CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGERS

Peter Huessy

Some seven years after the attacks of 9/11, Americans are still debating what the US should do with the threat posed by (1) states recognized as sponsors of terrorism, (2) their terror group allies and partners, and (3) the nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles they seek to develop and deploy. There is no other issue of more importance for America’s future and the continued presence of the freedom and liberty we often take for granted.

The fact that so long after the attacks of September 2001 the country is still perplexed as to the exact nature of the threats we face and what our proper response should be is testimony to the increased partisanship of our national political debates, (which makes policy clarity near impossible); the unwillingness of many in this country and abroad to take the time to understand these threats, (which leads to an overall simplistic view that everything is due to “Al Qaeda”); and the reluctance of America’s elites to alter their view that terrorism is primarily a law enforcement issue, (which lets state sponsors off the hook a delays justice for the real killers).

During the Democratic primaries, Senator Obama and Clinton were asked whether they would speak with these rogue nations without conditions, in contrast with talking with terrorist organizations. Why this was necessarily of significant importance or the most important issue at hand is unclear. But the drive-by media has its own agenda and it must be tough to have all day to think of at least one intelligent question. So cocktail party talk and trivia now substitute for real analysis.

But nonetheless that was the question. However, my belief is that the wrong question was asked. The media driven question was designed to “show up” President Bush and make him look bad for having placed pre-conditions on talks with Iran, the condition being the Iranian suspension of uranium enrichment as required by both UN Security Council resolutions and the position of the European 3, (Britain, France and Germany), and the United States, China and Russia.

But the issue is not whether the American leadership should “talk” with the mullahs in Iran, or the leadership of North Korea, or the President of Syria. Of vastly more importance is the unanswered question: what do the candidates propose to do about the threat from this new totalitarianism?
Senator Obama apparently believes visiting Tehran and speaking with Ahmadinejad, (or Supreme Leader Khamenei), holds some magical elixir and as a result Iran will see the world, as Obama asserted, in a “practical light” rather than “ideologically”. Senator Clinton, quite correctly, has said no US President should visit Iran without careful planning and preparation. But again the question unanswered is: preparation and planning for what?

Cliff May of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies puts it this way: what are you willing to offer and what are you willing to threaten? He further says negotiations should only proceed if a deal beneficial to the US is on the table—anything else, he notes, is “diplomatic malpractice”. He’s right.

But unfortunately too many of our foreign policy elites believe a “deal” is in the works and that “engagement will bring agreement”. I believe this is itself false when it comes to both the terror sponsoring states and their terror group allies. The former leader of Hezbollah, Hussein Massawi, put it clearly: “We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.” But too many of our leaders still don’t get it. On May 21, Senator Specter, speaking of the Iranians, asked Secretary Gates “Isn’t it sensible to engage in discussions with somebody to find out what they are after?” In short, as Mark Steyn explains: “Are the political ambitions of the broader jihad totalitarian, genocidal, millenarian—in a word, nuts? Or are they negotiable?”






To answer these questions we have to determine who the enemy is who is at war with us. During the 1990s, as Andy McCarthy and Laurie Mylroie have both explained, terror attacks were looked at as a “law enforcement problem”, where the “bad guys” were tracked down, arrested and put in jail. Lose associations of bad actors were seen as the enemy. This was very much what the US did after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, culminating in the arrest of the bomb maker himself, Ramzi Yousef, in Pakistan in 1995. But no one apparently wanted to determine for whom Yousef was working.

But the 1993 World Trade Center bombing contains clues as to whom and what we are fighting. Yousef came on the scene relatively late in the conspiracy. Al Qaeda was not involved though it is commonly believed it was. Yousef was referred to by his fellow plotters as “Rasheed the Iraqi”. And the attack occurred on the anniversary of Saddam’s defeat in the Gulf War. Could the attack—larger and more destructive than anything the FBI believed possible—have been Hussein’s revenge for the humiliation of his Gulf War defeat?

We may never know for in mid-1992, US law enforcement, the FBI, pulled their informant from the midst of the plotters. The bureau was worried that if they lost track of the plotters and attack occurred, “think of the liability”, revealed in Andy McCarthy’s new book, “Willful Blindness”. Those plotters initially captured appeared to be the least capable and most dimwitted—one returned to the rental agency to get back the deposit on the truck which was used to carry the explosives and was destroyed in the blast. He needed airfare to flee the country. Are we to believe the plotters lacked the necessary cash? It appears highly likely we were meant to capture those “left behind” while others fled to Iraq and Baluchistan.[For a full treatment of this see L. Mylroie’s Study of Revenge: The First World Trade Center Attack and Saddam Hussein’s War Against America].


For nearly a decade, from 1993-2000, the US Government dismissed the idea that states themselves are terrorist enterprises. Even though a number of countries were officially designated as “state sponsors of terror”—including Syria, Sudan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Libya and Afghanistan---it was always perplexing when the numerous attacks of the 1990s, including those aimed at the World Trade Center, Khobar Towers, our African embassies, the SS Cole, Oklahoma City—were almost universally described as “terrorist attacks” with no reference to the funding, training, weaponry and sanctuary provided to those who conducted the attacks, especially from state sponsors of terrorism, intelligence services or other military entities.

But what if these attacks were a calculated campaign of intimidation and terror against the US and the West directed and supported by terror states intent on destroying us? As early as 1981, Secretary of State Haig’s was asked what to do about international terrorism. He said: “Go to the source”, the source being the Soviet Union.

This is a very important point. If these numerous attacks in the 1990s were the result of disgruntled young men, by and large Muslim, who had grievances against America, then the clear option for America is to remove the grievances. Thus it is that Senator Obama can say that the US failure to establish a Palestinian homeland and our supportive relationship with Israel is the “sore” that causes the bloodshed in the Middle East.

As well does his former pastor, Reverend Wright, who claims that America’s terrorism against the Palestinians resulted in the attacks of 9/11. So, too, with Bill Ayers, Obama’s fund-raising buddy and an admitted terrorist bomber of the Pentagon and a New York police station, who claims that “America is a terrorist nation”.





The New York Times agrees, as does much of the global media. We often hear it is the wrongs committed by US foreign policy especially with respect to our Israeli policy which is at the root of the terrorism we now face. These views are echoed by the foreign policy academic elite, having been influenced by millions in radical Arabist money lavished on Middle East studies everywhere.

But to believe this requires a suspension of any thoughtful analysis of what we are fighting. The Iranian (Khomeini) and Saudi (Wahabii) totalitarian ethos wants to establish Sharia law throughout the world. They would be perfectly happy to do this peacefully—if the western world simply surrenders. But war is what they are waging against us now.

In fact, the Koran commands Moslems to kill Jews, Christians and apostate Moslems. The latter verses of the Koran and the traditions are clear—they abrogate the earlier verses such as those saying there can be no “compulsion in religion”. While we may wish that Islam was a religion devoted to peace, it is, tragically, not the case. Islam has been at war with Christendom for nearly a millennium and one half.

For many in American, and Europe, too, this is difficult to believe. They know many Moslems. They appear to be fine people. And who wishes to be at war with over 1 billion people? And thus, rather than face the implications of the Koran’s call to murder Jews and Christians—referred to as they are as “monkeys and pigs”---many simply dismiss the text of the Koran as “outdated”. Moslems, it is claimed, “don’t really believe that”. An entire network of Saudi funded organizations is devoted to this message, proclaiming their fealty to the American constitution, to our culture and to our laws.





This question arose even in Iran itself when former President Khatami asked: “What did Imam Khomeini mean by exporting the revolution?” asked in reference to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Islamic Republic’s founder, during a sermon in early May. “Did he mean that we take up arms, that we blow up places in other nations and we create groups to carry out sabotage in other countries?”

Even in Iran, they will not publicly admit this is what they do. So, predictably, Khatami’s words touched off a political firestorm. The conservative Kayhan newspaper accused the former president of tarnishing the “shining reputation of the Islamic Republic” and providing fodder for “baseless accusations” against Iran by the United States and other Western powers.

Thus we often hear the refrain from the Islamic world that a jihad is not being directed at the west. Not only do the jihadists claim they have no intention of killing us, it is Senator Obama as well. How else can he claim we caused the terrorists to come to Iraq because we took down Saddam Hussein? [Some one should ask him why the terrorists would come to the defense of Saddam when supposedly Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism.] How else can he claim it is US policy that is at fault and our failure to create a Palestinian state?

The evidence of the aims of our enemies is available simply with some investigation. It is in their speech. It is in their text books, whether in Saudi Arabia or the schools attended by Palestinians in the West Bank, or Iranians in Tehran. The most vituperative and hateful speech fills the Mosques and madras’s, too, underlining calls for violence and murder. Clerics praise children as they prepare for “martyrdom operations”, a chilling reminder of a “religion” that will send its most helpless to murder indiscriminately.




Now it is probably true that most Moslems want nothing to do with this call for war. But if you examine recent and current global conflicts, from the Philippines, East Timor, southern Thailand, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon, Nigeria, Kenya, Morocco and the Maghreb, they primarily involve Moslem fighters trying to take over Moslem or partially Moslem countries or change their governments, largely by killing other Moslems. This is not a coincidence.

Even if we get America to acknowledge these facts, we still have to ask whether these conflicts pose a serious threat. For many Americans, they would like the US to withdraw from Iraq and finish whatever business we have in Afghanistan. Beyond that, many of those on both the left and the right assume discussions and negotiations, concessions and benefits, if necessary, are sufficient to make a “deal” with Iran or Syria, and thus terror groups can be rendered “a nuisance”—in the words of Senator Kerry—largely with the resolution of the “Palestinian” problem, which requires, we are often told, just some simple and straightforward Israeli concessions.

But let us take Iran, Syria, and North Korea. They are all seeking or have nuclear weapons. They cooperate on these endeavors. They are all state sponsors of terrorism: in fact, they are fundamentally terrorist enterprises.
The Iranians seek to dominate the Middle East with the creation of satellite states under Shia-directed Sharia law. They are the creators and sponsors of Hezbollah and Hamas: these are their two prime agents to spread terror along with their Iran-based Quods force. Since 1979, Iran has been at the forefront of killing Americans and our allies. They are at war with Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel. Arming themselves with nuclear weapons is their boldest ambition along with the long range missiles with which to deliver them, rockets being assembled with the help of the North Koreans, to say nothing of the possible transfer of such weapons to terror operatives.




Pyongyang built a nuclear facility in Syria paid with Iranian petrodollars as a back-door means of supplying Tehran with material for nuclear weapons in addition to their active centrifuge program. Iran wants to wipe Israel and the United States off the face of the earth.
This is not a “misunderstanding”. It is not susceptible to a “rational discussion” such as two lawyers sitting down over coffee working out a billion dollar merger. This is a “hostile takeover”, a war, aimed at utterly defeating the US and its allies and eliminating the fundamentals of freedom, liberty and constitutional government which is our heritage. Nothing short of ridding the world of these regimes will suffice to protect America.

With Syria, we have a regime allied with Iran aiming to destroy the government of Lebanon with their proxy army Hezbollah. Armed and trained with upwards of $1 billion in Iranian funds, this terror group is busy assassinating Lebanese leaders, journalists and anyone else that gets in their way. They escalated hostilities against Israel in the summer of 2006 and have again moved to cripple the Beirut government in the past few weeks.

As for North Korea, in addition to their active cooperative work with Syria and Iran on both nuclear weapons technology and ballistic missiles, they have repeatedly threatened to transfer nuclear weapons to terror organizations. Armed with ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, the prospect of nuclear terror against the Republic of Korea grows deadlier. Nothing short of a complete and verifiable elimination of their nuclear arsenal and the related technology is necessary for the US to begin the process of normalization of relations with Pyongyang.







As Ambassador Robert Joseph, one of the key architects of the elimination of the Libyan nuclear weapons program and the establishment of the Proliferation Security Initiative told me, “We have to keep our foot on their necks and not let up.” The leverage we sustained when we froze their financial assets through the threat of sanctions against certain banking entities is an example of how productive real pressure can be. What real pressure does Senator Obama propose we exercise?

The Saudi threat is just as real although it is not that the government in Riyadh is seeking nuclear weapons, (at least not yet!). In fact, the government there fears the Iranian menace. But they are both dedicated to the violent spread of Islam throughout the world. The Saudi’s are the world’s banker to the totalitarian message of Wahabiism—stoning adulterers, hanging homosexuals, gouging out the eyes of children who have read the wrong kinds of magazines, flogging people to near death for petty offenses, or caning women whose dress was deemed “immodest”.

A high treasury Department official says eliminating Saudi terror funding would be one of the most important elements of a successful counter terrorism strategy. So too has a senior intelligence official told me that cutting off investment in Iran would be the single most effective measure to lessen the threat of a Iranian nuclear weapon. What are we waiting for? Terror free investment vehicles are now on the street.

As long as the money flows, the mosques and madras’s will be built. From them flows the human cannon fodder tricked into strapping bombs onto themselves and blowing up crowded food markets, mosques or bus stations whether in Madrid, London, Amman, or Baghdad.




From the madras’s come the snipers, bombers, and bomb-makers, funded through petrodollars of which a significant portion comes from the United States purchase of petroleum. Any counter-terrorism policy must therefore think seriously about how to become free of the OPEC leverage that prevents the US from taking as seriously as it needs to the threats we face.

Again, a viable energy policy continues to elude the United States. Senator Obama has no vision here as well. Vast US energy resources remain locked away; a flex fuel mandate for all new cars languishes in House legislation while the Congress suspends filling the Petroleum Reserve—a move of little significance. Refineries cannot be built, so even additional crude oil supplies might not be brought to market. Nuclear power has been delayed for nearly three decades by irrational fear mongering. Billions of barrels of energy in the Dakotas, in the western United States and off shore have been declared off limits. The construction of new coal fired plants—a resource we have in abundance—remains problematic as well even though methanol from coal could fuel our cars.

As Congressman Bartlett has warned, the US now spends the equivalent of a tax the size of the US Defense Department budget to pay for imported oil—and Senator Obama says we simply can’t drive SUVs and have to turn our thermostats down—because if we don’t what will the rest of the world think?

And thus we come back to the beginning of our story. Senator Obama wants us to withdraw from Iraq because our presence sustains the grievances in the Moslem world and thus creates terrorists. If we leave, he says, the anger fueling the recruitment of terrorists goes away. Having left Iraq, the theory goes, the world will no longer see the US as a “bully”, as a lone cowboy. In short, Obama is simply proposing that he speak with our enemies through the language of withdrawal, of retreat and defeat.

He compounds his misunderstanding of Iraq by mistakenly equating Reagan’s talking with the Soviets as no different than his own proposed talks with Iran. He says he “is not afraid of losing some propaganda fight with a dictator.” But here again, he misses the point completely. Reagan put on the table both the INF and START treaty proposals, which dramatically eliminated threatening Soviet weapons.

But he did not go to Iceland to meet the Soviets to win a public relations fight, though the art of public diplomacy he practiced masterfully. He went there to eliminate Soviet threats. He did this from a position of strength, having rebuilt America’s military power, even in the face of widespread Democratic opposition. Reagan did not accomplish great things because he was wiling to talk. He accomplished great things because he was willing to push for great things and make the necessary sacrifices to do so.

Obama simply will not tell us what he would do to prepare America for dealing with the threat from Iran. In fact, he has defense advisers that have called for the elimination of massive funds from both our missile defense systems and our nuclear deterrent. This hardly sets the table for success in dealing with the Iranian mullahs and their missiles and bombs.

In addition, he takes an ill-mannered swipe at President Bush, decrying the lack of the administration’s diplomatic accomplishments. But let us review the record. The administration has successful secured international agreement to: (1) Secure the end of the ABM treaty peacefully; (2) Cut nuclear weapons in the Treaty of Moscow to the lowest levels since the 1950s; (3) Establish the Proliferation Security Initiative with some 80 nation members; and (4) Establish the Nuclear Terrorism Initiative with some 70 nations, led by the US and Russia.





The administration has also enlarged NATO peacefully with the full integration of former members of the Warsaw Pact; negotiated agreements with some two dozen nations, including Great Britain, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Japan, Australia, Germany and Italy, on cooperative missile defense deployments to protect the US and its allies from ballistic missile threats; secured the completion of major work on the Nunn-Lugar program coupled with securing an allied pledge to double spending on securing nuclear weapons material and most dramatically ended the nuclear weapons programs in Libya.

Senator Obama concludes his litany of complaints by claiming he always has said he will not talk with Hamas or Hezbollah, because, after all “they are terrorists”. Well enough. But he will talk with the leaders of Syria and Iran—even though they are nothing more than terrorist enterprises—state sponsors-- who’s wholly owned subsidiaries are: Hamas and Hezbollah!

The question remains Senator: saying you are for talk is cheap. It is no different than saying, as former Under Secretary of State John Bolton noted, that you are for spoons. Pointing fingers at your critics also doesn’t cut it. Claiming that Iran is not a threat because it is a tiny country is also irrelevant. North Korea and North Vietnam caused the death of nearly 100,000 American servicemen and women, and they are combined one-third the size of Iran. And how big a country is Al Qaeda? The question is: what are you going to do to meet these clear and present dangers? Senator McCain for certain gets this. You apparently don’t. Upon that question the future security of America rests.

###

Peter R. Huessy is currently the president of GeoStrategic Analysis, a defense and national security consulting business. In addition to writing for OpinionEditorials.com, he is also a guest lecturer, appearing at such fine institutions as the School of Advanced International Affairs, Johns Hopkins University, The Institute of World Politics, and The National War College. Mr. Huessy has spent his career working in government organizations and committees, such as the United Nations, The Environmental Fund, Department of the Interior, and the National Defense University Foundation.

geostrategicanalysis@comcast.net