NUCLEAR
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Preventing disaster
30-Nov-2009
Only a few weeks after US-Iran diplomacy began in earnest, it seems to be heading towards a premature ending. Rather than tensions reduction, the world has witnessed the opposite. Iran is refusing to accept a fuel swap deal brokered by the IAEA, the IAEA has passed a resolution rebuking Iran, and Tehran has responded by approving a plan to build ten more nuclear facilities.
With the potential end of at least this phase of diplomacy, fears of a disastrous Israeli attack on Iran are on the rise once more. But contrary to Washington's official line, America is capable of preventing Israel from initiating a war that would further destabilize the Middle East.
Conventional wisdom in Washington reads that the United States has little influence over Israel, particularly on the issue of Iran's nuclear program, since Israel maintains that it is an existential threat.
Washington has utilized the perception of Israeli immunity to international pleas to pressure China to rebuke Tehran. According to the Washington Post, National Security Council officials recently traveled to Beijing and used the Israeli card to get the Chinese on board.
“The Chinese were told that Israel regards Iran's nuclear program as an "existential issue and that countries that have an existential issue don't listen to other countries," according to a senior administration official. The implication was clear: Israel could bomb Iran, leading to a crisis in the Persian Gulf region and almost inevitably problems over the very oil China needs to fuel its economic juggernaut.”
It is questionable that the Chinese were moved by the notion that Israel cannot be influenced by the international community on this issue. Mindful of the strength of US-Israeli relations, it is hardly convincing that Washington cannot influence Israel's actions towards Iran.
Indeed, there is an important precedent in which Washington successfully prevented Israel from taking military action even when Israel itself had been attacked.
On August 2, 1990, almost a year after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Iron Curtain divide, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Within months, the George H. W. Bush administration carefully assembled a coalition of states under the UN flag and defeated the Iraqi army and restored Kuwait's ruling family, the House of Sabah. The Bush senior administration saw particular value in ensuring that the international coalition contained numerous Arab states. But to get the Arab's to join a war alongside the US and against another Arab power, Israel needed to be kept out of the coalition.
This turned out to be a tricky issue, particularly when Saddam Hussein hurled thirty-four Scud missiles at Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities, in an obvious attempt to lure Israel into the war. Then-National Security Advisor, General Brent Scowcroft, told me in an interview that the United States told Israel "in the strongest possible words" that it needed to keep itself out of the Iraq operation because Israeli retaliation would cause the collapse of Washington's alliance against Iraq.
For the government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, this was a very tough decision. Saddam's missile attacks damaged Israel's public morale; the country's otherwise lively and noisy capital quickly turned into a ghost town. Bush sent Undersecretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger to Israel to assure Israeli leaders that the United States was doing all it could to destroy the Iraqi missile launchers.
But neither the Israel Defense Forces nor the Ministry of Defense was convinced. Instead, a feeling prevailed among Israel's leaders that Washington was untrustworthy and that it could not be relied upon when it came to Israel's existence. Bad blood was created between Israel and the United States, according to Efraim Halevi, the former head of the Mossad. Washington's protection of Israel was ineffective, and the image that Israel was relying on the United States for protection was hard to stomach for ordinary Israelis. Shamir's decision to accommodate the Americans was extremely unpopular, because it was believed that it "would cause irreparable damage to Israel's deterrent capabilities," Halevi told me. To make matters worse, people around Shamir felt that the United States did not reward Israel for, in their view, effectively enabling the coalition to remain intact by refusing to retaliate against Iraq.
Just as Israeli retaliation against Iraq in 1991 would have been devastating for the US, an Israeli preventive attack against Iran today would spell disaster for US national security.
In July 2008, Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned against any Israeli military action against Iran, saying that the Middle East would become "more unstable" and that it would put US forces under much stress, indicating that an Israeli attack on Iran would inevitably suck the US into war with Iran. "From the United States' perspective, the United States' military perspective, in particular, opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us," Mullen told reporters.
A year later, Mullen's line was echoed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who warned that a military attack would only be a "temporary solution." "There's a lot of talk about a military effort to take out their nuclear capabilities, but, in my view, it would only be a temporary solution," Gates told reporters in September 2009.
Beyond the impact an Israeli attack on Iran would have on US national security, the first casualty of war with Iran would be the Iranian pro-democracy movement. Having shown great courage in challenging the Ahmadinejad government, the last thing Iran's pro-democracy activists need is for Iran to get embroiled in a military confrontation with Israel and the US. Their struggle for democracy will be infinitely more difficult in the midst of war.
Should diplomacy with Iran fail, and should Israel seek to attack Iran, America will have plenty of reasons to prevent such a disaster from taking place. And history shows that contrary to conventional wisdom, Washington has the ability to prevent Israel from taking actions that would endanger America.
AUTHOR
Trita Parsi is the author of Treacherous Alliance - The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States (Yale University Press, 2007) and President of the National Iranian American Council, the largest Iranian American grassroots organization in the US. This commentary was first published inHuffingtonPost.com.
| Recently by Trita Parsi | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Bibi’s Three Steps Forward, One Back | 5 | Oct 13, 2012 |
| Mistaken Path | 18 | Jun 22, 2012 |
| Give Obama Elbow Room on Iran | 26 | Jun 15, 2012 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
why don't we Iranian put more pressue on IRI
by asefati on Sat Dec 05, 2009 02:20 PM PSTI really think we Iranians need to put more pressure on IRI...right now regarding the nuclear issue I think most pressures are coming from outside the country ....but if there is a war then its our people who are going to suffer so as Iranians wether inside or outside the country we need to put more pressure on IRI to cooperate with international community and not insisit so much on its "nuclear rights".
We can do this buy sending letters not only to Khameni or Ahmadinjedaa but also to MPS and others and keep expressing our concern in media.
Lecherous Alliance
by Ahura on Wed Dec 02, 2009 05:52 PM PSTIslamic Republic of Iran has announced a plan to build ten more uranium enrichment facilities and Mr. Trita Parsi is working the media in USA helping avert any surgical military strikes on mullahs’ nuclear installations. If he does not support IRI in earnest and cares about the plight of Iran and Iranians under IRI, why does he not write an article about the crimes committed by this religious dictatorship? He should not be in want of documents on the subject and could even write a book may be titled “Lecherous Alliance.” There are tons of documents available. Timely lip service constituting mild criticisms of the recent overt human rights violations of IRI does not cut it.
BacheGholam, says me and here is why
by Faramarz_Fateh on Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:14 AM PSTI am no military expert. As a matter of fact, the only thing I am an expert on is eating chelokabob. But I do have common sense.
Todays small scale wars are won by technology; Satellites, GPS enabled missiles, AWACS and other ultra range radars, and air power (advanced fighter jets) and stealth bombers. In some cases, submarines and carriers are also needed but not in the case of a war between Israel and Iran.
Israel needs Iran. Iran is like the PIN# for an ATM machine for Israel. The more Iran is a threat, the more $ and support they will get from the U.S. Same goes for Iran. As long as Israel can be blamed for everything including Ali Geda's hemorrhoids, Iran would love to have her in the neighbourhood.
But since there is a good chance Iran could develop a nuke weapon in the next 5-10 years, Israel will do surgical strikes to take out some Iranian resources. Thats all.
There will be no outright war because neither side wants one.
Its just bull shit spewed by either side to get idiots like you and me busy with trying to convince each other.
Q, Shah Gholam, Faramarz, Gordzad jan, and the rest
by Midwesty on Wed Dec 02, 2009 05:40 AM PSTI've got a blog and need to know your input would you be kind to leave me a comment there:
//iranian.com/main/blog/midwesty/lets-cast-another-type-vote
Yes, US can absolutely give a red light
by Q on Wed Dec 02, 2009 05:09 AM PSTbut it's not that easy, Trita jan.
Think about who runs congress and how much money they are likely to see in defense contracts and foreign aid if there's a war with Iran.
Obama
by Shah Ghollam on Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:17 PM PSTIsrael would go to hell, if she dares! Israel can only kill the innocent palestinian children who cannot defend themseleves. We are Persians and we are going to prove it to you!
I wish if there were more people here with balls to state the obvious as you do! Thanks!!!!!
Devil Israel wants to control the ME! Israel wouldn't dare!
by obama on Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:08 PM PSTIs this "Midwesty's blog?
Israeli lobby was totally against the US reapproach to Iran to begin with and vowed that they would do anything in their power to derail it! Well, they are doing it.
They even harrassed Trita accusing him of being an agent for IRI!! Now, poor Trita, is watching everything he says. That's why he doesn't say much of substance, since Zionists are trying to sue the poor guy. I never understand the photo trying to create fear! Fear?
Israel would go to hell, if she dares! Israel can only kill the innocent palestinian children who cannot defend themseleves. We are Persians and we are going to prove it to you!
Israel wants to drag the US into another war now that Iraqi war is winding down. US congress and President are controlled by Israel! They would use the US power, since Israel wouldn't be able to.
No wonder the europeans got rid of them (at least that's what they thought!). These are evil governments and they need dictators like IRI to deal with them. Israel is the cancer with no cure! There must have been a reason that they are loved around the world! AAFAT!
Talking a lot without saying much
by Gordzad on Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:19 PM PSTI have now read Trita's article a couple of times and must say that he writes well. Unfortunately, he doesn't say much in the many paragraphs he has put on the paper. I think everybody agrees that "war is bad" and everybody should do his/her best to avoid it. There is no doubt the common people in Iran will be the ones paying the highest price for a full-blown war. Did I miss anything else in Trita's article? I think not.
The REAL question would be what should be done about the situation. On one hand we have the ruling elite in Iran that doesn't really care about IRAN and is willing to drive her down the abyss to get what they want. Let's believe their version of the story that they are in it only for energy production. Now, most of the rest of the world is concerned about their activities and is offering substantially beneficial deals to get them out of the isolation and bring them back to the international community, something anybody with some small amount of a gray matter called brain agrees would be great for the country and its citizens. Do the Iranian rulers give it a thought? Have they shown any interest to avoid open conflict? These people are so arrogant, and in my mind stupid, that they think Israel or US will not DARE to attack, because the regime has so many missiles or tanks or other military equipment. They are willing to go all the way and bring disaster upon Iran no matter what, because they really don't care about Iran.
I think Trita should offer non-military solutions on how to deal with the Iranian government instead of warning everybody about the disastrous consequences of a war. As far as I know, Trita and his NIAC also oppose sanctions against Iran. So what else is left? Should we just leave them do whatever they want and hope they are truthful about their intentions? Mr. Parsi, how do you want to solve the problem? It is easy to state the obvious but we need alternatives. Please provide some real ones or stop wasting everybody's time.
Says who?
by Shah Ghollam on Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:15 PM PSTAn attack will in no way be a disaster for Israel. As a matter of fact, it will be a good thing for them. Removing a big thorn in their side is the first good thing. Iran's military power is not even fit for attacking the Island nation of Crete next to Greece.
Says who? So far, only Israeli military seems to propagate that idea even though neither US nor NATO share that baseless sentiment!
Disaster for who Mr. Parsi ?!
by Faramarz_Fateh on Tue Dec 01, 2009 03:23 PM PSTAs an start, I'd like to know the disaster you are talking about is a disaster for who? Israelis, Iranians or Americans or the entire world?
An Isreali attack on Iran will be far worse for Iranians, especially innocent Iranians who abhore the IRI regime. Lets face it, during any sort of an attack, those who are high up in the goverment and those who are well connected will be safe and sound in bunkers.
An attack will in no way be a disaster for Israel. As a matter of fact, it will be a good thing for them. Removing a big thorn in their side is the first good thing. Iran's military power is not even fit for attacking the Island nation of Crete next to Greece.
Anonymouse jan,
by Midwesty on Tue Dec 01, 2009 03:06 PM PSTI meant the green, babam jan!
Midwesty jaan we know the answer to nukular, HR and dipllomacy
by Anonymouse on Tue Dec 01, 2009 02:52 PM PSTIf it is the regime it is clear. I don't care about the regime.
Between war or diplomacy? Diplomacy (war ain't happening anyway)
Nukular or human rights? Human rights nukuluar aint happening one way or another. They can't even get the Russian nukular going for which they've worked on since before the revolution.
Why convolude the air and kill the momentum? What momemtum? The momentum is on the green movement NOT the regime.
I think you're missing all the points and forgetting about the green movements, but that's ok, sooner or later we'll witness the outcomeS to each of your questions and I already know the answers as do many in the green movement.
Everything is sacred.
Anonymouse jan,
by Midwesty on Tue Dec 01, 2009 01:11 PM PSTIn that case it ain't happening because IRI already knows that and has tried to keep everything at the Nukular level preventing any progress towards human rights. So if it is war or diplomacy? It's diplomacy. If it's Nukular or human right? It's human rights....So why the hell we don't just go on diplomacy towards human rights issue where US and Iraninas can work hand in hand....?!?!?!
Why do we convolude the air and kill the momentum by brining in other topics that we already know the answers to them...
Midwesty jaan d relation ship is d "only" reason we'd want talks
by Anonymouse on Tue Dec 01, 2009 01:00 PM PSTWhen I was there some people liked W and people didn't trust Obama. Some, not all. My response to them was when US and Iran starts their talk they have to stand and give press conferences and in those press conferences Obama and his administration can and will point to human rights in Iran and that is what we want. More exposure so we can have a better life and more freedoms in Iran.
Case and point, Obama's laest visit to Asia. He met with Thailand and talked about Sui (don't know her name for sure, the nobel peace prize winner under house arrest) and he met with Chinese and talked about human rights and democracy.
So this is what's in it for us (Iranians). F*** the nukular talks! Even if they reach agreement, there is nothing in it for us. What, we will sell nukular crap and make more money? What are we doing with the oil money?! Nothing! So now is the time to back the green movement and push forward because everything else will follow.
alrighty then have a good evening!
Everything is sacred.
Dr. Parsi!
by Midwesty on Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:56 PM PSTAre you taking notes? Because there is a clear message here for you that you need to lay out what you mean by diplomacy!
Regards
Anonymouse jan,
by Midwesty on Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:55 PM PSTIf you tried to confuse me you've done a good job. Tell me what's the relationship between Nukular and human rights issue?
Midwesty jaan your illwisher can't do sh*t! We can do a lot!
by Anonymouse on Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:46 PM PSTNot only there is nothing wrong with bringing on more pressure on Iran to stop being the "confession capital of the world" but it is now our duty to do so at any given moment.
Why didn't we do this before? Because there was no green movement as we have it today. The green movement was born on June 22nd and I was there to witness it. It was awesome! Sad but encouraging at the same time.
So while the regime wants to blame everything on media and their supporters paint green movement as serving the western interests, we know what is happening in Iran and it is not going to stop.
So it is up to us and Obama to get on with the program! Talk of human rights should go hand in hand with nukular talks. There is no more ifs, whys, hows, too soons or any other excuses. If we don't, or if Obama doesn't then we're just embarassing and wasting our time, because even if (remotely) the Iranian regime accepts some sort of compromise (even their own proposals) the green movement is not going to stop and it shouldn't.
Our problem is not nukular or war. Our problems is now human rights violations. I see this as the main path forward.
Everything is sacred.
Can someone Define
by vildemose on Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:40 PM PSTCan someone
Define diplomacy in the context of IRI's current power structure?? Does the IRGC seek diplomacy? The IRGC so far has shown no propensity toward diplomacy, compromise or conciliation.
What does the IRGC really looking for? Diplomacy or war? Does the IRGC have a clear plan to avert or induce a war? Who rules over Iran?
What do you think Obama has been doing since he took office? Has his kind of diplomacy worked so far?? What makes us think that it will work in the future?
Anonymouse,
by Midwesty on Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:38 PM PSTSorry I missed your comment.
I agree with you. The Israeli lobby has hijacked the support for the green movement giving a huge favore to the IRI hardliners by overshadowing the human right issues at hand with the threats of an immenent war (in fantasy).
If other Iraninas including NIAC are that confident that they can't do shit then why do we discuss this? Why NIAC doesn't bring up the more impotant issue which is THE HUMAN RIGHTS issues rather than covoluding the momentum with crap like this that we've been through many times!!!!!!!)(*&^*(&%&**^$^%#$
Now, I am pissed!
Hovakhshatare jan
by Midwesty on Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:28 PM PSTso we are back at where we started. I guess you also can't offer any substances either and my first question wasn't a leading question it was an honest question.
However if you look just at the bulk of this article you see it's about war or no war, not what else.
I am going to ask you a simple question and I appologize already if you think it's a leading question but it is not.
If you as an Iranian being asked to haveto choose between war against IRI and diplomacy, which one you choose right now?
Midwesty, leading question again. Accusatory & negative.
by Hovakhshatare on Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:29 AM PSTBut I will oblige it one last time: NO
The decision is not war or not war so in that sense you have fallen in NIAC and Trita's mental trap.
Anonymous: I couldn't agree
by vildemose on Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:26 AM PSTAnonymouse: I couldn't agree more. That is the only way to proceed without a major conflagration.
Hovakhshatare,
by Midwesty on Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:26 AM PSTBut is war the answer? Are they going to pursue Iranian liberty and US/Israel security at the same time? What is going to happen to the "greater middle east" plan to divide Iran to the pieces? How realistic their war plan is going to be? Are the results going to be any different than now Iraq and Afghanistan?
I agree with what Makhmalbaf said, in his Hajiaghaesque English!
by Anonymouse on Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:18 AM PSTI agree with what Makhmalbaf said, in his Hajiaghaesque English! US should follow the diplomatic front for Atom (bomb ;-) and pursuit of condemning the human rights violations in Iran, including the 3 young American hostages.
Makhmalbaf was interviewed by non other than David Frost himself who landed the exclusive interview with Nixon and got him to admit to his involvement in Watergate. So he understood what Makhmalbaf was talking about given all the 2 headed regime in Iran has done so far with diplomacy and nukular talks!
Obama has to stick to this policy and follow through because the outcome is the same. America's biggest ally is the Iranian people under the green movement umbrella. I don't understand Obama's hesitancy in this regard. NIAC should also follow this 2-fold policy and stick to it.
Times have changed and so should we and so should Obama and his Iran policy.
Everything is sacred.
Dear Midwesty, that is where this all falls short
by Hovakhshatare on Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:03 AM PSTand why I said it is sloganeering. Obama wins the Noble prize and is going to send 30,000 plus troops to Afghanistan (to be announced later today) on the same month. Obama is ba Bush not Ba Ma but that is a whole different discussion. The Ma is Iranians, Americans or Iranian Americans.
A lobby's job to leverage dynamics and drive it to a favorable end for its constituents. In this case the uncertainty of Obama Administration as you put it (and I disagree with that view) to provide solutions and alternatives that they may leverage. Screaming Israel does not trust U.S., Mosad statements or Scud stories serve a lesson and policy direction? He is a demogogue and an opportunist in my opinion and I can respect if you disagree with that view.
As an Iranian American with very deep roots in both countries and love of both I see nothing in common with Mr. Parsi and he/NIAC do not represent my interests in either country or dynamics. I want a secular democratic progressive Iran that is IRR and islamic regime free. I cannot find a demonstrable case that NIAC/Trita has helped. Practially or intellectually.
have been questioning
by vildemose on Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:59 AM PSThave been questioning Trita's logic and lack of any material detail. It is sloganeering. I'm not in public light and claiming to represent Iranian Americans so if he cannot provide specifics and how they will do it and be transparent about it, they cannot be trusted to help Iran and won't get the benefit of the doubt.
Trita is right in warning us about a looming disaster awaiting Iranians, however, he is confused too because he still can't reconcile the pre-coup government and post coup military Junta leadership.
"That the hawks were able to veto the representative of Supreme Leader Khamenei lends credence to Gary Sick's argument that the Revolutionary Guards have carried out a soft coup behind the scenes and Iran looks more and more like a military junta.""
//www.juancole.com/2009/11/iaea-condemnation-of-iran-omen-of-new.html#comments
The US and Israel are no longer in quandry as to who rules Iran or whether they are pragmatic or reasonable to reach a diplomatic solution. The US has decided that the IRGC being a military Junta cannot be trusted; hence, talks of sanctions and military action.
Hovakhshatare jan,
by Midwesty on Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 AM PSTI see your point now and you are right. But the lack of clear road map on how to engage Iran diplomatically is a problem at hand where the Obama admin is even puzzled about. If you ask the very same question from the master of politics in the White House they don't give you any answer any better than Dr. Parsi.
Midwesty, you ask a leading question but I will oblige
by Hovakhshatare on Tue Dec 01, 2009 09:54 AM PSTHow did you infer less than legal from my comments and how does anything Trita says suggest legal given ongoing investigation or questions about him and NIAC.
If you look at the very few comments on this thread that are actually relevant to the content of blog the question on substance has been asked and remains unanswered.
Trita suggests U.S. may ok Israel attack, hints that Israel might anyway, brings out several lateral but irrelevant facts on Kuwait, Scuds..., and diplomacy is the path forward. What in all of that is new or somehow insightful? Throwing words like war and diplomacy sounds good but where is the beef? What specific diplomatic political solution is he talking about? what are the steps and phases that would make sense and as a lobby he is claiming to be able or willing to drive even I believed he had the intent or power to do? I have been questioning Trita's logic and lack of any material detail. It is sloganeering. I'm not in public light and claiming to represent Iranian Americans so if he cannot provide specifics and how they will do it and be transparent about it, they cannot be trusted to help Iran and won't get the benefit of the doubt.
Your use of the word enemy also shows the wedge that people like Trita/NIAC drive. I do not consider you my enemy and am willing to engage a discussion but look at this thread and tell me you don't see wedge and that the conversation is helping the cause of Iran.
Midwesty jaan "under estimating"?? WTF can they do? really.
by Anonymouse on Tue Dec 01, 2009 09:44 AM PSTTheir biggest and most proud moment was "discovery" material which was always public knowledge about a Congressman asking Trita to send an email to some Iranian official.
That is the whole enchilada for them and the judge laughed at it. It is not that I'm optimistic, I just don't think of them much! They've proved themselves over and over again and other than their Few olive skinned Angry Men supporters, they haven't gathered any support. So when they are nobodys and haven't gained anything for the past several years, then there is nothing to worry about.
Next upon the conclusion of the defamation lawsuit, they'll be embarrased even more. All they say is they want answers to their questions. Well f*** their questions. Ask them through the judge!
I'm not optimistic about Iran's situation at all, Iranian people I mean. I just think we should join the green movement and make their voices heard. I approve of people like Makhmalbaf and even Golshifteh Farahani who are public figures in Iran and should be far more "scared" than someone like Trita Parsi or the old guard nobodys, but they are not and they speak out and point to who are the devils in Iran.
But this blog is not about NIAC's illwishers. It is about debating an Israeli attack and (possible) Iranian retaliation. Is it possible retaliation or definite retaliation?
Everything is sacred.
Sorry Anonymouse...
by Midwesty on Tue Dec 01, 2009 09:28 AM PSTI am not as optimistic as you are about the attacks on NIAC. I always remember the word of wisdom, "to have respect for your enemy", because the momenet you lose that respect is the moment you underestimate them. Not a good recipe.