The Latest from Iran (23 October): Karroubi Appears

NEW Latest Iran Video: Karroubi & Crowd at Iran Media Fair (23 October)
Reading Afghanistan and Iran: Scott Lucas on “The Beautiful Truth” Radio
NEW Iran: Enduring America Leads, The New York Times Follows
NEW Iran Bombings: Former Pakistan Intelligence Chief Blames US
The Latest from Iran (22 October): Unsteady as She Goes

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis



2255 GMT: Steady as she goes with the Western media mulling over the significance of Iran's delay on acceptance of the uranium enrichment deal. The truth is that, given the intracacies (and perhaps disorders) of Tehran's decision-making system, we won't know for a while. For now, it's a matter of reading clues, and the strongest --- with Iranian state TV putting out the line of a "positive response" --- is that the Iranian Government is gradually putting the proposal through the system.

But we'll stand by our initial projection this morning (0630 GMT): the bigger story is inside Iran. Mehdi Karroubi's appearance at the Media Fair, with the loud and fervant chants of his supporters and  the scuffles with bystanders and security forces, will ripple throughout Tehran's political circles. Once again, Karroubi has not backed down (altogether now --- Bring. It. On.), so once again the opposition movement has a boost amidst the Government's ad hoc but still notable shows of force. Indeed, the reformists now get the convergence of the negative, with the arrest of the 60 party members and relatives on Thursday, and the positive with Karroubi's mobilising of public sentiment.

1748 GMT: We're taking a Friday night concert break so will be back later with a round-up on all the news from Iran's nukes to Karroubi at the Media Fair.

1745 GMT: The official statement from the International Atomic Energy Agency says, "Iran informed the Director General today that it is considering the proposal in depth and in a favourable light, but it needs time until the middle of next week to provide a response. The Director General hopes that Iran's response will equally be positive, since approval of this agreement will signal a new era of cooperation."

1730 GMT: Fereshteh Ghazi has posted a series of updates on the status of the 60 people arrested --- some freed, some still detained --- last night.

1645 GMT: Oh, You Teases. Having made the world wait all day for a reply to the deadline for acceptance of the third-party enrichment plan, the Iranian Government is indicating it will formally respond to the proposal next week, says Press TV. Tehran is still putting out the public line that it would prefer to buy uranium directly from other countries.

This could be a tactic to make the West wait and show some Iranian independence, both to home and foreign audiences. Equally, it could be the product of an Iranian system which is in a bit of disarray and confusion over internal and external events.

1630 GMT: Quick update on Friday Prayers. Not much to report from Tehran: Hoatoleslam Kazam Sadighi, very much a supporting cleric in the FP line-up, used the address to call for a "second cultural revolution" in Iran's universities. That message follows the line laid down by the Supreme Leader in a speech in August.

1430 GMT: Fars News, betraying worry about the significance of Mehdi Karroubi's appearance at the Media Fair, have rushed out an article which claims people, chanting "Death to the hypocrite!", chased Karroubi from the exhibition. A photograph smacking of Photoshop shows Karroubi being struck in the head by a shoe as he tries to get into a car. Fars also claim, "One of the bodyguards of this failed presidential candidate fired into the air to disperse the crowd, an act that is rarely carried out by bodyguards of personalities in this country." (English summary from HomyLafayette)

1420 GMT: Norooz reports that 60 people were arrested at last night's prayers for detained reformist Shahabeddin Tabatabei. The newspaper provides the names of many of those detained.


1415 GMT: We've posted two videos of the enthusiastic reception for Mehdi Karroubi's arrival at the Iran Media Fair in Tehran today.

1245 GMT: Report that Mohammad Reza Jalaiepour, detained earlier in the post-election crisis and arrested against last night, has been released.

1230 GMT: Mehdi Karroubi has entered the Iran Media Fair to chants from supporters. Parleman News adds that there are reports of scuffles started by pro-Ahmadinejad groups. Karroubi was escorted outside, though it is unclear whether by his followers or by security forces in an effort to protect him.

1200 GMT: Stalling, Game-Playing, etc. State television is reporting that the Iranian Government is balking at signing the uranium enrichment agreement today. An official says, "Now we are awaiting a positive and constructive response on Iran's proposal from the other party on providing nuclear fuel for Tehran's reactor. The other party is expected to avoid past mistakes in violating agreements ... and to gain Iran's trust."

1155 GMT: Grand Ayatollahs Montazeri and Sane'i have added their voices to those condemning last night’s arrests of 30 Islamic Iran Participation Front members and relatives.

1100 GMT: Union Battles. Meanwhile, on the economic front, there are signs of further unrest for the Government. A strike in Ahvaz received some attention, and an EA reader has just tipped us off the following, adapted from the Persian2English blog:

Members of the board of directors for Haft-Tappeh’s sugar cane labour association are on the verge of getting fired or being imprisoned.

According to reports, threats and pressure on board members and labour workers from Shoosh intelligence service has increased. Since the morning of Wednesday October 21, company guards, who worked under the control of Shoosh intelligence service, prohibited four members of the board from going to work. Three were sentenced to six months of jail time with physical punishment and six months of jail time with partial bail, and one was sentenced to four months of jail time with physical punishment and eight months of jail time with partial bail.

Mr. Ali Nejati, the head of the board of directors of the sugar cane labour association was fired and prohibited from going to work. Over the past six months he has not received any payments or benefits.

1040 GMT: An EA correspondent follows up on our story about the Iran Media Fair, in which the Kayhan "hard-line" newspaper reportedly had to remove its guestbook and flag after they were decorated with pro-Mousavi slogans and Green ribbons:

I went there the first day, Tuesday. The large Kayhan booth had a gaggle of journalists around a table. Different people were taking turns signing the guestbookit. One signed it with a Mousavi slogan, the next with an Ahmadinejad slogan, repeat, rinse.

It was orderly, everyone was pushing up and taking pictures of the guestbook. That went on for at least 3 hours. I left, and perhaps then they "removed" it, but what was more remarkable was that the whole thing seemed playful when I was watching it. That kind of stuff happens here, more often than the bad stuff, actually.

1000 GMT: Still waiting for news of Friday Prayers in Tehran. Meanwhile, the families of political prisoners have condemned last night's arrests of 30 members of the Islamic Iran Participation Front: “If you have no mercy on our innocent children, at least have mercy on your religion; stop ruling in the name of Islam and stop dishonouring Islam."

0855 GMT: On a more serious note with our friends at The New York Times: it appears they are still intent on trying --- through naivete, mischief, or really bad journalism --- to demolish the draft agreement for third-party enrichment of Iran's journalism.

All week David Sanger has been led by the nose to proclaim that Iran was walking out of the talks (not true) and that Tehran was already plotting to circumvent the agreement (speculative propaganda fed to him by "Western officials"). Now Robert Worth chips in with "Iranian Lawmaker Dismisses Uranium Plan".

To give Worth some credit, at least this incident --- unlike Sanger's --- did happen. As we noted yesterday, Reuters was pushing the story that Deputy Speaker of Parliament Mohammad Reza Bahonar said that the deal to send Iran's uranium to Russia for processing was "not acceptable".

But we also noted that Bahonar has nothing to do with the Iranian Government's consideration of the proposal --- he is a member of Parliament sniping from the outside. And we suggested that the comments of Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's lead negotiator in the Vienna talks, might be far more important, as he signalled that Tehran would accept the agreement.

On reflection, intrepid New York Times colleagues, go ahead and steal from us (see 0840 GMT). Because channeling off-the-record comments and Reuters' unchecked reports isn't doing anyone any good.

0840 GMT: In a separate entry, we've just had a bit of fun with Michael Slackman of The New York Times, who seems to have stolen our line on Mehdi Karroubi for his story this morning.

0815 GMT: The deputy head of security forces in Sistan-Baluchestan, describing Sunday's bombing, has repeated claims that the attacks are part of "the U.S. plan to create insecurity in our country".

0630 GMT: For the international media, "Iran" today means attention to the Vienna talks, where the Iranian regime and the "5+1" powers face a deadline to accept the draft agreement on third-party enrichment of Tehran's uranium. Make no mistake, however: the bigger stories are inside Iran.

The significance of last night's arrests of members of the reformist Islamic Iran Participation Front, gathered to pray for detainee Shahabeddin Tabatabei (see yesterday's updates), is still not fully known. This was of course a spiteful move against Government opponents, but is it a one-off raid or part of a wider, renewed campaign to break the Green Wave and anyone associated with it? Have President Ahmadinejad and the Iranian security services, whom we believe have been on the back foot since Sunday's bombings, decided to re-assert themselves or is this more a sign of a disjointed regime lashing out in an ad hoc fashion?

The answers should emerge in Government activities over the next 72 hours. Today is the Iranian weekend but still there may be clues in hostility directed at Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi, and their followers. Even then, questions would remain. How does the regime deal with the rising discontent from senior clerics? And will the pro-Ahmadinejed forces go even farther --- with political moves and "information" --- to blunt the National Unity Plan of conservatives and principlists?

Answers are unlikely to come from Friday Prayers, which are likely to be a relatively low-key affair. And President Ahmadinejad spent Thursday night talking to academics in general terms about the necessity of building "community" for progress and excellence.

The Latest from Iran (22 October): Unsteady as She Goes

NEW Really?! Israel & Iran in Direct Talks on Nuclear Weapons
Iran’s Nukes: Text of IAEA Head El Baradei Statement (21 October)
The Latest from Iran (21 October): Room for a Challenge?

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

2020 GMT: Rah-e-Sabz has named 18 of the people arrested this evening.

1915 GMT: Tonight's Arrests. A group had gathered at the house of Shahabbedin Tabatabei, a detained member of the Islamic Iran Participation Front to pray for his release. Security forces entered the home. They asked 4 everyone's cell phone and filmed them, handcuffed the men, and took away several people.

Among those detained were Tabatabei's wife, Mohammad-Reza Jalaiepour, who was detained earlier in the post-election crisis, Mehrak Mirabzadeh, Faezeh Abtahi, and Saeed Nourmohammadi. Mirabzadeh and Abtahi were later released.

1800 GMT: Iranian activists on Twitter are reporting that a number of high-ranking Islamic Iran Participant Front members have been arrested, and in some cases re-arrested after previous post-election detentions, this evening.

1655 GMT: The reformist Islamic Iran Participation Front of the Islamic Revolution has condemned the sentences against political activists. It has God’s promise that no Government or country can survive with such acts; as Prophet Mohammad said, “A state can survive with infidelity but not with tyranny and oppression."

The IIPF added that the coup forces have shown that their only use of religion is to justify despotic and authoritarian actions, issuing unjust sentences against some of the most loyal children of the revolution and the country. (English summary via Mousavi Facebook page)

1640 GMT: More than 2500 students at Sharif University have signed an open letter protesting disciplinary action against their classmates for political activity.

1630 GMT: Heads-Up Announcement. I just finished a 45-minute interview with Fintan Dunne of Sea of Green Radio on Afghanistan and Iran. The broadcast should be available this evening.

1530 GMT: Failure of Day. Earlier this week, we reported on a success for the Green Wave at the Iran Media Fair, when the "hard-line" Kayhan newspaper was forced to remove a guestbook and take down a flag after they were inscribed and decorated with pro-Mousavi slogans and green ribbons.

On the other side, a stand set up by the Ministry of Islamic Guidance to collect names for a complaint against Mousavi did not do very well. So poorly, in fact, that it was taken down.

1300 GMT: Fars Makes Up Clinton Quotes. I'm  not sure if this is another signal that Iran will sign the enrichment deal --- given the image of a US making concessions to a "peaceful" Tehran --- or really bad propaganda.

Fars News is currently leading with the story, "Clinton: Iran's nuclear program is peaceful", quoting her from an interview with The New York Times. Which would be fine, except it bears no resemblance to the truth. In the article in the Times, the summary of the Secretary of State's remarks --- actually made in a speech to the US Institute of Peace --- is "Iran and North Korea must take decisive action to curb their nuclear programs, and not just talk about doing so, if they expected to enjoy an easing of global pressures".

1240 GMT: Will Iran Sign the Uranium Enrichment Deal? Yes.

At least that's the clue offered by Ali Asghar Soltanieh, the Iranian Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, "The Vienna talks are a new chapter in cooperation between Iran and the other participating states….We will be waiting to see whether they will stay true to their words and promises. The International Atomic Energy Agency will be a witness to the other states' behaviors when it comes to technical cooperation on using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."

So there's Tehran's spin: We are the ones in control of this process, putting "the West" to the test on the nuclear issue.

You won't see this in Western media yet --- they're distracted for the moment by the tangential comments of Deputy Speaker of Parliament Mohammad Reza Bahonar that the deal "is not acceptable to us". Bahonar has no role in the nuclear negotiations; his words only come into play if the Parliament decides to resist the Government's engagement with Washington.

1145 GMT: Not Going to Let It Go. The "US linked to Jundallah bombing" narrative lives on. Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani has repeated his claims from Sunday that this is an American connection to the attack in southeastern Iran that killed at least 41 people: "Unfortunately, a trace of the US crimes can be seen in the latest events in our country. Although [the US] has denied any involvement in the terrorist attack, it is not enough and not unacceptable to us. They should explain why such things are taking place."

I have to say I'm surprised, given the context of this week's talks in Vienna on Iran's uranium enrichment. Perhaps Larijani is maintaining political pressure on Washington. But is that a prelude to walking away from the draft agreement? Is it to maintain a tough public stance, even as Iran accepts the arrangement?

Even more curious, and complicating the questions above, is that Larijani is the only front-line politician to complement the Revolutionary Guard's criticism of Washington. So is the Speaker speaking for the Ahmadinejad Government or cutting an independent path?

0825 GMT: The Shark Surfaces. Fararu News reports that Hashemi Rafsanjani has spoken with scholars at the Qom seminary.

He emphasized the principles of Islam and the Islamic Revolution to deal with the country's "many fundamental problems". The Iranian system was sound but, unfortunately, certain operations had raised public and international concerns. It was important, therefore, that all institutions and individuals respected and upheld the Constitution. And, to support that, there must be "free and uncensored information of events and issues", without lies and distortions.

Nothing unusual or dramatic in those general statements. What may be more significant, as we watch Qom's evolving interest in a resolution to post-election disputes, is the timing of Rafsanjani's encounter.

0600 GMT: In contrast to events in Vienna, where Tehran and the "West" neared an agreement on uranium enrichment, a quieter Wednesday in Iran. There were reports of scattered demonstrations, but rumours of a confrontation between President Ahmadinejad and students at Tehran University never turned into reality.

The quest by pro-Ahmadinejad members of Parliament to put pressure on Mir Hossein Mousavi through a formal complaint appeared to run aground in confusion. For the moment, the Revolutionary Guard continues to be preoccupied with the aftermath of the Sistan-Baluchestan bombing.

On the opposition side, movement is still restricted by the Government's formal and informal measure, but a drip-feed of news continues as the calendar moves towards 13 Aban (4 November). Mehdi Karroubi, meeting the members of the Defenders of Human Rights and the National Peace Council, strongly criticised the measures trying to cut off his communications with the people, such as the shutdown of his newspaper and official website, the arrest of his close allies, and the closure of his office. He assured the audience that he was ready for any further regime moves, e.g. that would be taken against him. The Government's ignorance of the rights of the people made the situation worse, and the Green movement would continue until those rights are reinstated. (English summary available via Radio Zamaneh)

The report of a forthcoming meeting between senior clerics and members of Parliament over the proposed National Election Committee promises another front in the challenge to the President and possibly the Supreme Leader. And reformists took heart from the announcement that former President Mohammad Khatami had won the inaugural Global Dialogue Prize, given for cultural and intercultural research in global communication and cooperation.

One item from the prisons: Mostafa Tajzadeh, the former deputy Minister of Interior, told his wife during a visit that he was unaware of the process of his Detained since June, he remained defiant: " Let [the regime] say whatever they want in an unchallenged environment and in our absence; there is no doubt that there will be an opportunity for the people to hear our side of the story! "

Video & Transcript: Cheney Speech on National Security (21 October)

Video and Transcript: Dick Cheney Speech on “National Security” at American Enterprise Institute (21 May)
Video: Dissecting the Cheney Speech on National Security (22 May)

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Apparently a former Vice President spoke last night and said he kept the world safe and the current President doesn't. Sort of like my Dad saying each time we meet, "You know in my day 1) there was no crime 2) kids knew their place 3) music was much better."

Part 1 of 2

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXa4ywUz2p8[/youtube]

Part 2 of 2

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsdhDkYnIjA[/youtube]

CHENEY: Thank you all very much. It’s a pleasure to be here, and especially to receive the Keeper of the Flame Award in the company of so many good friends.

I’m told that among those you’ve recognized before me was my friend Don Rumsfeld. I don’t mind that a bit. It fits something of a pattern. In a career that includes being chief of staff, congressman, and secretary of defense, I haven’t had much that Don didn’t get first. But truth be told, any award once conferred on Donald Rumsfeld carries extra luster, and I am very proud to see my name added to such a distinguished list.

To Frank Gaffney and all the supporters of Center for Security Policy, I thank you for this honor. And I thank you for the great energy and high intelligence you bring to as vital a cause as there is – the advance of freedom and the uncompromising defense of the United States.

Most anyone who is given responsibility in matters of national security quickly comes to appreciate the commitments and structures put in place by others who came before. You deploy a military force that was planned and funded by your predecessors. You inherit relationships with partners and obligations to allies that were first undertaken years and even generations earlier. With the authority you hold for a little while, you have great freedom of action. And whatever course you follow, the essential thing is always to keep commitments, and to leave no doubts about the credibility of your country’s word.

So among my other concerns about the drift of events under the present administration, I consider the abandonment of missile defense in Eastern Europe to be a strategic blunder and a breach of good faith.

It is certainly not a model of diplomacy when the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic are informed of such a decision at the last minute in midnight phone calls. It took a long time and lot of political courage in those countries to arrange for our interceptor system in Poland and the radar system in the Czech Republic. Our Polish and Czech friends are entitled to wonder how strategic plans and promises years in the making could be dissolved, just like that – with apparently little, if any, consultation. Seventy years to the day after the Soviets invaded Poland, it was an odd way to mark the occasion.

You hardly have to go back to 1939 to understand why these countries desire – and thought they had – a close and trusting relationship with the United States. Only last year, the Russian Army moved into Georgia, under the orders of a man who regards the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. Anybody who has spent much time in that part of the world knows what Vladimir Putin is up to. And those who try placating him, by conceding ground and accommodating his wishes, will get nothing in return but more trouble.

What did the Obama Administration get from Russia for its abandonment of Poland and the Czech Republic, and for its famous “Reset” button? Another deeply flawed election and continued Russian opposition to sanctioning Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
In the short of it, President Obama’s cancellation of America’s agreements with the Polish and Czech governments was a serious blow to the hopes and aspirations of millions of Europeans. For twenty years, these peoples have done nothing but strive to move closer to us, and to gain the opportunities and security that America offered. These are faithful friends and NATO allies, and they deserve better. The impact of making two NATO allies walk the plank won’t be felt only in Europe. Our friends throughout the world are watching and wondering whether America will abandon them as well.

Big events turn on the credibility of the United States – doing what we said we would do, and always defending our fundamental security interests. In that category belong the ongoing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the need to counter the nuclear ambitions of the current regime in Iran.

Candidate Obama declared last year that he would be willing to sit down with Iran's leader without preconditions. As President, he has
committed America to an Iran strategy that seems to treat engagement as an objective rather than a tactic. Time and time again, he has outstretched his hand to the Islamic Republic's authoritarian leaders, and all the while Iran has continued to provide lethal support to extremists and terrorists who are killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Islamic Republic continues to provide support to extremists in Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. Meanwhile, the regime continues to spin centrifuges and test missiles. And these are just the activities we know about.

I have long been skeptical of engagement with the current regime in Tehran, but even Iran experts who previously advocated for engagement have changed their tune since the rigged elections this past June and the brutal suppression of Iran's democratic protestors. The administration clearly missed an opportunity to stand with Iran's democrats, whose popular protests represent the greatest challenge to the Islamic Republic since its founding in 1979. Instead, the President has been largely silent about the violent crackdown on Iran's protestors, and has moved blindly forward to engage Iran's authoritarian regime. Unless the Islamic Republic fears real consequences from the United States and the international community, it is hard to see how diplomacy will work.

Next door in Iraq, it is vitally important that President Obama, in his rush to withdraw troops, not undermine the progress we’ve made in recent years. Prime Minister Maliki met yesterday with President Obama, who began his press availability with an extended comment about Afghanistan. When he finally got around to talking about Iraq, he told the media that he reiterated to Maliki his intention to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq. Former President Bush's bold decision to change strategy in Iraq and surge U.S. forces there set the stage for success in that country. Iraq has the potential to be a strong, democratic ally in the war on terrorism, and an example of economic and democratic reform in the heart of the Middle East. The Obama Administration has an obligation to protect this young democracy and build on the strategic success we have achieved in Iraq.

We should all be concerned as well with the direction of policy on Afghanistan. For quite a while, the cause of our military in that country went pretty much unquestioned, even on the left. The effort was routinely praised by way of contrast to Iraq, which many wrote off as a failure until the surge proved them wrong. Now suddenly – and despite our success in Iraq – we’re hearing a drumbeat of defeatism over Afghanistan. These criticisms carry the same air of hopelessness, they offer the same short-sighted arguments for walking away, and they should be summarily rejected for the same reasons of national security.

Having announced his Afghanistan strategy last March, President Obama now seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission.

President Obama has said he understands the stakes for America. When he announced his new strategy he couched the need to succeed in the starkest possible terms, saying, quote, “If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.” Five months later, in August of this year, speaking at the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the President made a promise to America’s armed forces. “I will give you a clear mission,” he said, “defined goals, and the equipment and support you need to get the job done. That’s my commitment to you.”

It’s time for President Obama to make good on his promise. The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger.

Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries. Waffling, while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy, endangers them and hurts our cause.

Recently, President Obama’s advisors have decided that it’s easier to blame the Bush Administration than support our troops. This weekend they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The President’s chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadn’t asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.

In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama’s team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision – a good one, I think – and sent a commander into the field to implement it.

Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.

It’s worth recalling that we were engaged in Afghanistan in the 1980’s, supporting the Mujahadeen against the Soviets. That was a successful policy, but then we pretty much put Afghanistan out of our minds. While no one was watching, what followed was a civil war, the takeover by the Taliban, and the rise of bin Laden and al-Qaeda. All of that set in motion the events of 9/11. When we deployed forces eight years ago this month, it was to make sure Afghanistan would never again be a training ground for the killing of Americans. Saving untold thousands of lives is still the business at hand in this fight. And the success of our mission in Afghanistan is not only essential, it
is entirely achievable with enough troops and enough political courage.

Then there’s the matter of how to handle the terrorists we capture in this ongoing war. Some of them know things that, if shared, can save a good many innocent lives. When we faced that problem in the days and years after 9/11, we made some basic decisions. We understood that organized terrorism is not just a law-enforcement issue, but a strategic threat to the United States.

At every turn, we understood as well that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. We had a lot of blind spots – and that’s an awful thing, especially in wartime. With many thousands of lives potentially in the balance, we didn’t think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.
The intelligence professionals who got the answers we needed from terrorists had limited time, limited options, and careful legal guidance. They got the baddest actors we picked up to reveal things they really didn’t want to share. In the case of Khalid Sheik Muhammed, by the time it was over he was not was not only talking, he was practically conducting a seminar, complete with chalkboards and charts. It turned out he had a professorial side, and our guys didn’t mind at all if classes ran long. At some point, the mastermind of 9/11 became an expansive briefer on the operations and plans of al-Qaeda. It happened in the course of enhanced interrogations. All the evidence, and common sense as well, tells us why he started to talk.

The debate over intelligence gathering in the seven years after 9/11 involves much more than historical accuracy. What we’re really debating are the means and resolve to protect this country over the next few years, and long after that. Terrorists and their state sponsors must be held accountable, and America must remain on the offensive against them. We got it right after 9/11. And our government needs to keep getting it right, year after year, president after president, until the danger is finally overcome.
Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later
years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after 9/11 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.

Eight years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed. So you would think that our successors would be going to the intelligence community saying, “How did you did you do it? What were the keys to preventing another attack over that period of time?”

Instead, they’ve chosen a different path entirely – giving in to the angry left, slandering people who did a hard job well, and demagoguing an issue more serious than any other they’ll face in these four years. No one knows just where that path will lead, but I can promise you this: There will always be plenty of us willing to stand up for the policies and the people that have kept this country safe.

On the political left, it will still be asserted that tough interrogations did no good, because this is an article of faith for them, and actual evidence is unwelcome and disregarded. President Obama himself has ruled these methods out, and when he last addressed the subject he filled the air with vague and useless platitudes. His preferred device is to suggest that we could have gotten the same information by other means. We’re invited to think so. But this ignores the hard, inconvenient truth that we did try other means and techniques to elicit information from Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and other al-Qaeda operatives, only turning to enhanced techniques when we failed to produce the actionable intelligence we knew they were withholding. In fact, our intelligence professionals, in urgent circumstances with the highest of stakes, obtained specific information, prevented specific attacks, and saved American lives.

In short, to call enhanced interrogation a program of torture is not only to disregard the program’s legal underpinnings and safeguards. Such accusations are a libel against dedicated professionals who acted honorably and well, in our country’s name and in our country’s
cause. What’s more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation in the future, in favor of half-measures, is unwise in the extreme. In the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed.

For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings – and least of all can that be said of our armed forces and intelligence personnel. They have done right, they have made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.

Last January 20th, our successors in office were given the highest honors that the voters of this country can give any two citizens. Along with that, George W. Bush and I handed the new president and vice president both a record of success in the war on terror, and the policies to continue that record and ultimately prevail. We had been the decision makers, but those seven years, four months, and nine days without another 9/11 or worse, were a combined achievement: a credit to all who serve in the defense of America, including some of the finest people I’ve ever met.

What the present administration does with those policies is their call to make, and will become a measure of their own record. But I will tell you straight that I am not encouraged when intelligence officers who acted in the service of this country find themselves hounded with a zeal that should be reserved for America’s enemies. And it certainly is not a good sign when the Justice Department is set on a political mission to discredit, disbar, or otherwise persecute the very people who helped protect our nation in the years after 9/11.

There are policy differences, and then there are affronts that have to be answered every time without equivocation, and this is one of them. We cannot protect this country by putting politics over security, and turning the guns on our own guys.

We cannot hope to win a war by talking down our country and those who do its hardest work – the men and women of our military and intelligence services. They are, after all, the true keepers of the flame.

Enemy Iran: The US-Israeli Military Drill

Really?! Israel & Iran in Direct Talks on Nuclear Weapons
The Latest from Iran (22 October): Unsteady as She Goes

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

On Wednesday, Israel and the US, with 1,000 participants on each side, launched a major air defense drill called Operation Juniper Cobra 10, simulating an Iranian missile attack. According to the scenario, Iran sends its missiles and Americans support the Israeli Defense Force with its missile defense system. Then allies attack Iranian missile batteries with missiles with unconventional warheads.

The drill will last for two weeks.

Bring It On: Israel Counter-attacks UN over Gaza Enquiry

Palestine: Suffering Life at Israeli Checkpoints

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Under the terms of the Goldstone Report on the Gaza War, now approved by the UN Human Rights Council, Israel and Hamas are required to conduct internal enquiries into the conduct of their military forces.

Fat chance.

On Tuesday, Israel's President Shimon Peres told CNN that the Goldstone Report "one-sided" and "unfair".





Peres' statement was mere prelude to the full Israeli resistance. In fact, for resistance, insert "counter-attack". On Tuesday, the Israeli Cabinet and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, promising a lengthy battle to "delegitimize" the findings of the United Nations commission, established a committee to deal with the prospect of "legal proceedings abroad against the state of Israel or its citizens."

Even Defense Minister Ehud Barak, seen as the moderate amongst senior Israeli ministers, refused to discuss the possibility of a Governmental investigation: "There is no need for a committee of inquiry. The Israeli military knows to examine itself better than anyone else."

Meanwhile Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman chose a diversionary strategy of undermining the Israel-Palestine peace process. He told his European Union counterpart Javier Solana:

The policy of subversion carried out by the Palestinian Authority against the State of Israel, which follows decisions at the Fatah conference in August in which there were calls for the resumption of the armed struggle, raises serious questions about the real aims of the Palestinians. The question now is whether the Palestinians want to establish a state, or to destroy the state of Israel.