Obama Administration: Calling All Nuclear Criminals
We are about to witness a new chapter of failure at the bargaining table.
If you’re a nuclear criminal, the Obama administration wants to talk to you.
That’s the message delivered on Friday to the world’s two most dangerous renegade states, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. First, the State Department, in what CNN termed “a dramatic policy shift,” announced the United States was willing to engage in bilateral discussions with North Korea. Since the institution of three-party talks in April 2003, Washington has insisted on multilateral discussions with Pyongyang. In April, the North said it would no longer participate in the so-called six-party talks, the successor to the three-party ones.
At the same time, the State Department said it would participate in a broad dialogue with Iran, accepting Tehran’s proposal submitted on Wednesday to Germany and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to restart talks. But the Iranians stated they would not discuss their nuclear program, the international community’s primary concern. Instead, they offered to engage in what a Western diplomat called “a holistic conversation” about global affairs in general. “If Iran is willing to enter into serious negotiations, then they will find a willing participant in the United States and other countries,” said State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley on Friday.
This was too much, even for the New York Times. While endorsing the general concept of dialogue with the mullahs, the paper noted “there is no sign that Iran is serious about doing much more than buying more time.” Since the International Atomic Energy Agency announced in August 2003 that it had found traces of highly enriched uranium at a facility in Natanz, the “atomic ayatollahs” have been using talks — and the prospects of talks — to give their technicians time to advance bomb-building capabilities. This decade, Iran’s negotiators have, to representatives of the international community, lied, stalled, and told the truth only when they had no alternative.
And as a result of their successful tactics, the mullahs can build an atomic device in less than a year. How do we know this? A week ago, Glyn Davies, Washington’s chief IAEA representative, stated Iran now has — or is close to having — enough lowly enriched uranium for one nuke. Because the mullahs possess the technology to enrich uranium, they can spin their centrifuges and produce the bomb-grade material needed for the core of a weapon. The actual device is so easy to assemble that a nation does not even need to test it. The initial test of America’s uranium bomb, the first in history, was over Hiroshima. Therefore, once Iran produces highly enriched uranium, we have to assume it has become a nuclear weapons state.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Gordon G. Chang is the author of Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On the World and The Coming Collapse of China.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
43 Comments
1. Adina Kutnicki, Israel:The world will soon be taught a lesson, and tragically it will be Israel who will bear the frontal brunt of their treacherous and foolhardy ways.
Washington knows, as does the rest of the powers, that Israel’s leaders are malleable, EXCEPT on one issue. It will NEVER accept a nuclear Iran, and will therefore attack her facilities.
Washington knows this, but doesn’t give a damn. They are buying for their own time, trying to prove that they wanted diplomatic talks, but the crazy Israelis decided to act anyway. They believe that Israel and Iran will duke it out, and then Washington will come in and pick up the pieces. Not so fast.
Obama would do well to understand the Israeli mindset. When it comes to matters of life and death the Zionists will do whatever it takes to survive. They will back a leadership which bombs Iran back to the stone age if it has to. This means, that in addition to all the blow back on Israel there will be a HUGE worldwide oil crisis, the likes of which the west hasn’t seen.
While Israel will surely suffer economically along with the rest of the nations, one thing is clear. NO other nation is as inventive and scrappy as Israel. If it means that Jews in Israel have to go back to the drawing board so be it. It won’t be the first time. Surely it beats total annihilation!!
Sep 14, 2009 - 1:44 am 2. Jonathan Nolan:One has to ask, again and again it seems, do goyim (like me) know and accept that just saying Israel has a right to exist is NOT the same as embracing what that really means?
Israel either exists, with all the rights, privileges and duties of a nation, or it does NOT exist at all.
If Israel is threatened in its region, then it has every right to self defence. And also, if Israel is threatened in its region it is due entirely to the laxity of the current US government’s approach to clearly rogue states.
Some would say “goyim” means cattle, and if it does, then it is a sad reflection on all peace loving Westerners that our leaders are treating us like exactly that- cattle to be driven and led to the slaughter.
Why is Israel ready to act, and the USA is not? Israel has evolved, painfully, with the protection and support of the USA. In a way, the USA has led Israel on if it now does not take the apparently hard decision to stand with an ally against what one would surely have to objectively say is a barbaric regime in Iran.
I would go further though. The disrespect to the UK, and really also to Australia and Canada, all of whom have made real commitments to the USA in the War on Terror, is embarassing and dangerous in the medium term. But not backing Israel up, and talking to its sworn, overt enemies is betrayal. Not just disrespect- BETRAYAL. This is what the friendship of the USA, once worth a price beyond gems and pearls, now means. A wink to the latest masters of the would-be slaughterhouse of the Jewish race and the Israeli state.
And I am not a fan of a some of what Israel does, by any means; but that is a long, LONG way from thinking kissing ass to the Iranians is anything but the intellectually stunted morally retarded act of radical fantasists living in a murderous haze of denial and oppression.
Breaking with Israel encourages her enemies, and indeed the enemies within Israel too- it promulgates paranoia, real fear and a sense that once again Jewry is on its own.
And why? Whay reason on G d’s green earth could there be for reversing the polarity of America’s recently extremely strong (if small) band of allies and instead being a lickspittle to the dregs of humanity?
Can it have escaped the Obama administration’s notice that this year, like every year, in the same time it has take the Islamic world to kill 200 or more victims of its rabid hatred of anything apart from itself, Jewish people have once again staked a claim of the highest level of achievement in the arts and sciences? Has Western civilisation risen to this height that now we can only look forward to decadence, corruption, the overwhelming presence of barbarians within the gates and a Rome-like fall?
I refuse to accept that. Evolution is our destiny, and that evolution must include a final settling of accounts with the savage enemies of our freedoms.
If Israel does something to irritate me I want that civil state around to tell so. Better the worst of Israel than the best of these medieval death cults and their failed nation enclaves.
We stand with Israel NOW or we accept our dhimmification, just as Blair’s UK has had to. A proud nation, once the heart of empire- ruined and wrecked. And inconceivably- the USA must now follow suit?
NEVER.
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS
Sep 14, 2009 - 3:58 am 3. alex:Washington will work with Israel, send them satellite pictures, logistics, spare parts, refueling, whatever it takes to help them Bomb Iran. Then they will pretend to know nothing about it.
its the great game.
Sep 14, 2009 - 5:14 am 4. Tomp:AT heart, obama is a muslim – true to his birth.
Sep 14, 2009 - 5:56 am 5. Jack Okie:alex:
if Bush were still President you would be correct, but Obambi and his crew seem oblivious to the consequences of their actions. For example, imposing that tire tariff on China: It could possibly be a goad, along with the agreement to two-party talks with the Norks, to get China to push the Norks harder. It is most likely a sop to the steel workers’ union, who have watched the UAW get major bennies while they got bupkis. It looks as if Obummer is a one-trick pony; all he knows how to do is campaign, and he apparently thinks the unions can help him overcome the damage he’s done to himself since the inauguration.
Lately whenever I think of the Obama administration I see those weasels from “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?”.
Sep 14, 2009 - 5:58 am 6. John - TMF:Never in the history of mankind has any sovereign nation “peacefully” negotiated a functional peace agreement with any enemy/adversarial nation; by peacefully, I mean from a position of passivity.
Successful “negotiations” occur under the following two circumstances – and these alone:
1. Both nations are sovereign peers, with similar capabilities to project their sovereignty, and protect themselves from that projection. Simply put – both can clean the other one’s clock.
2. One nation is completely superior to the other nation, and therefore dictates the terms of the negotiation – this can occur before a conflict as in an appeasement move by the weaker nation, or it can occur after a conflict over the projection of sovereignty. Simply put, again, the stronger nation is dictating the terms of surrender to the weaker nation.
The error in the Western psyche is the Liberal fantasy that actual adversaries can arrive at some sort peace keeping negotiated “settlement” where all parties rationally agree to some compromise solution. This is the entire concept for commissions, and transnational treaty organizations (aka League of Nations/United Nations).
The brutal truth is that man is most definitely NOT perfectible. Sovereignty is a “will to nationhood”, and therefore requires of it the WILL and ABILITY to maintain that assertion on the world stage.
The world stage has no rules other than the ultimate rule of brute force. Nations can have just governments, despotic regimes, French legal codes, English common law, written or understood constitutions ad infinitum, but ultimately to stand as a nation-state it must have the willingness and capability of defending and/or projecting that sovereignty.
The West has become so engrossed in its legal codes, and self-important moralities that it has lost critical sight of the concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty MUST exist and be protected, before any of the other trappings of “civilization” can be explored or implemented.
Law does not create sovereignty. Sovereignty allows (deigns to allow) for law to exist, and that law need not be just, equal, truthful, or rational. Ultimately law must be enforced so it of necessity looks to the sovereign for its application.
The “old world” ways of the despots who are being appeased by The One and his foolish crowd will beg them to challenge our sovereignty, since we no longer seem obliged to defend it.
If you desire war, offer surrender to your adversary when he bullies you. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Regards,
The Mighty Fahvaag
“John, ultimately the world is a street fight, and he who has the biggest fist, and the willingness to use it will win.” – my old man sometime in the misty past…
Sep 14, 2009 - 6:01 am 7. alex:Hello Jack, thank you for the response.
Tire tariff on china tires is nonsense. Almost all american made tires are sold to car dealerships, most imports are after market and maintenance. There are several American Tire companies in China, so exactly how will that work…. Plus the USA is not Chinas largest tire market. It is a stupid move that will come back to bite his Admin in the rear. China need only stop buying treasuries for a few weeks to shut down the US government hunger for debt.
Iran..its not really Obama’s choice. He will go along and plead the fifth when Israel goes after their Nuclear capability. The Air strike on Syria recently is pretty much how it will play out; Iran will have a training accident, or reactor trouble, and cover up the attack by Israel on its nuclear weapons program.
Sep 14, 2009 - 6:42 am 8. John "birther" Samford:#6 John. You are correct. The World runs according to political rules worked out long ago by Niccolo Machiavelli.
One of those rules is;
“War cannot be avoided; it can only be postponed to the other’s advantage.”
Diplomats in the West no longer study Nicco. It is judged by the left to be not worth their time, since ’so much has changed’. When pressed, they cannot name what has changed in the hearts of men.
The Mad Dog Mullahs WILL use their nukes. That is why they are building them. The MDM understand Nicco and follow his rules;
“If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.”
Iran cannot produce enough nukes to seriously injure America.
Sep 14, 2009 - 7:53 am 9. deguello:Israel is another matter. Bibi knows his Nicco. Israel will strike and soon. I doubt they will inform the USA. They never have in the past. It is often easier to get forgiveness then permission.
What Alex doesn’t understand is that Israel ALREADY has everything they need from the USA to pull off the mission of halting the Iranian nuclear program. They can’t stop it, that takes boots on the ground. They can push it back a decade. Longer if they get lucky and kill a bunch of techs. Like all 3rd world mudholes, Iran lacks the technicans needed to keep high tech gear working.
Yes indeed,the Obamanistas call nuclear criminals allright, they call them “”FRIENDS”!
Sep 14, 2009 - 7:54 am 10. Bohemond:“Negotiating without leverage isn’t negotiation at all– it’s begging.”
Sep 14, 2009 - 8:00 am 11. alex:Hello John,
Israel will never attack Iran without tactical US approval. President Bush refused to give Israel green light in 2008 and Israel had to swallow the bitter pill.
US approval would involve US forces alerted and Iran warned retaliation would bring hell from Above. Its why Syria had to grin and bear it when Israel attacked them in 2007.
Without US approval, Israel is placing US forces at risk, Iran would probably fire off salvo’s of missiles against US surface ships and land targets. Resulting loss of American lives because Israel decided to attack on its own would mitigate US political support…Israel would never risk it.
Sep 14, 2009 - 9:24 am 12. Professor Guvinoff:Part of the Middle East madness is a reflexive rallying against Israel without any serious follow-through, because the Arabs have learned that military attack produces military defeat. In contrast, the Mullahs of Iran are willing to sacrifice their economic development and the welfare of its people to the ultimate vindication of their right to hegemony by the destruction of Israel, the understructible one.
From Israel point of view, the only option is derailing Iran’s ambitions, by destroying its nuclear assets if necessary. Obama’s attitude only increases the urgency of this act of self preservation. The ramifications and consequences of such a preemptive strike are impossible to calculate, but if you are an Israeli, can you predicate your survival on the vindications of Obama’s supreme wisdom?
Sep 14, 2009 - 9:51 am 13. alex:President Bush refused Israeli request to attack Iran, why would president Obama be any different..? Lets be honest about this scenario, President Bush could have said yes, go ahead we will back you up. He chose not too for obvious reasons to world economy and Petroleum Industries, and ME destabilization.
Why would President Obama’s decision be any different than the rational President Bush used to refuse the request ? it would be intellectually dishonest to hold President Obama to a separate set of standards than President Bush
Israel may decide to go it alone, but they will be placing themselves squarely in the sights of world powers seeking a reason to distance themselves from Israeli hard liners to begin with…its going to be an Ugly event. Israel survived because US, and other world powers backed them. Once Israel gives cause to break that support, all bets are off.
And people should stop accepting MSM trash, and research themselves. Find out who Amos Malka is and the role he played in forming current hard line Israeli political environment.
Sep 14, 2009 - 11:22 am 14. myth buster:Attacking American ships would be a very stupid thing for Iran to do. Why? Because if the American ships are fired upon, the Captain reserves the right to use whatever means necessary to ensure the safety of the ship without approval from anyone above him, including the authority to launch an attack on whatever land or sea installation is attacking the ship. In other words, some Captains could start fighting a war without the approval of the President, as long as Iran strikes first.
Sep 14, 2009 - 12:08 pm 15. Steve Sampson:I doubt if Israel will submit to a nuclear attack from Iran because the Marxist in the White House thinks it would be a good idea, if they adopt Obama’s tactic of wait to see how the situation plays out, they will be destroyed. Iran is not content with torturing and raping dissidents, they are more than willing to incinerate Israel.
Should we only be concerned with oil, when our president and congress castrate us by preventing oil production in the United States? Israel is not stuck with this traitor like we are, they will hopefully react and respond in an appropriate manner to neutralize the Iranian threat. Yes we will have our economy brought to an abrupt halt and Americans will be faced with the divine comedy of electing a Marxist whose first priority was to bring the US to its knees. Hold on tight, you are about to receive what you asked for by voting for a cult Marxist.
G-d Bless Israel, G-d Speed.
Sep 14, 2009 - 1:18 pm 16. Gordon Chang:Adina Kutnicki, we need American leaders who are as stout as the Israeli ones. This is an existential issue for everyone.
Many thanks for your comments.
Sep 14, 2009 - 1:19 pm 17. Gordon Chang:Jonathan Nolan, yes, we must stand together with Israel. I have yet to figure out why Washington doesn’t listen to the mullahs when they lead crowds in “Death to America” chants.
Sep 14, 2009 - 1:24 pm 18. Gordon Chang:alex, with the way this administration in Washington is going, I’m not sure we will even do this. Of course, we should be leading the attack if it gets to that.
Sep 14, 2009 - 1:26 pm 19. Gordon Chang:John – TMF, I am not sure I agree with your thoughts on successful negotiations, but you are surely correct when you write this: “If you desire war, offer surrender to your adversary when he bullies you.” That’s a great summary of the most important lesson of the 20th century.
Sep 14, 2009 - 1:44 pm 20. Gordon Chang:alex, you write: “China need only stop buying treasuries for a few weeks to shut down the US government hunger for debt.”
China has substantially decreased its purchase of Treasuries because its exports are precipitously declining, and, guess what? The United States is still standing. China, because of the structure of its economy, needs to buy Treasuries just as much as we need the Chinese to buy them–and maybe even more.
Sep 14, 2009 - 1:49 pm 21. Gordon Chang:John “birther” Samford, some have speculated Israel will assassinate Iranian technicians instead of bombing facilities from the air.
Sep 14, 2009 - 1:52 pm 22. Gordon Chang:deguello, I wish I had thought of your line. Thanks.
Sep 14, 2009 - 1:53 pm 23. Gordon Chang:Bohemond, yes. You’re absolutely right.
Sep 14, 2009 - 1:54 pm 24. Gordon Chang:alex, I am no Israel expert, but I believe Israel will act because its leaders see an Iranian bomb as an existential threat. For them, there is no choice. And they are right.
Sep 14, 2009 - 1:57 pm 25. Gordon Chang:Professor Guvinoff, I agree. Thanks for stating these thoughts so well.
Sep 14, 2009 - 2:03 pm 26. Gordon Chang:myth buster, Iran would like to close the Strait of Hormuz, but it probably would not try to do so because the U.S. Navy would destroy the Iranian navy in hours.
Sep 14, 2009 - 2:06 pm 27. Gordon Chang:Steve Sampson, I don’t think Iran can halt the flow of Middle East oil in any event. As noted above, any attempt to do so would bring it into conflict with the U.S.
Sep 14, 2009 - 2:08 pm 28. Professor Guvinoff:Gordon Chang, thanks for your kind words.
Still thinking that the ramifications and the consequences of an israeli initiative are impossible to calculate, I wonder whether a bit of levity should be added to this otherwise somber thread: Would the disruption of today’s routine petroleum delivery channels raise the price of the barrel high enough to trigger a serious effort to resume US national production?
Can you rule out a congressional resolution to open off-shore exploration and drilling, as well as demote the arctic Caribou to their proper ranking, behind that of US citizens? And what about the green zeolots silently acquiescing, because freezing their buns for the benefit of their savior would be one bridge to nowhere too far?
Sep 14, 2009 - 2:37 pm 29. bibio44:27. Gordon Chang: “Steve Sampson, I don’t think Iran can halt the flow of Middle East oil in any event. As noted above, any attempt to do so would bring it into conflict with the U.S.”
And then what? War? A land invasion. No problem – the populace will greet us with flowers!
Sep 14, 2009 - 3:20 pm 30. Steve Sampson:I didn’t mean that Iran would halt the flow, I was referring to the inevitable interruption of the oil trade in the Middle East as a result of a strategic strike by Israel. Unlike the US, Israel can ill afford to see how Iran will behave with their Nukes.
It would be nice if the students had the power to overthrow the Mullahs, but the Mullahs have the Totalitarian Regime that Obama dreams of.
Although, I think the Middle East is only responsible for approximately 20% of our oil, a disruption of oil on the global market would put us at a greater deficit greater than 20%.
The disruption of the oil trade is inevitable, unless someone is cold enough to ask Israel to sacrifice itself to maintain the world’s oil supply. I give them my approval to blow those peaceful nuke facilities straight to hell. Just as we should, when the Russians build Chavez his nuclear facility.
We need to drill and refine our own crude. It would take years to become independent for our oil needs, in the interim we should rely on Canada and Mexico for our energy needs. It is a strategic necessity at this time; however the Marxist Front likes us to be vulnerable to the rest of the world.
Semper Fidelis
Sep 14, 2009 - 4:18 pm 31. dr strangelove:deguello – well said.
Bush didn’t do anything when he had a chance, the weakling occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave won’t either.
Iran and NK understand one thing – force. It needs to be applied. Now.
If anyone thinks Israel will absorb a first strike, think again. They have, and will use, nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike if necessary.
Sep 14, 2009 - 5:00 pm 32. David P:Obama is America’s Trojan Horse, the repercussions of which we’ll suffer for decades to comes.
Sep 15, 2009 - 5:59 am 33. Gordon Chang:Professor Guvinoff, you’re right. We would get serious about energy–finally.
Sep 16, 2009 - 5:20 am 34. Gordon Chang:bibio44, I don’t know if the Iranians would greet us with flowers, but that’s not the point. And who said anything about a land invasion?
Sep 16, 2009 - 5:23 am 35. Gordon Chang:Steve Sampson, how do you think the oil flow be interrupted if not by Iran?
Sep 16, 2009 - 5:26 am 36. Gordon Chang:dr strangelove, our diplomacy has been so ineffective that there is much we can do short of the use of force–at least at this moment.
Sep 16, 2009 - 5:28 am 37. Gordon Chang:David P, Trojan Horse or not, he could do a lot of long-lasting damage. Thanks for reminding us.
Sep 16, 2009 - 5:30 am 38. Ole Sarge:19. Gordon Chang:
John – TMF, I am not sure I agree with your thoughts on successful negotiations, but you are surely correct when you write this: “If you desire war, offer surrender to your adversary when he bullies you.” That’s a great summary of the most important lesson of the 20th century.
Sep 14, 2009 – 1:44 pm
John, so right, to bad we never grasped this concept. The pols all feel that the rules for governing and war have changed and so they go about their pretend change and it never seems to dawn on them that people have not changed and the same thing that motivated them 500 years ago still works today.
We are always preparing for peace and so we get continual wars. The conduct that leads to war applies in many areas of life, I am involved in maintenance, if you equipment is well maintained and rarely if ever breaks down, your funding will be cut, management can’t grasp the idea that it never broke because of all the effort put into maintaining it, see no problem, must not need the money. Just your basic short sighted human reasoning. Manages to screw things up every time.
Sep 16, 2009 - 8:37 am 39. Steve Sampson:So you ask for specifics Gord, I feel that if there is a conflageration between Israel and Iran, that other parts of the Middle East will be drawn into the conflict. Consequently, the safety of shipping lanes and of ships themselves will be in doubt.
It’s true our war in Iraq did not affect the flow of oil; however, an Iran/Israel War is a different paradigm. Will other Muslim nations join Iran to oppose Israel? That is a big question. Will they aid Iran overtly in a drawn out conflict with Israel to bring international pressure to bear on the US and Israel to end the war? Yes, I think they would. How best to accomplish that pressure? By tightening the valves on the oil pipelines.
So basically, I believe there are two factors that are involved in the dynamic of oil disruption. The immediate danger to shipping caused by the uncertainties of such a war and the possibility of OPEC slowing the flow because of Israeli success in a protracted war.
Mr Chang, this was an excellent article that deserved more attention than it received. I appreciate an author’s willingness to debate commentary and thereby allowing more insight for both writer and reader. Thank you for this opportunity, hopefully this will become a template for future discussions. Please feel to challenge me in the future. Steve
Sep 16, 2009 - 1:36 pm 40. kabud:there is no sovereign states of Iran or North Korea
there is this stealth USSR that is an effective setup in the east
Obama team calls to Iran or N Korea are just a show for very stupid
Obama knows it better then anyone
my qustion is: why is he fooling the American public?
And another question:
why is he so sure that kremlin will warn him beforehand their attack on USA?
In case of the war Obama will be number one casualty, that is how soviet do for 100 years already: he knows too much and trhey get rid of him
it was done in every new soviet acquisition since 1917
Sep 16, 2009 - 6:43 pm 41. Gordon Chang:Ole Sarge, you wrote: “We are always preparing for peace and so we get continual wars.”
Another great summary of the 20th century.
Sep 18, 2009 - 8:33 am 42. Gordon Chang:Steve Sampson, the idea of a tightening of the oil values is an interesting one that we need to think. You’re right, it will, in all probability, happen. Thanks for laying this out.
Sep 18, 2009 - 8:43 am 43. Gordon Chang:kabud, I see more China than Russia behind the scenes, but both Beijing and Moscow are thick as thieves here.
Sep 18, 2009 - 8:45 am