By: – Col. Bob Maginnis

President Obama’s vision of “a world without nuclear weapons” may delight the ears of Nobel Peace Prize judges, but harsh realities flush that fairy tale. Today, our greatest risk of nuclear attack is from rogue states and terrorists. That means Obama needs a strategy that keeps the world’s nastiest weapons out of murderous hands — and that effort requires Russian cooperation.

Obama needs the Russians to cut and then protect their bulging nuclear arsenal from diversion and to cooperate against rogues like Iran. That challenge came to a head last week, and likely Obama will cave to Russian demands to advance his fairy tale nuclear agenda.

Last Wednesday Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rushed to Moscow to try to push nuclear arms control talks across the finish line. The renewed Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) talks, which began last summer, became bogged down by Russian insistence that any new deal to cut our mutual atomic arsenals must be tethered to America’s proposed European-based anti-ballistic missile defense (ABM) system.

The U.S. argues the ABM system is intended to defeat Iranian missiles and not diminish Russia’s ballistic missile threat. But Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin insists our ABM endangers the Cold War-era balance of power with Russia.

No telling what Clinton offered the Russians to get past this obstacle — perhaps scrubbing our ABM system — but what’s clear is Obama desperately wants these talks to quickly end successfully so to boost his credibility before he hosts a nuclear security summit in Washington next month.

Obama hopes to use that summit, which will include more than 40 heads of state and a non-proliferation conference at the United Nations in May, to prevent nuclear terrorism and secure all vulnerable nuclear materials in four years. This pledge — a cornerstone of his nuclear security policy — is intended to stop terrorists “determined to buy, build, or steal” a nuclear weapon. That’s a laudable pledge as long as the road to that goal can be safely traveled, but that’s the rub.

Obama’s first nuclear security policy test is the START agreement with the Russians. That agreement promises at least a 25 percent reduction in atomic weapons, from 2,200 strategic warheads which the U.S. now deploys down to between 1,500 and 1,675 warheads. It also radically cuts 1,188 to no more than 800 weapon platforms – ground-based missiles, missiles launched from submarines and bombers – used to deploy those warheads.

These cuts suit Obama’s determination to begin the process that eventually eliminates all our atomic warheads. He has already imposed a moratorium on weapons modernization but promises to update our weapons laboratories to assure what’s left of the arsenal is reliable. The Russians will continue to modernize their nuclear arsenal, however.

Obama is also pushing for passage of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) which was defeated during the Clinton administration. CTBT would be another nail in our nuclear arsenal’s coffin because testing atomic weapons is critical to making them reliable, which the U.S. has done thousands of times.

Not only does Obama intend to cut and stop modernizing our warhead arsenal he also intends to wean our military from atomic weapons. He plans to create conventional Global Strike Weapons that achieve the effects of nuclear weapons, without turning a conventional war into a nuclear one.

Perhaps the most important but still secret part of the administration’s nuclear weapons policy is its purpose. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) called on Obama to adopt language saying the “sole” or “only” purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is deterrence. Reportedly Obama’s security advisers want him to retain more ambiguous wording to keep our potential enemies guessing under what circumstances Obama would use the arsenal.

Consider how risky Obama’s START negotiations are turning out.

First, reducing our weapon arsenal and their delivery platforms is a balancing act. The U.S. secures its global interests via mostly conventional means — aircraft carriers, ground troops — but backs them up with nuclear arms. But the Russians are doing just the opposite because of budget constraints.

Michele Flournoy, Obama’s undersecretary for defense policy, said Russia is increasing its reliance on nuclear weapons which “…we find very troubling.” Moscow can’t afford a robust conventional force to secure its strategic interests so it is relying on nuclear weapons, which is at odds with Obama’s arms control agenda of declining reliance on atomic weapons to avoid nuclear war.

But by agreeing with the Russians to cut our nuclear arsenal and their delivery platforms we bolster their leverage. Equality in atomic systems is a significant gain for the financially strapped country especially now that Moscow declared it will rely on atomic weapons for most strategic security missions.

Second, it’s smart for the Russians to link our ABM system to the START agreement because it provides Moscow more leverage throughout its sphere of influence while undermining our defenses.

Last September, Obama tried to accommodate Russian objections to our planned ABM system by scrapping the ground-based system in Poland and the Czech Republic. He excused that decision by claiming that changing Iranian capacities required smaller ship-based interceptors rather than land-based mid-course interceptors. But that decision appears to have been a quid pro quo to gain access to Afghanistan via Russia. A third of American supplies now reach Afghanistan via Russia.

Obama’s replacement ABM system, the Phased Adaptive Approach, is intended to counter Iran’s existing short- and medium-range missiles. The U.S. plans to deploy 24 SM-3 theater-range missile interceptors in Romania by 2015 and in Poland in 2018.

Predictably, Putin claims the replacement ABM system also endangers the “Cold War-era balance of power” by diminishing the effectiveness of Russia’s arsenal. He threatens to counter our ABM by developing new offensive atomic weapons and insists as part of the START agreement the U.S. must provide Russia with data on our ABM missiles.

But providing Russia our ABM data compromises the system while giving Moscow an edge. The Kremlin improves on that edge with its new offensive atomic weapons while America scrubs any plans to modernize its arsenal.

Third, shrinking our atomic arsenal has a potentially negative effect for allies. Pentagon officials worry that allies that depend on our atomic umbrella could decide to develop their own nuclear weapons if they thought U.S. protection wasn’t assured.

Japanese officials, for example, like the deterrent effect provided by U.S. nuclear-armed submarines in the Pacific against a growing Chinese navy. Other allies like those in the Persian Gulf and Eastern Europe are skeptical about the cuts as well.

Finally, Obama’s nuclear program will empower rogues, terrorists and certain credible nation states like China. They rightly see the U.S. backing down from a robust nuclear program and a credible threat policy. That has kept those with nuclear lusts somewhat contained but Obama’s reliance on diplomacy and sanctions has been interpreted as a weakness.

President Obama’s dream of a “world without nuclear weapons” is unrealistic and costly. He’s right to take steps to deny those weapons to rogues and terrorists but his overall nuclear security agenda is a dangerous fairy tale that endangers our security.

* Netanyahu urged to take tough stance during US visit Minister Shalom tells Likud convention PM’s trip to Washington crucial because ‘US is our greatest ally,’ but adds that ruling party ‘waved the flag of settlement, in case anyone has forgotten.’

* Khamenei cold to Obama overture Iran’s supreme leader accuses US of plotting to overthrow clerical regime.

* Academic Paper in China Sets Off Alarms in U.S. It came as a surprise this month to Wang Jianwei, a graduate engineering student in Liaoning, China, that he had been described as a potential cyberwarrior before the United States Congress.

* Obama Punished Israel by Diverting Anti-Iran Bunker Bombs Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s visit to the United States this week will include a demand that U.S. President Barack Obama release previously-promised bunker-busting bombs.

* Greek leader warns Berlin that EU at risk if no aid Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou implicitly criticised Germany on Saturday for opposing efforts to help his country out of its fiscal crisis, warning they risked destabilising the EU.

* EU capitals defend Ashton’s powers in diplomatic corps EU capitals are calling for more money and clearer powers for the head of the bloc’s diplomatic corps, as foreign ministers meet in Brussels on Monday (22 March) to review plans for the new institution.

* Analysis: Is there a shift in US military thinking? Defense officials worried that Petraeus’s comments are harbinger of weakened ties

* Haaretz fiddled with Obama poll Pollster says paper used figures misleadingly to make Obama look good.

* Iraq election commission rejects calls for vote recount Iraq’s election commission has rejected calls from the president and prime minister for a recount of votes cast in the general election on 7 March.

* State: Passover Sacrifice Would Provoke Muslims State attorneys asked for the Supreme Court to forbid Jews to bring sacrifices on the Temple Mount.

 By Abe Selig and Hilary Leila Krieger – The Jerusalem Post

Hundreds gather for rededication of J’lem synagogue after nearly 62-year hiatus.

After a nearly 62-year hiatus, the renowned Hurva synagogue inside the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City has been rebuilt and is again an operational house of prayer.

Hundreds of people, braving the wind and an unexpected Jerusalem chill, crowded into a courtyard opposite the outer walls of the synagogue on Monday night to take part in an official rededication ceremony for the newly-rebuilt shul – which stands in the exact spot it did before its destruction at the hands of the Jordanian Arab Legion during the War of Independence in 1948.

Meanwhile on Monday, the US State Department criticized Palestinians for stoking tensions at the rededication of the historic synagogue.

“We are deeply disturbed by statements made by several Palestinian officials mischaracterizing the event in question, which can only serve to heighten the tensions we see. And we call upon Palestinian officials to put an end to such incitement,” said US State Department spokesman PJ Crowley. “We are urging all parties to act responsibly and do whatever is necessary to remain calm.”

He added that the US was “not at all” objecting to the rededication itself.

While the ceremony was a great source of joy – both for those inside the ceremony area and for the scores of onlookers who crowded around the cordoned-off area to try and get a glimpse of the goings-on – the Hurva’s rededication has also seen a rise in tensions among Palestinians in the Old City and in east Jerusalem.

Rumors about the synagogue, along with the perceived implications its reconstruction holds for the Temple Mount, have spurred numerous calls from Palestinian leaders to defend Al-Aksa mosque from “Israeli attempts” to destroy it and begin building the Third Temple.

Based on those calls and additional intelligence information obtained by Jerusalem Police, more than 3,000 security forces have been deployed throughout the area since Friday. Additionally, Muslim men under the age of 50 have been prevented from entering the Temple Mount for prayers.

However, speaking inside the Hurva before the ceremony, Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger attempted to calm these tensions with a message of peace to the Muslim world.

“Pay no attention to malicious slander,” Metzger said. “All we are doing is resurrecting the Hurva, which was destroyed more than 60 years ago. We have no intention of rebuilding the temple, not this week – unless Almighty God sends it to us from the heavens.”

Metzger added, “All the rumors that suggest we will later march on the Temple Mount are just that – rumors; a media spin by anti-Semites who wish us harm.”

Still, the overall tone of the speakers during the ceremony was one of accomplishment and pride at the synagogue’s rebirth.

After a musical rendition of the “shehiyanu” blessing – recited in instances of renewal – by members of the IDF choir, Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat addressed the crowd, saying that the destruction of a Jewish holy site by foreign powers in the heart of the Jewish Quarter was something “we will never again allow to happen.”

While Barkat also sounded a conciliatory tone toward the city’s Muslim residents, he added that “only we, the sovereign power in Jerusalem, know how to guard the city’s holy sites for all three major religions.”

Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin, who spoke after Barkat, echoed many of the mayor’s comments, though not before reading words composed by his mother’s grandfather describing the Hurva before its destruction in 1948.

“From the hills surrounding Jerusalem, [the Hurva] rises up,” Rivlin said, visibly moved by the occasion. “And as it rises, it is reminiscent of a moon among the stars in the sky.”

Rivlin went on to speak of the Hurva’s history, beginning with its first incarnation in 1701, when it was constructed by disciples of Judah Hahasid. Its first destruction came some 20 years later, when those same disciples lacked the funds to repay local creditors, who in return burned the Hurva to the ground.

It was nearly 150 years before the Hurva stood again, but in 1864, after a massive construction project was approved by the Ottoman Turks and funds were procured from Jewish communities the world over, a neo-Byzantine Hurva was soon towering over the rest of the Jewish Quarter.

However, that Hurva, which hosted the likes of Theodor Herzl and Ze’ev Jabotinsky before the creation of the state, also met with ruin. The Jordanian army took Jerusalem’s Old City in May of 1948, loaded the building with explosives and set off a blast whose smoke cloud could be seen miles away.

However, as Rivlin spoke to the crowd on Monday night, he vowed that such acts would never again be seen – not in Jerusalem, nor in any other part of the Jewish state.

“Here, we will continue to live, and we will continue to build,” Rivlin said, his voice trembling with emotion. “Because no power in the world can distance us from our land.”

By: – Col. Bob Maginnis

Most Americans want our investment of blood and treasure in Iraq not to have been in vain. Even though Iraq’s progress from dictatorship to democracy appears a success the March 7 election makes it clear that it’s not the time to declare that democracy will be firmly implanted.

Before a brighter future can begin, Baghdad must form a new government. That process promises to be messy, like the political campaign just completed, but then, just maybe, our investment will pay-off in geopolitical dividends.

Last week’s balloting was the most competitive democratic contest for power ever held in the Middle East and Americans should be proud. More than half of the nearly 19 million eligible voters turned out to cast their ballots, choosing from more than 6,200 candidates organized in 86 political groups to gain seats in the 325-member assembly.

The last time that country had a national vote the Sunni Arab population boycotted the elections. There was no boycott this election, and across the landscape, interest in the elections was intense with a higher voter turnout than any recent U.S. national election.

Now we wait for the election outcome expected later this week, and preliminary results are not surprising. They indicate a close race among the mainly Shiite coalition of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a second Shiite group, the Iraqi National Alliance, and Iraqiya, a nationalist and secular ticket that received heavy support in Sunni areas.

The closeness of the vote will complicate the formation of a government which will require two or three of the leading blocs to join together. So far, it looks as though al-Maliki and Iraqiya nationalist leader Ayad Allawi, who briefly served as prime minister in 2004-2005, have the best chances of leading the new government.

A government headed by either al-Maliki or Allawi would be good news for America, because both are proven allies. Al-Maliki signed a strategic framework with the Bush administration in 2008 and has stiff-armed Tehran on multiple occasions. Allawi is a secularist that has close ties with Washington and Arab governments. He’s also a tough leader interested in creating a “clean government.”

Anticipating a strong showing at the ballot box, al-Maliki’s Shiite-based State of Law bloc has already opened talks with rival groups to form a coalition government. However, that process could take months of negotiations because all parties to the coalition will want the chance to put forward nominations for prime minister, recommend issues for the coalition’s platform and jockey for cabinet appointments.

The underlying danger is that disputes over the vote count or prolonged bargaining over the new government will open the way to renewed violence.

But a new government will eventually emerge. The litmus of that government’s success will be the long-term answers to the following questions.

First, can Iraqis govern themselves? So far, the Iraqis have demonstrated the ability to organize elections and develop a political culture, both major accomplishments. Otherwise their governing skills are poor. The parliament is routinely gridlocked and basic services such as electricity are poor at best. The new government has the opportunity to correct that poor record by tackling critical challenges: govern in a non-sectarian manner, resolve its longstanding budget crisis, equitably distribute the country’s oil wealth, resolve territorial disputes between Arabs and Kurds, and build ministries that are effective beyond Baghdad.

Second, are the Iraqis ready to assume the security of their country as American forces withdraw? The U.S. has spent years training and equipping the Iraqi security forces (ISF) for the day American troops withdraw. Last summer U.S. troops began the weaning process by leaving Iraqi cities for remote bases but remain on-call for emergencies.

Now violence is down and has remained low since last summer to the credit of the ISF. U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus, the commander for American forces in the Middle East, said attacks in Iraq have dropped from an average of 220 per day in 2006 to less than 20 a day over the last six months.

The U.S. will continue the weaning process if the Iraqis stand-up a new government without sparking sectarian violence. “Around early May, if the country is on stable footing, I will begin moving troops out of Iraq,” Gen. Ray Odierno, the U.S. ground commander, said. The U.S. agreed to remove its combat troops by the end of August, followed by the removal of all forces from the country by December 31, 2011.

Third, will Iraq become a democratic model for its totalitarian neighbors? Iraq is a young democracy teetering on training wheels but it’s unique among the Arab world. “Many of the regional powers don’t like our experiment in democracy,” Hoshayr Zebari, Iraq’s foreign minister, said. He continued, “Some of our neighbors look upon this experiment with unease.”

Their uneasiness is understandable. The fact that free elections took place in Iraq with an uncertain outcome at this point shames other Arab states, like the Egyptian regime of Hosni Mubarak, who has been at the helm for three decades or the unelected rulers of Saudi Arabia. It’s noteworthy the Arab media reported on every detail of the Iraqi election process and the Arab street gave the process its rapt attention.

Fourth, will Iraq free itself of terrorists? In 2005, al-Qaeda terrorists shielded by Sunnis, undermined Iraqi democracy with relentless suicide bombings that killed thousands. Last week Iraqi extremists’ threats and scattered violence failed to stop most Iraqis from voting. Hopefully this demonstration of Iraqi devotion to their country’s future, which includes most Sunni voters, means the vast majority will no longer support terror networks inside their country.

Fifth, will Iraq help contain the Iranian threat? Iraq has no intention of being a satrap of the Persian state, but Iran has influence in Baghdad. They may share a long border, commerce, and a common faith, but Iraq does not intend to be Tehran’s patron especially after seeing the conditions imposed by the theocratic regime.

Iraqis are Arabs, not Persians. That ethnic difference trumps the Shia religious connection. They speak different languages and have been at odds for centuries. Invasions have historically been launched against Iran from Iraq such as Saddam Hussein’s war with Iran when Iraq’s Shiites provided most of the soldiers.

But Iran took advantage of the 2003 American invasion of Iraq to establish alliances with Iraqi Shiite political parties. Today, Iran’s main proxies are the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and the Iraqi National Alliance.

Recently, Iran used these proxies to influence Iraq’s election by seeking to ban more than 500 Sunni candidates. These proxies used trumped-up charges that Sunni candidates were sympathetic to the former Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein. This approach is eerily similar to the Islamic Republic’s use of its Committee of Experts to disqualify reformist candidates from running in Iranian national elections.

Finally, will Iraq be a stabilizing force in the region? Iraq has long acted as a buffer between the Shiite and Sunni worlds. For most of the Islamic Republic’s existence before the 1991 Gulf War, it was locked in conflict with Iraq which kept the Persians from expanding their influence into Arab lands.

The Arab nations hope Iraq will resume that role now that the U.S. is leaving. For most Arab states Persian regional power sparks fear because they see plenty of Iranian hegemonic activity with Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen.

The American project in Iraq created a rare phenomenon — a Middle Eastern government out of the consent of the governed. But only time will tell whether America’s investment of blood and treasure ensures freedom for Iraq, brings long-term stability to the region, facilitates victory over other regional terrorist organizations and prevents Iranian hegemony.