Nicholas Burns Discusses U.S. Strategy Toward Iran


Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns

Excerpts from Address Regarding Iran

June 4, 2007

Unlike some countries that hope Iran will not become a nuclear weapons power, our policy is that Iran shall not become a nuclear weapons power.

And so that means that we have to marshal a wide array of options to prevent that from happening.  We've tried to provide for multiple points of pressure against the Iranians to drive up the cost to them of their nuclear ambitions and to force them to the negotiating table.

First and foremost, we have passed two Security Council sanctions resolutions against Iran.

Secondly, we've tried to make those sanctions as strong as they can be. I think we're heading toward a third Security Council resolution at the end of this month or early in July, because I don't think that Iran is going to agree to suspend its enrichment program, which is what we've demanded that Iran do.  And if Iran cannot make that commitment in the next couple of weeks, we will sponsor a third Security Council resolution.

The International Community Has Sanctioned Iran

What we've tried to do in these resolutions is to say that those people that work in Iran's nuclear industry should not study in our universities, and they should not be free to travel anywhere in the world.  That's a voluntary ban right now on travel; we want to make it mandatory. 

There is a ban in the last Security Council resolution on Iran's ability to export arms-to anyone.  We think they're violating that, because they've been exporting arms, unfortunately, to the Taliban in Afghanistan as they export arms to Hizballah and to Shia militant groups operating inside Iraq.  

We've gone after the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.  This is the body, the organ of the Iranian state that is responsible for not just most of the nuclear weapons apparatus and the ballistic missile programs, but also the support to terrorist groups.  And we've now made them an object of international sanctions, and we'd like to expand that in the next Security Council resolution.

The United States is Working Inside and Outside the U.N. to Contain Iran

So doing as much as we can through the Security Council is going to be important.  But frankly, I think we've got to do more than that.  I think we have to go outside the Security Council as well.  Whatever we choose to do in the Security Council will be important, but if we can ask Europe and Japan and South Korea and the Gulf states to take even stronger measures on their own, that might be truly effective in signaling to the Iranians it's not business as usual. 

The Europeans had $22 billion in export credits made available to their own companies last year and the year before to stimulate trade with Iran.  And we've said to the Europeans, isn't this a little bit contradictory?  We don't support what the Iranians are doing on the nuclear side or the terrorism front, so there shouldn't be a business-as-usual, commercial attitude on the part of Europeans and the European Union with Iran.  We'd like to see those export credits not just reduced, but completely eliminated. 

Now in addition to those formal, state-to-state sanctions, Secretary [of the Treasury Henry] Paulson and we have been working to try to convince European and Asian financial institutions that they ought to restrict lines of credit and lending with the Iranian government.  We've had some success.  I don't want to exaggerate this-there's still too much money going into Iran.  But we've seen now investment channels begin to be constricted. 

And we've pointed out to some of the European banking institutions, in particular, what they might not have known, and that is that the Iranians tend to use legitimate financial institutions to launder their money to terrorist groups.  And we know that they've been doing that with Hamas and Hizballah.  And so you've begun to see some European banks shut down those opportunities. 

America Is Committed to Preserving Peace in the Persian Gulf

We've also decided that in the [Persian] Gulf itself, we wanted to demonstrate to the Iranians that that's not an Iranian lake.  And so you've seen us for the first time since the first Gulf War in 1991 deploy two carrier battle groups to the Gulf over the last month or so.  And that American naval presence, we say, is not new, and it's certainly not meant to be provocative.  We are the principal guarantor of security and peace and stability in that part of the world, and we intend to exercise it. 

We believe in encompassing 360 degrees in points of pressure on the Iranians to let them know there's a price for their behavior. 

The object of this is not just to be punitive, just for the sake of being punitive.  It's to say to the Iranians, you may think that you're doing what is in your interest, but there's going to be an increasingly high price to you for these actions.

Source: AIPAC

۱۳۸٦/٤/٢٩ - سيد کريم


Iran uses activists for propaganda

(Christian Science Monitor - By Scott Peterson – 20 July, 2007)

۱۳۸٦/٤/٢٩ - سيد کريم

   ترکیه ممکن است عملیات نظامی علیه کردهای جدایی طلب را به زودی آغاز کند   

"رجب طیب اردوغان" نخست وزیر ترکیه اعلام کرد که این کشور احتمالا عملیات نظامی را در شمال عراق علیه جنگجویان جدایی طلب حزب کارگر کردستان "پ ک ک" بعد از انتخابات مجلس روز یکشنبه 22 جولای آغاز کند.

روز جمعه شبکه تلویزیونی NTV به نقل از اردوغان گزارش داد: "مسئله انجام عملیات فرامرزی ممکن است در دستور کار بعد از انتخابات قرار گیرد. آنچه که باید، انجام خواهد شد".

وی خاطر نشان ساخت: "اگر شما (آمریکا و عراق) به تعهدات خویش در خصوص مقابله با "پ ک ک" عمل نکنید ما اینکار را انجام خواهیم داد".

به گفته اردوغان بعد از انتخابات قرار است با "نوری المالکی" نخست وزیر عراق  مسائل مقابله با کردهای جدایی طلب را بررسی کند.

وی گفت: "بعد از انتخابات نخست وزیر عراق به ترکیه سفر خواهد کرد و مذاکرات را با ایشان در زمینه مکانیزم همکاری میان سه کشور انجام می دهیم. اگر نتایج رضایت بخشی را دریافت نکنیم همراه با سازمان های ذیربط ارزیابی اوضاع را انجام داده و تصمیمات لازم را اتخاذ خواهیم نمود".

وی چندی پیش در دیدار با خبرنگاران اعلام کرد: "عملیات نظامی در شمال عراق مثبت خواهد بود. البته "پ ک ک" را نمی توان با تهاجم به شمال عراق نابود کرد اما می توان به جدایی طلبان ضربات شدیدی وارد آورد".

آنکارا، 29 تیر، خبرگزاری «نووستی»

۱۳۸٦/٤/٢٩ - سيد کريم


Sensing history, &c.

By Jay Nordlinger

July 19, 2007 6:00 AM

Friends, I hope you’re plowing through your new NR, which is loaded with excellent stuff. (I know that’s not for me to say — I’m the managing editor. But a little boasting is not unheard of on the Net, as in life, right?) I hate to single out a few pieces, because to do so is to neglect others. But I think of the cover story, by Byron York, on the “Fairness Doctrine” (about which there ain’t much fair). And Theodore Dalrymple on the subject of terrorist doctors. And John O’Sullivan summing up Tony Blair. And much, much more.

(That “much, much more” includes wise and entertaining columns by Mark Steyn, Florence King, Rob Long, and Rick Brookhiser — a veritable murderers’ row.)

In last Thursday’s Impromptus, I wrote about the experience of seeing Michael Moore’s new movie, Sicko. And in the current issue, I have a piece rebutting Moore’s claims about Cuban health care. Those claims are outrageous, of course. One of the worst things about them is that some of the bravest and most persecuted people on the island are doctors: doctors who have rebelled against the Castro regime and its lies — lies that Michael Moore and his ilk perpetuate.

The myth of Cuban health care is an old one, of course, but it calls for our attention every now and then. There are essentially three systems in Cuba: one for foreigners, who pay in hard currency — and that system is excellent. One for Cuban elites, such as party officials, military brass, and state-approved artists — and that system is very good, too. Then there’s the system for everybody else: for ordinary Cubans. And that one is a nightmare, as I discuss in the NR piece.

In any case — read in good health (so to speak).

* One of the people I quote in the above-mentioned piece is Jaime Suchliki, director of the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami. He himself is a Cuban American — strange name for one, huh? Not Jaime González, but Jaime Suchliki. How’d he get that way? His father was a refugee from Soviet Communism. And he had to flee again — from Cuban Communism. Twice a refugee.

This reminded me of Otto Reich’s dad. (Otto is the erstwhile government official, now in the private sector.) Strange name for a Cuban American, huh? “Otto Juan Reich.” Otto’s dad, Walter, was a refugee from Nazism. And he was a refugee again — from Castro’s brand of totalitarianism.

Of course none of this has stopped some “liberals” from branding Otto a Nazi — never mind that much of his family perished in the Holocaust. That’s the way our lovely Left always functions, sad to say.

Otto Reich and Jaime Suchliki are two men who have dedicated much of their lives to opposing totalitarianism, in whatever guise — and to exposing the lies that such regimes need to tell.

* Jotting the above, I was reminded of something that Richard Pipes wrote, in his memoirs, Vixi. (Pipes is the great historian of Russia and all-around intellectual. He and his parents fled Nazi-occupied Poland when Pipes was 16.)

The main effect of the Holocaust on my psyche was to make me delight in every day of life that has been granted to me, for I was saved from certain death. I felt and feel to this day that I have been spared not to waste my life on self-indulgence or self-aggrandizement but to spread a moral message by showing, using examples from history, how evil ideas lead to evil consequences. Since scholars have written enough on the Holocaust, I thought it my mission to demonstrate this truth using the example of communism. Furthermore, I felt and feel that to defy Hitler, I have a duty to lead a full and happy life . . .

Pipes had this to add: “I admit to having little patience with the psychological problems of free people, especially if they involve a ‘search for identity’ or some other form of self-seeking.”

Amen, amen, and amen again.

* Ladies and gentlemen, you have probably heard of the Compean/Ramos case — the case of Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos. They are the Border Patrol agents convicted of mishandling — grossly mishandling — a drug smuggler named Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila. In some quarters, they are regarded as heroes, martyred for doing a thankless job. I think this view is badly misguided.

Rather than rehash the details of the case here and now, I refer you back to two excellent articles written by Andy McCarthy, and published on this website. They are here and here. They give you not only chapter and verse, but also the perspective necessary, I believe.

The prosecutor in the case was Johnny Sutton, U.S. attorney for West Texas. From all I know about him, he is a true-blue conservative, and legal straight arrow — just the sort of person we want in U.S.-attorney jobs. In a recent exchange with me, he said the following:

“This case is not about immigration, it is about the rule of law. My district led the nation in the number of drug cases prosecuted last year. We are second in the number of illegal-immigration cases (the Southern District of Texas does a little more). The point is, we slam dopers like Aldrete-Davila every day. . . .

“Border Patrol agents are our friends and co-workers. 99.9 percent of them are American heroes. But when BP agents commit crimes, prosecutors cannot look the other way. No prosecutor wants to prosecute a cop. But this is one of the reasons that America is so great: No one is above the law, including politicians, rich people, actors, athletes, and even cops.”

Folks, we conservatives have a number of causes célèbres. I don’t think we need another one — that is, we don’t need one that should not be a cause at all.

* May I make an obvious point? If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, there will be huge pressure on the electorate to “do the right thing” and elect our nation’s first black president. So too, if Hillary is the nominee, there will be pressure to elect a woman — though less than in the former case, I believe.

In her current Newsweek column, Anna Quindlen implores Hillary to make Obama her VP. (I doubt Obama is ready to declare himself the loser in the race for the top slot, however!) She writes, “. . . with the most recent poll results, you must have a sense of yourself as the front runner. [Quindlen is addressing Hillary directly.] Now it’s time to show that you have a sense of history, a sense that this election is bigger than just one woman’s ambitions. Make it your business to persuade Barack Obama to be your running mate.”

Exactly: That’s what the message of the major media will be, in ’08: Show that you have a sense of history. And if you happen to favor the Republican nominee — well, you have no sense of history, at a minimum.

Impromptus readers have heard me say the following a million times, I’m afraid: When Doug Wilder was the Democratic nominee for governor of Virginia, there was great pressure on the Virginia electorate to vote for Wilder, making him the first black governor since Reconstruction. If they failed to do that — they would wear a scarlet R, for Racist.

But in my home state of Michigan, there was an earlier black nominee for governor — Bill Lucas. He, not Wilder, would have been the first black governor since Reconstruction. But there was no suggestion anywhere that Michigan voters should “make history,” or else hang their heads in shame.

What was the difference? Well, Lucas was a Republican; and Wilder . . . not.

One more quick point — or rather, a story. I have a friend who serves on the faculty of a northeastern university. In the lunchroom (or wherever) recently, they were sitting around, talking about whom to support in 2008. It was simply assumed that the choice was: Hillary or Obama. Not even other Democrats were considered. And it never occurred to anyone that someone in the group might consider a Republican.

A woman said, “You know, I really think we should have a black president — that would be so great. It’s so important. But, as a woman, I have to think about Hillary, too.” I suggested to my friend that he should have said, “Why not go for Condi Rice, and have it both ways?” My friend said that, had he uttered such a quip, there would have been astonished silence — then, possibly, a lynching.

* Listen, if you will, to Hossein Sheikholeslam, a major Iranian official: “[The Americans], using their creation, al Qaeda, carried out the events of 9/11.” (You will find the wisdom of this man at MEMRI TV, here.) These words did not surprise me, because I have long known the Iranian position: George W. Bush committed 9/11, yes. But also, the U.S. put together al Qaeda.

At the 2005 Davos forum, I listened to Kamal Kharrazi, then Iran’s foreign minister. He said that the U.S. had created al Qaeda for the purpose of destroying the Iranian government. I wrote, “If that’s the case, then they’ve done a poor job of it.”

The other Iranian, Sheikholeslam, went on to say something very, very interesting — chillingly interesting:

Since the victory of the Islamic revolution [in Iran, 1979], the pressure exerted on Israel is so great that Israel, which was growing bigger and bigger in the past, is now growing smaller and smaller. It has withdrawn from Lebanon — from Beirut and from the occupied strip in South Lebanon, the security zone — and it has withdrawn from Gaza. Now it is building a wall, which, by the way, we oppose. What does this mean? It means that [Israel] plans to move behind this wall. All their theories of Arab and Zionist coexistence have collapsed. If the pressure continues — and Allah willing, it will — Israel will cease to exist. They will have to return to where they came from.

To where they came from. I see. Auschwitz?

* Was reminded of something the other day: Bill Clinton and his people invented the “permanent campaign.” They never stopped campaigning, even after they were elected (twice). They rejoiced in this phrase, and concept: “the permanent campaign.” The idea was to wage political war all the time. There was no real difference between governing and campaigning. You simply stayed on Republican throats, the entire time.

This is something that, for better or worse, George W. Bush and his people do not do — they do not permanently campaign. They campaigned in 2000 and again in 2004. After elections, they largely go about the business of government, including war-making. (Damn hard, too.) And they are getting killed, politically.

Just sayin’ . . .

* Noticed something rather interesting in an AP report — about our government’s use of drones in the Iraq War. The story is here. And the reporter said, “The arrival of these outsized U.S. ‘hunter-killer’ drones, in aviation history’s first robot attack squadron, will be a watershed moment even in an Iraq that has seen too many innovative ways to hunt and kill.”

Too many innovative ways to hunt and kill. Now, that may be true, and I don’t propose to argue about it here. But it’s an interesting thing to say in a wire-service report, rather than an opinion column, don’t you think?

* Did you catch Elizabeth Edwards’s interview in Salon? One of the questions asked why her husband supports civil unions, rather than full-blown gay marriage. Ms. Edwards answered, “Well, I think it’s a struggle for him, having grown up in a Southern Baptist church where it was pounded into him. . . .”

And that rang a bell. Did it ring one with you? It reminded me of the apology Dick Gephardt offered, when explaining to pro-choicers why he had once opposed abortion. I’ll let the New York Times tell the story (here). The time is January 2003:

“As some of you know, I was raised in a working-class family of Baptist faith, and I went to college on a church scholarship where early teachings were reinforced,” Mr. Gephardt said. “Abortion was wrong, I was taught. There was a moral reason it was illegal.”

He noted, to a few soft boos, that he had sponsored an amendment to ban abortion. “At that time, at the beginning of my journey in public service, I didn’t yet realize the full consequences of my positions and beliefs,” he continued to the hushed audience.

And so on. Makes me sick, I have to tell you.

* The Iraq War suffered a bit of a blow two days ago, when it lost the support of Ed Koch. New York’s ex-mayor began his column, “I’m bailing out.” (That column is here.) Koch has always been a staunch supporter of the War on Terror, including its Iraq component, and he has always been a staunch supporter of President Bush. (His line is that he doesn’t agree with Bush on domestic policy but values him as commander-in-chief.)

I respect Koch a great deal, but I believe he’s terribly wrong about the wisdom of a pullout. (Still, he’s far more realistic than most who favor such an action.) I quote John F. Burns, the New York Times war correspondent, who appeared on Charlie Rose Tuesday: “. . . there’s no doubt that the price of staying is very, very high, in American blood, to begin with, and American treasure, too. But it seems to me incontrovertible that the most likely outcome of an American withdrawal anytime soon would be cataclysmic violence.”

* Does it sometimes seem that there is no good news at all? Well, here’s a little, after a fashion:

President Mugabe of Zimbabwe has become the first international figure to be stripped of an honorary degree by a British university.

The Edinburgh University Senate decided at a special meeting yesterday to withdraw the degree it awarded to Mr Mugabe in 1984 for services to education in Africa. A letter will be written to him, asking that the degree be returned.

The rest of that article is here. It’s bad news that Mugabe is terrorizing and immiserating Zimbabwe. It’s good news that someone is awake to that fact.

* Lay a little music on you? The Kirov Opera of the Mariinsky Theater is now performing Wagner’s Ring at the Metropolitan Opera House. (The conductor is Valery Gergiev.) For reviews of the first two installments of that cycle — The Rhine Gold and The Valkyrie — go here.

How about some recordings? Reviewed in this piece are duos for violin and cello, performed by David Chan and Rafael Figueroa; and sonatas for violin and piano by Brahms, performed by Nikolaj Znaider and Yefim Bronfman. And reviewed in this piece are Sabine Meyer and Julian Bliss (who are clarinetists); Ian Bostridge (a tenor); and Osvaldo Golijov (a composer).

All of the above comes from the New York Sun.

* Guys, am miles and miles behind on my mail. Sorry about this sorry state of affairs.

* Finally, you think Tiger will do it in the British Open? You shouldn’t bet the ranch. But you shouldn’t bet the ranch against, either. In the last four majors, Tiger has gone 1, 1, tied for second, tied for second. I’m so unreasonable, I’m flummoxed every time Tiger doesn’t win. But he has conditioned such “unreasonableness.”

Source: National Review

۱۳۸٦/٤/٢٩ - سيد کريم


AIPAC panel lobbies on Iran

Published: 07/19/2007

Executive members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbied Congress to pass Iran sanctions bills.

About 100 members of AIPAC's executive committee meeting in Washington this week pushed bills that would tighten existing sanctions, as well as enable state and local governments to divest from Iran.

Committee members also urged lawmakers to back Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas now that he has exiled Hamas from his government and sought support for $2.4 billion in defense assistance to Israel.

They were armed with lists of senators and members of the U.S. House of Representatives who had yet to sponsor the Iran sanctions bills, as well as a recent House roll call on foreign aid. More than 160 Republicans voted against the foreign aid bill, which included the $2.4 billion for Israel, citing a desire to cut foreign aid in general.

Source: JTA

۱۳۸٦/٤/٢٩ - سيد کريم

   بیانیه رسمی وزارت خارجه اسرائیل به مناسبت سیزدهمین سال انفجار:   

جنایت سهمگین انفجار کانون همیاری، کار عوامل حکومت ایران بود  

18 ژوئیه 2007

امروز (چهارشنبه 18 ژوئیه 2007) مصادف با سالروز انفجار تروریستی کانون همیاری یهودیان در بوئنوس آیرس پایتخت آرژانتین است. 13 سال پیش در چنین روزی، ساعت 9 بامداد، صدای انفجاری سراسر شهر را لرزاند که در واقع دومین جنایت تروریستی در خاک آرژانتین و پایتخت آن علیه نهادهای اسرائیلی و یهودی بود. دو سال پیش از آن، با شیوه ای مشابه، ساختمان سفارت اسرائیل در بوئنوس آیرس منفجر شده بود.

در انفجار کانون همیاری (موسوم به آمیا)، نهادی که در آن دفاتر همه سازمانهای کمک و داوطلبی یهودی متمرکز شده بود، ساختمان به کلی فروریخت و 85 تن جان باختند و صدها نفر دیگر زخمی شدند.

رنج و اندوهی که در وجود ما غلیان می کند، هنگامی دو چندان می شود که می بینم هنوز عاملان و آمران این جنایت تروریستی و انفجاری که دو سال پیش از آن ساختمان سفارت اسرائیل را ویران کرد، به پای میز محاکمه کشانده نشده اند و عدالت در مورد آنان اجرا نشده است.

گرچه نام عاملان این جنایات ناشناس مانده، ولی نام آمران آنها ناآشنا نیست. زیرا پس از سالیان دراز بررسی و بازپرسی، قاضی بازپرس آرژانتینی امسال برای نخستین بار صریحا اعلام داشت که این جنایت توسط سران جمهوری اسلامی ایران طراحی گردید و تروریستهای جنایتکار نیز توسط همان رژیم به این ماموریت فرستاده شدند. دولت آرژانتین حتی با مراجعه به اینترپول (پلیس بین الملل) علیه چند تن از افراد مظنون (که همگی ماموران و مقامات جمهوری اسلامی ایران هستند) قرار توقیف بین المللی صادر کرده و این امر مورد تائید کمیته اجرائی اینترپول نیز قرار گرفته است.

ما با صدای بلند و با قاطعیت کامل نقش جمهوری اسلامی ایران را در طراحی و اجرای این عملیات آدم کشی و دیگر سوءقصدهائی که به دستور آن رژیم در دیگر نقاط دنیا روی می دهد محکوم می دانیم. زیرا رژیم ایران خواستار محو اسرائیل از نقشه جغرافیا گردیده و همزمان به برپائی سازمانهای تروریستی می پردازد، افراد آنها را آموزش می دهد، و اسلحه و پول در اختیارشان می گذارد.

در این لحظات دشوار و دردآور، ملت و دولت اسرائیل همدردی و همبستگی خود را با خانواده هائی که عزیزان خود را در این انفجارها از دست دادند ابراز می دارند و با جامعه یهودیان آرژانتین و همچنین با همه مردمان آن سرزمین اعلام همدردی می کنند.

در این فرصت ما به سران جامعه یهودیان آرژانتین درود می فرستیم که توانستند پس از این رویدادهای تکان دهنده و تاسف بار دوباره روی پای خود بایستند و زندگی و تلاش را از سرگیرند و فعالیت اجتماعی را ادامه دهند و همچنان با دولت و ملت اسرائیل مناسبات نزدیک و همکاری صمیمانه داشته باشند- وهمزمان، ما از تلاشهای دولت آرژانتین برای کشف واقعیات و به کیفر رساندن آمران و عاملان این جنایات قدردانی کرده و پیروزی آن دولت را در این مهم آرزو می کنیم.

منبع: سايت وزارت امور خارجه اسرائيل

۱۳۸٦/٤/٢۸ - سيد کريم


Listen to the Military  

By Michael A. Ledeen

Posted: Tuesday, July 17, 2007


National Review Online   

Publication Date: July 17, 2007

At his press conference last week, President Bush--echoing the public assessments from his military underlings in Iraq--gave a clear picture of the war. Remarkably, not a single political leader or pundit saw fit to notice the dimensions of the war he described:

The fight in Iraq is part of a broader struggle that's unfolding across the region. . . . The same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons and threatening to wipe Israel off the map is also providing sophisticated IEDs to extremists in Iraq who are using them to kill American soldiers.

The same Hezbollah terrorists who are waging war against the forces of democracy in Lebanon are training extremists to do the same against coalition forces in Iraq.

The same Syrian regime that provides support and sanctuary for Islamic jihad and Hamas has refused to close its airport in Damascus to suicide bombers headed to Iraq.

. . . the war against extremists and radicals is not only evident in Iraq, but it's evident in Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories and Afghanistan.

In short, the president sees that it is a regional war, as it has been from the beginning, just as our enemies in Damascus and Tehran publicly told us it would be, even before a single American soldier set foot in Iraq. The two biggest causes of casualties in Iraq are non-indigenous: suicide bombers and constantly improving explosive devices deployed in and alongside roads. Eighty to ninety percent of all suicide bombers are foreigners (mostly Saudis who are trained in Syria), not Iraqis, and the explosives have long been known to be of Iranian design to contain Iranian components, and often constructed in Iran (see the latest intelligence news about al Qaeda reconstituting in Iran).

Moreover, the spinal column of the terror army in Iraq is intimately linked to Iran and Syria. As U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner recently put it, our recent successes in Iraq have been accomplished despite ongoing resistance from al-Qaeda, proxy groups like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and their Lebanese Hezbollah surrogates. Bergner stressed that the activities of these Iranian forces, and joint instruments of Iran and Syria such as Hezbollah, are relentlessly increasing. "we've actually been very forthright in explaining the role that those groups are having and they are an increasing problem--one that's having an increasingly destabilizing effect on both the government of Iraq and creating more problems for us to deal with."

With all that, Bergner insisted "that there is no question that al Qaeda is the principle fueler of violence and sectarian attacks," and is therefore our main target. But it is indisputable--and further information is emerging every day to confirm this--that al Qaeda itself is hardly an independent actor. Several years ago, Spanish judge Baltazar Gar noted that the leaders of al Qaeda reconstituted their headquarters in Iran after being driven from Afghanistan. I wrote at the time that Osama bin Laden and key members of his family had gone to Iran, and other key figures, such as Zarqawi (the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, lest we forget), had created an international terror network from Tehran. I have no doubt that when we finally unravel the terror network, we will find that people like Zarqawi repeatedly went back and forth between Iraq, Syria, and Iran, as did--and does--arch terrorists like Imad Mughniyah of Hezbollah.

It follows that victory in this war requires the defeat of both the terrorists on the ground and the state sponsors, just as President Bush vowed shortly after 9/11, when he said we would not distinguish between the terrorists and the states that provided them with the wherewithal for their actions. Yet the president does not instruct his people to move against the Assads and the mullahs. Quite the contrary, in fact. Military officers have long been instructed to "take it easy" against Iranian forces and surrogates in Iraq, even though the leash has been loosened in recent months. And as Senator Lieberman has so bravely insisted, it is a mistake to permit such forces and surrogates safe haven in Iran and Syria, from which they are free to move against us and the brave Iraqi people. We should attack the terrorist training camps, and the manufacturing facilities for the terror bombs, which, by the way, are also deployed regionally. The first exemplars of the new generation of such bombs were used against Israelis in Gaza and then again in Lebanon.

Attacks against the terrorists are fully justifiable; they would be acts of legitimate self-defense. But they are the least we should be doing. The president constantly says that freedom is our most lethal weapon against the terror masters, and he is right. But then he permits himself to be gulled by those in his administration who shrink from the consequences of our announced policy, and promise him that diplomacy and a gradually escalating set of sanctions will bring the terror masters to heel. That human history knows no case where this strategy has succeeded is somehow not sufficient to show them the errors of their ways, which is a tribute to their hubris and their inability to see the world plain.

The president says that we are in a regional war with a plethora of enemies: Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas. They are fighting us in Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza and Lebanon, and they promise to take their jihad to ever higher levels, including the use of atomic bombs. They constantly seek to attack us and our allies, on every continent save Antartica. In the face of this enormous war launched against us, this administration brings forth a limited strategy that cannot possibly succeed, since it is limited to fighting defense on a single front on a vast battlefield.

When a man as thoughtful as Bill Kristol says that he can well imagine future historians taking a positive view of George W. Bush's presidency--because the "surge" is doing well, and because President Bush had the nerve to stick with it--one has to read the fine print.

"military progress on the ground in Iraq in the past few months has been greater than even surge proponents like me expected, and political progress is beginning to follow. Iran is a problem, and we will have to do more to curb Tehran's meddling--but we can. So if we keep our nerve here at home, we have a good shot at achieving a real, though messy, victory in Iraq."

Yes, our troops are magnificent (as New York Times reporter John Burns so well put it), and the Iraqi people are also magnificent (their courage and patience are inspirational, and if the Nobel Committee were up to its task, it would award the Peace Prize to the Iraqi nation, excluding the terrorists of course). But fighting brilliantly in Iraq alone cannot possibly win such a vast war. Bill Kristol knows that, which is why he says "we will have to do more . . . but we can." Yes, we can. But will we? There is still no sign of that, and there are screams of horror at the very thought that we might support freedom in Iran, where significant numbers of people daily demonstrate their willingness to fight their oppressors.

Instead, every new revelation about Iran's role in the terror war is greeted with the pathetic mantra "but this does not prove that the regime itself is involved." As if General Suleimani of the Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force would dare launch operation after operation against us in Iraq without the explicit approval of his commander-in-chief, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Do our analysts not know that the Revolutionary Guards were created for the explicit purpose of responding to the whims of the Supreme Leader? Whenever the Guards move, they do so precisely because "the regime" has willed it.

Big wars require big strategies, and we do not have one. Yet. I believe the country would support one if the case were made clearly and honestly. Taking the war to our enemies in Damascus and Tehran does not require troops on the ground or bombs from the air, except in the limited cases of terrorist training camps and weapons factories. It requires, above all, two things: support for the democratic forces in Syria and Iran, and the will to confront our enemies. That will can be easily expressed, but no president has had the coherence and courage to do that. Iran has been at war with us for nearly thirty years, but no president has ever said we want an end to the terror regime in Tehran.

It's long past time to hear those words.

Michael A. Ledeen is the Freedom Scholar at AEI.

۱۳۸٦/٤/٢۸ - سيد کريم

   تدبیرهای ایران برای واکنش به حمله‌ی نظامی؟   

حضور سه ناو هواپیمابر آمریکا در خلیج فارس به گمانه‌زنی در مورد مأموریت آنها شدت بخشیده است

به رغم این که مقامات نیروی دریایی آمریکا تاکید می‌کنند ایران هدف آرایش گسترده‌ی نظامی این کشور در منطقه نیست، برخی از رسانه‌های عربی خبر از تدبیرهای ایران برای واکنش به عملیات نظامی احتمالی آمریکا و اسراییل می‌دهند.

یک هفته پیش، با اعلام خبر فرستادن، اینترپریز، سومین ناو هواپیمابر آمریکایی به خلیج فارس بار دیگر زمزمه­هیی در مورد احتمال حمله­ی نظامی این کشور به  هدف­هایی در ارتباط با فعالیت­های هسته­ای ایران به گوش می­رسد. این شایعات که با تصویب لایحه­ای در سنای آمریکا شدت یافت، تقریبا همزمان از سوی مقامات نیروی دریایی ایالات متحده تکذیب شد. در لایحه­ی سنا که با رای اکثریت نمایندگان هر دو جناح به تصویب رسید از ایران خواسته شده هرچه سریعتر به حمایت از شورشیان و شبه نظامیان عراق پایان دهد. این مصوبه که به صورت الحاقیه­ای به لایحه­ی بودجه­ی وزارت دفاع ضمیمه شد بر این ادعای آمریکا صحه می­گذارد که جمهوری اسلامی را در کشته شدن تعدادی از سربازان این کشور در عراق شریک می­داند. با این همه به اصرار برخی از مخالفان درگیری نظامی با ایران، تصویب این لایحه مجوز اقدام نظامی علیه جمهوری اسلامی نخواهد بود. همچنین سخنگوی نیروی دریایی آمریکا، دنیسا گارسیا، در ارتباط با حضور کم سابقه­ی نیروهای نظامی این کشور در خلیج فارس و دریای عمان تاکید دارد که این عملیات مشخصا ایران را هدف قرار نمی­دهد. دولت ایران همواره اتهام دخالت در عراق را بی اساس خوانده است.

به رغم سخنان صریحی که از برخی مقامات نظامی آمریکا مبنی بر عدم قصد حمله به ایران منتشر می­شود، افزایش حضور نظامی این کشور در منطقه و اظهار نظر برخی از مقامات اسرائیلی در مورد امکان حمله به تاسیسات هسته­ای ایران، راه را برای انتشار شایعاتی درباره اقدامات احتیاطی جمهوری اسلامی هموار کرده است. روز جمعه وزیر امور استراتژیک دولت اسرادیل، اويگدور ليبرمن در سخنانی اظهار داشت، این کشور در صورت به نتیجه نرسیدن اقدامات دیپلماتیک ممکن است هدف قرار دادن تاسیسات اتمی ایران را در دستور کار قرار دهد. در پی این سخنان روز یکشنبه روزنامه­ی الوطن قطر از قول یک دیپلمات سوری می­نویسد، ایران 600 هدف را برای حمله­های موشکی در خاک اسرائیل شناسایی کرده تا در صورت هر گونه اقدام نظامی، آنها را هدف قرار دهد. سایت خبری آفتاب نیز از قول روزنامه ایتالیایی Corriere della Sera گزارش می­دهد در صورت وقوع یک برخورد نظامی جمهوری اسلامی آماده است با استفاده از زیردریایی­های تک سرنشین ناوهای آمریکایی را هدف عملیات انتحاری قرار دهد. روز گذشته روزنامه­ی کویتی الوطن نیز از قول منابع روسی از خرید ده­ها زیر دریایی کوچک توسط جمهوری اسلامی خبر می­دهد که ظاهرا ساخت کره شمالی و مجهز به سیستم­های پیشرفته­ی ایتالیایی هستند. به ادعای کارشناسان روسی شواهد حکایت از آن دارد که ایران سرگرم مجهز کردن اين زيردريايي­ها به موشک ومواد منفجره مي­باشد تا در صورت نياز از آن به­عنوان وسيله انتحاري استفاده کند. [روزنامه اعتماد ملی، 25 تیر[

در سال 1383 ستادی در ایران با نام «ستاد پاسداشت شهدای نهضت جهانی اسلام» اعلام موجودیت کرد که به استشهادیون معروفند. این ستاد کار ثبت نام از داوطلبان شرکت در عملیات انتحاری و آموزش آنها را بر عهده دارد. استشهادیون اواخر سال 84 با راه اندازی یک پایگاه اینترنتی اقدام به ثبت نام الکترونیکی از داوطلبان کردند. تشکیلات استشهادیون که ظاهرا از سوی دولت ایران رسما حمایت نمی­شود برخی از مراسم خود، از جمله تشکیل یگان­های جدید را، علنی و در بهشت زهرای تهران برگزار می­کند. یک سال پیش سخنگوی استشهادیون محمد علی صمدی  به خبرگزاری مهر گفته است 55 هزار نفر در این ستاد ثبت نام کرده­اند و تا آن زمان 1300 تن از آنها دوره­های آموزشی را به پایان رسانده و در یگان­های مختلف سازماندهی شده­اند. صمدی این سخنان را، پنجم خردادماه سال پیش، در حاشیه­ی مراسم اعلام موجودیت یگان پنجم این ستاد بیان کرد که با 300 عضو و به نام یگان «نادر مهدوی» آماده­ی انجام ماموریت شد. به نوشته­ی خبرگزاری مهر «نادر مهدوی فرمانده یگان شهادت طلب نیروی دریایی سپاه بود که در سال 66 در یک عملیات استشهادی علیه ناوگان آمریکایی به شهادت رسید.» با حساس­تر شدن موضوع فعالیت­های هسته­ای ایران و واکنش­های بین­المللی به سخنان ضد اسراییلی رئیس جمهور، محمود احمدی­نژاد، در یک سال گذشته اخبار چندانی از فعالیت یگان­های انتحاری منتشر نشده است. با این همه روزنامه­ی الوطن از قول منبع سوری مدعی است، ایران آمادگی خود برای انجام عملیات تلافی­جویانه از طریق «کانال­های مختلف» به اطلاع مقامات اسرائیلی رسانده است.

منبع: دويچه وله

۱۳۸٦/٤/٢۸ - سيد کريم