Neither Presidents Obama nor Carter could fully “control” the situation, the dynamics in each beyond Washington’s control; each situation inherently unique; each bearing the potential for political catastrophe. Each situation the result of unintended consequences, in Tehran the entry of the Shah into the U.S. for medical care and in the Gulf an overreaction to the Valdez spill pushing oil production out of land based drilling to the Gulf.

Both Presidents faced severe economic conditions. Neither President established policies consistent with recovery. Both Presidents viewed as “outsiders”, in Carter’s case an electoral reaction to the Nixon / Ford administrations. In Obama’s case a promise to change the nature of politics in America and establish a new era of transparency and accountability.

Both Presidents occasionally acquire the “deer in the headlights” look. Both clearly frustrated with the advent of uncontrollable circumstance. Both Presidents staggered by the scope of the problem and the inability to effectively address it. Both Presidents sharing a consistent world view.

President Obama has sowed criticism far and wide denigrating those that disagree with him and his policy initiatives. This criticism began with his “clinging to guns and religion” comment during the campaign and pops up again and again related to Tea Parties, demonstrations, Republicans and specific individuals who stood in opposition.

Seventeen months into the Obama administration the President and his minions still blame President Bush while at the same time using Bush behaviors as justification for Obama behaviors. John Podesta of the Center for American Progress even blames President Bush for the Gulf disaster despite clear evidence of gross incompetence and cozying up to the oil companies in his administration.

President Carter eventually blamed “malaise” although that word was never used; the context of his speech on July 15, 1976 was the impact of the oil embargo and his attempt to re-define energy policy. He reviewed a long list of criticisms directed at him and his administration. He claimed to have engaged in an outreach to engage opinions from all sectors of society. The criticisms were focused mainly on his leadership abilities. (www.rightwingnews.com/speeches/carter.php)

Some of Mr. Carter’s statements in the speech could easily be said today:

 • “Looking for a way out of this crisis, our people have turned to the Federal Government and found it isolated from the mainstream of our Nation’s life.”

 • “The gap between our citizens and our Government has never been so wide.” • “What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a system of government that seems incapable of action”.

 • “The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.”

 • “As you know, there is a growing disrespect for government and for churches and for schools, the news media, and other institutions. This is not a message of happiness or reassurance, but it is the truth and it is a warning.”

Ultimately the contextual fault was not Mr. Carter’s, he explains; “The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our Nation. The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.”

One of the criticisms Mr. Carter endured during his outreach came from a southern Governor: “Mr. President, you are not leading this Nation — you’re just managing the Government.” And yet Mr. Carter blamed the “mood” of the nation, distancing himself from his part is creating that “mood”. His answer to the “mood”, policy recommendations! Mr. Carter simply did not absorb the fact that leadership failures created the mood he identified as the fundamental problem. He did not accept the dynamic that weak leadership was a critical point of connectivity to the problems he identified.

Among Mr. Carter’s reasons for the lack of confidence were: Vietnam, assassinations, Watergate, in other words, “not my fault”.  We see the same attitude and tactics in today’s administration.

Given today’s parallels to Mr. Carter’s speech, the consistency of world view between the two Presidents and Mr. Obama’s view of the body politic can Mr. Obama’s “malaise” moment be far away. Does it occur when we begin to reject the excuses planted firmly in the prior administration? Does Mr. Obama reach an epiphany that tells him blame is the worse of weak kneed leadership failures? Does it occur when the media finally confesses that the President did not do everything possible in the Gulf? Does it collapse in November?

The crisis of confidence is growing can “the speech” be far away. The one thing we know for an absolute certainty is that there will be a speech. It will be a good one. It will solve nothing!

Since the United States came into being, 1.1 million have given the last full measure of devotion in service to their country; 60% of those in combat; 1.5 million have been wounded.  2.6 million points of sacrifice in the service of country.

Many served unwillingly, many with doubts, many for reasons of their own beyond service.  But, serve they did to the benefit of all.  Many were not called to that service with that absence resulting in a permanent question phrased against the courage we see in those that did.  There is also a tinge of regret in hindsight.  Regret fueled by the admiration held for those we know who do and did serve with courage, skill and honor; men and women who faced the demons of fear and uncertainty and overcame them.  Battles waged, large and small with commitment and valor; in their heart and soul those who fight see an America worth fighting for. 

The men and women of our military reflect an idea we take for granted and rarely discuss.  They are committed to the idea that a military should be controlled by civilian leaders; it is not, to them, simply a constitutional dictate to observe it is a deeply held value reflective of their view of America. That belief, held by our military, is most of what separates us from the long parade of dictatorships, military juntas, coup d’état, and banana republics that have lay strewn throughout history’s landscape on the basis of a political military. 

Our military is so jealously committed to the proposition of civilian control that despite frequent frustrations, our system and our liberties are guaranteed.  I honor them for that commitment and salute the high standards they assign to themselves.  As much as a free press or free speech a military committed to constitutional principals and freedoms is what truly guarantees America.  Our political discourse never revolves around how the military will react to political issues. We maintain no fear that our military will impact the political balance of power; over the broad scope of history an exceptional circumstance.

Polling identifies the American military as the institution Americans hold in the highest regard; second place is not even close.  The American military functions in an orbit that transcends party, politics or the petty battles of the moment.  The American public in vast majority assumes, with good reason and an abundance of evidence, that the military posses and applies values and selfless commitments absent in most of our institutions.      

On this day, reflection is unavoidable it should be unavoidable: the lives, the sacrifice, the trauma, the families and the unselfish contributions that millions have made in support of the gifts of freedom.  

And to those who do and did serve, thank you, thank you for …… EVERYTHING!

al-Alaki comes with a resume that includes Maj. Nidal Hassan, the Christmas bomber and evidence that he was a bi-coastal host for 9/11 hijackers in his, San Diego and Falls Church, VA mosques.  He is, likely, the most significant English speaking Islamic radical on the planet.  He is one of many.  The harsh reality is that radical Islam has a strong foot hold in the U.S. and has been growing geometrically for over a decade.  (Stephen Emerson’s, Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) is a mother lode of information and exceptional investigative journalism). 

Bombs will eventually go off.  Bombers will eventually die with their bombs.  Eventually we’ll face a cold trail.  Innocents will die.  Voices will be raised and eventually we will face the harsh realities.  Those realities include the fact that a small percentage of Muslims overall are radicalized.  However, the reality also is that a much larger percentage of Muslims empathize with radical views. (See Pew Research polling on Arab public opinion)

The media will eventually “connect the dots” and breathlessly bring you documents, video evidence and court transcripts that terrorism experts have know of, studied and tried to raise public awareness of for years.  The harsh reality is that most of the political class has ignored the evidence in the interest of political correctness or political advantage; the succeeding harsh reality will be growing anger from a public demanding that we deal with violent radicals in our midst.  That anger will form, as its context, the demand that political correctness and potential advantage be put aside in the interest of security.

We will face the reality that despite hundreds of competent, committed professionals in the intelligence and security community they are limited by political definitions, not security related definitions.  We will also face the reality that we must be prepared to name and define the enemy.

We will face the reality that Jihadists have been crossing our northern and southern borders for years.

We will face the reality that the Muslim Brotherhood has been organizationally active in the U.S. for decades.  We will look back on sympathetic media coverage and political cover in Washington provided to Muslim organizations that we will, eventually come to realize was a well constructed fiction.  We will realize that the Brotherhood intends to use our strengths against us to overcome us from within.  That’s the mission statement, Brotherhood documents long in hand as proof.  We will face the reality that years of activities and money exist in support of the Brotherhood’s intentions.

We will discover the scope of the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration of institutions: governmental, social, political and critically, educational.  We will discover that the Muslim Students Association (MSA), Council on ‘American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Muslim American Society (MAS), fund raising organizations, public policy institutes and  funding for University Chairs to name a few, are points of tactical execution for the Brotherhood’s strategy.  We will discover that any number of big name academics and “experts” on Islam are on the payroll and performing to the pull of the strings from moneyed puppet masters.  We will discover the long standing PR campaign to cast radical Islamic ideology as anything but that. 

We will discover tens of millions of dollars in support for the Jihadist agenda in America, much of it from our “allies”.  

We will discover the reality of a serious dilemma; that the nexus of Jihadist philosophy, teaching, recruitment and planning occurs in mosques.  Modern day radical Islam is a function of the Clerical establishment.  Scratch the surface of any terror cell and an Imam will reveal himself.  We will be faced with the reality that in Islam law, religion, social policy and politics are a cohesive whole and all addressed within a religious context.  The idea of separating religion and state does not occur in Islam.

Will we be faced with the dilemma of violating religions freedoms as a necessary path to security; will we be forced to reevaluate the scope of religions freedoms?   Is religious freedom as a concept compatible with radical, political Islam?  The harsh reality is that religious freedom is not a concept that Islam embraces but rather sees as a weakness to be exploited in pursuit of their agenda.

We will discover that an aggressive counter terror strategy will drive domestic Islamists further into the safe have of their mosques.  What then?  Ignore the reality?  Will we be prepared to pay in blood to protect the rights of individuals who see our system as no more than a convenient path to a goal incompatible with the fundamental values of that system?

We will face the reality that our legal system is fundamentally unprepared to deal with institutional Jihadism.  We will become aware of the many suggestions related to creating a legal structure and court system that addresses the special challenges associated with terrorism and counter terrorism activities. We will wonder why no one in Washington (with notable exceptions) saw this problem as the major issue it will become when the bombs actually go off, which they will.

We will come to face the ultimate reality that evil ideologies must be confronted.  It would be nice if we could reach that point of recognition in advance of the bombs going off.

Yet another review of Mr. Brennan is in order.  Most recently Mr. Brennan stated that he was looking for moderate leadership in Hamas and Hiz’bAllah to reach out to.  Memo to Mr. Brennan; they don’t exist.  Under the rubric that no one in the administration has read the Arizona Immigration Law, they may have also failed to read the Hamas and Hiz’bAllah charters or reviewed public statements over the past few years.  He may also be unaware of Iranian influence on these organizations.  You have to assume that a rational base of knowledge is absent if Mr. Brennan is looking for “moderates”.

On Gitmo recidivism, Mr. Brennan thought that 20% was “not too bad”!

Mr. Brennan also buys into some level of terrorist appeasement. In speaking to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in August of 2009; “Even as we condemn and oppose the illegitimate tactics used by terrorists, we need to acknowledge and address the legitimate needs and grievances of ordinary people those terrorists claim to represent”.  Those legitimate grievances went without definition by Mr. Brennan.  Nothing new here, Mr. Brennan tends to suffer logical disconnects when dealing with the ideological connection between Al Qaeda and violent extremism generally.    

In the same speech Mr. Brennan rejects connections between “violent extremism and Islam”.   He remains convinced that Jihad is a journey of personal purity and rejects the term in the context of spreading Islam by the sword.  Mr. Brennan is apparently unaware of the violent history of imperial Islam.  He is, to appearances, also unaware of the massive clerical infrastructure that does in fact define Jihad as a violent spreading of or actions in defense of Islam.

He defines nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists as the key security challenge facing the administration but offers no concrete plans to address it.  Well that’s not true he did identify three critical efforts to address the problem; “leading the effort for a stronger global nonproliferation regime, launching an international effort to secure nuclear material and (this one should do it) a global nuclear summit.

As a footnote Mr. Brennan was initially considered for CIA Director but was vaporized by left wing opposition in the administration.  This may explain his decidedly soft public statements on terrorism and its motivations.

You may be happy to know that in that same August of 2009 Mr. Brennan told us that the War on Terror was over as was the war on Global Jihadism; in fact we’re not involved in a global anything according to Mr. Brennan.  We’re still at “war” but only with al Qaeda; so declared Mr. Brennan.

Mr. Brennan further dismisses the use of the word “global” because “it feeds the image of al Qaeda as “a highly organized, global entity capable of replacing sovereign nations with a global caliphate.” This perception simply misses the point, radical Islam is a global phenomenon.  In addition to the Middle East, Islamic radicalism is present in the U.S., Canada, the entirety of Europe, Central and South America, the Philippines, Indonesia, Central Asia, Pakistan, India, Russia, the Caucuses, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Australia and China to name a few.

Mr. Brennan has a long standing reputation as a D.C. sycophant.  Mr. Blair is rumored to have insisted to the administration that realities outside of the ideological construct had to be addressed; uncomfortable realities.  Should Mr. Brennan end up as DNI that will tell you everything you need to know about where the intelligence game is going and what its view of the world will be.

The same deterrent effect exists in the context of Israel where it is generally assumed that Israel would deploy tactical nuclear weapons in the event that they were in jeopardy of being overrun by unified Arab military action. No such action has occurred since Israel was attacked by Syria and Egypt in 1973.

 The recent policy changes and disclosures of U.S. nuclear policy are naïve, unnecessary and dangerous. It also does not appear that we are at the end point of policy changes. Reporting from Jonathan Alter suggests there is significant support within the administration for a blanket “no first strike” policy, publically stated.

This naïveté is especially disturbing in light of Russian announcements earlier this year revising their nuclear policy, (Stratfor) including use of nuclear weapons in regional conflicts. The new Russian policy is stark, in that it defines a broad range of circumstances that Russia sees as justification for use of nuclear options; this, in the context of an announced upgrading of the Russian nuclear arsenal. The U.S. on the other hand has refused to authorize testing of the aging nuclear arsenal to insure functionality.

Russia, North Korea, China and Iran are unlikely to respond to the “example” the administration hopes to set. We appear to be operating on the theory that our leadership in self imposed nuclear restriction will motivate others to limit and restrict nuclear activities. Leadership by example is a fine thing, but not out of context. American leadership on the issue simply does not trump the self interest of the critical parties.

The unfortunate reality is that non-threatening nations may very well respond to that leadership but others, those that can or intend to threaten, will view it as both a sign of weakness and as an opportunity. Nuclear policy and the intended fear it is supposed to generate should be less about attempting to set an example for miscreant dictatorships and more about threat assessment and U.S. self interest.

While the administration’s missile defense strategy is, in some quarters, justifiable and defensible what is clear is that it pushes the deployable functionality of the new strategy far into the future. Well beyond current timeline expectations related to Iran and North Korea.

Should the U.S. continue the current nuclear contraction the question occurs whether or not non-proliferation goals are actually enhanced? The fact is that we have an aging nuclear deterrent: the administration has decided not to pursue upgrades or functionality testing. Should Europe and/or Asian allies come to the opinion that the U.S. nuclear umbrella is full of holes will they move to create their own deterrent? Japan has concerns regarding North Korea; Europe is in range of a potential Iranian weapons, and face an ever more aggressive Russian bear. The threats against Israel are clear to all. Though less publicized, Iranian criticism of “moderate: Middle Eastern regimes including Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have escalated based on Iran revisiting past peace agreements with Israel and sectarian competition with Saudi Arabia. To add a log to the fire, Secretary Clinton has offered the protections of the U.S. nuclear umbrella to nations in the Middle East.

John Kennedy put it clearly; “Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed” If one accepts, as has every administration till now that the idea that overwhelming deterrence de-motivates serious bad behaviors the current policy is hard to fathom. It is further difficult to understand that even in the event the administration pursues an internal policy revision, why announce it? In a national security context ir fails to make strategic common sense. Why bet the farm on good intentions and symbolic gestures when there are no reciprocal gestures on the horizon?

The early reflections of the fundamental transformation of America are now more evident, by being more evident they also serve as a basis for informed anticipation of what’s to come. 

Perhaps it’s time to just go ahead and get polarized, let’s see where we actually stand, yea or nay.  There is substantial polling data to suggest, on average, pro-transformation, Progressive support is in the 27% – 28% range.  Those who strongly disagree with the current direction range from 40% – 42%.

The soft support on the agree/disagree side of the equation (approve or disapprove but not strongly) is 18% on the approval side and 11% on the disapproval side.

Assume all soft support becomes strong support, unlikely, but take the assumption; it just barely edges out those who strongly disagree with the administration’s direction.  If you make the same assumption for the 11% on the disagree side, it’s a significant majority by today’s standards. (Rasmussen Reports:  Presidential Daily Tracking poll, Commentary on Methodology)    

The Progressive agenda may be on the verge of being rejected again, or at least slowed down.  To clarify; middle-of-the-road, well intentioned liberals are not the subject of the day here, hard core Progressives are.  Unfortunately, well intentioned middle-of-the-road liberals with some centrist sensibility are not running the show and have not been running the show for quite some time, shame about that, we miss them.

As a polarized nation, we may reject the Progressive agenda in the next election but the energy in the Progressive movement will remain.  Even when rejected, the fossils of the Progressive view remain well entrenched in our institutions, systems and programs.  It is also undeniably true that the international infrastructure in support of Progressive thinking and political action is substantial, significant and well funded.    

America’s move toward a more Progressive European approach occurs as Europe is forced to reevaluate that approach.  Europe faces a plethora of structural challenges resulting from decades of Progressive/Social Democratic dominance.  Birth rates are well below those required for population replacement.  The cost of self defense for the E.U. in the event of a military drawdown by the U.S. represents a cost beyond their capabilities in the moment.  Open immigration policy has resulted in massive pockets of non assimilative immigrant populations, mainly Muslim, which maintains a birth rate 4 – 6 times indigenous European populations.  Powerful unions define a significant portion of European social and economic policy.  Productivity is weak; costs are high and GDP growth anemic. Projections of economic trauma in Europe based on prevailing entitlement systems occurs in the context of flat to negative growth of indigenous populations. The E.U. bureaucracy on top of national bureaucracies is a renewed point of engagement in Europe as is a discussion of national sovereignty, especially in an economic context.  Ironically, Progressivism could devolve in Europe as it evolves in the U.S.   

The pain of Social Democratic devolution is evident in Greece.  The Greek reaction likely has European political elites bound up in fetal positions under their beds as they look at the realities of economics and demographics on one side of the equation and the political street trauma on the other as dominant Greek constituencies fight back against the realities of the Greek financial situation.        

If polarization reflects Americans moving to firm positions, so be it. It’s not a problem to be solved it’s a reality to be recognized; a political report card; one way or the other.  Polarization may be exactly what we need to define the way ahead; one man’s polarization may be another man’s clear majority.

….. That considering an active history of exposing top secret intelligence programs, perfectly legal programs tracking terror financing and naming CIA operatives the N.Y. Times will, of course, not report on e-mails related to the University of East Anglia’s Hadley CRU (climate research unit).  Hadley is a high profile climate research entity that, to appearances, cooked the books on global warming, opps sorry, climate change. 

No, no, no we can’t report on that because the information was to quote the Grey Lady, “never intended for the public eye, so it won’t be posted here.”  If the N.Y. Times wants to revisit the issue of why they are having major readership and advertising problems they might want to start with a “double standards” review, evolving into a consideration of consistent journalistic ethics.  A large mirror in the editor’s office might help, just saying!

….. That on less than a weeks notice The House Homeland Security Committee can get right on scheduling hearings related to the couple that crashed the party at the White House but have still not scheduled hearings on the Fort Hood murders.  Ladies and Gentlemen of the committee that’s some strange sense of priorities you’ve got there?

….. That Messrs Holder and Obama just can’t seem to get on the same page.  Mr. Holder explains that KSM and the boys coming to N.Y. for trial versus others staying with the Military Commission process is determined by way of who attacked military targets and who attacked civilian targets.  OK, but did not the President on Tuesday, in reference to 9/11 specifically mention both civilian and military targets.  Memo to Mr. Holder: the Pentagon was a military target! 

….. Why Homeland Security has announced a policy of cracking down on employers who employ illegal immigrants with no intention of taking the illegal employees out of the companies!  Huh?

….. What might have been motivating Mohammed El Baradei, outgoing head of the IAEA, in terms of his abject refusal to recognize Iran’s nuclear intentions?  We many now have the answer. Mr. El Baradei has expressed interest in running for the Egyptian Presidency.   

….. Why you would be constitutionally confused, Senator Merkley is from the government and is here to help you.  The Constitutional authorization for mandatory purchase of health care is covered in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution according to the Senator.  “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.”  Clear?  Of course, the Founder’s writings and analysis of Constitutional prerogatives have nothing whatsoever to do with the government forcibly insisting you buy government health care or anything else for that matter.  Nor is such a thing considered in the ideas of Natural Law that the Constitution is essentially based on.  Senator, when you’re in philosophical hole you might want to drop the shovel.

….. That Mr. Holder is not the only administration official having problems getting the ducks in a row on a major policy.  Secretaries Gates and Clinton say the July, 2011 exit date is flexible based on conditions.  Press Secretary Gibbs later in the day said the date is firm.  The Presidents speech also mentioned conditions based considerations.  Wait, wait, there’s more; July 2011 is not really the important date, December 2010 is the important date, that’s when the review will occur.  Good news for the Taliban and Al Qaeda.  They only have to hold their breath for 12 months now, not 18.  While we’re on the subject what happened to the President’s campaign love affair with the Powell Doctrine, you know, the one where you apply overwhelming force, kill the bad guys and get out of Dodge?  I wonder if Rahm feels like he’s trying to herd cats?

Finally, I understand the reason for the jobless numbers; it’s my fault as a business owner.  It’s not the uncertainty of what my costs for Health Care will look like or the massive deficits.  It’s not credit unavailability, or the prospect of new taxes and fees. It’s not the possibility of an 800% increase in unemployment compensation costs because the state trust fund is down to zero.  It’s not the plummeting dollar or reductions in discretionary spending.  It’s not local and state governments looking for any opportunity to raise taxes to deal with their own budget deficits.  It’s not the potential of Card Check legislation turning my small business into a union house, or Cap & Trade doubling energy bills. It’s me! It’s my fault!

Confession being good for the soul, Mr. President I’m stepping up.  My business did, in fact, end up doing more with less.  We had to let someone go, we delayed seasonal hiring, salaried staff had to cover jobs and shifts that used to be handled by hourly employees.  Yes, yes, it’s true, it’s all true.  I’m sorry!

But Mr. President, I had to do it!  You see, if I had not done those things and the business failed, well a lot more people would have been out of a job.  All of those taxes I pay would have dried up and the 200 clients I represent would have been out in the cold. 

I swear Mr. President It wasn’t about profits, it was about survival.  I’m sure someone on your economic team mentioned that profits are, you know, kind of necessary if you want to get on with that whole survival thing.  I assumed, now that you’re running GM, that the profit / survival equation would have been somewhat clarified.

I did what I could.  I went to my local banks to see about short term credit lines and, as you know, they’re really not doing that anymore, something about regulatory demands.  I checked with the Small Business Association, no joy there either.      

So in the spirit of confession, Mr. President you should know that not only did I cut back on jobs, I cut back on inventory levels as well.  Guilty as charged!

I’m sorry, If only I had known.

The Iranian message is very simple and very consistent; it’s the same message they’ve delivered in a variety of manifestations for years; NO! No, we do not recognize your authority over us, No, we will not accept your limitations, No, and there will be no cessation.  These are, if you’ve forgotten, the same folks who after years of European diplomacy insulted the Europeans publically by thanking them for the five extra stress free years to accelerate progress with their nuclear program.  Iran has been consistently belligerent, non compliant, evasive and smarter by half than the folks across the table as they moved toward their goal of weaponization.  Wednesday’s announcement by President Ahmadinejad that 20% enriched uranium was close at hand is another case in point and a significant benchmark. 

Iran sees nothing in recent history that would motivate them to alter their course at this point in time.  Iranian leadership believes fully in the justifications for their behaviors.

Iran has had its way with Russia, China, the entire European Union, the U.N. the IAEA, two U.S. administrations and a fair portion of the 3^rd world.  They, without question, viewed the manner of America’s policy of engagement as weakness, if there is anything that the Iranians have experience with over the past six years it’s identifying and dealing with weakness, in the person of our European allies and the IAEA.

Russia, as well, has raised the political middle finger demonstrated by four agreements signed the day after the IAEA report.  The deal included cooperation agreements dealing with oil, natural gas and telecommunications; the presence of Russian nuclear scientists in Iran in ongoing.  The signals from Russia are clear, meaningless votes for IAEA resolutions not withstanding!  Same goes for China as a recently announced project to develop Iranian petroleum refining represents a significant economic partnership.  Same signal!  In the final analysis, don’t count on any support from Russia and China; it is in both of their interests to see the U.S. and E.U. being pushed into a dangerous corner.

Iran has for years, prepared for sanctions and worse.  Iran has made deals for refined petroleum with Venezuela, solidified economic relationships with Russia and China, procured weapons and missiles from North Korea and aligned with nearly every anti U.S. regime they could find, including those in our own hemisphere.  Iranian support for Hiz’bAllah, Hamas and a variety of terror organizations has created a retaliatory potential that demands attention and could provide for ongoing intimidation of Western powers.

Iran is saying, NO!  This is your reality check, time to wake up, NO means NO!  There will be NO meaningful engagement, NO effective diplomacy, NO backing down and NO deals!

What is Iran counting on?  They are counting on their own population to continue to take pride in the nuclear program, absent, in all likelihood, any popular information related to the potential consequences.  They are counting on European pacifism to dominate valid security concerns.  They are counting on the threat of terrorism from surrogates to cower regional and European opponents. They are counting on Europe to continue to live in fear of their own Muslim populations.  They are counting on the growing tide of thought that argues the world can “live with” a nuclear Iran as the ultimate point of appeasement.  They are, most importantly, counting on the U.S. to do nothing beyond feckless engagement and to possibly serve as a roadblock to the promised potential of an Israeli strike. 

Now that Iran has staked out its most aggressive position yet, they will likely send some manner of signal that there might be a little something to talk about after all; that has been the pattern for some time.  Each time Iran has suggested some level of engagement the allies have dropped their pants and ankle danced over the Tehran armed with little more than hope, lots of carrots, no sticks and continuing confidence in the magic Unicorn of diplomatic engagement as the solution to a rogue regime!

The great hope expressed for progress based on the meetings in Geneva came to nothing, as predicted in this space.  In the Iranian view, as long as the U.S. can be drawn into a hope against hope diplomatic engagement, Israel will hold their military water. 

It’s all about time, a reasonable prediction can be taken that Iran does not need a lot more time.  If Iran needed considerably more time they simply would not have made the announcement they made or taken the position they took last week.

NO means NO!

For those in the region there was only one message July, 2011.

Pakistanis will view this as “typically American”, the exit date will support their worst fears.  The significant portion of the Pakistani power structure that views American support as fickle and lacking long term vision will take the ascendency.  The Urdu equivalent of “see I told you so” will be, likely, oft repeated in the Pakistani halls of power.  The motivation for Pakistani’s to hedge their political and military bets regarding the border regions will be renewed by last night’s statement of American policy.  Pakistanis are not, fundamentally, pro-American and they never have been; we’ve not won Pak loyalty, at best we’ve been able to rent it on a short term lease.   

For The Afghan government the idea that an exit date creates pressure to perform to American standards is belied by the stated commitment that we will essentially go around the Afghan government.  The commitment to work more directly with regional and provincial authorities cannot serve to strengthen the central government.  It could be one or the other but not both.  That is not to say that working with regional leaders is a bad idea, it is not; in fact it is a critical part of a counterinsurgency effort.  However, if you are, in fact, a regional or tribal leader do you risk committing to the U.S. for 18 months knowing what will be left behind when the U.S. leaves.  What will be left behind is certain death at the hands of the Taliban.    

Most importantly for the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the variety of Jihadist forces in Afghanistan the July 2011 exit date is a godsend.  They now know exactly what they have to do and how long they have to do it for. 

The Taliban / Jihadi forces have demonstrated a number of capabilities; patience, absolute ruthlessness, strategic vision and tactical competence.  They are seasoned fighters and know well the dynamics of insurgent operations.  It is well within their capabilities to produce the illusion of American progress within the construct of the announced time line.  By simply generating a planned progressive reduction in their operations over the 18 month period in question they could create the illusion of American progress in fighting the insurgency. 

By creating this illusion they would essentially execute military Jiu Jitsu using American policy against American policy.  The desire for the definition of a limited engagement by the President could create the strategic conditions which would defeat that very idea and illuminate the path to Taliban resurgence in the longer run.

The Taliban and their compatriot leadership structures are fully and keenly aware of American political conditions.  They, no doubt, realize that this President is much more politically motivated than the prior President.  They may come to the perception that Maxine Waters has illuminated; that being that the President’s strategy is a result of campaign promises and not a full blown security commitment to Afghanistan.  It is ironic that it could very well be the Taliban that provides the political cover for an exit strategy as they marshal themselves for the post U.S. Afghanistan.   

There is a reason why George Bush, despite unrelenting pressure, refused to place a time line on the Iraqi surge.  That lesson is, unfortunately, lost on this administration, as are the consequences.