Talk of talk is damaging-Five reasons negotiations with Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria, Iran are bad idea

There have probably been more articles and interviews in recent days advocating negotiations with Syria than Hizbullah has gunmen. Yet each of these statements does about as much damage as a terrorist. They make the West less able to respond to the current crisis while inspiring the radicals to be more intransigent.

Talks may be good in principle but in this context they are harmful. The problem is not that Syrian President Bashar Assad or the leaders of Hizbullah and Iran are bad guys or fanatics. The problem, in fact, is the exact opposite: they are acting rationally in pursuit of their interests. To paraphrase Bashar's cinematic equivalent, Michael Corleone in The Godfather, "It's not personal it's politics."

There are five basic reasons why the belief that negotiations with the Fabulously Extremist Four (Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria, and Iran) are going to solve anything is the opium of the opinion-makers.

1. They have far-reaching goals. They want a Middle East without Israel; a world without America; and a chador in every closet. These are not agrarian reformers: they are consistent totalitarians on a level with fascism and Communism.

2. They think they are winning. Even defeats are interpreted as victories, with some help from large portions of the Western media and intelligentsia. Especially now, they believe that the tide of history is running in their direction. Why should they be willing to make deals with those thought soon to be their victims?

3. They believe their enemies are weak and cowardly. Can you blame them? The calls for concessions, the demands for d tente, the nattering for negotiations are all taken by them as signs of weakness. Compromise is not a concept, at least right now, in their vocabulary.

4. All the assumptions made by the negotiate-now crowd (part of which is an appeasement-now crowd) are wrong.

THIS IS the point upon which I want to focus. The interests of Hizbullah, Hamas, Iran and Syria are in line with extremism and aggression, not moderation. These people are not deluded or merely aggrieved - they have a pretty good strategy going. Why shouldn't they sing, "The future belongs to me!"

It is vital to understand that this strategy serves two purposes. One is to try to achieve their ends - defeating the West, destroying Israel, and taking over the Middle East.

But even if they know they will never succeed in these goals, they have a very good set of reasons for acting as they do: it either keeps them governing (Iran, Syria) or moves them closer to taking power (Hamas, Hizbullah).

They reap praise, money, and glory. To cite one example: Syria has helped devastate Lebanon, has a bad economy, no freedom, and a high level of oppression. Yet the regime is wildly popular at home and abroad. And it has intimidated most of the world. Similarly, there is lots of talk about Iran's nuclear drive but who is going to stand up to Teheran really? Their strategy has plenty of short-term benefits.

Let's try a simple test. Answer the following questions "yes" or "no." Does the Syrian regime:

Want the US to be respected or liked in the Arab world because it has succeeded diplomatically and brokered peace agreements?

Want a world in which the sponsors of terrorism are quickly and effectively punished?

Want a Syria which is democratic and focuses on economic development rather than on war and subversion? IF YOU answer "no" to all these questions, you get the picture. But - guess what - the United States, Canada, most of Europe, and Israel would answer "yes" to all these questions. So what is there to negotiate about given these divergent objectives? Why should they be persuaded that their interests lie in another direction if they really don't? Remember, we are not talking here about the average citizen but rulers and revolutionaries who find demagoguery more effective than providing good schools or hospitals.

And how can you give them things they want without helping them achieve their despicable aims? Syria turned down the whole Golan Heights in 2000 in exchange for peace. Hizbullah is not going to be satisfied with the release of one convicted Lebanese terrorist held in Israel after being convicted of murdering a father and his child in cold blood. Nor will they go away and settle down to productive lives if given the barren little piece of Israeli-held Syria they claim and the UN says isn't theirs.

Is what Hamas is really aching for is an independent Palestinian state living peacefully alongside Israel when they say they will fight decades to wipe out Israel and deride Israel's total withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as the sign that the end is near for the Jewish state? Appetite, as was said of the totalitarians of the 1930s, grows with the feeding.

The idea that dangerous extremists can be bought off by sympathy and slices is understandable in terms of wishful thinking but suicidal as a strategy. Just read what they are saying and watch what they are doing.

The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs, and journal editor of Turkish Studies.

It is said that Captains should study Tactics, and Generals should study Logistics.

Most of the Terrorists are being paid to fight, if this pay, training, and supply was interdicted, many Terrorists would have to go find work. At the present time, Iran is the largest funding source in the world for Terrorists, contributing as much as $1 billion in money, arms, and training every year.

I believe the following would significantly improve our strategic position in the War on Terror.

We should destroy the Iranian oil industry. By Bombing all oil transportation facilities, pipelines, storage tanks, tanker trucks, rolling stock, refinery’s etc… we can cripple the funding of numerous terrorist organizations, Hezbollah, Hama’s, Sadr’s militia, Syria, as well as make it more difficult for Iran to buy missiles and such from North Korea, China, and Russia.
It would remove Iran’s threat that if we attack they will shut off the oil. Making the threat ridiculous and demonstrating that they are a single product state and without oil, and no other product that the world wants, they are nothing. Additionally, by declaring that we will destroy any reconstituting oil industry as long as the Mullacracy remains in charge, we can focus the Iranian’s blame for the situation, on the Theocracy and their support of Terrorism.
This will also bring home to all the other oil producing countries like Venezuela, Libya, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, etc… that they are very vulnerable to the same tactic, and they better start to cooperate, or else.
In addition, this will gain us time for the Iraqi’s to stand on their own, and free up troops we would need if we have to go into Iran, North Korea or somewhere else. (At the moment I don't think we could, or should put boots on the ground in Iran)
Sure the price of gas will rise, but this will also demonstrate to the world that the USA is not in Iraq for the Oil, and the onus can be shifted on to the Democrats for not allowing more domestic production.
“It’s not the control of the spice but the power to destroy the spice that is the real power. [From Dune]”
It has recently been said that the nuclear production facilities in Iran are so deep underground that we can’t reach them with conventional weapons. Perhaps so, but maybe we can starve those facilities of funds. Nuclear weapons are terribly expensive to build, and if Iran now needs all its money to repair vital life supporting infrastructure, it may have to slow or stop its attempt to build an atomic bomb.
Finally, Iran is a state sponsor of Terrorists, it must be punished, and it must be seen to be punished. Iran’s continued sponsorship of terror is a slap in America’s and President Bush’s face, and it must be answered.

The following was written in response to an objection I received about having to pay more for fuel if this strategy was followed.

I think you are overly concerned about the economic considerations, and not concerned enough about the need to prosecute the War on Terror to the utmost.
1. The US has a full Strategic Petroleum Reserve of 700 million Barrels, and we aren't the only nation with an SPR. What good is it if you never use it? The average price paid on that 700 million barrels was $27, so the nation would actually make a profit selling it now.
2. The only reason the US isn't energy independent now is because of political factors. 2 Trillion Barrels of oil in oil shale (see www.oiltechinc.com). Any organic matter can be turned into fuel (see www.powerenergy.com). The US would and should be using much more nuclear power, (if it wasn't for the Ecofreaks). There are also many areas in the US that are now off limits to drilling. All it takes is the political will to develop all of these. Higher fuel prices will provide that political pressure.
3. Iran is using diplomatic processes, just like the Nazi's before them. So talking to them is a waste of our time, and just gives them time to develop nukes.
4. Iran subsidizes gas at $.10 a gallon, so by destroying the Iranian oil industry not only do we instantly remove 20% of their GDP. We put them all on foot, and in the dark.
5. The mullahs want to take their world back to the 7th century, we should assist them.
6. My recommended solution for American energy independence: a combination of tax breaks, loan guarantees (all energy development is capital intensive), and the government purchase of the patents held by Oil-Tech, and Power Energy, and making them open source.

The following further expands on the idea.

Iran exports 2.5 million barrels of oil a day, Iranian as well as the rest of the Persian gulf oil producers, produce what is called heavy sour crude which typically sells for ~20% less than the benchmark sweet light crude quoted on the spot markets. So, with that understanding we can roughly calculate the gross income Iran’s economy generates from oil exports. At a price of $75 Barrel Iran will get 80% of that price for its low grade crude, or $60. $60 x $2.5 million barrels x 365 days = $54.75 billion. Now from the CIA world fact book we can see that Iran has a GNP of $564 billion. So by destroying Iran’s oil industry their GDP is cut by 10% just from the lost exports. But, the damage is much deeper than that, Iran subsidizes gasoline at $.10 a gallon and Iran consumes 1.425 million barrels of oil a day. With the oil industry destroyed the cars, trucks, trains, and power plants no longer run. That means no machinery, no electricity, and no modern economy. I can’t estimate what Iran’s GDP would decline to, but even the poorest nation on earth still has running cars and electricity. I think much of the population would either revolt or start walking for the boarders. They couldn’t import oil because we would destroy tankers, pipelines, and rolling stock. They couldn’t attack us in Iraq either, because with out gas they can’t logistically supply an attacking army. We on the other hand could perform a ground attack anywhere and they would be incapable of maneuvering in response. Not that I think we should do a ground attack, I don’t, but we would be well positioned if we needed to (airborne assaults on nuclear facilities).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.