stunning concessions from threats such as Canada.

Nonproliferation? How Quaint! Mark Steyn

For once, the cheap comparisons with 1930s appeasement barely suffice: To be sure, in 1933, the great powers were meeting in Geneva and holding utopian arms-control talks even as Hitler was taking office in Berlin. But it’s difficult to imagine Neville Chamberlain in 1938 hosting a conference on the dangers of rearmament, and inviting America, France, Brazil, Liberia, and Thailand . . . but not even mentioning Germany.

“… a senior administration official described last week in somewhat clearer terms that there was a line Iran would not be permitted to cross.”

Beautiful in its simplicity, and used repeatedly in the 1990s in response to Saddam Hussein’s violation of the GulfWar ceasefire, the Clinton Doctrine consisted of merely drawing another when an American adversary crossed a line in the sand.

Diplomacy and economic pressure are working so well in curbing North Korea’s and Iran’s nuclear ambitions, I am inclined to join the Bushlied camp. Obviously, Hussein’s lack of a WMD arsenal had nothing to with 12 years of the constant threat of allied military sanctions.

They insist that the administration’s “top advisers” have been working on “Plan B” in response to the September 2009 revelation by the IAEA (Which concludes: Contrary to the highly politicized 2007 NIE, Iran did not suspend its nuclear weapon program in 2003) and long before Sec. Gates submitted the secret memo in January 2010.

It’s good to know that, apparently, the Obama Administration does not consider the Secretary of Defense to be one of its “top advisers.”

Has Valerie Jarrett assumed the role of Nuclear Advisor?

As Obama and Russian President Medvedev signed a new nuclear arms treaty [3] last week, Jarrett sat observing nearby. That Jarrett has once again found herself in a position of influence is not surprising. Jarrett proudly acknowledges her remarkable closeness to President Obama. “We have kind of a mind meld” is the way she put it in a New York Times magazine interview [4] last summer. “When senior staff meetings in the Oval Office break up, Valerie Jarrett often stays behind” with the President, the Times article reported. In short, Jarrett is like a member of the Obama family, but one who has seized command of a variety of policies at the White House.

Although neither elected, nor confirmed, nor even vetted, and without previous Washington experience, Jarrett has been installed as senior adviser and assistant to the president for intergovernmental and public engagement. She also was given the recently created Office of Urban Affairs, even though we have a cabinet member who is Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Now it appears she is involved in our nation’s foreign policy.

Why else would she be in Prague for the preparations and signing of the arms treaty? As Obama has said, “She is someone I trust completely. She combines the closeness of a family member with the savvy and objectivity of a professional businesswoman and public-policy expert,” the Times magazine article stated. She is trusted “to speak for me particularly when we are dealing with delicate issues.” Such as nuclear arms matters? If so, that should be cause for concern. Jarrett’s only experience in foreign affairs is the insignificant fact that she was born in Iran, where her father was a doctor working for an American aid program. She lived in London as a child before coming to the United States.

Nonetheless, Jarrett may already be exerting her influence on the president in this arena. On March 28, she appeared on ABC’s “The Week,” where she talked up the forthcoming nuclear deal between the United States and Russia. “The fact that the President and Russia are about to sign the START Treaty is a good sign that we’re making cooperation and good progress with countries such as Russia,” Jarrett insisted. Just a few weeks later, Obama has made – perhaps with Jarrett’s influence – a sharp departure [5] on nuclear policy. Under the new plan, the United States promises not to use nuclear weapons against nations that do not have them – even if they attack the United States first.

I’m glad to see you back around.

X0X0, Suzi