And Hormuz is Closed Again

Well, that didn't last long.  The US cannot prevent Israel and Hezbollah from fighting, but Iran won't keep the peace unless their proxy is safe.  There are too many moving parts in the Middle East to maintain the fragile peace.  If we aren't going to bomb Iran into the stone age, then it will just be another Afghanistan or Iraq.  Neither of those have turned out well.  Keep an eye on the nukes, bombing as needed, and protect US shipping.  Otherwise, let the region find a balance.  Beyond preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power, this isn't our problem.

I Stand Corrected

No sooner do I predict the Iran War to be an inescapable quagmire that will drag on than a peace deal is announced.  What are the details of this deal?  From what has been revealed so far, Iran will immediately open the Strait of Hormuz and the United States will end its blockade of Iranian ports.  Iran further agrees not to pursue nuclear weapons, which includes and agreed upon verification regime.  On paper, that sounds great.  Not to be a wet blanket, but this is just a temporary deal, like maybe until the end of Trump's Presidency.  Much as Obama's deal didn't survive Trump, Trump's deal won't survive the next Democrat, unless it is formalized in a treaty that the Senate approves.  Of course, there is also Iran, which is likewise going to test US resolve after a few months of 'peace.'  Remember, the Vietnam War ended with a South Vietnam and a North Vietnam, but two years after the peace, the north swept away the south and the US embassy was embarrassingly evacuated by helicopter.  There was no will in the US to save South Vietnam.

Though not optimistic about the longevity of this deal, it does give President Trump a win and wraps up the Iran War well-before the midterms.  Now the news can go back to complaining about the economy, ICE, and the Epstein Files.

A 'Short' War

The current war with Iran started on the last day of February.  After an intense bombing campaign of six weeks, the war entered a ceasefire, which was supposed to last one week and give Iran time to negotiate an end of the hostilities on terms acceptable to the United States.  Iran blockaded the Strait of Hormuz.  The US responded by also blockading the Strait of Hormuz.  Now, two months later, the ceasefire is still active, though it is interrupted by potshots in both directions.  President Trump has insisted that talks are ongoing and a deal is close.  Iran is mum on the subject.

Trump was hoping for a short war, a quick smackdown that brought Iran to heel and ended its quest for a nuclear bomb.  Not so long ago, George W Bush wanted a short war with Afghanistan, a quick smackdown that resulted in the extraction of Osama bin Laden and his brethren.  That didn't go so well.  The problem is that the opponent is not a rational actor.  A rational leader would act to preserve the nation.  The Mullah's are religious fanatics who believe that death will lead them to paradise while compromise with the infidel will lead them to hell.  Moreover, they know that Trump has a time limit.  This is a country that has slaughtered tens of thousands of its citizens and hardly care if the US would kill an equal number or more.  Just like Afghanistan, they only have to wait until the US loses will and retreats.  Without an army on the ground, the only option is to flatten the infrastructure.  Of course, that will hurt civilians, which is why it hasn't already been done.

What to do?  First, no ceasefires unless the other side requests it.  Furthermore, the time limit must be respected.  Either we do a deal in a week or the bombing resumes.  During the Mexican-American War, the United States repeatedly granted ceasefires after winning a big victory.  The result: Santa Anna spent the time rebuilding his army and fortifying his position to fight again.  What does one suppose Iran is doing at the moment?  Certainly not engaging in peace talks that will bear fruit.  No, this is just a delay.

Next, you can't bomb them into peace.  In the Vietnam War, the Viet Cong were willing to suffer massive casualties and knew, in the end, the US would tire of killing them before it could achieve victory; they were right.  Iran is likewise willing to suffer casualties.  They cannot be bombed into submission.  Try a different tact.

Regime change is required.  As mentioned, the mullahs are religious fanatics who are going to be very difficult to bring to peace talks.  Iran's next-door neighbor is Afghanistan, where the Taliban beat the United States by waiting 20 years.  You think Iran didn't learn a lesson from that?  And there was regime change in Afghanistan.  Can the Shah's son be installed in Iran?  Probably not.  Can a civil war be triggered?  Maybe.  During World War II, the US dropped single-shot pistols on France to arm the resistance.  Reportedly, efforts to arm Iranian resistance by way of the Kurds failed; the Kurds kept the guns for themselves.  Drop some care packages with grenades and pistols, weapons that would be superfluous to the IRGC but a godsend for rebellious Iranians.

It is time to capture and fortify Kharg Island.  Reportedly a major hub for Iranian oil exports, it would make a fine US base, our Guantanamo in the Persian Gulf.  The island would immediately become a bargaining chip if negotiations happen.  Additionally, an island can be defended by the navy, which can easily prevent Iranian troops from landing and retaking it.  Between capturing this oil depot and blockading oil shipments in general, Iran will starve for money.  However, Iran has foreign benefactors who will likely channel enough money to keep the country afloat until America surrenders.

Okay, last idea: the bust the place up strategy.  Years ago, during one of President Bush's nation building fiascos, R Emmett Tyrell suggested this tactic.  Since you can't build a nation, tear down the offending one.  He likened it to a barroom brawl where all the tables are busted the mirror over the bar shattered, the bottles broken, and so forth.  Afterwards, those who caused the destruction depart and the bar owner is left to clean up the mess.  It could be a long time before the bar reopens for business.  It might even go under.  Some call this the Bomb 'em to the Stone Age technique.  However, this one will result in huge waves of refugees and, knowing Europe, they will accept them all and hasten the formation of Eurostan.

Unless Trump has some aces up his sleeve, this looks like a stalemate.  Sure, on the one hand, the Iranian nuclear threat has been crippled and continued vigilance will keep it that way.  On the other, the US is once again stuck in an ongoing Middle East conflict with no clear path to exit.

Undermining the Narrative

This is just the story that the Obama Administration didn't need published.  All that talk of how we couldn't get money we "owed" to Iran through standard banking practices and thus we had to send laundered cash on an unmarked plane.  Oh, we have done wire transfers to Iran?  Hmm.  Then maybe the cash was to hide the transaction?  Suddenly, instead of paying off a longstanding debt, the narrative could instead be painted as US Government caught secretly sending millions in cash to Leading State Sponsor of Terrorism.  That is what happened but they had their repayment story and an inability to wire the money.  What is the real story?

9/11 +15

It is now fifteen years since the 9/11 attacks that triggered our recent flurry of Middle Eastern engagements and, if anything, we have lost ground.

After the 9/11 attacks, the country was on guard.  In the rest of the Bush Administration, 25 people were killed in Muslim attacks and 14 were injured.  During the Obama Administration, 114 people have been killed and 373 injured in Muslim attacks.  This only counts attacks on American soil.  The success rate of the enemy on our turf has gone up.  Homeland Security failure!  Worse off.

Afghanistan was the host of al Qaeda and the Taliban were toppled during the Afghan War.  Rebuilding efforts have been mostly for naught.  The continued presence of US troops makes the region less hospitable to al Qaeda and its ilk but a lasting victory is not established.  Better off.

The anti-American Saddam was toppled during the Iraq War and had become a relatively stable pro-American democracy thereafter.  However, US troops were completely withdrawn in 2011 and ISIS and Iran filled the power vacuum shortly thereafter.  The successes of ISIS have resulted in US re-engagement in the region.  Trade Saddam for ISIS?  In 2010, we had clearly been better off but as of now, we might be at status quo ante bellum.  Break even.

 

In 2011, Libya was involved in a Civil War and the United States opted for the non-Gaddafi side.  Libya has become a failed state and a breeding ground for terrorist groups, including a branch of al Qaeda.  The bill for this came due in Benghazi, 4 years ago today.  Worse off.

Egypt's stable, though repressive, pro-American regime was toppled and replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood.  This was in turn toppled and made way for a new stable, though repressive, not so pro-American regime.  Worse off.

Yemen's pro-American government has been toppled and Yemen is another failed state with both al Qaeda and ISIS affiliates.  Worse off.

 

The US became entangled in the Syrian civil war thanks to a red line.  The red line put US standing and reliability on the block.  Failure to do anything when the red line was crossed has hugely diminished US prestige in the world.  Russia, Iran, and Turkey have all moved into Syria and attacked the US-backed rebels.  Worse off.

 

Seeing the writing on the wall, Israel, America's staunchest ally in the region for decades, has recently had a high level meeting with Russia.  With American power waning, Israel needs to make arrangements should the decline continue.  Worse off.

 

Turkey has gone from a secular democracy to an Islamist state.  President Erdogan has viewed democracy as a tram that one takes until you reach your stop.  He reached his stop and gotten off.  Like Israel's Netanyahu, Erdogan has also made pilgrimage to Russia.  Though a member of NATO, Turkey is looking to improve bi-lateral relations with NATO's traditional enemy.  Worse off.

 

Iran was anti-American at the start and remains so.  The Iran Nuclear Deal, which has gifted hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to the Iranian regime, is a catastrophe that only gets worse.  Sanctions have been lifted and Iran is cheating on the deal, cozying up to Russia, and expanding its influence in the Middle East.  Much worse off.

 

As it stands, we are losing the war.  We may win skirmishes with various terror affiliates but such affiliates are popping up faster than we are stomping them.  Worse still, every candidate for the Presidency will continue to lose the war.  Trump, Johnson, and Stein would all wash their hands of the region (Trump talks about crushing ISIS but has little interest in the larger war).  Hillary helped formulate our current losing strategy and is likely to stay the course.  However, she is probably the most hawkish of the bunch and had disagreed with Obama on some policies where he proved more dovish.

 

Like the Cold War, we will eventually win this one.  However, it is going to take another 9/11-like attack against us (or a nuclear one against anyone) before we adopt the unconditional surrender posture that served us so well in WWII.

And You Thought $400 Million was Bad

I have a hard time believing this story.  Where did the administration get the money?  Congress has to allot money and this is a lot of money.  At the high end estimate, that is 1% of the budget.  Sure, that sounds small but that exceeds the entire annual budget of the Department of Energy and yet no one noticed until now?  What happened to the story of how we owed a total of $1.7 billion?  Were we paying $700 million a month just so they would negotiate?  Every new reveal makes the Iran Deal far, far worse.  It is already widely known that Iran is cheating on the deal and we're not going to do squat about it.  Therefore, we have given billions of dollars, lifted sanctions, and helped fund the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world for a useless 'agreement' that Iran has already ceased to observe.  Shhh!  Don't tell anyone until the next president is inaugurated.  Obama's 'Smart Diplomacy' is a catastrophe far beyond what even the most anti-Obama critic could have imagined.

 

If President Obama was a Manchurian Candidate for Iran, how would this be worse?  What better outcome could Iran have had?  Sanctions lifted, billions of dollars flooding in from the Great Satan, toppling American-aligned strongmen (Saleh in Yemen, Mubarak in Egypt) that provide opportunities for expanding the Iranian sphere of influence, reduction of US influence in the region, feckless response to Iran's Syrian ally, harsh rebukes toward Iran's Israeli enemies?  Yes, check all the boxes.  Neville Chamberlain got a better deal from the Nazis than Obama got from Iran.

"Smart" Diplomacy

The Iran Nuke Deal is in shambles but the administration dare not admit it.  Like Louis XV of France, Obama is expecting the deluge to come after he is safely out of office.  Either President Trump or President Clinton will have to address Iran's clear violations of the terms of the agreement, which is probably bad news in either case.  Obama has undermined US credibility by his failure to carry out threats regarding his redline in Syria.  A new president, whoever it is, will need to carry out some attacks before mere threats of force can modify behavior again.

 

Trump has shown a desire to limit US engagement overseas or, failing that, monetize our involvement.  You want US forces, you pay for US forces.  There's the for-profit business man thinking.  However, he will not browbeat Netanyahu on a regular basis and probably let the Israelis act against Iran.  In fact, it is possible that Trump will demand that regional powers start policing their own backyards.  That may sound good to many but that only confirms the withdrawal from the world that Obama has started.  Do we want a democratic America influencing countries around the world or totalitarian regimes like Russia and China?

 

Hillary is likely to stick with the Obama head-in-the-sand approach for as long as she can.  Partly because, as a Democrat, she would be inclined to stick with her predecessor's approach so as not to undercut Obama's signature diplomatic achievement.  Oddly enough, Hillary is the more hawkish candidate.  She lobbied for the attack on Libya and she was a proponent for more engagement in Syria.  While in the Senate, she voted for the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq.  As such, she is more likely than Trump to use force against Iran but it will be limited to airstrikes, much like her husband.  Bill was averse to using ground forces but dropped bombs on three continents.  Unfortunately, the airstrikes will be more for media/public consumption than stopping Iranian misbehavior, not unlike Obama's bombing campaign against ISIS.  Therefore, unlike Obama vs. Iran, Clinton vs. Iran will involve sound and fury.  However, Obama's and Clinton's policies will both lead to the same end: nuclear armed Iran.  Unlike Trump, she will not be keen on letting regional powers act unless it is with US approval and leadership.  Thus, either we do it or no one does.

 

At this point, the odds are very high that Iran will test a nuclear weapon in the next 10 years and lead to a regional arms race.  Something similar is already underway in Asia where Japan and South Korea are allying against the continued belligerence of a nuclear armed North Korea.  However, US presence in Korea has kept talk of a nuclear arms race to a minimum.  As a state sponsor of terrorism, what are the chances that the Iranians give a nuclear device to a terrorist organization?  Much too high!

Iransom

Yes, it looks like the administration said 'no hostage release, no $400 million' but it wasn't a ransom because the US does not pay ransom.  The story is that the United States owes Iran for monies taken from the previous government of Iran, the one that was overthrown almost 40 years ago.  Yeah, that one.  So, to balance that account, we really needed to pay that.  Yeah, it is nothing but a coincidence that Iran had American hostages.  But since they did coincide, we had leverage to refuse the payment until they released the hostages.  See, it was actually keen diplomacy on our part.

Interestingly, Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton,  and Bush did not feel obligated to repay this debt that had been owed to the Shah of Iran.  Heck, even Obama was in no hurry as he didn't make this overdue payment until 7 years into his presidency.  Maybe those previous presidents were waiting until there was an Iranian government that wasn't the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world (even the Obama Administration State Department has labeled it such).  Not Obama.  No, Iran has a bunch of Americans imprisoned and the Smart Diplomacy of the Obama Administration decided that now was the time to start repaying that 40 year old debt.

Losing Turkey

President Erdogan is on his way to Russia for talks with Putin, presumably to improve the Turkish-Russian relationship.  As mentioned in an earlier blog, Turkey and Russia have had a long and contentious relationship.  However, Russia has succeeded in encircling Turkey in the last few years.  Russia has been a booster of Iran, assisting with its nuclear program.  Russia annexed the Crimea, giving it a bigger footprint on the Black Sea.  Of course, back in the Bush Administration, Russia managed to carve out a part of Georgia.  For the last year, Russia has placed forces in Syria, Turkey's neighbor to the south.  How has the United States responded to this constrictor snake tactic?  Empty red lines, toothless proclamations, demands that countries live up to their international obligations.  In short, meaningless rhetoric.

Erdogan has never been a believer in secular Turkey.  He is an Islamist and has sought to undermine Kemalist Turkey for decades.  The recent failed coup is looking more and more like the death knell of secular Turkey.  Again, a largely hands-off America has been a boon to that effort.  The US has been abandoning the Middle East for most of President Obama's tenure and Russia and Iran have been filling that vacuum.  Luckily, domestic fracking has done wonders for American gas prices despite the increasingly turbulent Middle East.

 

In the ongoing real game of thrones, Putin is playing chess and Obama is playing checkers.  Future historians will marvel at how badly our foreign policy was handled.

When the President does it, it's not Illegal

President Obama has admitted to committing felonies under US law and that's okay.  Yes, there is a stink over the $400 million to Iran but everyone is pursuing the ransom angle.  What about the funding terrorism angle?  The US State Department still lists Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism.  The absence of a financial relationship between the US and Iran based on our desire not to fund terrorism.  Obama himself points out that the cash was necessary because a banking relationship with Iran is illegal.  Yes, that also includes cash!  Obama admits that we had to use cash to bypass US Law.  It is a given that some of that cash will fund terrorist operations, which is the reason we don't want to funnel money to Iran.

Of course, the DOJ - which was opposed to the cash payment - will not indict the administration.  The spineless Congress will not seek to impeach anyone.  Therefore, the law is meaningless.  If it can be so cavalierly ignored, it ceases to be law.  As I have mentioned repeatedly, the rule of law is dead.  Nixon is looking good by comparison.

Unsecured Servers Kill

Through some skillful intelligence work, the US managed to recruit an Iranian nuclear scientist to keep us abreast of Iran's nuclear program.  Unfortunately for Shahram Amiri, he was mentioned in Hillary Clinton's unsecure emails only days before the US sent him back to Iran.  His cover story was that he had been held against his will by Saudis and Americans.  In fact, we were paying him handsomely.  Iran has executed him, noting that he was a spy for the Great Satan.

With news like this, recruiting foreign spies will be much more difficult for US intelligence.  It will be nigh impossible if President Clinton is inaugurated.  With the DNC email hack and the Clinton's email hack, it would be foolish to trust the US now.  Whether Amiri was revealed by Hillary's emails or through some other means makes no difference.  This is a heavy blow that will hamstring our intelligence gathering abilities for years to come regardless of who is elected president.

Ransom to Iran

Not only did President Obama negotiate a terrible "Nuclear Deal" with Iran, he had to sweeten the pot with $400 million.  Oh, and it is only a coincidence, pure chance, that Iran released 4 American prisoners when the pallets of cash arrived.  Reagan was a terrible president because he "traded arms for hostages" in the Iran-Contra Affair.  Obama traded 5 high-ranking Gitmo prisoners for one AWOL soldier who is currently awaiting court martial on a variety of charges.  Now he is paying the number one sponsor of terrorism (according to his State Department) $1.7 billion for...  nothing.  Iran has already broken the 'deal.'  Ergo, the money is either being flushed down the drain or it was paid as a ransom.

 

The current Republican Congress allowed this travesty to happen.  They let the Iran Deal skate so that big time donors (like Boeing) could do business with Iran.  The treaty ratification process was turned on its head to allow this disaster that only gets worse as more news comes to light.

 

With leaders like these, is it any wonder that the voters were unwilling to vote for any of the establishment politicians?  The DNC managed to stave off Bernie's insurgency by scheduling virtually no debates and getting their media allies to either not cover him or paint him negatively.  The RNC demonstrated its comparative incompetence since Trump won the nomination.

 

A Hillary Clinton presidency promises more of the same.  If this is okay, vote Hillary.

Gee, Too Bad that Iran Deal is Already Implemented

I cannot count the number of times I was told that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was therefore not a valid target in the aftermath.  Based on this newly released information, would those same people have been in favor of bombing Iran?  No, of course not.  That was just talking points.  Evidence is irrelevant if it might lead to bombing.  The more interesting thing is that we just inked a deal with Iran and the folks who signed on the dotted line knew that Iran was aware of the impending attack and even offered support for it.  Huh.  Well, its been almost 15 years.  Bygones!  Here's billions of dollars in frozen assets and removal of sanctions.  We'd appreciate it if you didn't do anything to embarrass the administration.  Start breaking the deal next February so the blame can be laid elsewhere.  Thanks.

This Iran Deal just keeps getting better

Last week, Iran fired some rockets near our ships in the Straits of Hormuz.  Now they have 'taken' two small craft and ten sailors.  There are still regular rallies calling for 'Death to America!'  With all President Obama's smart diplomacy and willingness to talk, our relations look to be getting worse.  Can we reconsider lifting those sanctions?

Syria Strategy in Shambles

President Obama is currently back on his gun control crusade, now considering executive action that he once said was beyond his authority.  Just like immigration reform was beyond his authority until he did it anyway.  And Congress let him get away with it.  Before the Oregon shooting, Obama had moved from the 'success' of his Iran Deal to his Climate Change Crusade.  He wants to talk about anything not related to his Middle East policy.  Here are a few things that have happened regarding Syria in just the last month or so:

Aug 23: Even proponents say Iran Nuke Deal just kicks the can 15 years down the road.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/24/world/middleeast/in-pushing-for-the-iran-nuclear-deal-obamas-rationale-shows-flaws.html?_r=0

Sept 3: Iran dismisses claims that Iran Deal will restrict their military ambitions.  Even as Obama was still trying to push the deal in Congress, Iran is diminishing its value.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/09/03/iran-thumbs-nose-at-us-even-as-obama-rallies-support-for-nuke-deal/?intcmp=hpbt1

Sept 9: Russian troops in joint operations with Syrian forces.  This is not good news for the anti-Assad rebels that we are supporting.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/10/us-mideast-crisis-syria-exclusive-idUSKCN0R91H720150910

Sept 10: Democrats defeat Republican effort to nix Iran Deal.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/iran-deal-senate-dems-block-gop-measure-to-kill-213506

Sept 11: NATO surprised by Russian move into Syria.  This speaks wonders for our intelligence agencies.

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/09/nato-caught-surprised-russias-move-syria/120764/

Sept 12: Look, Iran has more uranium than we thought.  Somehow, I suspect Obama had this information related to him in a Presidential Daily Brief some time in advance of his lobbying Congress to pass his nuke deal.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/iran-says-finds-unexpectedly-high-uranium-104622948.html

Sept 14: Russia deploys tanks at Syrian airfield.  The US doesn't have any tanks in Syria.  We are suddenly losing the arms race in Syria.

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-positioning-tanks-syria-airfield-u-officials-144236303.html

Sept 16: Ballistic Missiles development not part of deal.  Well, that's good news.  We've delayed nukes for 15 years - if they don't cheat (pay not attention to the story above about unexpected uranium) - but they will have fully developed delivery capacity waiting for the warheads.  Awesome.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-admin-iranian-ballistic-missile-tests-not-a-nuke-deal-violation/

Sept 18: Russia deploys Tactical Fighter Jets to Syrian base.  This can't be good.  First tanks, now fighters jets.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-defense-secretary-discusses-syria-with-russian-counterpart-1442589965

Sept 22: Russia establishing bases in Syria.  And now Syria is more firmly in the Russian sphere of influence.  While the US draws out of the Middle East, Russia is gladly moving in.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-expands-military-its-presence-in-syria-satellite-photos-show-1442937150

Sept 27: Russia and Iran ally with Syria's Assad, making Obama's official policy of Assad's removal all that much more unlikely.

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-iran-throw-weight-behind-assad-un-meet-210506731.html

Sept 29: Iran purchase aircraft and satellites from Russia.  Yes, Iran is also firmly in the Russian sphere of influence.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-buys-21-billion-in-aircraft-satellites-from-russia/

Oct 1: Iranian troops headed to Syria to help Assad.  US Syrian policy in collapse.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/01/us-mideast-crisis-syria-iranians-idUSKCN0RV4DN20151001

Oct 1: Russia begins airstrikes in Syria, but not against ISIS.  US supported rebels targeted.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150930/eu--russia-syria-1f3833b009.html

Oct 2: Putin declares Syrian no-fly zone.  The US used to have a monopoly on Middle Eastern no-fly zones.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-02/putin-has-his-own-no-fly-zone-in-Syria

Oct 4: US proposes ramping up pressure on ISIS in Syria.  We're getting outmaneuvered!  We'd better do something soon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/world/middleeast/us-aims-to-put-more-pressure-on-isis-in-syria.html?src=twr&_r=0

Oct 7: Iran refuses any further talks with US.  After a complete victory like the nuke deal, there's no point in more talks. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/07/us-iran-us-talks-idUSKCN0S10P220151007

Oct 7: Russia supports Syrian offensive with cruise missiles.  The US used to have a monopoly on Middle Eastern cruise missile use.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/syrian-activists-russian-air-strikes-pound-rebel-zones-in-latest-blows/2015/10/07/fb3be168-5cf3-4e38-98f3-f6b75ed53871_story.html

Oct 9: Iran Nuke Deal violates federal law.  That's all well and good but it's not going to prevent President Obama from lifting sanctions.  Federal law hasn't been an impediment to much of his policy so far.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/09/exclusive-us-officials-conclude-iran-deal-violates-federal-law/

Oct 10: US abandons training Syrian resistance to combat ISIS.  Yes, time to throw in the towel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/world/middleeast/pentagon-program-islamic-state-syria.html

Obama was never serious about fighting ISIS.  He had to 'do something' because of the beheading of US citizens.  He did as little as he could.  If I know that, Russia and Iran know that too.  And they have gladly moved in to take advantage of American weakness.  As Obama shows weakness at each provocation, America's enemies get bolder.  This next year is not going to be a good one for US foreign policy and that's why the gun control crusade is a top priority again.

The End of Pax Americana

In the Ancient World, there was a period that has come to be called the Pax Romana, the Roman Peace.  After two centuries of almost continuous warfare, Augustus brought about an era of peace in the wake of his victory over Antony and Cleopatra.  This extended period of no warfare was unknown to Romans but not unwelcome.  It lasted for two hundred years but came to an end with Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator).

 

Based on this Roman example, historians have picked out other similar time and titled them for the dominant power that secured the peace.  After Napoleon's final defeat at Waterloo, Britain became the dominant power around the globe.  Its mighty navy protected the seas and thereby promoted trade and comity on the waves.  This Pax Britannica lasted until World War I.  It was not until after World War II that the United States took the reins from Britain and established the Pax Americana.  Of course, there have been wars during this period but they have not touched the American mainland - terrorist attacks excepted.

 

Barack Obama has refused to maintain the Pax Americana.  From the very start, he apologized for America's past arrogance and declared that we had no business telling other countries what they should and shouldn't do.  He abandoned allies like Poland to curry favor with opponents like Russia.  He abandoned Iraq and is somehow bemused that ISIS arose in the fertile power vacuum he left.  He was a cheerleader for the Arab Spring which has toppled our former allies - though admittedly dictators - and provided more fertile soil for jihadists; that was not a good tradeoff.  The Middle East is in ruins and expelling refugees at an alarming rate.  Iran is on the rise and aligning itself with Russia.  Russia has become a firm supporter of Assad in Syria, a dictator that Obama long ago demanded step down.  Russia, whom Romney identified as our number one geopolitical adversary in the 2012 campaign, is securing a foothold in the Middle East while we retreat from it.

 

As happened with the Pax Britannica, America is finding it more difficult to pay for the peace.  With an economy that has stagnated for the better part of a decade and a rapidly growing welfare state to support, it is easier to cut the military than transfer payments to voters.

 

At the UN today, Vladimir Putin laid the blame for Middle Eastern turmoil on the West.  And he was right!  Obama has left a power vacuum and Putin is only too happy to accept this gift.  During the Cold War, we funded the Mujahidin in Afghanistan, a country with relatively little in the way of natural resources.  Now we are handing over the whole of the Middle East, a magnificent oil producer, without resistance.

 

I rather doubt we will have a Pax Russia to follow America's abdication. 

Path to Defeat

Fourteen years after Pearl Harbor, World War II had been over for a decade.  The Germans (the western half of them) and the Japanese were no longer a threat.  Both were on a path to becoming powerful economies and much freer countries.

Fourteen years after 9/11, the War on Terror is still going though it is mostly a loss.  The costly victory of Iraq has been flushed away and now an Islamic State has arisen.  The United States has approved a treaty that isn't a treaty with Iran that will remove sanctions and free billions of dollars in assets to a leading state-sponsor of terrorism.  Does no one remember how well a far less generous nuclear deal with North Korea turned out?  Europe is being flooded with waves of Muslim refugees who, strangely enough, are 70% adult males.  Isn't it usually the women and children who flee while the men stay and fight?  Millions of 'refugees' will soon be scattered throughout Europe and a percentage of those will prove to be ISIS agents out to cause mayhem.  Heck, ISIS announced exactly that intention back in February.  Our Middle Eastern allies, such as they were, in Iraq, Yemen, and Egypt have toppled or are in crisis.  Libya, thanks to our intervention, went from a nominally stable dictatorship that was no longer a threat to a failed state crawling with Islamic fighters allied with al Qaeda.  In short, the situation is much worse than when the war began.  But Osama bin Laden is dead!  Our current strategy is an obvious loser.  It was weak under Bush and positively catastrophic under Obama.

 

During the Civil War, it took Lincoln years to find the right general.  On paper, Grant didn't look as good as many of the generals who had preceded him but he proved to be the right man for the time.  In the Cold War, it wasn't until Reagan that the right strategy was found against the Soviets.  Once implemented, the Evil Empire collapsed surprisingly quickly.  Obama may think the War on Terror has come to an end but the other side has not surrendered.  They are ascendant.  Will the next president be the right one to turn this war around?  Not if she's Hillary.  Hillary is one of the architects of the Libyan disaster.  I've not heard any nominee correctly identify our enemy.  Bush refused to do so and Obama had the Apology Tour during his first year in office.

 

Islam has been at war with the West for more than a thousand years.  During that period, it has had its high points and low points but it never lost sight of the goal: subjugation of the world under an Islamic Caliphate.  Thanks to the fecklessness of the West and a new strategy of stateless soldiers, Islam is making inroads.  Everything we have done since 9/11 has had no impact on the enemy's resolve.

 

I fear it will require a radioactive smoking crater in place of a US city for us to finally take the enemy at their word and fight to victory.

Engagement

President Obama campaigned on a policy of engagement with hostile countries, most notably Iran. Since his inauguration, he has tried to make nice with Iran and, as predicted by yours truly, it has come to naught. Oh, but since we showed that Iran was unwilling to engage when we offered the carrot, it makes us all that much stronger now that we must resort to the stick. Actually, no. The Chinese will not allow meaningful sanctions. Nor, in all likelihood, will Russia. The skeptics of Obama's strategy said that he was simply giving them a year or more to pursue nuclear weapons with no threat of action. Now we will seek toothless sanctions that will do virtually nothing to curb Iran's thirst for nuclear weaponry. Look what our sanctions have achieved against Cuba. As the Obama Administration will not use military force against Iran to prevent that nation from going nuclear and will strenuously urge Israel not to do so, it is now fairly certain that Iran will join the nuclear club. Won't MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) contain Iranian belligerence like it did with the USSR, especially since there is nothing Mutual about the Assured Destruction? Maybe. I'd rather not put it to the test.

Ahmadinejad has said that Israel must be "wiped off" the map. That will be much easier if he has some nukes. Is he just bluffing or should Israel take him at his word? The stakes could hardly be higher?