Ace Of Spades: "Months of Painstaking Diplomacy with Iran Finally Bears Sweet Fruit"

In this post he gives an explanation of how diplomacy works, that I had to share with you:

...diplomacy can only work when one side wants something from the other side, which the other side is prepared to give. This situation does not exist with respect to Iran. For diplomacy to work, the situation would have to change -- the most obvious (though unlikely) game-changer would be US jets pounding Iranian nuclear, military, and governmental sites for a few weeks. In such a case, Iranian would want something from us, namely, to stop with the bombing already.

Read the rest at the link. It's worth it.

Iran does not need anything from us. Therefore they are not going to negotiate.

Meanwhile, they are working feverishly to develop nuclear weapons. How many times have we heard that all options are on the table? When are we going to decide that the diplomacy option is not working? I think it should be sinking in, even to a politician, that it is time to give up on this option and look into another one. It is irresponsible and stupid to keep doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.

The Reason Why I Think We Have Waited Too Long To Attack Iran

A threat from Iran's Revolutionary Guards:

Iran's Revolutionary Guards have begun a military exercise and issued a warning that Israel and U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf would be prime targets if Iran is attacked.

...The Iranian Web Site quoted guard official Ali Shirazi as saying that Israel's coastal metropolis of Tel Aviv and U.S. warships in the Gulf would be among the first targets if Iran comes under attack.

"The Zionist regime is pushing the White House to prepare for a military strike on Iran," Shirazi was quoted as saying. "If such a stupidity is done by them, Tel Aviv and the U.S. naval fleet in the Persian Gulf will be the first targets which will be set on fire in Iran's crushing response."

..."The first shot by the U.S. on Iran will set the U.S. vital interests in the world" at risk, Shirazi said, according to the Web site.

The worst part about this whole thing is that we have given them a long time to plan for these type of attacks. While we have been hoping for them to change (no offense Barack) they have been getting ready for the inevitable. While we are offering to make deals with them, they are pushing ahead with their nuclear program and issuing threat after threat. Iran has been providing assistance any way they can to keep the war in Iraq going in order to take the heat off themselves. With so many people disgruntled with the war, Iran can continue on.

Do I feel like Iran can threaten the US interests? Yes I do. I am not as worried about our Navy ships as much as I am about terrorists in this country and around the world. How many have come into this country over the last seven years? With our government too concerned with kissing the rest of the world's ass, and not taking care of US interests (which by the way, is their only job), they have opened us up to attack.

Should we try not to provoke Iran? I do not think this will do any good. As soon as Iran develops a nuclear weapon we will know. They will announce it to the world. The announcement could be in a speech from Ahmedinejad, but could just as easily be Iran doing what it has promised to do, wiping Israel off the map.

The longer we wait, the more dangerous it becomes.

U.S. Officials Should Take Notes From Meir Amit

Amit is the former director of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency:

"I am in favor of using the power of force against Iran, because if we let things go as they are we will find ourselves in a very dangerous situation," Amit said. "We have good intelligence, and we shall decide what is the right timing for any attack."

Asked about media speculation and statements from officials and former officials that the best window of opportunity for Israel to attack Iran is before President Bush leaves office in January, Amit responded that U.S. politics should not be a consideration.

...

Pressed on the issue of media reports quoting anonymous Israeli and American officials speaking about the timing of an Israeli strike, Amit replied, "When you decide to attack someone, you don't let that person or country know anything about the timing in advance. You do it at the right moment without any initial warning or announcement."

He is absolutely right. The U.S. will have to deal with Iran sooner or later. For Israel it will have to be sooner. Iran has called for Israel's complete inhalation. They have called for our destruction too, but given the hatred Iran has shown toward Israel there is little doubt that Israel will be first on their list. The time to act is rapidly approaching.

Is Israel Preparing An Attack On Iran's Nuclear Facilities?

U.S officials think so:

Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military's capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran's nuclear program.

More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.

Israeli officials claim it was routine training. But, the article goes on to say:

...the scope of the Israeli exercise virtually guaranteed that it would be noticed by American and other foreign intelligence agencies.

Was Israel training for an attack on Iran? If they were smart they would. Check out my last post for a perfectly good reason for it.

One official thinks it's purpose was to send a message to other countries that Iran will act militarily if needed. I would hope so. The Iranian government has expressed their desire to "wipe Israel off the map" dozens of times. Nobody can dispute that fact. I just wish the rest of the world were as concerned about Iran gaining nuclear capabilities as Israel seems to be. While it is true that Israel would probably be the first to be attacked, they would not be the only country that gets attacked.

One more thing I would like to discuss about the article:

Iran has shown signs that it is taking the Israeli warnings seriously, by beefing up its air defenses in recent weeks, including increasing air patrols. In one instance, Iran scrambled F-4 jets to double-check an Iraqi civilian flight from Baghdad to Tehran.

"They are clearly nervous about this and have their air defense on guard," a Bush administration official said of the Iranians.

Iran being nervous about this is a good reaction. A lot better than the reaction the U.S. and their counterparts got from their last try at appeasement:

"In the nuclear issue, the bullying powers have used up all their capabilities but could not break the will of the Iranian nation," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by state television.

World powers -- Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States -- on Saturday offered Tehran a new package of technological and economic incentives in exchange for suspending uranium enrichment activities.

Keep it up Israel. You are proving that some people will not pay any attention to sanctions or bribes. They do seem to respond to the threat of force though.

Give It Up, Iran Is Not Going To Stop Enriching Uranium

Don't take my word for it, take theirs:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday the West has failed to break Iran's will in the nuclear standoff, days after world powers presented Tehran with a new offer aimed at ending the crisis.

"In the nuclear issue, the bullying powers have used up all their capabilities but could not break the will of the Iranian nation," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by state television.

...

Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency Ali Asghar Soltanieh ruled out on Wednesday that the country could freeze enrichment, saying: "Iran will never submit to such an illegal act.

Iran is not going to peaceably stop. That is what they are saying. That is what they have been saying since the beginning. As crazy as I believe Ahmadinejad to be, I think he means exactly what he is saying here.

This time it was not sanctions. They tried to bribe Iran into submission with money and technology. So you see, we have went from standing up to Iran with sanctions to trying to appease Iran with money. Whats next? Crawling around on our hands and knees begging him to stop?

Don't you think it is time for our elected leaders to lead? I sure as hell do.

John Bolton On The Foreign Policy Debate

After hearing the politicians ramble incoherently along about foreign policy Mr. Bolton thought it would be nice to hear from an adult. So he gave us this:

President Bush's speech to Israel's Knesset, where he equated "negotiat[ing] with the terrorists and radicals" to "the false comfort of appeasement," drew harsh criticism from Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders. They apparently thought the president was talking about them, and perhaps he was.

Wittingly or not, the president may well have created a defining moment in the 2008 campaign. And Mr. Obama stepped right into the vortex by saying he was willing to debate John McCain on national security "any time, any place." Mr. McCain should accept that challenge today.

...

On one side are those who believe that negotiations should be used to resolve international disputes 99% of the time. That is where I am, and where I think Mr. McCain is. On the other side are those like Mr. Obama, who apparently want to use negotiations 100% of the time. It is the 100%-ers who suffer from an obsession that is naïve and dangerous.

Negotiation is not a policy. It is a technique. Saying that one favors negotiation with, say, Iran, has no more intellectual content than saying one favors using a spoon. For what? Under what circumstances? With what objectives? On these specifics, Mr. Obama has been consistently sketchy.

Like all human activity, negotiation has costs and benefits. If only benefits were involved, then it would be hard to quarrel with the "what can we lose?" mantra one hears so often. In fact, the costs and potential downsides are real, and not to be ignored.

Read the rest. It is refreshing to hear someone speak that understands foreign policy.

It is a shame this man is not representing this country in the UN. He has proven time and again that he has an thorough understanding of international affairs.