RUTHFULLY YOURS

BILL SIEGEL: WHAT WE CAN LEARN ABOUT IRAN FROM THOMAS FRIEDMAN

Posted By Ruth King on November 25th, 2013

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/what-we-can-learn-about-iran-from-thomas-l-friedman

New York Times’ Opinion writer Thomas L. Friedman demonstrates in his November 19, 2013 piece entitled “Let’s Make a Deal” how a well admired and rhetorically brilliant influencer can be little more than today’s most “useful idiot.” Friedman often seems to function as a White House “rabbit,” preparing the ground in advance for the administration’s upcoming spin.

His piece is a rally call to support President Obama/ Secretary of State John Kerry’s “proposed” arrangement with the Islamic Republic of Iran to trade sanctions relief for restrictions on the latter’s nuclear weapons advancement- “proposed” because some have alleged that the deal has been pre-arranged by Obama’s real Secretary of State, Valerie Jarrett. His arguments reflect little more than the same reshaped disease of thought that has kept us in submission to the Islamic Republic for over three decades.

Friedman starts with the notion that strange alliances between old enemies Israel and Saudi Arabia are based on the tribal tradition that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It apparently shocks this Middle East veteran that an enemy such as the Islamic Republic can create such an alliance between those parties without any sort of real “reconciliation.” Meanwhile, he simply trusts that the Islamic Republic’s creation of a so-called “moderate” leader demonstrates some real path to what he later dreams will be “internal changes.”

Throughout his piece Friedman demonstrates what this author has called the “Control Factor,” that part of our minds that operates to change our perceptions so that we are unable to see the true threat we face precisely because that threat is too frightening and too unfamiliar to us for us to view. One obvious technique is to convert identities; turning Israel and its leader Benjamin Netanyahu and the Gulf States into the enemy while making the Islamic Republic the almost beneficent figure that hopefully has finally decided to radically change and join us in our Western dream world.

Friedman complains that never have so many lawmakers and others complied with Israel and America’s other “core allies” to thwart such a major foreign policy initiative. He not so subtly suggests that this is a personalized attack against Obama and the real villain is the Israel lobby because it has control over the Jewish vote. Engaging this tired and ridiculous Far Left meme alone speaks volumes about Friedman. It is also noteworthy that Thomas L attributes the upcoming deal to Kerry when it risks failure but credits Obama for it when he can move Obama into victim status; the poor president who faces such “hard” pressure (as he often likes to whine) from such ungrateful allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia.

True, Friedman makes the obligatory reference to the Islamic Republic having “lied and cheated its way to the precipice of building a bomb” but essentially nullifies his reference by claiming that Iran is at the table because Obama was so brilliant in negotiating tough sanctions. Rather, the Islamic Republic is at the table solely to further stall any military action, be it from Israel or the US, and because Obama and his supplicants have begged for years that negotiations take place. The US use of sanctions generates the wishful thought that the Islamic Republic should have already caved and therefore must be ready to meaningfully change its stance on nuclear weapons. The Republic is using that presumption for its own advantage in order to stall further. Sanctions have created much hardship to the Iranian people as well as to the regime and the Revolutionary Guards whose members control much of the economy. Nonetheless, there is simply nothing that any of the relevant players in the regime can get now that they won’t be able to get in exponentially greater fashion once they have the bomb.

Friedman notes the Arab States’ concern about the Republic getting the bomb but transforms it into a near innocuous worry that the US will abandon the region leaving the Republic to only become more economically powerful. He then, in full grandiosity, dismisses this straw man concern because he doesn’t “think we’d just abandon them.” Put simply, we have already abandoned them. Obama abandoned the Saudis when he essentially threw out their ally Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, when he gave his unwavering support to their current enemy the Muslim Brotherhood, when he failed to support the 2009 protestors in enemy. He abandoned them when he demonstrated another alliance with Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi counted for nothing, when he failed to live up to his “red line” in Syria and acted to insure that Syrian leader Bashar al Assad remains in power, all to the benefit of the Islamic Republic of Iran. All the Saudis really needed to witness was the treatment Obama has consistently given Netanyahu.

Yet there are far more devastating threat than growing economic power that the Republic poses to the Saudis. Consider just one detailed by geo-political topographer, Mark Langfan. Most of the Saudi oil reserves sit on a relatively small area in the east near Iran. Similarly, much of the Iranian reserves lie in its west. The combined reserves form what Langfan calls the “Black Gold Triangle.” Within that triangle lie 56% of the world’s oil supplies.

Langfan also notes that in the Saudi portion of this triangle live mainly Saudi Shiites who will fit very nicely into an extended Iranian territory.

And here lies the key danger. The most likely offensive use of any nuclear weapon by the Islamic Republic regime is with an electro-magnetic pulse device. This technology calls for the detonation of a nuclear bomb in the atmosphere which then sends out a series of pulses that, in simple parlance, wipe out all forms of electronic and electric equipment. It does not simply disconnect the equipment, it destroys it. Refrigerators, hospital devices, communications and transportation equipment, just to name a few, are rendered unusable forever. While the regime’s leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has hoodwinked many liberal “experts” akin to Friedman that he has issued some binding fatwa prohibiting the use of a nuclear bomb on Islamic grounds, the use of EMP is Islamically sound as it does not directly kill anyone. Obviously, the actual death toll will be astounding as much of the modern world is not suited to survive the loss of modernity such an attack would generate.

Over the past years, Iran and North Korea have performed various missile tests which have been characterized by the New York Times and others as failures because the missiles detonated in mid-air. This, however, is a mark of a successful EMP test, as that is exactly as the device is intended to perform.

As Langfan notes, the US has roughly 30,000 troops nearby. Much of their ability to defend themselves would be stripped away by an EMP attack. Jimmy Carter’s disastrous response to the 1979 hostage debacle will pale when compared to crisis that would result should these troops be taken hostage by the regime.

Then there are those “experts” and others, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who have danced with concepts such as “containment” and “mutual assured destruction” with regard to Iran.  MAD was always a magical thought when applied to the religiously based regime that actually does value the chaos necessary to bring about the return of the Messiah/Mahdi its sect of Shiism requires for ultimate glory. EMP renders it all the more fantasy because it renders a matching response virtually impossible.

Friedman can blind himself to this type of threat all he wants, but to the Saudis it is very real. Comparatively minor Shiite rebellions in Bahrain and Kuwait, along with Saudi Arabia, have already put the Saudis on high alert. This is not about Obama abandoning the area to an increasingly more powerful Iran; this is about Obama rendering ultimate survival of the Saudi Royal Family highly questionable.

Put simply, Obama has abandoned our traditional allies and appears to demonstrate allegiance to just two groups- the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic Republic. On the surface the Sunni Brotherhood would seem at odds with the Shiite Islamic Republic, but there has been a long on again off again history of Sunni and Shia jihadists working together against a common enemy; the same “tribal tradition” Friedman belittled earlier. Today, the Brotherhood and the Islamic Republic are both aligned against the Saudis, among others. And to where did former Egyptian President and Muslim Brother Mohammad Morsi make his first visit upon assuming power? Tehran. At a minimum, Obama’s efforts in the region have only conjoined these two groups.

Obama continues to fight hard for the re-establishment of the Brotherhood in the Egyptian government. And, having structured his “solution” to the Syrian rebellion by focusing upon chemical weapons inspections and removal in exchange for leaving Assad in power, he appears to be replicating that formula with Tehran- crafting what will likely be a difficult to terminate regimen over nuclear weapons which serves to insulate the regime from attack from Israel and insure its survival, regime insurance while keeping Israel at bay.

Another Control Factor move Friedman utilizes to quell anxiety is to presume the US is all powerful. It is simply foolish thinking to believe that the US could make a meaningful difference in the policies of the Islamic Republic once it gets the bomb in its various forms. The regime already has three types of missiles that can reach not just Israel but well into Western Europe and even London. Obama, who tends to bend to Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s whims, will be butter in the hands of a nuclear empowered Islamic Republic whose very constitution promotes worldwide domination. Still, Friedman earnestly believes the more “moderate tendencies” demonstrated by new President Hassan Rouhani and chief negotiator Mohammad Javad Zarif will transform the regime into a cooperative and responsible participant Westernized world affairs. The words and style of these two make them no more moderate than a moustache, great rhetoric, and tag line that he is writing from an obscure location makes Friedman a responsible interpreter of the regime’s actions.

Friedman then discusses the supposed deal being negotiated.  He brags the deal will freeze some parts of Iran’s program while rolling back others, all a bargain when compared to the very limited sanctions that will be loosened. He declares that this will prevent the Islamic Republic from being able to “build a bomb and talk” simultaneously. He further suggests that a later deal will make it “impossible” for Iran to “break out” with a nuclear weapon. Absolutely nothing suggests any deal can prevent this. That is precisely what the regime has done for years. Friedman simply imagines it will magically change and the regime’s lying and cheating is all behind us. The Obama administration can’t even get a website to work, much less protect its ambassador in Benghazi or even call jihadists by their proper names; how can it in any way guarantee the Republic’s compliance? One of the base lessons we should be learning from Obama et al is that skill in presenting ideas on a blackboard are no meaningful indicator of capability to accomplish anything in reality.

All of Friedman’s chatter simply steps around the core problem- there is no margin for error anymore and, even if there were, the consequences of a nuclearized Islamic Republic are simply too devastating to risk. This is a different case than Obama has handled before. Neither Obama’s history of non-apology apologies nor even a real apology can suffice should allowing the stall implicit in this deal result in a nuclear Iran. “Oops” is no foreign policy. Foreseeable future Obama-like statements such as “Iran’s bomb is on me” and “We misjudged the facts presented us by the [CIA] [Defense Department] [EU] [UN] or even better, Israel” will not suffice. While Friedman may believe this deal “freezes and rolls back” part of the nuclear program now, truly “rational actors” must conclude otherwise.

Secondly, Friedman mocks Netanyahu for suggesting that more sanctions will ultimately cause the regime to surrender “every piece of its nuclear technology” when “experts” say that is unlikely. First, Freidman’s infantile exaggeration and distortion of Netanyahu’s response reveals his own argument’s weakness. More importantly, who are these “experts?” If he refers to the think tank and academic pawns of the liberal Left and even the regime itself who will advocate against Israel as well as US power, they are the ones who have generally led us through three decades of failed policy to date. Does he mean our CIA who these same “experts” have castigated when involved elsewhere in the region? Does he mean those pro-Brotherhood figures that have situated themselves within the administration and other areas of our government? There are many other “experts” who advise that the regime cannot be trusted to do anything except continue its march toward nuclearization.

Thirdly, Friedman notes that the Republic has already mastered the process to make a bomb. Is this is the Persian “Ain’t No Stoppin’ Me Now” argument? He further opines that polls show that this mastery is very “popular” among Iranians. While polls in Iran are suspect for a variety of reasons (least of which respondents are often petrified to speak out against the regime), one poll conducted during the Bush administration concluded that while the people tended to take pride in the country’s nuclear advances, roughly 65% were in favor of US bombing of the sites so long as it took out the regime as well. And this was well before the Green Revolution and many subsequent years of regime abuse. It is likely Friedman’s polls never pursued this line of questioning.

Friedman suggests there is no way to reverse the gains made to date (without wiping “every brain clean”). This inevitability argument indicates at least one mind that needs to be wiped clean.

Finally, Friedman argues that the ultimate solution must come from an internal moderation and transformation and that this can only come from more openness. Yet openness is exactly what the regime will not allow and nuclearization will only shut the door on such a transformation.  Essentially, Friedman summarizes saying this path may lead nowhere but it is worth the try. Why? Again the margin for error is at best unclear and not worth any risk of failure at this point.

Friedman ultimately concludes that, should this deal fail (more precisely be killed by that horrific Israel lobby, not by its own inability to satisfy the goals Friedman sets out), the only remaining option will be military force. He adds that those rational Europeans will be even less willing to support military action once Netanyahu (no longer simply “Israel” but this Cheney-like evil Israeli Prime Minister) prevents such a wonderful diplomatic alternative.

This is the height of useful idiocy; alternatively, willfully blind stupidity. The only option that has ever existed has been military action. For decades, all else has been nothing more than “hope and no change.” And while Obama and Clinton and others can blather on about that option being “on the table,” on the table is where it has been destined to remain while pro-Iranian and Muslim Brotherhood Obama and his supplicants control our foreign policy.

Let’s review a few simple truths that should instead constitute the basis for our policy. First, we are at war with the Islamic Republic since it took over Iran decades ago. We are at war not because we choose it to be so but because the regime has declared it so and has consistently acted upon that declaration. We can deny this as we have done from Carter through Reagan through the Bushes until Obama but that does not change the reality.

Regardless of our wishes the regime has and is fighting this war in the most effective manner it has available to it and a major reason it seeks nuclear weapons is to pursue its goal as expressed in its constitution to spread the Islamic Republic throughout the world.

The regime does not fear us. We have convinced it, decade after decade, that we are afraid to directly fight. Instead, a proxy war has been conducted and alternate territories have been engaged but we have avoided at all costs fighting this war where and how it needs to be fought. The one time the regime partially cooperated with us was following George W Bush’s march into neighboring Iraq. At that point, the regime aided us in some of our “war on terror” because it feared Bush would make a turn right into Tehran. Once Bush succumbed to the pressures from the Far Left (including strong voices such as Friedman himself), his Middle East policy tapered off and the regime restarted its somewhat stalled nuclear program.  Not only has the US shown itself to be a paper tiger, Obama and Kerry have made clear they are so desperate for the appearance over substance of a deal that fear of military action from the US has been virtually put out to pasture. The remaining trace of fear comes from Israel’s threat but, as the US has, for example, consistently leaked Israel’s attack plans, the regime understands that it has a partner in Obama who will make Israeli action difficult if not fully neutered.

We have great military advantages now but once the Islamic Republic obtains nuclear weapons, those advantages virtually disappear. It has repeatedly claimed “Death to America” and that it will drive the Jews into the sea. Self-acclaimed “experts” dismiss this as performing for a feisty domestic population (one which would in general like to see the regime terminated) but that denial is the same Control Factor maneuver that has led the West in the past to ignore all the great tyrants’ proclamations.  When the enemy tells you what he wants to do, believe him. If wrong, it is the enemy’s responsibility. It is not our responsibility to reinterpret the regime in order to protect the regime.

Again, MAD and “containment” are useless defenses, especially with an EMP scenario. The threat of use will enable the Islamic Republic to extract transformative concessions throughout the region, well beyond Friedman’s notion of simply becoming more powerful. The possible Islamic Republic command over the Black Gold Triangle alone threatens the world energy market which, when coupled with Obama’s resolute refusal to “invest in” US oil development toward US energy independence, could have devastating global consequences. Allowing a meaningless deal to permit a stall beyond the point of no return is hardly worth the risk of this one of many scenarios.

To rely on weapons inspection and UN and other international supervision is to simply ignore the lessons of the past decades. Oil for Food, Saddam’s actual violations, North Korea’s nuclear advancement along with the Islamic Republic’s deceit and violations to date give us no sane basis to rely on what liberals might even call verification techniques. The only certain results are corruption and violation. A regime that considers Taqiyya (read simply as lying) part and parcel of relations with the non-Muslim world cannot be trusted at all.

To repeat, becoming a nuclear weapons power is the regime’s top priority. There is nothing it can negotiate for today it will be unable to obtain and more once it reaches its goal. As with Obama’s “You can keep your plan, period” campaign declarations, his admonition that Iran will not be allowed a nuclear weapon begs us to question what other phrase he will later claim he meant to add.

Obama’s and State Department’s desire for a deal at any cost has been fatal. Wars must be fought and either won or lost. Given that we are in a war, negotiations must be approached from strength to obtain surrender. We must enter talks pointing a gun to the regime’s head. Instead, we have entered these talks with the Islamic Republic with a gun to our own heads; the gun being that if we fail time to further act to prevent a nuclear Islamic Republic will expire. This resembles the comic scene in which a bank robber points his gun at his own head and tells the teller to give him money or he will shoot.

Our failure to recognize the war and to treat it as such continuously puts us in the difficult position of having to decide when to change course and take action. We have for years been the weakling on the beach forever bullied by the world’s greatest state sponsor of terror and too afraid to punch back. Worse, we delude ourselves that since we are the only real “grown-up” and are so powerful we are morally compelled to walk away from a fight. The more this behavior became internalized, the more difficult it has been for us to change. We tell ourselves that at some point it will be too much and then we will fight but the reality has been that the more we assume this posture of weakness, like quicksand, the more problematic it becomes to reverse. Negotiating in this fashion does nothing to change this process unless we are truly willing to fight should those talks fail. Negotiating in this fashion only creates the false impression that it rids of the necessity of ultimately fighting.

Unfortunately, the public discourse on what needs to be done has been craftily narrowed within a range of what types of inspection should occur and which sanctions should be loosened. This is the great success to date of the tactics of Rouhani and Zarif. With Obama’s compliance, the military option has sat on that table for so long it has virtually evaporated in the minds of our media and political voices.

Nonetheless, putting all the “expert” advice and academic genius aside, there has always only been one sensible policy which the nation has desperately struggled to avoid: regime change. Just as that 2006 poll suggested, if the regime disappears and its replacement has been afforded careful assistance from the West, the people will likely subordinate their nuclear weapons aspirations and program. Similarly, with a more cooperative government, sensible nuclear deals can be negotiated. Obviously, this policy brings with it many difficult issues and concerns. Can this be done without troops on the ground? What alternatives exist? Much needs to be perfected. And while it is difficult to imagine a replacement government more hostile to the US, recent Middle East experience demonstrates a need for much greater Western involvement. Still, eliminating this regime will significantly curtail the terrorism and other dangers we have faced for decades.

What is clear is that until we are of one mind that this is the only sensible policy, we will never be able to do the work necessary to design the most effective strategy. Demeaning, as Friedman does, Israel and Saudi Arabia instead of working with them as the allies they have been only makes success all the more difficult. While Obama was instrumental in dissolving regimes including those of Mubarak and Qaddafi, he resolutely refuses to change the one truly dangerous to the future of the world as we know it.

Many will view this perspective as the ramblings of an unsophisticated, uninformed, delusional and paranoid warmonger. We can only hope this is true.

Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/what-we-can-learn-about-iran-from-thomas-l-friedman#ixzz2leeePbK0 
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

Comments are closed.