By Col. Steven B. Vitali, USMC (Ret.)
The United States is positioned on a trajectory toward a “hot war” with North Korea to end that country’s nuclear intercontinental threat.
To avoid a conflict, only two options are available:
First, the U.S. must strongly demonstrate to China and North Korea by various military, monetary, and strategic actions that America will end North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, even at the cost of a preemptive strike. The objective is to effectively persuade China to act against North Korea’s nuclear intentions.
The second alternative is to abandon the U.S.’s stated-policy of not allowing North Korea (or Iran) the ability to threaten the U.S. with nuclear weapons. This appeasement strategy is now the platform of Democrat politicians who enabled North Korea to sustain and fund their nuclear ambition over the last two decades.
Discredited former National Security Advisor, Susan Rice stated, “The U.S. can tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea.” Her shocking appeasement appraisal stands in stark and foreboding recognition of the division that divides Americans today. The inability to acknowledge that evil exists in the world and the resilience to confront it and stop it is a departure from American historical precedence.
Rice advocates tolerance of nuclear blackmail as if a policy of mutual deterrence exists.
Update 19 Jan, 2011 @ 14:19 – Canada’s Heritage Minister has ordered the Library & Archives Canada to proceed with the screening.
I just finished screening the upcoming documentary Iranium. This excellent film exposes what politicians and the media are afraid to tell us: that Iran has apocalyptic intentions and a focus on destroying the United States and Israel. Historically, nations have always denied their development of a nuclear weapons program, but Iranium shows Iran’s leaders proudly announcing to their people that they (1) are developing nuclear weapons, (2) nothing can stop them, and (3) they plan on using them. Iran tells American media an entirely different – and much more pleasant – story, and unless you stay on top of geopolitics or watch this video, you won’t hear about the imminent threat Iran poses to the West – and Americans in particular.
Iranium has already generated controversy as a screening at the Canadian National Archives was shut down Monday following a cancellation request from the Iranian Embassy. On Tuesday, Canadian officials received threats of violence and protest, and a hazardous materials unit investigated two suspicious packages related to the incident.
Viewers will be able to watch Iranium free online on February 8, 2011. You can register at the website or buy the DVD.
Obama, Medvedev expected to finalize a treaty Friday that cuts deployed nuclear weapons by one-fourth.
Lt. Gen. Ben Mixon, the commander of U.S. Army Pacific, wrote a letter to the editor in Stars & Stripes opposing the repeal of DADT. SecDef Gates and ADM Mullen rebuked Mixon, saying he was acting within his rights, but his remarks were “inappropriate” and “ill-advised.” (thanks to SoldiersMom at Blackfive for locating the letter)
Rules of Engagement: Air support pilots learn to hold back
SEAL 3 Courts-Martial Update: The military judge responsible for the case has ordered the convening authority to grant immunity to five SEAL witnesses, or the case may be abated and postponed indefinitely. As of this morning, my sources state that MG Cleveland agreed to grant immunity. But their request doesn’t imply guilt:
The five men’s refusal to testify under their Fifth Amendment right doesn’t mean they have anything to hide. Citing Supreme Court rulings, Carlos noted that one of the Fifth Amendment’s basic functions “is to protect innocent men… ‘who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.’ “
A legal defense fund has been established to assist our SEALs with their legal costs, which proceeds from the Victory Institute’s “Free the SEALs” merchandise are sent. Author Betty Kilbride is also donating proceeds of her book to the SEAL defense fund. Visit her Facebook page or her publisher’s website for more.
“Like it or not, tens of thousands of nuclear arms exist around the world, and neither they nor the know-how and capability to make them are going to disappear. Knowledge, once gained, cannot be washed away by treaties—let alone by unilateral US nuclear disarmament. For generations to come, our lives and civilization will depend on effectively countering these threats.”
– VADM Robert R. Monroe USN (Ret.)
[From STRATFOR’s Geopolitical Weekly]
The Iranians have now agreed to talks with the P-5+1, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China) plus Germany. These six countries decided in late April to enter into negotiations with Iran over the suspected Iranian nuclear weapons program by Sept. 24, the date of the next U.N. General Assembly meeting. If Iran refused to engage in negotiations by that date, the Western powers in the P-5+1 made clear that they would seriously consider imposing much tougher sanctions on Iran than those that were currently in place. The term “crippling” was mentioned several times.
Obviously, negotiations are not to begin prior to the U.N. General Assembly meeting as previously had been stipulated. The talks are now expected to begin Oct. 1, a week later. This gives the Iranians their first (symbolic) victory: They have defied the P-5+1 on the demand that talks be under way by the time the General Assembly meets. Inevitably, the Iranians would delay, and the P-5+1 would not make a big deal of it.
Talks About Talks and the Sanctions Challenge
Now, we get down to the heart of the matter: The Iranians have officially indicated that they are prepared to discuss a range of strategic and economic issues but are not prepared to discuss the nuclear program — which, of course, is the reason for the talks in the first place. On Sept. 14, they hinted that they might consider talking about the nuclear program if progress were made on other issues, but made no guarantees.
Matthew Levitt exposes the fact that sanctions won’t stop Iran’s nuclear proliferation. From his testimony to the Senate Comittee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:
…targeted financial sanctions were never intended to solve the problem of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Sanctions are no silver bullet. On their own, these financial tools can only do so much. But coupled with other tools — especially robust diplomacy, but also a credible military presence in the region — financial measures can effectively create leverage for diplomacy. That diplomacy should focus not only on Iran, but on Russia, China, our European and Asian allies, the Gulf States, and others.
Once the full economic and diplomatic weight of the United States is brought to bear on our enemies, we win every time. History shows that sanctions alone do not work. But this new “soft power” of Obama’s is destined to fail. Why on earth would Iran abandon their nuclear program if they know there is nothing to lose and everything to gain? Ayatollah Khamenei will not abandon his nuclear ambitions because some diplomat asked nicely.
According to the [2007 National Intelligence Estimate], Iran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program in 2003 was “in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.” The key judgments conclude that the intelligence community’s “assessment that the [nuclear weapons] program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue that we judged previously.”
What else happened in 2003? It wasn’t some historic moment in diplomatic history, it was the invasion of Iraq. Iran found themselves surrounded by U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now Obama is implementing “exit strategies” in both countries, which tells Iran not only that our resolve has run out, but also that we mean Iran no harm. The carrot-and-stick approach has become the carrot-and-carrot. Plus, the UN and Europe can’t be counted on for sanctions as they are only out for themselves, and there is good money in doing business with Iran.
Based on this, I believe that Iran will not only have a nuclear arsenal by the end of this year, but also that our government will do absolutely nothing to stop them. This is about legitimacy: Iran saw China emerge as a superpower – not because of their robust economy, but because of their nuclear arsenal. Iran seeks legitimacy, something that a few nuclear warheads can easily provide.
I also say that Iran will NOT attack Israel as soon as a weapon is ready, because they don’t have to. Iran can move the weapon to Hezbollah, their Lebanese proxy army, who could deploy a nuke into Israel via a tunnel. Iran destroys Israel – and has plausible deniability.
Sanctions alone will not work, as Levitt points out – but apparently they were never intended to.
This is a transcript of the Unto the Breach program. Click here for the audio.
And to think you heard it on CNN… On the show “Cafferty File,” host Jack Cafferty addressed Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s defense of the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be spent on contraception.
“What exactly did she mean? Are the millions of dollars for contraception supposed to stop people from having babies? [That’s] starting to sound a little like Chairman Mao.” Good point, Jack. Try finding any remarkable difference between Pelosi’s Congressional Progressive Caucus’ platform and the Chi-Coms’.
Barack Obama is accelerating his promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. U.S. troops are reducing their visibility as Iraqis take over security.
Intelligence officials are saying that the Sunni al Qaeda in Iraq insurgents are being replaced by Shiite Iranian proxies. Representative Gary Ackerman (D-NY), who chairs the House Subcommittee on Middle East and Southern Asia, says that Iraq is being absorbed into a “regional proxy war with Iran.”
Despite a 2005 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that states the exact opposite, the Intelligence Community has released another NIE that states with “high confidence” that Iran had abandoned its nuclear program in 2003 due to “increasing international scrutiny.”
There are several things that smell fishy about this report.
First; what international scrutiny was there in 2003? The buzz that surrounds Iran’s nuclear weapons program (or lack thereof) today was not there in 2003.Maybe it was that they had been labeled by Bush as a member of the “axis of evil.” US troops were in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe they feared that the hammer would drop on them like it did on Saddam Hussein.
Second; Democrats, who typically don’t trust the CIA, are totally buying this report. It fits their agenda of weakening the Bush administration. This report will be a major obstacle to President Bush as he seeks more international sanctions or even a pre-emptive strike against Iran.
Third; which NIE should we believe? The 2005 report stated, again with “high confidence,” that “Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure…” (italics mine). One of the reports must be inaccurate.
Fourth; the 2007 NIE says that Iran cancelled its program due to a “cost-benefit approach.” The State Department wrote the same thing 40 years ago about India’s nuclear weapons program. They said that it was not in India’s best interests to pursue nuclear weapons due to a cost-benefit analysis. India then proceeded to detonate a nuclear weapon in May of 1974.
Fifth; the three main authors of this report are from the State Department as well. Why should we believe them this time? Interestingly, a Wall Street Journal intelligence source describes the three authors in question as “hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials.” Hmm.
Keep in mind that Iran’s uranium enrichment is in open defiance of UN binding resolutions. The International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that Iran has the blueprints to shape uranium into a bomb core. Iran has technical information on how to mount a nuclear warhead on a missile. There is also evidence that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has been developing detonation devices that would set off a nuclear explosion. This does not seem to me like a regime that has abandoned its nuclear weapons programs.
©COPYRIGHT 2007 UNTO THE BREACH MEDIA