web analytics
April 21, 2014 / 21 Nisan, 5774
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘mutually assured destruction’

Bibi Is Not Crazy: White House Admits Final Deal Includes Enrichment

Wednesday, December 4th, 2013

A final deal with Iran could include a capacity for uranium enrichment, the White House said.

“Could” is what you say when you used to say “couldn’t” but then the other side insisted they would, and so you add a kind of implied “maybe” to the word by making it “could” instead of, say, “will zealously engage in producing weapons grade plutonium which is what they’d been meaning to do all along while we, here, at the White House were making fun of Netanyahu for being such a panicky sort.”

Here’s what Bernadette Meehan, the National Security Council spokeswoman actually said in a statement Tuesday to JTA, in response to their query based on a story first reported by the Washington Free Beacon.

“We are prepared to negotiate a strictly limited enrichment program in the end state, but only because the Iranians have indicated for the first time in a public document that they are prepared to accept rigorous monitoring and limits on level, scope, capacity, and stockpiles.”

This is so like the joke about Churchill who asks a lady if she’d sleep with him for a thousand pounds and she said yes, then he asked what about for five, and she said: Sir, what do you think I am, and he said We already established that, now we’re haggling over the price.

See, once the White House admits they lied all along, the part about monitoring day and night, with extra binoculars, the really good kind – that doesn’t really matter any longer. The fact remains, the president agreed to Iranian enrichment and lied to the Israelis and the Saudis and everybody else who’s shaking in their boots on account of they know the crazy monkeys in Tehran will happily go down in nuclear flames if they knew they were taking everybody else with them.

Saying now that you’ve only agreed to low level, not high level enrichment is exactly like low-balling the questionable lady from the apocryphal Churchill story.

Israel and the Saudis and, really, anyone with a healthy fear of Shiites, oppose any Iranian enrichment capacity, because Iran is led by madmen to whom Mutually Assured Destruction is martyrological panacea, not a threat.

“If we can reach an understanding on all of these strict constraints, then we can have an arrangement that includes a very modest amount of enrichment that is tied to Iran’s actual needs and that eliminates any near-term breakout capability,” Meehan told JTA. “If we can’t, then we’ll be right back to insisting on no enrichment.”

And a hearty good luck to you on that one, hope you’ll visit Yad Vashem II, the Iranian Holocaust Museum. By the time the U.S. gets around to do all that insisting, Iran’s economy will have started to blossom, anywhere from $50 to $300 billion will have been injected into their economy and they could do whatever they feel like, no matter what Obama is insisting on.

Folks, the first thing Obama did when he took office in 2009 was to betray the people who voted for him by compensating the bankers for their losses. He didn’t invest a trillion dollars in Main Street, like so many of us expected he would – he gave it all to his buddies on Wall Street. We didn’t know he had buddies on Wall Street – turns out he did.

This president will betray you just to pass a boring afternoon – of course he’ll betray his Israeli and Saudi allies. He has done it already, in fact. Listen to his spokeswoman, for heaven’s sake:

“Since the P5+1 would have to agree to the contours of a possible enrichment program, it is by definition not a ‘right’,” she said.

A Solution to the Iran Threat

Tuesday, November 12th, 2013

The piece below does not reflect the views of the JewishPress.com. Heck, it barely reflects my own views. But I do fear a nuclear Holocaust in the Middle East, and I believe in Divine guidance and Divine supervision. If some, or many, of my readers consider this to be naïve, I don’t blame you. But I also believe it is possible, with God’s help. Y.Y.

First, let’s agree on the fact that the last thing any of us wants is an Israeli attack on the Iranian nuclear program, followed by a counter attack and so on. If ever there were two industrious, and inspired nations in the Middle east, they’re Iran and Israel. We may not always have the same interests, and since 1979 we certainly don’t like each other at all, but there are no inherent existential conflict between us.

And yet, here we are, two countries spending upwards of a trillion dollars over the years to thwart each other’s threats, until we’ve now reached the point where the Iranians, their tongue hanging out of their dry mouths with fatigue and poverty and frustration, are nevertheless going to get their atomic weapons which they could train at Israel, their mortal enemy.

I doubt very much that Israel can stop that from happening. And I doubt very much that Israel or the U.S. in their wildest dreams are planning to attack Iran. I also doubt very much that Iran’s rulers are unaware of the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction. They, too, are not likely to start a nuclear Holocaust, either. I’m not saying this with 100 percent certainty, but having followed Iran’s nasty actions since 1979, they prefer to work sneaky, not with a big bang.

It’s been suggested by the current U.S. Administration that if Israel capitulates to the Palestinians and uproots upwards of half a million Jews from their ancestral homeland, that would somehow quell the Iranians’ rage and they’d stop making bombs and sticking them at the end of their ICBMs.

That’s never happening. No one is uprooting the Jews, and no Iranians are stopping the production of atomic weapons.

What to do?

Years ago, the New Yorker ran a cartoon showing two men helplessly chained by their hands and legs to the middle a massive stone well, hundreds of feet deep. And one of them says, “I have an idea.”

I have an idea.

Or, more accurately, I have a man who could start moving the ball in a new and different direction. He needs to be a respected Israeli man of the cloth, with perfect credentials and a universal reputation for fairness and honesty.

I’m thinking about former Israeli Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau.

I’m thinking about him because he’s had extensive experience in dealing with Muslim leaders who are curious about Israel and about Jews. He’s met them and has done it with grace and honor. He left a good impression.

Rabbi Lau should use his good connection with moderate Muslims to solicit a secret meeting with a high ranking Iranian clergyman. I mean, really secret.

It must be kept secret because any Iranian clergy who would dare meet with rabbi Lau would be putting his life on the line.

The two of them should come to the meeting with at least the tacit blessings of their respective political leaders.

In the meeting, the two men would agree that both Jews and Muslims are children of the same God, and believe in charity and goodness and whatnot. Rabbi Lau would volunteer that while secular Zionism is in conflict with both Judaism and Islam, the vast majority of Israeli Jews keep their tradition, much as the vast majority of Iranians do. Those sister traditions, the two men would agree, demand that our two nations not strive to annihilate one another.

Rabbi Lau will tell the Iranian to convey to his superiors in Tehran the message that Israel would gladly commit to never attacking Iran. The two would agree to meet again, in secret, and this time bring mutual; assurances from the leaders of both countries.

There needn’t be any publicity for any of that. And Iran could continue to shout its slogans about the suffering Palestinians and their Zionist occupiers, while Israel could retort as it sees fit, but only with words. Meanwhile, in both Tehran and Jerusalem, there will have been planted the first seeds of a long and so needed rapprochement.

I see no other way.

Reagan’s Missile Defense Vision Derailed

Tuesday, March 19th, 2013

If you went strictly by the mainstream media reporting on the Defense Department’s recent announcement about missile defense, the thought in your head would be “we’re deploying more interceptor missiles because of North Korea.”

What’s probably not in your head is the auxiliary details.  DOD has requested that funding for the additional deployments begin in fiscal year 2014.  The actual deployments won’t start until after that.  Assuming DOD gets the funding, it will take until 2017 for the interceptors to be in place.  And the deployment, if it happens, will do no more than provide the ground-based interceptor baseline that was originally planned by the Bush II administration (44 interceptors), a baseline the Obama administration cut back to its current level (30 interceptors) in April 2009.

To put the last point another way: if the Obama DOD hadn’t cancelled the remaining ground-based interceptor (GBI) deployments in 2009, the 14 additional interceptors would already be deployed.

That said, the utility of deploying the additional GBIs – which would raise the deployed total from 30 to 44 – can justifiably be questioned, if former Secretary Bob Gates was right in 2009, when he said the 30 GBIs in Alaska and California were enough:

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told senators that 30 ground-based interceptors “provide a strong defense” against “the level of [missile] capability that North Korea has now and is likely to have for some years to come.” The system is designed to defend the United States against intermediate- and long-range missiles in the middle range of flight.

The North Korean satellite launch in December 2012 didn’t change the profile of the North Korean threat; it merely validated the predicted type of threat against which the GBIs were originally deployed.  Frankly, the 30 GBIs we already have in their silos probably are enough.

They are if the threat we’re worried about is North Korea, at any rate.  What if it’s not?  Suppose the threat we’re really concerned about is China?  It’s an interesting point, given the lack of precision or clearly-stated strategic purpose behind, basically, any move the Obama administration makes on missile defense.

Cancelling the Atlantic-side Missile defense

Consider the decision announced by DOD at the same time as the GBI augmentation: that the U.S. will cancel the fourth and final phase of Obama’s missile defense plan for Europe.  The European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) is the new plan Obama ordered up in 2009 when he cancelled George W. Bush’s plan to deploy GBIs to Europe.

GBIs in Poland would have provided missile defense for North America as well as for Europe against threats coming westward from Asia.  In Bush’s original plan, the GBIs would have started going into Poland in 2013.  (The GBIs in Alaska and California defend North America against threats coming eastward from Asia, or – to some extent – against missiles from East Asia coming over the North Pole).

Obama’s replacement plan for the cancelled Bush deployments was to develop a new, ground-based mobile interceptor out of the Navy’s shorter-range SM-3 missile, and eventually to deploy a follow-on interceptor, called the SM-3 IIB, which would have “some capability” against ICBMs.  The projected time frame for this deployment was to be 2020-22, some 7-9 years after the GBI deployment in Poland was to have begun.

A key weakness of this approach, however, has been that, for the purposes of defending North America, the geometry isn’t workable for using a new-generation SM-3 interceptor in Europe against an intercontinental ballistic missile from South Asia or the Middle East.  In September 2012, the National Research Council published an assessment of the prospects for defending North America using the EPAA deployment concept, and concluded that the prospects aren’t good.  Obtaining the NRC report costs $62, but fortunately, Defense Industry Daily has summarized its findings as follows (scroll down at the link):

[The NRC assessment] states that EPAA Phase IV is not likely to be an effective way to defend the United States, and recommends that the USA make changes to its own GMD system and radar set. They’re not advocating the dismantling of EPAA, just saying that the USA should have a system in which EPAA is about Europe’s defense, and the USA has a system that doesn’t depend on it.

More on that in a moment.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/j-e-dyer/reagans-missile-defense-vision-derailed/2013/03/19/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: