1. Ted Belman said:

Arab countries have always sought a leadership position in the Arab world by burnishing their anti-Israel credentials. So it is not surprising that Iran is looking for a leadership role by attacking Israel verbally and challenging them as Nasser, Hussein and Assad all did.

I have long argued that the US should be supporting the Sunnis as a counter measure to Iranian influence in Iraq.

I am not convinced as Friedman is that the US has succeeded in nutralizing Iran. I have argued that "Iran had the US by the balls". I hope Friedman is right.

I am glad to read his opinion that Iran will not succeed in getting the Bomb.

I continue to focus on the Shiite Sunni divide.

2. BobW said:

George Friedman's long article omitted any reference to the world's largest contract. It's between Iran and PR China. It's subject matter is oil.

Appreciated Friedman's hint that Shanghai I (Feb '72) really ended the Vietnam War and not the Paris Peace Accord in 1973.

Kol tuv,
BobW

3. Jerusalem Posts said:

Ayatollahs Want a Hizbollah Corridor From Iran to Israel

Ayatollahs Want a Hizbollah Corridor From Iran to Israel

That's why they need to take control of Iraq!

Al-Sadr made a significant statement today that received little coverage. He accused the US of "invading Iraq" because GWB "knew" that the "mahdi (muslim "savior") will arise in Iran." And he said that as Sunnis and Shiites united against US forces.

For more about the Mahdi, see: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37782

I have posted similar articles before, but this time it might penetrate the wall of naive preconceptions about the nominal Arab/Persian appetite for democracy, liberty and peace with America, etc:

THE KHURASAN PROPHECY
"The narrations of the Prophet (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam) prophesy of a Muslim force from the East ("al-Mashriq"), possibly from the land of "Khorasan" (Ahmad, Tirmithi, etc, Hasan/Da`eef, ikhtilaaf) which is today Afghanistan, that will march towards the West conquering everything in site and will remain undefeated until they reach Jerusalem (termed "Eeliyaa'" in the Hadeeth). They and their Amir will give bayah to the MAHDI. However, in the path of this force from the East lies a powerful behemoth called Iran from where the Prophet (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam) said Dajjal will appear with a following of 70,000 Jews in Isfahaan (Abu Bakr, raDee Allaahu `anhu, said this would be in the direction of Khorasan in the city of Isfahan). Thus we can assume there will be a major war between the forces of the Sunnah in the East and the Iranians and their "70,000 Jews" (Sahih Muslim) who lie in the path of Jerusalem. While there remains difference of opinion regarding the authenticity of some of these narrations, they seem to be taking shape in spite of the ikhtilaaf."
---------------------------------------- ------------------------
"bayah" - "blood oath" (Osama bin Laden required his koranimals to make such an oath to him)

"Dajjal" - "anti-Christ"

I downloaded the above from a website (www.khurasaan.com) that Homeland Security shut down, alleging - credibly - that these pro al-Qaeda elements were signalling followers by coding instructions in their daily news banner.

KHURASAAN encompasses parts of Iran, Afghanistan, and ex-Soviet republics. It was also the birthplace of Bukhari, whose recorded hearsay statements ("hadith") of the ersatz "prophet" Mohammed, are held sacred to muslims.

In November 2001, MULLAH OMAR, the Taliban terrorist leader told a BBC reporter that "America will be destroyed." Three years earlier he deflected a 150,000 man Iranian army which had massed on Afghanistan's borders, to inflict revenge against the Taliban for murdering 10 Iranian diplomats. Why the bragadoccio about America and volte face towards Iran? Notwithstanding their differences, Iranian Shiites and Iraqi Sunnis share belief in the KHORASAN PROPHECY. An al-Qaeda cleric - Sheik al-Hawali (rehabilitated by the Saud entity in 1999, after 5 years of incarceration for attending Teheran's annual jihad conference) has been predicting America's "destruction" for years. In fact, he dates it as before the "destruction of Israel" which he dates to the year "2012."
http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=908

Big deal? Well, segments of HAMAS, Hizbollah, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Hizb-Mahdi (al-Sadr terrorists) all operate under "black flags" and, increasingly in black uniforms. Of course, muslim sectarians kill each other. But they also unite, as in the case of Haj (pilgrimage) privilege, because the ersatz-"prophet" predicted both sectarianism and sectarian unity within conflict. They are uniting in conflict with America and Israel. This is mortal combat, and will not end until, Western Civilization destroys islam as an ideology. And that may well require massive use of nuclear weapons, possibly resulting in the deaths of at least 50,000,000 muslims. However, when a significant majority of civilized peoples come to understand the global-genocidal juggernaut of islam, then they will understand that infliction of mega-death was a forced choice.

If you believe that the Sunni-Shiite terror against American liberators will burn out, it won't. In Bush's attempt to export an unwanted commodity - democracy and liberty - to enemy barbarians, he is left with a best-case scenario in which 90% of Mideast oil comes under the direct control of Iran's Ayatoilets. Where's the security?

4. georg von mecklenburg said:

We are daling with a very large exporter of oil. Nothing would delight the Bush administration better than to have this oil removed from the marketplace. Talk about bread lins, think again about long lines to purchase fuel in the free world.

5. Jerusalem Posts said:

georg von mecklenburg, I think you're wrong, and here's the reason:

"It was what made this E.U. Three approach so successful. They [Britain, France and Germany] stood together and they had one uniform position."

-- German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, Jan. 13

by Charles Krauthammer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/17/AR2006011700893.html

Makes you want to weep. One day earlier, Britain, France and Germany admitted that their two years of talks to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program had collapsed. The Iranians had broken the seals on their nuclear facilities and were resuming activity in defiance of their pledges to the "E.U. Three." This negotiating exercise, designed as an alternative to the U.S. approach of imposing sanctions on Iran for its violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, had proved entirely futile. If anything, the two-year hiatus gave Iran time to harden its nuclear facilities against bombardment, acquire new antiaircraft capacities and clandestinely advance its program.

With all this, the chancellor of Germany declared the exercise a success because the allies stuck together! The last such success was Dunkirk. Lots of solidarity there, too.

Most dismaying was that this assessment came from a genuinely good friend, the new German chancellor, who, unlike her predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder (now a wholly owned Putin flunky working for Russia's state-run oil monopoly), actually wants to do something about terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

Ah, success. Instead of being years away from the point of no return for an Iranian bomb, as we were before we allowed Europe to divert anti-proliferation efforts into transparently useless talks, Iran is probably just months away. And now, of course, Iran is run by an even more radical government, led by a president who fervently believes in the imminence of the apocalypse.

Ah, success. Having delayed two years, we now have to deal with a set of fanatical Islamists who we know will not be deterred from pursuing nuclear weapons by any sanctions. Even if we could get real sanctions. Which we will not. The remaining months before Iran goes nuclear are about to be frittered away in pursuit of this newest placebo.

First, because Russia and China will threaten to veto any serious sanctions. The Chinese in particular have secured in Iran a source of oil and gas outside the American sphere to feed their growing economy and are quite happy geopolitically to support a rogue power that -- like North Korea -- threatens, distracts and diminishes the power of China's chief global rival, the United States.

Second, because the Europeans have no appetite for real sanctions either. A travel ban on Iranian leaders would be a joke; they don't travel anyway. A cutoff of investment and high-tech trade from Europe would be a minor irritant to a country of 70 million people with the second-largest oil reserves in the world and with oil at $60 a barrel. North Korea tolerated 2 million dead from starvation to get its nuclear weapons. Iran will tolerate a shortage of flat-screen TVs.

The only sanctions that might conceivably have any effect would be a boycott of Iranian oil. No one is even talking about that, because no one can bear the thought of the oil shock that would follow, taking 4.2 million barrels a day off the market, from a total output of about 84 million barrels.

The threat works in reverse. It is the Iranians who have the world over a barrel. On Jan. 15, Iran's economy minister warned that Iran would retaliate for any sanctions by cutting its exports to "raise oil prices beyond levels the West expects." A full cutoff could bring $100 oil and plunge the world into economic crisis.

Which is one of the reasons the Europeans are so mortified by the very thought of a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. The problem is not just that they are spread out and hardened, making them difficult to find and to damage sufficiently to seriously set back Iran's program.

The problem that mortifies the Europeans is what Iran might do after such an attack -- not just cut off its oil exports but shut down the Strait of Hormuz by firing missiles at tankers or scuttling its vessels to make the strait impassable. It would require an international armada led by the United States to break such a blockade.

Such consequences -- serious economic disruption and possible naval action -- are something a cocooned, aging, post-historic Europe cannot even contemplate. Which is why the Europeans have had their heads in the sand for two years. And why they will spend the little time remaining -- before a group of apocalyptic madmen go nuclear -- putting their heads back in the sand. And congratulating themselves on allied solidarity as they do so in unison.

6. George said:

The best way to disarm Iran is to push for complete nuclear disarmament in the Middle East -- including Israel. The current nuclear standoff would not be occurring had Israel not embarked on its own nuclear programme decades back. Israel should sign the NPT and disarm completely.

7. Jerusalem Posts said:

George, why blame Israel?

Iran has signed the non-proliferation treaty and Israel hasn't - and the biggest danger to the world right now is Iran, unless of course, you're an Islamist or Arabist who supports terrorism, in which case you'd think that Israel was the danger!

8. Jerusalem Posts said:

Anyway George, didn't the previous article get you thinking of how wrong you are to want to get oil pushed up to over $100 a barrel? Or would you rather use a bicycle and walk everywhere?

9. Ted Belman said:

Don't think for a moment that Iran just wants the Bomb because Israel has it. Israel is not a threat to Iran or to Arabs. Linking Israel to the debate is just to shift focus and attack Israel.

Iran wants the Bomb so it can dominate the ME.

10. Ptah said:

The fundamental fact is that Ahmadinejad knows that, except in the case of extreme luck, Iran will not be able to get nuclear weapons.

I call bullshit: this is a bare assertion, made by the author outside of his field of expertise, in the hope that the perceived expertise that he tries to demonstrate in his article up to this time is unwittingly imputed to him. He has NO IDEA what Ahmadinejad is really thinking. He has no idea what the REAL state of the Iranian nuclear program is.

This, by the way, is a good place to pause and explain to readers who will write in wondering why the United States will tolerate an Israeli nuclear force but not an Iranian one. The answer is simple. Israel will probably not blow up New York. That's why the United States doesn't mind Israel having nukes and does mind Iran having them. Is that fair? This is power politics, not sharing time in preschool. End of digression.

Actually, the massive amount of restraint Israel shows to the palestinians, and the excessive regard that they show to world opinion and United States pressure, is a terrific indicator of how responsible Israel is as a nuclear power. "He who is faithful in little is faithful in much", so if Israel shows incredible restraint with regard to murderous palestinians next door, they're probably the LAST people we would expect on the planet to USE nuclear weapons. Indeed, it is only Arab BELIEF in their own anti-semitic propaganda that makes them fear Israel's "Samson Option". I myself wonder if the GOI DOES have the cojones to follow through.

The distinction between "device" and "weapon" is facetious: the middle east is awash in AWACS planes, some of which are owned by the Saudis, so why should Iran use a means of delivery that is undeniable, when a moderately sized device, constructed according to the detailed Nork/Chinese plans already out there, can be packed in a container, put on a ship, shuffled in the system while on a long journey through the malacca straight, and deniably detonated in the Harbor of London, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, or New York City? Its not as if they won't get the credit: The generally accepted practice of Taqyyia allows for Iran to publicly deny they did it, while circulating through their back channels that they were responsible. If Ahmadinejad is aware of anything, it is because liberals and Euros, hating the US, will provide PLENTY of cover to prevent US retaliatory action against Iran.

A fizzle isn't a problem: the day of reckoning is just postponed, not prevented, and the discovery of a fizzled weapon would lead nowhere: In the current political climate, would the Bush administration ADMIT IN PUBLIC that an attempt to trigger a foreign nuclear device on american soil was foiled, not because of the cleverness of the FBI or the competence of local law enforcement, but because the creators were amateurs?

There are more goddamned holes in his argument than in a hoop of swiss cheese. Putz and idiot, unless his intent is, like the EU, to cause the US problems by introducing more delay, delay, delay.

11. Dan Barkye said:

The article is brilliant, superb and coherent. I find it most compelling, more than F. Gill-White's "US hidden goals" in understanding the game in the region, played by the players involved.

The only thing I am opposed to is George's assertion (post # 6) that Isr should denuclearize b/c this is the real problem, and doing so will defuse the issue of nuclear arms in the ME.

This argument stands in the same category of arguments as the one that says that if Isr concedes in any way, there will be peace w them.

As no concession of any kind will bring peace w them while Isr is still there, so no denuclearization of Isr will bring a non-nuclear/bio/chem ME.
Next thing he'll say, is that Pakistan will denuke b/c Isr is no longer a threat, but Pak has India at its throat, and Iran will have the region and the world at its feet, having the bomb, Isr or no Isr.

All the more, b/c Iran knows that it won't be allowed the bomb, it plays the game to extort any political gain possible: You don't have to have it, all you have to do, is make them *believe* that you have it. Clever, very clever!
While eventually they won't have it, The EU will shut up, the world kneels at its feet b/c of the oil, the region will submit to them, and Isr will be deprived of her only real defense means. In the meantime, they save money by not bringing the project to its finish line, something that requires much money, very much, and much efforts and expertise that they don't have, ultimately, but this is a secondary issue, really.

If, OTOH, it acquires the bomb in spite of all the threats and pressure, then all the more, it will acquire a real credibility to its threats addressed to all parties involved, the EU, the US, Isr and the region.
It appears that Isr is the only one that believes in the latter possibility.
US may look/sound to do the same, but I am inclined to think like George, that it plays the "Divide and Rule" game, playing the Sunnis vs the Shiites w much success.

For Iran, the game it plays, presents a win-win situation, no matter how it turns out.

12. George said:

Firstly, I am not an Islamist or ar Arab, or anything else that would cause me to be biased in favour of ; or againse Israel or Iran. My concern with Israel having nukes is :

1) It encourages other countries in this already volatile region to seek nuclear weapons. Pakistan did not have nuclear ambitions until India obtained them -- nuclear weapons are contagious because if your enemy has them then your only choice is to obtain them as well.

2) Israel's politics are becoming increasing unstable and hard-line. This is largely because of the growth of the religious right in Israel, which due to demographic trends, may actually come to power in the forseeable future. Many of these parties openly advocate war with Israel's neighbors, which would be a serious problem if that war happened to be nuclear. Should the west really trust the National Religious Party with a nuclear arsenal? I dont trust religious zealots of any kind with nukes -- certainly not the Islamic ones. Call me over-cautious for not wanting me kids to glow in the dark, but I think that Israel should be happy having one of the strongest conventional forces in the world.