unrest.

Sure looks like a victory for the black hats.

The problem here is establishing causality. Has Iran grown more defiant as a result of the American War on Terror, or as a result of the feckless and uninspired way in which it has been waged? Coalition and Iraqi troops put their lives on the line daily in Iraq, but nothing is done to stop the flood of materiel and personnel from Iran and Syria. The same goes for Afghanistan. Musharraf doesn’t control Pakistan any more than I do (well, maybe I exaggerate). Taliban remnants take refuge in the NorthWest Frontier Province or in Iran. NATO troops take over for US troops. Too bad their leadership, in attempting to limit their exposure to danger, makes them more vulnerable, and in many cases, irrelevant.

Is Iran more bellicose than it was 5 years ago? Yes. Is this related to the destruction of two surrounding regimes? More likely than not. Of course, those regimes were hardly stable. The Taliban was fighting a civil war. Saddam controlled only one-third of his country and he was providing zero resources for infrastructure maintenance, which was driving his country to explosion. Saddam had twice launched wars of aggression; the direction Iraq was heading, he’d have had to launch another one to stay in power. Iraq was already in low-level warfare with the US and UK and the Kurdish Peshmerga.

Does this mean that the War on Terror has strengthened Iran? I’d say that Iran’s emerging bellicosity was merely accelerated by the War on Terror. Iran was going to become more bellicose: it almost had to. Iran has an unstable, youthful population upset with the status quo. Labor strife is rampant. Disillusionment with the regime is widespread.

In order to maintain power, a dictatorial regime needs a scapegoat, a target outside the borders of the country. If the disillusioned population starts focusing their anger inward, the regime is forced to respond as the Soviets did in 1956. If the West had been resolved to respond to the evil of the Soviet empire then, the world might have been spared another 35 years of Soviet murder and oppression.

By fermenting Iran’s rise early, the War on Terror has made Iran stick its neck out before it needed to. If the West can be resolved that a nuclear Iran is “unacceptable” perhaps the danger can be thwarted before it fully gathers.

And that is the point of pre-emption, is it not?

How about that, Wigg starts with Stockholm Syndrome.

Wiig would understand captors.  See especially:

"He is a person who would understand them and would want then to tell their story to the world. He is a man who understands the struggle for justice, and that peace depends upon justice," Wiig told local media.
Olaf Wiig objected to Israeli action in the Palestinian territories and probably understood the desperation of his unknown captors, Wiig said shortly after the August 14 abduction.
"He's the kind of person who understands the need for justice and would understand the kind of fear and trauma they're going through," he said.

I'm fairly certain the cause of HAMAS has nothing to do with justice. I'm rather sure that the cause of HAMAS has nothing to do with peace. I may be wrong, but you can read for yourself: HAMAS Charter.

I’d like to highlight Article 13:

Article Thirteen: Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences
[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: “Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware.” From time to time a clamoring is voiced, to hold an International Conference in search for a solution to the problem. Some accept the idea, others reject it, for one reason or another, demanding the implementation of this or that condition, as a prerequisite for agreeing to convene the Conference or for participating in it. But the Islamic Resistance Movement, which is aware of the [prospective] parties to this conference, and of their past and present positions towards the problems of the Muslims, does not believe that those conferences are capable of responding to demands, or of restoring rights or doing justice to the oppressed. Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the nonbelievers as arbitrators in the lands of Islam. Since when did the Unbelievers do justice to the Believers? “And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed. Say: Lo! the guidance of Allah [himself] is the Guidance. And if you should follow their desires after the knowledge which has come unto thee, then you would have from Allah no protecting friend nor helper.” Sura 2 (the Cow), verse 120 There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain game. As the hadith has it: “The people of Syria are Allah’s whip on this land; He takes revenge by their intermediary from whoever he wished among his worshipers. The Hypocrites among them are forbidden from vanquishing the true believers, and they will die in anxiety and sorrow.” (Told by Tabarani, who is traceable in ascending order of traditionaries to Muhammad, and by Ahmed whose chain of transmission is incomplete. But it is bound to be a true hadith, for both story tellers are reliable. Allah knows best.) Emphasis mine.

Peaceful solutions are contrary to the beliefs of HAMAS. Acknowledging the existence of Israel means renouncing part of the religion of HAMAS. Nationalism is part of the faith of HAMAS. There is no solution to the Palestinian problem but Jihad. Articles 15 and 16 explain what Jihad is; and guess what, it’s not an inner struggle, according to HAMAS.

And by the way, Article 27: “The PLO is among the closest to the Hamas, for it constitutes a father, a brother, a relative, a friend.”

Article 31 explains the HAMAS version of peace: Christians and Jews submit to the yoke of Dhimmitude.

 Disarming Hezb'Allah put on hold

Haven't there been multiple UN Security Council resolutions demanding that Hezb'Allah disarm?  Why is Israel forced to ask the UN to assist the halting of rearming Hezb'Allah? 

Is it because the UN is a collection of dictatorships, many of whom seek the destruction of Israel?  Or is it because the UN is impotent and useless?  I'm thinking it's a combination of the two.  Any other possibilities?

French troops arrive in Lebanon

Now, there's a headline to make grown men cry and terrorists cower in fear. 

Or not.

In 1947, the UN partitioned the region of Palestine, dividing it into predominantly Arab and predominately Jewish areas, roughly 45-55.  The result was a patchwork of areas more closely resembling a checkerboard than two traditional nation-states.

The Jewish population accepted the compromise.  The Arab population did not.  The Arab world declared war on the newly founded state of Israel.  Jordan seized the West Bank and Egypt seized the Gaza Strip, but at the end, Israel existed.  Israel was a sliver of a nation running some 200 miles north-south and as little as 9 miles deep from the Mediterranean Sea to the border of Jordan.

Jordan and Egypt have since surrendered claims to Gaza and the West Bank.

Why, then, is Israel expected to withdraw to pre-1967 borders, when they seized the West Bank and Gaza, in a defensive war? 

The West Bank and Gaza did not belong to the Palestinians.  They belonged to nations that have surrendered claims to that land. 

 Iran falls short, says US

At what point does the language of diplomacy give way to the language of national interest.  I believe the administration has previously referred to Iran's obtaining nuclear weapons as "unacceptable".  Iran's response, which is a categorical rejection of the UN Security Council resolution, is now described as "falling short".

I understand the Anglo-Saxon predilection for understatement, but isn't this pushing that a bit far?  There is nothing "unacceptable" about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.  It is completely out of the question.  It cannot happen.  It cannot be allowed to happen.  If it should happen, the person who let it happen ought to go in the same trash can as "Jimma" Carter, irrespective of whatever good he had achieved up to that point.

In the same way, Iran did not fall short.  They didn't even get into the batter's box.  They didn't step onto the pitch.  They didn't leave the locker room.  They didn't even bother to show up at the stadium. 

They essentially said, "we like the incentives and we'd like to have them, but we're not giving up our nuclear program; so, why don't you give us the incentives and we'll think about talking about the nuclear program we have no intention of giving up". 

There is no basis for further negotiation.  Iran has demonstrated the fact that they will not cease pursuing their nuclear program.  The West has two options: allow Iran to pursue its nuclear program essentially unhindered; or stop Iran's nuclear development.  If Iran's nuclear development is truly "unacceptable", the choice is clear.  Iran must be stopped.  The only question now, is how to do so.

I can't imagine it's difficult to be generous when one uses counterfeit money.  It only makes sense: Iran is one of the leading counterfeiters of US currency.  Why wouldn't they provide the funny money to Hezb'Allah?

And Hezb'Allah gets the best of both worlds: great press and weakening the currency of the Great Satan.  Talk about win-win.  See A sudden lack of context  (A thank you to Snapped Shot and Michelle Malkin).

I can't resist the parallel: it's awfully easy for the government to be generous with other people's money.  In either case, the money is somebody else's and one gets the opportunity to fulfill a moral obligation.  With money that is essentially stolen.  Gov't is not a charity

But I digress.  Anybody wonder if Hezb'Allah will be called to account for attacking the currency of the US?  Or will the US give Hezb'Allah a pass like Iran was given a pass for invading soveriegn US territory? 

We cannot have the return of Carter-style foreign policy.  The sight of that ingrate cuddling up to Chavez and Castro and Arafat is enough to make my stomach turn.  All we need do is remember 1994 and the Carter-brokered NKorea deal to see the results of Carter-style foreign policy.

Scrolling through the various articles on English Al-Jazeera, I'm gathering that Iran has elected to continue its nuclear activities.  Iran states that the UN resolution is illegal, and that nations that attempt to impose sanctions will be harmed.

Luckily, Iran has proposed a new formula, which is not discussed.  I'm guessing the purpose of the new formula is to buy time.  Iran is counting on the fecklessness of the EU-3 and the sudden impotence of the US, to combine with the obstruction of Russia and China.  All in all, not a good combination.  Unless, one has no interest in justice, or a just peace. 

I think it's safe to say that I was partially correct.  Iran has treated the last several years as though they hadn't happened and refused to halt nuclear activities.  Iran claims their actions are permitted under the NPT and thank goodness we've got the IAEA to verify that for us:

"The IAEA regularly inspects Iran's nuclear facilities and has said there was no evidence proving that Iran's nuclear programme has diverted towards weapons."

Is anyone under the impression that the IAEA has access to all of Iran's nuclear sites?

Didn't think so.  The IAEA relies on co-operation.  Witness India (never signed the NPT): the IAEA was never able to access its nuclear sites.  Iran is no more giving the IAEA unfettered access to all of Iran's nuclear sites than was Saddam giving the weapons inspectors unfettered access to his weapons sites.  Therefore, the IAEA's pronouncements are absolutely useless.