ElBaradei Cashes In His Chips

Dr Mohamad ElBaradei, who has often seemed to be Iran's next best friend (in both the usual and lawyerly senses of the term) finally had an attack of blunt honesty in the waning days of his tenure as jefe grande of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA.) The Egyptian has graciously acknowledged that the IAEA's investigation of Iran's nuclear program has reached "a dead end."

This admission does not leave Iran bereft of support. China with enormous and growing investment in Iran's oil fields (120 gigabucks over the next five years with more memoranda of understanding in the pipeline) is more than ready to fill the role of next best friend. Even when faced with a clear message that the Iranian program is seen as "existential" with the consequences for China that implies, the Gnomes of Beijing have been unwilling to go further than not oppose a stiffly worded UN resolution deploring the Iranian lack of transparency and cooperation.

Whoopee! That will sure teach them mad mullahs that the "international community" is as serious as a heart attack about them and their quest for the "Mahdi bomb." You bettcha, bucko.

Dr ElBaradei bemoaned the intransigence of the Iranian regime. Evidently he is filled with sorrow over the failure of the Iranians to take advantage of this "humanitarian" moment by accepting the deal his people brokered some weeks ago. The Geek has to agree. It is such a tragedy that all sorts of Iranians in need of medical isotopes produced in the elderly US built reactor may waste away in misery as soon as the fuel runs out next year.

Perhaps Dr ElBaradei and the Chinese alike should be more concerned over what will happen if Israel sees no options other than either the acceptance of a nuclear armed Iran or taking what military actions it can to delay or end the nuclear effort. The effects of an Israeli attack no matter how carefully designed and skillfully executed will be bad for Iranians generally. It won't be much better for the rest of us.

The time when push comes to shove is not far in the future. Dr ElBaradei seems to have realized this. Perhaps he now regrets his overly polite and delicate handling of the so obviously tergiversatious Iranian government over the past several years. Perhaps he now thinks (realizes?) that the delicacy, the sensitivity, were misplaced and counterproductive. Perhaps he now understands that the Iranian mullahs and their governmental frontmen were working from a vastly different calculus of rationality than was he.

We won't know unless the (almost) former Director General writes memoirs which are a monument to both candor and introspection. By the time that hypothetical happens it will be too late for the Iranians and the world.

The IAEA having failed and the UN sanction effort giving every indication of having done the same the question remains, "What is to be done?" In large measure the answer to this question will be found in one of two places: Washington or Jerusalem.

The Israelis will wait a bit before informing the world as to their answer to the key question. However, the "bit" will not be inordinately long. Particularly if the efforts by the US and others to halt the 800 million dollar deal between Iran and Russia for the latter's S-300 air defense missile system is bootless.

There are limits to the US capacity to influence or pressure Israel into agreement with American policy requirements. The limits are quite constricted where the continued existence of the Israeli state is concerned.

Yes, the Israelis have developed and continue to develop an impressive defensive capacity against missile and rocket attacks. This process has been assisted by heavy American cooperation. Nonetheless, the Israelis recognize the limits of purely defensive systems, a purely defensive doctrine, a purely defensive way of waging war.

When the stakes are high--and none are higher than national survival--the attractions of an active, a very active, defense become overwhelming. Even if the odds are not good as regards total success they are no doubt to be preferred to the odds of overwhelming failure if the enemy gets there "firstest with the mostest."

Few analysts believe that an Israeli attack would do more than retard the Iranian effort by more than a few years with the concomitant of solidifying support for the current regime in Tehran. Further costs would be imposed both on Israel and the rest of the world by the inevitable Iranian riposte.

In the short run the task of dealing with Iran resides with the current occupant of the Oval. That is the place where the questions of what is to be done must be answered first. It is sincerely to be regretted that the response cannot be limited to the area where Mr Obama has shown the most talent: making speeches.

Rhetoric is not relevant. Neither is a very long process of "strategic review." Given the record to date, the use of economic sanctions is not particularly efficacious. Admittedly, the reality of sanctions has never been employed. The sanctions to date have not been designed to really hurt Iran and the Iranians. Additionally, the sanctions have been repeatedly infringed if not down right violated in a wholesale way by China, Russia, and commercial enterprises in Germany, France, Italy, the UK, and elsewhere.

Even if the sanctions already in place were to be imposed in the real as opposed to the hypothetical world it is doubtful they would impair the Iranian will and capacity to pursue the Atomic Grail with success. The same can be said of enhanced sanctions such as those which would hit the Iranian deficiency in refined petroleum products.

Even the most effective sanctions take time to become potent tools influencing the decision making of the target government. The time might simply not exist now.

Because of its failing to exploit the shokku felt by the Tehran regime in 2003 and then frittering away the years following in a wasteland of improperly executed policy in Iraq, the administration of W. Bush set up the US for failure in the great nuclear game with Iran. The successor administration has done nothing substantial to rectify the situation.

Arguably, there is nothing the Obama administration can do at this late date. The Chinese have become far more intransigent, and far more potent in the years since 2003. The same is true with the Russians. Neither has any real world reason to go along with US policy requirements--even though the Kremlin for purely domestic reasons may do so, up to a point.

During the same years the US failings in both Iraq (regardless of later redemption following the surge of 2007) and Afghanistan have severely, perhaps fatally, undercut the will and capacity of the president to use or even consider the use of military force. The advent of the Great Recession did nothing to make the aftermath of a military attack on Iran's nuclear and related target constellation any less unattractive.

Then there is the minor factor of President Obama's personality and priorities. The man is opposed to the messy realities of war. He is post-modern and thus believes such bumper sticker sentiments as "We are all passengers on spaceship Earth." (As French president Nicholas Sarkozy was reputed to have said, "Beam up, Barack.") This orientation is why the president is all for the international campaign against the newest bogey "anthropogenic climate change," but balks at making tough decisions regarding Afghanistan or taking an unapologetic, realistic look at life in the Mideast.

Beyond that, the priorities of the present administration are highly focused on the domestic side of life. The problems in that department are manifold and quite time and energy consuming. The one time community organizer finds enough risk, enough thrills, enough reward at home.

All of this implies that the current administration has made the non-decision decision to learn to live with a nuclear armed Iran while hoping that somehow, someway, somebody, perhaps divine providence, will take a hand and bring the Iranians to accept the US perspective. Since the latter is a little less likely than evil space invaders arriving and so bringing about true global harmony, the former seems the new default position regardless of oratory to the contrary.

The further implication is that Israel will take action in the not overly distant future. That country has little realistic alternative given the totality of the circumstances. Most important, perhaps, in that critical context is the demonstrated inability of the US to deal with the ever growing Iranian threat with any degree of effectiveness.

It pains the Geek to have watched the US slowly degrade in its global influence over the past decade, particularly the past five years. While far from purity in its motives and ambitions, the US was the best or at least least malignant candidate for leadership in a unipolar world.

The Bush/Cheney administration was correct in its assessment five and more years ago that the US was (to update the statement of Secretary of State Olney over a century ago) "practically sovereign in the world." It is to the detriment of the US and many other countries and peoples that the Bush/Cheney administration also frittered away this unparalleled position in a combination of hubris, arrogance, and mis-fought (Afghanistan) or mis-begotten (Iraq) wars.

Bouncing between ideological extremes, We the People compounded the disaster of decline by replacing the overly muscular neocon ninnies with the "progressives" headed by a very nice young man from Chicago who was both post-modern and hopelessly naive in the true ways of the world. In not quite a year the Obama administration has shown precisely what its predecessor demonstrated in not much more time--ideology is the natural and fatal disease of effective foreign policy and military affairs.

As history has shown since written records first existed, the only sort of foreign policy, the only form of military strategy, the only variety of diplomacy which works is one which is coldly realistic as to national interest and national power in all its forms. An over subscription to ideology of whatsoever stripe prevents reality from intruding its ugly head. And, that assures failure.

In all probability it is way too late, but it would be for the good of all if the American president would heed his French counterpart's urging, "Beam up, Barack!"

The Lesson For Today: Tough Beats Nice

The Russian Foreign Minister has taken the bland line that there has not yet been an "official" response from Tehran to the UN brokered deal on exchanging Iranian low enrichment uranium for more highly enriched reactor fuel. That was very, very diplomatic but basically irrelevant to the real world.

President Obama's public reaction was not much more realistic than that of the Russian ForMin.

During his final stop on the Asian Dud Tour, the Nice Young Man From Chicago averred that the US would be developing a package of "potential steps we can take that will indicate our seriousness."

What the hey! Has Mr Obama really, really quit smoking dope? Who does he think he is (a) threatening? or (b) kidding? "Potential steps" which just may "indicate" that the US takes the issue of the Iranian "Mahdi bomb" with "seriousness." What have we and other countries been doing the past several years--joking about the spinning centrifuges, the implosion design studies, the constant prevarications, the time-buying stalls?

You mean, Mr President, that the time has come to maybe get serious and do something?

Well, if that is the case the upcoming meeting at the "political director" level of the P5+1 should be short and conclusive. Of course, the palaver will not be short. Nor will it be conclusive.

Unless one considers the continuation of policy-as-usual to be conclusive. Given the abrupt way in which the Obama entreaties were given the yo-heave-ho by the Gnomes of Beijing and the bovine placidity shown by the Russian Foreign Minister, more of the same ole, same ole is already set to be the winner of the next round or rounds of P5+1 interactions.

No one, not even the diplomats with the most personal ego investment in the stillborn IAEA delivered deal can believe that their efforts will somehow, someway prove positive in the next few days or weeks. The deal is dead. Well, perhaps it still has a thin thready pulse which is barely detectable.

That sliver of life's potential exists courtesy of Turkey. The Turks could provide both a temporary storage site for the Iranian three percent uranium as well as the point of exchange between twenty percent enriched fuel plates and the stored uranium.

The Tehran regime has (somewhat grudgingly) admitted that the Turks unlike the Great Powers has not (a) done the Revolutionary Republic dirty, (b) reneged on past deals or contracts, (c) attempted to overthrow or otherwise compromise the Reign of the Mullahs or (d) engaged in generalized anti-Islamic activities. Thus the Tehran Toughies may be willing to turn over the bulk of their enriched uranium to Turkish custody.

The West and Russia, perhaps even China, would allow that modification to the original undertaking as it adds no risk of proliferation--particularly if the Turks allow IAEA monitoring as would seem likely. Russian and France could then work out the mechanism for exchange of twenty percent uranium, the provision of reactor ready fuel assemblies, and the final receipt of the Iranian goods. Technically, this is a more difficult way to do things, but there is no reason in principle why it would not work.

The Turkish custody option would be the final test of Iranian political good will. If Tehran rejects it that act proves to even the most Iranophilic observer that the Tehran regime's intentions have been less than honorable all along. If, to the contrary, the mullahs and their frontmen go along with this modification it buys some time to deal diplomatically with the still unresolved issue of nuclear intents and compliance with the NPT regime.

The important ground truth in all this brouhaha is that any exchange program under whatsoever detailed plan is only a means of purchasing time. Unless and until all parts of the Iranian nuclear program are brought under complete and effective IAEA supervision can their be any let down of guard against latent Iranian nuclear weapons ambitions.

The completion of any deal on the current Iranian uranium stockpile in no way does anything beyond providing another "decent" interval for diplomatic and political processes to work. Or not. Certainly there are no indications from Tehran of any lessening of political will to gain their end goals of regional hegemon and global actor.

Any reading of the rules of the global great game shows that the possession of nuclear weapons immunizes a regime against Great Power threats. Tehran has long watched (probably with more than a slight tinge of envy) the way in which Islamabad has wagged and wiggled the US.

Conclusion? Those with nukes can get what they want. Those without the Big Bang will get the shaft.

The Iranians have also learned another very, very important and quite basic truth about how the great game of nations is played. Toughness and resolve matter more than the realities of military, economic, or diplomatic power.

Of course, in the case of Iran, the presence of diplomatic supporters such as China and Russia have made the appearance of toughness and resolve all the easier to adopt and maintain. Even if Russia should change tack and support yet more sanctions, the Chinese will not. Thus Iran is safe in being as tough talking and resolute acting as the mullahs wish.

There are lessons for the US in all of this. The first lesson is also the most obvious: Niceness does not matter. Nice nations are far more likely to finish last than nice guys. The second is a corollary of the first: Toughness trumps. This does not mean it is necessary to be a global, unilateral bully but rather it is necessary to take a stance which is unmistakable and unambiguous, and to put that stance into effect with consistency and resolve.

The third lesson is not quite so open air transparent. Point three is the interrelationship of the world, particularly the Great Powers. When Bill Clinton handed the key to the American market without appropriate safeguards for our national interests, he and his successor assured that the Chinese would be willing, able, and eager to thwart American interests if doing so advanced their own. Ten years ago Beijing would have supported, or at least not blocked, sanctions against Iran. Now, they can do so with total impunity as regards American responses and with profit as regards their interests in Iran and the surrounding region.

Had not Bush/Cheney been so lame of mind as to treat Russia as a defeated rival worth only of disdain, scorn, and hortatory advice, the Kremlin might well have been less obstructionist in its approach to Iran. The nice words which Mr Obama and others in his administration have poured in the general direction of Moscow have not and will not reverse the harm done by Bush/Cheney.

To reverse the harm and structure a working relationship with Russia requires a combination of treating the Kremlin as a Great Power--as great a Great Power as we believe ourselves to be--with the capacity to be firm, resolved and ever-so-politely tough. Respect, predictability, and a well concealed fist join to provide the basis for a relationship in which intersecting national interests can be pursued with overall positive effect.

Mr Obama, listen up and listen tight. True, you did not want to be a foreign policy president; true, you have little interest in, knowledge of, or flair for foreign policy. It isn't like community organizing on a grand scale. You are sorry about that. So is the Geek.

Still, you are a bright, young, and ambitious man. So, there is time to learn the most important lesson of all in the Great Game of Nations: A nice smile and the crowd's applause will not foreign policy successes make. No, that takes a grim sort of guile and an understanding that one can be tough without being George W. Bush or Dick Cheney.

Let's Gang Up On Israel--One More Time

The Parade Marshal was Iran. The Drum and Bugle Corps included all the Arab states. Marching in line were a number of the so-called "lesser developed" countries. Joining in for the fun were China and "listen-more-closely-to-US-concerns" Russia.

The festivities were conducted by the 150 members of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at the annual meeting of this august (and questionably neutral) body. The guest of honor was Israel.

Israel along with India and Pakistan has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and this has exercised the collective outrage of the "international community"--or, to err on the side of accuracy, forty-nine components of that alleged "community." Forty-five other states including the US refused to join in the collective display of displeasure and sixteen apparently could not decide whether or not they were incensed by Israel's non-participation in the NPT.

To nobody's surprise the Iranian delegate to the IAEA crowed about what a great day this was for the Palestinian people and what "a glorious moment" the vote was. Presumably it was a good day for the Man From Mullahland as it took the spotlight for a brief instant off the Iranian pursuit of the "Mahdi Bomb" and focused it on the "Zionist Entity."

The Israeli possession of a sizable nuclear arsenal is the world's worst kept secret although the government of the country never has confirmed nor denied its existence. Instead the government of Israel has repeatedly and coyly maintained it would never be the first to "introduce" nuclear weapons to the Mideast. Whatever that might mean.

It is a debatable point as to whether or not the production and maintenance of nuclear weapons has increased or decreased Israeli security. When the decision to embark upon a nuclear procurement program was made back in the days when Ike was in the White House and Israel was both outnumbered and outgunned by the assorted Arab states, it was (correctly) seen as a necessary and prudential precaution.

The US turned a semi-Nelsonian eye to the Israeli developments during the days of Camelot and its successor, the LBJ administration. The Israeli nuclear program developed quickly and successfully using means both fair and foul--including the "theft" of yellowcake shipments. By the time of the Yom Kippur War of 1973, the Israelis had a significant nuclear capability.

One result of this capacity was its threatened use of the "Sampson Option," which caused the Nixon administration to strip US stockpiles of needed conventional arms and supply critical intelligence to the Israelis. The rapid American re-supply effort was responsible in part for the breathtakingly rapid reversal of Israeli fortunes on the ground in Sinai and, even more importantly, on the Golan Heights.

The US and the Soviet Union both feared the consequences of the Israelis employing the "Samson Option" more than they did even the potential of a direct confrontation, so Moscow backed down from its rhetorical threats as its own sources confirmed the Israeli threat was both real and imminent. From the Israeli perspective, having nukes paid off even when not used.

Israel has nothing to gain and everything to lose by joining the NPT. There is no inducement the US or any other country can provide which would cause Israel to rethink its position on nuclear weapons. Jews learned the very hard way seventy years ago that when push comes to shove, they are on their own. And, no one should forget that a prime reason for the establishment of Israel was to provide a sure and certain final redoubt for Jews of the world.

The Iranian quest for nuclear weapons makes it far more impossible for Israel to set aside a policy which has served it well for decades. The Iranian bomb may or may not be an existential threat to Israel--no less an authority than Defense Minister Barak asserted it was not just the other day. However, given the display of vitriol on the part of Ahemdinejad at the al-Quds Day celebrations in Tehran, it would be foolhearty in the extreme to bet the life of the country on the goodwill or good sense of the mullahs.

The majority was predicated on a pair of false assumptions. One was simply the old theme of "Muslim solidarity." The other was the bogus belief on the part of many nuclear have-not nations that the US and other nuclear powers sought to control access to nuclear technology for their own economic benefit. It might be noted in passing that the US--with the exception of the recent agreement between it and India--is and has not been a major exporter of nuclear equipment and technology. Both the French and the Russians have been far, far more active in this area.

The US and other Western countries may be cautious in who buys equipment and knowledge from them. This is for good reason. These countries are the most likely to become the targets of weapons either nuclear or radiological which may derive from these sales. Russia is less worried. The Kremlin may be wrong in its view, only time will tell.

In any event, countries with a presumed need for access to nuclear technology which possess the means to pay and membership in the NPT have and will continue to have no real problem in acquiring the equipment and knowledge they desire. It is, after all, a profit deal for the vendors.

A related question is simply that of the effectiveness and impartiality of the IAEA. Recent disclosures, particularly that of the "secret annex" to the last IAEA report on Iran, show a startling lack of impartiality or even attention to duty on the part of the IAEA senior leadership. Given the record of Dr ElBaredi on the Iranian question, there is little if any reason to trust the IAEA in the discharge of its responsibility to detect and prevent violations of the NPT.

Only time can tell if the new regime at IAEA will be any more efficient and less partisan than the outgoing one. But the reality continues: If the IAEA cannot be fully trusted, if the IAEA cannot resist the siren song of ideology or ethnic loyalities, the NPT is a dead letter.

It was the perceived partisanship or blatant ineffectiveness of the IAEA which prompted Israel to abate potential nuclear nuisances in Iraq nearly thirty years ago and Syria last year. It may also eventually necessitate a similar but far more risky and costly operation directed against Iran.

Nuclear proliferation is a reality. It is one which grows with each failure of IAEA to do its task fully and effectively. It grows with every successful evasion of the NPT by states such as North Korea.

While some countries such as South Africa, Brazil, and even Libya have publicly abandoned their quest for nukes, there are others who seek to acquire the Big Bomb. Arguably, there are more of the latter than the former.

Instead of meaningless grandstanding, the members of the IAEA should be investing their efforts into protecting themselves from future planting of nuclear mushrooms by making the NPT and the IAEA more effective. Israel is a done deal. Deal with those yet to come. Deal with the threats yet to emerge--now before it is too late to do so.

Golly! Gee! You Mean We Can't Trust The IAEA?

For a long, long time (say about the past six years) there has been more than a few sneaking suspicions that the outgoing director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been shading the truth about what was going on in Iran. It has been easy to poo-poo these suspicions as being mere prejudice based on Dr Mohammad ElBaradi's religious affiliation and ethnic background.

It would be tempting to dismiss the latest allegations of ElBaradi having massaged and manipulated the publicly released quarterly reports on Iran's "compliance" with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as they emanate from Israel. While it is quite true that Israel is anything but a disinterested party in the ongoing Iranian nuclear contretemps, this does not mean the odor of hanky-panky in the reports department is an artifact, a creation of Israeli propagandists.

At the present, Israel has less rather than more reason to escalate its differences with the soon-to-leave ElBaradi or the IAEA. The reason for this assessment rests in the recent demand by the Arab League that the UN entity force Israel under its purview. To this end the Arab League has requested the backing of the European Union. Many, if not all, the member countries of the EU have been tilting more and more against Israel in recent years, so the possibility of the Arab demarche receiving European support is far from remote.

In the past Israel has been quiet and careful in its criticism of ElBaradi. This caution would be expected to be extended given the Arab League move and the necessity of allowing the incoming IAEA Director-General, the Japanese diplomat Yukiya Amano, a chance to get up and running. It would have been far more in keeping with past precedent if the Israelis (or the Americans) discretely hinted that the new broom ought to sweep the doubts of the past aside by putting the full reports including the classified annexes on the public record.

Unless the Israelis (and the US among others) are already convinced that for some set of unknown reasons Yukiya Amano has already committed himself to keeping the lid on the past, there is no reason to raise the issue of ElBaradi's candor and forthrightness now--other than to make certain that the full facts are on the open table prior to the late September deadline for an Iranian gesture of compliance. If the suspicions and allegations of ElBaradi having shaded the public truth are demonstrated to have been correct, the result may well be a shift in public opinion in both Western Europe and the US to favor more robust actions to insure Iran does not get the bomb.

It has long been an open secret that the US and the UK among others have not trusted the ElBaradi regime. The legacy of distrust goes back to the days just before the American invasion of Iraq. At that time the Bush/Cheney administration frankly and flatly tossed aside the conclusions of the IAEA and other inspection groups regarding the Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Dr ElBaradi was hacked off by this cavalier dismissal--with good reason as events later showed. It is for this reason that he may have chosen to soften the edges of harsh truth regarding Iran. The process by which the Director-General prepares the reports provides ample opportunity for distorting the findings of the inspection teams under the Safeguards Office.

Another possibility for Israel having gone public right now is the utterly preposterous demand by Iran that the IAEA take up its proposal to ban all attacks by anyone, anywhere, at any time on nuclear facilities. With a presumably straight face the Iranians risibly maintain this demand is not prompted by any fear of an Israeli attack on their nuke plants.

Oh, no, not at all. Fer sure, dudes. The Iranians have been present all along during the decade or so during which the IAEA has debated proposals banning attacks on nuclear facilities which might liberate radioactivity into the atmosphere. All these proposals have been blocked, not by the US seeking to maintain its so-called "nuclear hegemony," but by all the nuclear powers. The various rationales have been confusing, incoherent, and often contradictory but all reflect the basic reality that no nuclear power is willing to limit its targeting options such as to preclude the pre-emptive neutralisation of unlaunched nuclear weapons.

The re-awakening of doubts regarding the candor and capacity of the IAEA under the twelve years of Dr ElBaradi's stewardship is a good way of refocusing attention on Iran and the danger it may soon present not simply to Israel or even the region but the world. It is also a fine way to focus the attention of the incoming Director-General in case he harbors any intention of replicating the ElBaradi mode of operation.

Whatever Dr ElBaradi's intentions and motives may have been (and the Geek is not psychologist enough to speculate on the many potentials), the consequences of having shaded, or, at the least, being seen as having shaded the truth on Iran, has been counterproductive. The ability of the IAEA to function, as was noted by the man behind its creation, President Dwight Eisenhower, is its inherent credibility. Should ElBaradi be shown to have sacrificed credibility, to have rendered ambiguous that which should have been clear, stark, he will have thrown away the credibility of the organisation.

Without total, unquestioned, and unquestionable credibility, the IAEA loses its potential to slow the race to nuclear weapons, which is well underway from Tehran to Pyongyang to Rangoon. Without credibility of the highest, most unimpeachable sort, the vision of a nuclear free world articulated most recently by President Obama fades further in the fog of self-perceived, self-defined national interest.

The very fact that doubts and questions regarding the completeness, the accuracy, the truth of the ElBaradi authorised public reports on Iran demands that the US move with dispatch and effectiveness to assure the rapid, full release of all reports including the initially classified annexes from the Safeguards Office. If it turns out that the ElBaradi regime did play fast and loose with the truth, at least that can be shown to be a fact of the past.

The US was a strong backer of the incoming Director-General. The US must exert all necessary persuasion on the new man to make utterly sure that no future massaging, manipulation, or bending of hard truths occurs. Without these actions, there is no way that the world will see less rather than more mushroom clouds in the future.

It's Official! North Korea Is In Nuclear Club--Yawn

Apparently a passel of experts ranging from the International Atomic Energy Authority to assorted intelligence services including those of the US have belatedly gone public with a declaration of the obvious. North Korea is a nuclear power.

Wowie! Zowie! What a surprise. The Profound Analysts have pondered the matter long and hard and have decided that the Hermit Kingdom of the North has shrunk an implosion device to the size necessary to be boosted on one of its medium to intermediate range ballistic missiles. It is not as if this development was either unanticipated or, for that matter, awesomely productive of anxiety.

Japan, South Korea and the US way over-subscribed their production norm for anxiety over the recent (unsuccessful) launch of a militarily incompetent liquid fueled ICBM equivalent launch vehicle. Why these governments went exo-atmospheric over a test launch which has no relevance to any escalation of North Korea's military capacity while issuing only the most subtle and vague heads-up over the Dear Leader and the Hermits having mastered the technology of weaponizing their plutonium stockpile defies rational analysis.

Suffice it to say that there are nuclear powers and then there are nuclear powers. The possession of a half-dozen warheads amenable to delivery over ranges of less than 1,500 nautical miles does not place a country on the same level as Russia, China or even, at the lower end of the spectrum, India and Pakistan.

The minimal capacity of the North Koreans is within the ability of current generation anti-ballistic missile systems to handle without leaks to a very, very high level of confidence. Given that neither Japan nor South Korea, the two countries at greatest hypothetical risk of a North Korean nuclear strike, have raised a mighty ruckus over this development indicates that neither sees itself as being unduly threatened.

As long as North Korea has a couple of dozen or fewer delivery systems which are mobile, quick reaction and easily hardened in nature, it presents no unmanageable threat. Any potential Hermit Kingdom menace is not enhanced by the realisation that not even its well-tunneled mountains would provide a sufficient protection against the inevitable retaliation. Even in the (likely) event that China demurred from any robust response to the worst imaginable case of a nuclear attack by the North upon either or both South Korea and Japan, the US would be obligated to take all necessary actions.

Even if the US were not ready and willing to launch against the Hermit Kingdom of the North (which is possible given the direction of the upper atmospheric winds), there is no and can be no certainty of that in Pyongyang. It is even (barely) conceivable that the Russians would decide to smack the annoying lads in the Hermit Kingdom. It must be recalled that the Kremlin has not felt well disposed to Pyongyang since the promises of Great Leader Kim came a cropper in late summer 1950.

The limited number of credible delivery systems available to the North either today or in the near- to mid-term future coupled with the relative ease and efficiency of contemporary ABM systems and the probability of harsh retaliation assures that the status of nuclear power adds no weight to North Korean diplomacy. The nukes have added no real bite to the bark of Pyongyang. Seoul and Tokyo appreciate this. So does Washington. (So, we can be sure do the men of the Forbidden City and the Masters of the Kremlin.)

Any real threat from North Korea is of the indirect nature and has been neither increased nor diminished by the public acknowledgement of the North as a nuclear state. Dear Leader and the Hermits are cash poor--very, very cash poor. They have little to sell. Except military technology.

There are buyers for what the North has to sell. Whether missiles or their components or nuclear production expertise, there is a ready market. The Pyongyang regime has not been at all reluctant to sell missile systems and components in the past. This is true regardless of the position of the "international community" as well as any "sanction regime."

The Northerners do not have sufficient supplies of plutonium or highly enriched uranium to engage in commodity sales. They do not have an industrial capacity which would allow the export sales of turnkey plutonium "factories." And, the Israeli Air Force has demonstrated the risks involved in the export of nuclear reactors--particularly those obviously skewed to the production of plutonium.

But, the Northerners have the knowledge necessary to aid others in making their own fissionable materials. Their own deliverable nuclear devices. Given the information oriented nature of the "post-modern" economy, the Hermits have the most desirable, most easily sold and exported goodies of all. (Ahh, let's hear it for intellectual property. The key ingredient of the new world.)

The quality and utility of North Korea's intellectual property as it pertains to nuclear weapons has not been altered by the official recognition of the country having become a member in some sort of standing in the nuclear club. However, the market value of the property may have been enhanced by the tip of the collective hat given to the Hermits.

There is not a diddly that the US (or the "international community") can do to roll back reality. There is precious little that can be done in the line of retarding, let alone totally restricting North Korea's ability to reconstitute its plutonium production capacity.

The only player with sufficient leverage, at least in principle, to modify North Korea's plans in the nuclear venue is China. So far Beijing has not seen it to be worth its while to do more than enter into a tad of palaver with the Hermits.

As long as Pyongyang limits itself to a modest number of warheads and delivery systems and makes no snarls in the direction of China, there is little, if any likelihood that Beijing will change its policy. There is nothing in it for them.

By staying on the sidelines, doing as little to promote sanctions as possible and making occasional noises of chastisement in the general direction of Pyongyang, China can monitor, perhaps even guide the North Korean export trade in nuclear and missile knowledge. This approach keeps North Korea in its essential and time-honored role of buffer and periodic proxy.

That's a low-risk, relatively high-payoff game for the Chinese to play. Don't expect them to change. And, get a grip on it, without a Chinese change there will be no "flexibility" in the Pyongyang branch of the nuclear club.

May You Live In Interesting Times--And We Do

The ancient Chinese toast (and curse) is sure alive and well today. It seems that wherever a person looks on the international scene, feces and air impeller are colliding with typically unpredictable but nasty effect.

Consider the oil price game. Benchmark crude oil prices on the spot market have dipped as low as thirty-seven bucks the barrel. Great news, right?

Sure. For Americans it is better than the assorted economic stimulus packages presented by pork merchants and ideologues in Washington. For those who produce oil the news sure ain't as one color good.

Even Saudi Arabia and others in the Gulf Coordination Council need a steady base price in the sixty to seventy dollar range to maintain their expansive budgets. Iran, Venezuela and even Russia need higher prices given their ambitions in the military hardware department.

While the difficulties present for these later three countries may bring smiles of relief to Americans, the situation is not so simple. As economic pinching becomes more acute, governments historically have had a difficult time resisting the impulse to direct attention elsewhere. Say, at a "threat" to national survival or ambition.

While it is possible that Russia has matured sufficiently that the Putin Crew can resist tossing threats at the "Imperialist Camp," the lads in the Kremlin will nonetheless prove more rather than less difficult in diplomatic dealings over the short- to mid-term. The situation with respect to the other two bad boys of the oil producing world is not so straightforward given that neither regime has been noted for responsible, adult conduct of a consistent nature.

Iran is the much larger problem child. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has apparently known for three months that the figures it had regarding the Iranian production of low enrichment uranium (LEU) were based on "miscalculations." These Iranian miscalculations were cleared up back in November, but the IAEA only very recently released the new figures.

While many diplomats, nuclear observers and the like professed shock, there was no reason for these protestations of surprise. The information available from open sources demonstrated clearly that the Iranians would reach "breakout" level of LEU production early this year. The IAEA has confirmed this conclusion, reporting that the spinning centrifuges of the mullahocracy have manufactured a metric ton of LEU.

Reaching the minimum "breakout" level of LEU means that the Iranians could now, in principle, switch to the production of highly enriched uranium (HEU.) The mullahs now have the feedstock necessary to produce the twenty-five kilograms nominally necessary for a Mahdi Bomb.

Sure, to do this the Iranian government would have to toss the IAEA inspectors out, set more centrifuges a-spinning and generally make it evident to the world what they were doing. A rational actor might not be expected to take such a risk considering just how many nation-states are arrayed in potential (robust) opposition to this move.

Before we comfort ourselves with that view, we best get a grip on the number of times Revolutionary Iran has taken risks which have paid off. We also best get a grip on the unpleasant ground truth that the men who run the mullahocracy are possessed of an eschatological view which is frankly apocalyptic in nature.

Iran is also making some interesting noises regarding the view from Tehran regarding Bahrain. In language which is eerily reminiscent of that used by Saddam Hussein in the run-up to his invasion of Kuwait, the mullahocracy (or at least its designated spokesmen) have been describing the small country as Iran's "Fourteenth Province."

Bahrain has a microscopic population (roughly 750,000 a third of which is non-native.) The majority of the Bahrainis are Shia. Iran has successfully sponsored two pro-Iranian political associations in the country. Against this the Bahrain government's two thousand man police force has stopped a number of Tehran-backed terrorist actions and may have penetrated the hostile political groups effectively. Beyond this the government has moved to include Shias in the government and meet some--but not all by a long way--of the impoverished Shia majority's economic needs.

Saudi Arabia has, at least rhetorically, extended its protection over Bahrain, but that is a very thin deterrent shield given the House of Sand's past record, as in the Gulf War. The US Fifth Fleet operates out of Bahrain so the American umbrella is present, but not necessarily, given the gestalt of reality today, credible enough.

All on its lonely own Iran is a sufficiently unpredictable and occasionally irrational actor to assure the times today would be more than merely interesting. Of course, Iran has company--and plenty of it.

There is North Korea. The Hermit Kingdom of the North seems to be locked in a perpetual case of the "terrible twos," tossing one international temper tantrum after another. The latest one is ostensibly the result of South Korea's conservative Lee Administration having cast a chill on relations between North and South.

More likely there is a form of regime change occurring in the Hermit Kingdom of the North. Even if the Dear Leader (who has never been a monument to stable, responsible behavior) is alive and more-or-less well, there is sufficient reason to posit that more robust, hard-line types are calling many, if not all, the shots.

The country is broke, many of its people literally famished. North Korea needs massive amounts of foreign aid. But, the aid must come without attached conditions or foreign monitors of any sort or nationality. The aid must be provided not as a matter of humanitarian charity but as a "free-will offering" between equals.

In short, the leadership cadre intends to coerce what the country needs. The temper tantrums involving the far-from-settled nuclear problem or the perspective launch of the made in North Korea ICBM constitute a form of international protection racket. Like the two year old in the grocery store, the North Koreans will stop their tantrum if they get enough candy from the rack.

Of course, as any parent knows, giving in to the tantrum simply encourages a sequel. As between people so it is with nations, peace can be bought but only at an ever increasing price.

Ah, the times they just get more and more interesting.

Over in Pakistan, matters of peace are progressing as expected. Fazlullah has "reservations" about the agreement entered into by his "moderate" father-in-law, Sufi Muhammad. The nature of the reservations have not been dilated upon but will be soon in an upcoming meeting between the several parties of Taliban in Swat, government in Islamabad and the in-laws. What do you want to bet that Fazlullah demands more Sharia and less Islamabad in Malakand?

In Islamabad anonymous US Embassy wallahs are favoring the agreement between government and the Taliban-in-Swat crew. They (apparently honestly) think (if that is the right word) the agreement will somehow drive a wedge between the less "extremist" Fazlullah and the more "extremist" Taliban types in the FATA. One may be forgiven if one gets the impression the folks in the embassy have been sampling some of the crops grown in Afghanistan.

In a further, quite delightful wrinkle, "mainstream" Islamists (whatever that term might mean in the Pakistani context) have made a serious proposal to the government. The proposal? That Pakistan cozy up to China in order to escape "the clutches" of the US. These "mainstream" Islamists argue that both China and Pakistan are "victims" of a "US conspiracy." Perhaps they too have been testing the commodities from Afghanistan, but being Islamists that would be scarcely necessary.

Ah, Pakistan, on its own, the folks there would make the current times more than sufficiently interesting.

In Afghanistan the situation continues to go down the tubes. The decision by the Obama Administration to place another 17,000 pairs of US boots on the ground is as welcome as it is late in coming. One can only hope that the boots are on the feet of combat soldiers and not a plethora of REMFs. Guns in the hands are needed, even more than boots on the ground, if Taliban and al-Qaeda are to be denied a military victory.

NATO will be providing more warm bodies, but few of these will be in uniform and even fewer possessed of guns and the authority to shoot them. NATO will be furnishing civilians to "improve the government" (which is desperately needed to be sure,) "improve the justice system" (as if there is any meaningful crossover between Sharia or the Quran on the one hand and European legal systems on the other,) "staunch corruption" (good luck on that one unless the US and other countries decriminalise narcotic drugs,) and "fight drug trafficking" (ah, fer sure, dudes.) All these may be worthy goals, but none are really relevant in the midst of a war which is being lost by the putative good guys.

It deserves noting in the Afghanistan context that Iran has offered assistance. An Iranian vice-president has stated that the Iranian government and businesses stand ready to "pour" investment funds into the country in infrastructure and similar projects. Who says that Iran, broke or not, fails to make large plans and have grand ambitions?

Al-Shabab seems more than ready to go all the way and then some in its pursuit of Sharia Paradise on Earth in the geographical expression called Somalia. Their ranks increased by teenage jihadists from Europe and the US (particularly from the huge Somali refugee communities in Minnesota (of all places,) al-Shabab is willing to accept the Sufi and moderate Sunni challenge.

The refugee stream which will inevitably result from a widening of the sectarian warfare will have a profound effect on Kenya and other neighboring countries. The impact of the refugees will be at least equal to and will probably surpass that of people fleeing Zimbabwe for South Africa and other "frontline" states. You can hear the cries for immediate assistance for the "humanitarian crisis" ringing loud and long from the bootless African Union and the High Minded of the UN.

What with Sudan/Darfur, Somalia, and Zimbabwe, Africa would be sufficient to assure that we live in interesting times.

But, there are more. There is Palestine. There is Israel with a new even more to the Right government. There is the underlying war of Islamism against the ideals and worldviews of the West. There are the profound and long lasting effects of the global economic disaster against which the measures of the US and EU governments have not proven efficacious as yet.

The Geek reckons that right now, the interesting times referred to by the Chinese toast or curse falls squarely on the curse side.

What about you? How do you see our interesting times?

Some Countries Are Amusing and Some Are Dangerous

Iran is both.

Underneath its risible surface Iran is a lethal menace. The Iranian mullahocracy and the government which fronts for it is a weapon pointed at its own citizens. The same deadly duo is a life threatening condition for the Mideast.

And, potentially, for the world as a whole.

Given the recent remarks by Ayatollah Ahmed Elmalhoda that feminists are "whores and foreign spies," the Geek expects the count of female corpses to grow in the Islamic Republic as Stalwart Defenders of the Faith execute these vile suborners of the Revolution and the Will of Allah. For details see, http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=1.0.2200287203.

The Ayatollahs'take on feminism would simply be bitterly amusing were it not for the past record of the regime in blocking Internet sites seen somehow as facilitating the Tehran described "destabilizing" agendas of foreign governments sponsoring feminism as subversion. The potential for humor is drained by the simple reality that the mullahocracy's hatred and fear of women allows the continuation of a policy of death by stoning despite official avowals that the barbaric practice had been made illegal. (As if hanging, decapitation or shooting somehow made the killing of women for adultery any less primitive, barbaric and savage.)

Iran's threat to the peace and stability of the Mideast has been made abundantly clear in recent days by the success of its proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon as well as the meeting over the weekend between the Defense Ministers of Iran and Syria.

The Iranian threat to the region is also behind the recent interest in developing nuclear energy by the majority of the Mideast countries led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt. All of these eager seekers after the nuclear grail have taken the same line as the Iranians--they only want splittable atoms for the peaceful production of electricity.

Yeah. Right. And, "The check is in the mail," or "I'll call you tomorrow, babe."

Iranian nuclear ambitions also threaten the peace of the world. According to the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) the report cannot be made public (see the IAEA website http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2008/iranreport0508.html.) The New York Times along with about half the world's mainstream media have copies.

The NYT gave the report above the fold billing and quoted its tough language. Take a look--http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/world/middleeast/27iran.html?th&emc=th.

It comes as no shock that the Mouthpiece of the Revolution, PRESS-TV, saw the report as another IAEA award for Transparency in the Pursuit of Peace Loving Atoms. That view is at http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=57458&sectionid=351020104.

The Iranian Republic News Agency was more restrained--by Iranian standards downright understated in its well below the fold coverage. http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-20/0805279642004910.htm.

Regardless of framing, the underlying reality remains unchanged. Iran is seeking independent enrichment of uranium. It is installing new design, domestically fabricated high efficiency centrifuges. Foreign intelligence sources including but not limited to the US point at basic work conducted to provide effective weaponization of a uranium based bomb.

The mullahocracy has countered only by vitrupitation, denials and diversions such as the proposal for a conference that would include not only nuclear matters but regional concerns generally and Iranian worries about Venezuela and Bosnia.

What really makes Iran dangerous is not the nuclear stalemate per se.

No. What makes the mullahocracy and its facade government dangerous is the rapidity with which Iran is imploding economically, socially and politically.

For two years and more, capital has been fleeing Iran at an ever accelerating rate. This flight has been complemented by economic policies that can, at best, be characterized as suicidal. As a result, Iran is on the verge of uncontrollable hyperinflation.

For the moment Iran (along with Venezuela, its cohort in flirting with hyperinflation as well as partner in a recently announced joint bank) has been protected from its own economic throat slitting by the rise in oil prices. But, that rise is not unending. Indeed, it may have already ended without an extra barrel being pumped from the lands of OPEC.

Few governments have long survived hyperinflation.

Iran is also facing other internal problems. Unemployment is high and growing higher. At the least the national rate is twenty-five percent with higher percentages among the urban population generally and youth. The escalation in global food prices, in part caused by the rise in oil, is hitting a very large segment of the Iranian population very, very hard.

Another round of UN sanctions or even a more rigid enforcement of the sanctions regime currently in place will push the Iranian economy over the edge. The underlying discontent with the aging mullahocracy will be strongly exacerbated by the increase in the economic misery index.

When faced with a strong possibility of internal unrest, including violent opposition to the regime, governments have often sought to displace anger and frustration onto an external target. The Geek is certain that you can all think of examples.

The mullahocracy and its governmental talking dummies have already been taking that route. The "Zionist enemy" gets its unfair share of abuse daily. So also do the "Imperial powers" with the Great Satan at their head. Now, the feminists have been added to the list.

Rhetorical violence has its limits. At some point mere words do not counter the anger at the regime. Action is needed. Action that will both unify people behind government and vent the power of fear and hate.

The violence can be internally directed. Stone some women. Hang some "spies." Shoot some "traitors to the revolution."

However, unless the conditions that produced the original fear and anger are not addressed, even the most robust internal displacement measures will lose effect.

Considering the record to date of the Iranian mullahs, it is not too likely that things will improve in Shia Land.

External displacement measures will be necessary. In the words of an old Marx Brothers movie, "You realise, gentlemen, this means war!"

Of course the mullahs realise that.

Not that they care.

One way or another the theocracy is going to plunge down the tubes. At least in a war there is some chance to go down with glory.

And, come to think of it, since war is never predictable as to outcome, there is even some chance, Allah Willing, that the regime would come through intact.

The Geek Is Getting Rankled!

Previous posts show that the Geek is no cheerleader for the mullahocracy in Tehran. They have also demonstrated that the Geek is no war lover even though he accepts that war has its place in the spectrum of foreign policy.

Most of all, the sum of the Geek's posts underscore his utter contempt for policy decisions that are rooted (if that word is relevant in this context) in the gonads and viscera. Policies decisions that ignore historical trajectories. Policy choices that emerge from a vile combination of hopes or fears and domestic political calculations.

This brings the Geek to Iran. More particularly it brings the Geek to the subject of the Republicans vs the Mullahs.

At the often ignored center of the current confrontation between the Commander Guy on the one side and the Orator-in-Chief on the other is the International Atomic Energy Agency and its present director, Mohammed ElBaradei. The IAEA is charged with the responsibility of assuring member nations abide by the provisions of the treaties governing the peaceful use of atomic energy and nuclear weapon non-proliferation.

Get a grip on this.

The IAEA exists because the United States called it into existence.

"What!" You say.

That's right. Fifty years ago this year, President Dwight Eisenhower, in what many both at the time and later considered his finest speech, called upon the United Nations to create an agency dedicated to bringing atomic energy's potentials for benefit to all the nations of the world. He pledged not only complete American cooperation but even the provision of nuclear knowledge, technology, and materials for use under the agency's supervision.

Ike needed to use massive political arm twisting here at home to force changes in the extremely restrictive American laws governing nuclear matters. He did it. The laws were changed. The IAEA came into existence.

When asked about the IAEA years later, Ike reportedly looked out the window of his Gettysburg home, mused for a moment and answered with his famous smile, "It's working better than I hoped."

Taken as a whole, the IAEA has worked remarkably well over its fifty year life so far. It seems to be working rather well even with the obvious Iranian intransigence right now. Arguably, it would work even better if the current administration let it do its job.

It is reported that Mohammed ElBaradei sees no evidence of the Iranians being anywhere near the possession of an atomic bomb. In a companion remark, the IAEA head shows an appropriate degree of skepticism, "We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization. That's why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks." (Quote from The International Herald Tribune on-line http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/28/america/NA-GEN-US-Iran.php.)

The skeptical view is well taken. Iran has been playing games from hell over their self-proclaimed peaceful project to produce electricity. Given their record of obfuscation, tergiversation, and flat out lying, anything less would be foolhardy. (Now comes the big, BUT.)

Skepticism is not what the current administration has been exhibiting in recent months and weeks. Instead, the current administration has been acting as if it had proof-positive that the Iranians were not only seeking to obtain nuclear weapons but were on the very verge of doing so.

Unless one wishes to posit that the chest-thumping, crotch-pulling stridency coming from the mouths of the Commander Guy, the Veep, and assorted presidential wannabes is simply a successful attempt to boost oil company profits by driving the spot-market price of crude to record highs, the only explanation for their behavior is cognitive deficiency.

Kind of a "don't bother me with wimpy little facts, I wanna kick some ass" attitude. This sort of orientation might make both the utterer of threats and many of the audience feel good, but it is not the sort of approach that has shown positive results historically.

Get a grip on this--

Outside pressure consolidates the cohesion and political will of the target government and its citizens, (Think about how you make a snowball.)

Yeah, bucko, that's right. Pick up a handful of loose snow. Press it. Press it long enough and hard enough, the flakes become a solid mass. Press on it long enough and hard enough and what happens?

That's right. The snowball becomes an ice ball.

Repeat after the Geek, "Pressure consolidates long before it fractures."

Did that? Good. Now you have a major, basic fact of foreign policy which has totally eluded the current administration.

Our ill-considered approach has had the following negative effects. It has liberated the mullahocracy from much of the domestic unrest which would have been making its life miserable given the current economic condition of Iran and the demographics of the Iranian population. It has given the mullahocracy reason to be even more intransigent than would otherwise have been the case. It has forced the mullahocracy to invest the totality of national prestige and regime legitimacy in the nuclear issue and closely related matters.

Now, get a grip on this.

Our approach to the Iranians has helped two countries hostile to the US: the Peoples' Republic of China and Russia. Apparently the current administration hasn't gotten the word. Anything that diverts the US into unproductive, expensive, and influence draining side tracks hurts the US and helps these two adversaries.

Make no mistake about it. Regardless of the hopes of some Americans such as the "gobalism-will-solve-all" crowd, Walmart, and other business interests, China shares few, if any, national interests with the United States. Again, regardless of the hopes (or fears) of some Americans, Russia has not shed its fundamentally authoritarian inclination nor its historic feeling of inferiority compared to the West. Russians have been asking that most troublesome of all questions, the question which produced European Fascism, the question which underlies Islamism.

The Question?

"We were once great; now we are so small. Why?"

The policies of the current administration have encouraged the Russians to ask the Question. The policies of the current administration regarding Iran are encouraging both Moscow and Beijing to take actions which are best described as a form of diplomatic proxy war.

The new sanctions announced by the current administration are a justified gambit, particularly if the Europeans (perhaps convinced by a re-awakened "Crazy American Hypothesis") prove willing to join them despite economic losses to European businesses.

If so, then the emotional diatribes and not-so-veiled threats coming from the current administration can be rationalised, if not fully justified. Yet, the time for red meat rhetoric has passed. The time has come for some silence from the White House (and the campaign trail.)

If the Republicans (or at least the neocon ninnie component of that party) cannot remember Dwight Eisenhower who both created the IAEA and warned against the creation of a garrison state in pursing the chimera of complete security, they sure ought to remember Theodore Roosevelt. That was the hairy chested president who counseled speaking softly while holding a big stick.

The Geek is no admirer of Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich), the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He's got to give the senator his due. Levin is right when he said it was time to stop the "hot rhetoric."

ElBaradei was even more on target. "My fear is that if we continue to escalate from both sides that we will end up into a precipice, we will end up into an abyss. As I said, the Middle East is in a total mess, to say the least. And we cannot add fuel to the fire."

Bang on!, Mr ElBaradei.

There's always time enough for war. We can wait--at least for awhile.