Author Archives: jimmy
08/27/10
Serving Israel on a Silver Platter
Part 1. Direct talks
The United States: Welcome to resumption of direct negotiations between Palestine and Israel. The goal of these talks is establishment of a Palestinian State, the borders of which, to be agreed upon during negotiations, will be established according to the pre-June 4, 1967 boundaries. The sides will have an unlimited opportunity to express their opinions and set forth their proposals during these talks, which will be completed within one year. At this point I would request Israel to make an opening statement.
Russia: Thank you very much, Mr. President. It is our honor to be participating in these discussions. We agree with most of your opening statement, with a significant addition. It should be clear that we support weapons control for all the parties involved, provided that Israel and Palestine have equal opportunity to defend themselves against any external aggression. Therefore, we expect the sides to agree to international observation and intervention at all military facilities, including the Israeli nuclear reactor in Dimona. This is an axiomatic principal which must be applied, prior to any other discussions.
The United States: Thank you Mr. Representative. Now, please, Israel.
The European Union: Clearly, one of the most important points is security. Palestinian security has been languishing for over 100 years, ever since the Zionist invasion of Palestine. Palestinian security must be ensured. The only way to guarantee their safe sanctuary is via secure borders. These borders must be properly patrolled at all times by international forces, to be armed and prepared to repel any and all aggressors. It is imperative that the Palestinians also be allowed to have a hand in guarding their lives and country, Therefore the EU will assist in arming a full-fledged Palestinian military defense force, to be called the PDF. This has already been promised to the Palestinian leadership, and as we speak, the PDF framework is being established.
The United States: Thank you, Mr. Representative. Mr. Israeli Prime Minister, please.
The United Nations: Mr. President, please note: 1) The UN, in the 1970s, passed a resolution stating that Zionism is Racism. 2) The UN, in 1947, passed resolution 181, calling for a partition of Palestine. We believe that the time has come to finally implement that resolution, which will bring about a quick solution to all the issues at hand.
The United States: Thank you, Mr. Representative.
Mr. Israeli Prime Minister, in all actuality, I believe there is nothing left to be said. There seems to be unanimous agreement around this table, and with some arm-twisting, we should be able to convince the Palestinians to accept this agreement. Of course, we expect that Israel will assist, with immediate gestures of goodwill, proving your authentic desire for the peace we are on the verge of achieving. Your quiet, relaxed form of expression is much appreciated.
Thank you all for attending. These talks are now adjourned.
Part 2: Suicide watch
Let’s stop and take a look at the map of Israel.
To our north, we must deal with Hizballah in Southern Lebanon. These terrorists are being fed weapons from Syria, Iran, and other friendly nations. According to intelligence reports, they have chemical warheads capable of reaching Tel Aviv.
A little further east we reach Syria, who also maintains an arsenal of unconventional long-range missiles.
Of course, to the north we have Iran, in the process of mixing a nuclear cocktail, aimed also at Tel Aviv.
The eastern border, the Kingdom of Jordan, seems stable. Except for the fact that the King’s enemies attempted to kill his daddy, the late Hussein, numerous times.
Egypt has maintained a cold peace with Israel since the early 1980s. However, President Mubarak is terminally ill, and the Islamic Brotherhood has its eyes on the President’s palace. Should they take over, that 30 year old peace would fizzle up in an instant.
And then, last by not least, we have Hamas sitting to our south, also with missiles capable of hitting deep into the heart of Israel.
That having been said, what happens when another Arab state is formed on our eastern border. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Abu Mazen really has repented. He no longer denies the Holocaust, he’s sorry about Kiryat Shemona and Ma’alot, and really wants to live peacefully with the Jews. Great. Except, what happens post-Abu Mazen. He’s already announced his intentions to retire. What if his successor has yet to reach the repentant level already achieved by his predecessor? What then?
Or, another possible scenario. It’s quite likely that, following a full Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, our southern neighbors, down there in Gaza, will attempt to overthrow ‘the good guys,’ in the newly created state of Palestine, leaving Israel to deal with Hamas a few kilometers from Kfar Saba and Petach Tikva. It’s a well known fact that the only reason Hamas still hasn’t succeeded in Yehuda v’Shomron as they did in Gaza is solely due to the presence of the IDF. What happens when they’re gone? Another 8,000 rockets, shot into every Israeli city on our western coast?
Another, no less important factor. From the hills of northern Samaria, there is a gorgeous view of the Mediterranean Sea, from Netanya to Ashkelon. It’s quite exciting to observe a multitude of planes taking off and landing at Ben Gurion airport. Should these hills be abandoned to our enemy, these terrorists will easily be able point a sixteen kilogram shoulder-held Stinger missile at one of our aircraft and pull the trigger, blowing up the plane and killing 300 people instantaneously. And this is not some imaginary hallucination. Israeli intelligence is working hard to find a solution to this much too realistic possibility.
And perhaps last, but not least. What about us, those of us slated for expulsion from our homes. Optimistic figures are somewhere in the vicinity of 200,000 Jews to be affected in Judea and Samaria. Would our leaders expect us to live under a ‘friendly’ Palestinian leadership? And if not, where are we supposed to go. Israel still hasn’t found homes for the 10,000 people expelled from Gush Katif and the northern Shomron five years ago. What are they going to do with 200,000 people? Where will people work? Where will kids go to school? Perhaps Israel will establish Jewish refugee camps in the Negev and Galil?
Direct talks, leading to a Palestinian state, is nothing less than suicide, serving up Israel on a silver platter.
With blessings from Hebron,
David WilderDavid Wilder Business Card
Visit Hebron
www.hebrontours.comwww.hebron.com (English)
www.hebron.org.il (Hebrew)
www.machpela.com
www.hebronfund.com
www.thewilderway.infoTel:Israel # 972-52-429-5554
US # – 1-347-725-0325
Canada 1-647-723-3789 x109
Fax: (801) 720-9291Google Chat: dwilder / Aim Chat: Beit Hadassah
Skype: Beithadassah
Twitter: DavidWilder
https://profile.to/hebron.jewish.community
Why Obama can’t help but promote an Islamic agenda
President Obama has revealed his true nature. After 20 months in the Oval Office, he still remained a largely unknown figure. A picture is coming into focus now, and it should trouble all Americans. It is widely known that Mr. Obama is a post-national progressive. Yet he is also a cultural Muslim who is promoting an anti-American, pro-Islamic agenda. This is the real meaning of his warm – and completely needless – embrace of the Ground Zero Mosque.
At an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan at the White House, Mr. Obama told Muslim-Americans that he supports the building of an Islamic community center and mosque just two blocks away from where the Twin Towers were destroyed and nearly 3,000 Americans were murdered on Sept. 11, 2001. He later tried to back away from those comments. Mr. Obama said he was defending the right of religious freedom but not the “wisdom” of erecting the mosque.
Nonetheless, Mr. Obama has been clear: In his view, the Ground Zero Mosque should be built. There was no good practical reason even to comment on the issue. He had been silent for weeks as the controversy gathered steam. The overwhelming majority of the American people oppose the mosque — especially the families of the Sept. 11 victims. Politically, it is a loser — for him and his party. Yet he could not keep his mouth shut. Why?
Answer: For Mr. Obama, defending Islam has been a key priority of his presidency. In his famous speech in Cairo, Mr. Obama apologized to the Muslim world for the alleged “sins” and “mistakes” of America — even though no country has done more to liberate Islamic peoples than the United States, including campaigns in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. His aim was to engage the Islamic world on its terms and norms rather than defend America’s values and national interests.
Mr. Obama openly bragged about his “Muslim background” and that his family had “followers of Islam.” He spoke of his youth in Indonesia, his study of the Koran and the call to Islamic prayer. In short, he discovered his inner Muslim in an attempt to ingratiate himself with the Arab street. The message was: I understand you, and I will usher in a new era of Islamic-American relations.
This Mr. Obama has done with a vengeance. He is the most Muslim-friendly president in the nation’s history. He wants the detention center at Guantanamo Bay closed. He demands that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, be tried in civilian court — with the full legal and constitutional protections given to U.S. citizens — several blocks from the World Trade Center site. He has ordered that the words “Muslim extremist,” “Islamic terrorist” and “jihad” be cleansed from national security documents. He is openly anti-Israel. And he is prematurely withdrawing combat troops from Iraq, threatening to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Israeli military and intelligence officials concede that the administration — through diplomatic back channels — has told Jerusalem that Washington will not bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Jews are on their own in confronting the Holocaust-denying dictator President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mr. Obama’s tepid sanctions have failed to curb Iran’s relentless march toward acquiring the nuclear bomb. This weekend, the Iranian nuclear power plant at Bushehr will begin fueling with enriched uranium. Thus, theocratic Iran is on the cusp of becoming a nuclear power. It is only a matter of time before radical Islam also has the bomb.
Mr. Obama has done everything possible to appease the Muslim world — including, now, backing the Ground Zero Mosque. The debate about the mosque has little to do with religious freedom or tolerance. There are more than 1,200 mosques in America and dozens of them in New York City. The debate is about the meaning and memory of the Sept. 11 attacks. Those on the left — led by Mr. Obama — have been determined to alter the nature of that event. For them, it was simply a criminal act by several deranged individuals linked to a little tiny group called al Qaeda.
Instead, the Sept. 11 attacks were acts of war in which 19 Muslim hijackers in the name of radical Islam brought global jihad here on American soil. This is why the Ground Zero Mosque is so offensive: It will be a symbol of radical Islam’s conquest of America. If Islamists can erect a monument of victory that will permanently loom over our most hallowed ground, what can’t they do? It will signify the surrender of liberal multiculturalism to the forces of political Islam. That is why so many Americans are passionately opposed to the mosque. They realize what is at stake.
This, however, is too much for some politically correct conservatives to swallow. Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online, taking a break from writing on Hollywood, complained in a blog posting that one of my recent columns making this very point struck him as “nonsense.”
For Mr. Goldberg, the mosque issue is not “as big a deal as some are making it.” Yes, it’s an “offensive and ill-advised mistake that might make things harder in a long, complicated struggle,” but really all of this heat and friction could have been avoided with a few phone calls by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. My advice to Mr. Goldberg: Stick to writing about Michael Douglas and Paris Hilton.
A more probing analysis reveals the dangers we are courting. It is remarkable that our liberal ruling elites refuse to demand an investigation into Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric spearheading the Cordoba House initiative, or his dubious and murky sources of funding. Even in Obama nation, $100 million for a mosque is not chump change. Mr. Rauf is not a moderate. He is not some Muslim Gandhi, preaching the virtues of multireligious tolerance. Rather, he demands that America adopt Shariah law. He has said that U.S. policies were an “accessory” to the Sept. 11 attacks — in other words, we brought it upon ourselves. He openly defends Hamas. Now, he is on a State Department-sponsored trip across the Middle East, likely raising money for the mosque from rich Persian Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Obama has much to say when it comes to defending the rights of Muslims in America — even if this means supporting a project that deeply offends the values of Americans, disgraces the honor and memory of those who died on Sept. 11 and bolsters a pro-Shariah militant imam. But he is strangely silent about the rampant persecution of Christians and Jews in Muslim-majority nations — especially Saudi Arabia, which likely will provide the bulk of the financing for the Ground Zero Mosque, where churches and synagogues are banned.
Across Europe and Canada, a stealth jihad is taking place. Radical Muslim groups have learned to use the West’s freedoms and secular tolerance to advance their Islamist agenda. Shariah law tribunals now exist in Canada, Britain, Germany and the Netherlands. Slowly but surely, political Islam is establishing itself as a potent force across the West. In the vacuum of progressive multiculturalism — with its moral relativism, radical secularism, hatred for the Judeo-Christian heritage and loathing of Western civilization — Islamism is filling the void.
The great irony is that the First Amendment was aimed at preventing the state establishment of religion. The Saudis have turned it upon its head: Riyadh, by financing mosques like the one at Ground Zero, is erecting radical Muslim sects here on U.S. soil that ultimately may threaten our most cherished freedoms. For the Saudi regime, there is no separation of mosque and state. And it is gradually imposing its theocratic will — its Islamist agenda based on Shariah law — upon the West. In light of this, Mr. Obama is a self-conscious radical, who is now putting the interests of Islam ahead of his own country. The debate over the Ground Zero Mosque has unmasked him as a president who favors Muslim interests over those of the American people.
08/26/10
Obama: Muslim or Christian? Most Americans, if not the media, want to know
When questions came up during the campaign about Barack Obama’s religious affiliation, his aides flatly asserted that he was a “practicing Christian” and was “baptized” in the Trinity United Church of Christ. However, some of the same questions have come up again in the wake of opinion polls finding people confused about Obama’s religious identity. Our media cannot understand the confusion.
For most in the media, it is cut-and-dried: Obama is a Christian. People who don’t believe it are dumb or misled.
But calling yourself something is not the same thing as proving it is the case. This claim deserves to be scrutinized, even when it involves a sensitive and personal matter such as religious belief.
Unfortunately for Obama and his backers, the same Obama campaign apparatus which claimed that he is a baptized Christian asserted that the mysterious “Frank” in Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father, was just a black civil rights
activist. It turned out that “Frank” was Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party member under surveillance by the FBI who served as a mentor for a young Obama in Hawaii. The 600-page FBI file on Davis even suggests he was an espionage agent on behalf of the Soviet Union.Dupes, a forthcoming book by Professor Paul Kengor, promises to take another close look at Obama’s Frank Marshall Davis connection.
So what the Obama presidential campaign says about Obama’s religious affiliation is not something to be taken at face value. They have a vested interest in making Obama look more acceptable to the American people.
As President, he has gone to church only a few times, which undermines the claim that he is a practicing Christian. People see him playing golf on Sunday; they don’t see him going to church.
In fact, however, being a Christian is not just a function of attending church services. Rather, it is related to being baptized. Did this critical development occur in Obama’s life?
In this context, it is important to take a look at what Obama’s own books, Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope, say about the President’s religion, or lack thereof.
He acknowledges in Dreams that his grandfather was a Muslim (page 104) and that he spent two years in a Muslim school in Indonesia studying the Koran (page 154). In The Audacity of Hope, he says (page 204) that “my father had been raised a Muslim” but that by the time he met his mother, his father was a “confirmed atheist.”
His stepfather was not particularly religious and his mother professed “secularism,” Obama wrote (pages 204-205), but as a child he went to a “predominantly Muslim school,” after being first sent to a Catholic school. His mother, he said, was concerned about him learning math, not religion.
Obama’s reference to being baptized is found in his second book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006, not in Dreams, published in 1995. Obama wrote on page 208, “I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized.”
Traditionally, Christianity teaches that baptism is a sacrament involving the use of water to signify acceptance of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Since Obama was not born and baptized a Christian, in order to become a Christian he had to enter into the sacrament of baptism some time later in life.
In this regard, Obama does not indicate anywhere in his books that he came into contact with what Christians regard as the “living water.” Instead, he says that, in his baptism, he made “a choice,” knelt beneath a cross, and “felt God’s spirit beckoning.” He said, “I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.”
This sounds like a powerful religious experience but it is not what Christians regard as baptism.
In Dreams from My Father, Obama discusses his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, noting that he had been “dabbling with liquor, Islam, and black nationalism in the sixties” but that “the call of faith had apparently remained” and that he went on to study religion, including “the black liberation theologians.” For his part, Obama visited Wright to discuss membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ as an extension of his community organizing activities and the hope that he could get “involvement” in this effort from churches like Wright’s.
As Obama contacted the churches and their ministers, he reveals that they thought he was a Muslim (page 279) or, he jokes, an Irishman, “O’Bama.”
Obama talks about hearing a Wright sermon, “The Audacity of Hope,” which inspired the title of his second book. However, there is no mention of any baptism in this—his first—book. The reference to being baptized came in the second book, as Obama was preparing to launch his presidential campaign. The timing is significant.
These are the facts as Obama himself reported them. So how have the media handled them? Needless to say, there has been no serious investigation into whether the claims are true and what they mean.
“Obama’s religious biography is unconventional and politically problematic,” Newsweek’s Lisa Miller reported. “Born to a Christian-turned-secular mother and a Muslim-turned-atheist African father, Obama grew up living all across the world with plenty of spiritual influences, but without any particular religion. He is now a Christian, having been baptized in the early 1990s at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.”
The phrase, “having been baptized,” is apparently based on Obama’s claim about being baptized. Our major media haven’t questioned the claim.
Miller went on to say, “His baptism presents its own problems. The senior pastor at Trinity at the time of Obama’s baptism was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., the preacher who was seen damning America on cable TV…”
Notice the formulation, “at the time of Obama’s baptism.” She carefully does not say that Wright performed the baptism. In fact, there’s no evidence it was a baptism in the traditional sense that it was performed by Wright or anybody else. It looks like Obama walked down the aisle and made a profession of faith. That is not a Christian baptism.
The Canada Free Press published a very interesting article in February by Madeline Brooks, who asked, “Where is the baptism certificate? We do not see one because there was no baptism. That central part of Christianity was not required at Obama’s former church, the Trinity United Church of Christ, during the years Obama attended…”
She cites the research of a pastor, Usama Dakdok, who had called Obama’s church to ask about membership:
“Do I have to be baptized to join the church?” asked Pastor Dakdok. “No, you don’t,” was the answer. “You can be a member without being baptized.”
“And what exactly is required to become a member?” The answer: “You attend two Sunday school classes in a row about membership, and then you walk the aisle.”
Walk down the aisle? That sounds exactly what Obama described in his book. This is how one becomes a member. But it is not a baptism into Christianity.
“I called the Trinity United Church of Christ and they confirmed that baptism is merely optional for members,” Brooks added.
Pastor Dakdok reports that he also asked a spokesperson for Trinity, the membership director:
If I am a Muslim man, and I believe in the prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, but I also believe in the prophet Jesus, do I have to give up my Islamic faith to join your church?”
The answer was, “Absolutely not! We have so many members of our church who are Muslims.”
Dakdok asked the Trinity spokesperson, “Is that how Senator Barack Obama became a member?” The membership director of the church refused to answer.
Madeline Brooks calls this “Muslim Christianity,” which she says is theologically impossible.
In fact, the contradictions don’t end there. Obama’s pastor for 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, could be described as a “Marxist Christian,” which is also theoretically impossible, since Marxism is materialistic and atheistic. Yet Wright gave a speech in which he praised Marxism and faulted the media for claiming that communism and Christianity were somehow opposed to one another.
So the question regarding Obama is not just whether he is a Muslim but a Marxist, based not only on his attendance at Jeremiah Wright’s unusual church but the influence exercised over him during his growing-up years by Communist Frank Marshall Davis.
Dakdok, who was brought up in Egypt, a Muslim country, is adamant that Obama is a Muslim, based on the fact that his birth father was a Muslim and that there is no evidence that Obama ever specifically rejected Islam. Christian radio host Brannon Howse interviewed Dakdok, at the urging of conservative columnist David Limbaugh, brother of the national talk show host, Rush Limbaugh. Dakdok was also interviewed recently on Stacy Harp’s Christian radio show. He speaks around the country in front of Christian audiences.
While Obama may have been a Muslim by birth, that doesn’t mean that he accepts the Muslim faith or philosophy. Instead, Islam may be seen as just another religion/ideology that can be used for his own political purposes.
The case for Obama being a Marxist is far more convincing. He was exposed to Marxist ideology in church under Wright, as well as from Frank Marshall Davis.
The American people now seem to get it, even though the truth about Obama’s relationship with Davis has never been thoroughly explored by the major media. A poll from the Democracy Corps, a Democratic Party firm, found that 55 percent said that Obama could accurately be described as a socialist.
This is far more than the number of people who see him as a Muslim.
If and when the media start examining the Frank Marshall Davis connection, the “socialist” label could take on more sinister connotations.
This is why, of course, they will avoid it.
Iran Key to Victory in Iraq
America’s last combat brigade departed Iraq on August 18 leaving behind 50,000 troops to “advise and assist” Baghdad’s security forces. This was the first step to fulfilling President Obama’s campaign promise “to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end.” But the hard part lays ahead—taming Iran’s interference and withdrawing American forces without Iraq returning to sectarian chaos.
A “responsible end” to the Iraq war was defined by former President Bush as the creation of a thriving, peaceful, democratic Iraq that deals “the terrorists a crippling blow and establishes a beacon of liberty in the Middle East.” Right now Iraq has no functioning government, its security forces are unprepared to defend the country, and it is uncertain Baghdad will ever be “a beacon of liberty.”
In spite of these uncertainties Obama has already rhetorically washed his hands of Iraq. “The future of Iraq belongs to the Iraqis,” Obama said. But reality dictates that both Baghdad’s future and by association America’s national interests in the Middle East depend on Iran’s cooperation.
Consider the obstacles opposing a “responsible end” to our role in Iraq, Tehran’s geopolitical intentions for Iraq, and Obama’s strategic alternatives upon which to base America’s exit from Iraq while protecting our national interests.
America has paid a high price in Iraq. To date 4,415 Americans have been killed and almost a trillion dollars spent to fight and rebuild that country. Yet Iraq remains a very troubled country plagued by numerous obstacles to a stable future.
Its economy is slavishly tethered to underdeveloped oil resources, which provide 95% of government revenues and 60% of all economic output. Even though it has massive oil reserves Iraq suffers from crippling 17 % unemployment, spotty electricity, an antiquated manufacturing sector and massive corruption. The war drained huge numbers of the well-educated professionals which are critical to any economy.
Iraq is in serious political trouble. On March 7, Iraq hosted its fourth democratic national election but today it remains without a functioning government. The lack of a stable, functioning government created widespread insecurity which is contributing to new violence.
The political stalemate encourages the re-emergence of sectarian—mostly Sunni and Shia—differences which were suppressed over the past three years. But America’s partial withdrawal compounded by the lack of a functioning government rekindled those deeply held sectarian fears. That fear has contributed to the return of extremists like Ismail al-Lami, who the U.S. military has targeted since 2004, when he served in Muqtada al Sadr’s Shiite Mehdi Army.
Sunnis, a religious minority once favored by Saddam Hussein, fear America’s withdrawal will leave them at the mercy of a Shia government backed by Iran. Already al Qaeda is reportedly returning to Iraq and the Islamic State of Iraq claimed credit for a suicide attack last week.
The increase in violence associated with the uncertainly explains why a stable, non-sectarian government with a loyal and capable security force is necessary before the U.S. eventually withdraws.Iraq’s security forces are not up to the task. Hamid Fadhel, a political science professor at Baghdad University labels America’s combat troop withdrawal “irresponsible.” He continued, “There are dangers to do with security of the country, concerns and fears for Iraq’s external security, because of the lack of military that is able to protect the country.”
Tehran’s geopolitical intentions for Iraq are clear as well. It does not want a strong Iraq because of past wars. Tehran lost more than one million personnel in the 1980s Iran-Iraq war and will do whatever necessary to keep Baghdad from posing a similar threat again.
But Iraqi Sunnis, who fueled the recent insurgency, expect Tehran to wrestle back control over Baghdad once all Americans exit. Until that time, Tehran will work with its Shia proxies and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps to keep Iraq unstable and therefore weak, which presents no threat to Tehran.
Tehran’s geopolitical aim extends beyond Iraq. It is working against the U.S. in Afghanistan, supports its proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon to undermine U.S. interests, and it continues its secretive nuclear weapons program threatening the entire region. These activities and its frequent military exercises near the strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which 40% of the world’s oil passes have created a very tense situation.
Iraq’s fragile state and Iran’s hegemonic activities threaten America’s interests in Baghdad and the region. President Obama has four bad alternatives upon which to base his “responsible end” in Iraq.
First, the U.S. with a coalition of partners could attack Iran to remove the regime, keep it from interfering in Iraq and Afghanistan, and deny it nuclear weapons. That’s highly unlikely and not just because the U.S. is already stretched thin by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. A ground assault on Iran, a country with 70 million people, would likely lead to an extended occupation by a force much larger than the 192,000 man coalition used to take Iraq. And air power alone can’t change the regime or its policies. Besides no one in Washington has the stomach for another war.
Second, Obama’s rhetoric indicates he might withdraw all our troops from Iraq whether Baghdad is ready or not. But that option abandons both Iraq and the Persian Gulf countries to Iran and would protect American interests only if Baghdad is stable and able to defend itself. The consequences of total withdrawal before Iraq is ready could be catastrophic because Iraq would likely become Tehran’s puppet and Sunni blood would flow leading to a civil war.
Third, the U.S. could remain in Iraq on a semi-permanent basis much as it has in Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait. Top Iraqi and U.S. military leaders acknowledge Iraq may need help well beyond 2011 and Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledges the discussion but said the “initiative will have to come from the Iraqis.” The intent of a semi-permanent presence would be to act as a trip wire much like U.S. forces in Europe during the Cold War or South Korea does today against a potential North Korean invasion. But Iran would reject any permanent U.S. presence in Iraq and demonstrate its displeasure by creating instability.
Finally, the U.S. could negotiate with Iran. Two weeks ago retired Gen. Jim Jones, Obama’s national security advisor, said the U.S. is considering negotiations with Iran. But to draw Tehran to the table the U.S. must be willing to give-up something desirable to Iran. Right now Iran appears to have all the leverage—threats to continue disrupting U.S. operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, endanger free passage through the strategic Strait of Hormuz, and an unchecked, advancing atomic weapons program. The only bargaining chips Obama might use are lifting economic sanctions which are having some effect, compromising security guarantees with Gulf allies, and ratcheting down our hostility to Tehran’s atomic programs. But are these really worth negotiating away in order to win a peaceful Iraq?
President Obama has nothing but bad options to deliver on his promise to bring “the war in Iraq to a responsible end.” His best option appears to be a semi-permanent presence in Iraq—well past the December 2011 deadline—until Baghdad has a stable government capable of securing itself internally and from Tehran’s interference. That serves the region’s and America’s best interests.
08/25/10
US nuclear expert: Iran’s nuclear clock ticking
The Iranian nuclear clock is not slowing down, claims Prof. Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, an organization that tracks the proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the world.
Just days after the Obama administration leaked to the New York Times about delays and technical problems plaguing Iran’s nuclear program, Prof. Milhollin claims that Iran is continuing its nuclear developments on schedule.
In an article in The Atlantic, Milhollin warns that the claims being made by the administration that Iran’s capabilities have been dimished thus creating more time to convince the regime to change its path are false.
“Sad to say, the assumption is false. The clock is still ticking, vigorously,” writes Milhollin. “By the beginning of this year, Iran had produced enough low-enriched uranium to fuel two nuclear weapons if the uranium were further enriched to weapon-grade. By now, Iran has added almost enough of this low-enriched uranium to fuel a third weapon, and by the middle of next year (at the current production rate), it will probably produce enough to fuel a fourth.”
Milhollin also warns that Iran started enriching uranium to a higher grade during February of this year, reaching 90% of the required enrichment to produce a nuclear weapon.
“All this is happening at a time when Iran is successfully fielding ballistic missiles that can carry a nuclear payload far enough to reach Israel,” Milhollin writes.
Additional secret facilities?
While the Obama administration is claiming that it will take Iran another year to obtain weapons-grade uranium, Milhollin reminds readers that “the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), while acknowledging that it could, indeed, take this long, says also that it could take as little as three months.”
According to him, there are additional unknowns in the equation, such as the existence of additional secret nuclear facilities such as the one recently discovered at Qom. If such facilities do exist, he states, they render the administration’s calculations meaningless.
Milhollin charges, “But why quibble about how long the final phase of bomb making might take? Instead, we should keep our eyes on the big fact here, which is that Iran is fast approaching the status of a ‘virtual’ nuclear weapon state – one with the ability to kick out UN inspectors and build a handful of nuclear warheads.”
He concludes, “This is not an argument for bombing Iran, by Israel or anyone else. But it is a warning — a warning that we must confront the growth of Iran’s nuclear capability, and not be lulled into imagining that it’s not real.”
Opinion: Is Time a Muslim Magazine?
I did not think that the pro-Muslim/pro-Islamist and anti-Western propaganda could get any worse—and yet it just has.
TIME magazine has an August 30 cover story titled “Is America Islamophobic?” Within, the article is titled: “Islam in America: It’s part of the fabric of life, but protests reveal a growing hostility to the religion of Muslims.”
President Obama’s rather strange assertions that “seven million” Muslims live in America (only 2.5-3 million actually do), and that “Islam has always played a role in America,” actually contradict the point of this piece, but no matter.
One might wonder why any “hostility” to a productive, historically significant Muslim presence in America exists. TIME magazine does not tell us.
The article portrays Muslims as innocent victims and American non-Muslims as prejudiced racists who, historically, once banned Catholicism, tried to limit immigration, burned African-American churches, passed anti-Chinese legislation, criminalized certain Native-American rituals (polygamy, rejection of modern medicine), spawned the Ku Klux Klan, failed to elect a Catholic President until 1960, allowed Father Coughlin’s anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi rants to appear over the airwaves, and interned 120,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans during World War Two. This is all contained in TIME’s “Brief History of Intolerance in America.”
This article could easily appear in an Egyptian or Syrian magazine; however it would be Israel that would be blamed for various alleged atrocities, and Palestinians, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, even al-Qaeda, who would be seen as the innocent victims.
TIME magazine does not balance out their history of American intolerance with a history of American tolerance, which included separating the state from religion, reforming religions, instituting a tradition of free speech, fighting a bloody Civil War in order to free the slaves, giving women the vote and educational opportunities, freeing Europe from Nazi fascist rule and waging a Cold war against Soviet totalitarianism.
Also missing in the TIME magazine article is the fact that Muslim leaders, in the name of Islam, have behaved very badly and for a very long time. Missing is an equal history of Muslim countries which have practiced colonialism, imperialism, forced conversions, slavery (which is still practiced), and a far more barbaric mistreatment of non-Muslims infidels.
Muslim leaders, in the name of Islam, killed and forcibly converted Hindus in India for 800 years—and are still persecuting them; they have also destroyed the Christian Church in the Middle East and Central Asia—it is no more; in its place are only mosques and minarets where once only churches stood. Muslims vanquished Zorastrianism and Buddhism, and both exiled and genocidally exterminated Jews, Armenians, and Greeks. According to Israeli historian, Benny Morris, the Arab 1948 war against Israel must now also be understood as a religious holy war, a jihad, one that is still ongoing (“The 1948 War Was an Islamic Holy War,” Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2010).
TIME magazine fails to note all this—and gives little credence to more recent historical events.
Recently, Muslims, in the name of Islam, have hijacked planes, blown themselves and other people up, flown planes into tall buildings, plotted bomb attacks in New York City’s Times Square and over Detroit, shot American soldiers down on a military base in Texas, plotted to do so on military bases in New York and New Jersey. In addition, mosques everywhere, even in the West, have been preaching death to the Jews, death to Zionists, infidels, and Jihad Now! These mosques and their imams or mullahs have been funded by Arab and Muslim pro-jihad financiers.
After years of denial, indifference, and anti-racist, multi-culturally relativist political correctness, Europeans and Americans are only now just waking up to what Israel has been living with for 63 years. Too little, too late, they are now trying to halt some of the Islamist practices which are crimes and are best described as Islamic gender and religious Apartheid.
When westerners protest Islamic Apartheid, they are demonized as “Islamophobes” and “racists.” This means that any resistance to aggressive Islamification is shamed and slandered. If that doesn’t work, physical intimidation and lawsuits (“lawfare”) follow.
Incredibly, the Western media and political establishment has taken the Islamist side. They confuse “Islamism” or “radical Islam” with the majority of silent Muslims who are too afraid to take on the Islamists, (or who agree with them), and with the small but precious number of Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents, feminists, secularists, and moderates who do stand up to the Islamists but who are not consulted by western leaders or quoted in the Western media.
TIME magazine does not quote Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Seyran Ates, Zeyno Baran, M. Zuhdi Jasser, Magdi Allam, Bassam Tibi, Khaled Abu Toameh, who are Muslims and ex-Muslims who have written major works against Islamism, and who have argued for human rights within Islam, including the right to leave Islam without risking death.
TIME magazine’s approach has also been adopted by the mainstream media in how they cover the controversy over the controversial mosque near Ground Zero. Those who oppose it are being called “bigots,” “racists,” and madmen, at least in the mainstream media. Those who defend it are seen as enlightened, tolerant “victims” whose religious freedom has been impinged. Just yesterday, Daisy Khan, Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf’s wife, claimed that the attacks have gone far beyond “Islamophobia” and are now in the realm of “discrimination against Jews.”
Next thing I expect to hear is that the “Zionists” are behind the discrimination against the “Jewish” Muslims.
Folks: Welcome to the Middle East in New York City. Now, we are really all Israelis.
