In Like a Lion, Out Like a Lamb...

Obama affirms US commitment to Iraq: President says US troops will leave behind a self-reliant Iraq, but warns neighbours not to meddle in country's affairs.

As I've said before - New Shiite Alliance Excludes Iraqi Prime Minister - I think the Iraqi Shiite link to Iran has been overblown. We will soon find out who is correct and whether or not Iran truly does want a major role in Iraq and not just an ally in the region.

The Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Wellbutrin, Celexa, Effexor, Valium, Klonopin, Ativan, Restoril, Xanax, Adderall, Ritalin, Haldol, Risperdal... WAR

U.S. nears key step in European defense shield against Iranian missiles

Obama must decide whether to talk to the Taliban

Neighboring countries and most Afghans believe that the endgame has begun for a post-U.S. Afghanistan. There are just 14 months for the U.S. military surge to show results while Washington simultaneously prepares to begin its July 2011 troop withdrawal and handover to the Afghan government. Already, efforts to jockey for future control of Afghanistan have been seen among Pakistan, India, Iran and even Russia. Several NATO countries eager to withdraw forces are frustrated. It is clear in the region that someone will have to mediate with the Taliban, but in the absence of U.S. leadership, a tug of war is taking place over who will do it, when, how and where.

The only thing worse than a U.S. attack on Iran would be an Israeli one.

Gates Says U.S. Is Prepared On Iran's Nuclear Plan

Perhaps we should invest in volcanoes as our new missile and air defense technology?

When Madmen Have Bombs...

Obama Narrows the Range of Possible Targets in New National Nuclear-Weapons Policy

BP Begins Big Push To Revive Iraq's Oil

Iraq's Rumaila oilfield

I've been advocating for bringing in Western oil companies into Iraq for quite some time to stablize Iraq; the main question is will they be able to secure the main pipelines from Kirkuk to Baghdad, Mosul to Baghdad, and Baghdad to Basra. If they do this then Iraq can expand its pipelines even more. The great thing is there is a mountain range between Iraq and Iran making pipelines into Iran cost-prohibitive. If Iran wanted to pay for one though, why not push for it? It could be one concession to Iran and if we supported it they might start to treat us with a little more respect? Also, pushing for a trans-Turkey pipeline from Mosul could be spectacular. But, as I've said, they need to secure the three main pipelines first...

Missile Defense Agency Logo Upsets Right

My reaction is, "Oy vey."

Bombs Away: The real reason why Russia and China aren’t interested in stopping Iran’s nuclear program.

How we all miss the Shah

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi

This is not from the greatest, most reputable news source (except with regards to New York sports), but here is an interesting point of view from Empress Farah Pahlavi, the widow of the Shah of Iran, published in today's New York Post:

If Carter hadn't let the Shah be overthrown in 1979, "there wouldn't be this problem in Afghanistan, nor would there have been the Iran-Iraq war," Pahlavi tells Avenue magazine. "Iraq would never have dared to even send a plane over our country. The Gulf War wouldn't have happened, nor would any of the problems of the past 30 years, including the exporting of religious fanaticism..."
"The fact that the empress would invite Andy Warhol, fresh from Studio 54, to the Imperial Palace . . . showed just how open-minded, not to say hip, Her Imperial Highness was."

Star Wars on a Saturday night...

This sounds like a good plan to me, despite the complaints from the developing countries of Eastern Europe. We can do much more for those nations through microfinance, NATO training missions, strengthening nation-state partnership programs with National Guard units, and educating their populace in our universities...

Among the alternatives are dropping either the Polish or Czech site, or both sites, and instead building launching pads or radar installations in Turkey or the Balkans, while developing land-based versions of the Aegis SM-3, a ship-based anti-missile system, officials said. The changes, they said, would be intended not to mollify Russia, but to adjust to what they see as an accelerating threat from shorter-range Iranian missiles.

New Shiite Alliance Excludes Iraqi Prime Minister

The Iraqi Shiite link to Iran has been overblown and is an example of how ignorant we are in the West. Iranians, of which 89 percent are Shiite, are very proud of Persian history and our simplistic view of their influence on Iraqi Shiites (60-65 percent of the Iraqi population is Shiite versus 32-27 percent Sunni) should outrage them - it dismisses the cultural differences between Arabs and Persians.

Most Westerners know of the Roman Empires, but know little of the great Persian Empires. If Westerners used the simple outlook they use in examining Shiite Islam in Iraq and Iran to examine Western Christianity, they would overlook the cultural differences that broke Western Christianity apart (Roman Catholicism versus the Anglican communion, differences within the Anglican communion across the globe, differences between the Anglican communion and other Protestants, the development of the Lutheran and Presbyterian Churches in Northern Europe, etc.). Just as German Roman Catholics are much different than American ones, Arab Shiites (Iraq) are much different than Persian Shiites (Iran).

What I am getting at is that there is more to culture than religion. Language, for one, plays a huge role. To use the Western European example again, Latin morphed into the modern day romance languages and Roman Catholicism lost its total grip on Western Europe. Although I am no expert, as an ignorant Westerner myself, the Persian Empire morphed over time too; the linguistic differences between modern Iraq (Arabic) and Iran (Farsi) are hard to overlook. Only 1 percent of Iranians speak Arabic, and Farsi is rarely heard in Iraq. Scholars in Iran, like Ahmad Kasravi, spent years trying to "cleanse" the Farsi language of Arabic words and influence.



What else brought about this cultural divide? Although Iran has been officially Shiite since the Safavid dynasty in the 16th Century and Iraq has been a part of Iranzamin ("Greater Iran") for centuries, colonial rule and the subsequent modern nation-states of Iraq and Iran have helped to magnify the cultural differences between Iraq and Iran. The "little" mountain range, known as the Zagros (see map below), separating Iraq and Iran has become a geological Berlin Wall between the Arab Shiite and Persian Shiite areas of Iranzamin and allowed for more Arab influence on Iraq.

Also, the two countries fought an eight year war not too long ago. Obviously I have left things out, but the main point is Iraqi Shiites are different from Iranian Shiites!

Anyhow, back to article that brought about this tirade...

With regards to the new Shiite political alliance in Iraq, it appears that proportional representation parliamentary democracy really is taking shape in Iraq. Here is an excerpt from the article linked above:

The new bloc, called the Iraqi National Alliance, will include the largest Shiite party, the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, or SIIC, and al-Sadr's bloc, which both have close ties to Tehran.

Although some small Sunni and secular parties are joining the alliance, many Sunnis consider the Supreme Council as little more than an instrument of Shiite Iran.

If the alliance does well in the Jan. 16 vote, Tehran could gain deeper influence in Iraq as U.S. forces pull back, with a full American withdrawal planned by the end of 2011.

Al-Maliki's Dawa Party also has close ties to Iran, but the prime minister has tried in recent years to persuade Tehran to stop interfering in Iraq. Iran is accused of supporting Shiite militias, despite its denials of the allegations.

Pentagon eyes accelerated "bunker buster" bomb; Q2 Earnings Reports

The Air Force will do anything to keep their share of the bloated defense budget, which is almost always the biggest piece of the pie because of R&D and weapons technology. First it was the F-35, F-22, new fuel tankers, and now they are focusing on a new "bunker buster" to counter the perceived threats from North Korea and Iran. Boeing, who posted a 17 percent Q2 profit primarily because revenue from the integrated defense systems unit rose 9 percent to $8.7 billion, is more than willing to get another big government contract and build as many "bunker buster" bombs we "need."

"The Air Force and Department of Defense are looking at the possibility of accelerating the program," he said. "There have been discussions with the four congressional committees with oversight responsibilities. No final decision has been made."

The precision-guided weapon, built by Boeing Co (BA.N), could become the biggest conventional bomb the United States has ever used.

Carrying more than 5,300 pounds of explosives. it would deliver more than 10 times the explosive power of its predecessor, the 2,000-pound BLU-109, according to the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which has funded and managed the seed program.

Chicago-based Boeing, the Pentagon's No. 2 supplier by sales, could be put on contract within 72 hours to build the first MOP production models if Congress signs off, Bourland said.

Other defense industrial complex giants did not fare as well as Boeing did in the second quarter of 2009. Only Raytheon posted a profit. Northrop Grumman reported a Q2 profit decline, BAE posted a loss despite producing the MRAPs being used in CENTCOM today, Lockheed Martin reported a decline, and General Dynamics reported a loss.

How the Iranian military can be flipped...

Over a Barrel

I don't think the U.S. needs to conduct a naval blockade of Iran, but the four recommendations made to set the stage for an effective blockade made by Morse and Mokovsky seem to be on target. Why don't we just execute these four recommendations without the blockade? I think it is odd that a naval blockade is even being talked about; the only way I see the Obama administration giving the order for one is if Ted Kennedy told him on his death bed that it would make for easier comparisions between Obama and JFK in the history books.

If the United States is committed to using an energy lever, the only effective one available is to deploy a naval blockade to interdict Iran's gasoline imports, and possibly its oil exports. Since this would be tantamount to an act of war, it should only be initiated by the United States and its allies after diplomacy and financial sanctions have failed, as a last measure short of a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Iran might well react to a blockade or a military strike by sabotaging the oil sector in southern Iraq, jeopardizing 1.8 million barrels/day of oil exports for possibly several months. If Iranian oil exports were also halted, by the Iranians or us, it could mean the loss of close to 4 million barrels/day, or close to today's global spare production capacity. Iran could also attack other Gulf energy facilities or attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20 percent of the world's oil exports pass.

If the U.S. is contemplating a blockade or military strike, then it must prepare to mitigate any spike in energy prices that might result from a conflict. Several measures are called for, some of which can be accomplished in the near-term while others will require longer lead times.

First, the U.S. Department of Energy needs to test different release rates of its Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), which stores about 700 million barrels of crude oil as a strategic cushion. The SPR has never been fully tested and might only be capable of supplying half its declared amount of 4.4 million barrels/day for up to 90 days.

Second, the U.S. might ask the Saudis to commit to ramping up oil production if U.S. differences with Iran intensify.

Third, the U.S. must work to minimize Iran's ability to reprise against its neighbors. We should work closely with Iraq to boost security of the southern Iraqi energy export facilities, by making it a priority and by employing infrastructure security experts and forces. We should work with other regional energy exports to augment the security of their energy as well.

Fourth, we should explore other means to export Persian Gulf oil by circumventing the Strait of Hormuz. For instance, we should press the Saudis and Iraqis to rejuvenate the old Iraq-Saudi pipeline to the Red Sea, which may eventually require some joint ownership of the line as well as rebuilding it on Iraqi territory. The United States should also work with Iraq and Turkey to refurbish and expand Iraq's two pipelines through Turkey.

As a presidential candidate, Obama declared Iran's nuclear development "unacceptable," and as president he pledged "to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon." Toward this end, energy can offer some important levers, but the United States must be realistic about their impact and diligent in preparing for their use.

Miliband: Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei must engage with West

Referring to President Obama’s long-awaited speech to the Muslim world next month, he said that it should repudiate the idea that there is an inherent clash between the West and the Islamic worlds.

From Pyongyang to Tehran, with nukes

They already both share a stunna shade designer... could they share nuclear expertise with each other next?

This is an interesting take on North Korea. I think the article makes valid points, but what worries me the most, as stated by many other much more learned academics and practicioners than I, is how North Korea is unpredictable due to the psychoses of its "Dear Leader." Kim Jong Il is not mentally stable, whereas the leaders of the Soviet Union and United States during the Cold War were (I guess you can argue clutzy Ford might not have been due to the frequent concussions he gave himself or Reagan wasn't mentally stable towards the end of his second term, but both were still more stable and predictable than Kim). Meanwhile, Iran, while still a little unpredictable, isn't as bad as North Korea and is basically predictable. The Iranians talk a mean game, but we know and they know they, the Persians, are not well liked by the Arabs... I think part of the reason they always talk tough to Israel is just to gain favor with the world majority Sunni Arabs and Sunni Palestinians and maintain peace with the Arab world.

Anyhow, this article talks about the scary possibility of an Iranian-North Korean nuclear development deal. Here is an excerpt:

But it is what North Korea did not threaten that should give us greatest concern: expanded nuclear and missile cooperation with Iran. The two countries' abilities and needs are highly complementary, and past collaboration tells us that the diplomatic channels may be as well...

Of course, there is a terrifying way that North Korea could overcome its limitation while simultaneously helping another nuclear aspirant: It could work with Iran. Pyongyang lacks uranium centrifuge materials, technology, and know-how; Tehran has mastered them. Pyongyang has practical uranium metallurgy capabilities; Tehran has little. Pyongyang has its own nuclear test data; Tehran does not. Pyongyang knows all facets of plutonium technology; Tehran has little more than a plutonium-producing reactor under construction. Pyongyang helped Tehran establish a missile capability; now, Tehran's crash missile-test program and Pyongyang's long-range rocket tests could prove mutually beneficial.

Preventing escalation of nuclear and missile cooperation is critical to avoid destabilizing Northeast Asia and the Middle East. The urgency of this threat is underscored by North Korea's recent covert construction of a nuclear reactor in Syria and its extensive ongoing cooperation in missile technology with Iran. At least in its nuclear reach, Pyongyang isn't quite as isolated as it seems.