The Price of Liberty

It has been a week since Admiral Mullen, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made his whirlwind tour of Europe and Israel. It would appear that the tour was more of a squall line of tornadoes rather than a single whirly-dervish. The MSM has been working overtime to downplay what happened or exactly what the message is. Did the Admiral return preaching peace or preparation.

MSNBC carried two pieces, from its wire sources, about the Admiral's assessment. The first makes very plain that the Admiral is a man of peace and staunchly against any action against Iran, short of carrying them milk and cookies.

WASHINGTON - It could turn out to be one of the most significant comments of the 2008 campaign — but coming just ahead of a holiday weekend, it isn’t getting much notice.

Upon his return from a visit to Israel and Europe, the nation’s highest ranking military officer warned Wednesday that a military strike on Iran would be a very bad idea.

“This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don't need it to be more unstable,” said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen.

This is too much to believe--"a very bad idea" that "I don't need"? The only thing significant about the Admiral's assessment so far is that he appears to forget the chain of command and exactly who makes policy in the old US of A. Tom Curry adds later in his piece:

But Mullen appeared to be edging toward saying that military action, either by Israel or the United States, or both, would be catastrophic. He also warned that the United States would be hard pressed to conduct operations against Iran, given the commitment of tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“From the United States' perspective, the United States' military perspective, in particular, opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us,” Mullen told reporters. “That doesn't mean we don't have capacity or reserve, but that would really be very challenging.”

And, he added, “The consequences of that (military action) sometimes are very difficult to predict.”

Mullen explained, “Just about every move in that part of the world is a high-risk move. And that's why I think it's so important that the international piece, the financial piece, the diplomatic piece, the economic piece be brought to bear with a level of intensity that resolves this.”

MSNBC also covers the Iranian response to the crisis. In a manner characteristic of Stationary Bandits confident in free rider inaction to their continued goals of mass destruction, the Iranian's "top diplomat in the US" essentially dismissed any chance of external threat. In fact, he was so distainful of the crass Americans that he didn't shave or put on a tie (he could have at least unbuttoned his top button). [AP Photo/Richard Drew]

NEW YORK - Iran's top diplomat predicted Wednesday that the United States and Israel would not risk the "craziness" of attacking his country and possibly provoking a wider Middle East war or driving oil prices into uncharted heights.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in an interview with The Associated Press that he does not believe a military strike is looming while the U.S. economy is suffering and it is bogged down in a seven-year-old campaign in Afghanistan and more than five years in Iraq.

His remarks come amid mounting speculation that Israel may be considering a unilateral strike on Iran's nuclear facilities — a contingency that could upend already volatile oil markets.

So, playing the Spanish Election Gambit to the hilt, the grizzled guy from Iran is saying that while it is crazy for Israel and the US to do anything about their weapons build up, it is completely rational for the Iranians to build continue to build a few more nuclear devices--one for Tel Aviv and one for the carrier task forces operating in the Gulf--and use them. And they are, as Israelis say, 100%--all the US has ever done against Iran since the US embassy was invaded and hostages taken is talk.

HOWEVER, in the Israeli MSM, there has been a different slant on the same story on the same assessment by the same admiral.

In a newspaper interview last week, Jafari warned that if attacked, Iran would barrage Israel with missiles and choke off the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a narrow outlet for oil tankers leaving the Persian Gulf. Israel carried out a large military exercise last month, seen throughout the media as a rehearsal for an attack on Iran.

Meanwhile, a U.S. admiral warned earlier this week that Iran is likely to launch ballistic missiles against Israel and the United States and the NATO alliance should prepare for it. In recent years, the missile boats of the Sixth Fleet practiced intercepting Shahab-3 missiles from Iran aimed at Israel, along with the Arrow batteries of the air force and U.S. and Israeli batteries of Patriot missiles.

In an article entitled "Maritime Strategy in an Age of Blood and Belief" in the U.S. Naval Institute's monthly Proceedings, fleet commander Admiral James Winnefeld describes the possibility of an offensive barrage of ballistic missiles fired from Iran against Israel as being "by far the most likely employment of ballistic missiles in the world today, and it demands our immediate attention in the event of a need for a U.S. or NATO response."

He says Iran is an "unpredictable adversary," which could be provoked into action "by an isolated, and perhaps seemingly unimportant, event."

In this part of the world, the essense of US and European strategy has been dialog. As a result, the perception of how to dialog with the US and its vassals is to talk while reloading. When the talking is finished--strike again. American response has been to withdraw, apologize, and start to talk again. And so it goes. Dialog is fun, especially when the consequences of making a mistake are not felt by the mediator--sort of a Britney Spears "Oops Strategy". Under Clinton, the entire Israeli problem was treated as a domestic squabble--get the couple talking and back together. Of course the mediators do not feel the continued punches of the abusing spouse nor do they have liability when one turns up dead.

But Israelis cannot afford such a risk. Iran is playing the stationary bandit strategy to the hilt. Ridding the world of nuclear weapons is a public good--we all agree that we are better off without them and certainly without rogue states using them. But stopping such proliferation, itself a public good, is subject to what the late Mancur Olson called the free rider problem--it is rational to let someone else provide the public good than pay the cost since you get the benefits by definition.

Moreover, detente and Mutual Assured Destruction did not emerge like the goddess Athena fully formed from Henry Kissenger's head. It emerged over time as a lot of big bangs and devastation demonstrated exactly what could happen and that there was a reliable means of delivery worldwide. Iran could claim a weapon but until it used it there would be no way to know for sure it was there--only through demonstration, like Tel Aviv or a carrier task force, could Iran be acknowledged as a world player. What is there to prevent them from doing so, and what are the costs of retaliation? You like to drive to and from work and live in the suburbs?

But for Israel, this is not a game--Israelis know that the Iranian bomb is a matter of when and not if. They also know that no one is going to help Israel but Israelis. No one else is down range, with the exception of the US Navy. Moreover, last summer Israel demonstrated the most reliable counter strategy to the Middle East Tango--we talk, I hit, we talk. When Syria began to build its "weapon", they wanted to talk. Israel agreed to talk but also began IDF tank and artillery practice in the Golan nightly from 2am to 5am.

After demanding impossible concessions from Israel, the Syrians announced that the Golan could be taken back by other means. Israel struck destroying their facility and the Russian missiles guarding it.

Iran is banking on the American gasoholic, who like the Spanish commuter, will vote rather than fight. In fact, they have adopted the classic gangster extortion rap to perfection--want to continue drive, then let us use our bomb or else.

No matter what the outcome is, Americans will pay at the gas pump. Israelis will pay with blood. In the words of Howard Fast, the price of liberty is blood. Some Americans may have forgotten; but every Israeli remembers daily.

Happy Fourth of July.