The U.S. and Iran are playing a game of chicken over Tehran’s atomic weapons program.  Chances are the U.S. will swerve first to avoid war unless Israel attacks. Then it will be up to Tehran to decide how bad things become, but in the end Iran gets the bomb.

Last November the United Nation’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), alerted the world to credible evidence of Iran’s nuclear weaponization program. Subsequently, the U.S. led the West to impose the harshest sanctions yet meant to compel Tehran to abandon atomic weapons.

Iran responded to the sanctions by pledging its nuclear program was for “peaceful” purposes and then threatening that if the sanctions, especially those targeting its oil exports, weren’t abandoned it would close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, cutting off the flow of 35 percent of the world’s daily oil supply.  The U.S. countered it would use military force to keep the strait open. 

This tense standoff is complicated by Israel’s growing concern with Iran’s quickened atomic weapons pace and the growing chasm of cooperation with the U.S.

Two weeks ago General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was in Israel to discuss the Iran crisis.  “We have to acknowledge that they [Israelis]…see that threat differently than we do.  It’s existential to them,” Dempsey admitted to the National Journal. That difference explains why Jerusalem is the wild card in the game of atomic chicken.

Also, the Obama administration further distanced itself from “wild card” Israel by suspending [nice word for canceling] the long-planned Austere Challenge 12 bilateral anti-ballistic missile exercise to be held in Israel. Then Obama officials denied U.S. responsibility for the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists but said Israel should claim credit. So much for supporting our friends!

Consider answers to three questions related to this geopolitical game of atomic chicken. 

1. Why will the U.S. swerve to avoid conflict with Iran?

It will swerve because it fears the consequences. Gen. Dempsey told the National Journal the U.S. is committed to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but he cautioned the use of force “would be really destabilizing.” 

A conflict with Iran would divert resources from other efforts such as the war next door in Afghanistan. Tehran already has connections to the Taliban and could easily help them further destabilize Afghanistan and provide sanctuary.  Besides, President Obama is speeding up our Afghan exit which could slow should Iran step-in vis-à-vis the Iraq war.

The U.S. will swerve because the new sanctions appear to be working.  Clearly they weakened Iran’s currency by as much as 40 percent but that could have a silver lining.  That makes imports more expensive and exports cheaper, which could actually spark the resurgence of Iran’s textile industry and reduce 20 percent unemployment, a “godsend” for Tehran’s mullahs. 

Iran’s oil sector, the primary target of the new sanctions, will escape serious damage, however. Iran will continue to sell much of its oil to China and besides, a Saudi source told Reuters, “What we say is that oil is fungible.  Iranian oil will still find its way into the market.”

The only way to bring Iran to its financial knees is to impose a massive blockade like the 1962 U.S. quarantine of Cuba. That’s the view of Israeli finance minister Yuval Steinitz who opined to Bloomberg.com a “massive” aerial and naval blockade of Iran that “no one can even go out” might deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions.  But a blockade is an act of war, something this administration won’t consider.

The U.S. will swerve because Iran will continue faking cooperation with the IAEA.  Iraq’s Saddam Hussein played that game with weapons inspectors for many years as does North Korea. Libya’s former dictator fooled the West into believing he gave up weapons of mass destruction until after the recent revolution bunkers full of chemical munitions were revealed. 

A team of IAEA inspectors arrived in Iran on January 29.  Iran’s IAEA envoy said the visit shows that Iran’s nuclear activities are “peaceful” and “aimed at foiling the enemies’ plots and their political propaganda.”  Sound familiar? 

2. Why won’t Iran swerve?

Iran won’t swerve because it refuses to “give up” its nuclear program. That program is a national symbol of greatness. Tehran means to leverage it to gain regional dominance and theologically, Iran’s conservative ruling clerics see atomic weapons as the mechanism for ushering in a worldwide caliphate, Islamic rule. 

Iran won’t swerve because it has the upper hand over the U.S.  Tehran has President Obama scared it will shut the Strait of Hormuz, which could seriously jeopardize his re-election chances vis-à-vis another war and cause skyrocketing gas prices.

Evidence of Obama’s concern came in the form of a “secret” letter to Iran’s leadership. Ali Akbar Velayati, senior adviser to Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamene’l, said, “The letter held nothing new” and a member of Iran’s parliament opined Obama’s letter shows the Americans’ weakness.

Iran won’t swerve because it has significant military ability, enough to close the Strait of Hormuz and hurt American regional interests. It has three Kilo class silent submarines, 19 mini-subs, hundreds of sea mines, shore-based cruise missiles, and high performance boats for swarming larger vessels.  Tehran can sink an aircraft carrier and then launch ballistic missiles at regional targets to include Israel.  It also has the unconventional Quds Force and proxy terror groups with a proven history of violence to disrupt the region.

Last week, Ayatollah Khamene’l said the U.S. and its allies might “soon realize that they have no arrows left in their bag of sanctions.” That certainly appears to be the case, which explains why Israel is the wild card in the game of atomic chicken.

3. What might persuade Israel to attack Iran?

Last week Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he is working to increase international pressure on Iran, but admitted that so far sanctions are unsuccessful in halting Tehran’s nuclear program. 

Israel won’t wait much longer, however. Iran may be just months away from having enough fissile material for a bomb, an Israeli red line. 

At least two factors are at play in Israel’s attack decision. First, Jerusalem considers the alleged consequences of an attack overblown – such as the doomsday prediction that it would plunge the entire region into war. 

Recent experience indicates an attack won’t set off a catastrophic set of events.  For example, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein vowed if attacked he would “burn half of Israel.” He was attacked but his 40 Scud rocket counterattack was a dud.  Similarly the 2006 Israel war against Iran terror proxy Hezbollah caused limited harm in spite of thousands of rockets landing inside Israel. 

Second, Jerusalem wants to delay having to live with an atomic-armed Iran.  Israel understands Iran has been preparing for an attack for years – widely dispersing its atomic weapons program in deeply bunkered facilities. It accepts that a strike may only set back Iran’s weapons program a couple years, but Israeli leaders believe a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable and delaying that threat worth the costs.

This view was expressed last week in Jerusalem by Maj. Gen Amir Eshel, chief of the army’s planning division, according to The New York Times.  He asked, “Who would have dared deal with Gadaffi or Saddam Hussein if they had a nuclear capability? No way.” Then he cited a conversation with an Indian officer about that country’s response to the 2008 Pakistani terrorist attacks in Mumbai.  “When the other side [Pakistan] has a nuclear capability and is prepared to use it, you think twice,” the officer replied.

The U.S. will swerve first in the atomic game of chicken with Iran. But Israel, the wild card, has weighed the consequences and appears ready to attack understanding it can only delay the inevitable: Iran will join the exclusive atomic weapons club.

Iran will become an atomic weapons state because it already has the raw materials, technology, the ambition, and no single or group of nations is willing to do what is necessary to deny that outcome.

Atomic weapons in the hands of the radical Islamic Republic of Iran has been “unacceptable” to both the Bush and Obama Administrations and most of our allies, especially Israel which considers the proposition an existential threat. 

Our “unacceptable” policy translated into half measures – weak sanctions, covert action, and military threats – to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.  But only two alternatives will stop Iran’s atomic weapons program: a popular uprising that installs a government which abandons atomic arms and foreign invasion.  Neither alternative is likely which is why it is time to prepare for the day after Iran tests the bomb.

Before considering the “day after” it is helpful to appreciate Tehran’s bizarre motivation for atomic weapons, its hurried-up nuclear arms program, and why our half measures will inevitably fail.

First, the Islamic Republic of Iran is ruled by clerics and devout Shi’ites who hate the West and is driven by an apocalyptic branch of Islam that believes its duty is to begin world war that brings the return of their Mahdi (messiah) – an Imam so powerful he will bring the world under Islamic rule.  An atomic bomb is Iran’s war trigger. 

Second, the regime is making rapid progress acquiring an atomic weapons capability.  Last fall the United Nation’s nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), announced evidence of Iran’s accelerating atomic weapons program.  The agency’s report states Iran created computer models of nuclear explosions, conducted experiments on triggering a fissile reaction and completed advanced research on a miniaturized nuclear warhead that could be delivered by a medium-range missile. 

Last week the IAEA confirmed Iran’s nuclear material enrichment program took a dangerous turn.  The regime shifted its 20% uranium enrichment activities to the underground site at Fordow near the holy city of Qom, which offers protection against air strikes.  By the end of this year Iran is expected to have more than enough 20% enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb which could quickly be turned into weapons-grade material (90%) in a month or less.

Finally, the West’s efforts to deny Tehran atomic weapons are doomed.  Tehran’s opponents have been attempting for years to use a combination of diplomacy, sanctions, and covert action to persuade the mullahs to abandon the bomb.  And now there is talk of limited military action which will also fail. 

Years of increasingly tough economic sanctions failed to persuade Iran to abandon its atomic weapons program.  Now the Obama administration is hosting the strongest sanctions yet which target the Central Bank of Iran, the main conduit of oil revenues.  Those sanctions also target companies like China-based Zhuhai Zhenrong Co., the largest supplier of refined petroleum products to Iran.

But these sanctions which enjoy international support are doomed because Russia and China refuse to fully cooperate.  Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov accused the West of imposing sanctions “which go far beyond the boundaries of achieving nonproliferation objectives.” China, a major consumer of Iranian oil, threw cold water on the tougher sanctions as well.

A Chinese ministry of commerce spokesman said China will not heed the U.S.’s request to sanction Iran because it “will do serious damage to China’s domestic economy.”  Iran is China’s third-biggest source of oil, supplying more than 5% of total needs.

Covert operations are part of the West’s failing campaign to persuade Iran to abandon atomic arms as well.  An American diplomatic cable disclosed by WikiLeaks listed “covert measure” as one of the pillars of Israel’s approach to Iran. 

Iran alleges foreign covert operatives are responsible for assassinating five Iranian nuclear scientists, planting the Stuxnet computer worm to destroy enrichment centrifuges, and sabotaging a missile-testing site, near the nuclear facility at Isfahan.  But such covert activities are not enough to stop Iran’s atomic program because it includes hundreds of people across many widely scattered facilities. 

Military options are gaining attention especially now that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said in mid-December that Iran can assemble a bomb within or year or even less.  But those options are ultimately doomed as well. 

Three military options are likely under consideration: target Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities; target the weapons facilities and regime assets; and launch a 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq-like operation.  We should immediately disabuse ourselves of the third option because the U.S. has no appetite for another land war in the Mideast. 

A limited strike option to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities could have unintended consequences and only stall, not end, the Iranian nuclear drive.  After all, America’s bombing effectiveness, the best in the world, is rapidly deteriorating because Iran is burying its atomic facilities out of reach for even our biggest conventional bombs like Boeing’s 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator.

The second option would also target regime assets such as command centers to reduce Iran’s ability to retaliate.  The goal would be to trigger an uprising that would topple the regime, an unlikely outcome. 

But both options will earn quick retaliation.  The mullahs will close the Strait of Hormuz through which 35% of the world’s seaborne oil passes daily, launch ballistic missiles at allied strategic facilities, conduct preplanned covert actions, and unleash its terrorist proxies like Hezbollah.

Therefore, because sanctions, covert action, and limited military options are likely to fail we must prepare for the inevitable atomic Iran. 

So what should we do?  Last week, the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), an Israeli think-tank that enjoys a particularly close relationship with the top echelons in Israel, conducted a simulation exercise to consider the “day after” scenario.  It concludes that an Iranian nuclear test would radically shift the whole power balance of the Middle East.  The INSS outlined what might occur the “day after.”

The US would try to restrain Israel from military retaliation by proposing a formal defense pact, according to the INSS report.  Then Russia would propose a defense pact with the U.S. to arrest regional nuclear proliferation in part to try specifically to prevent the Saudis from developing their own atomic arsenal.  Meanwhile, the newly minted atomic Iran will demand new borders with Iraq and sovereignty over Bahrain.

But in an interesting twist, even though the simulation showed that Iran will not forgo nuclear weapons, Tehran “will attempt to use them to reach an agreement with the major powers that will improve its position.”  That conclusion parallels an emerging perspective shared by some Israeli elite.

Last year, Meir Dagan, the former head of Mossad (Israel’s intelligence organization), objected to an Israeli strike on Iran because it would engulf the region in war.  Then last month he added that a nuclear Iran “did not necessarily threaten Israel.”

Two things are becoming obvious regarding Iran’s atomic quest.  The U.S. has neither the will nor the international support to topple the regime and an Arab Spring-like Iranian revolution doesn’t appear likely either.  What does appear likely is the grudging acceptance of an atomic armed Tehran, and a radically changed Middle East.

President Barack Obama’s new defense strategy is chock full of myths as his soon-to-arrive 2013 budget promises to detail national security changes at this critical “moment of transition.” 

Last week Obama spoke from the Pentagon briefing room saying this “moment of transition” is the confluence of ebbing security challenges and the necessity to put our fiscal house in order.  He promised his new strategy will “guide our defense priorities” and satisfy Congress’ mandated cuts, while maintaining the “greatest force … ever known,” without repeating past mistakes.

That is a tall order, but for now all we have to judge are statements and the Pentagon’s strategy, “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense.”  Those sources espouse at least six myths that should alarm Congress and the American people about the President’s stewardship.

Myth #1:  Obama contends “the tide of war is receding.”  That is not true.

Obama claims credit for ending our role in Iraq, but that war continues.  After the President ordered our withdrawal, Iraq exploded in sectarian violence and political turmoil that threatens to avalanche across the Middle East.

The tide of war isn’t receding in Afghanistan, but Obama intends to abandon that fight too.  He is rushing for the exits by negotiating with the Taliban enemy.  No wonder neighbor Pakistan is proving uncooperative.

The war on terror is expanding across much of Northern Africa—Nigeria to Somalia.  And the year-long Arab Spring keeps the Mideast on edge from Tunisia to Bahrain to Yemen.

But Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta boasts about NATO’s operation against the Libyan dictator.  Is the secretary not aware of the raging tribal and militia disputes tearing that country apart?  And our longtime ally Egypt will soon be ruled by anti-West Islamists who hate Israel, and Syria is hosting a bloody civil war.  Then there is Iran, which is on the precipice of atomic weapons status and threatens to close the oil-strategic Strait of Hormuz.

Myth #2:  Obama said, “We can’t afford to repeat the mistakes that have been made in the past.”  But that is what he is about to do.

The President intends to cut our ground forces by 100,000, and he pretends ships and aircraft can replace those troops in the future high-tech world.  That ignores bloody lessons from the times leading up to World War II​, Korea, Vietnam and the wars that followed the 9/11 attacks.

We seldom pick our enemies, and those we fight seldom go after our strengths—air and sea power.  Inevitably our enemies attack our vulnerabilities, and fielding an undersized ground force means we face more long and bloody ground wars.

Myth #3:  The U.S. no longer needs a two-war doctrine.  That doctrine dates back to the Cold War​, when we were prepared to simultaneously fight North Korea and Soviet forces.  Obama’s strategy calls for enough forces to fight a single large-scale war while conducting a holding action in a second region.

What prompted this change?  Obama’s 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) states, “U.S. military forces must plan and prepare to prevail in a broad range of operations that occur in multiple theaters in overlapping time frames.  This includes maintaining the ability to prevail against two capable nation-state aggressors …”

Perhaps part of the change rationale is the administration’s view that we will no longer conduct stability and counterinsurgency operations such as in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But the potential for such operations in a volatile world remains high, and it is naïve to deny otherwise.

Abandoning a two-war doctrine is also dangerous not only because we lack flexibility and a right-sized force for global missions, but also because it sends a bad message that weakens deterrence.  The thinking is that once we are decisively engaged, other adversaries will feel relatively free to do mischief.

Myth #4:  The strategy is not budget-driven.  Panetta argues that we don’t have to “choose between our national security and fiscal responsibility.”  But Obama’s strategy insists it is a “national security imperative” to reduce the deficit “through a lower level of defense spending.” 

Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) is suspicious.  He said the U.S. can’t afford a “budget-driven defense strategy” even though he accepts some defense cuts.  But what makes this strategy appear to be budget-driven is the fact that it is so radically different from Obama’s 2010 QDR, which laid out a much more robust force.

McCain should also be suspicious that Obama intends to cut defense in order to protect entitlement programs.  Put the issue in historic context.  In 1960, defense spending was 47% of all federal spending compared with only 19% today.  In 2021, after the planned defense cuts, Pentagon spending will account for 2.7% of the gross domestic product (GDP) compared with 11% for Obama’s entitlement package, and that is before his $2.6 trillion health plan is included.

Myth #5:  A smaller nuclear force will provide all the deterrence needed.  The President’s strategy calls for further reductions in our nuclear weapons inventory and “their role in the U.S. national security strategy.”

Defense officials decline to elaborate on how the administration will maintain our nuclear deterrence with fewer weapons and a downsized atomic triad of ballistic missiles, bombers and submarines.  The key is making certain our force is optimal in size and capability, but that is the catch.

The U.S. has about 5,000 nuclear warheads, and agreed with the Russians via the 2010 New START treaty to reduce the number of deployed weapons to 1,550.  Does Obama intend to cut beyond the START numbers, and does he plan to invest in modernization as are the Russians and Chinese?  Getting more deterrence from a smaller force in a growing nuclear-threat environment demands a lot more explaining than a sentence in the new strategy.

Myth #6:  The U.S. is not at war with China.  That’s the administration’s mantra, but its actions say something very different.  We are “rebalancing” forces to the Asia-Pacific region, investing in new technologies and platforms to address China’s military threat, and pouring funds into developing stronger Asia-Pacific alliances.

Recently Obama labeled Asia a “critical region,” and insisted any cuts to the military will not come at the expense of an expanding U.S. presence in Asia.  His strategy states that the U.S. “must maintain its ability to project power in areas in which our access and freedom to operate are challenged.”

Only China challenges U.S. operations in Asia, which explains the strategy’s promise to implement the new Joint Operation Access Concept, “sustaining our undersea capabilities, developing a new stealth bomber, improving missile defenses, and continuing efforts to enhance the resiliency and effectiveness of critical space-based capabilities.”

The China-focused concept is driving decisions to keep the Navy’s current fleet of 11 aircraft carriers, and develop new bombers and more submarines.  Also, expect more troops in Asia like those Obama promised for Darwin, Australia.

The inescapable conclusion is that Obama’s speech at the Pentagon last week was an announcement of his reelection strategy rather than a national defense strategy.  The strategy guts our forces and increases risk while maintaining popular entitlement programs at taxpayer expense.  Obama is acting more like a corporate CFO rather than the commander-in-chief, his primary duty as the President.

President Obama pulled our forces out of Iraq knowing full well that that country wasn’t stable enough to avoid possible civil war and/or the emergence of a Shiite Saddam Hussein.  History will judge this as one of Obama’s worst foreign policy decisions.

Obama ignored our military commanders’ call to retain a minimum of 20,000 troops after 2011 to stabilize Iraq, much as we did in the sectarian war-torn Balkans, where troops remain today more than a decade after that war ended.  Rather than stabilize Iraq, Obama took the exit road after admitting to troops at Fort Bragg , N.C.,“ Iraq is not a perfect place.  It has many challenges ahead.”

Obama knew Iraq wasn’t ready for the security handoff, but his hapless diplomacy failed to win the necessary immunity deal needed to protect any stay-behind troops.  So he ordered the troops out knowing that Iraq ’s collapse could be a disaster for American regional interests and put Iran in a dominant position, at the expense of 4,500 American lives lost and nearly $1 trillion.

Now that our troops are out, Obama’s “many challenges ahead” are coming to roost and with a vengeance.  Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who maintains warm relations with Tehran, wasted no time executing a sectarian “coup” to begin creating a one-party Shiite-dominated state.  Consider four “challenges.” 

First, al-Maliki is reducing his political opposition.  The day after the last American soldier left Iraq, al-Maliki issued an arrest warrant on three-year-old, trumped-up terrorism charges against his vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, the highest elected Sunni in government.  Hashimi said the charges were “fabricated” to remove him from office, and he does not rule out an Iranian role.

Hashimi warned from his hideout in northern Iraq, “Al-Maliki will not accept the existence of opposition of any kind after the withdrawal of the Americans…[He] will seek to consecrate the running of the state by one man and a single party.”  Al-Maliki “started with me,” Hashimi said, “and it is very likely that he will move against the others.”  The prime minister has also called for Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq, another Sunni, to be removed, and has started investigations of other Sunnis.

Now the Iraqi prime minister threatens to form a government that completely excludes opposition voices.  Last week al-Maliki appointed acting ministers to replace absent Sunnis who walked out of the parliament until the prime minister responds to “all their legitimate rights” in the national partnership government.  That will never happen.

Al-Maliki has also enlisted known Iranian surrogates to bolster him politically.  He welcomed into the political process the Shiite militia group Asaib Ahl al-Haq, known for killing American troops, and he is growing more dependent on the 40-seat voting bloc of lawmakers loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who has close ties to Iran.

Sadr also played a key role in demagoguing mostly Sunni officials who favored a sizable American continued presence.  In fact Sadr’s influence was bolstered by Obama’s diplomatic hands-off approach when Iraq ’s government was forming last year, which pushed Maliki into Sadr’s arms.  The populist cleric’s party controls eight cabinet seats and receives significant government largess.

Second, Maliki maintains personal control over the most important ministries.  Sunni politicians point out Maliki is adopting Saddam-like dictatorial powers by personally controlling the two most important government positions, the defense and interior ministries. 

The prime minister’s control of these ministries puts him in charge of all soldiers, police and counterterrorism forces, and gives him significant say regarding the judicial system.  Little wonder there is a decisively Shia flavor among those branches of government.  For example, there are reports that military vehicles fly Shiite flags, not Iraq ’s national flag, and the Shia-dominated security forces sell command positions, according to American advisers.

Third, Maliki refuses to support the creation of autonomous regions, which exacerbates sectarian tensions.  Minority fear of a Shia-dominated central government has accelerated the push for regional autonomy.  Sunni leaders such as parliament speaker Osama al-Nujaifi, who once staunchly supported a central government, now supports a semi-autonomous Sunni region.  “The solution for Iraq’s worsening problem is the formation of regions,” said al-Nujaifi in December.

Iraq’s constitution allows for federalism, such as the Kurdish control of the northern part of Iraq.  But Sunni-dominated provinces such as Salahuddin and Diyala now seek autonomy, which al-Maliki refuses to support.  The prime minister claims the country would be turned into “rivers of blood” if the predominantly Sunni provinces sought more autonomy.

Finally, sectarian violence is erupting as the standoff grows.  It started the day after American forces left Iraq .  The Islamic State of Iraq, a Sunni group, took credit for 15 bombs in Baghdad that killed 65.  Unfortunately, such violence is encouraged by Arabic-language satellite channels that tout sectarian sentiments of impending disaster for Iraq, and caution that the violence will spread.

Days prior to our withdrawal, Obama and al-Maliki pledged to work together to ensure Iraq ’s political stability.  At their Washington meeting, Obama said, “I believe that the parties … realize the dangers of a sectarian war in Iraq … because it will be like a snowball, that it will expand and it will be difficult to control it.”

Mr. President, your “snowball” is headed downhill out of control.  What are you going to do?

You should begin by admitting your decision to withdraw all forces was a mistake.  But that won’t happen.   

Obama should use our diplomatic, economic, commercial and cultural relationship with Baghdad to coax al-Maliki into complying with the 2010 unity agreement, otherwise Iraq is doomed to repeat its sad history.  But that’s unlikely given Obama’s failure to win a compromise while our troops were still inside Iraq.  And there is virtually no chance Obama will send troops back into Iraq .

Iraq appears doomed, and the snowball Obama got rolling may well avalanche out of control and across the region.  That’s why history will judge this foreign policy decision as one of Obama’s worst international debacles.

Last weekend’s massive protest in Moscow’s Prospekt Sakharova will result in a new Soviet-style Russia not an Arab Spring-like revolution. The West had better beware because the Russian bear is coming out of hibernation.

Twenty years ago this month the Soviet Union crumbled and from those ashes rose a promising Russian democratic republic. But Soviet-era corruption reared its ugly head in Russia’s December 4th parliamentary elections. That corruption sparked numerous protests, calls for new elections and earned Russia’s prime minister an accusatory message from a U.S. senator.

Senator John McCain​ (R-AZ) tweeted Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin a satirical message. “Dear Vlad,” tweeted McCain, “the #Arabspring is coming to a neighborhood near you.”1 That tweet linked a news article about allegations of fraud in Russia’s parliamentary elections.

Predictably Putin dismissed McCain’s ribbing as dunce naivety. Yes, Russia’s elections were likely corrupt, but they were also a gauge of the country’s mood for change which Putin intends to leverage to earn another term as president.

Putin’s political party, United Russia​, lost State Duma seats in the elections in spite of widespread corruption but nationalist parties which also support Putin for president gained those same seats. On balance the election confirms Putin’s political support for a back-to-the- future Russia propelled by growing nationalism.

Putin intends to ride the nationalist sentiment to rebuild Russia where his former Soviet masters failed 20 years ago. Putin memorably described the Soviet Union’s demise as the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century. Then two weeks ago Putin, in full campaign mode, expressed a similar sentiment on Russian television. The Soviet Union “should have started timely economic reforms and changes,” Putin said, instead the regime collapsed.

Putin, a former KGB – Soviet-era secret police – lieutenant colonel, sees himself as Russia’s savior, the man destined to bring about “reforms” and “changes.” But first he must win back the presidency this March, a virtual certainty. Then Putin intends to restore Russia’s grandeur using Soviet-style politics, building a new Warsaw Pact-like geopolitical alliance, growing the military, and implementing a popular anti-West foreign policy.

Putin’s politics are right out of a Soviet-era playbook. In September Putin and outgoing President Dmitriy Medvedev confirmed their intent at the United Russia congress to extend the Putin dynasty, which started in 1999, ran through two terms as president and recently four years as prime minister.

Medvedev told the congress that Putin will stand for the presidency in 2012 and he [Medvedev] is to replace him as prime minister. The party rubber stamped the Putin nomination and the prime minister accepted the unanimous endorsement “with gratitude.” Putin said between chants of “Putin, Putin” that he would build “a strong and happy Russia,” translated financial benefits for his supporters.

Putin’s critics saw in that congress visions of the Soviet era. Liberal-democratic party leader Vladimir Zhirinovskiy​ compared the United Russia’s “Putin, Putin” congress to ones held by the Soviet Communist Party​. “The same milkmaids, officers, and steel workers” with “hired hands shouting all the slogans,” Zhirinovskiy said, according to RIA Novosti.

Putin played to Soviet-era nostalgia when he called for building a Eurasian Union. On October 4, Putin published an article in Izvetiia announcing his Eurasia Union initiative that will have an economic focus similar to the euro zone, though led by Russia politically and bears a suspicious resemblance to that of the former Soviet Union.

The objective is not to rebuild a unified state dependent financially on Moscow, but create a supranational political and economic structure that gives Moscow strategic oversight of countries on its periphery. Russia already has a customs union with Belarus and Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan has indicated it intends to join. That union integrates their economies and reduces restrictions on movement of goods across their borders.

A Russian-led Eurasia Union will attract former Warsaw Pact countries especially now that Europe is collapsing. It also suggests a reorientation of Russian foreign policy strategy under soon-to-be-president Putin that de-emphasizes Europe and puts Moscow in the catbird seat.
Keep in mind even though the proposed Eurasia Union starts as a political and economic association it could become a defense alliance. The former Warsaw Pact was the military compliment to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, the regional economic organization for the former communist states of Eastern Europe.

Putin is modernizing Russia’s military already armed with the world’s largest atomic weapons arsenal. Last month Putin declared, according to Interfax, the Russian armed forces will be brought up “to a new level in the next five to 10 years” so that both the army and the military-industrial complex “are capable of guaranteeing Russia stable peace without undermining the national economy.”

Moscow is aggressively rebuilding its atomic strike capability, doctrinally the nation’s primary means of defense. For example, just last week Russia’s Northern Fleet successfully carried out the salvo launch of two Bulava intercontinental ballistic missiles from the Yuriy Dolgorukiy​, a submersed nuclear submarine in the White Sea. Such strategic modernization of its nuclear forces does not contravene the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the U.S., but it is leaving the U.S. in the dust because America stopped atomic weapon modernization projects.

Moscow is also aggressively building conventional expeditionary platforms. It is constructing over 100 naval ships, over 1,000 helicopters and 600 military aircraft including the fifth generation Sukhoi PAK-FA fighter.4 Meanwhile, Russian ships and aircraft are returning to distant seas and air space to challenge the U.S.

Putin promises an anti-U.S. foreign policy. He told the United Russia congress he “will continue to pursue an active foreign policy” while “straightforwardly and honestly” defending Russia’s interests. He cautioned that dialogue with Russia is “possible only on an equal footing” and that “nothing can be imposed on Russia from outside.”

These comments are aimed at the U.S., which Putin considers Russia’s primary adversary. His concern is with NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe and America’s European-based ballistic missile defense (BMD), which he claims threatens Russia’s sovereignty.

Putin is especially weary of America’s BMD which he says is intended to neutralize Russia’s nuclear deterrent and is a pretext to station American forces in Eastern Europe. Washington argues the BMD is to counter the emerging Iranian missile threat.

But President Medvedev and by assoication Putin threaten that if the U.S. continues to refuse cooperation with Russia regarding the BMD, Moscow will deploy its Iskander mobile ballistic missiles and early warning system on its border with Poland and Lithuania. He will target the American BMD and fit the Iskanders with advanced maneuverable re-entry vehicles and penetration aids.

On other fronts Moscow is re-engaging the Middle East, such as building a military port in Syria to re-establish a Mediterranean presence. It is playing an active and unhelpful role in the ongoing nuclear crisis with Iran, leveraging its control of the Northern Distribution Network into Afghanistan, contesting arctic region claims, and moving back into areas that haven’t seen Russians for two decades.

The election protests express genuine discontent with Russian corruption. But the real story is the Putin dynasty is strong and soon will shed any pretense of reform. It will tap into the growing Russian nationalism to rebuild Moscow’s stature Soviet-style with a back-to-the-future agenda which means the Russian bear is back with a vengence.

The Israelis will likely attack Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities, but they won’t alert the U.S. prior to launching that operation for six reasons.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu considers Iran’s acquisition of atomic weapons an “existential” threat to the Jewish nation. Recently, concern about that threat skyrocketed with the release of a chilling report by the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). For the first time, the IAEA said it believes Iran conducted secret experiments solely to develop nuclear arms.

That report said Iran created computer models of nuclear explosions, conducted experiments on nuclear triggers, and did research under a program called AMAD that included at least 14 designs for fitting an atomic warhead on a Shahab missile, which has a 1,200-mile range, enough to reach Israel. This revelation prompted calls for tougher sanctions to discourage Iran, and some unidentified nations apparently accelerated covert operations—assassinations, sabotage and spying—against Iran’s atomic weapons facilities and staff.

But there is growing resignation, especially among Israelis, that current efforts won’t stop Iran’s march to atomic weapons status. Yet President Barack Obama doggedly insists sanctions alone will pry atomic weapons from Tehran. Netanyahu is increasingly skeptical that anything short of a military attack will work.

That view fuels speculation that Israel will unilaterally attack Iranian atomic facilities. Unfortunately, the first indication of that operation won’t be a telephone call to Obama alerting him of a pending attack, but radars displaying Israeli fighters streaking across the Saudi Arabian deserts to Iran.

Why won’t Netanyahu alert Obama?

First, Israel seldom notifies the U.S. when undertaking high-risk operations. Israel didn’t notify the U.S. about its 1981 strike at Iraq’s Osirak reactor, and as Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) said, the Bush administration “didn’t know when the Israelis hit the reactor in Syria [in 2007].”

Likely Israeli leaders have certain “red lines” related to Iranian nuclear progress, which could trigger action at any moment. Netanyahu confirmed that view last Sunday, saying he will be prepared to make “the right decision at the right moment.”

Second, Netanyahu knows Obama doesn’t support a military attack. This has been made clear by Leon Panetta​, Obama’s secretary of defense, who frequently pours cold water on the idea. Panetta warns that an Iran strike would “at best” slow down Tehran’s program for “maybe one, possibly two years,” the “targets are very difficult to get at” [read Israel lacks the capability to do the job] and we “could have unexpected consequences” such as damage to the global economy.

But Obama’s current efforts are failing. Even new efforts, such as so-called tougher sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran​, which funds Tehran’s nuclear program, are destined to fail due to Obama’s lack of support.

The U.S. Senate just created the tougher banking sanctions in response to the Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in a Washington, D.C., restaurant. But Obama objects to these sanctions because they might alienate U.S. trading partners who deal in oil with the Central Bank of Iran.

The Wall Street Journal editorialized about Obama’s real motive for opposing these tougher sanctions, saying they could “hurt his reelection chances.” After all, “disrupting Iran’s oil exports would increase oil prices and thus the price of gasoline at the American pump.”

Third, Netanyahu doesn’t trust Obama. Last month, Obama was speaking with French President Nicholas Sarkozy, who, not realizing his microphone was hot, expressed contempt for Netanyahu. “I cannot bear Netanyahu, he’s a liar.” Obama commiserated with the Frenchman. “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you,” Obama replied, according to Reuters.

Obama and Netanyahu have a rocky relationship that started in 2009 with the prime minister’s first meeting in the White House. It took Netanyahu weeks to secure the meeting, and then it happened at night without the typical media fanfare: No greeting by Obama at the front entrance, Netanyahu was forced to leave via a side exit, and Obama ordered the prime minister to keep the contents of the meeting secret.

A year later, Obama treated Netanyahu even shabbier than during their first White House meeting. Netanyahu failed to give Obama the concessions on Jewish settlements requested, so the President walked out of the meeting after inviting the prime minister to stay to consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new.”

Fourth, Obama doesn’t understand the Middle East, and shows favoritism toward Islamic parties. His actions speak for themselves. He bowed to the Saudi king on their first meeting; called the revolution that ousted Egypt’s president and will now likely be replaced by a radical Islamist government “a positive force”; praised Tunisia’s election as an “inspiration”—the country is now led by Islamic extremists who have called for war against Americans and support Iran; waged war against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi​, who was replaced by Islamists imposing Sharia law and al-Qaeda allies; and invested two years into diplomatic back-slapping with Syrian President Bashar Assad, who is a butcher with the blood of at least 4,000 citizens on his hands.

Meanwhile, Obama blames Israel for the problems in the Middle East because it won’t settle with the Palestinians. But he has yet to visit Israel as U.S. President to see the issues firsthand, even though he insists Jerusalem must surrender to Palestinian demands and withdraw to the pre-1967 Arab-Israeli war territorial lines and welcome back so-called displaced Palestinians, which would inevitably destroy Israel as a Jewish nation.

For these reasons and more, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney rightly said that Obama “has immeasurably set back the prospect of peace in the Middle East.”

Fifth, Obama isn’t committed to the only potentially effective alternative to military attack—containment. Even if Israel were to accept an atomic-armed Iran, it doesn’t believe the U.S. is committed to long-term containment.

Presidents during the Cold War​ who faced down the Soviet Union were confident that the U.S. had sufficient military power to support a policy of containment. But that sort of staying power in the Middle East is missing under Obama’s watch.

He is prematurely pulling forces out of Iraq, and anxious to get out of Afghanistan. That is why few Middle Eastern leaders believe Obama is willing to invest heavily in the region to contain an atomic Iran, especially now that he has made it clear his new priority is the Asia-Pacific.

That lack of trust has prompted the Saudis to consider going nuclear to counter Iran. Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former head of Saudi intelligence and former ambassador to the U.S., said his country cannot stand still if Iran develops a nuclear capability: “We must…look into all options we are given, including obtaining these weapons ourselves.”

Finally, Netanyahu doesn’t need Obama’s support because he knows the American people will forgive and understand should Israel attack Iranian atomic weapons facilities. Most Americans (57%) say they support Israeli military action against Iran’s nuclear sites, according to a poll commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League.

Netanyahu also knows Obama won’t abandon Israel because the President needs Jewish voters, a key Democratic voting bloc that went 78% for him in 2008, but is down to 54% today, according to a Gallup poll. Recently, Obama promised 900 rabbis on a conference call, “Prime Minister Netanyahu knows he can count on the United States.”

Netanyahu won’t be calling Obama before Israeli jets launch on their mission to destroy Iran’s atomic weapons facilities. That’s Obama’s fault, and the U.S. will pay a high price for it and all the rest of the President’s numerous misjudgments.

By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

It is almost certain America’s ally Egypt will become an Islamist state if last week’s vote is any indication.  President Barack Obama, who supported Egypt’s revolution, had better prepare for a radically different Middle East.

An Islamist Egypt, the largest Arab country and a longtime American ally, could turn the Middle East on its head.  It will likely exchange the 30-year peace with Israel for war, play host to Islamic terrorists, embrace Sharia (Islamic) law, limit the use of the strategic Suez Canal, and spread radicalism across the volatile region.

Last week’s mostly urban vote was the first of three rounds of Egypt’s complex parliamentary elections to fill the People’s Assembly (the lower house).  The Islamist Muslim Brotherhood​’s Freedom and Justice Party (JFP) captured perhaps 43%, and surprisingly, the ultraconservative (Salafist) Al Nour (“The Light”) party earned as much as 30% of the vote.

The final two voting rounds will take place between now and early January, and are expected to be even more successful for the Islamists because the remaining voters are in primarily rural, conservative governorates.  And there is no reason to expect the election for Egypt’s upper house, the Shura Council, which takes place between late January and March, to be any different.

Following those elections, the new Islamist majority parliament will convene to draft a constitution which will be submitted to a referendum.  Then, according to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF)—Egypt’s military rulers—there will be a presidential election “no later than 30 June 2012.”

It is clear Egypt faces a cultural and political tsunami.  An Islamist majority parliament will ignore the Tahrir Square pro-democracy movement that pushed former President Hosni Mubarak out of office.  Worse, the more moderate Muslim Brotherhood will be pushed to the Islamic right by its Salafist allies.  Then expect the Islamists to display no pretense about embracing radical Sharia law.

This outcome was widely predicted by Middle East observers such as this author, but leaders such as President Obama called the revolution that ousted Mubarak “a positive force for a democratic Egyptian future.”  Obama then said, “I have an unyielding belief that you [Egyptians] will determine your own destiny.”

One of the best indicators of Egypt’s “destiny” is what the Islamist leaders promise.

The Brotherhood’s supreme guide, Mohammed Badie, said Muslim regimes must confront Islam’s enemies, Israel and the U.S., and that waging jihad against them is a commandment of Allah.  He called for “all forms of resistance for the sake of liberating every occupied piece of land in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all [other] parts of our Muslim world.”

Badie said the Koran should “become our constitution,” and in 2007 then-supreme guide Mohammed Mahdi Akef​ drafted the Brotherhood’s political platform.

That platform states Islam will be the state religion and that Sharia “is the main source for legislation.”  Non-Muslims and women are barred from the presidency, and the 1979 peace with Israel would be put to referendum, which means certain defeat in the 95% Muslim majority country.  And tourists visiting Egypt must “be in line with Islamic principles, values and laws,” which would put a serious damper on Western tourism.

The most prestigious Brotherhood cleric, Shaykh Qaradawi, represents mainstream views, according to the Washington-based Brookings Institute’s Shadi Hamid.  Those views are radically anti-Israel.  Qaradwi denies Palestinian suicide bombing attacks on Israeli civilians constitute terrorism, and he issued a fatwa (an Islamic ruling) stating that it was mandatory for all Muslims to support Iran terror proxy Hezbollah in its fight against Israel.

Recently Qaradawi, who heads of the Union of Muslim Scholars, co-sponsored a massive rally in Cairo’s Al-Azhar mosque in which a 5,000-strong crowd chanted passages from the Koran vowing that “one day we shall kill all the Jews,” according to Israel’s Ynetnews.

The theologian also embraces radical views for everyday Egyptians.  He “accepts” wife beating “as a method of last resort,” according to London’s The Guardian, and female circumcision for “whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters.”  He also believes that homosexuality should be punishable by death.

The Brotherhood’s Salafi partner, the Al Nour party, is the largest of Egypt’s three licensed Salafist parties and perhaps the most dogmatic.  It calls for laws mandating a shift to the complete application of Sharia, including Islamic banking (no interest or fees for loans), “just and equal distribution” of income to the poor, restricting the sale of alcohol, providing special curricula for schoolchildren, and censoring the arts and entertainment.

Sheikh Yasir Burhami, considered Al Nour’s godfather, previously rejected participation in politics and government because it conflicted with his religious principles.  But he reconciled participation in the current election process by rejecting democracy—the rule of the people—while embracing democracy’s methodology (elections), which “seems to be the best option available, or the lesser evil,”  Burhami said.

Burhami advocates this “lesser evil” (elections) in order to change the basis for Egyptian law.  In a March interview on Al-Khaleejiah television, Burhami explained that under Islamic rule, laws are based on the Koran and the Sunnah, the practice of Muhammad.  Under democracy, he explained, it is the will of the people that he rejects.  But then he implied Salafis joined this election as a means to leverage their popularity in order to change the basis for Egyptian law.

Al Nour’s platform states “there is a broad popular consensus among all sectors of Egyptian [society] regarding establishing Islam as the state religion, Arabic as the official language, and the principles of Islamic Sharia as the primary source of legislation.”  “We believe that Islam is the decisive [authority] in all domains of life, including politics,” Burhami said.  He argues that Islam is “both religion and state,” and cannot be separated from politics.  He believes secularism amounts to atheism.

There are at least five consequences of an Islamist Egypt.

First, the Islamists will adopt a Sharia-based constitution that radically transforms the country’s security and trade arrangements, as well as the way it treats minorities such as Coptic Christians (who are already leaving the country), as well as women.  Keep in mind regional trade depends on Egypt’s Suez Canal, and vacating the 1979 Camp David Peace Accords with Israel, which the Salifists reject, could return the region to a war footing.

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

Third, an Islamist-controlled Egypt would eventually purge its American-trained and -equipped military, much like the transition that is now happening with Islamist Turkey.  Egyptian guns could soon be pointing at Americans.

Finally, Salafi terrorist groups would find safe harbor in Egypt, the ideological home of al-Qaeda.  That would radicalize the region and could turn Egypt into another terrorist haven like Pakistan.

The wild card in this political tsunami is the SCAF, which has goals starkly different from the Islamists, such as maintaining secular rule.  Will it allow the Islamists to radically transform Egypt?

Recently the Obama administration called on the SCAF to transfer power to a civilian government “as soon as possible.”  That may happen, but as the consequences of an Islamist Egypt play, out everyone should remember a similar transition 32 years ago in Iran.  It appears Obama never learned the lessons of his predecessor President Jimmy Carter​, who badly fumbled the Iran crisis.  It now appears Obama is doing the same with Egypt.

By: -Col. Bob Maginnis

Last week, President Barack Obama was in Asia to declare a cold war with China. Hopefully the U.S.-China cold war won’t be like the one fought with the Soviet Union that brought the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation and cost trillions of dollars over 60 years.

The crux of the conflict is China’s attempt to assert its sovereignty over the South China Sea, a resource-rich conduit for roughly $5 trillion in annual global trade, of which $1.2 trillion is American, which U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared last year a matter of “national interest.”

Beijing’s assertive behavior in the South China Sea precipitated calls from Asian allies for the U.S. to deepen its involvement to be a strong counterweight. Those calls led to the formulation of Obama’s new Asia strategy, which administration officials admit changes America’s “military posture toward China” into something like the former East-West cold war. The first shots of the new war were heard last week.

President Obama, while traveling in Asia, fired the first rounds of the cold war when he declared the U.S. is a “Pacific nation,” and we intend to play “a larger and long-term role in shaping this region and its future.”

“I have directed my national security team to make our presence and missions in the Asia Pacific a top priority,” Obama said. The region “is absolutely vital not only for our economy but also for our national security,” and then the President and his representatives unveiled an avalanche of cold war-like initiatives intended to counter China’s influence.

The U.S. will increase its military presence in Asia. Obama announced an agreement to permanently station 2,500 Marines in Australia, and to increase combat aircraft such as B-52 bombers and aircraft carriers traveling to Australia. This compliments 28,000 troops already stationed in South Korea, and 50,000 in Japan.

Ally Singapore promised to provide basing for U.S. littoral combat ships, and Vietnam invited the U.S. Navy to use the Cam Ranh Bay port for provisioning and repairs.

Last Friday, Obama announced plans to supply 24 refurbished F-16C/D fighter aircraft to Indonesia, the administration restated its arms commitment to China-rival Taiwan, and the administration is considering offering the Philippines a second destroyer. Also last week, Clinton was in Manila to mark the 60th anniversary of the U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty, to discuss regional issues, and then she traveled to Thailand to bolster that relationship.

After Clinton’s meeting with Philippine officials, Albert del Rosario, the Philippines’ foreign minister, issued a statement urging the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to play a more decisive role in the South China Sea crisis. Many ASEAN partners have already promised to increase their naval spending, adding patrol craft and submarines, according to the Wall Street Journal.

On the economic front, Obama announced an Asia Pacific free trade deal, called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that excludes Beijing. He also used the trip as an opportunity to admonish the Chinese to “play by the rules” and repeatedly criticized Beijing for undervaluing their currency, which makes American goods more expensive.

On the diplomatic front, Obama attended the East Asia Summit (EAS) in Bali, Indonesia—the first time an American president has attended the annual event. Obama wants the EAS to serve as a decision-making body for policy in the region.

Consider Beijing’s behavior that precipitated these cold war initiatives and how Obama’s Asia strategy might play out.

First, China’s actions and rhetoric regarding the South China Sea are warlike. It claims “indisputable” sovereignty over 90% of the sea in order to gain maximum access to about a tenth of the world’s commercial seafood and oil and gas reserves that could rival those of Kuwait. It threatens international oil firms that sign deals with South China Sea countries and Chinese warships routinely harass ships in contested waters.

China’s semi-official Global Times wrote, “If these countries don’t want to change their ways with China, they will need to prepare for the sound of cannons.” The Times was referring to the 750 Spratley Islands in the South China Sea, which are contested by Asian states such as Vietnam.

China’s aggressive behavior and threatening rhetoric are complemented by massive militarization. Beijing is projecting military power far from its shores with a rapidly growing, modern blue-water navy, long-range aircraft with refueling capabilities, a global satellite network, anti-access ballistic missiles (read aircraft carrier killers) and its first aircraft carrier. These instruments of war provide Beijing an expeditionary capability that could lead to a shooting war.

The U.S. established a cold war-like hotline between China’s People’s Liberation Army and the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff in anticipation of military tensions. Vice Admiral Scott Swift, the new commander of the U.S. Seventh Fleet that patrols the South China Sea, hopes the hotline will prevent inevitable “brushups” from triggering “tactical miscalculations.”

Second, China’s trade practices are undercutting American and regional allies’ economic influence. Obama said, “When it comes to their economic practices, there are a range of things [the Chinese] have done that disadvantage not just the U.S. but a whole host of their trading partners.” Obama expressed widespread frustration at an Asian news conference when he said, “The United States and other countries … feel that enough is enough.”

Last week, Obama met with Chinese President Hu Jintao to express U.S. concerns on economic issues including currency. China’s currency, the yuan, which is pegged to the U.S. dollar, makes its exports cheaper than those made in America. But China argues it has allowed the yuan to appreciate 6.7% since 2010, and the U.S. trade deficit and unemployment problems are not caused by the Chinese currency’s exchange rate.

Deng Yuwen, who writes for the China Daily, argues, “The major causes of Sino-U.S. trade imbalance are the differences in the two countries’ investment and trade structure, savings ratio, consumption rate and division of industrial labor, and the unreasonable international currency system.”

Unfortunately, a U.S.-China trade war might become a component of the cold war if our differences are not quickly resolved. That would hurt China by transferring the import market to other economies. China might then respond by selling U.S. Treasuries, which could be a fatal blow to the dollar’s credit and do nothing for America’s unemployment problem.

Finally, China’s aggressive behavior is forcing Asian countries into a new political paradigm. They are coalescing around regional organizations such as ASEAN and inviting the U.S. to be a counterbalance to China. This is reminiscent of the formation of NATO in 1949 just as the Cold War with Russia started.

NATO started as a political association that galvanized into a military structure with the advent of the Korean War. Lord Ismay, the first NATO secretary general, famously stated the organization’s goal as “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” Perhaps Asia’s “NATO” will embrace a similar goal that keeps the Chinese down and the Americans in the region as a security blanket for decades to come.

Thomas Donilon, Obama’s national security adviser, argued the U.S. needs to “rebalance” its strategic emphasis, from Mideast combat theaters toward Asia, where he contends Washington has put too few resources in recent years. That may be true, but the administration had better be careful in its enthusiasm to counter China’s emergent power and not abandon shooting wars in the Mideast just to join other more complex, expansive and incredibly expensive wars in Asia.

National security leaders warn that proposed military spending reductions by the deficit-reduction super committee will have “catastrophic effects,” inflict “irrevocable wounds” and “critically compromise national security.”  That is why the committee’s pending decision could very well become the tipping point for America’s military.

The special bipartisan deficit-reduction super committee, officially known as the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, is made up of 12 lawmakers who must find $1.2 trillion in spending cuts by Thanksgiving or automatic cuts will kick in, with half coming from defense.  Those cuts on top of others could dangerously degrade our military’s capabilities but help the Obama administration avoid cuts to other federal programs to garner political support from Independents and mitigate the energy of the Tea Party.

National defense is responsible for 20% of federal discretionary spending, but the Pentagon has already suffered deep cuts.  That is why Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta testified last week that the possibility of another $600 billion in cuts over 10 years would be “catastrophic” and “truly devastate our national defense.”  Those cuts are about 10% of the total Department of Defense budget, not including Overseas Contingency Operations accounts, and with the previous reductions included, it is about 15%.

Gen. Martin Dempsey​, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that such additional cuts “would cause self-inflicted and potentially irrevocable wounds to our national security,” according to the New York Times.

On Oct. 14, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R.-Calif.), chairman for the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), sounded a similar warning in a letter to the super committee.  McKeon wrote that further reductions “will compound deep reductions Congress has already imposed and critically compromise national security.”

Rep. McKeon wrote he agreed with the super committee’s goal of federal deficit reduction, but reminded the members that “not all elements of the federal budget are equal.”  Constitutionally, our government’s first priority must be providing for the common defense.   

Deep defense cuts might be appropriate if threats weren’t growing.  But we face real and growing danger from rogues such as Iran and North Korea, which are developing nuclear weapons.  China is rapidly militarizing to near peer status with the U.S., and Russia is reemerging as a significant power, modernizing its nuclear arsenal.

Our military is also in the 10th year of war.  We are due to leave Iraq by the end of the year (maybe), but we will still be involved in Afghanistan at least until 2014.  Once those forces leave the battlefield, they will require funding for equipment reset.

But last week, Gen. Dempsey predicted our forces will still be fighting the current conflicts for years to come.  He told an Army audience that one of the military’s goals during his stint is to “achieve our national objectives in the current conflicts,” according to TheHill.com.  He went on to say, “That won’t happen during my tenure,” which is expected to last four years.

Rep. McKeon reminded the super committee that the Pentagon is already on an austerity diet.  President Obama and the Congress agreed this summer to an estimated $465 billion reduction over 10 years.  The impact of those cuts could be significant.

That austerity plan calls for cutting 120,000 soldiers and Marines, reducing our overseas presence, reducing the civilian workforce by 110,000 personnel, reducing our nuclear triad (submarines, bombers, missiles), and cutting force structure: 20% fewer Army maneuver battalions, 10% fewer Air Force aircraft and 10% fewer ships.

Gen. Dempsey testified he is trying to determine the impact of these cuts.  He volunteered that the Pentagon is conducting a strategic review to reduce missions, such as in Africa.

“Our presence on the African continent is part of our network of building partners, of gaining intelligence,” Dempsey testified.  But such missions will be cut, as well as those in Latin America, in order to keep a presence in the Pacific region to counter China, and in the Middle East to fight al-Qaeda and monitor Iran.

Should the super committee fail this fall, defense appropriations will be slashed another $600 billion.  That impact, according to an assessment released by the HASC Republican staff, could be dire.  Or viewed cynically, the memo is largely hyperbola to get the most political attention.  Judge for yourself.

Those cuts, when put on top of others already planned, would put defense spending at the lowest level since before World War II and diminish end-strength by nearly 200,000 soldiers and Marines, while another 200,000 from the civilian workforce would be furloughed.  That would dump many heroes into a bad job market where unemployment among Iraq and Afghanistan vets is at 22% and among wounded vets it is 41%.

There is also the issue of breaking faith with our military.  There are proposals to slash military retirement by those who don’t understand it is deferred compensation for long and dangerous service in austere settings.  Reforming retirement and cutting veteran health care, along with other benefits now under the knife, would risk devastating the all-volunteer military’s recruitment and retention and seriously jeopardize readiness.

These draconian cuts could also mean America would not be able to fulfill all its security commitments.  Specifically, we would have insufficient force structure to “decisively win an engagement in one theater while defending vital interests in another,” according to the HASC Republican staff.  It puts our response to contingencies in North Korea and Iran at risk, it could eliminate two carrier battle groups, and it increases the need to mobilize reserves.

There would be dramatic reductions in force structure that would limit the Pentagon’s ability to support the national military strategy.  Specifically, the HASC staff indicates Army maneuver battalions could decline by 40% (100 to 60), Navy ships could decline by 18% (288 to 238) and Air Force platforms could decline 24% (2,776 to 2,107).

Marine Corps operations would suffer significant degradation.  No longer would the Marines be capable of conducting an opposed amphibious landing with two brigades, in part because the number of amphibious ships could be cut from the required 38 to 17.  Noncombatant evacuations and humanitarian and disaster assistance missions would be cut back, and fewer Marines would be afloat for emergencies.

Our nuclear deterrence could diminish.  Cuts would undermine our nuclear triad—our ability to detect and defend against missile attack, nuclear weapons inventories, and satellite space-launch capabilities.  These cuts could cause allies and adversaries to question our ability to provide a nuclear response to an attack, concludes the Republican staff.

Military infrastructure and the industrial base could suffer a serious blow.  Shipyards could be closed, long-planned military construction projects may be scuttled, and a new round of Base Realignment and Closure would be necessary.  Much of the armed services’ equipment modernization and recapitalization could be put on hold or canceled, including the Joint Strike Fighter​ and the much-needed aerial refueling tanker.

Defense spending may be discretionary, but constitutionally national security is government’s top responsibility.  We live in a dangerous world which demands a significant armed force to protect America across all domains—air, land, sea, space and cyberspace.

America must get its fiscal house in order, and defense should share the burden.  But providing national security on the cheap to avoid cutting social programs to help Democrats’ political fortunes is wrongheaded, and may in fact create a tipping point for America as the world’s leading military power.

By: -Col. Bob Maginnis

Neither the U.S. nor Israel will attack Iran’s maturing atomic weapons facilities until the benefits outweigh the costs in spite of the latest unnerving report. However, that cost-benefit line is fast approaching.

Last week the United Nation’s nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), released a sobering report about Iran’s accelerating atomic weapons program. That report sparked Israeli attack speculation such as an article in the British Daily Mail.

The Daily Mail quoted a British foreign office official as saying “We’re expecting something as early as Christmas.” The official said Israel would not wait for Western approval “if it felt Iran was truly at the point of no return.” Further, the paper speculated President Barack Obama will support the attack because he is “desperate not to lose Jewish support in next year’s presidential election.”

Such reports may sell newspapers, but Iran is not “at the point of no return.” Even though the Iranian threat is growing and our options to deny Iran atomic weapons are diminishing, the costs associated with a pre-emptive attack still outweigh the benefits.

Last week the IAEA for the first time said it believes Iran conducted secret experiments solely to develop nuclear arms. The chilling report said Iran created computer models of nuclear explosions, conducted experiments on nuclear triggers, and did research under a program called Amad that included at least 14 designs for fitting an atomic warhead on a Shahab missile which has a 1,200 mile range, enough to reach Israel.

Admittedly there are still many technical issues to overcome before Iran can miniaturize a warhead and launch it somewhere. But those issues will be overcome which leaves Israel and the U.S. with the question: What to do now?

Diplomacy, sanctions, and clandestine operations have failed to tear atomic weapons away from Iran. In 2007 then-presidential candidate Obama called for diplomatic “engagement” with Tehran “without preconditions” to solve the nuclear problem. But Obama’s diplomacy failed because Iran refused to talk.

The United Nations Security Council has imposed four rounds of sanctions on Iran to persuade the rogue to cooperate. Obama hailed the 2010 round of sanctions as a strike “at the heart” of Iran’s ability to fund its nuclear programs. But the IAEA report makes clear Iran’s “heart” is still quite healthy because the rogue effectively circumvents the sanctions.

It circumvents sanctions by relying on unscrupulous trading partners like Russia and China which coax domestic businesses to evade sanctions. Iran rewards such “cooperation.” China’s oil imports from Iran rose 49% this year according to Reuters and just last week Iran asked Russia to build more reactors for the Bushehr nuclear plant, part of a $40 billion deal which includes five new nuclear plants.

Covert operations aimed at sabotaging Iranian centrifuges with the Stuxnet worm and killing nuclear scientists haven’t worked either. The regime worked through the computer problems to install more sophisticated centrifuges for enriching uranium and the loss of the scientists hasn’t slowed weapon experiments albeit they are now more secret.

That leaves two obvious alternatives to stop Iran from becoming an atomic- armed state: regime change and military attack. Regime change like those seen in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia appears unlikely. Iran’s post-2009 election unrest provided an opportunity for regime change but the mullahs acted quickly to brutally crush dissent, which Obama effectively ignored.

Military attack is the only alternative that hasn’t been tried. But it comes with significant consequences and as former Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the British Daily Telegraph, I think “a military attack will only buy us time and send the program deeper and more covert.” It would at best set back Iran by two or three years, Gates said.

Any Israeli attack against Iranian facilities would not be like the 1981 bombing of Iraq’s Osirak atomic reactor or the 2007 strike against a Syrian reactor, both were pinpoint raids. Yes, Israel has the means – fighters, missiles, submarines – to attack a fraction of the Iranian facilities which number in the hundreds. But even if Israeli intelligence identifies the most critical weapons facilities it would have difficulty servicing them all without significant American assistance, especially if the operation required more than a single strike.

American support is not a given, however. Obama may need the American Jewish vote for the 2012 election but he doesn’t want $300 per barrel oil which would be a likely outcome should Israel attack. That would push America’s foreign-oil dependent economy into another recession or depression, a certain re-election killer for Obama.

Therefore, if the Daily Mail’s report is accurate, and Israel is actively considering a military strike, then Israel’s leadership must decide between two bad choices: accepting a nuclear armed Iran or the consequences of a pre-emptive strike. Of course Jerusalem should defend itself if in fact it knows Iran has an atomic-tipped ballistic missile and is planning to launch it at Israel.

But this does not appear to be the case. And as strange as it might seem Israel still might choose to accept a nuclear Iran believing it will eventually collapse and is unlikely to use atomic weapons.

This issue is coming to a head because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his cabinet may be on the verge of a decision. This week they meet to hear from Sha’ul Horev, director general of the Israel atomic energy commission, as well as representatives of the foreign ministry and intelligence community. Likely that meeting will review the threat, attack options and perhaps consider the following consequences should Israel attack.

First, an Israeli attack will draw Iran’s proxies Hamas and Hizbullah into a war with Israel. This will be like simultaneously experiencing the August 2006 rocket war with Hizbullah and another Palestinian intafada, “uprising.” Also, because America supports Israel, U.S. troops in the region will be targeted by Iranian Quds Forces.

Second, there will be Iranian-hosted terrorist attacks against Israeli and American interests. Last month the U.S. foiled a Quds Force-sponsored plot in Washington, DC to blow-up a restaurant in order to kill the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. Likely there are more sleeper cells in the U.S. and Hizbullah is known to associate with Mexican cartels and rogues like Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez.

Third, Iran will retaliate using conventional and unconventional (chemical and biological) armed ballistic missiles. Almost two weeks ago, perhaps in preparation for both an attack and defense, Israel hosted a nationwide air raid drill, test-fired a nuclear-capable missile, and hosted air force drills that included refueling for long-range flights.

Fourth, Iran would try to stop all shipping in the Strait of Hormuz through which passes 40% of the world’s sea-borne oil. Iran has perfected guerrilla warfare in the Persian Gulf using mines, anti-ship missiles and small boat swarms.

Finally, an attack would alienate many Iranians who are sympathetic with Western views. Popular resentment to an attack would help Iranian mullahs rally support for a more aggressive nuclear program and for striking back at Israel and its supporters.

For now the costs of a military strike against Iranian nuclear sites outweigh the benefits. That leaves us with a mixed bag of old options: sanctions, containment, deterrence (air defense shield and equipping partners) and the overthrow of the regime by domestic forces.

These options must be rigorously pursued while America and Israel prepare with other allies for a possible military attack and the day Iran inevitably steps across the cost-benefit line.