Tag Archives: foreign policy

Wrong Answer, Right Answer

Posted on by
Reply

The US took more serious damage to Naval Support Activity Bahrain, one of CENTCOM’s naval control nodes in the Middle East, than was previously acknowledged. In response, DoD is considering a number of moves, two of which are the following.

…revamping the base in Bahrain, reducing the US presence in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and moving some bases or base functions west, farther from the reach of Iranian missiles and drones….

Withdrawing—retreating—is absolutely the wrong answer. That just contributes to the sense of the terrorists running Iran that they’re winning this conflict, encourages them to continue their violations of the (mistakenly done IMO) MOU, and at least as bad, to a mindset of backing up and defeat in our own military and our politicians—too many of whom already are begging for some sort of surrender.

Alternatively,

Command and control nodes could be moved underground. And military capabilities could become more spread out across the region, the officials said, though they cautioned that no decisions had been made.

This is closer to the right answer. Don’t retreat, never retreat, especially in the face of terrorists. Disperse and decentralize our assets.

And I add: plus up the defense facilities for these establishments, and increase significantly the amount of combat forces and weapons systems in the region.

It is never appropriate to signal withdrawal when our enemies attack. It’s always appropriate to counterattack, do so more powerfully than the attack, and to improve defensive systems.

Don’t Sell F-35s to Turkey because…

Posted on by
Reply

…Turkey still has Russian S-400 air defense missile systems?

The Trump administration is expected to override a decision by a Democratic lawmaker who is blocking a proposed $750 million sale of jet engines to Turkey over concerns about the country’s ties to Russia.
Congressman Gregory Meeks (D, NY) had placed a hold on the sale to Turkey—a NATO ally that is hosting an alliance summit next month—because the country continues to hold a Russian S-400 air-defense system that it bought roughly a decade ago, along with other concerns about Turkey’s role in the region.

That S-400 system, after all, might spy on Turkey’s F-35s and learn how to defeat it.

This is silly. There are reasons to not sell F-35s to Turkey, but the idea that the S-400 can compromise the F-35’s stealth capabilities isn’t one of them, at least not anymore (if it ever was). We’ve sold lots of F-35s to other nations over the years. If the jet’s stealth capabilities could ever be compromised, they already have been, just from their use around the world and our enemies observing their use, including by those objectionable S-400 systems, and collecting data on detecting and otherwise countering the jets. And that foolishly ignores the fact that over those intervening years of F-35 operational use, there have been a plethora of—steadily more and more capable—systems watching and observing and analyzing the F-35 in all its operational flexes.

There are reasons for going ahead with the sale, too, and these should be weighed against those reasons for not selling. The presence of S-400s in the buying nation is not relevant.

A Thought on the MOU

Posted on by
Reply

Of course this depends on how accurately the press is reporting an unnamed official’s “readout” of what the press alleges is the Memorandum of Understanding between us and Iran regarding the Iran war. Adding skepticism to the accuracy of this readout is Iran’s insistence that the text of the MOU not be released yet.

Paragraph 1. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war, by signing this memorandum of understanding, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and other provisions of this paragraph.
WSJ analysis
The inclusion of Lebanon is highly controversial in Israel, which is fighting a war there with Hezbollah. This official version includes tougher language on Lebanon’s sovereignty.

It’s more than controversial. The inclusion of Lebanon in this MOU is Trump’s mistake. The conflict between Hezbollah and Israel is entirely separate from the conflict between the US and Israel (and now US only) and Iran, and it should have been kept so.

Paragraph 2. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.
WSJ analysis
President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began the war calling on Iranians to overthrow the regime, a goal that faded as the government in Tehran held firm.

This is so blatantly wrong that the WSJ‘s “annotators” can only be taken as lying. Neither Trump nor Netanyahu (whose commentary would be irrelevant, anyway) never called for regime change—they—Trump—only said that it would be nice, and “here’s an opportunity for the Iranian people.”

Paragraph 5. Upon the signing of this memorandum of understanding, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles and demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be reinstated. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialog with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.
WSJ analysis
Iran’s main obligation under the deal, lifting its chokehold on the strait. The updated version says Iran agrees not to charge fees for transit for 60 days and blesses an Iranian plan to work with Oman on the future administration of the strait, but says they must involve other Gulf states in the discussion.

This is Trump’s mistake. He needed to insist on Iran openly acknowledging the international waters characteristic of the Strait. At most, at this point, he should not have agreed to any sort of consortium involving Iran for “managing” the Strait.

The Barbarian Strikes Again

Posted on by
1

The Russians just attacked Kyiv Pechersk Lavra, a thousand-year-old Orthodox Christian holy site and cultural icon in Kyiv. The hit was direct, not a nearby one for which the Lavra was merely collateral damage. The targeting was deliberate. And it was repeated, with a subsequent strike adding to the damage. This is far more than just a Russian communist attack on religion, for all that the barbarian has

confiscated church property, tortured clergy, and otherwise persecuted Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox believers[.]

It’s also more than a simple campaign of terrorism that would make the 13th century Mongols overrunning Russia blush. The modern-day barbarian appears to be starting a campaign to erase Ukrainian culture altogether.

It’s long past time Europe—and the US—stopped dilly-dallying around with half measures and stepped up support for Ukraine, arming and supplying them at the rate they need, with the weapons and materiel they need, so they can drive the barbarian back out of their nation, and do it so decisively that the barbarian will be unable to attack again for years if not generations.

Keys to Watch

Posted on by
Reply

Damian Paletta, of The Wall Street Journal, has identified some keys to watch to see if the deal with Iran is a real one.

The Strait of Hormuz. Trump suggested that the Strait of Hormuz…would be opened after the deal is formally signed on Friday.

We’ll see. Iran has a long and hoary history of welching on its deals.

The blockade. The White House has imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ships, with the goal—essentially—of economic strangulation. … If the blockade is removed, Iran might be much more likely to continue negotiating with the White House on other things, as it could ease pressure on their economy.

Paletta’s interpretation is wrong. With pressure taken off, the men and women of Iran’s government and of its shadow government, the IRGC, will be much less willing to do any serious negotiation. They will, instead, be much more likely to continue tapping us along.

Israel. One of the biggest strains on the talks in the past months has been Israel, which has continued bombing inside Lebanon. Iran has said this was a deal breaker. Trump initially brushed aside concern about Israel’s strikes against Iran, but in recent weeks he has become furious that Israel wouldn’t stand down.

This is President Donald Trump’s (R) mistake. The fight between Iran and Israel, with the former using its satrap Hezbollah for its continuing fight, is an entirely separate war from the conflict between the US and Iran. Trump needs to openly recognize this and refuse any connection between the Israel-Iran war in Lebanon and our own conflict with Iran.