Wednesday, March 07, 2012

What would Jeff have Thought?

Jeff Huber - Commander, USN (ret) died on the 27th of February, past. His death was more widely announced on internet sources to-day, March 7th. He is noted and commemorated on a very wide number of 'alternative' news and opinion sites. That could be because his irreverent wit didn't go over too well with those who ascribe some degree of 'holiness' or 'sacredness' to military service. He'd done that, apparently very well, but it didn't seem to impress him much.

For a long while, 3 or 4 years,  he was a regular contributor to Military.com - a site that claims to work for the "benefit of the US Army, Navy, AirForce, Marine Corps and Coast guard". Then somebody might actually have read what they were posting of his and realized that their idea of the 'benefit', and his, were a few galaxies apart. Needless to say, he was, unceremoniously and without comment, dumped. His blog was carried by AntiWar .com - perhaps that's what really 'hung the target' on him, for AntiWar naturally has little good to say about the military-minded.. He wrote for alternate news and opinion sources; Daily Kos, Monsters and Critics, etc and, while he had a special place for anything Navy, he didn't spare fat-headedness in any branch of the service or government. And he had a wonderful vocabulary, and some interesting turns of phrase to describe such people and what they do.

So thinking about last weekend's little love/hate show between Obama and Netanyahu, Obama and AIPAC and Netanyahu coming home to his 'peeps' in America. His 'nukuler duck' routine and the consequent 'duck soup' parody on UTube. I'm thinking that Jeff would have been at his best had he been able to write one last blog about these "processed horses' lunch" products.

Benny's Nuclear Duck Video

The topic of all this was Iran. Gallant little Israel, feeling cornered by the existential threat that Iran might pose, wants to bomb them. Actually she wants America to bomb them, but she is willing to 'go it alone', even though that would probably be ineffective. Obama claims to be needing to be careful, to be waiting for the sanctions to bite, to be working for a diplomatic solution although he has no intention of actually talking to the Iranians. But most of all he needs to mollify a large constituency of hebrews who could try hard to make Milt Romney the next president. Right off the bat Obama was losing this one because he agreed to Netanyahu's agenda.

When they first met,  Iran was a minor issue. The 'change' President was focused on a 'palestine solution'. Since then Netanyahu has done to that policy, what the tea-baggers have done to Obama's domestic policies and so, though things are actually far worse from a palestinian perspective than they were three years ago,  Mr. Netanyahu gets to 'call the shots' on what he thinks is important, and that is an increasing Iranian 'threat'- as opposed to a diminishing Palestinian 'homeland'.

Since the warriors began complaining of a growing 'Iranian threat' back in the late 70's, Israel has become more consistent and more strident about it. Yes, sure there were other threats - in the neighborhood, in the middle east, even at home, but gallant little Israel weathered them all. The PLO, Fatah, intifadah, Lebanon, Gaza, Peace for Galilee, the Rise of Hamas, the resettlement of Gaza, the resettlement of the settlers, the West Bank PA fiasco,  rockettings, 'Operation Iron Filings', the aid flotillas, came and they went and even some F15 parts to Iran in return for contra funding didn't 'sweeten the pot'. When the ayetollehs announced they were rejuvenating a nuclear industry planned by the Shah n'Shah, and kiboshed by the Revolution,  Israel sat up and took notice. Anybody with a nuclear reactor could possibly  make a bomb with it. And they knew the wily Mede was all about making a bomb with it. The bomb, combined with an inaffinity for pushy Zionism on the part of the mad mullahs -  there was a disaster recipe a-cookin',  a real existential threat.. As time went on, the Iranians actually got the old Russian-designed reactor off the ground. Through the good offices of IAEA, Israel was able to 'express its concerns' and interfere, but it couldn't get things stopped.

One of Israel's  efforts was to make sure nobody would sell enriched uranium to the Persians. No uranium?  No fuel. No Fuel? No Reactor. No Reactor? No Bomb. Seems like logic, nu? But the wily Mede has some 800 pounds of yellowcake bought back in the days of the Shah - he bought it from America. The Russians sold them some fuel rods, they bought some centrifuges and set up a cascade, the purification of the Uranium was begun. Sure, there were some bugs, the Stuxnet virus - which allowed the Siemens-made centrifuges to spin their way out of existence, was one.  But the Iranians did a work-around and rebuilt with home-designed centrifuges that are more efficient than the old ones (a  new and recent IAEA complaint). Even a few scientific assassinations and economic sanctions to slow things down didn't seem to work

 The IAEA is struggling, without much success, to have the Iranians 'prove' they're not working on a bomb, that they don't have hidden stores of uranium and that they're not secretly refining what uranium they do have to 90 percent weapons grade. With all their visits and meetings, inspections and investigations, the IAEA hasn't been able to 'prove' that the 'secret'  files on  a laptop, purportedly stolen in Iran and decrypted in America, aren't true. Or false. The IAEA can't tell if the Iranians are going nuts nuclear-wise and already have an arsenal, or whether they're telling the truth about electrical power and medical isotopes. Israel prefers to think they're looking at some nuclear suicide-bombers - Netanyahu's "nuclear duck" no doubt. The US is all 'over the place' with some agencies, including Israeli ones, claiming there is no evidence of threatening action and that Iran is years from having a bomb. Which doesn't beg the age-old dog and car question, what would they do with it if they got it? Israel claims they would drop it on her, even though Israel has never yet felt the need to nuke any of her enemies with bombs she has and they don't. Most nuclear states are aware of MAD and it stops them from using their nuclear weapons haphazardly. Why would Iran be any exception? She hasn't started a war in 300 years, which is something you can't say about Israel, or America.

But back to the weekend - Obama says the USA will ' have Israel's back'. Benny Netanyahu told his Jewish audience about patience, and how Israel has the right to attack,  and time running out, etc. The IAEA is meeting a third time with Iran. Iran will be 'required to prove' the negatives she has as yet been unable to prove. Even if she opens all doors wide and lets the IAEA move in for a year of inspection,  where 's the 'proof' that something else hasn't been hidden? The next report, like the last two, will again provide 'evidence' of  'failure' - Iran's failure.  The UN Security Council has been invited by the 5+1 to 'consult' on the next report and that could lead to another resolution to approve the bombing that will replace the sanctions. Problems are China and Russia sit there, too and I don't think they see the Iranian 'threat to the international community' as clearly as Benny bar Likud. They went along, or abstained, on sanctions to Iran, not knowing what Obama had in mind.  I don't think they'll handsit on bombing. 

Does that  mean Iran's safe? Not by a bombsight! What America got to see and read about last weekend was a disinformation exercise. It may not be a game, but Iran's bombing  is in play - Obama's been quietly deploying men and materiel into the Gulf states for the past three months. Israel will start it and America will make the way safe for her. Probably pony-up the super-bunkerbusters and the B1s and B2s to carry them. And add in a little 'invasion' to make a 'security zone' for Gulf shipping through the Straits of Hormuz. I think this will be a reality before June. What happens after depends on the mullahs and how hard they fight back.

America's military and her hebrews are primed for a 'cakewalk and vict'ry parade'. If it plays like Hollywood,  they'll get it.  If it plays like recent reality, they'll still be bombing Iran in 10 years time,  if something 'bad', viz unforeseen,  hasn't happened and Iran wins.

I wish I had Huber's gift of making stupid really read that way. For the cast of characters involved in this travesty of international relations are burdened with some of the biggest character flaws and hubris imaginable. They shouldn't be making decisions about war, they should be 'in the trenches' for an 'eye-opener'. And there are still lots of those without starting a new set.

No comments: