The White House spokesman said “we have broadened our engagement” by hosting the Islamist group that seeded al Qaeda and Hamas, praises Iran’s Hezbollah, and will transform Egypt into a Shari’a compliant state that seeks Israel’s destruction and creates a new terrorist sanctuary.    

Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, said representatives from the world’s largest Islamic supremist movement, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, met with National Security Council staff last week because the group plays a “prominent role” in Cairo.  Further, NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor explained “It is in the interest of the United States to engage with parties that are committed to democratic principles, especially nonviolence.” 

Evidently Vietor is not aware of the Brotherhood’s violent and anti-democratic history.  But obscuring its history was the group’s intent in coming to Washington — it needs President Barack Obama’s support as Egypt transitions from a caretaker military council government to one monopolized by Islamists.   

The Brotherhood wants to conceal its real intentions, says Said Sadek, a Cario-based political sociologist.  “The Brotherhood and the Freedom and Justice Party are trying to appease the growing fears of an Islamist takeover.  They want to appear liberal.  But what they are saying is just lip service,” Sadek said. 

They expect Obama to lend his support in part because the president’s fingerprints are all over Egypt’s 2011 revolution.  Recall that Obama called for former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak’s “immediate” resignation.  Then, instead of working with the moderates, Obama embraced the Brotherhood and boasted “I have an unyielding belief that you will determine your own destiny.” 

They did determine their “own destiny” by electing a majority Islamist parliament that declared Israel “enemy number one” and now is drafting a Shari’a-based constitution, with liberal and Christian groups withdrawing for lack of roles.   Next month Egyptian voters go to the polls to elect a president, who will likely be an Islamist as well. 

That election concerns Obama because the leading candidate is a radical Salafist.  The threat of a Salafist presidency prompted Obama to embrace the Brotherhood’s more “moderate” candidate and host meetings with representatives last week as a tacit endorsement to the skeptical ruling military council and the Egyptian people.

There are seven candidates for Egypt’s presidency with three running on Islamist platforms.  Khairat el-Shater, the Brotherhood’s former deputy supreme guide and presidential candidate, has met with many American officials “who have praised his moderation, business savvy and effectiveness,” according to the New York Times.   Shater says his top priority would be installing Islamic law.

Shater’s late entry into the race turned the campaign into an election over the degree of Islam the voters want in their government.   He faces a more liberal former Brotherhood leader (Aboul Fotouh) and Abu Ismail, an ultraconservative Salafist.  

But the Islamist challenge changed late last week when Ismail was effectively disqualified, after the election commission determined that his mother had been an American citizen.  Whether Ismail is really out, an Islamist will eventually win because 95 percent of Egyptians favor an Islamic leaning government, according to a 2010 Pew Research poll.

At this point no single candidate is expected to earn the required 50 percent of the votes in the May 23-24 first voting round.  Then the two top-scoring aspirants face off in the June 16-17 voting round.  

Likely, Shater will emerge victorious this June and then take the reigns of government unless the ruling military council refuses to relinquish power.  What could that mean for Egyptians, their neighbors and the West?

First, Egypt’s expected Shari’a-based constitution will be “the main source of legislation” which could radically transform that country.  Brotherhood chief cleric Shaykh al-Qaradhawi said on al-Nahar TV this January that Islamic law should be implemented gradually in Egypt.  “There should be no chopping off of hands in the first five years,” Qaradhawi said. 

Qaradhawi promotes other Shari’a-based legislation as well.  He accepts wife-beating as a “last resort,” believes homosexuality should be punishable by death and female circumcision for “whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters.”  

The Brotherhood’s Salafi partner, the al-Nour party, calls for laws mandating a shift to Islamic banking (no interest or fees for loans), “just and equal distribution” of income to the poor, restricting the sale of alcohol, providing special curriculums for school children, and impose restrictions on the freedoms of religious minorities such as the Coptic Christians. 

Islamic law could radically transform the country’s trade arrangements, use of the strategic Suez Canal, and tourists visiting Egypt — a main source of income — could be required to abide by “Islamic principles, values, and laws.”

Second, an Islamist Egypt would realign partnerships and international obligations.  Cairo would grow closer to the Palestinians, Syria, Lebanon and Iran while becoming hostile to Israel and most of the West.   

Tensions with Israel and the West will skyrocket.  The Brotherhood’s supreme guide, Muhammad al-Badie, said Muslim regimes must confront Islam’s enemies, Israel and the U.S., and that waging jihad against them is a commandant of Allah.  Also, Qaradhawi publicly supports Palestinian suicide bombing and Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel.

The 1979 Camp David Accords will be in jeopardy.  Senior leader of the Brotherhood Essam el-Erian told the New York Times that the Accords are a “commitment of the state…and this we respect.”  But other members argue parts of the widely unpopular treaty will be revised and some still call for a national referendum on the pact. 

Third, an Islamist-controlled Egypt will eventually purge its American-trained and -equipped military much like the transition that is now happening with Islamist Turkey. 

The U.S. has given Egypt more than $70 billion in military aid since 1979 for abiding by the Camp David Accords.  This year those funds plus another $250 million to promote civil society and democracy were granted over congressional objections.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton disregarded those objections in order to encourage the military’s cooperation during the transitional period.

Egypt’s military has contained the Islamists until the present.  There is little doubt that once the Islamists control Cairo they will purge that military and in the future Egyptian guns financed by U.S. taxpayers will be pointing at Americans, Israelis, and some will find their way into terrorist hands.

Finally, terrorist groups will find support in Egypt to radicalize the region like Pakistan.  Hamas, a Brotherhood off-spring, already enjoys renewed Egyptian support and could be emboldened to re-ignite a new war with Israel.

We have seen an increase in Egyptian-based terrorism.  Last week a rocket fired from Egypt’s Sinai desert hit Eilat, a southern Israeli resort city.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned the Sinai was becoming a “terror zone.” “We cannot grant immunity to terror, we must fight against it.” 

The Muslim Brotherhood is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  It came to Washington to appease the growing fears of an Islamist takeover.  But after taking power this summer expect the Brotherhood and its Salafi allies to abandon all “moderate” pretenses to become a Sunni version of the radical Islamic Republic of Iran.

An open-mic comment by President Barack Obama gives the Russians an early Christmas and the American people reason to reject the president’s radical nuclear security strategy.

Obama’s comment came last week after a meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. Obama said, “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him [Vladimir Putin] to give me space.”

“Yeah, I understand.  I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” Mr. Medvedev said. 

Obama continued, “After my election I have more flexibility.”

“But flexibility to do what?” Republican presidential candidate Governor Mitt Romney asked in Foreign Affairs Magazine.

Romney opined, “The Russians clearly prefer to do business with the current incumbent of the White House” because Obama has “been pliant on missile defense and other areas of nuclear security.” 

Congressional Republicans are also alarmed by Mr. Obama’s nuclear security performance.  In February, 34 members wrote the president a letter, “to share our deep concern … that you specifically instructed the National Security Council to undertake a study that could result in U.S. nuclear weapons reductions of up to 80%.”  

The members of Congress labeled it “inconceivable” that the president would consider shrinking our nuclear arsenal when, according to their letter, every other nuclear weapons state has an active nuclear weapons modernization program.  Obama has not responded to the letter.

Last week, Mr. Obama restated his nuclear vision: “Stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and seeking a world without them.”  This vision was the basis for Obama’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, which outlines the administration’s strategy for reducing “nuclear dangers.”

Last summer, Mr. Obama explained, he launched a study to implement his NPR.

 “Even as we have more work to do, we can already say with confidence that we have more nuclear weapons than we need,” he said. 

The president’s nuclear security performance, based on his own five NPR strategic objectives, raises a number of challenges.

First, preventing nuclear proliferation and terrorism.  While Obama has taken steps to address this objective, the scope of the problem is daunting.  It takes 55 pounds of highly enriched uranium or 17 pounds of plutonium to build a crude Hiroshima-style bomb.  The world is awash in both materials – enough material spread throughout 38 countries for more than 100,000 nuclear weapons, not including the material already making up 20,000 current weapons and inside 440 reactors.

Only a binding, universal regime has any chance of halting proliferation and controlling the global threat of atomic terrorism.  But too few nations are willing to invest the effort and expense to make a universal regime work, which prompts the question: how does our president intend to prevent nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism without universal support? 

Second, reducing the role of nuclear weapons.  Obama unilaterally changed the role of our  nuclear weapons from “critical” to “fundamental,”  meaning the U.S. will not threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.  Our nuclear  weapons’ “fundamental” role is now solely to deter nuclear attack. American actions are now more predictable, our defenses are accordingly weakened. 

Third, maintaining strategic deterrence and stability with a reduced nuclear force.  Obama worked with Russia to secure the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which reduces our strategic warheads, deployable delivery vehicles and launchers.  It also permits only a single warhead on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM). 

But New START also gives Russia the advantage, forcing us to downsize our arsenal while leaving Russia’s deployed force untouched.  New START limits each side to 1,550 deployed warheads;  currently, the U.S. has 1,800 and Russia has 1,537. 

It also imposes a limit of 700 deployed ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers.  The U.S. has 883 compared to Russia’s 521, according to the U.S. State Department.

Further, the congressional letter to Obama states that China and Russia are engaged in aggressive nuclear force buildups in both quantity and quality.  How does the president’s New START and anticipated downsizing plan maintain strategic deterrence while our enemies are aggressively growing their own forces?

Fourth, strengthening regional deterrence and reassurance of U.S. allies.  Obama seeks to strengthen regional deterrence by enhancing conventional capabilities, but there are seldom enough conventional anti-missile systems to satisfy fearful allies.

Then there are nations like Saudi Arabia which promise to build a nuclear force should Iran go nuclear, and similar discussions are ongoing in Japan and South Korea as the North Korean nuclear threat grows. 

How does the president plan to strengthen regional deterrence with insufficient conventional assets and a growing nuclear threat?

Finally, sustaining a secure and effective nuclear arsenal.  Obama promises to do this by adhering to four principles: no nuclear testing, no new nuclear warheads, studying warhead sustainment options, and a strong refurbishment or re-use program. 

Under President Obama, the U.S. would keep a status quo arsenal even though our weapons and infrastructure are aged and our platforms require major modernization.

In 2010, President Obama pledged to support the U.S. nuclear weapons modernization program to win votes for New START.  But according to Congressional Republicans, his 2013 budget reneges on his pledge to support nuclear modernization.

President Obama’s stewardship of our nuclear arsenal endangers America. Downsizing our capability and feeding insecurity among our partners, he invests too much energy chasing his nuclear-free dream.

Hundreds of terrorists could emerge from the shadows to terrorize America if Israel or the U.S. attack Iran’s nuclear sites, current and former law enforcement officials warned the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security.  The committee chairman said our government has a duty to “prepare for the worst.”

 Last week committee chairman Rep. Peter King (R-NY) hosted hearings on the domestic security threat posed by the Iranian proxy terror group Hezbollah (“Party of God”).  King called the group “one of international terrorism’s most violent murder gangs.” A former FBI assistant director testified that Hezbollah is the “A Team” of terrorist organizations, and another witness said it is a greater threat to America than al-Qaeda.

 We don’t know with certainty that Iran would unleash Hezbollah in response to an attack, but according to James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, that is a possibility.

 Clapper testified that last fall’s foiled assassination plot by Iranian operatives targeting the Saudi Arabian ambassador to Washington reflects the reality that “some Iranian officials — probably including supreme leader Ali Khamenei — have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the U.S. in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”

 Perhaps the recent spate of Iranian inspired attacks carried out against Israeli and Western targets validate Iran’s changed “calculus.”  Over the past six months Iranian proxies attempted or carried out terrorist plots in Azerbaijan, India, Georgia, Thailand and in Washington.

 Consider four reasons Hezbollah is a threat to our homeland.

 First, Hezbollah is aligned with Tehran’s special forces.  The Qods Force, the special forces branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, is responsible for clandestine foreign operations.  It created Hezbollah in 1982 as a strategic extension of the Islamic Republic and its foreign operations.

 Today the Qods Force operates training camps in Lebanon for Hezbollah fighters and provides roughly $100-200 million per year in financial support, according to the Congressional Research Service.  That relationship explains Iran’s influence and why on command the terror group might unleash its American-based cadre in response to an attack on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

 Second, Hezbollah is the world’s most capable and expansive terrorist organization, with extensive activities inside America. Former CIA chief George Tenet said Hezbollah is “an organization with capability and worldwide presence, which is [al Qaeda’s] equal…. The training they received puts them in a state-sponsor supported category with a potential for lethality that is quite great.”

 In 2010, the Obama administration identified Hezbollah as “the most technically capable terrorist group in the world,” and the group has “thousands of supporters, several thousand members, and a few hundred terrorist operatives.”  Hezbollah’s technical sophistication was evident in the 1992 and 1994 bombings of Israeli and Jewish targets in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

 The New York Police Department studied the attacks in Argentina.  Iran sent “diplomatic” personnel — likely Qods agents who are known to operate out of embassies — years in advance to integrate into society before coordinating the operations. Then Hezbollah agents came from abroad to execute the job with logistical support from local Lebanese Shiite facilitators.

 Mitchell Silber, NYPD’s director of intelligence analysis, juxtaposed the Argentina attacks with recent events in New York City.  Silber testified regarding six events between 2002 and 2010 involving Iranian personnel conducting hostile reconnaissance.  Some of the Iranians were expelled for spying, but others were released without incident.

 Third, Hezbollah is closely aligned with the underworld.  It is involved in the global drug trade, which funds its operations and gives it the opportunity to build relationships with the most sophisticated organized crime syndicates in the world.

 Hezbollah is a mature criminal enterprise, according to Michael Braum of Spectre Group International, LLC, who testified that Hezbollah routinely ships tons of cocaine to Africa and then on to markets in Europe. It launders hundreds of millions of dollars per month in drug proceeds in the Beirut-based Lebanese Canadian Bank, a recent Department of Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network finding.

Matthew Levitt with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy testified about other Hezbollah-run criminal enterprises.   One effort shipped weapons to Lebanon which involved a senior Hezbollah political official; another case involved the purchase of FIM-92 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, for the “resistance” in Iran or Syria; and a third case involved weapons stolen from Iraq and stored in Mexico by an active member of Hezbollah.

 Given this track record, does anyone doubt Hezbollah could easily penetrate our Southwest border in order to launch a terror campaign?

 Finally, Hezbollah has significant support inside America. This support includes operatives with military training, and a much larger pool of sympathizers who fund and logistically support the group.

 A 1994 FBI report confirmed Hezbollah’s domestic support base. The report states, “Should the decision be made to strike within the U.S. borders, Hezbollah has the infrastructure present to support or carry out a terrorist act.”

 A 2000 FBI case known as “Operation Smokescreen” cracked a Hezbollah cell operating in Charlotte, NC that stretched as far as Lebanon.  Chris Swecker, a former FBI agent who worked the case, testified there were 25 Hezbollah supporters charged with smuggling, stolen property, fraud, supporting a terrorist organization, and money laundering.

 The Charlotte cell had the infrastructure, discipline, financing, motivation and inspiration to be more than a cell involved in criminal activities and terrorist financing, with direct contact with the highest leadership of Hezbollah.

Last month, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said “the Iranian leadership will not ask Hezbollah to do anything” if Israel bombs Iran’s nuclear facilities.  Rather Nasrallah said “on that day, we have to sit down and think before we decide what to do.”  No doubt Nasrallah will reflect on Iran’s ongoing support and the threat posed by the U.S. to its lifeline Syria when deciding what “to do.”

 No one knows whether Hezbollah will attack America’s homeland, but as Rep. King said, we must “prepare for the worst.”

 We do know Hezbollah is a growing, clear and present danger within our borders.  We need immediate action by law enforcement to reduce this internal threat before any major conflict in the Middle East begins.  Merely having them under surveillance is not enough, as the terrorist attacks this past week in France demonstrate.

The next U.S. president must embrace a North Korea strategy that denies the rogue atomic-tipped missiles while avoiding a repetition of our recent policy fiascos.

In February, North Korea agreed to freeze nuclear and missile programs in exchange for food aid.  But last Friday, Pyongyang scuttled that agreement by announcing plans to launch a satellite atop a three-stage missile designed to eventually carry nuclear weapons. 

Of course, North Korea’s satellite launch plan is a ruse to test a long-range missile, a violation of its international obligations. Everyone knows Pyongyang will never abandon its nuclear and missile programs because they are the regime’s means for blackmail and regime survival.

North Korea can blackmail because it is unpredictably dangerous. It fields a massive 1.2 million man army, sells weapons to unsavory nations like Iran and boasts a nuclear arsenal that is making undeniable progress toward a deliverable atomic weapon.  Former U.S. Ddefense Secretary Robert Gates said in 2011 North Korea is becoming a “direct” threat to the U.S. 

America’s strategy regarding the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which dates back to the 1953 Korean War armistice, is to deter an attack on South Korea and delegitimize the North Korean government.  That strategy began to shift in the 1990s with the advent of North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile programs.

But America’s strategy has failed to arrest the hermit kingdom’s dangerous circular blackmail trap as illustrated by the latest satellite launch announcement.   That “trap” begins with the regime’s promise to freeze its military programs in exchange for concessions and then violates the agreement, threatens war in response to the international community’s inevitable sanctions and then returns to negotiations for more concessions. 

Consider the history of North Korea’s “circular blackmail trap.”

The U.S. learned about North Korea’s nuclear program in 1982.  But the first indication Pyongyang might be seeking an atomic weapon wasn’t acknowledged until 1991.  That year a declassified State Department document, “North Korean Nuclear Program,” opined that North Korea could have a nuclear weapon by the mid-1990s.

That news led to the first American effort to stop the country’s nuclear weapons program.  The Clinton administration negotiated the Agreed Framework of 1994 by which Pyongyang promised to freeze its reactors in exchange for light-water reactors and other economic/energy benefits.  But by 1999 another declassified government report stated “There is significant evidence that undeclared nuclear weapons development activity continues [in North Korea].”

In 2002 the U.S. accused North Korea of violating the “freeze” and subsequently Pyongyang abandoned the 1994 Agreed Framework and in 2003 withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Later that year the so-called Six-Party talks began, which led to a 2005 North Korean agreement to abandon nuclear weapons once again in exchange for economic and security guarantees.

A year later North Korea scuttled the Six-Party agreement by conducting a test of a nuclear explosive device. The United Nations responded to the test by adopting Resolution 1718 demanding Pyongyang abandon nuclear weapons and return to the NPT. 

By early 2007, North Korea agreed once again to disable all nuclear facilities in exchange for more economic, energy and humanitarian assistance. But within a year, it tested a nuclear reactor and barred nuclear inspectors. 

Then in 2009, North Korea continued its provocative actions with the launch of an intercontinental-capable Taepodong-2 rocket and a second nuclear device test.  These actions earned another UN condemnation and Pyongyang responded by again expelling the nuclear inspectors and abandoning the Six-Party talks.

The following year was noteworthy for three provocative actions. North Korea sank the South Korean ship the Cheonon, unveiled its secret uranium enrichment capability to an American delegation, a taunting move, and shelled South Korea’s Yeonpyeong Island in November 2010.

North Korea’s actions must be understood within the context of its motivation: regime survival. 

Regime survival is the motivation of the rogue’s newest dictator, Kim Jong-Un who took over from his father, Kim Jong-Il, who died in December. Kim’s actions are focused on building credibility for his fledgling rule, which explains the satellite launch fiasco and serves several important functions for the young dictator.

The launch will be part of events planned to commemorate founder Kim Il-Sung’s birthday on April 15th, the young Kim’s grandfather and a national icon with whom he needs to identify.  It can also be seen as an act of brinkmanship to boost the new leader’s rule, reinforce unity at home, showcase the North’s military capability and pressure Washington to increase aid in exchange for renewed talks, especially now that President Obama is vulnerable in a reelection battle and has his hands full with the Iran crisis. 

The timing of the launch announcement (March 16) also raises Pyongyang’s profile before the gathering of world leaders in Seoul on March 26 to discuss nuclear terrorism.  Pyongyang accused Seoul of hosting the summit to criticize North Korea, another means to reinforce unity at home by portraying the world against North Korea.

What should be America’s North Korea strategy? Obviously sanctions won’t persuade Pyongyang to give up its nuclear and missile programs, and neither will diplomacy.  There is always the unlikely chance the regime will implode, or that China will use its considerable influence to restrain the rogue’s threatening actions.

There is also the option of learning to live with a nuclear North Korea, but that likely means a regional arms race, greater defense spending for America to counter an Asian cold war threat and living with a credible nuclear threat to our homeland plus more blackmail payments. 

Alternatively, America can get tough.  We can interdict suspect shipments of illicit weapons to places like Iran, bomb nuclear sites North Korea refuses to shutter, shoot down North Korean missiles, and target regime leaders like President Ronald Reagan did Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi in 1986.  Pyongyang understands force, but it may launch a war in response, a risk we take.

America needs a strategy that denies North Korea atomic-tipped weapons,and getting tough might be the only viable course of action.  The status quo is unacceptable.

Vladimir Putin returns to Russia’s presidency with a czarist-like agenda which could result in domestic upheaval and echoes of the Cold War.

Last week Putin, the two-term former Russian president and current prime minister, won his third term as president with 64 percent of the tainted vote.  Domestic and international poll observers documented widespread voting fraud such as “carousels,” where people are bussed around to vote several times at different polling stations.

Voter fraud is symptomatic of the greater problems Russia faces under a new Putin presidency.  The reminted president-elect returns with a no-change agenda which appeals to his traditional electorate base but could spur rebellion.

A status-quo agenda will earn Putin a resounding “Dostali!” –“We are fed up!” — from Russian civil society. Russia has awakened and won’t be satisfied with more slow economic growth, corruption, and czarist-like leadership that rests on military might, intimidation, and suspicion of the West.

“If Putin thinks he can continue without changing anything, he is deceiving himself,” said Konstantin Remchukov, editor-in-chief of  Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta    He cautions Putin has little time to change, or “we’ll be very close to Tahrir Square crowds,” the Egyptian revolt that overturned that government in early 2011.

Consider how Putin might tackle three key challenges, and the implications for each.

First, Putin faces a serious domestic, political and social challenge.  He wrote in The Washington Post “Our society is completely different from what it was at the turn of the 20th century.”   Putin’s comments shed  insight onto Russia’s anxious middle class, but his actions don’t match his words.

Over the past dozen years as president and prime minister, Putin ended direct elections for regional governors; he has also worked to marginalize political opposition, the judiciary, news media, and the parliament (Duma).  No wonder Russians filled the streets to protest when Putin said he intended to return to the Kremlin and then played host to corruption-filled Duma elections in December.

Now Putin promises serious reform, but many Russians are skeptical.  In the past, when under pressure, Putin blamed the West for his problems.  For example, he blamed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for inciting unrest with her call for an investigation of fraud in the December Duma elections.

But any reforms Putin does undertake will likely be half-measures.  For example, he will never embrace government reform that dismantles connections among security forces, government bureaucracies, and loyalist businesses.  These form his power base.

He may permit new political parties, but at the same time impose rules that make it impossible for those parties to build coalitions to oppose his rule.  He may also argue for delaying major electoral reform to avoid fueling ethnic tensions.

Second, Putin faces significant economic challenges.  Putin labeled U.S. economic policies “hooliganism” because America imports more products than it exports and suffers growing debt.   He explained that Russia does not “have the luxury for such hooliganism,” but offered no real solutions for Russia’s chronically ill economy, only a wish list.

Russia’s current President Dmitry Medvedev described his economy as “chronically backward,” “primitive,” dependent on “raw materials” and ignoring “the needs of the people.”   Indeed, Russia’s mostly state-controlled, command economy, which  derives 85 percent of its revenues from raw material exports like oil and gas, has an uncompetitive industrial base and a limited service sector.

During the electoral campaign, Putin promised to jump-start Russia’s ailing economy by modernizing and privatizing its economy with Western investment and technology.  But Europe, the expected source of both, now faces economic crises and is turning its back on Moscow.

Putin’s other economic policies are stale.  His newspaper articles indicate he favors state-led innovation and the creation of a “Union of Europe” free trade region that primarily serves the state.  He advocates Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization, but admits he wants to increase state support — read “subsidies” — to agriculture.

He also promises to radically improve the business climate by infusing it with government loans.  In addition, he commits to improve education, health care and wages;  provide more affordable housing; and increase welfare checks, but fails to explain how he would finance these promises.

Finally, Putin faces security challenges from the U.S. and NATO.   NATO’S eastward expansion and U.S.-hosted wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have put international pressure on Russia.  This pressure might explain why Putin seeks to re-assert Russia’s influence among former Soviet republics and rebuild a muscular foreign policy.

Putin  has shaped a foreign policy focused on the former Soviet states to keep them from NATO and the U.S.’s grasp, through economic and security arrangements such as the Customs Union and the Commonwealth of Independent States’ Collective Security Treaty Organization.  These organizations and others bolster Moscow’s influence by creating free-trade zones and addressing shared security problems.

Russia is also rebuilding its military presence across the former Soviet states.  It is negotiating with Azerbaijan to maintain the Gabala radar station, negotiating a second base in Kyrgyzstan and extending a military lease in Tajikistan. Russia also recently extended its military base lease in Armenia and signed a lease for a new naval base in Ukraine.  Expect more of the same in the future.

Augmenting these plans, Putin intends to heavily invest in modern expeditionary forces, strategic assets such as aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, fifth generation fighters, and a fleet of new intercontinental ballistic missiles.  Russia already has the world’s largest strategic and tactical nuclear forces.

On the diplomatic stage,  tensions have run high between Moscow and Western powers.
Last year Russia abstained from a UN resolution that sanctioned a no-fly zone over Libya, a Russian ally.  That resolution led to the Gadhafi regime’s collapse and hurt Russia both economically and diplomatically.

Years earlier President George W. Bush refused to embrace Putin as an ally in the war on terror and pushed the revolutions in former Soviet states.  No wonder Putin mistrusts American leaders.

But he cooperates with the U.S. when it fits Russia’s interests.  For example, President Barack Obama’s so-called “reset” policy earned Russian cooperation on the 2010 New Start Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaty because it reduced both nations’ weapons and platforms, mostly at Washington’s expense.

Now that Putin will be back in the Kremlin, expect relations with the U.S. to become stormier.  Progress on the aforementioned issues, the controversial U.S. European-based anti-missile defense and the challenge of a nuclear Iran will pose problems for Putin’s plans to build a stronger Russia.

The recent meeting between the American president and the Israeli prime minister at the White House could prove decisive in the atomic stand-off with Iran.  The litmus is whether the men can reach a mutual level of trust; otherwise both nations could face serious consequences.

This is the 10th meeting between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  Past tête-à-têtes were marred by suspicion and mistrust but today’s meeting may be different because the men need one another.

Obama needs Netanyahu to back-off on threats to unilaterally attack Iranian nuclear sites until “tough” sanctions run their course.  Besides, the Israeli’s threats to attack are playing havoc with global oil prices which are hurting Obama domestically.  He also needs Netanyahu’s help among Jewish-American voters.  Obama won 80 percent of Jewish votes in 2008 but the perception that he is anti-Israel jeopardizes that bloc for him this November, which a good word from Netanyahu could help.

Netanyahu needs Obama as well.  The Israeli consistently labels an atomic-armed Iran an existential threat and he fears time is running out to stop Iran’s nuclear advance.  Therefore, Netanyahu wants to know Obama’s “redline” that would trigger military action against Iran.  Netanyahu also wants Obama to sharpen his rhetoric toward Iran with more statements like “I don’t bluff” regarding military action, a response Obama gave The Atlantic magazine last week.

The pair should build trust by working through these issues but also by agreeing on Iran-related facts and timelines.  They seem to agree Iran has most of the tools to eventually build a deliverable atomic weapon.  But they operate with different clocks. 

The Israeli wants Iran stopped before his “freedom of action” is lost which could happen this year.  But because the U.S. doesn’t face an “existential” threat like Israel and has a large and capable military, Obama can wait longer than Israel to strike Iran’s deeply buried atomic weapons facilities.  The problem for Netanyahu is whether he can trust Obama to attack Iran once Tehran’s atomic facilities are beyond Jerusalem’s weapons reach or defend Israel should Iran make good on its threat to launch a preemptive attack.

They also disagree about the consequences of a military strike.  Obama and his Pentagon staff routinely caution that an attack on Tehran’s atomic sites will create a firestorm of unacceptable consequences across the Middle East such as a massive barrage of rockets targeting Israeli and American regional facilities.  But the Israelis are more sanguine about that threat and as Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, the casualties of a war with Iran could be limited to fewer than 500.   Apparently that’s a price Israel is prepared to accept.

They appear to disagree about the rationality of Iran’s leaders as well.  Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN on Feb. 19 that Iran is “a rational actor.”  But ones definition of rational depends on his worldview. 

A Persian theocrat like Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei may rationally believe he has a spiritual responsibility to create massive destruction to usher in the return of his messiah (savior) in order to establish a caliphate (Islamic kingdom on earth).  That is a radically different perspective than a Western politician like Obama who addresses geopolitical challenges from a secular cost-benefit basis.  Both could be rational decision makers who come to opposite conclusions given the same information because they rely on radically different worldviews. 

Remember, few Westerners understand a worldview perspective that rationalizes suicide bombing, rioting when holy books are accidentally burned or when spiritual leaders are slurred.  We must be careful about our assumptions.

The challenge for Obama and Netanyahu is to set-aside their differences and find agreement on the aforementioned to build trust.  This is critical in order to dispel the “public perceptions of a split between the U.S. and Israel” which encourages Iran, said U.S. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.).

While tough economic sanctions continue to eat away at Iran’s economy and that population’s confidence in its leaders, Obama and Netanyahu should consider five concrete actions to build trust and heal the growing split between the U.S. and Israel.

First, Obama needs to be very frank about his intent to use military force if Iran fails to cooperate.  Specifically, Obama ought to demand Iran cooperate by providing unfettered access to all nuclear sites and employees.  Tehran continues to deny the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, access to military atomic weapons sites like the one at Parchin and nuclear scientists.   Obama’s stepped up public pressure will grow bilateral trust even if Iran continues to refuse.

Second, there must be more intelligence sharing and the nations must stop making public statements about the other’s possible covert activities.  An Iranian nuclear scientist was assassinated in January and almost immediately U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “categorically” denied U.S. involvement which inferred Israel was the culprit.   Her denial was unnecessary and undermined trust.

Third, the U.S. and Israel should conduct trust building bilateral military exercises to hone interoperability and warn Iran.  Unfortunately, this January, the U.S. postponed a scheduled May anti-missile exercise in Israel which would have sent a strong deterrence message to Iran.  That exercise should be immediately rescheduled and the nations ought to stage joint air operations that include refueling and attack missions using fighters and B2 Stealth Bombers delivering bunker-buster bombs on hardened targets.

Fourth, the U.S. should preposition and increase the presence of strike aircraft in the Persian Gulf region such as at nearby Diego Garcia and increase the number of carriers and submarines operating in the Gulf.  These are clear signs the U.S. is serious and will build trust with Israel and our Arab allies who are fearful of the hegemonic Persians.

Finally, the leaders should agree to step-up covert operations against Iranian atomic facilities and nuclear weapons personnel to increase mutual will and trust.  Evidently past covert operations successfully took a toll which captured Tehran’s attention but far more can be done to shatter Iranian security and confidence. 

Cooperating on these actions and coming to a common understanding of the facts is trust building, something former American and Israeli leaders demonstrated 40 decades ago.

Israel held its fire in October 1973 as Egyptian and Syrian forces massed their armies to attack.  At the time President Richard Nixon asked Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir to stand her ground and not launch a preemptive attack as was her plan.  Meir trusted Nixon’s assurance of help if she abandoned attack plans which in the end proved to be the right decision.

The 1973 Yom Kippur War might have ended differently had Israel preemptively attacked at least in terms of global support for Israel and the eventual peace treaties that provided 40 years of mostly peaceful coexistence. 

Although the situation with Iran’s atomic threat is different in many ways than the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the need for building mutual trust isn’t.   It serves neither nation’s best interest today to go their separate ways regarding Iran.  Leaving Israel to fend for itself could lead to the unthinkable – reverting to nuclear weapons to snuff-out Iran’s existential threat if at first conventional weapons prove insufficient.  Then the U.S. would be drawn in to pick up the pieces after the fact.  That outcome serves neither party’s long-term interests.

Addressing the Iran nuclear crisis demands close cooperation between Obama and Netanyahu built on trust that begins with the steps outlined above. Failure to build that trust could have serious military and political consequences for both nations.

President Barack Obama declared the U.S. would use “every tool available” to stop the slaughter of innocent Syrians and “transition” that regime.   But the Syrian rogue regime is likely to survive because Obama and the international community lack the will to do what is necessary to stop the killing.

Last year tens of thousands of Syrians filled the streets of Damascus, Syria calling for the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, the overthrow of his government, and the end to the Ba’ath party rule.  Al-Assad brutally responded to that uprising by unleashing his security forces that have killed at least 7,500, wounded tens of thousands, imprisoned untold thousands, and destroyed entire neighborhoods.  

Those crimes against humanity and many others committed by the regime warrant al-Assad’s immediate removal.  But that won’t happen because short of an invasion or at least a Libya-style intervention, al-Assad will crush all opposition and survive.

There are other reasons to remove the regime.  Specifically, al-Assad has long harbored terrorists such as the leadership of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, Israel’s terrorist threat.

Americans were the victims of al-Assad’s terrorist activities as well.  During the Iraq war the regime provided transit and sanctuary for jihadists who crossed into Iraq to kill Americans and since the early 1980s the regime has acted as Iran’s strategic partner supporting the terror group Hezbollah, which occupies most of Southern Lebanon. 

The Syrian regime shares a dangerous taste for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) like its North Korean and Iranian allies.  Syria had a secret nuclear program which, thanks to Israel, was destroyed by bombing in September 2007.  But al-Assad’s stockpile of chemical and biological weapons is very large and deployable by simple grenades or long-range rockets.

Worse, the regime may have already used chemicals on innocent citizens.  Earlier this month Syrian opposition forces reported military units used small quantities of chemical munitions near the city of Homs.  And last week the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported U.S. officials secretly communicated with Syria’s neighboring governments warning them about the WMD threat.  The secret cable reportedly cautioned that Syria might use WMD and an Obama official told Foreign Policy it is “really concerned about loose WMDs.” 

A brutalized population, support for transnational terrorists, and use of WMD should be sufficient cause to topple a regime.  But there are at least five significant reasons why the regime will likely survive.

First, al-Assad has strong support from allies Iran, Russia and to a lesser extent China.  Russia and China vetoed attempts to impose sanctions on Syria at a  recent UN Security Council meeting.  But Western nations and the Arab League went ahead to impose sanctions and then Syria’s allies intervened to help the regime overcome those restrictions.

Iran is especially helpful.  Haaretz reports Tehran provided $1 billion to Syria to help it overcome the oil embargo and banking restrictions.  That news comes from documents leaked following a cyber-attack against the e-mail server of the Syrian president’s office.

One of the leaked documents indicated Iran agreed to buy basic supplies from Syria like meat and poultry.  Further, Iran agreed to export to Syria fertilizer and raw materials for the petrochemical industry and the Iranians promised to examine the purchase of 150,000 barrels of oil from Syria per day for a year, which would allow Syria to continue to export oil despite the sanctions.

The Iranians proposed creating an air-and-ground corridor through Iraq and discussed setting up a joint bank for transferring money through Russia and China. A document dated Dec. 14, 2011, states “the central banks of Syria and Iran agreed to use banks in Russia and China to ease the transfer of funds between the two countries.”

Second, most Syrians, according to a poll, oppose the uprising not because they support al-Assad, but because they fear what might follow the regime.   These so-called loyalists describe the uprising as a crisis to be overcome by the government and perceive that elements of the opposition are inherently violent and radical.

Syrian Christians express grave reservations because of the prospects of an Islamist government taking over once al-Assad is ousted.  They point out that more than one million Iraqi Christians fled to Syria after sectarian violence in that country.  Syrian Chaldean Bishop Antoine Audo warned that “Christians will pay a heavy price.”

Third, surrender means certain death for al-Assad and his Alawite government.  The minority Alawis, which constitute about 12% of the population, have ruled the majority Sunni nation since 1970, when Hafez al-Assad, Bashar’s father, took power in a coup.  They are hated for their sectarian rule and therefore expect no mercy if the government falls.

They need only look at the aftermath of the Arab Spring uprisings in Egypt and Libya to understand their likely fate.  Don’t expect the regime to fall without a long fight.

Fourth, the armed opposition is not effective.  The Free Syrian Army (FSA) is the primary armed opposition which is a loosely organized militant group with roughly 40,000 fighters and no unified leadership, according to a report in al Jazeera.

The FSA includes a few Syrian army defectors but most of the fighters are lightly-armed civilians who blend in with the population.  They operate like Iraqi insurgents or Taliban in Afghan villages conducting ambushes on targets of opportunity and employ improvised explosive devices.

They have limited effect against al-Assad’s well-armed military which is why their only hope is outside support.  But providing the FSA arms is “premature” according to U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because we don’t know the Syrian opposition.

Besides any outside intervention is doubtful.  NATO, which led the military intervention in Libya to oust that dictator, has no intention of intervening in Syria.  The only outside intervention being discussed is an “Arab force” to protect a possible “humanitarian corridor to provide security to the Syrian people.”

Finally, the Syrian political opposition is splintered along ethnic and social lines.  The Syrian National Council (SNC), which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls a “credible” representative of the Syrian people, lacks coherent leadership and it does not have widespread support among Syria’s diverse ethnic and religious groups and no apparent strategy.  

Part of the problem may be the SNC’s membership and base.  It is based in Paris and made up of mostly Sunni members.  Its leader is Burhan Ghalioun, an exiled Sunni academic from Homs.  Its members include mostly exiled Syrian Muslim brotherhood and grassroots activists.

The Syrian uprising is more than a year old and still the international community lacks the will to use “every tool available” to stop the slaughter as Obama promised.  That is why in spite of a host of reasons to oust the tyrant of Damascus, al-Assad is expected to survive and the Syrian people will go on bleeding.

The West’s new economic sanctions are provoking an Iranian backlash but only a credible threat to the Islamic Republic’s survival will compel the chief mullah to abandon atomic weapons and his grandiose vision for an Islamic world. 

Brinksmanship is apparently one way to force Iran’s hand regarding its nuclear program.  Last week, apparently in response to mounting economic pressure, Iran lashed out with a flurry of contradictory actions: it asked to restart stalled nuclear talks, canceled an annual military exercise, staged covert attacks against Israeli embassy personnel, threatened an oil embargo against European countries, and announced new nuclear advances.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress hosted hearings that explored Iran’s nuclear intentions and the likelihood Israel might attack Iran’s atomic facilities.  James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, testified the U.S. was confident Iran could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon, but it would probably take one year for Iran to produce a bomb “and then possibly another one or two years in order to put it on a deliverable vehicle of some sort.”

At the same hearing Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testified “to the best of our knowledge, Israel has not decided to attack Iran.” That’s important because President Barack Obama wants to give his latest round of economic sanctions more time to work before Israel alone or perhaps with the U.S., launches a military operation intended to destroy Tehran’s atomic weapons facilities. 

The Israelis are understandably anxious about Iran’s atomic progress and about Obama’s reliability.  But former CIA Michael Hayden opined that Israel alone is not capable of inflicting significant damage on Iran’s nuclear sites.  It would only “make this worse” which means, according to Hayden, that should Israel attack it would guarantee what the U.S. is trying to prevent: “an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon and that would build it in secret.”

That is why last month Obama asked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to give the new sanctions time to work.   But Netanyahu believes Iran is on the verge of weaponizing and Israel’s opportunity to strike Tehran’s nuclear facilities is quickly diminishing because its atomic assets are being moved into deep underground bunkers.  Complicating the issue for Netanyahu is Obama’s refusal, according to Newsweek, to provide Israel assurance that if the Jewish nation waits and sanctions fail, he will use force against Iran.

But the West’s real problem is not that Israel might rush to attack Iran, but that Obama is naively wrong about Iran’s susceptibility to economic leverage.  Intelligence Director Clapper, Obama’s chief intelligence adviser, believes economic sanctions might be enough leverage Iran to abandon its nuclear program.  He reasons Iran’s “Supreme Guide,” the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would base that decision “on a cost-benefit analysis” and he opined “I don’t think you want a nuclear weapon at any price.”

That view is unfortunately shared by General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Dempsey told CNN “we are of the opinion that the Iranian regime is a rational actor.  And it’s for that reason… that we think the current path we’re on is the most prudent path at this point.”

Obviously Clapper and Dempsey don’t understand Khamenei like Amir Taheri, an Iranian Middle East expert based in Europe and the author of The Persian Night: Iran under the Khomeinist Revolution.  Taheri wrote for London Times Online that Khamenei has asserted himself as Iran’s ultimate decision-maker. He is also preparing to abolish Iran’s presidency, “turning the Islamic Republic into an imamate [or caliphate],” according to Taheri.

That is why understanding the cleric is absolutely critical to any Western efforts intended to stop the Persian’s atomic weapons program.  Not only does Khamenei intend to create an imamate but the mullah aims to repeat the great victories of the founder of Islam, the Prophet Muhammad.  Khomeini’s message is: “either surrender or fight.”  

The cleric’s “great victory” is destroying Western “world order.” Khamenei said in a recent speech in Tabriz, according to Taheri, “the day of victory” is near.  “Islam has reached a decisive moment,” the cleric references the Arab Spring uprisings which led to Islamic regimes like Tunisia, Libya and Egypt.  “The new generation will witness events that would fundamentally alter the world and wipe out arrogant materialist powers,” Khamenei declared.

Taheri suggests the self-styled “imam” intends to destroy Western “world order” with three victories.  First, he intends to win the battle over Iran’s nuclear program.  “That requires saying ‘no’ to any compromise with the international community,” Taheri explained.  Perhaps Iran’s call this week to restart stalled talks will confirm Khomeini’s “no” to compromise strategy and buy more time to harden Iran’s atomic weapons facilities against attack. 

A just say “no” approach to negotiations has been Iran’s past approach to negotiations.  Victoria Nuland, the U.S. State Department spokeswoman, reminded the press last week about past talks with the Iranians. “We’ve had negotiations [with the Iranians] that started and fizzled or negotiations that ate up a lot of time and didn’t go where they needed to go…”   

Tehran’s just say “no” arrogance was evident in the regime’s latest nuclear announcements.  Last week, just days before the expected arrival of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, Iranian officials inaugurated a new generation of centrifuges to enrich uranium to 20 percent, unveiled its first home-made nuclear fuel rod for a reactor linked to the regime’s weapons program and increased by one third its total centrifuges (now 9,000).

Khomeini’s planned second victory will be defeating Western sanctions by taking the offensive.  Last week Iran proposed to ban oil exports to European countries and once again threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz if the European Union moves forward on a threatened oil embargo scheduled to begin July 1st.  And yes, the cleric is willing to let his people suffer in order to defeat the West’s sanctions and besides, he has the support of allies China, Russia and Pakistan.

Taheri says Khomeini’s planned third victory is defeating the West in a limited war.  The rationale is simple.  The cleric believes the U.S. is “too tired, divided and too concerned about the global economy to launch a full-scale war against Iran.”  Besides, Taheri explains, there is the perception that Obama is “a master of the art of running away” which reinforces Tehran’s analysis.

Khomeni believes once diplomacy and sanctions run their course the West will try its only remaining option, a limited military strike.  By that time, the thinking goes, the important components of Iran’s nuclear program will be safely inside mountain facilities like Fordow, the previously secret facility buried under 80 meters of rock and protected by anti-aircraft weapons.  

Sanctions and a limited war may cause suffering but that won’t deter Khamenei, explained Taheri.  The cleric will compromise only if the survival of his regime is at stake which appears unlikely.

That view explains Iran’s covert actions against Israel last week and America last fall in Washington.  The cleric, according to Taheri, wants to provoke Israel and the U.S. to attack because that will ultimately play into his hands.  

If Taheri’s analysis of Khamenei is correct then Obama’s sanctions and even a coordinated U.S.-Israeli military strike won’t stop Iran’s theological madman.  Rather, they will help the mullah finish building his bomb and then provide him stature to claim to have fought the “Great Satan” and survived – a precursor to the establishment of his imamate.

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum is right about one of the reasons women should not serve in combat, but such commonsense may come too late to keep our daughters from being forced into battle.  

Last week Mr. Santorum said women should not serve in combat because men might be distracted from their mission by their “natural instinct” to protect women.  He referred to camaraderie of men in combat and said the presence of women was “not in the best interest of men, women or the mission.”

His comments were prompted by the Pentagon’s announcement changing its ground combat exclusion policy to assign women to front line support jobs, like medics and radio operators.   This is the latest in a multi-decade campaign of incremental changes that could compel the Supreme Court to require women to be included in a future draft. 

We got to this point because feminists insisted, our leaders caved and our culture became so indifferent to violence against women that three-fourths now support the idea of women in direct combat.  

Let’s cut to the chase and deal with the real issue.  Feminists and their spineless male supporters won’t be satisfied until women are serving in every ground combat role, including infantry and Special Forces.  Why is that a bad idea, what are the consequences for our security, and why will this lead to our daughters being involuntarily drafted into combat?

First, it is a bad idea because direct ground combat is the most physically demanding task known to mankind.  The average male has twice the upper body strength and a quarter more endurance than the average female which explains why men are best suited for ground combat roles.   When it comes to ground combat, brawn matters and the weak don’t survive.

Recall television images of our infantry on patrol in the mountains of Afghanistan or patrolling villages in Iraq. Those troops carry a full 60-80 pound combat load for hours at a time often in extreme heat, day after day.  That grueling routine is interrupted by periods of intense violence that require quick Herculean effort.  Few women can perform to that standard. 

Assigning women who are physically weaker to ground combat units will degrade unit performance and further burden the exhausted men.  Unfortunately, given recent history, the politically correct Pentagon, if ordered to prepare a pathway for female ground combatants, will gender-norm combat physical standards to accommodate women and then declare “equal effort” as the same as “equal results.”   

Second, men are more aggressive than women, a critical skill for warriors.  History teaches us that virtually all warriors across time have been men due to a combination of mental and physical aptitudes.

In World War II the battle hardened Russians experimented with all female infantry units but soon discovered that these units would not fight, but ran from the battlefield.  Other nations like Canada have a few women in combat units.

In 1989, Canada’s Human Rights Tribunal repealed women’s combat exemptions promoting equal access over combat readiness.  That military spent $500,000 to recruit 249 women for a field test but attracted only 26.  One woman passed the infantry test to become Canada’s first female combat soldier. 

The sports world exposes gender differences.  Certainly professional women in sports are in exemplary physical condition, but there are few if any sports where women are capable of defeating men on even a semi-consistent basis.  The all women’s Lingerie Football League champion team will never qualify for the Super Bowl.

There is also the matter that men commit most of the violent crime (7 times more likely than women to commit murder), an immoral plague on society.  But when that aptitude for aggressive violence is properly guided as in the military it can serve an important purpose. 

It doesn’t matter whether men are aggressive because of nature or nurture.  That is their condition and one the military needs for its warrior class. 

Third, all-male cohesive teams make the best fighting units.  Mixing women in those units can polarize the team making it ineffective.

Two factors are at play in mixed sex units.  There is the aspect that men are hardwired to protect women (Santorum’s view) and the matter of sexual attraction.  Both matter when building cohesive teams because favoritism and attraction enters the picture.  And yes, even the most homely woman gets sexual attention in austere settings. 

Further, our troops don’t leave their libidos at home.  Some soldiers find a way to engage in sex even in austere combat zones and word of hanky-panky inevitably gets out to damage morale. 

There is evidence a lot of sex takes place on the job.  Over the past few years hundreds of young women have been evacuated from combat zones and off warships at sea due to pregnancy.  Contraceptives are widely distributed by military health care providers in combat theaters as tacit acknowledgment that sex does take place and some commanders grudgingly accommodate the inevitable sexual liaisons by posting rules to keep relationships discrete.

Regrettably some sex is forced.  Last month the Pentagon announced violent sex crimes within the Army increased 64% since 2006 and women account for 95% of all sex crime victims.  The vast majority (97%) of those victims know their attackers but do not report the crimes because they do not believe the perpetrators will be prosecuted.

Mix the sexes in small units on the front lines and you invite cohesion problems. 

Finally, there is no evidence women are clamoring for ground combat assignments.   Opinion surveys done by the Army indicate the majority of military women are strongly opposed to combat assignments – especially if it means being forced into combat on an “equal” basis with men. Perhaps that response is why the Army no longer asks the question.   

Therefore, if military women lack physical strength, aggression, threaten unit cohesion, and express no desire for ground combat assignments, then who is pushing for women in combat?  Civilian feminists view ground combat a glass ceiling for women’s equal opportunity.  They could care less about our fighting ability or the precedent this sets for future women. 

Feminists applaud the Pentagon’s decision assigning women to direct ground combat battalions albeit in “support” roles as one step closer to breaking their “glass ceiling.” And that goal can’t be too far off given Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s promise to “continue to open as many positions as possible to women.”  

Panetta’s policy shift and promise for more openings is the tipping point that will make women subject to the conscription.  The Selective Service System (the conscription mechanism) excludes women based on the 1981 Rostker v. Goldberg Supreme Court case which upheld the constitutionality of Pentagon’s combat exclusion for women based largely on the Pentagon’s women in combat policy.   That policy is now ripe for a legal challenge because it is Swiss cheese. 

There will come a day in the not so distant future when our all volunteer force can’t meet the nation’s security challenges.  The president will call for a draft that will include our daughters against their will.

At that time American parents should blame three parties: Congress which has the constitutional responsibility to set military personnel policy, President Obama for proposing the policy change, and military brass who knew better but lacked the courage to stand-up to their political masters.

Israeli leaders threaten to attack Iran’s atomic weapons facilities within the next nine months before Tehran enters the “immunity zone” to then build a bomb.  But it might already be too late for Israel operating alone to inflict severe damage on Iran’s atomic weapons program.

Last week Israel’s defense minister Ehud Barak coined the term “immunity zone” to refer to the point when Iran’s atomic weapons know-how, raw materials, experience and equipment are heavily fortified in deep bunkers, immune from an Israeli attack.  That means Israel must stop Iran this year before it gains atomic weapons or accept a nuclear armed enemy. 

There is consensus among western intelligence agencies and recent evidence from the United Nation’s nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), that Iran has all the ingredients to build an atomic weapon.  But there is no evidence, according to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i, has given the go-ahead to build an atomic bomb. 

But waiting to discover the go-ahead order from the secretive leader is rejected by the Israelis who view an atomic-armed Iran an existential threat.  They are also losing patience with the American-led effort to coax nukes from Iran using yet another round of sanctions.

Last week, Defense Minister Barak declared time was running out on Iran’s nuclear advance and by inference the West’s sanctions.  “Whoever says ‘later’ may find that later is too late,” Barak told the Jerusalem Post.  Barak and other Israeli leaders have waited long enough; they are stoking calls for military action.

Israeli attack plans are secret, but Secretary Panetta told a Washington Post columnist it could happen between this April and June.   So, if Israel does launch an attack, what challenges does it face and how successful might it be?  

First, Israel must select enough of the right targets that, if damaged or destroyed, might slow or stop Iran’s weapons program.  But identifying atomic weapons targets can be difficult especially when your intelligence is weak in tough countries like Iran.  For example, North Korea, another tough place and partner to Iran’s nuclear development, surprised the world last fall when it unveiled a previously secret enrichment facility. 

Israel has imperfect knowledge about Iranian atomic facilities, especially those with a weapons nexus.  But the following sites are likely on her target list.

Esfahan is a uranium conversion facility 210 miles south of Tehran.  The above ground facility converts raw material into uranium gas which is then shipped to the Natanz facility for enrichment.  The complex includes an extensive tunnel complex which could house more sensitive uranium activities.  

Natanz is an enrichment facility 140 miles southeast of Tehran.  It is buried under 25 meters of earth with a 2.5-meter thick concrete ceiling and houses at least 8,000 centrifuges which have turned out enough material for several nuclear warheads. The complex includes three large underground buildings, two of which are designed to be cascade halls to hold 50,000 centrifuges.

Fordow is an enrichment facility 90 miles southwest of Tehran.  The previously secret facility is buried 80 meters inside a mountain and protected by anti-aircraft weapons.  Recently uranium fuel arrived for further enrichment.  The facility is large and safe enough from attack to provide for quick weapons grade enrichment.

Arak is a heavy water production plant 120 miles southwest of Tehran.  The above ground plant once operational could produce about 9 kilograms of plutonium annually or enough for about two nuclear weapons.

Bushehr is an above ground 1,000-megawatt reactor 500 miles from Tehran.  The fuel from this facility is sufficient to produce 50 to 75 bombs.

Parchin is a high explosives testing site 19 miles southeast of Tehran.  Last week, the IAEA was denied the opportunity to visit Parchin. The inspectors believe Parchin houses a containment vessel used to conduct tests of the high explosives used in triggering a fissile reaction.

Mojdeh is the center for weapons development located on the Ministry of Defense’s Malek-Ashtar University of Technology in Esfahan.  It works on the trigger for an atomic bomb, casting and machining of uranium metals, research on fissile material needed for a bomb, high explosives and radiation detection. 

Abyek is a formerly top secret nuclear site 75 miles west of Tehran.  The facility which was exposed by the National Council of Resistance of Iran is inside a mountain and has three large halls, 20 by 200 meters, and 100 meters below the mountain surface.  It is one of the newest command centers under the direction of Mojdeh.

It is noteworthy that in 2010 Tehran announced plans to build 10 additional enrichment sites inside mountains beginning in March 2011.  It appears Abyek is the first of those sites.

Second, these targets vary in vulnerability.  The above ground unfortified facilities are easy targets for standoff cruise missiles but the hard and deeply buried targets (HDBT) are especially challenging.

Israel has hundreds of U.S.-made bunker-buster bombs for HDBT, which might breech the cavity containing some of Iran’s buried facilities.  The GBU-27 can penetrate 2.4 meters of concrete and the GBU-28 can penetrate 6 meters of concrete and another layer of earth 30 meters deep.   Last week, the Washington, DC-based Bipartisan Policy Center’s National Security Project called for providing Israel 200 GBU-31 bombs, which include the Boeing Co. GPS tail-kit, to increase the credibility of a strike.

An article in Israel’s Tablet magazine naively suggested Israel might attack HDBT sites like Fordow with a series of bunker busters, dropped at the same point to burrow through the granite.  Same point bombing with GPS tail-kits might be possible, but identifying which parts of a massive underground facility to strike is nearly impossible without extraordinary intelligence, such as blueprints. 

Also, successfully striking an HDBT depends on fuze settings.  Accurate fuzing depends on knowing with great accuracy the types of cover, such as the PSI of the concrete, types of layering, and depth.  The most accurate fuzes rely on delays, and the delay settings are determined by the time it takes for the weapon to travel from impact to the area of detonation, the underground room housing the centrifuges.  Too long a delay and you have a hole in the wrong place.

Third, reaching Iranian targets without being detected will be a significant challenge.  Israeli aircraft must fly over unfriendly skies past much improved Iranian air defenses, bomb and escape before Iranian surface-to-air missiles challenge them.  Expect some aircraft losses.

Two flight routes appear politically possible.  Israel could cross through Syria into Iraq, which has no air defense, and then enter Iran.  Alternatively, the aircraft could pass along the Syria-Turkey border, and then cut across Iraq into Iran.  Israel would jam communications and computers along the route to avoid detection.

Israeli pilots face three significant challenges: reaching their target, delivering their ordnance on target, and returning home before running out of fuel.  Fortunately, many of Israel’s 83 F-15 fighter bombers are outfitted with extra fuel pods that have a demonstrated range of up to 1,600 miles, but they also have a limited payload capacity for heavy bunker buster bombs.  And Tel Aviv to Tehran is 1,000 miles, which means Israel’s seven refueling planes will be kept busy depending on how many F-15s and F-16s join the fight.

Jerusalem has other means than bomb-ladened fighters to destroy Iranian targets such as Popeye cruise missiles launched from Israeli Dolphin submarines and Jericho ballistic missiles armed with conventional or nuclear warheads.   Special Forces should supplement air and sea platforms to ensure mission accomplishment.

Israel’s attack challenges are extraordinary.  It is possible to conduct a strike before Iran reaches the “immunity zone,” and it would probably destroy some of Iran’s capability.  But based on the above challenges, especially insufficient intelligence on the facilities, any conventional strike by Israel working alone will be of limited value.