By Dawn's Early Light

Schroeder's Sellout is Merkel's Advantage

Coming Anarchy has a similar take to Dawn's Early Light on the sellout nature of Gerhard Schroeder's decision to go to work for Russian-owned Gazprom.  However, Coming Anarchy also points to the recent anti-Israel and anti-rational statements of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denying the holocaust and inviting Europe to carve out some land to relocate Israel. 

"What do these two events mean for German foreign policy? Both weaken Germany’s previous policies and continue to chisel away wiggling room. With Schröder’s so-called legacy already severely damaged by the man himself, the SPD is being forced to distance itself from not only Schröder but his pro-Russian policies. This leaves them with an easy cover should they begin to shift their foreign policy not to mention giving the CDU a golden opportunity to force them to do so....

Thus, these two events, completely outside the control of the current government, have served to undermine Germany’s previous policy with regard to Russia, Iran and have tarnished the SPD’s past few years of policy (how much remains to be seen). All of this significantly strengthens Chancellor Merkel’s position domestically giving her more leeway in her upcoming meeting with President Bush and his advisors from January 12th to 14th."

While Ms. Merkel may have misstepped diplomatically with her meeting with Secretary Rice [See DEL post here], she has a golden opportunity to move German diplomacy as her opposition party in her coalition government must move right to distance itself from the remnants of Schroeder's perceived sellout and failed Iranian policies.

Iran Protests American UAVs

Iran is protesting US UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) flights over their country at the United Nations, according to this Washington Post article.  Considering Iran's flagrant nuclear weapons program violations and activities against the Iraqi government and coalition forces, having UAVs over their country should not be their top concern.

However, the UAVs from the US over Iran sure explains this story from January of this year in Pravda, "Russia and Iran join efforts to struggle against invasion of UFOs".

"Unidentified flying objects continue terrorizing the Eastern hemisphere of planet Earth. No one knows what to do with them, although it is obvious that something has to be done with the problem. Russia and Iran agreed to join efforts to study the mysterious phenomenon. The news may seem to be ridiculous at first sight, but it is actually a rather serious matter: UFOs pose a big threat to Iran in connection with its growing nuclear potential.

The UFO mania has gripped Iran. The Air Force command of Teheran has recently been given an order to down any unknown or suspicious object seen in the air space of Iran. If a UFO appears in the sky above Iran, anti-aircraft systems will most likely down it.

Iranian mass media, meanwhile, are distributing more and more information about extraterrestrial threats to the nation's nuclear objects. The flights of unknown objects in the air space of the country have become much more frequent lately, the Resalat Daily wrote. According to the newspaper, unusual luminous objects were spotted above Busher and Natanza, where nuclear facilities are located. One of the objects exploded in the sky, eyewitnesses said. The Iranian defense department is trying to pacify the anxious population. "We have developed plans to protect nuclear objects from any danger. The Iranian Air Force is on alert and ready to fulfill the duty," General Qarim Gavani stated."

I hope the Iranians didn't pay too much to the Russians for the expertise.  It appears from the WaPo story that the UFOs may be US Shadow and Hermes UAVs.

"The latest Iranian protests identified one "alien" unmanned aircraft as a Shadow 200 (RQ-7), which it said crashed 37 miles inside Iran in Ilam Province at sunset on July 4. A second letter said that on Aug. 25 a U.S. Hermes aircraft crashed near Khoram Abad, about 125 miles inside Iran."

It is likely the UAVs may be serving two functions over Iran:

• taking air samples for nuclear particles and photos over Iran's numerous suspected weapon sites
• gathering information on Iranian border crossings into Iraq to assist the terrorist forces to destabilize the country

Rumsfeld and UK Defense Secretary Comments

The US-UK special relationship is the cornerstone of American foreign policy in Europe and arguably the Middle East as well.  This past November 7th, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and UK Secretary of State for Defense John Reid gave a joint news briefing (the full text can be found here).

Sec. Rumsfeld thanked the British:

"Throughout much of modern history, the special relationship between the United States and Great Britain has dealt repeated blows to totalitarianism of various stripes.  The world is safer and our countries are safer because of the uncommon steel of the British people.  We're grateful for our partnership and for your friendship, Mr. Secretary."

Considering PM Tony Blair's extreme costly political efforts on behalf of the special relationship, it was the least the Secretary could say, and his words are well true.

Sec. Reid begins his address touching on the same subject while expanding on the threat faced to Western Civilization:

"I'm delighted to be here, and I hope the fact that we are standing together on so many issues -- which we've discussed today, from Iraq through Afghanistan and the many other theatres where we are working together; more importantly, our service men and women continue to work together -- is a symbol of our enduring relationship.

I think the thing which lies at the heart of that is shared values, and the struggle which is going on on the global sphere at present is indeed a battle of our values.  It is at heart an ideological struggle between those of us who adhere to 21st century values and those who are trying to impose seventh century values in large sections of the world.  Though it is ideological at heart, it manifests itself in the worst forms of terrorism -- innocent civilians targeted indiscriminately by people who have no constraints of morality, conventions or legality.  It therefore makes it a very, very difficult battle for the young service men and women who serve both our countries with such distinction, courage and fortitude."

It is important that the discussion of radical Islam be framed as a battle against the West on a "battle of our values".  From an American perspective, this distinction seems often lost on the European press, not to mention a few US publications as well. Sec. Reid goes on to attack those in the Main Stream Media (MSM) and elsewhere who argue that change in Iraq is going too slow, by putting it in a historical context.

"I've had some people say that the failure to achieve absolute unanimity within 18 months was indeed a failure.  Well, coming from a country, the United Kingdom, which has a similar continual discussion about the nationalities within a nation-state, and now in the 837th year of trying to resolve the Irish settlement in Northern Ireland and the 300 years just having settled the Scottish one, I think the Iraqis have done damn well to get where they have in 18 months quite frankly, Secretary Rumsfeld.  And to see 64 percent of the Iraqi population coming out in the elections, a greater turnout, despite the threats to themselves, than there was in our general election and probably your presidential election, is a sign of encouragement."

While the conference was a good opportunity for the two Secretaries to give their continued view and rationale for the direction of the campaign in Iraq, the question-and-answer session hit upon some interesting topics.

Joint Strike Fighter

Regarding the JSF program, which will be the largest ever US military purchase, spanning the AirForce, Navy and Marines with different versions of the JSF along with orders from the British and Japanese governments, the US commitment was called into question.

"[W]e're pretty confident that the United States, in their own interests, not just in ours, will make the sensible decisions on the Joint Strike Fighter.  It is true, it is a huge part of our future planning.  We don't have forces, or for that matter the budget the size of the United States.  But we do, I believe, have forces that are equipped, capable and active in terms of meeting the modern threats.  And part of that is the ability to reach out, to have sustainable reach.  And that is why we've ordered a final perusal of our plans to build two carriers which are three times the size of anything that we've got at present.  And if we have such carriers to sustain a presence a long distance from the United Kingdom over a long period, we need a good airplane to operate off them.  And the airplane we want to get is the Joint Strike Fighter, and I see no reason at the moment to be worried about that."

Iranian and Syrian Involvement in Iraq

On the issue of Iranian and Syrian involvement against coalition forces in Iraq:

"Q: Mr. Minister, the top British general down in Basra last week said that he was concerned and had solid evidence that Iran was moving technology and materials over into Iraq.  Can you elaborate on that and your concerns, especially in southern Iraq, with these explosives coming across the border?

SEC. REID:  Do you mean General Dutton?

Q:     Dutton.  Yeah.

SEC. REID:  Yeah.  Yeah, well, for obvious reasons I don't want to go into the technicalities of it, but it is our belief that the nature of the devices being used against British troops and possibly elsewhere in Iraq in recent months bear the hallmark of groups like Hezbollah and may well be connected with elements within Iran.  We don't have the evidence that says this is being backed by the Iranian government, but it is nevertheless worrying, and we've made representations to Iran, because it would obviously not be right for a country to be publicly supporting democratic self-determination in Iraq at the same time as it was allowing or in any way encouraging the use of terrorism or violence.

So it's as simple as that; we have put that.  And putting it in a wider context, of course, if we have those worries -- along with the duplicity which Iran has been using in the development of its nuclear capability -- as witnessed not by me or Secretary Rumsfeld, but by the International Atomic Energy Authority, and then the sort of statements that we've seen from the Iranian president about wiping off the face of the map another member state of the United Nations, then all of these items come together and they are worrying."

Is the EU-3 Making a Bad Deal with Iran?

"Little Red Blog" has a good post today on the status of talks between the EU-3 and why they may be getting closer to cutting a bad deal over Iran's nuclear program.

"Iran requested that they be permitted to maintain a 'pilot' enrichment facility incapable of producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for bomb making purposes, and yet, a face saving measure that would maintain Iran’s efforts to understand and master the technology. Why would we oppose such a move, or more specifically, why would I?"

Follow the link above to find out Marvin's answers.  The United States must find a way to effectively deal with the nuclear issue in Iran and North Korea before time runs out.

Iran Threatens to Shoot Down UAVs - Aids US

The wire services are reporting comments from Iran's Intelligence Minister that they will shoot down American UAVs (spy drones as the wire reports like to call them).  Since they have not attempted, or maybe not been successful, at this in the past, this seems a fairly idle threat.  Additionally, other than the random type of anti-aircraft fire that Saddam's regime would throw up into the night sky, the Iranians would require more sophisticated missile and radar systems to shoot down the UAVs.

This would require the Iranians to turn on their radars in the first place, which, based on the WaPo article from Monday, appears unlikely.  They do not want to give their position away in fear of losing the systems pre-emptively if the US launches a more advanced piloted mission to attack either Iran or the nuclear program facilities.

The UAVs, and even their discovery, can aid the US diplomatically.  The same article above also points to the Israeli foreign minister in London today declaring Israel's belief that Iran will have a nuclear device in 6 months' time.  The US, using the UAVs, ups the pressure on Iran, as the Europeans, Russians and Chinese all know for sure that the US position is more "pro-active" than the European group of three (UK, France, Germany) that has been getting nowhere in their discussions with Tehran.  The US playing a bigger bad cop to the European bad cop may lead to progress.

However, as Dr. Kissinger points out in this article, there is little reason Iran would be willing diplomatically to give up the weapons technology and that pursuing a regime change policy may not happen in time. 

Allowing Iran to go nuclear is not only a grave situation for the immediate future for the Middle East but, coupled with their religious fundamentalism and direct support for terrorism, the precedent it sets and possibility for export of weapons is an even greater danger for the US in the long run.

US UAVs over Iran

The Washington Post has a Page One story on the US utilizing UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) to spy on Iran's nuclear program from Iraq.  It appears that the Iranians thought they were UFOs until recently and had even engaged the Russians to figure out what they were. Isn't it great to see the Russians are helping out the Iranians with more than just their nuclear program?  The US may be using the UAVs over Iran to determine which sites may have nuclear material, what anti-aircraft defenses Iran has, and general surveillance. 

A good friend of mine is a Weapons System Operator in an F-15E.  It is a very impressive multi-purpose fighter aircraft, and I am glad it is not his mission to fly over Iran.  However, I am glad that the US has invested in UAVs over the years. ($3 billion in the early 1990s has grown to $12 billion in the 2004-2009 budget).  Our tax dollars have helped put the following UAVs into all branches of the US military and Homeland Security:

• Predator with Hellfire Missiles (USAF) - Top speed 135 mph
• Shadow (US Army) - Top Speed 123 mph
• Global Hawk (USAF & USN under BAMS program) - Top Speed 400 mph
• Aerostar - (Israeli UAV with USN) Top Speed 120 mph
• Hermes - (US Dept. Homeland Security) Top Speed 100 mph
• Hunter - (US Army) Top Speed 120 mph
• Pioneer - (USN & US Marine Corps) Top Speed 115 mph
• Dragon Eye - (US Marine Corps) Top Speed 35 mph

There are many advantages to UAVs.  They can be overhead when satellites cannot, return air particles that may find nuclear activity, and loiter over target areas all without risk to American life.  This removes the potential for a Gary Powers U2 incident like we had with the Soviets in 1960. 

This is a good example of military hardware increasing US diplomatic options by giving us better information with no American lives at risk.

UPDATE: Of course, after writing the post I stumble upon this great blog out of Australia on UAVs.  Enjoy!

UDPATE 2: I posted on this story before checking Drudge.  I know, I know it is his main headline.

Blog Pool - Ich bin ein Berliner!

While the State Department has not posted Secretary Rice's full comments in Berlin today, we will rely on the New York Times for an overview to explore where US foreign policy is moving, and the German response.

We do have a NYT summary of her comments regarding Iran (#2 on the Axis of Evil from President Bush's 2002 State of the Union speech):

"...she listed a series of grievances the United States has against Iran, including a poor record on human rights, its suspected nuclear arms program and accusations that it supports militant groups that carry out attacks on civilians and oppose the Israeli-Palestinian peace process."

Breaking these down, the US position on Iran is influenced by Iran's:

• human rights abuses
• nuclear arms program
• support of terrorism
• involvement with Iraqi insurgents
• and opposition to any peace with Israel

All good and valid points of American concern.  The troubling part of reading the NYT for coverage are quotes like this:

"President Bush's State of the Union message, which declared that the United States would support efforts by the Iranian people to bring about greater democracy in their country, stirred renewed anxiety in many countries that the Bush administration would seek a violent overthrow of the Tehran government.

Many European commentators, going further, have said that such bellicose talk would undercut the efforts by Britain, France and Germany to negotiate a dismantling of Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program.

Let me summarize the above shocking text: President Bush supports "greater democracy" through Iranian suffrage and self-determination.  This is considered by "European commentators" (and also NYT reporters?) to be "bellicose talk" because it disrupts the nice teas planned by the French for the Iranian mullahs at the Quai d'Orsay.   The  Europeans have been working on their approach since mid 2003.  A year and a half later the Iranians are vowing not to give up their nuclear program and appear to be buying more time, while the US has its hands full in Iraq.

Secretary Rice is stopping in all three countries that are a part of the European effort to get Iran to give up their nuclear program on her current trip.  My guess is she is laying out the American position, that we will not allow a nuclear armed Iran, privately to the foreign ministries of the UK, Germany and France.

The German response, from the unpopular Gerhard Shroeder, appears to be doublespeak:   

In his comments today, however, Chancellor Schröder dismissed the idea that talk of bringing about democracy in Iran was unhealthy or damaging to negotiations with Iran on nuclear matters. "Not at all," he said with a laugh, when the question was raised at his news conference. "No, no, absolutely not."

Mr. Schröder then said he had "listened to the president's address very eagerly" and "taken from it that his heart is very keenly with the democrats, irrespective of what country we're talking about."

"I couldn't agree more actually," he said.  But Mr. Schröder added carefully that there should be a discussion about what "tools" would be used to achieve reform in Iran."

Chancellor Schroeder leaves behind a valuable clue.  He said that Mr. Bush is "keenly with the democrats".  He could have but did not say that Mr. Bush is for "democracy", but rather "democrats, irrespective of what country we're talking about."  This sounds like Secretary Rice laid out Regime Change From Within as the diplomatic tool the US is speaking about with respect to Iran.  Chancellor Schroeder is interested in removing "tools" at the West's disposal even after a year and a half of failed diplomacy with Iran.  No wonder the Europeans are not getting anywhere with Iran.

Blog Pool - Following Condi

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell was not much of a traveler as head of the State Department. This was reportedly due to his desire not to be away from the policy decisions being made by President Bush and by insiders Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Whatever the able Secretary Powell's reasons may have been, Secretary Condoleeza Rice, as the former head of the National Security Council,  has President Bush's ear and feels free to travel abroad, as she is now doing.   

"Asked by reporters whether the presents [joke pocket atlases she gave to the pool reporters] were a portent of heavy travel schedules for the new top U.S. diplomat, Rice smiled and replied: 'You will see.'"

The anecdote aside, Secretary Rice is willing to take US diplomatic goals abroad in order to make the Administration's case. 

First Stop - London
The first leg of her trip was to London to confer with Prime Minister Tony Blair, the US's staunchest ally and America's bridge to the rest of Western Europe.  First on her order of business was to clarify and press home the Adminstration's stance on Iran's nuclear program.   The UK, along with France and Germany, have been attempting to reach a diplomatic solution with Iran, though Iran has continued to press its nuclear program nonetheless.  Let's look at some of her comments:

"Today, asked after a meeting with Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain if the United States might go further and actually attack Iran, Ms. Rice declared: 'The question is simply not on the agenda at this point - we have diplomatic means to do this.'

She added: 'We believe, particularly in regard to the nuclear issue, that while no one ever asks the American president to take all his options, any of his options, off the table, that there are plenty of diplomatic means at our disposal to get the Iranians to finally live up to their international obligations.'

'It is the Iranians that are isolated on this issue - not the United States,' Ms. Rice said."

Several items are important in this message and her visit.  She chose, as her first trip abroad, to meet with PM Tony Blair.  This signifies the importance the US puts on its "Special Relationship" with the UK.  With respect to Iran, I believe the US is signaling its interest to allow the European allies to continue working for a diplomatic solution, and the US has kept from pressing the issue to the UN Security Council.  However, it is important to read what was also said about the US not removing the option to respond militarily, nor was there any mention of Israel's possible response. 

Does Secretary Rice's "we have diplomatic means to do this" imply the US is moving towards supporting the Iranians to bring about their own regime change from within?  This quote (also from the same New York Times article) could be seen in that light.

"'I don't think anybody thinks that the unelected mullahs who run that regime are a good thing for the Iranian people or for the region,' Ms. Rice said to reporters on her plane to London. 'I think our European allies agree that the Iranian regime's human rights behavior and its behavior toward its own population is something to be loathed.'"

This approach, of outwardly encouraging the Iranians to bring about democracy, especially since the Persians have clearly seen democracy in action now next door in Iraq, is possibly the best solution. 

This would lead towards true Iranian democracy without a bloody and long-lasting occupation.

I am anxious to hear what Secretary Rice will say in her next stop, Berlin.