Islamic totalitarianism — VOICES for REASON

The rhetoric: Following the busting of an Iranian plot to kill a Saudi envoy in Washington, the Obama administration promised to pursue the “toughest sanctions.”

The reality: a New York Times headline sums up: “U.S. talks tough to Iran, but Holds Off on Harsher Moves.” The story goes on: “Despite issuing harsh calls for Tehran to be held to account, the Obama administration does not plan to shift its policy of pressure on the Iranian government.”

What’s fascinating here is twofold: (1) Iran is already enmeshed in an intricate web of “tough” sanctions going back many years, accomplishing little. (2) Even if truly effective sanctions were an appropriate response (it’s not even remotely enough), it’s utterly pathetic that the chances of actually imposing them are next to nil. That’s because Iran’s friends at the United Nations will likely undercut or scuttle a U.S.-led push for sanctions, just as they have done in the past.

Tehran is a regime that has already demonstrated a staggering degree of temerity and militancy: just think of its three-decades-long record of lethal attacks on Americans and U.S. interests. What effect will U.S. rhetoric and non-action have on it? We’ve seen that movie before. That policy of appeasement through inaction has brought us here.

What we should do in response requires a separate discussion, but at minimum, contemplate what a truly resolute, self-assertive U.S. policy would begin with: a frank reckoning of Iran’s militant character and malignant goals. Establishing that kind of moral clarity is a necessary condition for enabling us to confront the threat from the regime.

image: flickr

Last month in Washington D.C., ARC hosted a symposium to explore American foreign policy in the post-9/11 decade. For those who were unable to attend live or to watch the live streamed video, below are the videos of the three panel discussions.

Upheavals in the Middle East: Assessing the political landscape

The Islamist Threat: From AfPak to Jyllands-Posten and Times Square

Iran, Israel and the West

At the United Nations this week, the Palestinians will ask for — and possibly get — endorsement for their own independent state. But first, a quick reality check on what a Palestinian state means. This seven-part report from the Middle East Media Research Institute documents the rule of Hamas since it took over Gaza — in a bloody civil war — four years ago. To draw a brief sketch: Hamas has arbitrarily seized private land and bulldozed homes; censored the press; mocked freedom of assembly; killed political opponents (including those accused of “collaboration” with Israel); exploited civilians and private homes as human shields for armaments; imposed sharia law; and colluded in and carried out rocket attacks on Israel. And so the Islamists of Hamas have followed in the footsteps of the rival faction, the Fatah/PLO, which under Yasser Arafat had built up a horrifically repressive dictatorial regime. Arafat’s successor, Mahmoud Abbas, whose faction nominally has authority over parts of the West Bank, is known to celebrate suicide bombers, even honoring terrorists by naming streets after them.

For Palestinian leaders to demand a state of their own in order to sanctify their tyrannical rule is perverse.

The economic downturn, the deficit and debt crisis, the struggle businesses have in making payroll, the challenge many people now face to find work — all of these issues, naturally, are front-and-center in the headlines, on Main Street, on Capitol Hill, on the campaign trail. Foreign policy — despite the tumult in the Middle East — has receded from public awareness. It’s understandable, for example, that people’s interest in Iraq and Afghanistan should wane. Consider how Iraq and Afghanistan have turned out — nearly a decade later, neither has been the success we were led to expect. But there’s a real danger in turning our attention away from foreign policy: the threats we face continue to grow.

Take one major example: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capability. In a column at the New York Post, Peter Brookes helpfully spells out the latest dismaying news about Iran. He writes that “despite all the bloviating, finger-wagging and sloppy United Nations sanctions, there doesn’t seem to be much — if anything — holding back the ayatollahs’ atomic aspirations.”

…Iran is outfitting its new nuclear facility at Qom with new centrifuges — which experts believe will permit it to further increase uranium-enrichment levels far beyond what’s needed for peaceful nuclear-reactor fuel.

The “fissile fortress” at Qom — located on a Revolutionary Guard base and securely tucked into the side of a mountain — is pretty clearly meant to produce the highly enriched uranium needed for the making of Iran’s first bombs.

It’s been estimated Iran already has enough low-enriched uranium on hand to produce enough highly enriched uranium for two to three bombs in relatively short order. And the IAEA (from its own detective work and intel provided by members) has “increasing concern” that Iran’s peaceful nuclear program has a military angle.

That is, the IAEA fears Tehran is working on a nuke warhead to put that uranium in.

Bear in mind that this news comes from an IAEA report, and that the organization (in Brookes’s aptly phrase) is “always-cautious-and-slow-to-accuse.”

image: wiki commons

If you haven’t yet checked out Elan Journo’s edited collection, Winning the Unwinnable War: America’s Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism, this month you can read the introduction and first two chapters of the book for free here.

Winning the Unwinnable War analyzes U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East since 9/11.

From the book’s introduction:

Chapter 1 [titled "The Road to 9/11"] demonstrates how unprincipled U.S. policy–from Carter through Clinton–worked to galvanize the enemy to bring its holy war to our shores on 9/11. Chapter 2 [titled "What Motivates the Jihad on America"] explores the widely evaded nature and goals of the enemy, and indicates how that should figure in America’s military response.

You can buy the book here.

It has been a decade since the Sept. 11 attacks shocked and angered our nation. What lessons have we learned since then? ARC will be hosting a symposium on this subject, titled “Sept. 11—A Decade Later: Lessons for the Future,” on September 8, in Washington, D.C. The program will feature three panel discussions, presenting a range of viewpoints.

If you can’t make this event, it will also be streamed live over the web starting at 1p.m. ET.

Check out the panel topics and speakers on the event’s site. You can also watch the live stream of the event from there.

On ARC’s Facebook page, you can read, watch, and listen to ARI’s numerous efforts throughout the last decade to push for an egoist foreign policy that puts the lives and individual rights of Americans first.

What lessons have we learned since the horrific 9/11 attacks, ten years ago? With two unresolved wars and a Middle East in upheaval, how should we evaluate America’s policy in that volatile region? How will rebellions and protests across the region—from Tunisia to Syria—impact vital American interests? What lies ahead for U.S. relations with Israel—and with a likely soon-to-be nuclear Iran?

These are among the urgent policy questions to be discussed at a half-day symposium, “Sept. 11—A Decade Later: Lessons for the Future,” on September 8, in Washington, D.C., sponsored by ARC.

The event will feature three panel discussions, presenting a range of viewpoints. Confirmed participants include:

Peter Brookes, Senior Fellow for National Security Affairs, The Heritage Foundation
Efraim Karsh, Director, Middle East Forum
John David Lewis, Visiting Associate Professor, Duke University
Clare Lopez, Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy
Aaron David Miller, Public Policy Scholar, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Daniel Pipes, President, Middle East Forum
Michael Rubin, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Yaron Brook and I will also be taking part.

For further details on the event and to RSVP, please visit this site .

Image: Wikimedia Commons

A couple of years back, I noted some tentative indications that the White House wanted to “engage” with Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Islamist group that exerts enormous power in Lebanon. Now, writes Omri Ceren at Contentions, “There are a number of signs the Obama White House is ready to establish something more than a modus vivendi with Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon.” Who are we dealing with? To illustrate the nature of Hezbollah, he relates one dreadful — and representative — episode from its long, bloody history: the kidnapping and torture to death of CIA Lebanon Station Chief William Buckley. Keep that searing episode in mind when you contemplate the suggestion that we should sit down to tea with the likes of Hezbollah.

image: wikipedia/CC

If there were an award for the skill of delivering massive understatements with a straight face, William Daley, Obama’s chief of staff, should be on the shortlist of contenders. Speaking about Pakistan, he stated:

Pakistani officials “have taken some steps that have given us reason to pause on some of the aid which we were giving to their military,” Daley said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Was it the redirection of U.S. military aid for the use, not of combatting Islamists (as promised), but arming Pakistani troops heading for Kashmir? Or was it the fact that the Pakistani regime (likely) allowed bin Laden safe haven within its borders? Or was it the nearly decade long charade in which the regime professes to be on our side, accepts billions of dollars in U.S. aid–yet arms, supports and shields Taliban and Islamist fighters in Afghanistan? Long indeed is the list of Pakistan’s deceitful actions. Possibly now our leaders will face up to the reality that for so many years they have been pushing out of mind.

image: wikipedia/CC

The official line from Secretary of State Clinton is that we owe a debt of gratitude to Pakistan, our nominal ally, for its cooperation in the raid on the Bin Laden compound. What that “cooperation” really amounted to, remains to be seen. But this report from Dexter Filkins at The New Yorker suggests the contours of our actual relationship with Pakistan:

initial indications are that Pakistani military and intelligence officials may have provided some routine coöperation with the Americans but were not given the identity of the target. This makes sense: In recent months, American officials have stopped informing Pakistani officials ahead of time about the C.I.A.’s drone strikes against militants in the tribal areas, out of fear that they might be tipped off. (emphasis added)

That fear is well founded. Pakistani forces have in the past tipped off and given shelter to Islamist fighters.

Bin Laden’s compound was well within the borders of Pakistan (rather than in the lawless borderlands), less than a mile from a military base. Its unusual size and build make it stand out. . . . Maybe the regime had no knowledge of it (doubtful). Or, perhaps, as the evidence suggests, this news provides added reason to question whether Pakistan is an ally.