George Bush: preparing for World War III

Sometimes you have to ask yourself, would you rather have a complete incompetent or a baldfaced liar as your president?

(Of course, there's no rule that says you can't have both)

BUSH: I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was John -- Mike McConnell came in and said we have some new information. He didn't tell me what the information was. He did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze.

So Mike McConnell comes strolling into the president's office, tells him we have new information concerning a country that's supposedly planning to nuke Israel (or Poland?) and Bush doesn't even ask for a quick summary. And he doesn't ask about it for 3 months!


video at ThinkProgress

Barack Obama: America can’t engage in piecemeal diplomacy

Q. The Bush administration has little influence on Iranian behavior in Iraq. How would you elicit cooperation from Iran and Syria that the Bush administration has failed to obtain? Would we offer assurances that we would not be engaged in a policy of regime change. What would you do?

A. You’ve got the Bush administration expecting Crocker to make progress on the very narrow issue of helping Shia militias at the same time as you’ve got Dick Cheney giving a speech saying it is very likely that we may engage in military action in Iran and the United States Senate passing a resolution, suggesting that our force structure inside Iraq is dependent in someway on blunting Iranian influence. You can’t engage in diplomacy in isolation. There’s got to be a broader strategic context to it.

The Iranians and the Syrians are acting irresponsibly inside Iraq. They perceive that it is a way to leverage or impact or weaken us at a time when they’re worried about United States action in a broader context. I’ve already said, I would meet directly with Iranian leaders. I would meet directly with Syrian leaders. We would engage in a level of aggressive personal diplomacy in which a whole host of issues are on the table. We’re not looking at Iraq, just in isolation. Iran and Syria would start changing their behavior if they started seeing that they had some incentives to do so, but right now the only incentive that exists is our president suggesting that if you do what we tell you, we may not blow you up.

My belief about the regional powers in the Middle East is that they don’t respond well to that kind of bluster. They haven’t in the past, there’s no reason to think they will in the future. On the other hand, what we know, is that, for example, in the early days of our Afghanistan offensive, the Iranians we’re willing to cooperate when we had more open lines of dialogue and we were able to identify interests that were compatible with theirs.”

Putin isn't buying the Iranian threat

I suppose there's some logical consistency in insisting on building a defense that doesn't work to counter a threat that doesn't exist.

The proposed construction of a missile interceptor site in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic, ostensibly to target incoming Iranian ballistic missiles, has enraged Moscow, which believes the system could undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent.

The issue has contributed to the deepest chill in US-Russian relations since the cold war

Putin isn't buying the Iranian threat, and why would he? Iran has neither nuclear weapons, nor the missiles to deliver them:

A July report by the Congressional Research Service said that, as of mid-2007, "Iran has only flight-tested one medium-range missile, the single-stage Shahab-3, having a range of 1,300-2,000 kilometers," or about 1,200 miles. CRS also noted that many experts disagree with the U.S. assessment of Iran's capabilities.

"The international security policy and ballistic missile proliferation community argue that evidence of an Iranian ICBM program is scant and unconvincing," the CRS reported. Russian President Vladimir Putin has also expressed skepticism, and the Iranians said they dropped development of an ICBM, the CRS reported.

Joe Lieberman gets defensive about his new call for war

He merely wants to strengthen diplomacy by threatening to bomb Iran.

At the lunch, Lieberman told the crowd his words helped encourage debate on how to handle the threat posed by Iran.

via My Left Nutmeg

Are we driving our adversaries into each others arms?

The 9/11 attacks put the U.S. and Iran in the unusual position of being on the same side against multiple adversaries, the Taliban, al Qaeda and Sunni dominated Iraq. Because of this common interest, Iran was an American asset in the days after the fall of the Taliban.

Opinions differ wildly over how much help the Iranians actually were on the ground. But what is beyond doubt is how critical they were to stabilizing the country after the fall of Kabul.

This could've been an opportunity to end the decades long hostility between the two countries, but the hawks in both nations have a vested interest in keeping the conflict alive.

Instead of diplomacy, we've had years of sabre rattling, starting with the declaration of the "Axis of Evil", in which Iran and North Korea were apparently included simply for dramatic effect:

Tehran backed up the political support with financial muscle: at a donor's conference in Tokyo, Iran pledged $500 million (at the time, more than double the Americans') to help rebuild Afghanistan. In a pattern that would become familiar, however, a chill quickly followed the warming in relations. Barely a week after the Tokyo meeting, Iran was included with Iraq and North Korea in the "Axis of Evil." Michael Gerson, now a NEWSWEEK contributor, headed the White House speechwriting shop at the time. He says Iran and North Korea were inserted into Bush's controversial State of the Union address in order to avoid focusing solely on Iraq.

Given a president who thinks that open dialogue is a sign of weakness, and sends his vice president to strut on an aircraft carrier and talk about regime change, it's got to occur to the Mullah's that if Iraq ever emerges from chaos, they'll have 150,000 hostile forces on their border with nothing to keep them occupied.

So while John McCain sings "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran", Rudy Giuliani speculates about dropping tactical nuclear weapons and Joe Lieberman openly advocates "limited air strikes", we start to hear that Iran may hope to keep Iraq destabilized.

And now we see claims that Iran may be aiding it's old nemesis the Taliban:

Experts say a strengthened Taliban would benefit Tehran in a number of ways. Peter Tomsen, former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, says a weakened Afghan state lessens the likelihood it can become a U.S. ally against Iran. By maintaining a certain level of instability, he says, “it keeps us tied down. After all, we have airbases in Afghanistan where we could mount attacks on Iran.” Some analysts call it “managed chaos,” a strategy they say is similar to the one Iran employs in Iraq. Abetting the Taliban also boosts Iran’s leverage at a time when it is under pressure to end its uranium-enrichment program. “It’s saying, ‘If you push us on the nuclear issue, we can make life hell for you not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan,’” says Amin Tarzi, an Afghan expert at Radio Free Liberty/Radio Liberty.

Now that the diplomats have been sidelined, and we have a leadership which talks publicly about opening a third front in a war that's already a fiasco, would anyone be surprised that Iran finds it in it's interests to keep the "Great Satan" distracted?

Did the admirals stop a push for war against Iran?

Possibly, if you believe this story:

Fallon's refusal to support a further naval buildup in the Gulf reflected his firm opposition to an attack on Iran and an apparent readiness to put his career on the line to prevent it. A source who met privately with Fallon around the time of his confirmation hearing and who insists on anonymity quoted Fallon as saying that an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch".

Asked how he could be sure, the source says, Fallon replied, "You know what choices I have. I'm a professional." Fallon said that he was not alone, according to the source, adding, "There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box."

The crazies would undoubtedly include this guy:

We must attack Iran before it gets the bomb

A nuclear Iran would be as dangerous as “Hitler marching into the Rhineland” in 1936 and should be prevented by Western military strikes if necessary, according to a leading hawk who recently left the Bush administration.

In the article, Bolton snipes at Tony Blair for attempting diplomacy with the Iranians and complains that Condoleeza Rice has fallen under the spell of the State Department like Colin Powell before her.

His animus towards the State Department building in Foggy Bottom can seem is only a shade less acute. Bolton sees himself as a warrior fighting the kind of bureaucratic inertia and group think which, he laments, has now taken hold of the Bush administration.

h/t ThinkProgress, Mvdg

Mitt Romney joins Netanyahu and Bolton in calling for a trial of Ahmadinejad

During a speech at Yeshiva University, Mitt Romney made it clear that he has no intention of changing the Bush administration's diplomatic policy regarding Iran. Concerned that direct talks would "reward bad behavior", he prefers to take a more combative approach.

Now there is one place of course where I'd welcome Ahmadinejad with open arms: and that's in a court where he would stand trial for incitement to genocide, under the terms of the Genocide Convention.

This is an echo of the diplomatic style of John Bolton (who famously claimed that the U.N. exists only to serve U.S. interests) and Israel's former hardline PM Benjamin Netanyahu (who felt that Ariel Sharon was an appeaser of terrorists).

Both men have also called for a trial of the Iranian president, and it strongly suggests that Romney gets his foreign policy ideas from the same think tanks.

Iranian and coalition forces have had several skirmishes

According to a report in USNews, the recent skirmish between British sailors and Iranian forces is only the most recent confrontation between the Iranians and the coalition.

Exclusive: Iranians Had Showdown With U.S. Forces

According to a U.S. Army report out of Iraq obtained by U.S. News, American troops, acting as advisers for Iraqi border guards, were recently surrounded and attacked by a larger unit of Iranian soldiers, well within the border of Iraq.

It is possible that Iranians thought they were in Iranian territory, according to U.S. military officials. Such border confusions and disputes happen routinely.

Reluctant diplomats forced to sit together

Will they shake hands?
By Zvi Bar'el

James Baker and Lee Hamilton can finally permit themselves to enjoy a small smile of satisfaction. Three months after President George W. Bush sourly praised the report they wrote, but rejected their recommendation to have Iran and Syria participate in the diplomatic process in Iraq, he has been forced to swallow some of this bitter medicine. This is also a big day for Colin Powell, Bush's former secretary of state, who pushed for a direct dialogue with Iran, but was rejected by the White House conservatives. Today, when all the rivals meet in Baghdad, the cameras will probably not focus on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki, but on U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian foreign minister.

Although the purpose of this conference is to deal with Iraq, the interesting and perhaps more important part will concern the relations between Iran and the United States. "Speaking with the enemy is part of world policy now, and I believe that normalization of relations with the U.S. can be useful," explained Ali Larijani, the chair of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council, in a recent speech.

It would be ironic if the disaster in Iraq was the catalyst for an end to nearly 30 years of hostility between America and Iran. I'm not sure George Bush will want to take credit for that outcome, though.

A Rube Goldberg policy for fixing the Middle East

Excerpts from Seymour Hersh's recent article on America's Middle East policy:

A STRATEGIC SHIFT

The Administration’s new policy for containing Iran seems to complicate its strategy for winning the war in Iraq. Patrick Clawson, an expert on Iran and the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, argued, however, that closer ties between the United States and moderate or even radical Sunnis could put “fear” into the government of Prime Minister Maliki and “make him worry that the Sunnis could actually win” the civil war there. Clawson said that this might give Maliki an incentive to coöperate with the United States in suppressing radical Shiite militias, such as Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

PRINCE BANDAR’S GAME

The Administration’s effort to diminish Iranian authority in the Middle East has relied heavily on Saudi Arabia and on Prince Bandar, the Saudi national-security adviser. Bandar served as the Ambassador to the United States for twenty-two years, until 2005, and has maintained a friendship with President Bush and Vice-President Cheney.

This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”

The Saudi said that, in his country’s view, it was taking a political risk by joining the U.S. in challenging Iran: Bandar is already seen in the Arab world as being too close to the Bush Administration. “We have two nightmares,” the former diplomat told me. “For Iran to acquire the bomb and for the United States to attack Iran. I’d rather the Israelis bomb the Iranians, so we can blame them. If America does it, we will be blamed.”

TELLING CONGRESS

I was subsequently told by the two government consultants and the former senior intelligence official that the echoes of Iran-Contra were a factor in Negroponte’s decision to resign from the National Intelligence directorship and accept a sub-Cabinet position of Deputy Secretary of State.

The government consultant said that Negroponte shared the White House’s policy goals but “wanted to do it by the book.” The Pentagon consultant also told me that “there was a sense at the senior-ranks level that he wasn’t fully on board with the more adventurous clandestine initiatives.” It was also true, he said, that Negroponte “had problems with this Rube Goldberg policy contraption for fixing the Middle East.”

Bill Richardson, diplomat for president

Diplomacy, Not War, With Iran

No nation has ever been forced to renounce nuclear weapons, but many have chosen to do so. The Iranians will not end their nuclear program because we threaten them and call them names. They will renounce nukes because we convince them that they will be safer and more prosperous if they do that than if they don't. This feat will take more than threats and insults. It will take skillful American diplomatic leadership.

Nuclear weapons are expensive to design, expensive to build, dangerous to own and fatal to use. That’s the reason most countries don’t try to make them. Iran is pursuing its nuclear program more in spite of America than for need. If we convinced them that any nuclear attack on Israel would be considered an attack by Iran against the U.S. they’d have serious reasons to invite inspectors in to prove their research was exclusively peaceful. (This was the strategy used by Kennedy to convince the Soviets to pull nukes from Cuba).

Bill Richardson's foreign policy strategy

Here are some details on Bill Richardson's foreign policy strategy, from a speech he gave in July of 2006:

One, achieve national security through energy independence... reduce our dependency on foreign oil -- go from 65-percent to 20-percent by 2015; increase fuel efficiency; invest in green buildings and fuel cells; and become the leader of the future economic engine of the world - renewable energy, such as ethanol, solar and wind.

Two, re-build alliances and reinvigorate our allies. A far-sighted policy would have built a coalition to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Most immediately, we need an international coalition for peacekeeping in the Middle East.

Three, focus on the real dangers. Prioritize resources to fight Al Qaeda and Jihadist terrorists and the most urgent dangers, such as nuclear terrorism. That means a new strategy for success in Iraq that allows us to redeploy our troops.

Four, don't outsource our diplomacy. We need direct, face to face talks with North Korea. We should also talk directly with Iran.

Five, we need to pay attention to Latin America, our own back yard. The key is passing a comprehensive immigration plan now that includes enhanced border security, a path to legalization for the 11 million immigrants already here, and sanctions against employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. The House should stop holding these silly hearings. Mr. President, your good words on immigration should be followed by deeds to pass a comprehensive plan.

Six, face up to global environmental threats. The first thing this Administration did was reject the Kyoto Treaty. America should be the world's leader, and that means owning up to grave environmental dangers, such as global warming.

Finally, respect human rights and American values. Prisoner abuse, torture, secret prisons and evasion of the Geneva Accords should have no place in our foreign policy.

A Missed Opportunity with Iran

The Washington Post adds background to the story that the Iranians were ready to sit down with the Americans in May of 2003 :

Guldimann attached a one-page Iranian document labeled "Roadmap" that listed U.S. and Iranian aims for potential negotiations, putting on the table such issues as an end to Iran's support for anti-Israeli militants, action against terrorist groups on Iranian soil and acceptance of Israel's right to exist.

Remember, this was one of the justifications of the Iraq war. The Bush administration argued that toppling Saddam and showing our strength would transform the Middle East. Getting the Iranians to stop funding Hezbollah and accept Israel's right to exist would've been seen as a total vindication of that concept. Even if the Iranians had ultimately balked, the U.S. would have proved its willingness to try diplomatic avenues before turning to military ones.

Guldimann's two-page fax prompted a debate among foreign policy professionals on whether the Bush administration missed an opportunity four years ago to strike a "grand bargain" with Iran at a time when Washington appeared at the height of its power after the invasion of Iraq and Iran had not mastered uranium enrichment. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was questioned about the document on Capitol Hill last week. She said she did not recall seeing it when she was national security adviser. "I just don't remember ever seeing any such thing," she said.

The State Department denies this was a real Iranian appeal. They accuse the Swiss ambassador of making the whole thing up:

"This document did not come through official channels but rather was a creative exercise on the part of the Swiss ambassador," State Department spokesman Tom Casey said yesterday. "The last 30 years are filled with examples of individuals claiming to represent Iranian views. We have offered to Iran a chance to sit across the table from us and discuss their nuclear issue and anything else they would like, should they simply, verifiably suspend their uranium-enrichment activities."

Of course, what are the official channels when you refuse to speak with the other side?

3 years after this appeal:

Iran has started small-scale enrichment of uranium — a process that can produce fuel for nuclear reactors or bombs, diplomats said Monday.

Arrogance, Mistrust and Failure

Rumors of War

America wanted Iran's help in Afghanistan, and Iran gave it, partly out of fear of an angry superpower and partly in order to be rid of its troublesome Taliban neighbors. In time, hard-liners on both sides were able to undo the efforts of diplomats to build on that foundation. The damage only worsened as those hawks became intoxicated with their own success. The secret history of the Bush administration's dealings with Iran is one of arrogance, mistrust and failure. But it is also a history that offers some hope.

The fear dissipated after Sept. 20, when the FBI announced that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks. But there was new reason for cooperation: for years Tehran had been backing the Afghan guerrillas fighting the Taliban, Osama bin Laden's hosts. Suddenly, having U.S. troops next door in Afghanistan didn't seem like a bad idea. American and Iranian officials met repeatedly in Geneva in the days before the Oct. 7 U.S. invasion. The Iranians were more than supportive. "In fact, they were impatient," says a U.S. official involved in the talks, who asked not to be named speaking about topics that remain sensitive. "They'd ask, 'When's the military action going to start? Let's get going!'

Opinions differ wildly over how much help the Iranians actually were on the ground. But what is beyond doubt is how critical they were to stabilizing the country after the fall of Kabul.

Tehran backed up the political support with financial muscle: at a donor's conference in Tokyo, Iran pledged $500 million (at the time, more than double the Americans') to help rebuild Afghanistan. In a pattern that would become familiar, however, a chill quickly followed the warming in relations. Barely a week after the Tokyo meeting, Iran was included with Iraq and North Korea in the "Axis of Evil." Michael Gerson, now a NEWSWEEK contributor, headed the White House speechwriting shop at the time. He says Iran and North Korea were inserted into Bush's controversial State of the Union address in order to avoid focusing solely on Iraq.

Scott Ritter gives advice to a Democratic Congress

Stop the Iran War Before It Starts

When it comes to Iraq, newly empowered Democrats in Congress are getting a free ride, so to speak. While the honorable (and right) thing to do would be to combine their just criticism of the President's policy with a vision (and corresponding plan) of their own on how to proceed in Iraq, the Democrats instead seem to have taken the less risky and more politically savvy path of simply pointing an accusatory finger at the President, demanding that he fix what he broke. There is no coherent, broad-based Democratic plan for Iraq other than to criticize the President. In the case of Iraq, Democrats have demonstrated that they are just as capable of letting American service members die in order to preserve their own political ambition as their Republican counterparts are.

If I were to address a Democrat Theme Team equivalent, I would focus my effort on trying to impress them with the issue that will cost them political power down the road. This issue is Iran. While President Bush, a Republican, remains Commander in Chief, a Democrat-controlled Congress shares responsibility on war and peace from this point on. The conflict in Iraq, although ongoing, is a product of the Republican-controlled past. The looming conflict with Iran, however, will be assessed as a product of a Democrat-controlled present and future. If Iraq destroyed the Republican Party, Iran will destroy the Democrats.

I would strongly urge Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, to hold real hearings on Iran. Not the mealy-mouthed Joe Biden-led hearings we witnessed on Iraq in July-August 2002, where he and his colleagues rubber-stamped the President's case for war, but genuine hearings that draw on all the lessons of Congressional failures when it came to Iraq. Summon all the President's men (and women), and grill them on every phrase and word uttered about the Iranian "threat," especially as it has been linked to nuclear weapons. Demand facts to back up the rhetoric.

If hearings show no case for war with Iran, then Congress must act to insure that the United States cannot move toward conflict with that nation on the strength of executive dictate alone. As things currently stand, the Bush Administration, emboldened with a vision of the unitary executive unprecedented in our nation's history, believes it has all of the legal authority it requires when it comes to engaging Iran militarily. The silence of Congress following the President's decision to dispatch a second carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf has been deafening. The fact that a third carrier battle group (the USS Ronald Reagan) will probably join these two in the near future has also gone unnoticed by most, if not all, in Congress.

Plans and Intentions

Jason Steck, over at The Moderate Voice complains that paranoia is running rampant about the prospect of war with Iran. Referencing this editorial, He stresses the difference between the words "plans" and "intentions".

A similar situation is the more probable reading of current U.S. policy towards Iran. The United States wishes to deter Iran from building nuclear weapons. In order for deterrence to work, it is necessary to maintain a “credible threat” of something that you might do if the other side does that which you wish to prevent. In short, since the whole point of deterrence is to raise doubts in the mind of an adversary that a given course of action might be costly, it is necessary to demonstrate that you have the capability to carry out a threat of a military response.

Of course, the flip side of that is that you have to give your adversary a credible second option. Iran has already seen what the U.S. policy is regarding simple denials, not to mention the actual nonexistence of nuclear weapons programs. Iraq was completely incapable of convincing the Bush administration that it had no WMD program. The failure of the UN inspectors to find evidence only convinced GWB that Iraq must be really effective at hiding their program and became the casus belli itself.

We've also declared that we won't speak with the Iranians, so they have no diplomatic out available.

Jason is right that the U.S. plans for wars it will never fight, we've undoubtedly got plans to fight the Russians and the Chinese (possibly even the French). But if senior U.S. officials were publicly claiming that we have no intentions of bombing Moscow, but we've been planning the attacks, would he think that was pragmatic deterrence or complete lunacy?

Mitt Romney believes Iraq is part of a global war against Jihadists

Mitt Romney wholeheartedly supports the president's policy in Iraq and advocates strong measures against Iran as well. At his official site, under the category Defeating the Jihadists he posts:

The defeat of this radical and violent faction of Islam must be achieved through a combination of American resolve, international effort, and the rejection of violence by moderate, modern, mainstream Muslims. An effective strategy will involve both military and diplomatic actions to support modern Muslim nations. America must help lead a broad-based international coalition that promotes secular education, modern financial and economic policies, international trade, and human rights.

Romney wants the public to know that Jihadists are not an 'armed group of crazed maniacs in the hills of Afghanistan.' Rather, Romney says the United States is facing a 'far more sinister and broad-based extremist faction' with a 'very 8th century view of the world.'

On Iraq in particular:

I agree with the President: Our strategy in Iraq must change. Our military mission, for the first time, must include securing the civilian population from violence and terror. It is impossible to defeat the insurgency without first providing security for the Iraqi people. Civilian security is the precondition for any political and economic reconstruction.

In consultation with Generals, military experts and troops who have served on the ground in Iraq, I believe securing Iraqi civilians requires additional troops. I support adding five brigades in Baghdad and two regiments in Al-Anbar province. Success will require rapid deployment.

This effort should be combined with clear objectives and milestones for U.S. and Iraqi leaders.

The road ahead will be difficult but success is still possible in Iraq. I believe it is in America's national security interest to achieve it.

Meanwhile, he advocates strong measures against Iran, including sanctions, while condemning Hillary Clinton for suggesting diplomatic engagement with that country:

I believe this strategy to be a mistake, and yesterday, to a group of fellow conservatives, I said as much. Advocating engagement displays a troubling timidity toward a terrible threat. The right strategy is not engagement, but economic and diplomatic isolation.

Ten days ago, I was in Israel and heard firsthand from those who have been on the front lines of the war against the Jihadist radicals. Indeed, just a few months ago, the Israelis were confronted with a war by Hizbullah, a terrorist organization sponsored by Iran and Syria.

Ron Paul: Don't bomb Iran

Don't Do It, Mr. President

It’s a bad idea.
There’s no need for it.
There’s great danger in doing it.
America is against it, and Congress should be.
The United Nations is against it.
The Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Pakistanis are against it.
The whole world is against it.
Our allies are against it.
Our enemies are against it.
The Arabs are against it.
The Europeans are against it.
The Muslims are against it.
We don’t need to do this.
The threat is overblown.
The plan is an hysterical reaction to a problem that does not yet exist.
Hysteria is never a good basis for foreign policy.
Don’t we ever learn?
Have we already forgotten Iraq?
The plan defies common sense.
If it’s carried out, the Middle East, and possibly the world, will explode.
Oil will soar to over $100 a barrel, and gasoline will be over $5 a gallon.
Despite what some think, it won’t serve the interests of Israel.
Besides-- it’s illegal.
It’s unconstitutional.
And you have no moral authority to do it.
We don’t need it.
We don’t want it.
So, Mr. President, don’t do it.
Don’t bomb Iran!
The moral of the story, Mr. Speaker, is this: if you don’t have a nuke, we’ll threaten to attack you. If you do have a nuke, we’ll leave you alone. In fact, we’ll probably subsidize you. What makes us think Iran does not understand this?

Rudy Giuliani supports the President on Iraq, wants to think about Iran

Considering his claim to fame is his response to the 9/11 attack on New York City, Rudy Giuliani's official site has remarkably no information on his views on foreign policy, the war on terrorism or the war in Iraq. You can read short remarks about his record fighting crime, cutting taxes, fiscal responsibility, welfare reform, education, quality of life and protecting children, but nothing on his views of the most pressing issue of the day. Hopefully, its just a new site that will expand quickly.

Fortunately (via the independent GiulianiBlog), He gave an interview to Sean Hannity about his presidential candidacy.

HANNITY: Let me ask about Iraq. You've generally been very supportive of the president and the Iraq war. Is there anything you would have done differently? Do you think there's been any mistakes made?

GIULIANI: .... But here's the reality of it: We're at war. And we're at war because they're at war with us. I mean, sometimes, when you listen to these debates in Congress, and you listen to the politicians debating, you sort of get the impression that they think we're in control of whether we're at war or not.

It doesn't matter what we think. They're at war with us. They want to come here and kill us. And they did on September 11, and they did a long time before September 11. Way back in 1993, they came to this city and killed people.

Got that? They're at war with us. Who are they? Obviously he's not talking about the Iraqis here. Either he's refering to the entire Muslim world or some subset of them, but he's deliberately vague.

GIULIANI: So we've got to put Iraq in the context of a much broader picture than just Iraq. And getting Iraq correctly, in other words, getting stability there is real important. And I support what the president asked for support to do and what General Petraeus has asked for support to do, not because there's any guarantee it's going to work. There's never any guarantee at war.

But if we can come out with a correct solution or a better solution in Iraq, it's going to make the whole War on Terror go better. We got to get beyond it. We've got to get beyond Iraq.

HANNITY: In essence, have people forgotten?

Have people forgotten what? Nobody's called for a withdrawal from Afghanistan or an end to the fight against Al Qaeda. Is he asking whether we've forgotten that Iraq attacked the WTC?

GIULIANI: It's natural. I mean, you have a terrible attack like September 11, 2001. Right in the aftermath of it, there's tremendous unity. We understand that we have to be on offense against terrorists, that we have to make it bipartisan, that it isn't about being a Democrat or a Republican. It's about being an American.

Now you get further away, and that lesson isn't as vivid. And all wars have that happen. This is a difficult thing to do, but we've got to start getting beyond Iraq.

We've got to be thinking about Iran. We have to think about Syria. We have to be thinking about Pakistan and Afghanistan and making sure that the transition in Afghanistan goes correctly. We have to be ready for the fact that, whatever happens in Iraq, success or failure -- success will help us in the War on Terror. Failure will hurt us. But the war is still going to go on. They're still going to want to come here and kill us.

Straight out of the Bush/Cheney playbook. If you don't follow me THEY WILL KILL YOU. And now they include Iran and Syria maybe even Pakistan! Considering all the debate over bombing Iran these days, shouldn't he be clearer about what he means when he says we should be "thinking about Iran". Everyone's already thinking about Iran. They're wondering if we're about to open up a third war.

HANNITY: If you're president, and the Baker Commission recommends sitting down with Ahmadinejad and then Syria, would you take that recommendation? Would you sit down with them like that?

GIULIANI: I thought one of the mistakes of that recommendation is you almost can't put it up front. The minute you put it up front, you give them all the leverage and you take all the leverage away from us. That recommendation would have been better delivered quietly, secretly.

And then you -- then, through back channels, you find out. Can I achieve something with Ahmadinejad? Can I achieve something with Syria? Right now, it doesn't look that way.

The better thing to do in Iran is to put pressure on them and to let them know that we will not accept their being a nuclear power. The nightmare of the Cold War was nuclear weapons in the hands of an irrational person. I don't want to live through that nightmare.

Got that? Diplomacy only gives your opponent an unfair advantage. So a Giuliani presidency would look pretty much like the Bush presidency in terms of foreign policy. More competent, we hope, but ideologically identical.