Monday, April 6, 2009

North Korea + Iran

We'll see what our new administration does. FWIW, I support doing whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state and to pull North Korea back from that status. Whether through diplomacy (including concessions to Russians and Chinese) or a continuing storm of Cruise missiles, these countries cannot possess the bomb, period. If they successfully join the club, it is only a matter of time until a nuclear bomb goes off in Manhattan or an EMP in our western skies. Either situation is a Roman style, existential threat.

I think Obama is just what the doctor ordered in this regard. The past administration badly fumbled both accounts. 

6 comments:

Mark R. said...

You cannot be meaning our doctor.

Rememeber it is your boy's watch now. All that fumbling by the Bush adminstration resulted in zero terrorist attacks on US soil after 9/11. We are talking over 7 years. Iran still does not have a nuke and Kim Il Jung showed how much respect he has for our new President by launching the missle.

We should also take the opportunity to shed a light on the response that our current President received from Iran after he sent his "hugs and kisses" video to Iran.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's rebuff to Barry's offer for dialogue was swift and sweeping: Words from Washington ring hollow without deep policy changes. His response was more than just a dismissive slap at the outreach. It was a broad lesson in the mind-set of Iran's all-powerful theocracy and how it will dictate the pace and tone of any new steps by Barry to chip away at their nearly 30-year diplomatic freeze.

Khamenei set the bar impossibly high — demanding an overhaul of U.S. foreign policy, including giving up "unconditional support" for Israel and halting claims that Iran is seeking nuclear arms.
"Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials?" Khamenei said in a speech in the northeastern city of Mashhad. The crowd chanted "Death to America."
"He (Barry) insulted the Islamic Republic of Iran from the first day. If you are right that change has come, where is that change? What is the sign of that change? Make it clear for us what has changed."

Yep that new approach by Barry sure seems to be working with Iran!

Baxter said...

Give it time - any movement is an improvement. I expect breakthroughs in the next 4 years. I do not expect premature chest thumping such as we saw on the USS Abraham Lincoln.

Mark R. said...

How much time do you want? Enough to let Iran put their nukes into production? The problem with this administration and the wacky hard left is that they think that leaders of every nation are rational and can be negotiated with. You will finally realize the folly of this thought process when it is too late.

Baxter said...

That is a fair question. I probably already would have acted if I were in the OO.

N Korea - I would deal directly with China and explain that a NK collapse is a good thing - not to be feared. I would promise to quit the peninsula if the Koreas united on Southern terms. I would also promise to rain Cruise missiles on Korea if need be. They will not remain a nuclear power. We consider it an existential threat. We will not be moved by Chinese requests for patience.

Iran - I would try to bring Russia into the west on this issue. This time, I would offer concrete benefits including respect for the Russian sphere of influence (essentially, the former Soviet Union less the Baltics and Moldova). I would agree that the Ukraine will not be a member of NATO unless/until Russia is. I would use lots of honey. I would also promise a continuing Cruise missile storm absent a material and verifiable pullback from the nuclear program.

President Bush 43 established that we can break a lot of shit (and build very little). Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran has a great deal of infrastructure that they would rather not have destroyed.

I would quietly promise Iran to start bombing and not stop until they quit the program AND publicly apologized for taking our hostages 30 years ago. I would raise the stakes and I would mean it. This too is existential. A nuclear bomb in Iran would very easily end up in an NYC port, hand delivered by Hezbollah or Hamas.

Jim G. said...

Oh, My, God.

Your last comment is one of the stupidest things you have ever posted and you gave it some thought!

Not just the silly conclusions but the premise.

The point of my dist ain for "O" and the left is that he cannot do any of that stuff you discussed. That is what the war protesters have established. That was the point of my "long" post. You are talking about carrying a big stick and meaning it, but when Bush did exactly that, your party went after him like a pack of wolves.

Now these tin pot dictators have no reason to fear American action or respect the rule of law.

Wow, earth to R

Second, and this is so naive, rain cruise missiles? What your are writing about, an act of war, with the goal of regime change, would require a prolonged military intervention with many troops AKA IRAQ. Do you really think the big "A" and the big "K" (no I don't know how to spell their names):<) give a rats ass if their countrymen get "cruised"? You think it would work? You think the world would just stand by and watch?

Rain cruise missiles, geez.

Baxter said...

Naive and stupid? Next thing you know you'll call me a supply sider.

I meant everything I said. In fact, Obama is in a position to act. Clinton had more success by threatening military action (and meaning it) than Bush did shutting down all cooperation. Look at the record. When did NK grow their program?

Obama's hands are not tied down by the left - it is the other way around.

IMO N Korea is posed for a collapse while short sighted China and S Korea keep propping them up. I think an "all in" Cruise storm would do the trick. It would be fraught with risk, however, the greater risk is doing nothing.

We would not need to occupy Iran. This is a regime that has been in place for 30 years. They do not want to be humiliated at American hands. They have a lot to destroy and it will be the end of the road if we smash all their stuff. What then will the Ayatollahs be able to point to? Their revolution was an inspiration to Islamists everywhere. They lose everything if they are ruling from the rubble. It could be the beginning of the end of the modern Islamist movement. They have much to lose and we have much to gain.

Now, that would be a GAME CHANGER.