-
ObamaCare Rate Spikes Revealed
May 13, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Quick CISPA Survey
April 18, 2013 | 1 comment
-
To Each His Own Audience (…or Enemy)
March 29, 2013 | 11 comments
-
They Say They Want a Revolution
March 20, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Senate Access Shutdown
March 12, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
This morning, Jennifer Rubin lambasted the Obama administration’s “feckless Iran policy.” Fair enough. I agree the president’s approach has proven disjointed, at best, and “rudderless,” at worst. Waging a shadow war in the global economy against a diabolical theocracy, while assassinating nuclear scientists and corrupting technology with the help of its arch-nemesis won’t cultivate fertile soil for constructive engagement. And that’s fine and dandy. These aren’t the Khatami years and the “dialogue among civilizations” is off the table.
However, Rubin’s hardline approach demonstrates an unfortunate artlessness on a number of levels — it’s both strategically and historically unfeasible.
To be clear, I’m not advocating some sort of Kumbaya approach to diplomatic persuasion. We can’t simply tell Iran to surrender its nuclear ambition and play hands-off with Baghdad. Nor am I disavowing the unique threat presented by Iran, itself a potential nuclear power that boasts dodgy protégés in the Gulf States, Southern Lebanon, Northern Saudi Arabia and (for the time being) Damascus. But let’s be realistic.
Rubin has drawn up a five point policy platform to deal with the Islamic Republic. I’ll respond in kind.
First, like the Israelis, we need to enhance the credibility of our military threat.
Rubin goes on to suggest that “the idea is to disabuse the Iranians of the idea that President Obama is simply mouthing platitudes when he says ‘all options are on the table.’” In other words, it’s time to ramp up the jingoism to a level heretofore unheard of…which makes me a little nervous.
Talk is cheap. We can shake our fists as hard as we please in the general direction of the Persian plateau, but that’s not going to discourage their desire to build the bloody bomb. Quite the contrary — it will only serve to egg them on. Say what you will about the mullahs… they’re rational actors and defensive realists. Security is a zero sum game. Khamanei shook his head in disbelief as Gaddafi fell to NATO powers absent the nuclear program he surrendered a decade back. Likewise Saddam.
Threats ring hollow unless we’re ready to back them up, so enough with the “tough talk” nonsense. You can’t threaten a war unless you’re damn well ready to launch one. We’re not going to “impress” the Iranians, as Rubin suggests, unless we do so with a massive bombing campaign and boots on the ground. Strafing fire and mixed sorties aren’t going to get the job done. As I’ve written here repeatedly, this would only serve to diminish — not destroy — Iran’s nuclear development, while cementing support for an increasingly unpopular and fragile regime. Unacceptable.
Second, the sooner Syrian President Bashar al-Assad goes, the better.
Fair enough, but Rubin should realize that even Tehran has begun to distance itself from Assad’s shrinking cabal — they’ve even taken meetings with opposition leadership in preparation for the embattled Alawite’s eventual downfall. However, Rubin fails to mention what’s really at stake. Damascus plays host to Iran’s two main militant proxies in the Middle East, Hamas and Hizbullah. Absent Assad’s assurances, diplomatic cover would be shed and supply routes severed. That’s why we need him out, and ASAP. But not without the aegis of Arab League approval and the UN’s R2P clause — we just got out of one Arab country (make that two, if you count Libya) and we’re not prepared to stumble blindly into another.
Third, the administration needs to stop dragging its feet on sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran and oil exports.
Um…not sure what Rubin’s gripe is, here. The Treasury and State Departments are already in the process of implementing Menendez-Kirk sanctions — which will ice the Central Bank of Iran, and summarily nick the Islamic Republic from the global payments system. Let’s call it the “nuclear” economic option. The Senate approved the amendment with passage of the National Defense Authorization Bill back in December. If anything, Rubin should reserve her indignation for Timothy Geithner, but also recognize the impact that Menendez-Kirk is already having, including the absolute demolition of the Iranian rial.
Fourth, we should be treating Iran like the pariah state that it is, a violator of international law, an abuser of human rights and a sponsor of terror…We and our Western allies (Russia and China are nearly hopeless, I understand, but we need to try) should be pressing to exclude Iran from every international forum (from the United Nations to the Olympics), enacting a travel ban, freezing assets and the like. Iran is already at war with us…
Agreed, but we can’t allow Ahmedinejad to play up his anti-American routine like he did during the latter half of the Bush administration. We want him wholly isolated at the global level. When he talks, we’d like no one to care. He’s already losing his audience, even within his own country. Let’s not provide his ammunition.
Fifth, regime change in Iran must be the official policy of the United States.
I would simply ask Ms. Rubin if she has the foggiest notion what got us into this mess in the first place. Believe it or not, Iranians don’t have the fondest memories of U.S. orchestrated regime change on Persian soil. Let’s leave it at that.
Finally, I’d note that Rubin’s insistence on conflating America’s military strategy and defense priorities with those of Israel is incredibly cavalier. Our alliance is undeniably important, but it is not fused by an unalterable, divine writ. Our policy need not mimick their posture.
View all comments (29) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Reid Smith
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/27/in-response-to-jennifer-rubin
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Clint| 1.27.12 @ 4:06PM
Ronald Reagan,
" Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.
In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today."
The Veteran Versus The Three RINO-CINO Plastic Israel Firster Puppet Chickenhawks.
Hobbes| 1.27.12 @ 4:16PM
Rubin is a typical Israel-First NeoCon. Get the US to invade Iran. Well, we're sick of it. Let somebody else fight those Middle East wars. We need to get our own house in order.
Oldefarte| 1.27.12 @ 4:34PM
Possibly a partial combination of Paul's philosophy with thqat of Romney's is the solution to this ME terrorism, in that instead of our military engagements within these countries, a total economic war might bring them to their knees. If the huge amounts of ME oil supplies that we import for our domestic requirements would be replaced with our own domestic oil drilling capabilities [and supplemented with importation of our friendly ally's Canada's produced oil], the economic/financial loss in revenue to these ME countries of their one/solitary revenue source/oil would result in their economic/financial collapse/destruction and therefore accompolish our desired goal without a single loss of life from military action. These Arab countries depend solely upon their one/only source of revenue, OIL. They do not produce/export any product or service to the rest of the world's demand; and they depend upon same for their economic well being. If same/oil was eliminated/cut off due to other sources replacing same, then their revenues decline substantially and their become financially bankrupt. This assumes that this country completely negates the Democratic Party political influence existing today from it's environmental partisaned elements, and that our domestic oil producing companies are thereafter allowed to drill anywhere [on/off shore] they need to in order to produce oil supplies [and if same id strictly dedicated to our domestic supply needs and not exported to other countries]. Once again, IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS!!!!!!!!!!
Clint| 1.27.12 @ 4:46PM
George Will, "Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?"
William F. Buckley, " It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative. It’s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …”
Sean| 1.27.12 @ 6:57PM
Rubin is an idiot. The way to change Iran is the same way we are changing China. You trade with them. What happens is then they get access to our Hollywood movies and entertainment. Then it is all downhill from there for them.
Trinacria| 1.27.12 @ 6:59PM
Nice piece, though I cannot help but suggest that it could have been cut to a single paragraph (the last one).
Ms. Rubin's true allegiance is not a matter that requires in-depth analysis...
Clint| 1.27.12 @ 8:00PM
" As Ralph Waldo Emerson warned when he wrote, “A nation never falls but by suicide.”
The fall of Rome and other dominant civilizations manifest similar pathologies—imperial overreach, runaway spending, erosion of money’s purchasing power."
PCP Smoker| 1.27.12 @ 9:20PM
Easy to explain. Jennifer Rubin= dumb, ugly bitch.
albert constantine jr.| 1.27.12 @ 10:19PM
"I would simply ask Ms. Rubin if she has the foggiest notion what got us into this mess in the first place. Believe it or not, Iranians don't have the fondest memories of U.S. orchestrated regime change on Persian soil. Let's leave it at that. “
Pardon me if I don’t leave it at that. Please allow me to offer a somewhat different position on Iran. Since 1979, when our embassy was seized (and has not been returned), we are at war, not by declaration through Congress, but through de facto acts by the government of Iran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, long recognized as warfare in international law for centuries. In 1983, IRG members and their proxies killed 241 Marines (and their USN counterparts) trying to end a shooting war, not in Iran, but in Lebanon. Since then, the IRG, their terrorist proxies in Hezbollah, IJ, and others have killed or tried to kill Americans in the Middle East (Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.) and other nations, all outside the territorial limits of Iran.
Find me a current resident of Iran who was alive and who was there for the ascension of the Shah in the early 1950s and the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and the years that followed, who has a gripe with the USA. I will listen to whatever they have to say regarding the US foreign policy of the late Truman-early Eisenhower years regarding Persia.
Then I will offer a seminar on the response to Iranian Foreign Policy by members of the Second Marine Division 1982-1985, with a period of follow on instruction regarding US veterans thoughts on the Explosive Formed Projectile as a device to advance Shia Islam. I don’t think I will find a shortage of teaching assistants from my fellow Marines of that era, or many veterans of the recent unpleasantness in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
Mike w| 1.27.12 @ 10:53PM
Thanks to the blogger for this post
Regarding our state of war with Iran We overthrew their democracy in 1953. We put the dictator shah in power
In Lebanon Reagan inserted the marines after israels proxies committed mass murder then the US started bombing for one side in the civil war. This made the marines a legitimate target
Don't forget that we killed Iranian civilians in 1988 in an airliner shoot down
Inconvenient facts
albert constantine jr.| 1.27.12 @ 11:10PM
You're Welcome. Please allow me to correct a few "facts", though.
Marines were inserted into Lebanon before the massacre, primarily to assist the evacuation of the PLO after the Israeli invasion in 1982. The barracks bombing was in 1983. None of this was in the borders of Iran. The bombing was sponsored by Iran. The socialist regime that the US may have participated in overthrowing 30 years previously was not the regime of the IJ, Hezbollah, Ayatollah Khomeini or any others involved in killing American fighting men, it was a group of secular Persian socialists allied with the former USSR.
The downing of the airliner that was apparently mistakenly believed to be threatening US Naval vessels in the Persian Gulf during the Iran/ Iraq War was tragic, but again, an act against a nation at war with us for almost a decade after it seized our embassy in 1979, bombed our barracks outside its borders in 1983 (along with our embassy in Beirut and other targets) along with other continued provocations.
Does your backing IRG/IJ/ Hezbollah over the lives of America's military make you a legitimate target?
Clint| 1.27.12 @ 10:35PM
Tell us about Israeli Intelligence withholding information regarding the Mercedes truck with the false bottom for explosives,which they were tracking and which then was allowed to blow our 241 Marines & Navy Personnel to hell in their Beirut barracks.
You're up.
albert constantine jr.| 1.27.12 @ 10:50PM
If you know facts about anyone having information (Israeli or otherwise), please feel free to invite them to attend the seminar. My former colleague Capt. Johnson had some strong feelings about the Israeli Army in Lebanon, and expressed them with his .45 against one of their errant tankers. Nevertheless, despite who might have known, it was IJ/Hezbollah proxies of the IRG who drove the truck and detonated the bomb, and it is for them that I reserve my most meaningful instruction.
If I thought it was Israel who killed my fellow Marines, my remarks above would have been in Hebrew. While I might translate my remarks to Farsi some day, it is today addressed to those who support the Iranian Regime, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, their proxies and apologists in the USA blogging in English.
Oldefarte| 1.28.12 @ 12:21PM
Clit, tell some more [as usual] GD LIES:
'.....Former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky has accused the Mossad of knowing of the plans for the bombing, but decided against informing the Americans of the attack. According to Ostrovsky, then Mossad head Nahum Admoni decided against informing the Americans on the grounds that the Mossad's responsibility was to protect Israel's interests, not Americans. Admoni denied having any prior knowledge of the attack.[51] Ostrovsky further claimed that among the high level officers of the Mossad there was a view that if the Americans "wanted to stick their nose into this Lebanon thing, let them pay the price."[52] Benny Morris, in his review of Ostrovsky's book, wrote that Ostrovsky was "barely a case officer before he was fired; most of his (brief) time in the agency was spent as a trainee" adding that due to compartmentalization "he did not and could not have had much knowledge of then current Mossad operations, let alone operational history." Benny Morris wrote that the claim regarding the barracks was "odd" and an example of one of Ostrovsky's "Wet" stories which were "mostly fabricated."[53]....'
Clint| 1.28.12 @ 10:55AM
Victor Ostrovsky, former Mossad case officer knows these facts and has spoken about them.
“ Admony ( [Nahum] Admony, then head of Mossad ), in refusing to give the Americans specific information on the truck, said ‘... we’re not there to protect Americans. They’re a big country. Send only the regular information.’
“At the same time, however, all Israeli installations were given the specific details and warned to watch for a truck matching the description of the Mercedes."
Who's Your Buddy, Marine ?
Oldefarte| 1.28.12 @ 12:22PM
See above and TELL THE GD TRUTH!!!!!
albert constantine jr.| 1.28.12 @ 6:49PM
Let me make sure that I understand your position on this. I read Ostrovsky’s books years ago, and I am aware of the credibility issues that many have found with them. For the sake of discussion, though, were we to stipulate that what he put forth was accurate, is somehow the role of the Mossad that did not inform us of the bombing attempt greater than the role of the Iranian proxy Islamic Jihad that designed, recruited and carried out the bombing of the Marine barracks?
cicero| 1.28.12 @ 11:16AM
It looks like the Syrians are taking back their own country in the only meaningful way in the Muslim world. Once a dictator begins killing his own people to stay in power, there can only be one outcome. Either he is overthrown, or the killing continues until he is assassinated. As for Iran, the Persian people will only stand for so much. As the Mullahs run out of money, they will not be able to keep their military under control, and their Praetorian Guard will change the regime. The best thing we can do is stay out of the way. We have no need of Middle Eastern oil, and there is enough at home, or in our hemisphere to satisfy our needs.
While I have the best wishes for Isreal, and have friends living there, I believe they are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. They have an economy that is not commodity based, and the best military in the region. While I have no problem with selling them what they may need in the way of missile defense, I do not think we can do more. If the Arab countries get nuclear weapons, and decide to attack her, there is very little anyone, particularly the US can do about it. You have about 6 million Isrealites surrounded by about 250 million Arabs and Persians.
Occam's Tool| 1.28.12 @ 11:25AM
Ostrovsky's devotion to truth is questionable at best.
However, I disagree with the need for boots on the ground. Bombing can be sufficient alone, provided a cavalier attitude about enemy civilian casualties is employed, as per LeMay's bombings of Japan. It can also serve as an useful illustration of American resolve and willingness to solve the problem.
The Marines dies in Beiruit because vermin like Clint denied them adequate defense posture for fear of offending the friendly Muslims.
Oldefarte| 1.28.12 @ 12:25PM
See above certifying the falsehood of this situation!!!!!!!!!
Occam's Tool| 1.28.12 @ 11:26AM
Sorry, "Marines died."
But the point remains the same. These cultures only respect the spear and the bullet.
Jack in Wi.| 1.28.12 @ 11:49AM
Clint you are doing a great job on this one. Next give them a run down on the USSLiberty. Let us hope that the Zionist entity is soon on the asheap of history. Let it be done peacefully, by sane Jews, like the end of the Soviet Union or Apartheid South Africa, not like Hitlers National Socialist Germany. Sic Semper Tyranis.
Oldefarte| 1.28.12 @ 12:59PM
You and Clit are once again exposing your anti-Semitism from your TOO SHORT SHORTS. Why don't you instead demonstrate your Republican loyalty by exposing the truth about the labor union thugs that are crusifying Scott Walker's political efforts to return taxpayers' money to the residents of Wisconsin by dismantling the corruption of governmental labor unions in your supposedly home state?????????
Occam's Tool| 1.28.12 @ 4:56PM
Jack, what degree iron cross did you win?
FeFe| 1.28.12 @ 12:01PM
Ms Rubin appears to pine for a man of action in her boringly monochrome world of black and white. No subtlety. Her "left-winger" slip is showing.
Dai Alanye | 1.28.12 @ 1:12PM
Form a government in exile for Iran (there are plenty of Iranians to join it) and assist them by means of funding and military action. Despite what dreamers and peace-at-any-price advocates claim, the only sure way to remove the Iranian menace is government overthrow.
As far as the 1953 overthrow, it was Iranian citizens who did the hard lifting, with slight assisstance from the CIA. It can and should be done again.
teflon93| 1.28.12 @ 1:50PM
The time to attack Iran was when we had most of our armed forces on either border fighting with Tehran's proxies.
Indeed, when Bush invaded Iraq, I pointed out to skeptics that if you look at a map, you can see that this was a brilliant strategy to surround the terror masters and wipe them out for good. Clearly Bush intended to hit Iran from two directions and end the war they started in 1979 and have waged against us ever since.
More fool I.
Occam's Tool| 1.28.12 @ 4:55PM
Again, I tend to doubt Iran's water and electrical infrastructures are all that well shielded. NEVER directly attack, always indirectly attack.
Nicholas Baer| 2.10.12 @ 8:03AM
The author did not mention the dynamic behind all of Rubin's posts: She's an "Israel Firster," and she would gladly endanger the U.S.A. and sell out American interests, if by doing so she could strengthen Israel in any way.