Nuth'n Hap'n

Spent hours tonight looking for news on what's happening on the Iran front. There just isn't much news. That's because there's not much hap'n. And not much discussion either, which is a surprise to me because I see this as the one big thing that is happening.

The best new thing is that the EU has made a demand:

The EU threatened to act against Iran last night if it did not immediately and unconditionally release the 15 British sailors and marines it has been holding for more than a week.
EU foreign ministers meeting in Bremen, Germany, threatened "appropriate measures" if Tehran did not let the group go....

Good as far as it goes. It's more than the Brits got out of the UN. It indicates that the EU feels a little more solidarity with Britain than say, does Russia. But it's not much. As I understand, Britain requested the EU cease commerce with Iran until the hostages were released. The EU is Iran's biggest trading partner. That is a step that would be effective. The EU declined and instead issued words. I take that to mean they really don't care, about hostages, I mean. Iran kidnaps people, that's just part of the price of doing business. Iran humiliates Britain, Iran humiliates the EU, showing to the world that they're toothless, and the EU doesn't care... This I find hard to understand.

Is it possible that Europe doesn't recognize it has been humiliated? Is it possible that Europe doesn't recognize that this humiliation is eventually going to result in more dead Europeans?

It is possible. These aren't really smart people, and sixty years of being protected by America has made them cowardly as well.

One might say they have "self-esteem" --they do certainly love the shape of their face-- but this is a self-love achieved at the expense of an immense mental gymnastic. They are in fact a fallen and small people, shamed in their dependence for defense on America, but they assuage that shame by the simple expedient of hating their protector. It works. They feel good, and very superior, and they know that America will continue to defend them nevertheless. But this isn't a gymnastic that creates a deep self-confidence, and they do fear them crazy Arabs... But what's to fear? Everybody knows there would be no hatred in the world if it were not for America. Love and Understanding and Accommodation and Peace. This they tell themselves, tell themselves and tell themselves. Such repetition has to be exhausting, and it blots out any possibility of anything like real thought. If they do happen to recognize, in little bits, now and then, that yes, the Arabs will kill them, they will die, it's always with the comforting thought: But it will be my neighbor first; and if that is not enough, then there's at least this: It will be a long while yet before it comes to that.

Don't bet on it.

But at the moment Britain has been humiliated. In as much as any attention is paid at all by an Englishman it's in concern for the lives of their sailors. How nice, how backwards. The first wound and the first danger is in the humiliation; the lives of the service personnel come second. That concern for their release can be a first demand, but their real first concern has to be that they have the force, that they have the resolve, to make it happen.

Poor Europe. They will go the way of Rhodesia and become Zimbabwe.

Day Six?

Doesn't matter. Brits are losers.

Several comments from Blair and others over the last few days on Iran: "Don't they know what this looks like to the rest of the world?" Yup. Brits are losers.

To be fair, that exact question has two nearly opposite answers over the last six days. The first three days: How do they look? Iran looks just like the rogue state it is. The last three days? Britain looks just like the cowardly nation it is.

They're afraid to fight. This isn't a rational consideration of consequences, after all, they do have the United States on their side. They're just afraid to fight.

This is terribly hard to understand but I suppose it's because if they had to fight they would have to admit that there's such a thing as an enemy and then they would have to admit that their own multicultural society is in very bad shape and they're soon going to have civil war. They will have civil war, but my, it would be so unpleasant to have to face it just this afternoon.

I do understand the problem. They're Christians, and a Muslim, ardent in his faith, can smell a Christian a continent away. But a Christian, European that is, and modern, thinks he's left all that silliness behind, and is "advanced"; he doesn't recognize that that Christian stuff is what he's made of, it's the shape of his mind even if not of his faith, and he still gives off the ordor.

................
I note the United Arab Emirates has stated there will be no attacks from their territory. That's because they want to be on the side of the winner and they've already picked the winner, Iran. This wasn't the same response given last summer when Israel first attacked Hezbollah. Then, while of course some perfunctory criticism of Israel was necessary, they in fact were pulling for Israel because they wanted to see Hizbollah crushed as a defeat to Iran, the one nation in the gulf they truly fear. It wasn't until they saw Israel getting "whipped" that they went back to they're visceral orrientation and pulled against the Jews. But that first impulse put them in bad standing with Iran, and Iran is big, and Iran is just across the gulf. This time they're playing it smart. They're pulling for the winner from the outset. The winner is going to be Iran, they're going to be there forever. In fact the Emirates would like to see Iran pulverized. But Britain won't do it, and probably not the United States. A hand slap, probably that at the most, but the Mullahs will be angry to have had their hand slapped, so UAE plays it safe and goes with the Persians. If somehow the US does attack, all for the better, but the Emirates has kept its nose clean.

They wouldn't be so very public about their clean nose if they had any faith in the US.

.................
Saudis playing something of the same game:

Saudi King Abdullah, whose country is a close US ally, on Wednesday slammed the "illegitimate foreign occupation" of Iraq in an opening speech to the annual Arab summit in Riyadh.

The US looks like a loser now. This is nose clean statement that they're no longer on the ship. To be referenced later if useful.

..................
Meanwhile France has difficulty with "youths", and the Washington Post finds more failure in Iraq. The Washington Post merely wants failure, and is making its contribution; the French actually face failure.

France's presidential candidates have been exchanging fire over why the simple arrest of a fare-dodger turned into a full scale riot, with the Left claiming that Nicolas Sarkozy's repressive policies have brought anti-police sentiment to an all-time high.

Ségolène Royal, the Socialist candidate, said the riot was a legacy of Mr Sarkozy's time at the interior ministry - including the November 2005 riots - which had worsened animosity between police and young people from ethnic minorities.

"Naturally passengers should pay for their ticket. But for a simple stop-check to degenerate into such violent confrontation proves that something is not right any more," she said.

She is so right and the "something" is so clear.

Provocation Pandora Ongoing...

Been reading what there is to read. Two important things: Iran has stated that the British have confessed to being in Iranian waters, meaning that they intend that this incident will be a provocation; and there has been no stated response from Washington, meaning that they intend that their response will be effective.

It should be noted that the US military already will have 10,000 targets picked out in Iran. And note too, that Iran has a restive population. After thirty years under the Mullahs who wouldn't be restive? It seems to me, that with the right push, backed internationally, that whole government could just fall over. How about just taking out a refinery? Iran is dependent on imports for 47% of its gasoline. No gasoline, and the citizenry might think it's a good time for revolution. What would be most effective would be world clarity that this present government has no friends.

.....................
5:10 PM
This is good:

The U.N. Security Council unanimously voted Saturday to impose new sanctions against Iran for its refusal to stop enriching uranium _ a move intended to show Tehran that defiance will leave it increasingly isolated.

At the moment that sanctions aren't strong doesn't matter so much as that they're unanimous. The sense of Iran isolated is what might have powerful domestic force. Now, military action. To coin a phrase, "Faster, Please!"

.................
9:37 PM
I'm sticking with my idea that there's no rationality behind this hijacking at all. If the Iranians had had a plan, we would already be hearing their demands. So far, nothing, only media speculation. I see the Mullahs as wrapped in an Islamicist conviction bleak, black, and in exclusion of the entire outside world. Their view is North Korean, dark, tiny, narrow. They are not clever, they have no idea how the outer world functions or reacts. They have one conviction only, that the West is weak, loves life dearly, and will yield when that life is under threat. So they've made a threat, a readily available one, a hijacking of fifteen British souls. Their thinking went no deeper than that. They're waiting for Britain to surrender, they're waiting for Britain to beg... Silence. And silence from the US. This is not as it should be. This may make them nervous.

And I presume the lack of a British or US official statement is because Iran does have a reason to be nervous. This can not become a war of hostages, it has to be a straight out war, and the two just haven't yet come to an agreement as to what course to follow.

My suggestion would be to start with their navy. Take it out, every last rowboat, and do it tomorrow, and discuss it afterwards. This is merely my preference, as it seems pertinent and useful, but I don't know the military situation so if a better set of targets might be picked, fine. I am certain the attack should be swift and without public discussion. There is no need for a discussion in a matter like this against a state like Iran. Take them out, discuss it tomorrow. Discussion has a more sensible clarity once a battle has already been won.

And do what can be done for the sailors, but we can not be held hostage to hostages.

The battle does have to be won, or the discussions afterwards could get sticky. This almost argues for an Entebbe style raid, to go along with whatever.

Provocation Pandora

Iranians seize 15 UK Marines in Gulf

Why? This makes no sense. We've got two carrier groups in that area, and they seize 15 sailors from our foremost ally while they were conducting UN sanctioned boarding and inspection? No sense at all. Even anti-Americanism isn't going to get them any friends in this case.

It is true we'll have to respond in respect to Britain's thoughts on this matter, as they're the foremost injured party, but the feelings on the matter are going to be about the same, it's only on tactics that there might be disagreement. Could the Iranians think they might split the coalition on a question of tactics?

It makes no sense, and this is the only rational explanation: it makes no sense, they're nuts.

I have been arguing for a couple of posts now that a distraction from the ongoing surge in Iraq is what we most need, because only with that distraction can we keep the Democrats from defeating that attempt through their carping and criticism. This is the third such distraction in hardly as many more days: Pointless subpoenas as an attack on the President, Pork-Barrell Surrender, and now Piracy --on the High Seas. Just thought of that. Britain has some proud history in this matter. But what I had hoped would happen is happening. The surge is dropping from sight, so it has a chance to succeed; and a reason for a more vigorous war has now developed, something that could be of splendid value. And there are a lot of people getting very tired of Iranian posturing.

A last note. Britain is part of the EU. Britain is not America. How is the EU going to blame this hijacking on America? But I note too that their Islamic populations are going to blame somebody and it won't be Iran. This is good too. At some point the West is going to have to learn that their fine upstanding Islamic citizens do not hold the interests of the West warmly in their hearts.

Everything is good just now. The potential.

What Does Hugh Hewitt Know...

And when did he know it? --Very strange experience today. I am a couple of weeks out-of-phase in my radio listening but today I turned him on specifically to hear what he had to say about the subpoenas and in two hours heard nothing. I did hear him using his chattiness skills to keep the subject from coming up. That was more clear with his callers than his guests. Now I did miss a few minutes here-and-there so could have missed a reference, but I don't think so.

On his blog he does have a transcription of a conversation with Eastman and Chemerinski on the constitutional issues, so he must have had them on Wednesday, but today, Thursday, nothing, not a mention.

Hugh Hewitt is hiding something!

'Course, it could be a stunt. To refuse to discuss something is no big deal, but to skillfully avoid even its mention is talent. That would be the stunt, for whatever the reason. He will have to be tortured. Perhaps we can give him one more day to fess up, to come clean.

And again I'll mention that my big hope is that we'll have a big enough domestic fight to distract the Dems and the press from Iraq long enough for the surge to work. If we can somehow smother those two the military can win the war.

Oddly, the pullout efforts in this respect seem useful. It's a spectacle, it's the Democrats in view, and not the war or their sour attitude toward it. They're in a weird dance, sort of a powwow, faces contorted, throats making odd, primitive, animal-like noises. Stone Age. It is true that only Democrats can defeat the American military, but as long as they keep themselves busy stomping about a bonfire of their own creation they're not really quite so dangerous. It gives the military time. They can go about their professional business of war.

To Everything Its Season

Lots more reading on the flap last night. Lot of feistiness out there. If there's going to be a fight now's the time. Lots of stink. The Democrats are trying to turn the firing of the US Attorneys into Abu Ghraib. That's unreal. If there's a fight, they lose, because the fantasy goes poof. Oppositely, If there's not a fight the fantasy becomes real, the offense becomes impeachable. That's the way fantasy works.

I think there will be a fight. I don't see how George Bush can not fight. Absolutely everybody in America knows what these subpoenas are all about; the target is Rove, from Rove to Bush. And everybody also knows that if they can get Libby they can get Rove. Whatever the solemnities and pieties that might be expressed, "If he has nothing to hide why's he afraid to testify?" everybody in fact knows this is a perjury trap. It's known, it's recognized... So state it. "The Democrats don't want to get to the bottom of this, they want to destroy this Presidency." If Bush stated that it would be powerful, because absolutely everybody knows it's true.

The way to face an enemy is to name him. This has to be the first part of the fight. Bush has to state their nature exactly. That forms the battle ground, and Bush then occupies the high-ground: Americans don't want to see their President destroyed. It's un-American... It is un-American, it's the Democrat party.

The Afghanis got tired of the Taliban, I'm tired of the Dems. It would just be good sport to have a rumble.

Surge Protector

Showdown Looms...

This really seems great, I mean the firing of the US Attorneys, the congress making a stink, and Bush refusing to submit his personnel to subpoenas. What I most want is a distraction from Iraq so that the surge has a chance to succeed. This may be it.

This is the first attack that's a direct attack on the president. No WMD, no Abu Graihb, no Gitmo, no 16 words or Plame or Libby... all these were peripherals, damaging Bush only by the constant reference to his ultimate responsibility. But this is a direct assualt on the Presidency. No confusion of dual responsibility of congress or agencies or the military, no intanglements with forgien governments, just a direct attack on the perogatives of the office of the President of the United States. Attacked by Democrats. Great. It can't get any better than that.

I just can't see a downside. The prerogatives of the President are constitutional and clear, there seems noting behind the firings that the public could possibly care about, the conservatives are still wrought at the way Libby was perjury trapped, and the only real act of the president will be to see that it doesn't happen again.

I think in this case all Bush has got to do is decide to fight and his natural allies will flock to his defense. Too much is too much. There isn't any conservative who doesn't hate the Democrats and MSM. I would imagine they would be raring for a fight, and this is one that's clean and open and where the outcome is purely theirs to effect; no inconstant Shiia, no violent Sunni, no dying, rotting France, just patriots fighting to protect their President from Democrats. You can't get a better fight than this.

I suspect too, that Bush is ready for a fight. It's got to be hard to be nice guy nice guy nice guy and constantly be called a liar. Here there is no subsidiary issue, nothing can be lost by being nasty, in fact the intent is to be nasty and destroy the enemy. That moral simplicity --I should say, issue simplicity-- has got to be fun.

So let'er rip. Maybe I'll try to get in a few whacks myself. Nothin's funner than knocking down a Democrat and stomping on him.

But two points:
--the intent of the fight has to be to obscure the surge so that it has a chance to succeed;
--and the fight has to be posited as the congress against the president. If it can be poised that way the people will rally to the president, because the president is their country, while the congress is Chucky Schummer and Nancy Pelosi.

If Bush leads his troops follow. The only problem might be to win too soon.