Common Sense Political Thought

A lady friend of mine of some thirteen years of electronic acquaintance, from the old New York Times political fora on America Online has resumed an old blogger.com weblog that she had neglected for almost a year. I happen to disagree with her on about everything but the time of day, but since only about four people in the world actually know about her site, I can disagree with her here and give her at least a little bit of publicity.

The impetus for her article was the reported National Intelligence Estimate that Iran probably ceased attempts at building nuclear weapons in 2003:

US: Iran Halted Weapons Program in 2003
Pamela Hess, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON – A new U.S. intelligence report concludes that Iran’s nuclear weapons development program has been halted since the fall of 2003 because of international pressure, a stark contrast to the conclusions U.S. spy agencies drew just two years ago.

The finding is part of a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran that also cautions that Tehran continues to enrich uranium and still could develop a bomb between 2010 and 2015 if it decided to do so.

The conclusion that Iran’s weapons program was still frozen, through at least mid-2007, represents a sharp turnaround from the previous intelligence assessment in 2005. Then, U.S. intelligence agencies believed Tehran was determined to develop a nuclear weapons capability and was continuing its weapons development program. The new report concludes that Iran’s decisions are rational and pragmatic, and that Tehran is more susceptible to diplomatic and financial pressure than previously thought.

“Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005,” says the unclassified summary of the secret report.

If the NIE is correct (it is, after all, an estimate of the situation), that’s reasonably good news. But it also means something our friends on the left would be loath to admit: it means that President Bush’s policy of pre-emptive strike, amd his determination to use firce when he thought it necessary, has had the effect of helping to persuade some really bad nations that building nuclear armaments is a bad idea for their own health.

Not too big a surprise, I suppose: On December 19, 2003, Libya, the north African nation ruled for decades by radical strongman Muammar Qadafi, announced that yes, it had had a nuclear weapons program, but that it was ending the program and turning everything over to the International Atomic Energy Agency run by Mohammad el Baradei.

After months of secret talks with U.S. and British officials, Libya acknowledged efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction December 19 and said it would abandon them. It has promised to disclose details about its nuclear programs and abide by the terms of the international Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

An apparent success for the diplomacy of the Bush Administration, though one for which our friends on the left would give the President little credit. And now we find that, at about the same time, Iran, verbally belligerent, apparently funding terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, openly hostile to the United States since 1979, seems to have ended, at least for the nonce, its nuclear weapons program.

“Armageddon,” temporarily postponed?
by EvaMarieM

I see that Bush’s “Armageddon” has, seemingly, been temporarily postponed. given the latest conclusions reached in the NIE report.

In an article published in the Wash Post titled “The Right Nuclear Red Line” by Gareth Evans, the author correctly reaches the following conclusion after returning from a trip to the Middle East:

But the psychological arguments I heard were a different story: This is a country seething with both pride and resentment against past humiliations, and it wants to cut a regional and global figure by proving its sophisticated technological capability

Finally, an individual who seemingly understands what lies at the very core of Iran’s insistence it be allowed to proceed in accordance with standards spelled out in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

If it’s one approach Arabs/Muslims will not tolerate, it is public humiliation.

Odd: it seems that whatever the Bush Administration has been doing concerning Iran has worked, at least if the NIE is accurate. If Eva-Marie believes that our policy has been one of disrespect and humiliation of “Arabs/Muslims,” and I know she believs just that, it also seems as though Iran has knuckled under to at least some of the Bush Administration’s demands.

The latest NIE report opens the door for a new approach to Iran, regardless of loud voices of protestation coming from Israel and their neoconservative cohorts in the U.S. Israelis would be much better served if they allowed the establishment of a viable Palestinian state since it would go a very long way toward alleviating the anti-Israel/American sentiment in the region.

Resolving this never-ending bloody saga is of the essence for the very simple reason that Arabs/Muslims see in the humiliation of Palestinians, the humiliation of them all.

Oddly enough, the Arabs didn’t seem particularly interested in the formation of an independent Palestine on the lands they held in Judea and Samaria before the 1967 war. Then the policy of the Arabs was to never recognize Israel and to call for its destruction as a nation. And if we look at the published beliefs of Hezbollah and Hamas, we find that stated yet today.

However, the two-state solution¹ is the stated policy of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s government, as well as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. It may be difficult for them to reach an agreement, but Mr Olmert has recognized that Israel cannot continue to keep the Palestinians within their territory; the faster-growing Palestinian population would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. Whether or not that determination will — or even can — lead to an agreement remains to be seen.

Needless to say, the double-standards applied to Israel vis a vis the Arab/Muslim world are, understandably, resented.

On the one hand, Israel proclaims to be a “democracy” while on the other hand it demands to be recognized as a Jewish state, otherwise known as a theocracy. With two sets of laws, one for Jews and one for non-Jews, it can hardly be considered a true democracy.

Eva-Marie apparently doesn’t know the definition of theocracy², despite having had it pointed out to her before. Many of the Jews in Israel are not very religious in their outlook or lifestyles, but adhere to Jewish identity as a cultural or ethnic grouping, and Israel as a nation has pretty much been based on that demarcation of identity. Arab citizens of Israel have just as much of a right to participate in public life and vote as any other citizen — and it’s laughable to complain that Israel isn’t a “true democracy” in comparison with the Arab nations which surround her.

Hopefully, the heated rhetoric emanating from the Administration will give way to serious negotiations and save the world the pain of witnessing yet another assault on a Middle Eastern nation.

Those of us who abhor war, are fed up with policies adopted by Bush-Cheney-neocons, whose war mongering, arrogant stance has been so highly counterproductive in terms of lives lost…treasure wasted…and U.S. standing in the world at its lowest level in decades.

Well, one thing is certainly true: there are a lot of people in the world who do not like the United States and do not like President Bush’s policies. But if the NIE is accurate, it is just more proof that President Bush’s policies have been the right ones, and the pacifistic left has been wrong.
____________________________
¹ – Israel and an independent Palestine living side-by-side in a negotiated peace
² – A government ruled by or subject to religious authority, or a state so governed.