JOHN FENZEL

A (Probable yet Contrived and Distilled) White House Situation Room Conversation about Pandemic Flu

With all of the news media coverage about Swine Flu, here is my own take on how the conversation is likely to have gone between principal cabinet members and the President this week...

President:  "Good morning, everyone.  CDC, thanks for your update on the Swine Flu situation.   Like all Americans, I'm concerned.  While I don't want to contribute to a growing panic, it's our responsibility to prepare.  I'd like to get your thoughts and recommendations for the way ahead."

National Security Advisor:  "Mr. President, it appears the Swine Flu virus is spreading across international borders rapidly.  With limited travel restrictions in place, we can expect an exponential rise in cases around the world--more illnesses and more deaths.  Many more."

Council of Economic Advisors:  "Imposing any travel restrictions at this point would render any chances of an economic recovery slim at best.  Restricting travel is synonymous with restricting commerce.  Without free commerce, our current recession will surely slide into a depression."

Treasury Secretary: "It would be devastating."

Commerce Secretary:  "Until we have further resolution on the threat we're facing from Swine Flu, I don't believe I can overstate the risk of overreacting here...."

The President:  "None of us want to overreact, and we won't.  The decisions need to be well thought-out. The risk of under-reacting may be just as great, so we have to strike the right balance in our response."

Acting HHS Secretary:  "Developing an immunization for Swine Flu will take time.   We've reached out to the current producers of vaccine and they have already begun researching and testing vaccines to determine which will be effective.  Ultimately, vaccine production is accomplished by injecting flu virus into eggs.  That takes time.  I might add, vaccine is also expensive.  So, priority of vaccine will go to first responders and hospital workers and then to high risk populations.  In the meantime, we are releasing stockpiles of Tamiflu to hospitals where clusters of Swine Flu have popped up to help mitigate the effects and hopefully help slow the spread of the virus."

White House Chief of Staff:  "We are developing an interagency task force to deal with a potential pandemic, Mr. President.  We'll meet every day and update you as required."

Secretary of Homeland Security:  "Our goal is to keep our hand on the pulse of the country as we progress through this emergency.  We have the means to do that in our operations center on Nebraska Avenue."

National Security Advisor:  "Internationally, we'll do that through CDC and here in the SITROOM.  Continuity of operations plans are being implemented."

The President: (Nodding) "We'll, frankly, I'm worried.  All of us are susceptible to this virus.  As you know, I shook hands with a gentleman in Mexico who died of the disease the next day.  If you look at this objectively, we really haven't progressed much further than when the world faced a similar situation during the flu pandemic of 1918.  We still grow vaccine in eggs, for God's sake!  The most effective means to address an epidemic or pandemic is by isolating the virus.  Closing schools.  Closing convention halls and cancelling public events.  Restricting travel.  Eventually, we'll have to implement those measures.  It won't be business as usual.  But right now, I don't want to start a panic." 

(Pausing, looking around the table)

"For all of us here on these 18 acres, we're human too.  It's apparent that this will get worse before it gets better.  We're going to be faced with some pretty dire reports in the weeks ahead and we'll have to react to them, so taking passive measures alone won't be sufficient.   We need to dust off and update our contingency plans.  As a federal government, we need to be in constant contact with our state and local counterparts as we deal with this emergency.  A government needs people to operate effectively, so take care of yourselves and your families.  Take care of one another.  If you're sick, seek help.  I need you." 

Balkan Redux?

                      Stari Most, Mostar, Bosnia

If the past can ever accurately serve as prologue, current events in the Balkans portend what could soon become a recurrent clash of civilizations for Europe and the United States.  Recently, to reinforce that nightmare scenario, Dennis Blair, President Obama’s newly appointed Director of National Intelligence, warned that current events in Bosnia represent the greatest threat to stability in Europe today.  

Throughout my own peacekeeping experiences in Bosnia commanding all special operations forces in the British and U.S. sectors, I recall the haunting feeling that we were simply placing a finger in the dike while flood waters approached.  I did not base my opinions on diplomatic initiatives or power sharing arrangements.  More compelling and disturbing to me were my own observations as I travelled the countryside and talked to the people.  I saw Bosnian teachers and parents filing children past mass graves, being told “never forget.”  I saw Serbs moving into homes in Srebrenica previously occupied by Bosnian Muslims.  And I saw Bosnian Croats rioting to prevent other ethnic refugees from resettling in “their” towns.  All were victims.  All continued to perpetrate the same divisive, often violent, behavior.

Most troubling was that these events occurred as the United States was reducing its presence in Bosnia. 

Twelve years later, Blair is reporting that tensions [in Bosnia] have reached the “highest level in years.”  He recently warned Congress that Bosnia’s ability to survive as a single, multi-ethnic state is in grave danger. 

We hear about restoring the “dream of Dayton” as if Dayton were a cure-all for an elusive disease.  But today, the problem is Dayton.  Over a decade later, the virus of ethnic hatred, economic turmoil and political entrenchment has mutated in Bosnia--the youngsters who were paraded by those mass graves fifteen years ago are adults today.  If Dayton is to serve as an effective “vaccine,” it needs to be updated to account for both the progress that's been made, and those tasks that remain to be achieved. 

                 Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence

Blair’s assessment focuses on political problems in the Balkans.  To be sure, rather than focusing on reconciling differences and rebuilding, Bosnia’s leaders have instead chosen to fan the flames of ethnic prejudices. Haris Silajdzic, Bosnia’s Muslim co-president in the Dayton-directed power sharing arrangement has advocated for the Serb Republic in Bosnia to be abolished.  In turn, the Bosnian Serb prime minister, Milorad Dodik is calling for all-out secession from Bosnia.  All present zero sum solutions to complex variable-sum problems.

Lessons from the last war during the Bush and Clinton Administrations should offer stark lessons to the Obama Administration. One dynamic remains constant:  when traditional family homes and gravesites risk permanent loss, security and stability become elusive and negotiable.  If one region of the Balkans secedes, a secession of any kind, in any location, would be certain to result in a “domino effect” in the region.  Bosnian Croats would make their bid to unify with Croatia. Violence in Kosovo between the Albanian-majority in the south and a Serb-majority in the north would re-erupt.  Referendums for independence would spill over in countries like Montenegro and Macedonia.  Swept up in the sheer momentum of events, Croats in the Vojvodina region of northern Serbia would demand their independence. 

The spread of the radical version of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia, Wahabism, is another substantive concern in Bosnia. Tremendous infusions of Saudi money since the war over a decade ago have contributed to rebuilding large mosques and homes throughout the country.  During a recent visit to Bosnia, I noticed a dramatic increase in the number of young men sporting long beards, and women wearing black head scarves—far more than I had seen immediately after the war.

To improve any war-ravaged state, it is the economic ties that bind. And yet, this connective tissue is all but non-existent in the former Yugoslavia.  Rampant organized crime, massive unemployment (roughly 40% and increasing), scant foreign investment, and high foreign debt define Bosnia right now.   As a vestige of the Ottoman Empire, Bosnia truly is today the “Sick Man of Europe.”

It would be easy to focus elsewhere.  After a decade long commitment to Bosnia and Kosovo, “Balkan Fatigue” is understandable.  Ultimately, however, Bosnia may be the canary in the mineshaft.  During the worst economic downturn since the 1920s, Bosnia is approaching a breaking point.  Abraham Maslow taught us after World War II that when an entire population is reduced to a base struggle for survival, the outcome is likely to be both widespread and catastrophic.  Bosnia’s breaking point could rapidly become Europe’s faultline.

Compounding that struggle and perhaps accentuating it are subterranean hatreds that linger between Bosnian “ethnicities:” the Serbs, Croats and Muslims.  That enmity creates a far more worrisome picture for Bosnia’s future.  Memories of the past war evoke volatile emotions.  Those emotions cloud judgment and obstruct substantive dialogue.  

The last Bosnian War taught us the costs of delay, risk aversion and equivocation.  Comprehensive solutions require courageous leadership from the United States.  Deliberately addressing the growing crisis in Bosnia now is the only way that the Obama administration can stop a bad situation from getting far worse.  Political and economic solutions notwithstanding, confronting the undercurrent of hatred in Southern Europe is a long-term project that we must collectively undertake with Europe if our goal is to see an enduring culture of peace take hold in the Balkans. 

The Lazarus Covenant: A Snapshot...

 

At Stake: The greatest threat to world stability in history.

The Story: One man's journey of profound personal transformation in the midst of extreme international crisis.

The Title: The Lazarus Covenant

 

Publisher of The Lazarus Covenant 

BREATHE Press
Publication Date: March 2009
488 pp. 6 x 9
ISBN: 978-0-9822379-0-8
Hardcover
$24.95

PRE-ORDERS ACCEPTED NOW! 

Get Your Copy of THE LAZARUS COVENANT First!

ORDER A COPY DIRECT FROM THE PUBLISHER HERE

Pre-Orders for The Lazarus Covenant can be made direct from the Official John Fenzel website!

 

The Book in One Sentence: 

In a race against time across the European Continent to the Oval Office, THE LAZARUS COVENANT explores the scourge of religious extremism, nuclear terrorism and war in an unforgettable tale of friendship, faith and forgiveness

The Lazarus Covenant Book Trailer

Available Now for Pre-Orders! 

(Anticipated Ship Date:  March 27, 2009)

Go to:  JohnFenzel.com

WSJ.com - Crisis Deepens as Big Bank Fails

Bear Stearns was just the opening salvo, as Indy Mac's failure today demonstrates. Look for more dominoes to fall in the weeks and months ahead in what is shaping up to be the most serious financial and economic crisis our nation has seen since the Great Depression....

IndyMac Seized
In Largest Bust
In Two Decades

By DAMIAN PALETTA and DAVID ENRICH
July 12, 2008; Page A1

IndyMac Bank, a prolific mortgage specialist that helped fuel the housing boom, was seized Friday by federal regulators, in the third-largest bank failure in U.S. history.

IndyMac is the biggest mortgage lender to go under since a fall in housing prices and surge in defaults began rippling through the economy last year -- and it likely won't be the last. Banking regulators are bracing for a slew of failures over the next year as analysts say housing prices have yet to bottom out.

The collapse is expected to cost the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. between $4 billion and $8 billion, potentially wiping out more than 10% of the FDIC's $53 billion deposit-insurance fund.

The Pasadena, Calif., thrift was one of the largest savings and loans in the country, with about $32 billion in assets. It now joins an infamous list of collapsed banks, topped by Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co., which failed in 1984 with $40 billion of assets. The second-largest failure was American Savings & Loan Association of Stockton, Calif., in 1988.

The director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, John Reich, blamed IndyMac's failure on comments made in late June by Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), who sent a letter to the regulator raising concerns about the bank's solvency. In the following 11 days, spooked depositors withdrew a total of $1.3 billion. Mr. Reich said Sen. Schumer gave the bank a "heart attack."

"Would the institution have failed without the deposit run?" Mr. Reich asked reporters. "We'll never know the answer to that question."

Mr. Schumer quickly fired back.

"If OTS had done its job as regulator and not let IndyMac's poor and loose lending practices continue, we wouldn't be where we are today," Sen. Schumer said. "Instead of pointing false fingers of blame, OTS should start doing its job to prevent future IndyMacs."

IndyMac had been troubled for months, and investors were concerned about its possible downfall well before Sen. Schumer's comments. It specialized in Alt-A loans, a type of mortgage that can often be offered to borrowers who don't fully document their incomes or assets. The company sold most of the loans it originated, but continued to hold some on its books. As defaults piled up, IndyMac's finances deteriorated.

The bank will be run by the FDIC and reopen Monday. The FDIC typically insures up to $100,000 per depositor. IndyMac had roughly $19 billion of deposits. Nearly $1 billion of those deposits were uninsured, affecting about 10,000 people, the FDIC said.

IndyMac's arc -- rapid growth, followed by an even more rapid descent -- is a microcosm of the mortgage industry. It boomed in the first part of this decade, as investors were willing to fund loans on ever-looser terms, then hit hard times when the housing market began to turn down in late 2006.

Small mortgage lenders started going under quickly, with the number of failures climbing into the hundreds. Now the fallout has spread world-wide, bringing down some of America's largest financial institutions. Bear Stearns Cos., which suffered losses on mortgage-related investments, underwent a meltdown in March and had to be rescued by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Countrywide Financial Corp., at one time the nation's largest mortgage lender, saw its stock price plunge this year and was forced to sell itself to Bank of America Corp. at a firesale price.

IndyMac, in a last-ditch effort to fend off collapse after it failed to raise fresh capital, said this past week it was firing more than half its work force and closing most of its lending operations. While its shares had been tumbling since early 2007, the move was nonetheless jarring for a company that ranked as the ninth-largest U.S. mortgage lender last year in terms of loan volume, according to trade publication Inside Mortgage Finance.

IndyMac is one of the few federally insured banks to fail in recent years. Banking regulators are bulking up their staff of bank examiners and taking a tough approach toward banks that are seen as risky.

Mr. Reich, the thrift regulator, noted that the IndyMac case had some "unique" features, including the involvement of Sen. Schumer and the rapid fall in its deposits. Officials said most of the recent withdrawals came from depositors at branches, rather than those making deposits at IndyMac's online bank.

IndyMac was set up by Countrywide in 1985, but the two companies severed ties in 1997 and became direct competitors. The company's name stands for Independent National Mortgage. It was created to specialize in jumbo mortgages -- those that are too big to be sold to government-backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 1997, under the direction of Chief Executive Michael Perry, a protege of Countrywide chief Angelo Mozilo, IndyMac set off on its own.

The company grew quickly, pioneering the issuance of so-called Alt-A mortgages to people with blemished credit histories. The loans have gained notoriety as an example of the type of lax lending that came to characterize much of the mortgage industry.

Early last year, Mr. Perry remained optimistic about IndyMac's future, insisting that the company had the resources to remain independent. At the time, IndyMac's stock was trading for about $45 a share.

But the combination of the frozen credit markets and mounting defaults on IndyMac loans steadily sapped investor confidence in the company. In February, IndyMac reported the first annual loss in its 23-year history. By this week, its shares, which ended last year at less than $7 each, were trading for 28 cents apiece.

The company was desperate for more capital but couldn't find investors willing to put fresh funds into what looked like a crippled institution.

The failure could be felt across the entire banking industry, as the FDIC will likely have to raise insurance assessments for all banks to build up government reserves. "It takes a big chunk out of the FDIC insurance fund," said Chip MacDonald, a banking lawyer at law firm Jones Day. He said that if the FDIC hikes insurance fees, that will add to already-intense pressure on bank profits.

The OTS and FDIC didn't secure any outside firm to acquire the bank's assets. The FDIC will temporarily run the bank through a new bank it has created, called IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB.

 

Notorious International Arms Merchant, Victor Bout, Arrested in Bangkok...

In a stunning development Wednesday (and as a follow-up to my previous post last year), notorious international arms merchant, Victor Bout, was arrested in a luxury hotel in Bangkok after a month's long joint Thai-U.S. DEA sting operation. The U.S. Justice Department says it is now pursuing extradition of Bout from Thailand and plan to charge him with conspiracy to provide weapons to a foreign terrorist organization. The 41-year-old Russian had allegedly been trying to secure a major weapons deal that included the sale of surface-to-air missiles to US agents posing as Colombian FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) rebels.

Labeled a a narco-terrorist organization by the U.S. and European Union, the FARC is the Western Hemisphere's oldest and most developed insurgency, sustained largely through drug trafficking and ransom obtained from kidnappings.

Bout graduated from Moscow's military institute in the early 1990s and was a major in the Soviet KGB. Since leaving the KGB, he has become legendary for his role in the illegal global arms trade from Ostend to Odessa and from Liberia to Kabul. He was dubbed the "merchant of death" and is believed to have inspired Nicolas Cage's character in the 2005 film, Lord of War.

During recorded telephone calls and e-mails, Bout and associate Andrew Smulian agreed to sell the weapons to two underground sources working with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration who presented themselves as FARC representatives who negotiated with the two arms merchants from November 2007 until February 2008. Smulian is reportedly still being sought by Thai and DEA officials.

Lieutenant-General Pongpat Chayapan, head of the Crime Suppression Bureau, said police executed a warrant from a Thai court, based on a warrant issued in the United States at the request of the US DEA.
Despite U.S. plans to pursue the extradition of Bout from Thailand, Thai authorities have indicated that they plan to prosecute Bout before he is extradited elsewhere. Bout was remanded in custody at the Klong Prem prison otherwise known as the infamous "Bangkok Hilton." Thai Police can detain him for three months, and with the help of U.S. DEA officials say that they expect to finish their investigation in two months before handing their case off to prosecutors.

"Viktor Bout and Andrew Smulian agreed to arm terrorists with high-powered weapons that have fueled some of the most violent conflicts in recent memory," said U.S. Attorney Michael J. Garcia.

Bout's arrest also represents a dramatic reversal of policy when Clinton Administration efforts to arrest Bout were forestalled by National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice--ostensibly based on her determination that resources needed to be directed toward more significant targets; but it's also widely believed that Bout was a contracted agent of the United States with support he leant to U.S. companies like Halliburton and FEDEX in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks.

Perhaps most significant, however, is that Bout was arrested under the apparent direct supervision of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency immediately after Vladimir Putin's departure from the Russian presidency and assumption as Prime Minister. It seems intuitive, therefore--given Bout's strong former KGB/FSB connections in the Kremlin--that the order to arrest Bout was approved in the West Wing by National Security Advisor Steve Hadley with the passive (or active) approval of the President. At the very least, it represents another indirect affront to Putin himself.

Thai police escort Russian Viktor Bout, center, as he arrives at the head of the Crime Suppression Bureau in Bangkok, Thailand, on Thursday March 6, 2008.

Thai officials will certainly face enormous pressure from Russian authorities to release Bout to their control, rather than extradite him to the United States.
Given Victor Bout's massive cash reserves, his detailed first-hand knowledge of U.S. and Western European corporate corruption, and his extensive contacts at the highest levels of the Kremlin, it would be foolish to discount Victor Bout's ability to arrange his extradition to Moscow, where he would unquestionably be set free.

The wild card that no one has mentioned thus far in relation to Victor Bout's arrest? His older brother, Sergei Bout--who will certainly do his best to free Viktor through any means....

A Solution to Russian Protests over the U.S. Satellite Shootdown...

The U.S. said last week that it would use a missile to destroy a broken satellite, to stop it from crash landing. U.S. officials say the satellite contains hazardous fuel which could kill humans. It says the satellite is carrying more than 1,000lb (454kg) of hydrazine fuel in a tank which would survive re-entry, and the substance could be released as a toxic gas if the satellite crash landed.

Somewhat predictably, Russia has accused the US of using a plan to shoot down the satellite as a cover for testing an anti-satellite weapon.

Russia's defence ministry said the US planned to test its "anti-missile defence system's capability to destroy other countries' satellites...Speculations about the danger of the satellite hide preparations for the classical testing of an anti-satellite weapon," a statement reported by Itar-Tass news agency said. "Such testing essentially means the creation of a new type of strategic weapons. ...The decision to destroy the American satellite does not look harmless as they try to claim, especially at a time when the US has been evading negotiations on the limitation of an arms race in outer space," the statement continued. Russia's defence ministry went on to say that the US had not given enough information on the reasons for the decision.

The Chinese have made similar protests.

The US says the satellite lost power and communications shortly after it was launched in December 2006 and is now uncontrollable.

On Saturday the Pentagon said that the window for the operation would begin on Wednesday, when the space shuttle Atlantis ended its current mission.

The Solution?

Not discounting national security concerns about information sharing, I wonder if we have considered inviting the Russians and the Chinese to observe or even participate in the satellite shoot-down? They would most likely refuse, but such an offer would effectively neutralize their protests, even if they continued to make them....

A National Blood Shortage...

You may not have heard, but nationwide, regional branches of the Red Cross blood banks are in the midst of an unprecedented crisis. It amounts to an extreme drought in our blood supply that has forced a quarter of American hospitals to postpone or even cancel nonemergency operations -- including heart bypass procedures -- due to lack of blood. Part of the problem, it seems, is perhaps overstringent screening measures for blood safety that include many overseas travel restrictions levied on would-be blood donors. Those measures, we're told, are being reviewed and revisited. Still, only 5 percent of eligible donors currently give blood, according to the Red Cross. In many of its facilities, the Red Cross has only half a day's supply of blood rather than the three to five day reserve needed to prepare for emergencies. Jennifer Garfinkel, a spokesperson for the American Association of Blood Banks, said that, in disaster situations, "It's the blood on the shelves that saves lives. It has already been processed, tested, given the green light to be transfused." Without that reserve supply, as a nation we're simply unprepared for mass disasters.

What can you do right now to help? Visit--or at least call--your nearest Red Cross office to find out how you can give blood!

IHT :: Politicus: America's misplaced hopes on Russia

If you are at all uneasy about the direction in which Russia is now heading, this OpEd by John Vinocur that explores Russian obstructionism in helping to curb Iran's nuclear program will only reinforce those concerns....

Monday, September 10, 2007
WASHINGTON: Suppose the Russians, as Iran's monopoly supplier of nuclear wherewithal, decided they could live with a few atomic weapons in the hands of the mullahs.

Suppose the Russians, flush with money and superpower fantasies, believed that weakening and humiliating the United States was well worth the instability that might come with Moscow's refusal to help block Iran's drive toward nuclear arms.

Where's the downside? From Vladimir Putin's point of view, it's win-win.

With Russia's obstructive tactics encouraging Iran to plunge ahead, he may figure the Americans will eventually strike Iranian nuclear installations. The Yanks would harvest opprobrium in much of the world.

Still, if their strike does eradicate the Iranian nuclear program, that's fine, too. Russia's oil and gas prices are sure to shoot up. Russia becomes Iran's key reconstruction contractor, and sets out a rare claim to international righteousness.

What's irrational about the above scenario? Or its counterpart, which is that Russian now calculates the United States in the end will sit on its hands concerning Iran?

Nothing. Multiple versions of them get discussed within the Bush Administration, all stamped, Non Whacko.

It's exemplary of the misery of the American situation.

On one hand, the Administration sticks to the notion - recall, please, George W. Bush's magnanimous first-term reading of Putin's soul in his KGB eyes - that somehow, someday, but in the nick of time, the Russians are going to come around to joining an international effort to halt Iran's nuclear drive.

On the other hand, important areas of the administration are offering a hardened assessment of what Russia ultimately wants.

After a couple of years of talking about how Putin's richer Russia (reasonably) craved respect, a senior administration policymaker, in a private conversation, now asserts the "overwhelming evidence" is a Russia that seeks to weaken the United States. Wherever possible internationally, he says, Moscow will work to stop America from achieving success.

The hitch is that concerning Iran, these two administration notions, expecting good from Russia while regarding it as a gathering, noxious force, are contradictory to the point of incompatibility.

The summer showed just how much.

In June, the Americans said they expected a United Nations Security Council resolution in July that would add a new round of modest sanctions to those already in effect against Iran. It never happened. The Russians, with Chinese assistance, sidetracked the measure.

Reality now says the United Nations is not going to be the place where Iran's nuclear dreams die.

Almost in the same stride, the Russians in July used the threat of a Security Council veto to dismantle an American-backed motion on Kosovo's independence.

The combined effect is not only an American defeat. It's a demonstration that, unlike in the Cold War, there are no clear limits on how far this Russia feels it can push this America.

Forget the grandiloquence of Moscow's planting flags in the Arctic and re-establishing world-wide strategic bomber patrols.

But as the United States flails in Iraq, and faces a financial crisis that may affect command-economies and authoritarian regimes less than democracies, why shouldn't Russia see the Iran issue as a strategic hole for achieving a new global status?

After all, Jacques Chirac, whose vision of a multipolar world consigning America to the role of everyone's opponent gets applause in Moscow, argued in his last months as French president that a few Iranian nukes shouldn't cause much lost sleep for anyone sharing his take on a remade global hierarchy.

Chirac didn't say it, but he could have rationalized that a limited number of atomic weapons at Iran's disposal would be a reasonable price to pay for disabling an American world order that he, like Putin, reviles.

It's a reflection of America's current incapacities that Nicolas Sarkozy, who might have interesting notions of Putin's calculations from Élysée Palace files, two weeks ago detailed the Iran situation in a tougher and more concise way than Washington.

Sarkozy knows that some Westerners who have talked directly to Putin have been told that Russia does not want a nuclear-armed Iran. He also knows the deceit of Russia's official position that it has no evidence indicating Iran's nuclear activities are anything but peaceful.

Draw this conclusion: If Sarkozy has been informed that Putin will act to halt Iran's drive short of a bomb, then he would not be calling the prospect of Iranian atomic bomb capability the world's biggest menace.

There are, on good evidence, officials within the Bush administration frustrated by its own bollixed approach - hoping that the Russians will turn responsible after their "elections" next year while acknowledging Moscow is now in full confrontational mode. Assume they could only leap to praise Sarkozy for saying in a speech a couple of weeks ago what Bush would not:

If sanctions fail, the alternatives are an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran. As for Russia, Sarko described its behavior as marked by a "certain brutality."

The sanctions Sarkozy is talking about are hard, new measures outside the United Nations that would probably involve an ad hoc group including the United States, Britain, France and Japan at its core.

This approach specifically means forgetting about the Security Council, and giving up on Russia, barring sudden and unlikely cooperation. The sanctions have to be so penalizing, obviously disadvantaging Western banks and industry, to become truly dissuasive. This requires real resolve.

It also requires the underpinning of a tacit yet palpable threat: if these measures don't work, there's real unpleasantness to come. With a phrase, Sarkozy marked out the Iranian choice with a sharper edge than the Americans have.

That's a significant advance.

But unless Bush first gets publicly tougher on Russia as Iran's protector and international obstructionist, the mullahs may take America's insistence on skirting this reality as the surest sign they can get that they're home free.

9-11-01 :: In Memorium :: Fanfare for the Common Man