"A Night with Saddam" - a unique perspective

I don't normally endorse books - unless they favorably reference me....

I am making an exception here for two reasons. I was intimately involved in the reportage at NBC News (NBC News, CNBC and MSNBC) of Saddam's capture, subsequent trial and execution.

Who can forget The Today Show segment with Matt Lauer and I in the mock up of the spider-hole from which Saddam was pulled six years ago this weekend - December 13, 2003? (See also my recent piece, Execution of Saddam - in hindsight a good thing.)

The other reason is that the author, Dr. Mark Green, will donate a portion of the proceeds to my favorite charity - the Wounded Warrior Project, as well as to the Night Stalker Association and the Bay Medical Foundation. Dr. Green, before becoming a physician, commanded a rifle company in the 82nd Airborne Division. As an Army physician, he was the American medical officer who examined and spoke with Saddam Husayn that night.

The book is A Night with Saddam - A Special Ops Flight Surgeon's Interview With Saddam Hussein On The Night Of His Capture And The Missions Which Led To Their Meeting. Read more at Dr. Green's website.

An excerpt from the book:

"There was very little interrogating going on at this late hour in the battlefield interrogation facility (BIF). Most of the intelligence people wanted Saddam to rest prior to their intense questioning. The dignitaries and senior commanders had visited him and were now gone.

About this time, around midnight, the physician assigned to the BIF left. One of the senior intelligence officers recognized me standing outside the cell speaking with the interpreters and told me that the admiral wanted a medical officer with Saddam constantly. He asked if I would go in and stay the first night with him. I said yes and gathered my thoughts. The shear excitement of the moment was balanced by the realization of the terror and evil this man had produced in his lifetime.

I grabbed a worn-out copy of the Stars and Stripes newspaper and walked into his makeshift cell to share in the first night of captivity with the captured King of Babylon."

European Union demands that Iran agree to talk???

You can't make this stuff up. Note Speaker of the Iranian parliament Ali Larijani's attempt to stifle a laugh.

According to a draft statement being circulated among the member countries, the European Union proposes to establish a deadline for Iran to agree to more talks about its nuclear program. Are they serious?

Of course Iran will agree to talk - that is all they have ever truly agreed to do. The farce of an agreement in October by which Iran would export its stockpile of low-enriched uranium was merely the latest in a series of Iranian delaying tactics. As I have said repeatedly, they agree to talk - all the while enriching several kilograms of uranium each day.

Here is the EU's stern, punishing threat to Iran: agree to come back to the negotiating table by the EU meeting at the end of January, or we will "consider" supporting a sanctions protocol wanted by the United States.

Yes, that's right - they might consider doing something if the Iranians don't agree to talk. Finally, the Europeans have delivered a devastating ultimatum to the Iranians. I imagine this has sent shock waves throughout the Iranian leadership. No doubt they are having special meetings in Tehran to deal with this crisis.

I am going to go out on a limb here and predict that the Iranians will agree to have talks. Yes, they will agree to once again talk about having more talks about their nuclear program. They have always declared that their nuclear enrichment program itself was non-negotiable, but that they would agree to talk about having talks. It seems we are about to repeat this "self-licking ice cream cone" kabuki dance.

Satire aside, this is a welcome, albeit virtually meaningless gesture. The key players in the Iranian sanctions debate are the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council - the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China. Although in recent weeks Russia has softened (but not abandones) its opposition to tough sanctions on Iran, China remains steadfast that diplomacy needs to be given more time. I don't know how much more time the Chinese have in mind, but at some point it will be too late and Iran will present the world with a fait accompli and declare that it is a nuclear-armed state.

It is important to also note the somewhat surprising position of Turkey on sanctions. They have also stated that diplomacy needs more time. In the past, Turkey was concerned about Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon and its support of terrorist groups - Turkey has been a frequent victim of Islamist terrorist attacks. That appears to have changed. Perhaps the Turks have concluded that the new American administration is not going to be able to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and is attempting to incur favor with the mullahs in Tehran. If there is a sanctions regime put in place, Turkey, with its border with Iran, will be a key player in the enforcement protocol.

Again, Iran seems to have convinced the world that be agreeing to endless talks that there may be a successful diplomatic outcome to the nuclear issue. I doubt there will be - I also doubt there will be effective sanctions. This issue is not going away soon.

Hizballah - the key power broker in Lebanon

In a vote that didn't get much attention except from those of us who follow these things fairly closely, Lebanon's newly-formed government granted the Islamic fundamentalist group Hizballah the right to maintain its militia forces, and the authority to employ them against Israel. Actually, this was a confirmation of an existing policy which authorized the army and "the resistance" (the Lebanese idiomatic term for Hizballah) to liberate what Lebanon and Syria label as the Israeli-occupied Shaba' Farms. It is fiction - the Shaba' Farms are part of Syria, Israeli occupied yes, but not part of Lebanon. See my earlier article, The Shaba' Farms - Hizballah's Fig Leaf.

This decision is in direct contravention of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war between Israel and the militia group. The resolution requires that the Lebanese government prevent the re-arming of Hizballah, and further required that Beirut deploy the useless Lebanese army to the country's southern border with Israel to keep Hizballah fighters out of the area. The resolution also expands the mandate of the grossly ineffective United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon - "interim" since its creation in 1978. Now we have almost double the foreign forces doing nothing in southern Lebanon.

The Lebanese cabinet has in effect legitimized Hizballah as a second army inside Lebanon, not unlike the current situation in Iran, where the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are a parallel - and superior - armed force to the regular Iranian military. It is useful to note that is was an IRGC unit in Syria and Lebanon that created Hizballah in 1982.

Since the end of the 2006 war and the passage of UNSCR 1701, the Syrians and Iranians have not only completely re-equipped Hizballah in quantity, but have also increased the quality of the group's arsenal. Hizballah's inventory of rockets that was largely depleted in 2006 has been replaced with larger and longer-range rockets. When there are future Hizballah attacks on Israel - and there will be future attacks - rockets will reach farther into the Jewish state, this time not only threatening Haifa, but possibly Tel Aviv as well.

The new Lebanese government has been fully co-opted by Hizballah. The new Prime Minister, Sa'ad al-Hariri, has made his deal with the devil. The new Lebanese government includes Hizballah, is very pro-Syrian, and has now thumbed its nose at the United Nations. Ironically, it was Syrian-backed assassins that killed al-Hariri's father Rafiq in February 2005 in Beirut. Now he is in bed with the very people who killed his father.

Syria, whose 30-year military presence in Lebanon was ended by the "Cedar Revolution" - the public demonstrations that erupted after the al-Hariri assassination, has finally regained its influence over what is called in Syrian slang al-muhafizih (the province). Its primary agents in the country are the Prime Minister and Hizballah. Nothing happens in Lebanon without the blessings of Damascus and Hizballah.

Lebanese politics are like that.

Taliban analysis of the Obama speech

President Obama revealed his new strategy for the war in Afghanistan in a prime time address tonight. This is how the Taliban's intelligence officers may have assessed his strategies.

DATE: Thu al-Hijjah 13, 1430 (December 1, 2009)
FROM: Taliban Intelligence/Qandahar
TO: Excellency Mullah Omar (Allah protect him)
SUBJ: President Obama Provides Outline for Taliban Victory in Afghanistan

C O N F I D E N T I A L - INTEL/URGENT

1. SUMMARY: Infidel Crusader President Barack Obama outlined his new strategy for the continued occupation of our country. As with previous invaders, he has decided to increase the number of troops in the country, specifically 30,000 to be deployed to the Helmand province. He will begin the withdrawal of American forces in 18 months. Victory is within sight. Allahu akbar.

2. MAIN POINTS: Obama described his three-fold strategy:

a. A military effort to destroy the movement. The first troops of the 30,000 will be U.S. Marines in the Qandahar area. Now that we know they are coming in a month, we will be ready for them. This information is fortuitous - since Obama has told us how many of his troops are to be deployed where, we do not have to recruit an intelligence asset in the extremely corrupt Afghan forces or defense ministry to find out his intentions.

b. An augmented civil affairs effort and increased cooperation with the traitor Hamid Karzai government. This is really of no concern, as these are soft targets. After a few high-casualty attacks, the American and United Nations do-gooders will rethink their decision. This strategy is of little concern to us.

c. Increased partnership with the corrupt regime in Islamabad. This causes our beards to shake with laughter. Obama wants to work both sides of the imposed border that divides the Pushtuns? He will discover that regardless of which side of the imaginary line we are, we are all Pushtuns and true believers. Increased attacks on targets in the Punjabi and Sindh areas will sap any fervor in Pakistan for cooperation with the Americans. Attacks against our al-Qa'idah cousins in the Waziristan area will not be effective, despite the increased use of cowardly unpiloted aircraft.

3. ANALYSIS.

a. TROOP WITHDRAWAL: Crusader leader Obama has provided a date certain when his troops will be leaving our country, another in the long line of nations and empires that have tried to subjugate Afghanistan and the Pushtun people. To our good fortune, thanks be to Allah, the infidels will be gone in 18 months.

Excellency, we suggest that you encourage the mujahidin to weather the coming storm while the infidels expend their last effort to subdue the sons of Allah. After we wait out the Americans for a mere year and a half, they too will leave our mountains and we can rebuild the Islamic state we all crave. Now that we have a date when the Crusaders will leave, we can plan accordingly. Victory in Second Jumadah 1432, almost ten years to the day after the glorious al-Qa'idah attacks on New York and Washington!

b. AL-QA'IDAH: Obama tends to confuse the efforts of the heroes of New York and Washington with ours. The mission of the initial American invasion was to defeat al-Qa'idah. That meant first defeating us. They believe they have done so, but Shaykh Usamah bin Ladin is still alive, although no longer a guest of us Taliban. He is no longer a guest, he is no longer here.

Was the goal of the operation to remove the Taliban? No, it was supposedly about al-Qa'idah. If the mission of the American effort in our country is to defeat al-Qa'idah, we do not understand Obama's orders - al-Qa'idah is no longer here. If we are not a threat to the capitalist regime in Washington, why are they going to increase their troop presence here? We question the president's logic. If he wants to fight al-Qa'idah, perhaps he should focus his efforts in Yemen or Somalia.

c. PAKISTAN: Apostate Obama spoke many times about cooperation with Pakistan, yet there seems to be little willingness on the part of the regime in Islamabad to work with the Americans. Our contacts within the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate assure us that any cooperation with the Americans - including the unpiloted aircraft attacks - is from the Punjabis and Sindhs - the Pushtuns remain in our camp.

d. CRIMES/LEGAL STATUS: In what can only be assessed as good news for the mujahidin, the apostate leader described the heroic acts of the 19 martyrs of Second Jumadah 22, 1422 (what the Crusaders call September 11, 2001) as "murder." As we had hoped, the new administration views these attacks as crimes. We assess that designation means continued access to the lenient and cumbersome American legal system for any of our captured brethren.

We recommend that all of the mujahidin be trained to request a lawyer immediately should they be detained by infidel occupiers, and invoke the right to remain silent. These protections afforded to us by the Americans will only help us to be more effective in our operations since we no longer need to fear compromise of operational information.

Obama again committed to the closure of the prison at Guantanamo. Our brothers will soon be moved to the enemy's heartland. It remains to be seen how much access they will have to other detainees, but we hope the brothers will have the opportunity to spread the Taliban and our al-Qa'idah cousins' ideology to other detainees. The jihad continues.

e. COALITION RELATIONS: Obama claimed that he had the backing of 43 nations in his fight to destroy our movement. We are puzzled by this. While there are in fact troops from other infidel countries, the bulk of the fighting is done by the Americans, British, Dutch and Polish crusader forces. The Canadians have announced they are "completing their mission" - Excellency, that is diplomatic jargon for withdrawing. Another infidel country has had its taste of Afghanistan and is going home. The Germans are virtually prohibited from combat operations. The other countries? We cannot account for Obama's claims, but if we are taking on 43 countries, where are their warriors?

f. DELIVERY: We have analyzed the American president's speeches for the last few years. He is a polished orator, but tonight he lacked the inspiring tone that is his trademark. We assess that two things worked against him - the message and the venue. Obama came to office ready to exit Iraq - what he called the war of choice - and to concentrate on Afghanistan - what he called the war of necessity. That rhetoric has shifted somewhat. Tonight the President spoke more of a cost-benefit-analysis approach to the effort in our country. He talked about what was possible based on the cost, so we need to make his country's sojourn to ours more expensive - expensive in terms of blood and treasure. As with the Inglizi (British) and Russi (Russians), if we make it too expensive, they will leave and we will recreate the true Islamic state.

The venue of the apostate's remarks was interesting - the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. The leader was addressing the young men - and yes, Excellency, women - who will be the future warriors of the infidels. It was noteworthy that there was an almost somnolent atmosphere at an institution that produces the fighters of America's wars. The reception afforded the commander in chief was muted at best.

g. MISCELLANEOUS: The American apostate made other gratuitous comments about nuclear disarmament (do we have nuclear weapons, Excellency?), and his outreach to the Muslim world. We note that his "outreach" includes Hellfire missiles and more troops in our Islamic state.

4. CONCLUSION: We assess that the American president, the apostate Barack Obama, is swinging at a goat carcass much larger than his club can handle. He is trying to appease the anti-war crowd that elected him while the reality of his responsibilities is setting in. If Allah wills, Excellency, the Americans will declare "mission accomplished" in 18 months and leave our country. All we have to do is hold on for that period of time and victory is ours.

The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan - the truly Islamic state - will resurrect, thanks be to Allah. Another invader will leave and we will progress on the path of jihad.

In the service of Allah,
Mullah Istikhbar

FBI arrests group seeking arms for "the Resistance"

This week the FBI arrested five men of Lebanese origin who are accused of trying to buy 100 Stinger shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles, as well as 250 assault rifles. The men stated that the missiles would be used against helicopters and aircraft - specifically F-16 fighter jets. According to the FBI report, the men wanted the weapons shipped to Syria or Iran for use by "the Resistance." It goes on to say, "the 'Resistance' group was not further identified."

The Resistance group was unidentified? Okay, let's try Middle East Terrorism 101.

The men accused of trying to acquire the weapons are of Lebanese origin. They were attempting to acquire weapons capable of downing an F-16. Let's see - Lebanon and the F-16. Who flies F-16 aircraft over Lebanon on an almost daily basis? The Israeli air force. Who fires at the Israeli aircraft, with little effect? Hizballah. They would like to acquire a better capability.

The weapons were to be shipped to either Syria or Iran. Who are the primary weapons suppliers of Hizballah? Syria and Iran, mostly via Damascus airport and the highway into the Biqa' Valley.

What is the Arabic name for the militia associated with Hizballah? Al-muqawamah al-islamiyah. It translates to "the Islamic resistance." A simple Google search will tell you this.

Hizballah is not shy about it - they paint it on their equipment. This is a section of a UAV shot down over northern Israel during the war between Hizballah and Israel in 2006.


The logo is that of Hizballah - the Arabic words at the top read - "Air Force - Reconnaissance Unit." Above the English "Islamic Resistance" are the Arabic words al-muqawamah al-islamiyah fi lubnan - the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon.

Seems pretty clear to me. These guys were trying to buy antiaircraft weapons for Hizballah to shoot down Israeli aircraft. The weapons were to be delivered via Syria or Iran.

Why don't they just say that?

Perspective on Yemen's recent violence

The recent violence in Yemen, which has included a fairly substantial Saudi military cross-border operation, should not be confused with al-Qa'idah operations on the Arabian Peninsula. It is true that there are many al-Qa'idah operatives in Yemen - they have relocated to the weakly-governed country from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, the group operating on the Saudi border are not al-Qa'idah - in fact, they are radically different. Bad guys, to be sure, just not of the al-Qa'idah ilk.

These are the Huthis, named for the now-dead leader of the group, Husayn Badr al-Din al-Huthi. This group first appeared in 2004 when they began a series of protests against the government in Sana' for its cooperation (little as its has been) with the United States in the war on terror. Al-Huthi was killed in the initial uprising.

What is unique about the Huthis is that they are Shi'a Muslims. Most of the population of Yemen are Sunnis, as are virtually all members of al-Qa'idah. There is no apparent cooperation between the Huthis and al-Qa'idah. However, there are indications that the Huthis are being supported by another terrorist organization - the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. In late October, Yemen claims to have intercepted a ship carrying Iranian weapons to the Huthis. This makes sense - the Iranians are noted for supporting Shi'a groups - Hizballah is the prime example.

It should be noted that the Huthis follow a different Shi'a tradition than the Iranians. Iranians are overwhelmingly "Twelver" Shi'a, in other words, they believe in the succession of Muhammad through 12 imams. The Huthis are Zaydis, sometimes referred to "Fiver" Shi'a since they believe in the succession of Muhammad through the first five imams. The fifth imam was Zayd ibn 'Ali (hence the descriptor "Zaydi"), the great great grandson of the prophet Muhammad - most Zaydis live in Yemen.

That said, it is plausible for the Iranians to be assisting the Huthis. Wherever there are Shi'a militants, there seems to be Iranian support. The Yemeni government has accused the Iranians of providing weapons to the group via Eritrea, as well as moving Hizballah militants from Lebanon. Last week, Iran announced that it was deploying warships to the Gulf of Aden supposedly to join in the fight against Somali pirates operating in the region. One could make the case that they are actually there to support the Huthis.

Realistically, what do the mullahs in Tehran hope to gain by supporting the Huthis in Yemen? Are they hoping to create a Shi'a state on the Arabian Peninsula? Are they hoping to overthrow the government of 'Ali 'Abdullah Salih? Perhaps they want to lessen Salih's alleged (I use that word for a reason) cooperation with the United States in the war on terror?

None of those are the primary reason for Iranian interference in Yemeni affairs. It has to do with Yemen's neighbor to the north, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Iran and Saudi Arabia have longstanding animosity on several levels. Both nations sit astride the Persian Gulf - Saudi Arabia to the west, Iran to the east. The Iranians, who are mostly ethnic Persians, believe it is called the "Persian" Gulf for a reason. In contrast, the Arabs refer to it as the Arab Gulf, and it is written that way on maps printed in the Arab world. Most of us who have to deal with the Arabs simply refer to it as al-khalij - "The Gulf."

The Huthis have been active along the Saudi border, at times crossing into Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have reacted militarily, moving warships into the Red Sea to interdict the arms route from Eritrea. They have also conducted air strikes into northern Yemen and moved ground forces into the area. They have pledged to continue their military operations against the Huthis until the Huthis withdraw from a 10-kilometer security strip inside Yemen. At least six Saudi soldiers have been killed in the fighting.

If Iran is in fact supporting the Huthis as the Yemeni government claims, it may be trying to cause problems for Saudi Arabia. This comes at a time when the world is beginning to seriously focus on Iran's nuclear program. It may be an attempt to divert some attention from that issue, or it may be an attempt to convince Saudi Arabia not to support the American position on that issue.

Bottom line: It won't work. Many people care about the Iranian nuclear issue. Few people care about a group of Shi'a rebels in the mountains of Yemen.

Iran must be getting worried now...not

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

According to news reporting from President Obama's Asia tour, the United States and its allies are "discussing possible new penalties to bring fresh pressure on Iran" for its intransigence over its nuclear research and development program. Iranian leaders announced Wednesday that the country would not agree to export its low-enriched uranium, as it had agreed to earlier, but did stress its willingness to continue to talk about the nuclear issue.

Is anyone deducing a pattern here? The Iranians make an agreement, then renege on the agreement, then agree to more talks about an agreement. All they have really committed to do is talk. When those talks fail, they agree to talk about more talks. All the while, thousands of centrifuges continue to enrich uranium. At some point, the Iranians will have enough uranium that can be further processed into weapons grade fissile material to manufacture a nuclear weapon. Of course, they will still be willing to talk about it.

The American and West's reaction? We're going to consider and "discuss possible new penalties." They are enriching uranium in defiance of virtually the entire world, and we are talking about doing something - we don't know what exactly, but according to the President, our patience is wearing thin. The meaning of "wearing thin" is open to interpretation. Iran has been playing this delaying game for years, successfully.

President Obama is now "preparing for the next phase" if Iran does not meet Obama's year-end deadline - that must be the definition of wearing thin. Of course, the President has a problem with deadlines, so why should the Iranians take his deadline seriously? A series health care reform deadlines have been missed, and it is a foregone conclusion that the one-year deadline to close Guantanamo will be missed. So, why should the Iranians be worried?

In the President's own words, "They have been unable to get to 'yes', and so as a consequence, we have begun discussions with our international partners about the importance of having consequences. Our expectation is, is that over the next several weeks we will be developing a package of potential steps that we could take that will indicate our seriousness to Iran."

Surprisingly, this was described in the media as "tough talk." Well, they got the second words correct - talk. Obama talks - I am sorry, I mean "begun discussions" - the Iranians talk, everybody talks. Ah, but the Iranians are also continuing their nuclear program unabated. This is exactly the Iranian plan - talk, delay, talk, delay, knowing full well that there is little chance of effective sanctions.

The Iranian intelligence services have probably prepared their version of a National Intelligence Estimate assessing that an American military strike on their facilities is highly unlikely. If by some chance President Obama was to consider it, the decision would take so long that the Iranians may have a nuclear weapon by then. If the President cannot make a decision on troop levels for the ongoing military operation in Afghanistan, the Iranian intelligence services likely doubt he will be able to make one quickly on this issue.

The Iranians also have correctly assessed that their two friends on the United Nations Security Council - Russia and China - each with veto power, are not likely to agree to effective sanctions. Iran's energy sector, the primary weakness that could be exploited, is off the table. So much for the "crippling sanctions" promised by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The Iranians have outplayed the Obama Administration - and by that I mean the President and his Secretary of State - at every turn. Is it any wonder that the Iranians do not take their threats seriously?

Iranian intransigence and American options

I have been extremely critical of President Obama's policy toward Iran. I even called his policy feckless - and I still believe I am correct. At some point, the President is going to realize that Iran has no intention of abandoning its quest for a nuclear weapons capability, regardless of his attempts to "engage" or negotiate. It only makes him, and by extension the United States, look weak. Each time Obama or his Secretary of State makes another overture to Iran and it is soundly rejected, he looks like a beggar seeking any island of success in what has been a sea of policy failures in the region.

Okay, let's assume the President calls me on it. What are our options in dealing with Iran? They are few. Allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, or do something about it - now.

First - we need to stop appearing to be weak. We are by all measure still the pre-eminent military and economic power on the planet. (I will forgo comment on the President's economic policies.) When I recall my dealings with the Iranians over the years, I am reminded of their reaction to the Iran Airbus incident of 1988. On July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes accidentally shot down Iran Air flight 655 over the Persian Gulf, killing all 290 people on board.

For years after that incident, Iranian officers I encountered abroad insisted to me that they believed the attack was deliberate and meant to send a message to the Iranians that the United States would not allow Iran to prevail in the Iran-Iraq War. By the time of the incident, the war had been raging for almost eight years. The United States in 1988 began "clandestinely" supporting Iraq - it was not a well-kept secret. Several of the officers confided that they were afraid of the United States. That's a good thing, and something that can be exploited.

Second, tell the Iranians clearly where we stand. State unequivocally that the United States will not allow Iran to possess a nuclear weapon. It's that simple - they need to know we are serious. Explain that if they continue on their current path, if they continue to enrich uranium and develop technologies that have only nuclear weapons applications, the United States will act. We have already shown extraordinary patience, but that patience has run out. It is time for the Iranians to realize they are dealing with a superpower. Say it and mean it.

Third, back up your words. Direct the Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare contingency plans for possible operations against Iran. Do this with the same publicity that you are usuing in deliberating and determining a course of action - which is long overdue - in Afghanistan. You maintain that the "all options" are still on the table - that includes the military option.

Make sure the Iranians understand that you know you are the commander in chief of capable extremely military forces. Hint, no, don't hint, be very clear - while there may be a perception that American is busy with two wars, those wars primarily involve ground troops. A military blow to Iran will come from the air and sea. That doesn't give away any secrets, it simply reflects common sense.

It would not hurt to start a modest buildup of military assets in the area - that means U.S. Navy carrier groups and combatants, and U.S. Air Force land-based aviation assets. Move enough missile-carriers and bomb-droppers to create a credible threat to the Iranian nuclear program. There may be some doubt that the Israeli air force can mount enough of an attack at the extreme combat radius of their aircraft in mostly hostile airspace. There should be no doubt that American air power does not suffer from the same limitations - that air power also includes a host of very accurate standoff weapons.

The window of opportunity for Iran to modify its behavior should be closing. The United States, in conjunction with allies if possible, or alone if necessary, should be prepared to do what has to be done. Make a nice speech - you're really good at that - but make sure you get the message across.

After diplomacy is exhausted - it appears to me that it is going nowhere - and the military option be the last resort, we should be prepared for the inevitable Iranian response. The Iranians will no doubt mobilize their terrorist proxies, most notably Hizballah in Lebanon and both Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip. They may attempt to attack American military ships and bases in the Middle East. In the extreme, they may even launch some sort of missile strike against Israel.

We must be very reticent about this - if we start it, we should be prepared to finish it. Many Iranians and possibly many Israelis will die.

The bottom line: if we are serious about denying the Iranians a nuclear weapons capability, we need to be committed to that position. Otherwise, stop posturing, admit another policy failure and start planning for dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran.

Mr. Obama, about your Iran policy - can you spell f-e-c-k-l-e-s-s?

Feckless: adjective ineffective; incompetent; futile

That pretty sums up the present Iran policy of the Obama Administration. I hate to keep harping on this - it seems that most of my writings and comments of late deal with this subject. Either the President is persistent or he just doesn't get it, but his policy of "engaging" Iran has proven to be ineffective, incompetent and futile, yes, feckless.

The latest indication that they - by "they" I mean the President and equally inept Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - don't get it came today. Faced with an outright Iranian rejection of an American-supported plan by which Iran would export most of its enriched uranium for processing into proliferation-safe fuel rods, the Administration announced that it wanted to "give some space to Iran to work through this. It's a tough issue for them, quite obviously, and we're hoping for an early positive answer from the Iranians."

An early positive answer from the Iranians? Mr. Obama, how many times do you have to be told no before you understand that you are being manipualted by the Iranians? They agree, then backpedal, then agree to talk about more talks, then send signals that they hope they can still reach a deal, and offer to talk about more talks. All you have gotten out of the Iranians is an offer to talk about talks. You have gotten not one concrete concession from Tehran.

On the other hand, the Iranians have played you like a cheap 'ud (lute). They have been able to lure you into one-on-one talks in Iraq that went nowhere - Iran still provides money, weapons and training to Shi'a militias that have American blood on their hands. Not only are they supporting the Iraqi militias, they are now funneling improvised explosive device components to the Taliban in Afghanistan - more American blood on their hands.

Now the Iranians threaten to try three young American hikers on espionage charges. I guess "engaging" hasn't really helped that aspect of our relationship, has it?

What else have they gained from your naivete? By sponsoring the enriched uranium export agreement, you have legitimized their nuclear research program. You even agreed to more one-on-one talks, further legitimizing the regime. When demands that Iran stop enriching uranium were ignored, rather than successfully orchestrating the imposition of economic sanctions, you have given them more time, over and over. Of course, they have offered to talk. I guess to you, that is the same as "engaging."

Now you are willing to give the Iranians until the end of the year to agree to the export arrangement. Why? They have had months, even years to accommodate the demands of the West about their nuclear ambition - they have chosen not to. They repeatedly ignore the United Nations and various coalitions of nations, each time agreeing to more talks. While they are playing you and delaying any resolution of the nuclear issue, they continue to enrich uranium and conduct research into weapons design and development.

Mr. President, it's time to do something other than let the Iranians agree to talk. That is not progress, nor is it success, well not for you - it is a huge success for Iranian foreign policy.

"Engaging" is not working. Continuing it in the face of repeated failures makes you look weak, yes, even feckless.

Any remaining doubts about Iran's nuclear intentions?

Events of the past few weeks should quiet any remaining skeptics about Iran's true ambitions for its nuclear research and development program. While many of these events taken individually may not be the "smoking gun" that Iran's apologists (IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei/Muhammad al-Barada'i comes to mind) demand, when taken in the aggregate leave little doubt as to what they are attempting to accomplish.


Although Iran insists that its uranium enrichment efforts are to provide fuel for the Tehran research reactor and eventually for an electric power generation capability, the program is much too large, dispersed and protected in hardened facilities for a "peaceful" program. The electric power generation argument fails in light of the simple fact that Iran wastes more energy from the gas flares on its oil wells than all the electricty its combined nuclear facilities could ever produce.

The latest, and probably most damning information to Iran's pretense of a peaceful nuclear program came this last week. Surprisingly, it came from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an agency notoriously ineffective on the Iranian nuclear issue and usually reluctant to find anyone in violation of international nuclear agreements. The IAEA announced that it had acquired information that Iranian scientists may have tested an advanced (even by Western standards) nuclear warhead design based on what is called "two-point implosion."

This technology, closely guarded by the United States and the United Kingdom, is cutting-edge and allows the production of warheads small enough to fit on existing Iranian missiles. The Iranians admit researching this technology. There is no peaceful use for this technology - it is only used to produce thermonuclear weapons.

I suspect that the Iranians have made this rather substantial leap forward by buying the technology, most likely from Pakistani nuclear engineer 'Abd al-Qadir Khan. Khan confessed in 2004 to selling nuclear weapons technology secrets from Pakistan's successful program to Libya, North Korea and Iran. There are also reports of Russian weapons experts involved in Iran as well. Given the status of Russia's economy, this is not out of the question.

On November 7, Iranian senior lawmakers rejected the "deal to disarm Iran" supposedly agreed to on October 1, touted by the American Administration as the breakthrough and vindication that its engagement policy towards Iran has been successful. Under the "deal," Iran was to export its low-enriched uranium to Russia and France, where it would be made into fuel rods for the Tehran reactor. Iran initially agreed, then pressed for a modification whereby it could just buy fuel rods and keep its low-enriched uranium, or slow down the export of the material. Now it has rejected exporting any of its enriched uranium. Delay, delay, delay - all the while continuing to enrich uranium. Call me skeptical, but could "the deal" possibly be in jeopardy? It's not going to happen.

Since the deal was announced on October 1, Iran has continued to enrich uranium at at least one facility, producing as much as 10 pounds of low-enriched uranium every day. Every day that the Iranians are successful in delaying effective sanctions, they are that much closer to producing the amount of material required to develop a weapon.

Is anyone still buying the claim that this is a peaceful program to generate electricity? I mean other than the myopic U.S. intelligence community that has yet to repudiate it ludicrous 2007 assessment that Iran has halted its attempts to develop nuclear weapons....

Wake up! They're building the bomb!