Celebrating The Audacity of Hope - Obama and the Nobel

In a truly stunning decision, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has awarded President Barack Obama the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

Coming a mere eight months into the first year of his presidency, the Prize is as unprecedented as it is surprising. Following the embarrassment of failing to win the 2016 Olympics for his hometown Chicago, with reports that French President Nikolas Sarkozy views him as "naive", while the dollar continues to be mercilessly pounded in global currency trading, assailed across the political spectrum over what route to take in the deepening quagmire of Afghanistan as health care reform remains trapped in the legislative lurch on Capitol Hill, the Prize is a moment of sweet respite for an otherwise beleaguered Obama.

Characterized by some analysts as "encouragement" for the President's initiatives to rewarding the new "tone" in Washington, the Nobel Committee's statement sited Obama's "...extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

"Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role..." the Committee said approvingly. Pointing to the inspirational force of his presidency, the Committee reverently stated, "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

Touting their hundred-plus years promoting the idea of a global community that subordinates state sovereignty and national interests to an international consensus on the common good of mankind, the Committee proudly crowned Obama as "the world's leading spokesman."

Yes, Mr. President; they love you. They really love you.

Yet, let there be no mistake. The Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize not to Barack Obama, President of the United States, but rather Barack Obama, Citizen of the World.

While bowing, both literally as well as metaphorically, before his peers among the ranks of world leaders may endear him to global elites, it does nothing for his standing with the people he has sworn to serve and lead.

Lest there be some confusion amidst the starry-eyed faithful in Oslo and the White House, that would be the American people and not the newly hopeful global masses.

Yes, the President should be commended for seeking cooperation and consensus where common ground can be found. Moreover, the objective reality of the moment requires America adroitly use diplomacy to advance its interests in the face of the limitations imposed by an anemic economy, a skyrocketing fiscal deficit and a military spread thin from the Mesopotamian cradle to the heart of the Hindu Kush.

While the Nobel Committee alludes to Obama's humility on the world stage, he is by no means the first American president to recognize it as a virtue in international affairs. However, though a virtue it may well be, it does not entail sacrificing the national interests of one's nation. Might I be so bold as to suggest the President familiarize himself with the words of one of his esteemed predecessor's, Teddy Roosevelt.

Setting the tone for a humble foreign policy buttressed by a steely resolve to defend the nation's interests, the 26th President famously adopted the African proverb, "Speak softly and carry a big stick" as his mantra.

However advisable this may be, though, one must be willing to wield the big stick on those occasions when appropriate. Only in doing so, can they expect to be taken seriously and respected when speaking softly. Though eagerly practicing the later, Obama has yet to demonstrate any inclination whatsoever for the former. While this has resulted in the President's personal popularity soaring among his global peers and admirers, America's credibility, influence and prestige has correspondingly collapsed.

In addition to encouraging America's new found modesty, Obama's selection is also a final repudiation of the Bush administration. Ironically, a parting shot in the name of peace, if you will.

Viewing Bush as a cartoon caricature of a cowboy eager to shoot first and negotiate later, global elites roundly condemned America during his term for what they viewed as unrepentant and heavy-handed unilateralism. Obama's Prize is the crowning jewel in a trio of anti-Bush award winners that include Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. One might justifiably expect the President to be comfortable to be counted among the ranks of these Liberal luminaries and stalwarts of American obeisance.

In the end, the Committee in Oslo celebrated substitution over substance; hailing Obama's abandonment of America's traditional position of preeminence in the international arena for a one of hope-inspiring deference. Indeed, perhaps the Liberal dream of a global kumbayah moment is not so far away after all.

Is that John Lennon I hear ringing on high?

Alas, the audacity of global hope has trumped the primacy of America's national interests.

And it and the President have been richly rewarded as a result.

Now what was the amount of the Prize again, faithful readers? Was that 10 million dollars or 30 silver pieces? Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we watch as the President humbly receives his Prize to the cheers and accolades of billions the world over.

The Losers In Iran's Latest Nuclear Gambit

With the revelation that Iran has been secretly working on an undeclared uranium enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom, the world finds it's attention once again riveted on the recalcitrant regime in Tehran and it's opaque nuclear aspirations. Following the harsh condemnations and cryptic warnings of the united front of American President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, mercurial Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remained typically defiant.

Responding to Obama's uncharacteristically stern remarks which were reprised in his weekly radio/internet address on Saturday, the beleaguered and controversial Iranian president warned his American counterpart would come to regret them.

Defending the heretofore secrecy of the facility, Ahmadinejad stated the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) only requires formal notification six months prior to a facility's operational completion. Noting the facility is still eighteen months from functional operability, he insisted Iran was not technically in violation of the UN atomic watchdog's requirements.

Following Friday's verbal jousting, Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps conducted a series of missile tests that culminated Monday with the successful launch of upgraded versions of the Shahab-3 and Sajjil-2 missiles. With a range of 1,250 miles, the surface-to-surface missiles place Israel and US bases in the region well within Tehran's military reach. Ironically, the tests came mere hours after US Secretary of State praised Tehran's decision to open the formerly secret facility near Qom to inspectors from the IAEA.

Roundly condemned by the international community, the missile drills were part of the Guards' annual war games with the Shahab-3 launch falling on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year for devout Jews. Coinciding with the anniversary of the launch of 1973 Yom Kippur War in which Israel was attacked by Egypt, Syria and Iraq, the symbolism and timing of the missile test added fuel to Jerusalem's calls for a coordinated and decisive international effort to halt Iran's drive for nuclear weapons.

With talks between the P5+1 (the permanent members of the UN Security Council, the US, Great Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany) and Iran scheduled to begin this coming Thursday, the long term impact of the facility's disclosure remains to be seen. However, as is so often the case, there are winners and losers in the interim.

Today, let's take a look at the losers. Among them are.....

Iran- The regime in Tehran has once again demonstrated that it lives by the motto - The ends justify the means. From fraudulent election results to undisclosed nuclear facilities that comply with the letter but not the spirit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the mullahs are willing to play fast and loose in the name of regime survival and the advancement of it's strategic goals. The end result is a complete lack of credibility on the international stage and a glaring disdain for the rule of law, both at home and abroad. Anyone familiar with the term pariah state?

In addition to this, Iran has re-energized and enhanced the credibility of Neocons in the US and warhawks in Israel. Having been marginalized by the political and economic costs of the Bush Doctrine and the election of Barack Obama, they are now moving back to the foreign policy forefront, propelled in large part by the duplicity of the mullahs in Tehran. This latest revelation reinforces their assertion that the regime cannot be trusted nor deterred, it must be confronted and if need be attacked.

The IAEA- The international atomic watchdog has proven yet again it cannot independently execute critically vital elements of it's assigned mission. Were it not for the work of Western intelligence agencies, the keystone cops from Geneva would still be clueless to the Qom facility's existence. While they are the embodiment of the axiom "ignorance is bliss", in the case of Iran it is also potentially disastrous and deadly on a truly horrific scale.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty- The fact that the anti-proliferation regime allows nations to travel the road towards weaponization without being in technical violation undermines it's raison d'etre. Furthermore, the fact that rogue states such as Iran can construct clandestine facilities safe in the knowledge they will face no repercussions beyond a stern tongue-lashing so long as they divulge them within months of coming on-line highlights another fatal loophole in it's design. At this point one, has to ask if the treaty is even worth the paper it's written on.

Germany- With significant and growing economic ties with Iran, Germany has soft peddled talk of substantive sanctions against the recalcitrant regime thus far. With this latest disclosure of Tehran's unrepentant obfuscation, pressure is dramatically increasing from Washington, London and Paris for Berlin to place principal before profits once and for all. It's ultimate decision will greatly influence its' future role in the Western camp. The question is, though, what does one do when profit is one's primary principal?

China and Russia- Expectations are rising in the West (read: Washington, London, Paris and Jerusalem) for Tehran's patrons on the Security Council to at the very least acquiesce, if not enthusiastically support increased sanctions on the regime. Of the two, China has the least to gain and the most to loose from such a move. Depending on Iran for fifteen (15) percent of it's oil with deference to a state's sovereignty as the bedrock of it's foreign policy, don't look for Beijing to eagerly assist the West with it's pesky Persian predicament anytime soon.

Dmitry Medvedev- Though the Russian president condemned Tehran for it's duplicity and lack of candor and halfheartedly nodded towards the "inevitability" of increased sanctions, he was nowhere to be found when time came for a unified denouncement of the regime. Why? Because on the Russian ship of state Medvedev is little more than the cruise director; true power lies with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Though some were heartened by Medvedev's statements as a sign that Russia is beginning to tire of it's troublesome neighbors to the south, astute observers wait for Putin to set the course for Russia through the tumultuous waters ahead.

Barack Obama- In adopting a stern stance against Tehran, the President has dramatically raised expectations for himself and the US. Not only is there the assumption that the administration will eschew flowery rhetoric of reconciliation and gestures of comity in the upcoming multi-party talks with Tehran, it will also be expected to be prepared to take aggressive and substantive action should those talks fail to produce any tangible progress. Having drawn a line in the proverbial sand, the pressure is on the national security neophyte to dispel doubts about his subjective credibility. Is Obama all talk and no show, or does he put his money, or in this case the political, economic and military might of the United States where his mouth is?

Gambling going on here? Clandestine nuclear facilities in Iran? I'm shocked, faithful readers. Shocked, I say.

Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see if Iran craps out as it rolls the nuclear dice.

Geopolitical Posturing - Beijing and Moscow's Iran Policy II

Friday we took a look at the geo-economic forces driving Moscow and Beijing's aversion to actively joining Washington's drive to pressure Tehran over it's nuclear programs. Today, let's turn our attention to the strategic and geopolitical issues which compel the two to buttress the mullahs with their vetoes in the United Nations' Security Council to the exacerbated dismay of their American counterpart.

As noted in regards to Beijing's position on Pyongyang's nuclear program, China maintains a principled and long-standing apprehension towards internationally-sanctioned actions that infringe on a state's sovereignty. Accordingly, there is a natural inclination to defer to Tehran and defend it even to the brink of Iran's potential withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This conveniently coincides with larger geopolitical concerns including a desire to repay Washington for what at one time appeared to be an attempt to counterbalance a rising China with a nascent strategic partnership with India.

In what initially appeared to be a masterstroke of geopolitical chess, the Bush administration entered into a nuclear technology agreement with New Delhi. In addition to unilaterally absolving India of it's nuclear proliferation pariah status, the move was viewed in Beijing as a not so subtle part of a new American containment policy directed against the Middle Kingdom. Looking across the region, the Chinese saw American allies in Japan, South Korea, Australia and Taiwan, improving relations with Washington's former foes in Vietnam and now a burgeoning strategic relationship with Beijing's nemesis on the subcontinent. The subsequent unspoken quid pro quo is clear - if Washington can extend it's political patronage to New Delhi to the detriment of China's strategic interests, Beijing can do likewise with Tehran at America's expense.

In similar fashion, the Kremlin seeks geopolitical retribution for what it considers to be Washington's recent interloping in it's "near abroad" in Ukraine and Georgia.

Having supported anti-Russian "color revolutions" in the two former Soviet Republics, the Bush administration went as far as suggesting the two be considered for membership in NATO. Extending NATO's reach to the borders of the Russian heartland, the proposal was considered blatantly provocative and a direct threat to Moscow's territorial security. Revealing the limits of America's abilities to defend it's would-be alliance members, the Kremlin took advantage of Georgian adventurism and overconfidence to unequivocally reassert it's influence over it's former comrades last summer. Mercilessly mauling the tiny republic, the Bear displayed both it's military might and political resolve. Hamstrung by a lame duck president in the midst of a presidential campaign, it's military stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan with it's allies divided over what the appropriately inoffensive, symbolic response should be, America watched passively as Russian forces crushed the outnumbered and beleaguered Georgian defenders.

Regardless of it's military victory in the heart of the Caucuses, Moscow feels Washington has meddled in a region vital to it's long term geopolitical interests as well as it's prestige. Accordingly, it now seeks to return the favor. It views the Middle East and Iran as a means to that end.

Having withdrawn as a peer competitor for regional hegemony in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse, the Kremlin now sees an opportunity to reassert itself in what had essentially become America's exclusive sphere of influence. Nurturing close political, intelligence and economic ties with Tehran, Moscow hopes to ride the cresting wave of it's influence across the region - a wave it believes will bring it lucrative economic and strategic opportunities while washing away the waning remnants of America's geopolitical dominance. This coincides with the belief in Beijing that America will be forced to dramatically scale back it's strategic commitments and military deployments globally over the coming decades, opening up similar opportunities for those poised to take advantage of them.

In the end, the Bear and the Dragon believes a graying Eagle will be forced to return on weakened and fraying wing to the comforts of it's North American nest. In it's wake, they intend to fill the political and strategic void left by it's absence.

That being the case, one wonders why it is in Beijing and Moscow's strategic interest to assist Washington with a recalcitrant and nettlesome Tehran, thereby alleviating some of the very pressures that may ultimately drive it from it's position of geopolitical prominence on the world stage?

The answer is simple - it is not.

Therefore, in the end, they will not.

Why is it the words to one of Joe Walsh's classics keep ringing in my ears, faithful readers? I can't help the feeling, we're living a life of illusion.

Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see if America remains backed up against a wall of confusion.

In The Persian Bazaar - Beijing and Russia's Iran Policy

After Pyongyang's most recent nuclear test and the repeated provocations of it's numerous missile launches, we looked at the underlying issues behind China's reluctance to aggressively sanction their maddening neighbors in the Hermit Kingdom. Now with hardline President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad having been sworn in for a second term, many wonder if the United States and Iran will ever enter into serious dialogue over Tehran's burgeoning nuclear programs. Looking far afield for any potential leverage against Iran, not only does China once again come into play, but Russia enters America's strategic calculus as well. That being the case, the question is - what are the prospects - or lack thereof - for assistance with this sticky Persian wicket from our "dear friends" in Beijing and Moscow?

First, we must recognize that many, including the Chinese themselves, see China as an ascendant power with an increasingly influential role in the international system. With the world's third largest economy, foreign currency and treasury bond reserves well north of a trillion dollars and double-digit annual economic growth and military spending increases, there is little doubt the Chinese dragon has woken from it's self-imposed slumber and is roaring with a pride and self confidence unparalleled in the modern era. Concurrent to Beijing's rise, Moscow seeks to reestablish Russia's position of prominence among the leading ranks of states. In doing so, it hopes to once again bask in the fear, respect and influence the Bear commanded in it's former glory days when it confidently confronted America and it's allies at the height of the bipolar Cold War.

Though the dynamics of the international sphere are fluid, there is the fervent belief among many in the foreign policy intelligentsia in what can be referred to as the Spider Man axiom of international affairs- With great power comes great responsibility. In their minds, Beijing and Moscow have a responsibility as stakeholders and would-be leaders in the international system to assist in the maintenance of it's stability. Part and parcel of that entails working in concert with other leading powers to address threats to the system. Iran, the argument goes for varying reasons in both Liberal and Conservative circles, is just such a gathering threat.

Nonetheless, this begs the question - Why is it in Beijing and Moscow's strategic interests to maintain the stability of an international order constructed by and favoring the United States and it's allies? The answer is simple - it is not.

As is the case so often, one of the primary integers in China and Russia's strategic calculus in regards to Iran is economics. That being said, today we'll look at the economic factors underpinning their reluctance to take substantive action against the recalcitrant regime in Tehran.

Let's begin with China. Beijing, ever taking the long view and mindful of the need to keep it's economic engine well-fueled, views the oil fields of the Middle East as critical to it's national security. As part of a broader global initiative that combines low interest loans, massive infrastructure investment, exclusive access agreements, partnerships with local firms and governments, outright purchases of foreign energy fields and political protection in the international arena and the United Nation's Security Council, China has signed long term development and exclusivity deals with Iran for both oil and natural gas. Beijing places access to reliable sources of energy and the societal stability and politically legitimacy of the Communist Party that is directly linked to a growing economy ahead of America's desire to restrain a rising and potentially nuclear-armed Iran.

In addition to energy, arms also trade hands between China and Iran. For example, the Iranian side of the Persian Gulf is dotted with Chinese-manufactured sea-skimming Silkworm anti-ship missile batteries. In the event hostilities would occur between the US and Iran, odds are the Iranians would launch an aggressive anti-access/area denial offensive that incorporated Silkworm missile follies designed to overcome American close-in naval defenses. The objective would be to drive the Sixth Fleet from the Gulf, thereby limiting it's operational effectiveness and lethality. Should the tactic prove successful, China would reap the windfall profits of both Iranian resupply orders as well as purchases from other states seeking to keep the American navy at arm's length.

Furthermore, the trump card of Chinese held American securities, treasury bonds and currency reserves provides a greater sense of maneuverability and independence of action for Beijing. Accordingly, the Obama administration must be mindful that should it press it's counterparts in the Middle Kingdom too forcefully it places the stability and value of the dollar in jeopardy.

While many rightfully point out that dumping dollars would result in serious self-inflicted wounds for China, the Administration would be well-advised not to take solace in this thought. Given the proverbial alignment of the geopolitical stars with the corresponding concert of the right set of circumstances at the right time, Beijing may well calculate that the pain is worth the long term benefit of toppling the United States from it's lofty perch atop the international system. Though China may willfully cast itself into the heart of the maelstrom, the rationale would be the end of America's preeminence and the inauguration of an era of true multipolarity. Such an event would open the door for China to challenge for the role of regional hegemon, not an unappealing prospect for a nation that believes it fails to receive the respect, deference and influence it is due as one of the world's oldest cultures and civilizations.

Russia, like China, is also a supplier of arms to Iran. From T-72 tanks to MIG-29 fighters, Moscow has sold billions of dollars and hundreds of weapons systems to Tehran over the past two decades. A point of contention between the Pentagon and the Kremlin and of particular concern to both American and Israeli Air Force planners is Russia's agreement to provide Iran with the advanced TOR M-1 air defense missile system. Ostensibly reported to supplement air defense of the Russian-built nuclear reactor at Bushehr, the purchase is a $700 million deal. Accordingly, it is in Russia's economic interests to allow tensions between Washington and Tehran to remain unresolved - tension generates fear, fear spurs arms sales.

As noted previously, Russia has built the nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Seeking to sweeten the pot and retain Moscow's protection in the UN Security Council, Tehran has suggested Bushehr could be the first of up to two dozen potential Russian-built reactors in Iran. Contracts for such an ambitious program would run in the hundreds of billions of dollars and span decades. Needless to say, by comparison, the prospects for similarly profitable opportunities in the US are exceedingly slim.

Finally, there is the issue of natural gas. Seeking significantly enhanced influence over global markets, Moscow has proposed the creation of a producer's group similar to that of OPEC. The foundation of that group would be Russia, Iran and Qatar, who collectively control roughly 55 percent of the world's proven natural gas reserves. That being said, one can hardly expect Moscow to countenance the sanctioning of a crucial partner in what it perceives to be in it's long term economic interest.

While Americans may disparage Beijing and Moscow for cynically placing their own economic interests ahead of global security and stability, one should remain mindful of the fact that the European Union, and the Germans in particular, have similarly been loath to aggressively sanction Tehran for fear of losing lucrative contracts worth billions of Euros. Accordingly, serious observers should be neither shocked or offended when the Chinese and Russians laugh off what might otherwise be biting condemnations were it not for the actions of some of America's closest allies.

Penny for your thoughts, faithful readers? Or perhaps your security?

Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and tune in Monday for a look at the strategic and geopolitical forces behind Beijing and Moscow's rebuffing of Washington's entreaties for assistance with Tehran.

By The Red Rocket's Glare - Beijing's Response to Pyongyang

As North Korea has fired off missiles like a 12-year-old fresh from family vacation with a boxful of illegal fireworks over the past few months, the international community reacted with all the impotent bluster and self-righteous indignation that has become par for the course as of late. Were diplomatic fury a credible countermeasure, Kim Jong-il and his cadre of ever-vigilant, stone-faced generals would soon find their burgeoning missile program to have all the intimidating menace of wet bottle rockets. Sadly, though, for the international community and more importantly the Hermit Kingdom's increasingly nervous neighbors, this is not the case.

Despite conducting another underground nuclear test, the provocations of its' increasingly frequent missile launches, declaring its' abandonment of the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War and bellicose statements of impending war, casual observers are struck by the stunning lack of a substantive response to the latest round of North Korea's inflammatory and dangerously erratic behavior. One of those observers, a student in my upcoming International Relations course, wonders why North Korea's patron, China, hasn't reigned in their clients in Pyongyang. What we have here, as is often the case in political science and international relations, is the headlines providing us with a teachable moment.

To be sure, if there is anyone that can apply substantive and meaningful pressure on Pyongyang it is Beijing. China is literally the Hermit Kingdom's lifeline, providing North Korea with food, energy, technology and trade. Accordingly, its' dependence on the Chinese is it's Achilles heel. Indeed, were the Chinese so inclined, they could quickly get the Dear Leader's attention by unilaterally exercising this leverage over Pyongyang. In light of the fact the North Koreans warned Washington and not Beijing of it's impending nuclear test, based on the culturally significant loss of face, many would not be surprised if this were to occur. However unlikely that is to happen, though, for any economic sanctions passed by the UN Security Council to have a meaningful impact, Beijing must not only be willing to acquiesce to their imposition, it must also follow on with actual compliance and enforcement.

This still begs the question - Why doesn't Beijing exercise it's significant influence over Pyongyang? The answer is simplicity itself, really; it does not serve China's interests to do so.

First, there is Beijing's long-standing apprehension towards internationally-sanctioned actions that infringe on a state's sovereignty. Take for instance, it's intransigence on sanctioning Khartoum for the long-running genocide in Sudan's Darfur region.

Though Beijing maintains considerable economic leverage over the Sudanese government, it has consistently rebuffed calls for both unilateral penalties and international action. Why? The root of their reluctance lies in the fear that should they endorse the legitimacy of such action, that it may be used against them somewhere down the road. Perhaps not this year or even within a decade, but still, there is the fear of the long term implications and dangers such action poses to Beijing and the Communist Party.

Remember, the Chinese eschew knee jerk reactions and ad hoc policy for in depth, exhaustive deliberation and evolutionary policy development. There is an emphasis on the long view, considering possibilities and ramifications decades and even a century into the future.

If China accepts that states can be internationally sanctioned and punished for exercising their sovereign powers in the pursuit of what they deem to be their national interests, then the same standard could be applied to Chinese actions in the future. Whether it be oppression of religious minorities, dealing with Uygur separatists, Tibetan nationalists or the renegade province of Taiwan, Beijing will not tolerate international meddling in it's internal affairs. Not only does it jealously defend that principal, it extends it to other states through incorporation into its' foreign policy. Accordingly, there is an inherent apprehension towards punishing Pyongyang for pursuing what it views to be a critical element to it's national security; despite Beijing's uncharacteristically harsh recent condemnation and it's repeated calls for a denuclearized Korean peninsula.

Another factor that stays Beijing's hand is the fact that the status quo benefits it over the long run.

With Seoul, Tokyo and Washington repeatedly distracted by Pyongyang's periodic temper tantrums, it allows China to advance it's national interests outside of the spotlight's glare. When strategic planners begin to look warily at Beijing's annual double digit increases in military spending, like clockwork reactors begin to belch smoke and missiles take flight from the nettlesome northern half of the Korean peninsula. The result is China is cast as a stable and responsible regional power in contrast to it's chaotic and provocative neighbor.

Similarly, North Korea is also a boon to Beijing in it's capacity as a buffer state between the Middle Kingdom and America's allies in Seoul and Tokyo. Again, China's long view comes into play. However, this time it encompasses the past as well as the future.

China still considers the Japanese occupation of Manchuria and the rape of Nanking as unforgivable sins and indelible stains on her honor. Both immediately prior to and during Japan's brutal Chinese aggression, it used an annexed Korea as a staging ground for troops and supplies. That memory, along with Japan serving as the jumping off point for America's projection of political and military power into the Asian continent, makes Tokyo a strategic threat.

Furthermore, there is the fear that should reconciliation and reunification eventually occur on the Peninsula, the end result will be a democratic ally of Washington on China's border. Though it will admittedly take years, if not decades for economic and social integration ala the German model, Beijing views Korean reunification as a direct, long term threat to it's national security.

Finally, Beijing is loath to seriously consider substantive action against Pyongyang for fear of the calamities and chaos that would accompany a collapse of the regime.

Should the regime implode or falter, the potential exists for a humanitarian crisis of the first order. A collapse of authority would trigger a flood of refugees in the millions headed both south to their estranged brothers and north to their Chinese neighbors. Fearing the destabilizing effects and economic expense of massive amounts of desperate Koreans, Beijing may be compelled to deploy troops across the border, directly into Korean territory. The public rationale would be to maintain order and stability while providing aid and relief. In truth, the objective would be to establish a buffer to hold back the human wave and to keep Korean refugees in camps on Korean soil. Accordingly, Beijing sees neither regime collapse or peninsular reunification in it's national interests. Thus, for reasons both selfish and geopolitical, China is happy to maintain the status quo and endure the rants and raves of the Dear Leader and his committed cadre in Pyongyang; however unnerving and tense it may be from time to time.

Same as it ever was, faithful readers. Same as it ever was.

Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see what breathtaking display Pyongyang has in store in it's burgeoning box of menacing missilry.

Assassins, Daggers and Snares, Oh My!

Congressional Democrats are aghast and apoplectic at revelations that the Central Intelligence Agency developed contingency plans to assassinate senior members of Al Qaeda in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the United States. Though the plans called for dispatching small teams of clandestine operatives to either capture or kill critical members of the terrorist group - such as it's leader Osama Bin Laden and his aide de camp Ayman Al-Zawahiri - they remained little more than vague conceptual skeletons. Plagued by legal, logistical and diplomatic concerns, the plans - such as they were - were never executed and left to collect dust on a proverbial classified shelf in the Agency's labyrinthine headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

At the heart of the Democrat's self-righteous fury is the Agency's failure to disclose the program to Congress. Following directions from then-Vice President Dick Cheney, the existence of the program and it's associated plans were withheld from the two Congressional Intelligence Committees responsible for oversight of clandestine activity. Despite current CIA Director Leon Panetta having both terminated the program and informed Congress literally within hours of being briefed on it's existence, the Democratic chairs of both Intelligence Committees and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have demanded all pertinent information and called for a formal investigation of what they view as the Agency's having misled them for nearly eight years. Lawyers at Langley have responded that since the program essentially remained in the conceptual phase and failed to come to fruition, it did not meet the reporting criteria that trigger Congressional notification.

While I would personally be aghast had the Agency not seriously considered such a program and the attendant contingencies, legalities and risks, the episode highlights a number of interesting points. Among them are.....

- The ongoing tensions between transparency, operational security, oversight and effectiveness. To say the Agency has a storied history littered with adventurous miscalculations and unintended consequences is an understatement. They are the ones responsible for coining the term "blowback", after all. With their dirty laundry aired for public view by the Church Committee in the 70's, Langley was subsequently subjected to what many in "the Company" view as onerous Congressional oversight. In the ensuing decades, there has been an ongoing struggle for the Agency to effectively carry out it's mandate and maintain operational security while complying with Congress's desires for transparency. Many in the intelligence community, including Robert Baer, believe the ultimate result has been to inculcate a pervasive sense of apprehension among Agency personnel. This leads to a crippling aversion to the risky, frequently amoral activities and engaging with the unsavory and corrupt characters that are often integral to the successful execution of the Agency's mission. This latest episode highlights an example of planning for some of the more socially unacceptable activities associated with Agency's national security role and the fact that different interpretations of the reporting requirements that oversight entails continues to aggravate an already beleaguered and suspicious relationship between Langley and Capitol Hill.

- The respective missions, institutional structure and cultures of Congress and the Agency guarantee that tension between the two will be the norm, not the exception. Compartmentalization and control of information is critical to the successful execution of the Agency's mission. This stands in stark contrast to the dissemination, discussion and debate of information that is likewise part and parcel of the role of Congress. Accordingly, the two institutions are naturally leery and suspicious of each other. Langley is fearful information provided in the course of notification and oversight will be leaked to the press and lead to a collapse of operational security. Should even program generalities - much less sources and methods - enter the public arena there is the possibility not only for the failure of intelligence collection, but also the compromise of Agency personnel. Sadly, as the Valerie Plame affair illustrates, such dangers are not the exclusive domain of the Legislative Branch. That's to say nothing of the possible imprisonment or execution of foreign nationals involved in Agency programs exposed by the press. This further hampers the Agency in fulfilling it's mission by dissuading possible foreign recruits from working with it for fear of exposure and the subsequent perils to life and limb, family and friends. Accordingly, secrecy and operational security are premium objectives to be maintained at all costs - including enduring ongoing tension with and episodic vitriol from Capitol Hill.

Conversely, Congress - which is the world's largest marble megaphone - has an insatiable appetite for information, discussion and debate. The rumor mill, echo chamber and political public square run non-stop, 24/7. Unlike Langley, which is both metaphorically and literally isolated from the press, Capitol Hill and it's denizens are wired directly into it. Their relationship is symbiotic and hard-wired. With information being the coin of the realm in Washington, they - Congress and the press - are naturally suspicious of those who would horde and embargo it, regardless of the justification. Being the people's representatives, Congress seeks to ensure the Agency is acting in a lawful and morally acceptable fashion in the course of carrying out it's mission. Similarly, the press believes they play a complimentary role to that of Congress. Indeed, they see themselves as defenders of the republic, supplementing Congressional oversight by shining a probing, unfiltered light into the dark corners of Langley's secretive offices. The result is and will continue to be a relationship defined by the tense and often combative struggle between compartmentalization and dissemination of information.

- Rightly or wrongly, the Agency will always be damned if they do and damned if they don't. Many of the same critics that blasted Langley as inept and intellectually bankrupt in failing to detect the 9/11 attacks prior to their initiation, now decry even the thought of dispatching teams of assassins to hunt down those who ordered and orchestrated the very same attacks. Never mind the fact that these were little more than brainstorming session eraser board scribbles, the very idea shakes the foundations of our moral authority, they protest.

It is this self-righteous outrage, subsequent onerous oversight, lingering ghosts of the Church Committee and fear of federal prosecution that has critically hamstrung the Agency and it's personnel. The inevitable result is a schizophrenic bureaucracy that maddeningly vacillates between a sclerotic and moribund apprehensiveness, focused more on self protection than mission and a frenetic, no-holds-barred mania that often borders on the reckless and sophomoric. Accordingly you have an institution with often anemic capabilities that is alternately condemned for it's ineptness on the one hand and it's adventurism on the other.

And finally....

- Despite his having decamped the security of the legendary undisclosed bunker beneath the Naval Observatory, former-Vice President Dick Cheney's influence continues to reverberate unabated throughout the marbled halls of Washington. Moreover, it shows no signs of dissipating any time in the near future.

Same as it ever was, faithful readers. Same as it ever was.

Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see who wins this latest round between Langley's cloak and daggers and Capitol Hill's stuffed suits.

Iran's Quest for the Bomb - Rhetoric Verses Reality

The alarm goes off. A sharp elbow in the back informs you the snooze timer's gone off for the second time. Grumbling through the sleepy haze, you fumble for the remote and flip on the television. Lying in bed, you await the standard fare of mindless morning chit-chat intermingled with the local forecast and traffic report.

Rudely, you're aroused from your foggy semi-consciousness as a reporter states that both the US Geological Survey and sources in the Pentagon have confirmed that Iran has successfully tested a nuclear weapon. Seismic data indicates the test occurred in the Dasht-e Lut, a desert region of salt flats located in Iran's southeastern Kerman province. This coincides with video of the test site released by the government in Tehran.

As golden slumbers blissfully filled your eyes, a phone rang in the White House residence. With it, the President received the dreaded 3AM call that Hillary Clinton had clairvoyantly prognosticated during the 2008 primaries. In similar fashion to your own, the Commander-In-Chief was shocked out of his serene repose with news that the world had a new upstart and unwelcome member of the nuclear club - Iran.

As unsettling as it may be, many intelligence analysts believe this scenario may well play out sometime over the next 18 to 24 months. In the interim, there is a growing consensus among Conservative commentators and pundits that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is driven by a virulent anti-Israelism and aspirations of regional hegemony. However, a closer look beyond the apocalyptic rhetoric reveals a chorus of neorealist historical and geopolitical forces compelling the mullahs to the mastery and weaponization of the atom.

Among them are....

Nationalism - With it's roots firmly set in antiquity as one of the world's oldest civilizations, there is a great sense of cultural and historical pride among Iranians, particularly the dominant Persians. There is, however, a sense that Iran does not enjoy a concomitant level of respect and influence in the international arena. Accordingly, many believe that mastery of nuclear energy and possession of even a limited nuclear arsenal are a means to an end. The rationale is predicated on the belief that by joining the elite few that are counted among the members of the globe's nuclear club, Iran will gain the respect, prestige and status commensurate with it's historical significance.

Religion - Looking at the world and national security through the prism of faith, the Shia mullahs of the regime find themselves politically isolated and strategically disadvantaged. A minority among the Muslim ummah, Iran views itself as the political guardian of the Shia faithful. Though it's influence has grown significantly in the wake of the removal of it's nemesis, Saddam Hussein, Tehran still finds itself located in a region populated by Sunni-dominated antagonists. Despite talk of a burgeoning "Shia Crescent", Iran remains isolated in the Muslim political world as the lone defender of what the Sunni majority view as the apostate followers of the martyred Imam Hussain.

Furthermore, the mullahs find themselves to be at a strategic disadvantage in the religious/philosophical realm. Gazing across the globe, they see Christian (United States, Great Britain, France and Russia), Jewish (Israel), Hindu (India), Confucian (China), Atheist (North Korea) and Sunni (Pakistan) nuclear powers. Again, they find themselves alone in a neighborhood teeming with a nuclear-armed Jewish state to the west, Sunni and Hindu bombs to the east and Christian bombs deployed via warships on their doorstep in the Persian Gulf. Despite Ayatollah Khomeini's condemnation of nuclear weapons, there are factions within the regime that believe ultimate security for the Shia and the Islamic Republic can only be found in the ultimate weapon.

Distrust of the international community - In spite of international conventions forbidding their use, Saddam Hussein nonetheless unleashed chemical weapons on Iran over the course of the bloody Iran-Iraq War in the '80s. At the time, Saddam was seen as the Sunni bulwark against the spread of Khomeini's Shia revolution and the potential dangers it posed to the lifeblood of the West's industrialized economies - oil. Consequently, Iran's Gulf neighbors and the West gave their tacit approval of the Butcher of Baghdad's blatant war crimes through their silence. Adding to the antipathy between Iran and it's Gulf neighbors is the fact that much of Saddam's war efforts were underwritten by billions of dollars in loans from such Sunni stalwarts as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

In addition to it's complacence in response to Saddam's aggression, the international community's inconsistency and hypocrisy on nuclear weapons fuels Tehran's paranoia and distrust. Israel hides it's nuclear arsenal behind the shield of "strategic ambiguity" and America's veto in the UN Security Council. Meanwhile, nuclear pariahs Pakistan and India are rehabilitated and embraced by the United States once they serve Washington's strategic interests.

Yet, the US has aggressively and repeatedly prodded the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to refer Iran to the Security Council for sanction. In tandem with it's dogged hounding of the IAEA, Washington also made multiple attempts to peal off Iran's defenders on the Security Council, Russia and China. The objective, to expose the regime to stiffer, broad-based sanctions, was seen as a necessary step that must be taken prior to any military action the US might eventually feel compelled to take. All of this adds up to a distrust of the international community that has become an article of political faith among the ranks of the regime.

Regime Survival - The primary objective of the regime - and any government, for that fact - is survival and continuity. In prioritizing existential threats, the United States is easily at the top of Tehran's list. America alone enjoys a unique combination of both conventional and strategic assets and capabilities, many of which are currently deployed around Iran's borders.

With troops in excess of 100,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan, bases on the Arabian side of the Gulf and carrier battle groups routinely patrolling both the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, Iran finds itself virtually surrounded by American forces. That's not even mentioning the fact that American B-2 Spirit strategic bombers can reach the heart of the Islamic Republic from their home bases in Kansas. Should follow-on strikes be required, America's arsenal of naval and air-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles allow her the ability to attack Iran from a distance with minimal exposure to harm for her own forces.

Facing this imposing array of assets and capabilities, Tehran has become an ardent student of recent history.

Saddam Hussein, maintaining "strategic ambiguity" about weapons of mass destruction, found himself toppled from power in a flurry of America's "shock and awe" military might. His sons cut to pieces in a firefight with personnel from the 101st Airborne Division, Saddam was eventually captured hiding unceremoniously in the dirt of a spider hole and met Allah at the end of a hangman's noose. Meanwhile, the incessant provocations and belligerent saber-rattling of North Korea's Kim Jong-il merits little more than nervous chatter and hollow condemnations.

Why? The answer is simplicity itself - nuclear weapons.

The lesson is clear. Those who do not possess nuclear weapons leave themselves at Washington's not-so-tender mercies; those that do possess them keep America at bay and are bombarded by angry condemnations instead of laser-guided bombs.

Though the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate found that Iran suspended it's nuclear research program following America's 2003 invasion of Iraq, it is generally believed to have been aggressively restarted in the wake of Washington's rebuff of what appeared to be a tentative overture for reconciliation from Tehran. In a fit of imperial hubris, the Bush administration then embarked on a term-long two-pronged program that included an ineffective and ultimately insincere diplomatic track in conjunction with repeated bellicose calls for regime change. With Bush's words ringing in their ears and images of Saddam's inglorious final moments in this world fresh in their minds, the mullahs have taken his bitter lesson to heart. The Islamic Republic will endure and the American juggernaut will be held at bay through the power of the atom.

Regime survivability through modern technology, faithful readers.

Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and a President earnestly hopes to never be roused from his blissful slumber by a 3AM call.

Lost On the Road to Nowhere - Obama's Route to Peace

In the wake of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's state visit to Washington, talk of the "road map" to Middle Eastern peace once again dominates the blogosphere and punditocracy. Though the imagery of his meeting with President Obama is one of respectfully resolute, though cordial statesmanship, one thing is strikingly clear. While the two leaders share a commitment to traveling the road to peace, they are navigating from distinctly different maps.

Indeed, President Obama's route begins in Jerusalem, with the first milestone nearby in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. For Netanyahu, however, the point of embarkation is Tehran, with follow-on stops at Iran's nuclear facilities at Bushehr and Natanz coming shortly thereafter. Regardless of which path is ultimately settled on, both are fraught with perils and potholes that may well derail the arduous journey. In addition to the treacherous political terrain itself, it is home to bandits and malcontents skulking in the shadows with malevolent intent. While some snares and pitfall are easily found, others though more subtle and less perceptible are no less dangerous. As the saying goes, forewarned is forearmed.

So join me, if you will, as we take a look at a few of the dogged issues behind the headlines that will determine in large part where the road ultimately ends.

As previously noted, one of the first stops on the President's road map is the Israeli-occupied West Bank. While Obama believes that an immediate halt to the expansion of Israeli settlements in the territory is the first crucial step to jump-starting the journey towards peace, the Israelis point to their withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a harbinger of things to come should they acquiesce to this request.

Not only did Israel fulfill it's commitment to surrender Jewish settlements in Gaza, but it sent Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in to forcibly remove those who would not comply with Jerusalem's order. To the Palestinian's delight, images of IDF personnel manhandling and dragging away kicking, screaming and crying settlers in restraints were broadcast across the globe. Heralded as a great victory by Hamas and the Arab street, the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority (PA) subsequently failed to keep their end of the bargain

Not only were there no similar scenes of raids on weapons caches and Hamas members being led off in custody from clandestine munitions shops, the PA was eventually driven out of Gaza and replaced by the terrorist group. Having established their writ and dominion over the Strip, Hamas then set about turning it into a literal launch pad for it's corp of rocketeers. This set in motion an escalating series of events that culminated in Israel's weeks-long offensive immediately prior to Obama's inauguration. Given the Palestinian's track record and the transformation of seceded land into bases from which attacks are launched at Israel, it is natural that security guarantees designed to prevent a recurrence of this calamitous state of affairs would be a top precondition of Jerusalem and Netanyahu.

The issue of security in the wake of an Israeli withdraw from West Bank settlements is a doorway that leads to the more complex and intertwined issues of both long term Israeli security and the true extent of sovereignty a Palestinian state might expect to exercise.

For obvious reasons, Israel would prefer a militarily toothless Palestinian state that focused primarily on police, intelligence and security forces should one eventually be established. For similarly obvious reasons, a Palestinian state would want the ability to exercise it's sovereignty to the fullest extent. Part of that is the right to defend itself through the establishment and retention of military capabilities, however meager they may ultimately be.

The Palestinians will vehemently argue they have a right to defensive military capabilities. The Israelis will respond there is no need for anything more than police and security forces as a Palestinian state will have no natural predators against which it must defend itself. The unspoken rationale behind the Israeli position will be the desire to A) prevent the Palestinians from developing a credible and potentially threatening military capability and B) facilitate the retention of a balance of power that dramatically favors the Israelis and C) allows them the ability to militarily intervene in Palestinian affairs without fear of reciprocal military reprisals.

In addition to this, the Israelis will insist on three non-negotiable security concessions the Palestinians will chafe at. First, they will demand the Palestinians forgo the development of any militarized air capabilities, including both fixed and rotating winged craft. Next, they will seek to restrict Palestinian airspace to commercial use only. Finally, Jerusalem will attempt to constitutional prohibit the Palestinians from entering into military-to-military mutual cooperation agreements and alliances.

The Palestinians will view these demands not only as intolerable, but also as an infringement on their sovereignty - a de facto extension of the Israeli political yoke.Again the Israeli rationale is obvious - maintenance of unchallenged military superiority and prevention of the transformation of a Palestinian state into a base of operations for Iranian Quds Forces.

The unspoken fear in Jerusalem is that should the Israelis acquiesce to Obama's preferred route, the time necessary to resolve the Palestinian issue will allow Iran to obtain their long sought after nuclear capability. Even more frightening is the thought that the birth of a Palestinian state will be accompanied by a declaration from Tehran that not only is Iran the latest member of the nuclear club, but they are extending their nuclear umbrella over Israel's newborn neighbor. Depending on the alignment of the political stars at the time, Tehran might likewise extend it's strategic shield to encompass both a Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon and their clients in Damascus as well. This would leave Israel facing Tehran's nuclear-protected proxies on four fronts, an unacceptable and potentially untenable strategic position for Jerusalem. That being the case, one wonders if Netanyahu and the Israelis can convince the President his route is not the road to peace, but will ultimately leave them all lost on the road to nowhere.

We're on a road to nowhere, come on inside, faithful readers. Takin' that ride to nowhere, we'll take that ride.

Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see if the White House has the common sense to pull over and ask directions when it gets lost.

Obama's Worldly Woes - Part II : Pakistan

Though the global economy struggles in the face of the most dire economic crisis since the Great Depression and America stands a mere week away from inaugurating its’ first biracial president, the eyes of the world are intensely riveted on Israel and the Gaza Strip. While daily headlines and hourly news updates once again focus on the latest round of the generations-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its immediate implications for the soon-to-be-inaugurated Obama presidency, many in the intelligence and national security community believe that a potentially graver challenge for the fledgling administration lies farther to the east in Pakistan. How is it a once ardent ally in the War on Terror at best now appears to be drifting erratically out of Washington’s orbit and at worst could quickly become the flashpoint for an unthinkable nuclear crisis that ignites a firestorm of anti-American protests and attacks across the Islamic world? The answer is simple, really – politics. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Pakistani military strongman Pervez Musharraf saw the Bush administration’s metaphoric line in the sand of the War on Terror as an opportunity to shed his nation’s pariah status and move back into the good graces of the world’s lone superpower. At the time, an alliance between the two states was both mutually beneficial and politically expedient – much like it had been in the 1980’s when the common foe was the occupying Russian army in neighboring Afghanistan. In the process, along with the flowery praise and gushing gratitude of Neoconservatives, Islamabad would reap billions in military aid as Washington used dollars as well as missiles and unmanned drones in the fight against Al-Qaeda and its fellow radical anti-Western Islamist travelers. As the War on Terror wore on, though, Lord Palmerston’s old admonition that nations have no permanent allies, only permanent interests once again proved true. With reports indicated 9/11 mastermind Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and their Taliban allies had reconstituted themselves in Pakistan’s northwestern Federally Administered Tribal Areas, Washington naturally began pressing Islamabad to earnestly pursue the fugitives from America’s vengeance. With its’ troops bloodied and humiliated in their repeated and ultimately vain forays into the FATA, there was little doubt that the region was Pakistani sovereign territory in name only and that the Musharraf regime exercised no meaningful authority or influence over the tribes. As domestic political pressure rose and Musharraf struggled to retain some semblance of independence in the wake of growing cries that he was nothing more than a compliant puppet and had become Washington’s man in Pakistan, Islamabad became more reluctant to comply with the Bush administration’s requests or act on American intelligence. Acknowledging the domestic circumstances confronting the Musharraf regime yet unwilling to pass on opportunities to aggressively pursue actionable, time-sensitive intelligence, an unspoken agreement was struck that allowed unmanned American drones to fill strike targets Islamabad was either unwilling or unable to engage. While initially mutually acceptable, the agreement wore thin as civilian casualties mounted, plausible Pakistani deniability evaporated, reports began to surface of American helicopters breaching Pakistani airspace and public protestations over her sovereignty moved from the streets Karachi and Peshawar to the halls of government in Islamabad. Exacerbating rising tensions between the two ersatz allies was Washington’s courtship of Pakistani nemesis India as a counterbalance to an ascendant China. Entering into an agreement on nuclear cooperation with New Delhi while denying Islamabad similar consideration, the impression set in that Washington was at the least less than grateful and unappreciative of the sacrifice of Pakistani blood, treasure and political capital on its behalf. At worst, there was growing concern that America had embarked down a path with India that would ultimately leave Pakistan in its wake once its usefulness had passed – much like it had after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan n the early 90’s. As this volatile mixture percolated through the filter of domestic Pakistani politics, the Musharraf regime found itself confronted by pseudo-democratic reformists on one hand and a more aggressive and public Islamic revivalist movement on the other. These competing forces ultimately resulted in Musharraf’s resignation and the assassination by Islamist elements of democratic hopeful and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto on her return from exile. In the wake of Musharraf’s military rule, a weak civilian government has struggled to maintain control of a deteriorating domestic political environment for the past year. Adding to Islamabad’s increasing untenable position are rising tensions with India resulting from the three day terrorist siege of targets in the economic center of Mumbai in November. Evidence collected by the Indian government – including a confession from the lone surviving commando – indicates the terrorists were trained and equipped in Pakistan. Given past involvement by Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence directorate in attempts to destabilize and attack India and historic animosities over the disputed Jammu-Kashmir region, the involvement of rogue elements within the ISI – if not the knowledge and complicity of its leadership – is not unimaginable. The concomitant tension that followed in the wake of the Mumbai siege has tapped a virulent vein of nationalism within Pakistan that while temporarily ameliorating Islamabad’s domestic position has increased pressure on it to be defiant and even belligerent in the face of New Delhi’s angered accusations. As a result, Islamabad has dispatched forces to reinforce with Indo-Pakistani frontier, many of who have been diverted from their tentative watch over the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Thus, what awaits President-elect Obama on his inauguration next Tuesday is a Pakistan that is home to and a hot bed for recruitment for an unrepentant Osama Bin Laden and a reconstituted Al-Qaeda and Taliban; a government that is confronted by an increasingly aggressive Islamic revivalist movement; unable to exert meaningful control over significant portions of its territory; uneasily eyeing improved relations with historic patron China as a hedge against America’s growing disillusionment; fearful of a possible military coup; doubtful of its ability to control its own intelligence and security apparatus and though nuclear armed, is conventionally disadvantaged should tensions between itself and India erupt into war. Adding to this volatile situation is Pakistani and American fears should war erupt between the two decades long antagonists. Should war breakout, Islamabad is fearful it could not conventionally withstand a concentrated and impassioned Indian offensive. That being the case, haunted by the thought that its defeat would lead to the collapse of the government and the disintegration of the Pakistani state, analysts in Washington are equally concerned that Islamabad might see the use of nuclear weapons as its last chance for survival. Paranoid that Washington would seek to emasculate Pakistan of its nuclear defenses, many in Islamabad believe an outbreak of hostilities with New Delhi would be accompanied by an attempt by American special forces to seize control of its nuclear arsenal. Such a move would then be portrayed by Al-Qaeda as well as Iran as another example of America oppressing the Muslim world and denying the faithful their ability to defend themselves from their Hindu enemies. The result would be a wave of anti-American protests and violence across the Middle East and increased domestic pressure on her Arab allies. Should such a mission fail, it would almost certainly guarantee the immediate use of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons for fear of losing them. That would naturally necessitate a similar response from India. The result would be nuclear carnage involving two states with a combined population of over a billion. Should Islamabad be able to resist the urge to use its nuclear arsenal and it loses a war with India, its domestic position may well crumble completely. In such an instance, a fractured and disjointed entity may be left in its wake. Elements of the military sympathetic to the Islamic revivalists may see the opportunity to openly side with the fundamentalists against America and the western world. Such a move could result in the extension of the nuclear umbrella to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban against American attack, if not direct transmission of nuclear weapons to the groups. No doubt this would significantly impede Obama’s ability to fulfill his campaign promise to prosecute the hunt for Bin Laden regardless of where the trail and intelligence might lead. It is this collection of nightmare scenarios that tops the list of 3AM calls the President-elect Obama most fears upon taking residence in the White House next Tuesday. Thus the question arises – How can the Obama administration pursue its national security interests, expand the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and continue to reinforce its burgeoning alliance with India without further destabilizing a Pakistani government that increasingly views itself as backed into a corner both domestically and internationally with exceedingly limited options for how it might successfully extricate itself and survive in the long term? What time is it, faithful readers? Two minutes to midnight? Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see if the education of Obama is a comprehensive and relaxed review or a turbulent and fevered crash course.

Obama's Worldly Woes - Part I : Israel

Confronted with a mounting economic crisis at home and weary from seven years, thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the War on Terror, the American electorate choose the domestic-focused candidate of change over the internationally-fixated security candidate last month. Turning their focus squarely on the home front and the myriad challenges facing the heartland, voters turned a deaf ear to John McCain’s warning that America could not avoid the threats posed by a violent and often chaotic world merely by withdrawing from it. While she might abandon the fields of battle, dispense with occupation and nation-building, recall her soldiers and Marines, and even forgo the unilateral defense of her national interests, neither threats to her national security nor adversaries and ill-wishers would vanish magically into the ether. Walking in the footsteps of Cassandra, McCain was roundly ignored and soundly defeated; America had had her fill of the world and would tend to her own now. Now a mere twenty days till the candidate of change takes the Oath of Office, while Americans may share Bobby Vinton’s old desire to make the world go away, recent headlines as well as little noticed events indicate it will do anything but. Much like Michael Corleone’s angry lament, just when we thought we were out, they pull us back in. Join me, if you will, as we take a look over the next few days at the obvious and obscure challenges that face and will ultimately test both America and her soon-to-be-sworn-in neophyte president in the days to come. Today we’ll begin with Israel, the Palestinian Territories and Iran. As the ongoing combat in Gaza highlights, it’s difficult to say the least to have substantive negotiations with someone that is firing either rockets or missiles at you. Moreover with someone that denies your very right to exist as Hamas does Israel. This latest episode highlights the fact that Israel must deal with two separate Palestinian entities – a Hamas-controlled Gaza and a Fatah-led West Bank. Until there is some resolution between the two Palestinian factions that produces a single entity willing to publically accept Israel’s right to exist, a comprehensive and substantive agreement that culminates in the much discussed two-state resolution will remain little more than a mirage on the horizon. While many believe a comprehensive agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians cannot be achieved without the active and aggressive involvement of the United States, the Bush administration’s blatantly pro-Israeli stance has hampered its’ ability to have any meaningful impact on the process as it is seen as a less than even-handed arbiter. That being the case, the incoming Obama administration will walk a precariously tight rope between competing pressures to be a more balanced and objective arbiter on the one hand verses remaining an ardent and stalwart supporter of Israel on the other. Among those corners from which pro-Israeli pressure is likely to come is the Office of the Secretary of State as Senator Hillary Clinton has been both passionate and vocal in her support of Israel and enjoys considerable political support and personal popularity in the American Jewish community. Meanwhile, there is growing concern that in addition to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and dreams of regional hegemony, it is also seeking to expand its’ influence and destabilize Israel by supporting both Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Increasingly, Israel believes Iran is conducting a coordinated and multi-faceted campaign against it. Depending on Israel’s course of action over the coming months, it may well find itself embroiled in a multi-front war. Should Israel attack the Iranian nuclear program, among the various options at Iran’s disposal in response is the unleashing of Hezbollah attacks on northern Israel; encouraging an escalation of attacks by Hamas including increased rocket fire and a campaign of suicide bombers in Israel proper; clandestinely attacking Israeli and Jewish targets globally, possibly using both Iranian Quds Forces operatives and Hezbollah or even going so far as directly attacking Israel with its long range Shahab-3 missiles. Were Israel to find itself confronted by a growing and unmanageable insurgency in the Palestinian Territories as well as a rain of Hezbollah rockets along it’s northern border, Syria may see the moment as an irresistible opportunity to at last reclaim it’s national pride and the long lost Golan Heights in one fell swoop. Urged on by it’s patrons in Tehran and riding what would most likely be a rising tide of enflamed and passionate anti-Israeli sentiment in the Arab street across the region, Syria might believe Israel to be too thinly spread and preoccupied to mount an effective defense of the contested Golan Heights. Such a calculation would result in open warfare between the two long standing antagonists that would include an unrelenting Israeli air campaign designed both to repel and punish Syria. While the primary objective would be the immediate defense of Israel and its’ territorial security, the secondary objective would be to demonstrate in no uncertain terms her will to unmercifully punish any potential aggressor. Having suffered a blow to it’s’ aura of invincibility in its’ summer 2006 engagement with Hezbollah, Israel would see an attack by Syria as an opportunity to reestablish its’ military credibility in the region. At the same time it would be sending a message to Tehran that should it confront Jerusalem directly it should be prepared to reap the whirlwind and face the full fury of her military might. In the end, what initially began as an attempt by Israel to secure its’ regional position and confront a rising threat in Iran may well place it at the heart of a region wide conflict. In the process, America would inevitably be drawn into the conflict. Either through asymmetrical Iranian attacks on its forces in Iraq, direct confrontation with Iran in the Strait of Hormuz or international pressure to reign in its Jewish ally, support a cease fire and aggressively move on a comprehensive regional accord, Washington will be inextricably tied to the decisions made in Jerusalem. With this highly volatile mix awaiting President Obama the moment he takes the Oath of Office, it is increasingly likely that Israel and its’ tenuous regional relations will once again move to the forefront of American foreign policy concerns. The more things change, the more they stay the same, faithful readers. Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and a dangerous and volatile world torments a weary and forlorn America.