Obama's Summiteering: High Altitude Headaches and Rumors of War

As any hiker knows, high altitudes often lead to headaches, and President Barack Obama has had a few at his New York summits. They center around AfPak, the perennial question of Israel and Palestine, and Iran. And today the latter went front and center, with war a real possibility in the wake of this morning's revelation of a secret Iranian nuclear facility.

President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy appeared together this morning in Pittsburgh to charge that Iran has a secret nuclear facility in violation of its agreements.

Even as he unleashed another masterful speech on the global stage, Obama struggled with a few emerging realities.

First, that his latest apparent strategy of nation-building in Afghanistan is bound to fail without about 200,000 troops, which the nation simply wouldn't allow, to back it up.

Next, the eternal quandary of Israel and Palestine, with the new right-wing Israeli government refusing, in various forms of gobbledygook, to stop settlements by religious fundamentalists on the disputed West Bank and various Arab actors refusing to fully recognize Israel.

And finally, the apparent intransigence of Iran, which says it doesn't want nuclear weapons even as it apparently insists on its right to them, notwithstanding its signature on the Nonproliferation Treaty.

President Barack Obama uncorked a strong speech to the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

While there was no particular meeting amongst Obama's raft of public and private summits in the Big Apple on Afghanistan -- though there was a big meeting on Pakistan, where things are going much better than earlier this year -- this mountainous graveyard of venturesome empires loomed large nonetheless. That's because the secret report to Obama by his new Afghanistan commander, General Stanley McChrystal, was somehow leaked on Sunday to Bob Woodward.

Not that its overall conclusions were a surprise, as they'd been telegraphed for weeks. Without still more troops -- how many more was left unclear, though it's clearly a lot -- the current strategy in Afghanistan of counter-insurgency will fail. Not that counter-insurgency, a euphemism for nation-building in perhaps the least hospitable place for building a modern nation imaginable, is necessary to deny Afghanistan to Al Qaeda as an operational base. But that is how a mission creeps from one goal to another very different one. As I've been writing here for months on the Huffington Post, including this piece a little over a week ago.

Of course, we expect generals to hope for more troops. It's in their nature. But what is especially interesting about the leaked McChrystal report, not that the conventional media is reporting this, is that the former Joint Special Operations Command chief is not saying that the US will "win the war in Afghanistan" with more troops, at any level of increase.

He is simply saying that the current strategy will fail with the current force level. Which is on the level of a truism.

The reality is that all the hoo-hawing over how bad things have supposedly just gotten in Afghanistan ignores the fact that things have actually gotten better. And Obama knows this. For he gave the order that made things better, and thus allowed most to finally see how bad things were there.

Here's what I mean. Absent the Marine offensive he ordered some months ago in southern Afghanistan, in which British forces and Afghan forces also participated, there would never have been a presidential election on August 20th.

So, does the mission creep to nation-building in one of the most inhospitable places in the world continue? Or does the mission refocus on the original goal: Counter-terrorist action to prevent Afghanistan from being a base for Al Qaeda? Which does not involve extending the writ of a dodgy Hamid Karzai presidency all across the country. Assuming that he ends up being re-elected, which is still in doubt. Amidst delays and major allegations of election fraud, there's a big recount underway in an election which happened 36 days ago.

Not surprisingly, Obama didn't say too much specific about Afghanistan in his big UN speech. He's rethinking his drink there, and not for the first time this year.

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu took the UN to task for years of silence on terrorist rocket attacks.

On Israel and Palestine, Obama did get his tripartite mini-summit with Israel Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. But there's intransigence on all sides in what may be an historically intractable situation.

Netanyahu, fronting the most right-wing government in Israeli history, has issued a series of seemingly contradictory statements on West Bank settlements by religious fundamentalists, but the bottom line is they are continuing. Which, they say, is a non-starter for the Palestinians. And the Palestinians are split, with Abbas unable to speak for the more radical Hamas, which seems deeply opposed to Israel. And other Arab states have not been very forthcoming with additional recognition of Israeli rights.

Yet Obama gets credit for pushing on this, which helps with the overall task of dampening opposition to America in the Muslim world, the raison d'etre for Obama's historic June 4th speech in Cairo.

That greater goodwill toward America is on the verge of being tested in the rising showdown over Iran and its nuclear program.

Even before this morning's dramatic revelation by Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy of a secret Iranian nuclear facility, Obama had made some progress on the Iranian question.

With an American president presiding for the first time in its history, the UN Security Council agreed on some beginning steps to rein in nuclear weapons.

At his mini-summit on Wednesday with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, Obama succeeded in getting Medvedev to say that stronger sanctions on Iran may well be necessary.

Russia is key on this, because the principal sanction the US has in mind is squeezing Iran's gasoline supply. Iran is very vulnerable to this because, although it is a major oil producer, it has to import gasoline because of its lack refinery capacity. That's a hangover of the Ayatollah Khomeini's fundamentalist revolution 30 years ago, which led to an Iranian brain drain and the refusal by oil companies to renovate Iran's energy infrastructure.

Now Russia is the world's biggest oil producer, having surpassed Saudi Arabia. It has plenty of refinery capacity and is geographically situated to get the gasoline to Iran which it needs to circumvent American-led sanctions against it. The US is able to use its own economic and political clout to pressure companies from getting gasoline to Iran. Most of the companies providing Iran with gasoline are Swiss-owned, which might be one reason why Medvedev went to Switzerland before coming to New York.

Moscow, which can also supply Iran with the world's most advanced anti-aircraft systems, has been unalterably opposed to a new round of sanctions. This is playing out in the foreground of a major behind-the-scenes discussion between the US and Russia over how how much influence Moscow has over the former Soviet Union. Which, naturally, is barely mentioned in the conventional media, fixated as it is on rowdy town halls and other non-serious behavior.

It's not in Russia's interest for Iran to become a nuclear power. But it is in Russia's interest to use the stumbling block that Iran provides for the US and much of the West to block attempts to, for example, further expand the military reach of the US and NATO into the Russian periphery. Obama made a good start last week with Russia by scrapping, as I long expected, the Bush/Cheney era anti-missile shield in Eastern Europe.

Naturally, the conventional media essentially ignored the importance of the Obama-Medvedev meeting, and the substance of how US sanctions against Iran would play out and Russia's significance in that.

After all, Obama's noteworthy speech to the UN General Assembly about mutual responsibility for shared threats was followed immediately after by Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi's interminable speech, in which he ran through the usual anti-American litany and called for the removal of the UN from New York to somewhere else, at one point appearing to suggest it be headquartered in Libya. Which would be a lovely way to permanently marginalize an already troubled institution.

But he said he loved Obama's speech, repeatedly calling the president a "son of Africa" and "my son" -- Gadhafi has reinvented himself as an African leader -- saying that what he's heard is new and promising but could change unless Obama is president "forever." I can only imagine the right-wing cable chatter over that.

And Fidel Castro liked Obama's speech, too, putting out a statement calling it the bravest speech given by an American president. More grist for the chatterfest.

Moving back to the substance of things, it turns out that China, which generally joins with Russia in opposing tougher sanctions on Iran, has already started shipping gasoline to Iran. We'll see if that lasts in light of today's revelation, or in the face of potential US trade sanctions.

Iran has played a delaying game on negotiations with the US and the rest of the Perm 5 plus 1 -- the permanent five UN Security Council members (US, UK, France, China, and Russia) plus Germany. Those are the countries which will at last begin negotiations on October 1st with Iran.

Obama, Brown, and Sarkozy unveiled a potential game-changer this morning in the form of an intelligence report revealing a large secret Iranian nuclear facility that they say is inconsistent with a peaceful nuclear power program. They're demanding that Iran immediately allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) officials to inspect the plant. And they want an explanation from Iran by the time negotiations begin October 1st.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to deny the Holocaust, saying that Israel is founded on "a lie."

Iran, apparently aware that Western intelligence knew about the plant, made a vague reference to some sort of new facility in a communication earlier this week with the IAEA.

China has already reacted by saying it's very troubled by what Iran has been doing in secret.

Of course, before we get carried away, it's important to ask a few questions.

Namely, does this facility actually advance an Iranian nuclear weapons program? And if so, by how much?

After all, the head of Mossad said in June that Iran is several years away from having an actual nuclear weapon.

Then there is the question of actions leading to reactions, and what that might mean.

For example, a successful US-led constriction of Iran's gasoline supply could lead to Iran trying to close one of the world's most critical chokepoints, the Strait of Hormuz. That would choke off much of the world's oil supply, and could crash the global economy. It would also crush the Iranian economy, but that might not be the principal concern for the regime in Tehran.

How would Iran close the Strait of Hormuz? While its navy could be blown out of the water by the US Navy, Iran could use missiles to disrupt shipping. Or it could lay mines in the strait itself.

Naturally, mines can be cleared. But that would place US and Iranian forces nose to nose. And that's how wars can start.

There is, of course, another scenario which jumps straight to war, at least of a sort.

The long-rumored Israeli air strikes against Iranian nuclear sites could actually take place. Recall that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has just declared the Holocaust to be a hoax and Israel to be founded on "a lie."

These air strikes would be virtually impossible without at least tacit support from the US. Like the Bush/Cheney Administration before it, the Obama Administration has been discouraging of this.

That might change now.

We're moving into a rugged new phase around Iran.

Of course, there is always the possibility that the pressure for tougher sanctions on Iran has been so ratcheted up that they actually go into effect. But then again, there is an Iranian reaction to that, should they choose not to submit to very stringent inspections, in the Strait of Hormuz. Which would lead to a major confrontation.

You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.

 

 

Comments

[leevntheus]

Since the economic framework of the world has now been revealed to be the largest ponzi scheme in the history of the planet, and there seems to be chaos and threat everywhere, why don't we just throw down the metal and get things over with.

We have been creeping towards armed conflict for so long now that we are up to our necks in it in Afghanistan and Iraq. This death of America by a thousand cuts is nauseating.

Who has global dominance in satellite surveillance? Military hardware? Supply lines, infrastructure, and strategic bases? Natural resources ?(yes, we have plenty, its why we won WWII) Technology? etc. etc.

The world has shown throughout history that it wavers in the face of mighty and overwhelming action, whether its Romans, Gengis Khan, Britain, Hitler, Gulf War I; most of the rest of the planet is trying just to breathe and feed itself.

I apologize in advance, but after years and years of all this trickle down warfare economy, sometimes I wake up to yet another round of willy nilliness and, since I haven't had my morning coffee yet, I wonder how it all might work out if we just let 'er rip and erase these problems and move on.

In my life I've learned that the fear of going through the door is always the worst part of change. After getting through the shift, one always looks back and wonders why one waited so long.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

All this would be in the realm of what's known as ... overstatement.

Or a good joke.

[leevntheus]

I totally agree.

But don't you admit that sometimes it seems unreasonable to expect year after year, decade after decade, conflict after conflict, that we are to continue on this planet in never ending negotiations, treaties, conferences, and mini wars; forever engaged in an economic dance of arms and oil? I mean, my God, our grand children and their grandchildren are going to be enslaved by these same issues, the way we deal with things.

If the nature of our nation, which was built upon expansion and assimilation whether you agree with that policy or not, is to spread democratically elected republic governance throughout the world as financiers reap the rewards, then aren't there just times in history that rise up and present themselves as cold hard metal?

[Winning09]

Silly.

[cybexg]

At one time, America enjoyed a counter to Iran. America had a history of playing IRAQ against Iran (to the tune of having them spend over a million men in a war). America had a pawn to use when practicing off shore diplomacy (manipulation of another country against a third country). No, it wasn't perfect (Iraq didn't always fall for our manipulations) but more often than not we were successful (in manipulating Iraq).

I'd like to see just one, JUST ONE neocon admit just how much the Bush administration screwed this country.

Seriously, JUST ONE!!!

[Hedonist]

Actually, America's contribution to Saddam's war mongering was rather small. When Iraq invaded Iran the U.S. did not have diplomatic relations with them.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, over the period 1973-2002, Iraq spent 82 times as much on weapons bought from Russia/USSR, France and China, compared with weapons from the US, Britain and Australia.

Also see: Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990 http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990/

[Winning09]

Correct.

America...NOT evil.

lol

[HansB]

Problem is, no one has credibility. The US and Great Britain don't, not after (among many other official lies) the fabricated evidence against Saddam Hussein. Sarkozy doesn't. The Chinese don't, they'd sell plastic toys to the devil incarnate. The Russians don't, they have too much to gain by ratcheting up tensions - and oil prices with them. As for "Israel" and "credibility", some words just don't fit in the same sentence.

Even Iran can't be believed. We know now that Saddam pretended to have WMDs for regional-political reasons. What game is Iran playing? Their real concern is neither the US, nor Israel (except perhaps from a defensive angle): it is the Shia-Sunni rivalry. Who knows whether their nuclear program isn't as fake as Saddam's WMDs, and for the same reasons: to impress antagonistic neighbors? (I'm looking at you, Saudi Arabia.)

I fondly remember the days when you could believe at least somebody.

[leevntheus]

Excellent read.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

So you are saying that Barack Obama has no credibility?

[Winning09]

I am really loving these Ahmadinejad apologists coming out of the woodwork.

It's very funny.

[liberal-elite]

Sounds like you can't counter their facts and the truth, huh?

[Winning09]

Hitler had his apologists, too., with "facts" and "truth" arrayed into clever lies.

Well, lies clever enough to fool SOME people ... lol

[eddiesengola]

William thinks Iran is a troublesome state? How? He is worried too much about Iran, because the News Media say so.

Most of people of the world think the USA is dangerous than Iran is. And still this so called Liberal, William, think that Iran is dangerous.

Actually, I am worry more about Israel fundematists have done killing little children in Gaza than I am for Iran.

Iranina Ayatollahs are not that crazy, comparing to fascist leaders running Israel.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

And today, Iran is firing off a wide variety of missiles.

Demonstrating its peaceful intent, as it always does when it's the center of global controversy.

[eddiesengola]

Iran is firing missiles just few days after Obama threatens more sanctions and Israel is stating publicly that they will attack Iran.

Iran is showing that it has capability to strike Israel so that Israel can't dare to attack it. Why don't you get it?

[TJCole]

The International banking cabal wants War, so war it will be...plenty of unemployed kids to kill off, they're a dime a dozen these days...

War makes bankers money and that's what it's all about...money for bankers and criminal corporations...!

[CRUMBOWSKI]

...I gotta add..that along with the NUMBERs..in terms of troops...there's also the MONEY...does it even exist? Look at what Iraq and Afghanistan have fostered in EVERY aspect of America's.­...uhhh..D­ynamic Homeostasi­s..our..St­eady State!

A 'Culture' of Disharmony..now exists..Replete with a NEW COLD WAR..a Cold CIVIL War...can you imagine what will happen when..for the first time..REAL..numbers of BODIES..start to POUR in..and they WILL..Iran aint no Cake Walk..tough S.O.B.'S

But let's just SUPPOSE that its not a 'Body Bag" war..well..look at IRAQ..what? we're gonna just..go an do the Nuke Plant and then...SPLIT? Since when have "we" ever done THAT? Especially when you consider..IF there's real 'support' from the power structure..for WAR with Iran..it means a FINANCIAL AGENDA EXISTS..which means "we" will REMAIN there..BUT we cannot 'police' Iran..thats the "3 war" problem! PLUS..how MANY..."Muslim" nations..CAN we interfere with..before FLASH POINT? It can't be too many more..AND..there's still...PA­KISTAN...w­ith an ACTUAL Nuke or two layin around...

No! The "concept" is...SUICI­DE..actual­..Hari-kar­i..stick the knife in and twist upwards...War With iran is America spilling its own GUTS all over the rug...BEYOND stupid...with "500,000 troops REQUIRED to maintian 'Control' of Afghanistan.." Anyway...ISRAEL will KILL US ALL..for it is THEY..that will attack Iran and start WWIII...

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Yep, Israel is the cause of all problems. I wondered when you'd get to that ...

[Winning09]

ROTFL.

[den1953]

Maybe with all the involvement this country has got itself with the middle east hopefully we can get this issue right through out the years every President has been sucked into this part of the world and most cases it never worked out for us. This area has been nothing but American lives being lost for nothing i hope for the countries sake we finally get this regional conflict over with and the Arab people can live in peace along with the Jewish people!

[Emerald1943]

but...but....but the oil!! What about the oil? What's OUR oil doing under THEIR sand?? LOL

[PhantomBeast]

In case no one has been noticing, The Army has been quietly stepping up it's recruiting for
a lot more young men to be in uniform...­...HHmmmmm­mm

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

I would hope that somebody has noticed, since Obama ran last year on INCREASING the size of the Army and Marine Corps, and recruitment advertising is up on television, radio, etc. ...

This is not a secret.

[Emerald1943]

I don't think this is some kind of quiet strategy. We have known for some time that we do not have enough troops. The push to recruit more has been going on for a while. It does not mean that another war is on the horizon.

[liberal-elite]

More troops for what? So we can continue to police the world and deplete our resources. So we can try to protect our access to oil? Will we have a healthy and informed citizenry when all is said and done? Or is their to be war for war's sake? We were warned by President Eisenhower, now 56% of our national budget goes to the military. We have too many troops and too many bases around the world. Its time to be a republic and stop our empire building.

[CRUMBOWSKI]

I agree..but it isn't WORKING for them..that's the pathetic reality..and even a non-existant economy isn't providing them with the shere...nu­mbers...of cannon fodder they will require to go after....u­hhhh..IRAN­...IF..we go to WAR...with IRAN...I am going with Mr. Hitchens..i will NOT PAY INCOME TAXES..because War with IRAN..is..the END...it is...its THE END...

You know whats creepy...is the whole Mayan 12/12/12 deal...that the Big Circus ENDS..in 2012..But.. you know what?..2 years is sounding REAL PLAUSIBLE...isn't it?..think about it..TWO FULL YEARS..well..TWO n' change...to me that sounds about right...sa­dly...terr­ifyingly..­.just..abo­ut...right­!

More and more...as each day goes by and we seem.."Fer Reals" FURTHER..from any "Change"...as this continues.­.EVERY...G­RIM...DAY.­...I'm realizing..WE JUST DO NOT HAVE THE TIME! Sure..for 2012? Perhaps..but for 2030?? NO WAY!..think about it....CHINA? AFRICA...A­MERICA....­in terms JUST of the Environment..we are OUT of time NOW...but POLITICALLY...at LEAST 50 years..JUST to deal with the ANCIENT EVIL of ORganized Religion...but we DON'T HAVE IT...

So..WAR? At this point...just another...tragedy along this trail of tears that is Humanities failed evolution...

And the worst part? WE COULD HAVE! We really could have been a shining beacon in the vast darkness of space...the basic MATERIALS..are available.­..but...so­me folks...just..WON'T ALLOW IT!

[Winning09]

Of course, Army and Marine recruitment are way UP.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/2009recruitingstatistics/a/aug.htm

Maybe you shouldn't spend so much time thinking about the "shining beacon in the vast darkness of space"...

[guzelvis]

No wonder Gadhafi trashed Ahmadinejad at U.N. Read the funny story @ http:www.thelintscreen.com

[Agent420]

Don't be silly.

[Winning09]

Duuuude ... 420!

[Ergon]

We do seem to have a surplus on rumours of war. And this serves our interests how?
Your concluding paragraph, that Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust?
In what parallel universe is that cause for war, and again, this serves American interests how?
And who's going to pay for it?

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

A. My concluding paragraph doesn't say anything like that.

Though it would be a reason for Israel to attack.

B. I'm not making a case for America to go to war.

[Ergon]

In the middle then, which is not the point. You're not making a case, you're justifying an Israeli attack.

[MajorKong]

The Israelis probably don't have the capability to realistically take out the Iranian nuclear facilities.

We're not talking about a few well-placed smart bombs here.

It would take a large scale air campaign lasting several weeks or possibly longer. The last administration looked at his and determined that the Iranians would likely retaliate just the same to a small attack as to a large attack.

That puts us in the position of having to remove their means of retaliation before we even think about going after their nuclear sites.

That greatly expands the target list to missile sites, military bases, command centers etc.

Which means you need basing rights, logistics, air refueling, search and rescue, intelligence gathering etc.

It would likely have to be a much larger operation than most people think.

[spacecreep]

tell me a country that wouldn't want nuclear weapons?... name one country that we trust so must, that we would give up our nuclear weapons and have our citizen rely on them doing the right thing for our safer. we expect other countries to thing that way) but we have constantly been at war almost every decade for a century....if you live in iran,iraq, would you demand that you leaders put you in a position to defend yourself against other countries...nobody attacks a country with nuclear weapons.... that's been the ultimate defense...
with part of the american congress acting like they take orders from glenn beck and rush limbaugh, what would you have our enemies think...... can they trust anything that said by any president since here the administration may change every 4 years..... how strong do you thing a treaty with one of our enemies would be if we thought that in 4 years there be another leader

[Winning09]

You must be a real big Second Amendment advocate...

[Ergon]

Being a Second Amendment Advocate myself, the right of the Iranian state to defend itself should not be infringed. Or do we only allow some countries, but not others, to have nukes?
I'm still waiting for proof they're producing nukes, and you lot will just have to wait for the IAEA inspection.

[habarigani]

The author says
.............."And finally, the apparent intransigence of Iran, which says it doesn't want nuclear weapons even as it apparently insists on its right to them, notwithstanding its signature on the Nonproliferation Treaty." Either he is being disingenuous or is not familiar with the NPT treaty. Here is the first section under article IV of NPT treaty. " Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty." ....
In other words IT explicitly allows enrichment and refining facilities to NPT members.

Also the author insists on calling Iran's energy program as weapons program. So far the enrichment is less than 5% well below what is needed for the weapons. The fact that we speculate nefarious intentions cannot be grounds to preventing them from being self sufficient in nuclear fuel. In any case IAEA has not detected any diversion of refined product for any unauthorised use.

Regarding the revelation of this new facility: Note that IAEA requires it be informed at least 180 days before any uranium is introduced in facility. In the Additional Protocol Iran was supposed to inform when it started construction. However, Iran had adhered to Additional Protocol voluntarily and when its case was refered to Security Council it stopped doing so.

[Winning09]

What? Do you work for the Iranian Embassy?

[unitron]

What part of what Habarigani said is inaccurate?

[jack7576]

The Iran Attack Plan

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574418813806271306.html

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

If you actually read that, and what it is a rendition of a possible Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear and missile sites, you see that the balance of the argument is against a military attack.