James Lewis over at the American Thinker makes some excellent points about the consequences of the politics of personal destruction.  Basically, by turning Bush’s reliance on US intelligence on Iraq into a sin–ruining his credibility and reputation in the process–the Left has emboldened rogue states and has set nuclear nonproliferation back decades… and are therefore arguably responsible for both Iran and North Korea’s nuclear rise.

And if you want to blame it on Bush (which I agree isn’t a bad instinct per-se… he IS the president after all…) just ask yourself; do you really think Dems would stand behind Bush if he were to authorize strikes against Iran?  And why would Bush risk any more of his own credibility (or that of his party) when he is assured Democrats will demonize him and will, again, use our inherently questionable intelligence against him — as a tool to regain power?

George W. Bush has been crucified for five long years in the media, by the feckless, hysterical and cowardly Europeans, by the United Nations, and of course by the Democratic Party, because he took the only sane action possible in the face of the apparent WMD threat from Saddam…  [P]residents don’t have the luxury of Monday morning quarterbacking… They cannot wait for metaphysical certainty about threats to national survival and international peace…

The entire anti-proliferation effort has therefore been sabotaged and probably ruined by the Left. For what reason? There can be only one rational reason: A lust for power, even at the expense of national and international safety and peace. But the Left has irrational reasons as well, including an unfathomable hatred for adulthood in the face of mortal danger. Like the Cold War, this is a battle between the adolescent rage of the Left and the realistic adult decision-making of the mainstream — a mainstream which is now tenuously maintained only by conservatives in the West.

Barack Obama represents the revolt against reality in contemporary politics. He is the ultimate fantasy candidate, the Savior who appears from nowhere to rescue the poor and helpless and intellectually impaired among us. That is the source and essence of his appeal. His backers, from ACORN to Ayers to Soros, are profoundly driven by otherwordly fantasies. They are the perfect secular parallels to the Armageddon regime of Tehran.

I couldn’t help but laugh at the recent kerfuffle regarding the supposed comparison of Barak Hussein Obama to a Nazi-appeaser. (I also laugh at the anger arising anytime someone uses Barack’s middle name… but I digress). In an interview, Bush said:

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along… We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’

“We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Never mind the fact that Barack was not mentioned at all–he still used the opportunity (as any good politician would) to get in front of the media and defend himself.

“George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”

But you have advocated for this very thing, Barack! (or does the Iranian regime fall outside your definition of a “terrorist”… which, if true, is about as revealing as anything Bush has said). The funny thing is that Bush is routinely called, well, a NAZI, by many on the left… and not even a finger is lifted in response. When accused of being something quite tame in comparison (i.e. an appeaser), Barack looses it with outrage. How is it that those on the right can be called anything with impunity, but those on the left must be shielded from even the softest criticism??? Is it not funny how the standards of political correctness change from party-to-party?

If anything can be garnished from this small forray, it is that Bush has a much greater grasp of history than Barack does. Those who do not see the similarities between Iran, or other terrorist-sponsoring regimes will undoubtedly make the same mistakes.

Unfortunately I am a bit behind on current events–law school exams have been known to have such an affect–but even though this is a few days late, I still think an analysis of the NIE report is in order.

As you no doubt know, the report has concluded “with high confidence”… I might add, that “in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program… We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.”

Now, this report can be either believed (although doing so… how does one say… requires a willing suspension of disbelief) or be attacked for a number of valid reasons. Allow me to address both alternatives in order.

First, if we believe the report, how is it that our intelligence is 4 years behind the curve in finding such information out? Is it not entirely possible under this logic that Iran might have started it’s program back up in 2005–giving them a 4 year head start until our policy changes again in ‘09? Hardly re-assuring.

Secondly, if we choose to disbelieve the report, there are a variety of good reasons for doing so. To begin, it is unclear whether the new intelligence responsible for the 180 degree about-face based on reliable sources.  It is quite possible Iran may be leaking information to try to mislead western intelligence officials.  One only needs to look at the the statements of Iranian officials on a weekly basis to figure out they are a peace-loving nation.  The pursuit of nuclear weapons quite simply fits the mold.

Secondly, the International Atomic Energy Agency does not share the same degree of confidence in the U.S. assessment of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “To be frank, we are more skeptical,” a senior official close to the agency said. “We don’t buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran.” (WSJ).

Third, the three authors of the report are all admittedly opposed to Bush’s current Iranian policy. This isn’t to say that Bush’s interpretation of the intelligence isn’t equally tainted by ideology, but at least Bush’s position until now was based on intelligence documents that re-enforced his position. Given the astonishing new findings, one can’t but wonder if the report was designed in part to undermine the Bush strategy.

What is perhaps the most unfortunate result of the release of the report is how quickly it’s findings were put to partisan political purposes. Democrats quickly ran to the microphones–unquestionably accepting the intelligence report as inherent truth (which I found a bit odd given their qualms about previous WMD intelligence)–claiming Bush’s policy was incorrect and re-articulating the need for a diplomatic solution.

The mainstream media has responded no better. The New York Times immediately published an article titled “The Good and Bad News About Iran“. In relevant part:

The good news:
Tehran, we are now told, halted its secret nuclear weapons program in 2003, which means that President Bush has absolutely no excuse for going to war against Iran. We are also relieved that the intelligence community is now willing to question its own assumptions and challenge the White House fevered rhetoric….

And the bad news:
But there’s also a lot of worrisome news in there that must not be overlooked… Tehran’s scientists are working to master the skills to make nuclear fuel — the hardest part of building a weapon. Anyone who wants to give the Iranians the full benefit of the doubt should read the last four years of reports from United Nations’ nuclear inspectors about Iran’s 18-year history of hiding and dissembling. Or last month’s report, which criticized Tehran for providing “diminishing” information and access to its current program.

As James Toranto (one of my favorite cynics) concluded… “In other words, the bad news, per the Times, is that a lunatic theocracy may soon become a lunatic theocracy armed with nuclear weapons. The good news is that that there’s nothing President Bush can do to stop it.” I haven’t come to expect much support for bush from the Times; therefore, this article didn’t come as a surprise. You can imagine my shock then at the Time’s op-ed article the following day which seems to conclude the very opposite:

…[T]he report contains the same sorts of flaws that we have learned to expect from our intelligence agency offerings. It, like the report in 2002 that set up the invasion of Iraq, is both misleading and dangerous.

Iran is also building a heavy water reactor at its research center at Arak. This reactor is ideal for producing plutonium for nuclear bombs, but is of little use in an energy program like Iran’s, which does not use plutonium for reactor fuel. India, Israel and Pakistan have all built similar reactors — all with the purpose of fueling nuclear weapons. And why, by the way, does Iran even want a nuclear energy program, when it is sitting on an enormous pool of oil that is now skyrocketing in value? And why is Iran developing long-range Shahab missiles, which make no military sense without nuclear warheads to put on them?

We should be suspicious of any document that suddenly gives the Bush administration a pass on a big national security problem it won’t solve during its remaining year in office. Is the administration just washing its hands of the intractable Iranian nuclear issue by saying, “If we can’t fix it, it ain’t broke”?

I happen to think the second article has it right; Iran has no need for nuclear fuel with their massive oil reserves; we cannot just blindly accept Teran’s “peaceful uses” explanation given their hard-water facilities. However, what is maddening about these two articles is that within the space of 24 hours, the Times went from bashing Bush’s “fevered rhetoric” to lamenting that the report removes Bush from the responsibilities his “fevered rhetoric” would otherwise require! Can it be said any differently then the times wants it both ways!? They praise Bush’s political defeat yet demand he be held accountable for their preferred “diplomatic” policy should it fail!  If read together, the Times has essentially praised the use of dangerous and misleading intelligence.  I really do not know how to react to such an evasive set of policy positions.

What many fail to realize is that in the end, the danger with Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology was with the pursuit itself… not necessarily the weapons that may still be decades away. It is really a question of responsibility; the Iranian regime has proven time and time again that it is not responsible enough to be entrusted with such potential power.

I believe the Bush administration has taken the proper approach to Iran–bringing countries together on issues like sanctions and increased diplomatic pressure. Unfortunately, the NIE report has wasted much of the political capital the Bush administration — including Condalesa Rice, John Bolton, and others — have worked hard to earn over the past few years.

It seems the drafters of the NIE have in both advocated a policy and have yet managed undermined that very policy within the pages of a single document. If this is not bad drafting… then I don’t know what is.

I literally started quivering with rage upon reading this article in the New York Sun.  Turns out Iran is CURRENTLY holding American Citizens as hostages, Haleh Esfandiari and Ali Shakeri, to name a couple.  This is really maddening how much we are letting the Iranian government get away with.  What are we going to let them do next, test launch whatever new ICBM’s the have been developing?  Finish their uranium enrichment?  Somebody tell me. 

On the other hand, I was recently listening to a speech by abbas miliani, who, by every appearance, seems to be the most reasonable thinker… who seems to believe that fostering democracy in Iran is the best permanent solution for dealing with the Iranian regime.  Although he has never said it explicitly (to my knowledge)… I would also assume he would agree that a hard showing of political pressure by the U.S. government against Tehran would not help to further this end.    Even so, according to the latest poll findings, Iranians as a whole have a very favorable view of the U.S., despite the fact that we have (mostly) refused diplomatic ties with the current regime.  Quite interesting to say the least.  

I agree with Miliani yet am unwilling to make the compromises necessary to achieve that end without taking a stand in particular cases, especially where individual citizens are involved. I think Bush has dropped the ball big on this Iran thing… let’s hope our next president is another Reagan so we can get those hostages back home…. ASAP.