thebigp

What Next?--Netanyahu calls on Putin--47fh., b4
On Monday, September 21, Iran self-inspected a key suspect nuclear weapons site without international inspectors present. "This deal is not built on trust," President Obama told US. "It is built on verification." But apparently we tin trust Iran to carry out that verification. That same day, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a two-and-a-half- hour emergency meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin (followed by a meeting of Russian and Israeli military chiefs) to discuss Russia's military presence in Syria.
Putin is depicted as the central player with whom sworn enemies Iran and Israel have to deal. And where is the United States? At best, watching from behind. At worst, making life more difficult for our friends and allies.
Such is the strategic reality that has emerged from ii the Iran deal. It has put an exclamation point on a collapse of American leadership that had been building during the entire Obama administration (and the last part of the Bush administration, too). It signaled a decisive reversal of decades of American dominance of the Middle East. Following our feckless blunders in withdrawing from Iraq, drawing but not enforcing a red line in Syria, and declaring quasi-war but doing very little against the Islamic State, as the Iran deal was the straw that broke the camel's back of American credibility in the region. It blessed the emergence, 15 years hence, of a nuclear-weapons-capable and ballistic missile-armed Iran, enriched and empowered a vehemently anti-American and anti-Israeli, terrorist-supporting regime. and spurred nuclear proliferation in the region.
First, don't obsess about sanctions. Recognize that eagerness to do something can get in the way of doing what is needed. Sanctions can be an important tool of foreign, but they are a limited tool. Sanctions did not succeed in pressuring the regime in Tehran to cease its nuclear program. Even as they damaged Iran's economy, the regime continued installing new centrifuges. Obama was right when he said, "Sanctions alone are not going to force Iran to completely dismantle all vestiges of its nuclear infrastructure." Sanctions are only one supporting element of a new policy against Iran.
Second, stick to what works. The sanctions fixation obscured a strategy that actually has an empirical record of reining in illicit nuclear programs: a credible military threat. Tehran suspended parts of its nuclear program in 2003-4, when the mullahs worried they'd be next after the United States toppled Saddam Hussein. The Iraq war also led Muammar Qaddafi to destroy his nuclear program. More recently, in September 2012, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu drew a red line at Iran acquiring a bomb's worth—about 155 kilograms—of 20 percent enriched uranium. At the time, Iran was already dangerously close to this threshold; but it never crossed it. Hearing and, more important, believing Netanyahu's implicit threat, Iran chose to keep its stockpile from exceeding Israel's red line.
Third, the next president—especially if he or she wisely walks away from the deal—must use this credible military option not only to prevent Iran from going nuclear but also to confront Iran more broadly in the region. We can never be safe, nor can we ever regain international credibility, if Iran develops nuclear bombs or runs free as a dominant regional power. Attaining the capability to prevent these things will require freeing the U.S. military from the shackles of sequestration and boosting its capacity in the Middle East and beyond.
Obama, however, is slashing defense budgets. After five years of sequestration, the United States is on course to have the smallest Army since 1940 and the smallest Navy since J930's.
It is amazing—and appalling—that the United States will not have an aircraft carrier as in the Persian Gulf as the Iran deal goes into effect. The United States must also continue efforts to develop weapons to defend against Iranian aggression—particularly missile defense systems—as well as, if necessary, to degrade and destroy their nuclear infrastructure, whether through cyber-attack or the 30,000-pound, bunker-busting, Fordow-penetrating Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP).
Fourth, boost the military capability of Israel and of our Arab allies, while ensuring Israel retains its qualitative military edge. The United States can help Israel acquire the tools to be more self-reliant both in its offensive and defensive capabilities. Congress has a big role to play here. Congress, with Obama's support, has supplied Israel with financial aid for Its Iron Dome system, which worked well in the war with Hamas in Gaza last year, but which will not suffice in the face of Hezbollah's tens of thousands of rockets and missiles. The United States can significantly augment Israel's missile defense capabilities, as well as work with it to improve its anti-mortar capabilities. American offensive help to Israel can begin with offering Israel MOPs and the spare B-52s that can deliver them.
source--weekly standard (10/5/15), michael makovsky, wsj,