May 27 2009

Obama to Israel: pound sand

Category: Iran,Islam,Israel,national security,Obama — harmonicminer @ 9:50 am

President Obama has made it clear that he has no intent of taking any serious action to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, and that if Israel does take such action, he will blame Israel, not Iran. Caroline Glick reports. (much more at the link, all worth reading)

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s visit with US President Barack Obama at the White House on Monday was a baptism of fire for the new premier. What emerged from the meeting is that Obama’s priorities regarding Iran, Israel and the Arab world are diametrically opposed to Israel’s priorities.

During his ad hoc press conference with Netanyahu, Obama made clear that he will not lift a finger to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And acting as Obama’s surrogate, for the past two weeks CIA Director Leon Panetta has made clear that Obama expects Israel to also sit on its thumbs as Iran develops the means to destroy it.

It’s becoming apparent that Obama is bluffing on a busted flush. He has no hole cards (at least that he’s willing to use), and he has no plans to do anything serious to deter or prevent either North Korea or Iran from becoming full-fledged nuclear threats complete with delivery systems. At the same time, he is reducing our commitment to missile defense, and weakening our military commitment to proven technologies that could defend us and our allies.

Iran will not bomb Jerusalem, which it considers to be a “holy city,” but Tel Aviv, Haifa, etc., are obvious targets.  And with its surrogates Hamas and Hizbullah, Iran has ways of getting the bombs into Israel without being the obvious launch site….  just enough to maintain “implausible deniability,” which would not prevent an Israeli response, futile though that response would be to save Israel.  About three or four bombs, and in essence there is no nation of Israel, at least none that could resist the following onslaught of conventional forces rolling in from its neighbors.

The other nations in the Middle East, mostly Sunni, are not in favor of a nuclear armed Iran, but they have even fewer options to do anything about it than Israel.  If Israel does attack Iran to delay its acquisition of nuclear arms, the muslim nations around it will cry publicly, and cheer privately.  They know that Israel presents no danger to them, while Iran clearly does, especially a nuclear Iran.

We are on the cusp of a moral decision, nationally, not very different from the run-up to the Holocaust.   Obama will have to do more than talk and threaten.  He must act, decisively, and soon.  If he does not, Israel cannot be blamed for doing what it must simply to survive.

I hope and pray that, even if he does not care about Israel directly, Obama will recognize the enormous support Israel has in the USA, and realize what a political disaster it will be for him if Israel is destroyed on his watch.

Tags: , , , ,

Mar 21 2009

Get along with this: the limits to hopey-changey rhetoric

Category: Iran,Obama — harmonicminer @ 1:30 pm

The Supreme Leader of Iran, the one who really runs the nation, sees right through Obama.  Iran’s supreme leader dismisses Obama overtures

“They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice. We haven’t seen any change,” Khamenei said in a speech before a crowd of tens of thousands in the northeastern holy city of Mashhad.

In his video message, Obama said the United States wants to engage Iran, but he also warned that a right place for Iran in the international community “cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization.”

Khamenei asked how Obama could congratulate Iranians on the new year and accuse the country of supporting terrorism and seeking nuclear weapons in the same message.

Khamenei said there has been no change even in Obama’s language compared to that of his predecessor.

“He (Obama) insulted the Islamic Republic of Iran from the first day. If you are right that change has come, where is that change? What is the sign of that change? Make it clear for us what has changed.”

Obama simply cannot produce any of the changes that Iran’s leaders insist are prerequisites for “improved relations” with the USA. All of his talk of “improving relations” with Iran sinks upon collision with the Iranian iceberg, 90% of whose activities to destabilize the Middle East are “hidden” in the sense that Iran will not acknowledge them, and will certainly not stop them.  It is simply not possible for Obama to give Iran’s grand poobah anything he wants in the way of lifting sanctions.  There is no little irony here.

That’s because the Supreme Leader’s definition of “getting along better with the USA” is remarkably parallel to the Democrat Party’s definition of “bipartisanship” and “cooperation.” The Ayatollah offers no concession, no reduction of any of his aims, no slowing down of nuclear armament (which he simply denies, of course), no reduction in support of terrorism around the world (which he also denies), in short, no behavior change for the sake of international amity.  Similarly, when the Democrats urge “bipartisanship”, they offer no concession, no reduction of any of their aims, no slowing down of the march towards socialism (which they simply deny, of course), no reduction of policies that surely will lead to more abortion, illegal immigration, more terrorisim, and higher crime (which they also deny), in short, no behavior change for the sake of bipartisan amity.

Both Khamenei and the Democrats say, in essence, “Let’s get along….  on MY terms.”

There is another similarity.  Khamenei knows he only has to survive the near future, and stay in power long enough to bring Iran into the nuclear club, and everything will change.  He knows that a nuclear Iran will have political and military options (non-nuclear ones) that it now lacks.  Similarly, the Democrats know that once they get nationalized health care, federal ownership of significant portions of the economy, amnesty for illegal aliens,  a “built-down” national defense establishment, etc., it will be impossible or very, very difficult to undo the changes, even if Republicans regain power for a time.

As with terrorists, creaters of grand new social spending programs only have to win once.  Whether it’s blowing up a city, or creating a new entitlement to buy votes, once it’s done, it’s done.

Odd though it may seem, divergent as their aims may be, Khamenei and Obama are reading the same playbook for getting what they want, and the rhetorical parallels are….  scary.

In the meantime, the ayatollah seems to have a clearer eyed view than our own media establishment of the truth behind the rhetoric of hope and change.

Tags: ,

Mar 21 2009

Russian missiles in Iran

Category: Iran,Israel,national security,Obama,Russia — harmonicminer @ 9:05 am

While Russia complains that the USA is being provocative in moving to install anti-missile defenses in Europe, defenses designed to intercept Iranian nuclear-tipped missiles, but certainly unable to counter a full-scale Russian attack, Russia is selling missiles to iran, supposedly for “air-defense.”

Russia confirms Iran missile contract

Russian news agencies cited a top defense official Wednesday as confirming that a contract to sell powerful air-defense missiles to Iran was signed two years ago, but saying no such weapons have yet been delivered.

We’re certainly happy to hear that.

Russian officials have consistently denied claims the country already has provided some of the S-300 missiles to Iran. They have not said whether a contract existed.

Except now they have apparently confirmed that it does.

The state-run ITAR-Tass and RIA-Novosti news agencies and the independent Interfax quoted an unnamed top official in the Federal Military-Technical Cooperation Service as saying the contract was signed two years ago. Service spokesman Andrei Tarabrin told The Associated Press he could not immediately comment.

What would he say?  Nyah Nyah Nyah?

Supplying S-300s to Iran would change the military balance in the Middle East and the issue has been the subject of intense speculation and diplomatic wrangling for months.

That’s an understatement.  If Iran is able to easily defend itself from any Israeli attack to defang its nuclear weapons production program, there will be no remaining barrier to full development and deployment of nuclear weapons.  No one wants this in the Middle East, except Iran and Russia, apparently.

Israel and the United States fear that, were Iran to possess S-300 missiles, it would use them to protect its nuclear facilities, including the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz or the country’s first atomic power plant, which is now being built by Russian contractors at Bushehr.

Of course, Obama can just talk to the Russians and make them see reason.  They’re really all just good, internationally spirited statesmen who want world peace.  And Iran is just misunderstood and aggrieved over the vicious US incursions in the Middle East, and just needs to feel safe from the Great Satan.

And Joe Biden is the tooth fairy.

Tags: , , , ,

Mar 06 2009

Israel down to the wire on Iranian nukes?

Category: economy,energy,Iran,Israel — harmonicminer @ 10:08 am

At the link, an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post detailing the reasons why Israel’s “window of opportunity” to take out or slow down Iran’s nuclear program is closing fast, making imminent action likely, especially given the results of the recent Israeli election. It’s a very persuasive case,  and includes this assertion:

American policymakers are now convinced that Iran, despite all protests and charades, is in a mad dash to create a deliverable nuclear weapon. The Obama administration has almost openly abandoned the assertions of the CIA’s much-questioned 2008 National Intelligence Estimate that concluded Iran was not pursuing nuclear weaponry for the simple reason that its atomic program and military programs were housed in separate buildings.

But what if Israel DOES strike Iran? Necessary as that may be, it spells very bad news for the USA.

Iran, of course, has repeatedly threatened to counter any such attack by closing the Strait of Hormuz, as well as launching missiles against the Ras Tanura Gulf oil terminal and bombarding the indispensable Saudi oil facility at Abqaiq which is responsible for some 65 percent of Saudi production. Any one of these military options, let alone all three, would immediately shut off 40% of all seaborne oil, 18% of global oil, and some 20% of America’s daily consumption.

America’s oil vulnerability has been back-burnered due to the economic crisis and the plunge in gasoline prices. However, the price of gasoline will not mitigate an interruption of oil flow. The price of oil does not impact its ability to flow through blocked or destroyed facilities. Indeed, an interruption would not restore prices to those of last summer – which Russian and Saudi oil officials say is needed – but probably zoom the pump cost to $20 per gallon.

American oil vulnerability in recent months has escalated precisely because of oil’s precipitous drop to $35 to $40 a barrel. At that price, America’s number one supplier, Canada, which supplies some 2 million out of 20 million barrels of oil a day, cannot afford to produce. Canadian oil sand petroleum is not viable below $70 a barrel. Much of Canada’s supply has already been cancelled or indefinitely postponed. America’s strategic petroleum reserve can only keep that country moving for approximately 57 days.

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, like the Bush administration before it, has developed no plan or contingency legislation for an oil interruption, such as a surge in retrofitting America’s 250 million gas guzzling cars and trucks – each with a 10-year life – or a stimulus of the alternate fuel production needed to rapidly get off oil. Ironically, Iran has undertaken such a crash program converting some 20% of its gasoline fleet yearly to compressed natural gas (CNG) as a countermeasure to Western nuclear sanctions against the Teheran regime that could completely block the flow of gasoline to Iran. Iran has no refining capability.

The question of when and how this endgame will play out is not known by anyone. Israeli leaders wish to avoid military preemption at all costs if possible. But many feel the military moment must come; and when that moment does come, it will be swift, highly technologic and in the twinkling of an eye. But as one informed official quipped, “Those who know, don’t talk. Those who talk, don’t know.”

Because our leaders have dithered and stonewalled in developing our own oil resources, in the name of “environmentalism” and “global warming” fears, and general eco-pagan-panic, we’re about to be in world of hurt, energy-wise.

I’m keeping my Prius.  And I just put in a wood stove. 

Try to imagine what a true oil-shock will do to our already reeling economy.  Can you imagine a DOW average of 4,000?   Better stuff your nest egg (shrunken though it probably is already) in some VERY SECURE place…  which the stock market sure isn’t.

Tags: , , ,

Jan 20 2009

Forget the lions, tigers and bears…. we have bigger problems

Category: Iran,Islam,national security — harmonicminer @ 10:19 am

Fresh Clues of Iranian Nuclear Intrigue – WSJ.com

U.S. security and law-enforcement officials say they have fresh evidence of recent efforts by Iran to evade sanctions and acquire metals from China used in high-tech weaponry, including long-range nuclear missiles.

Iran’s efforts are detailed in a series of recent emails and letters between Iranian companies and foreign suppliers seen by The Wall Street Journal. Business records show one Iranian company, ABAN Commercial & Industrial Ltd., has contracted through an intermediary for more than 30,000 kilograms (about 66,000 pounds) of tungsten copper — which can be used in missile guidance systems — from Advanced Technology & Materials Co. Ltd. of Beijing. One March 2008 email between the firms mentions shipping 215 ingots, with more planned.

The United Arab Emirates has informed the U.S. that in September it intercepted a Chinese shipment headed to Iran of specialized aluminum sheets that can be used to make ballistic missiles. A month earlier, UAE officials also intercepted an Iran-bound shipment of titanium sheets that can be used in long-range missiles, according to a recent letter to the U.S. Commerce Department from the UAE’s Washington ambassador.

Evidence of Iran’s efforts to acquire sensitive materials also is emerging from investigations by state and federal prosecutors in New York into whether a number of major Western banks illegally handled funds for Iran and deliberately hid Iranian transactions routed through the U.S. One focus of the inquiries is the role of Italy, including the Rome branch of Iran’s Bank Sepah and Italy’s Banca Intesa Sanpaolo Spa. Banca Intesa said it is cooperating in the inquiries.

The developments could present President-elect Barack Obama with an early test in responding to what many Washington security officials now say is a rapidly growing threat to the region, including U.S. allies Israel and Saudi Arabia.

All of the high-performance metals Iran has been acquiring also have industrial uses such as commercial aviation and manufacturing, making it difficult for intelligence agencies to be absolutely certain how the materials are being used. “We can’t say we know it would, or would not, be used for military purposes,” said proliferation expert Gary Milholland of the nonprofit Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, noting that broad economic sanctions on Tehran led by the U.S. mean Iran has to go to unusual lengths to find high-grade materials for industrial use as well as weapons.

Still, he added, “There doesn’t seem to be any real doubt or debate whether Iran is going for the bomb or whether Iran is using front companies to import things. Everyone agrees on that around the world.”

Negotiate, Mr. O., negotiate. Yeah, that’ll work.  Or maybe not.

Tags: ,

Dec 28 2008

What will Obama do to forestall a nuclear Iran?

Category: Iran,national security,Obama — harmonicminer @ 10:43 am

A couple years ago there were speculations in many quarters that George Bush would not allow a nuclear Iran. I read more than one column suggesting that he would take military action against Iran’s nuclear program, sometime before the end of his presidency, especially if a Democrat was elected. That seems less and less likely, based on any reasonable reading of the tea leaves. If he still plans such a thing, it is the best kept secret of his administration.

So, what will Obama do to stop Iran from getting the bomb? Make no mistake: if Iran has the bomb, the world is changed, hugely. When Iran has the bomb, we won’t know which terrorist organization has been given the bomb. We won’t know when or if Iran plans to destroy Israel, even at the price of the enormous retaliation that would follow. Iran will surely shake its nuclear stick at Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, et. al., and Iran probably has, or will have soon, missiles capable of reaching large parts of Europe.  Within 10-20 years, it is likely to have missiles that can reach the USA.

Even more concerning, if terrorists got a nuke from Iran and destroyed a US city, how would we prove the origin of the nuke? Would our response be paralyzed?

Continue reading “What will Obama do to forestall a nuclear Iran?”

Tags: , ,

Dec 09 2008

What will Obama do to forestall a nuclear Iran?

Category: Iran,national security,Obama — harmonicminer @ 8:25 pm

A couple years ago there were speculations in many quarters that George Bush would not allow a nuclear Iran. I read more than one column suggesting that he would take military action against Iran’s nuclear program, sometime before the end of his presidency, especially if a Democrat was elected. That seems less and less likely, based on any reasonable reading of the tea leaves. If he still plans such a thing, it is the best kept secret of his administration.

So, what will Obama do to stop Iran from getting the bomb? Make no mistake: if Iran has the bomb, the world is changed, hugely. When Iran has the bomb, we won’t know which terrorist organization has been given the bomb. We won’t know when or if Iran plans to destroy Israel, even at the price of the enormous retaliation that would follow. Iran will surely shake its nuclear stick at Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, et. al., and Iran probably has, or will have soon, missiles capable of reaching large parts of Europe.  Within 10-20 years, it is likely to have missiles that can reach the USA.

Even more concerning, if terrorists got a nuke from Iran and destroyed a US city, how would we prove the origin of the nuke? Would our response be paralyzed?

Continue reading “What will Obama do to forestall a nuclear Iran?”

Tags: , ,

Oct 01 2008

Duck, and cover

Category: Iran,middle east,terrorism — harmonicminer @ 9:24 pm

Ex-U.S. weapons hunter: Iran 2-5 years from bomb – Haaretz – Israel News

Iran is two years to five years away from being able to produce a nuclear weapon, the former head of the U.S. weapons-hunting team in Iraq said Wednesday.

But David Kay said the U.S. should not consider bombing Iranian nuclear facilities unless the weapon was about to be transferred to a terrorist group.

And we would know that how? This is like saying it’s fine for felons convicted of violent offenses to possess handguns, and we should only try to stop them with the force of law if they actually attempt another crime.

Anybody know where a person can buy used radiation counters, cheap?

Tags: , , ,

Sep 27 2008

The threats our new President will face for us

Category: arab,China,economy,energy,Hamas,Hizbullah,Iran,Iraq,Islam,middle east,military,oil prices,Russia — harmonicminer @ 8:48 am

Thnk the ability to debate is seriously important?  Think it matters more than good judgment, clear understanding of the world, and commitment to the welfare of America above party?

The threats, and some unfortunate connections, are made clear here.  These are serious people, with seriously bad intentions, who aren’t impressed by debate tactics, smooth talk or stage presence.  They will not be “negotiated with” in the normal sense of the term, because we have nothing they want that they aren’t going to get from us anyway.  We cannot give them enough to remove their bad intentions, and they have the capabilities, by and large, to act on those intentions, if we give them time and opportunity.  All of them have proved that.

Who is the very serious person you want as President of the USA to deal with these people?  Who, among the candidates we have, has sufficient wisdom, experience, clarity and toughness to represent us, and make decisions critical to our security?  Who has proved that he will put us first, regardless of his own self-interest, regardless of political fallout?   Who, among the candidates we have, will these people take seriously?   I think you know.

The old standbys, also hip deep in bad plans for the USA, and freedom around the world.

And then, there are our “friends”.

Whose vested interest is keeping us waiting in line for their largess.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sep 19 2008

What Egypt stands to gain

Category: arab,Hamas,Hizbullah,Iran,Islam,Israel,middle east,Russia,terrorism — harmonicminer @ 9:21 am

From Haaretz, Egypt draws up plan to end internal Palestinian crisis

Egypt has drawn up a plan to end the internal Palestinian crisis and
will propose it to rival Palestinian factions, Fatah and Hamas, as soon as the sides agree to hear it sources said Saturday.

Egypt has come up with the plan after several rounds of bilateral talks with representatives from the different Palestinian factions. Later this month, Egyptian officials will meet with leaders from Hamas and Fatah separately to propose the plan and get their acceptance.

The Palestinian crisis escalated in June 2007 when Hamas routed security forces loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas, ousted his Fatah movement and took over control of the Gaza Strip, effectively separating it from the West Bank where Abbas has consolidated his rule.

Egypt’s problem:

Its government needs to appear to be working in good faith to resolve difficult aspects of the Palestinian situation. It cannot be seen as being in conflict with the Palestinians, which makes situations like this a major problem.

On 22 January 2008, after Israel imposed a total closure on all exits and entrances to the Gaza Strip, a group of Hamas demonstrators, many of whom were women, attempted to force open the door of the Rafah crossing from Gaza into Egypt. They were beaten back by Egyptian police and gunfire erupted. That same night, Hamas militants set off 15 explosive charges demolishing a 200-metre length of the metal border wall that had been erected by Israel in 2004. After the resulting Breach of the Gaza-Egypt border, many thousands of Palestinians, with estimates ranging from 60,000 to 350,000 flowed into Egypt to buy goods. Palestinians were seen purchasing food, fuel, cigarettes, shoes, furniture, car parts, generators, and even weapons.

Egypt has prospered from its peace agreement with Israel, in terms of trade, tourism, and the regard of the world. Palestinian conflicts destabilize that agreement.  Egypt’s people, of course, are mainly sympathetic with the Palestinians.  That makes it tough to take strong enforcement action against Palestinians trying to breach the Gaza/Egypt border.  If Palestine can be somewhat stabilized, the chances of that kind of conflict are reduced.  Egypt’s battle with its own homegrown terrorists, the Muslim Brotherhood (the seedbed for Al Qaeda and others), makes it especially necessary for the government not to be seen as being in conflict with the Islamic side of any dispute.

Unlike some decades ago, the governments of Jordan and Egypt are both willing to be part of a two-state solution, if they don’t have to offend their own people’s sympathies to get it.  They understand, correctly, that it is to their financial and political benefit to do so.

It’s tempting to paint all Islamic mid-east nations with the same brush.  But the fact is that there would be considerable hope for peace if Syria and Iran dropped their support of Hamas and Hizbullah, and the Palestinians could see their way clear to elect a leadership that was not dedicated to maintaining the conflict.

Put simply, Iran’s and Syria’s leadership depend on maintaining that conflict for their own power.  And Russia is helping them do it, and helping the governments of Iran and Syria stay in power. The odds of Iran/Syria/Russia abandoning Hizbullah and Hamas are miniscule. But if there was some way to do an end-run around Hamas in Palestine, in terms of forming a government, it would be a start.  I have no illusions about Hamas peacefully allowing this to happen.  But, just possibly, if Hamas is seen by the Palestinians as being against a greater Palestine government, and if Hamas starts being known more for attacking other Palestinians than Israelis, something like the Anbar awakening could occur, where the locals once sympathetic to terrorists realize the danger they pose.

Egypt, hardly an ideal of freedom, is nevertheless doing the right thing here, and should be supported by the west in whatever ways will help.  In the meantime, the west has to find a way to get aid into Palestine that does not flow through Hamas first, so that the west does not support the Palestinian image of Hamas as caregiver.  I don’t have a suggestion about HOW to do this, and I recognize the difficulty of it.   Nevertheless, we have to find a way to get aid to Palestinians that does not simply prop up Hamas.  Just possibly, the beginning could be Egypt’s intervention to help develop a non-Hamas AND non-Fatah Palestinian unified government, through which aid from the west could be funneled that would help stabilize that new government.

The two state solution cannot work if one of them is simply a terrorist nation.  But if, by some working of God and diplomacy, a non-terrorist Palestinian government could form, there would be hope.  It’s worth the effort.

Tags: , , , ,

Next Page »