Grow up and get serious? Obama lacks gravitas!

Mark Steyn is too toxic for liberals and even some conservatives but he writes with humor and minces no words. Time will tell whether Steyn is correct in his prediction. However, if trend is your friend at least Steyn has that going for him. (See 1 below.)

When it comes to budding change, Obama is beholden to The Teachers Union so the nation's children can forget change there - that Bud is not for you kids! In fact Obama is prepared to short change black kids most of all - how sad. Just another political fraud parading as a messiah. (See 2 below.)

Maliki, knowing he might be dealing with Obama, supposedly threw him a bone - sort of. Maliki is proving to be an astute politician and has learned to thread the needle well.

No president wishes to "artificially" keep troops in Iraq longer than considered rational but reasonable people can differ so Maliki parses his withdrawal endorsement
with the words "slight changes." Then under pressure, possibly from the White House,did Maliki recant?(See 3and 3a below.)

4) As so often happens, successors get credit and/or blame for things that occur on their watch when they had nothing to do with laying the keel so this could be the case vis a vis al Qaeda's decline for McCain and/or Obama. (See 4 below.)

Brit Hume was on the Chris Wallace' show this afternoon and made a cogent, unsolicited observation. He basically said Sen. Obama is probably among the most unqualified persons to be a candidate for President in our history. Say what you will about Brit Hume's bias, based on any general measure of accomplishment and judgment Brit is correct. Obama's resume: Head of Harvard Law Review, lawyer, local activist, senator and now an expert on foreign policy having spent a week overseas.

Like I previously wrote, I spent more time in class studying Geography when I was in college. I too was a member of my law school's Law Review, had a case note published and later cited by a judge and have spent 48 years in Wall Street. That should at least qualify me for a Vice President slot and by the way I was stationed overseas and have been to about 20 different countries at my own expense.

Now the debate has shifted to changes - GW's changes. Because we are beginning to "win" in Iraq GW can contemplate reducing troop levels as he should. Because we have allowed Europeans to waste six years pacifying Iranians, GW decided to join them , walk the extra mile to quiet his detractors so to speak, but with the same pre-conditions - allow verifiable inspections of your nuclear activity.

All of this is being cited as changes to prove why Obama was right all along for not attacking Iraq but arguing the fight was in Afghanistan and that we must talk to our enemies. What utter nonsense. If we resolve the battle in Iraq in our favor we will have achieved a victory as well as regime change with great potential significance for the entire Middle East - notwithstanding failure to find WMD.

Yes, it took GW four years to get it right but when he did, and because he embraced Petraeus' strategic approach dubbed "the surge" and GW's willingness to go against the tide of nay-Sayers, we are now in sight of a major coup.

As for sitting with Iran Britain, France and Germany have been doing it for over 6 years and Iran continues to develop their own nuclear weaponry. By joining them we probably elevated Ahmadinejad and their response is the same - we are going to pursue development. We sat down with Iran in Iraq months ago and have had other background meetings for months. Nothing has changed. If GW modified his stance to put himself in a better position to attack Iran good for him. I remain a hawk when it comes to pacifying and appeasing Iran.

When will we grow up and get serious, quit allowing cheap shot politicians the luxury of recklessly defending their head in the sand positions in order to cast partisan blame while,and at the same time finally call the hand of the press and media's for their negative knee jerk reporting?

Obama was against going into Iraq and for a period of time he looked good but his judgment has proven consistently wrong. His advice has been defeatist and his election would be a disaster beyond mention. Rock star status and clever rhetoric does not signify depth. He is shallow, he is shifty and he lacks gravitas - a word the media and press folks love to throw around.

The only thing missing in his tour de force travel was a pot smoking band.

Obama or Mullen? You choose. (See 5 below.)

Merkel,then GW now Brown and Obama. (See 6 and 6a below.)

Dick

1) Will Europe trade Christianity for Islam? America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It



Someday soon, you might wake up to the call to prayer from a Muslim muezzin. Millions of Europeans already do.

And liberals will still tell you "diversity is our strength" -- while Talibanic enforcers cruise our cities burning books and barber shops... the Supreme Court decides sharia law doesn't violate the "separation of church and state" ... and the Hollywood Left gives up gay rights in favor of the much safer charms of polygamy.

If you think this can't happen, you haven't been paying attention, as the hilarious and brilliant Mark Steyn -- the most popular conservative columnist in the English-speaking world -- shows to devastating effect in his New York Times bestseller, America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It.

As Steyn puts it, "The future belongs to the fecund and the confident. And the Islamists are both, while the West -- wedded to a multiculturalism that undercuts its own confidence, a welfare state that nudges it toward sloth and self-indulgence, and a childlessness that consigns it to oblivion -- is looking ever more like the ruins of a civilization."

Europe, laments Steyn, is almost certainly a goner. The future, if the West has one, belongs to America alone-with maybe its cousins in brave Australia. But America can still survive, prosper, and defend its freedom only if it continues to believe in itself, in the sturdier virtues of self-reliance (not government), in the centrality of family, and in the conviction that our country really is the world's last best hope.

Mark Steyn's America Alone is laugh-out-loud funny -- but it will also change the way you look at the world. And it is already the most talked-about conservative book of the year.

[P.S. Here is how to tick off a liberal...just subscribe to Human Events today! (And you'll receive a FREE copy of America Alone -- a $27.95 value.)
P.P.S. Make a liberal even madder by subscribing for 70-weeks and also get bestselling book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and The Crusades) in a hardcover edition not found in stores -- absolutely free.

For instant service, call us toll-free at 888.GO.RIGHT (888.467.4448).]

2) Change He Can't Believe In
By Steve Chapman

I know, because admirers of Barack Obama tell me, that this year's election poses a choice between a candidate who represents a fresh approach to problems and one who offers a dreary continuation of the status quo. That much I understand. What I sometimes have trouble keeping straight is which candidate is which.

On the subject of elementary and secondary education, the two seem to have gotten their roles completely mixed up. Obama is the staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly, and he's allergic to anything that subverts it. John McCain, on the other hand, went before the NAACP last week to argue for something new and daring.

That something is to facilitate greater parental choice in education. McCain wants to expand a Washington, D.C. program that provides federally funded scholarships so poor students can attend private schools. More than 7,000 kids, he reported, have applied for these vouchers, but only 1,900 can be accommodated.

Obama promptly expressed disdain for McCain's proposal. The Republican, his campaign said, offered "recycled bromides" that would "undermine our public schools."

You would think a leader who plans to liberate us from the partisan dogmas of the past would be open to this approach -- and in February, Obama indicated he was. "If there was any argument for vouchers, it was, 'Let's see if the experiment works,'" he said. "And if it does, whatever my preconception, you do what's best for the kids."

But it didn't last. After those comments drew attention, his campaign hastily reminded voters that "throughout his career, he has voted against voucher proposals" and that his education plan "does not include vouchers, in any shape or form."

Too bad, because vouchers, though they have been tried only in a few places, have shown considerable promise. Patrick Wolf, a University of Arkansas education professor who has the job of evaluating the Washington program, says that of the 10 studies of existing voucher programs, nine found significant achievement gains.

In Washington, it's too early to tell if test scores will improve. But already, Wolf's report says it has had "a positive impact on parent satisfaction and perceptions of school safety."

Those benefits ought to be enough to make Obama reexamine his preconceptions. After all, it's not as though everything else we've been doing has set the world on fire.

Since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, the nation has seen no improvement worth mentioning. As Andrew Coulson of the Cato Institute writes, "U.S. students have suffered overall stagnation or decline in math, reading and science in the years since NCLB was passed."

Democrats don't like NCLB, as a rule, but about the only thing Obama and his party offer is pouring more money into schools and teacher salaries. It's an idea that sounds sensible not only to teachers and principals but to a lot of other Americans as well -- mainly because most taxpayers don't realize how much they are already spending.

A survey by William Howell of the University of Chicago and Martin West of Brown University found that 96 percent of Americans underestimate these expenditures, usually by a lot. On average, per-student outlays are more than twice what most people think, and teachers get $14,370 more per year than commonly assumed. Per-pupil spending, adjusted for inflation, has soared in the last four decades with no visible payoff.

Vouchers are a different approach: Instead of enlarging the monopoly, stimulate competition by empowering low-income students and parents to go outside the public school system. Over time, that should give rise to more private schools and impel public ones to do a better job -- or, in the case of the worst ones, close down.

It's not a radical design. It's pretty much the model we use for higher education, and it may explain why American universities are held in much higher regard around the world than our elementary and secondary schools. And it's comparable to what we use for most other goods, which accounts for the vast improvements in computers, cars and TVs that have occurred even as public schools were stagnating.

McCain apparently grasps all this, while his opponent prefers to close his eyes. Obama says he stands for "change we can believe in." But change that works? That's another matter.

3) Maliki backs Obama troop pullout plan
By Liz Sly

BAGHDAD—Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki threw his support behind Barack Obama's troop withdrawal plan in an interview published Saturday, ahead of an expected visit by the Illinois senator to a significantly calmer Baghdad than the one he last encountered two years ago.

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months," Maliki told the German news weekly Der Spiegel, referring to the plan the Democratic hopeful outlined last week to bring U.S. troops home over a 16-month period starting next year.

"That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes," Maliki said.

Obama, who was in Afghanistan on Saturday and earlier Sunday, has said he will also visit Iraq, but the precise timing of the trip has been kept under wraps for security reasons.


That the prime minister is publicly endorsing Obama's Iraq proposals may make it difficult for Republican presidential contender John McCain to continue to justify his support for a more open-ended commitment.

Maliki said his support for Obama's plan was not intended as an endorsement. However, he added, "those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq are being more realistic."

"Artificially prolonging the tenure of U.S. troops in Iraq would cause problems," Maliki said.

Already, momentum is building toward some form of withdrawal timetable, amid evidence that the surge of an extra 30,000 U.S. troops last year has worked to bring down violence.

On Friday, the White House announced discussions with the Iraqi government of a "general time horizon" for the handover of security to Iraqi forces and the drawdown of U.S. troops.

Commenting on Maliki's support for his opponent's position, the McCain campaign issued a statement saying that if it weren't for the surge, which Obama opposed, "we would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today."

"The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders," the statement said. "Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama."

The Obama campaign welcomed Maliki's support, saying it represents "an important opportunity to transition to Iraqi responsibility, while restoring our military and increasing our commitment to finish the fight in Afghanistan."

Though their government has recently come around to the view that it wants a withdrawal timetable, Iraqis are divided on the issue, with many expressing fears that a pullout in the near future would trigger a new round of bloodletting and others hoping to see U.S. troops go as soon as possible.

In a boost to Maliki's rising fortunes Saturday, the largest Sunni bloc in parliament, the Iraqi Accord Front, returned to his coalition government after a nearly yearlong boycott that had stalled political reconciliation.

The Sunni bloc agreed to rejoin the government in April, after most of its key demands were met. The return was delayed by internal squabbling over who should get which posts.

3a) Iraqi PM disputes report on withdrawal plan

A German magazine quoted Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as saying he backed a proposal by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months.

Nuri al-Maliki told Der Spiegel that he favors a "limited" tenure for coalition troops in Iraq.


"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months," he said in an interview with Der Spiegel that was released Saturday.

"That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes," he said.

But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.

In the magazine interview, Al-Maliki said his remarks did not indicate that he was endorsing Obama over presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain.

"Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited," he said.

"Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic," al-Maliki said.

The interview's publication came one day after the White House said President Bush and al-Maliki had agreed to include a "general time horizon" in talks about reducing American combat forces and transferring Iraqi security control across the country. iReport.com: What should the next president know about Iraq?

The Bush administration has steadfastly refused to consider a "timetable" for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

In a statement issued Friday after a conversation between Bush and al-Maliki by closed-circuit television, the White House said that conditions in Iraq would dictate the pace of the negotiations and not "an arbitrary date for withdrawal."


The two men "agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal," the White House said.

In an interview to air Sunday on "Late Edition," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that "those goals are being achieved now, as we speak. And so, it's not at all unusual to start to think that there is a horizon out there, in the not too distant future, in which the roles and responsibilities of the U.S. forces are going to change dramatically and those of the Iraqi forces are going to become dominant."

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said al-Maliki had made it clear that such decisions will be based on continuing positive developments.

"It is our shared view that should the recent security gains continue, we will be able to meet our joint aspirational time horizons," he said.

The prime minister's remarks emerged as Obama visited Kuwait and Afghanistan before embarking on a tour of the Middle East and Europe to boost his foreign policy credentials. He also plans to visit Iraq.

The Democratic candidate says he supports a phased withdrawal of troops, promising to remove all combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months of taking office if he becomes president.

McCain does not think American troops should return to the United States until Iraqi forces are capable of maintaining a safe, democratic state.

He has been a strong advocate of the 2007 "surge" to escalate U.S. troop levels and says troops should stay in Iraq as long as needed.

McCain says Obama is wrong for opposing the increased troop presence, and Obama says McCain's judgment is flawed.

4) Winning or losing?
The Economist

Al-Qaeda has made terrorism truly global, to deadly effect. But it may yet prove to be its own worst enemy, says Anton La Guardia interviewed by Dylan Thomas

THESE days in Peshawar, where al-Qaeda was founded 20 years ago, the only glimpse of Osama bin Laden comes on little green packets of safety matches strewn around town by American officials. They bear the portrait of the world’s most wanted man, along with the promise that America will pay up to $5 million for information leading to his capture.

It is an appropriate image. Like one of these matches, Mr bin Laden caused a flash with the September 11th attacks on America in 2001, then vanished into smoke, leaving a burning trail of militancy stretching from Indonesia to Afghanistan, Iraq, north Africa and Europe. And despite the reward offered for his capture, now $25m, nobody has yet betrayed the whereabouts of “the Sheikh”, who periodically emerges on the internet to deliver some doom-laden warning to the West.

Nearly seven years into America’s “global war on terror”, the result remains inconclusive. Al-Qaeda lost a safe haven in Afghanistan, but is rebuilding another one in Pakistan; Mr bin Laden is at large, but Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who masterminded September 11th, has gone on trial in Guantánamo Bay; many leaders have been captured or killed, but others have taken their place; al-Qaeda faces an ideological backlash, but young Muslims still volunteer to blow themselves up.

True, America has not been struck since 2001, but European capitals have been bombed. A number of plots have been averted on both sides of the Atlantic. Al-Qaeda and its nebula of like-minded groups still pose the most direct threat to the security of Western countries, and of many others besides. Western intelligence agencies are convinced al-Qaeda still wants to develop non-conventional weapons, whether chemical or biological agents or “dirty bombs” that create a cloud of radioactivity. In Iraq bombs are already mixed with chlorine gas. Even a rudimentary nuclear bomb, say the spooks, might not be beyond the reach of terrorists.

Al-Qaeda has built on decades of Middle Eastern terrorism. Palestinian groups internationalised their violence in the 1970s; Hizbullah used suicide-bombers against the Americans in Lebanon back in 1983; Palestinian suicide-bombers sought to inflict maximum civilian casualties in Israel from 1994; and Algerians who hijacked a French airliner the same year tried to fly it into the Eiffel Tower but were foiled.

In those days, though, attacking Western targets was part of a local nationalist or sectarian fight. Al-Qaeda’s dark genius was to weave these strands together with the tools of globalisation to create a networked movement with a single worldwide cause: jihad against America. Conventional terrorist groups, such as the Basque ETA movement or even Lebanon’s Hizbullah, often keep their violence in bounds to avoid alienating their political supporters. But global jihadists, without a domestic constituency, seek to maximise civilian casualties for spectacular effect. Counting the victims is tricky. Attacks on Western civilians have dropped, but the routine use of suicide-bombings has raised the slaughter, mostly of Muslims, to appalling levels.

Al-Qaeda’s ideology was forged by one big victory and two decades of failures. Disparate Arab fighters who helped Afghan ones evict Soviet forces from Afghanistan in 1989 were initially elated, but became dejected by the ensuing civil war and the failure of violent campaigns in Egypt, Algeria and elsewhere. Many extremists decided to end the bloodletting. But a cadre of wandering jihadists gathered in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban and decided to redirect their ire from the “near” enemy to the “far” one.

The rationale was explained by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s co-founder, in his memoirs, entitled “Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner”. The “Jewish-Crusader alliance”, as he called the West, would never allow its local allies to be toppled. The answer was to attack America directly.

Such tactics would have several advantages, Mr Zawahiri said. They would deal “a blow to the great master”. Given the depth of anti-Americanism across the Muslim world, they would “win over the nation”. And the attacks would sow discord between Western countries and their local allies, presenting America with a dilemma: withdraw support from its friends or become directly involved in the Middle East. If America took military action, Mr Zawahiri argued, “the battle will turn into clear-cut jihad against the infidels,” which Muslims were bound to support.

Seen in this light, one of the objectives of the September 11th attacks was to provoke the Americans into invading Muslim lands. But if al-Qaeda intended to trap America in Afghanistan, its plan went badly awry, at least initially. The Taliban fell quickly in 2001 and al-Qaeda’s followers were forced into hiding.

A hubristic America, however, then walked into a trap of its own making by invading Iraq in 2003. It got rid of a dangerous dictator but gave the jihadists a popular cause against American occupiers in the Muslim heartland. For a while the jihadists thought they could carve out a base in Iraq from which to destabilise the region. That danger may now have been averted. Helped by al-Qaeda’s excesses, a bloodied America seems to be fighting its way out of the worst of the troubles it created for itself.

The beginning of the end?

So terrorism experts are now debating whether al-Qaeda is starting to burn itself out. “On balance, we are doing pretty well,” Michael Hayden, the director of America’s Central Intelligence Agency, told the Washington Post in May. “Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally—and here I’m going to use the word ‘ideologically’—as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam.”

Many thought he was being overly optimistic. Had General Hayden himself not given warning two months earlier that the restoration of an al-Qaeda haven in Pakistan’s tribal belt constituted a “clear and present danger” to the West?

A related argument has been provoked by “Leaderless Jihad”, a book by Marc Sageman, a counter-terrorism consultant. He argues that al-Qaeda’s core leadership has been “neutralised operationally”. The bigger danger now comes from loose groups of Muslims in the West who radicalise each other and carry out autonomous, self-financed attacks.

This thesis has come in for strong criticism, particularly from Professor Bruce Hoffman of Georgetown University. He notes that al-Qaeda’s imminent death has often been heralded in the past, only to be contradicted by the sound of new explosions. Many plots in Europe have direct connections back to Pakistan, he notes.

Part of the problem lies in al-Qaeda’s diffuse nature. Its core members may number only hundreds, but it has connections of all kinds to militant groups with thousands or even tens of thousands of fighters. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation, a militant network and a subculture of rebellion all at the same time.

To explain the movement, many experts draw parallels with globalisation. Some describe it as a venture-capital firm that invests in promising terrorist projects. Others speak of it as a global “brand” maintained by its leaders through their propaganda, with its growing number of “franchises” carrying out attacks.

The rise of al-Qaeda’s stateless terrorism does not mean that the old state-sponsored variety has disappeared. Libya, which once supported the IRA and other violent causes, may now be co-operating with the West, but Iran, among others, supports both Palestinian militants and Lebanon’s Hizbullah movement. Should Iran redirect Hizbullah towards a global terrorist campaign against the West—for instance, if the country’s nuclear sites were bombed—the effect might be more devastating than any of al-Qaeda’s works.

For the moment, though, the most immediate global threat comes from the ungoverned, undergoverned and ungovernable areas of the Muslim world. These include the Afghan-Pakistani border, the parts of Iraq still in turmoil, the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, and swathes of Yemen, Somalia, the western Sahara desert and the chain of islands between Indonesia and the Philippines (see map).

Just as important as any of these is the “virtual caliphate” of cyberspace. The internet binds together the amorphous cloud of jihadist groups, spreads the ideology, weaves together the “single narrative” that Islam is under attack, popularises militant acts and distributes terrorist know-how. Because al-Qaeda is so dispersed, the fight against it has strained an international order still based on sovereign states.

This special report will attempt to answer the impossible question posed in 2003 in a leaked memo from Donald Rumsfeld, then America’s defence secretary: “Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?”

5) Top US military chief is convinced Iranians seek atom bomb



Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Fox News he is convinced the Iranians are seeking to building an atomic bomb, “a very destabilizing possibility in that part of the world.” He stressed the US had the capacity and the reserves to attack Iran as a last resort

Washington sources stressed the special significance of Mullen’s statement on Sunday, July 20. The night before, a senior Israeli security official said that if the US-Iranian talks failed, President Bush planned to use the three-month period between the November elections in America and his exit from the White House in January for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Saturday night, too, Israel’s chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi arrived for a week’s visit as the admiral’s guest.

Mullen warned that while the US has the capacity and reserves for attacking Iran, there could be “possible unintended consequences” and an unpredictable regional impact from any attack on Iran – a hint at a dangerous backlash from a possible Israeli strike uncoordinated with the United States.

“I’m fighting two wars and I don’t need a third one,” said Mullen referring to Iraq and Afghanistan.

6) Brown to warn Iran in first ever Knesset speech by British PM


In the first speech to the Knesset by a British prime minister, Gordon Brown on Monday will warn Iran it faces growing isolation if it rejects an offer from major powers on its disputed nuclear program.

Brown will pledge to stand by Israel and condemn threats against the country by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, according to excerpts of the speech released by his office in advance.

"Iran now has a clear choice to make: suspend its nuclear program and accept our offer of negotiations or face growing isolation and the collective response not of one nation but of many nations," Brown will say.

"Just as we have led the work on three mandatory sanctions resolutions of the United Nations, the U.K. will continue to lead - with the U.S. and our European Union partners - in our determination to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapons program," Brown said in the excerpts.

The United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China have offered Iran financial and diplomatic incentives to halt nuclear activity which the West fears is a cover for making bombs. Tehran says it is aimed solely at generating electricity.

After talks in Geneva ended in stalemate on Saturday, six major powers gave the Iran two weeks to answer calls to rein in its nuclear activities or face tougher sanctions.

British government officials traveling with Brown said if Iran did not accept the incentives, the next step would be to ratchet up sanctions against Tehran, possibly including sanctions on Iran's oil and gas industry.

They said such sanctions could seek to target Iran's domestic energy market by making it difficult for Iran to obtain equipment and spare parts for its refineries.

Tensions between Iran and the West have helped drive up crude oil prices to record highs in recent months.

Calling Ahmadinejad's 2005 statement that Israel should be wiped off the map "totally abhorrent", Brown will say in the speech: "To those who question Israel's very right to exist, and threaten the lives of its citizens through terror, we say: the people of Israel have a right to live here, to live freely and to live in security."

Britain will stand beside Israel "whenever your peace, your stability and your existence are under threat," he will say.

Speaking to reporters on Sunday evening, Brown said Iran had broken the terms of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and had "misled the international community about the scale of their preparations for weaponry."

The United States has refused to rule out military action against Iran if diplomacy fails to resolve the nuclear row.

Israel, long assumed to have nuclear arms, has sworn to prevent Iran from obtaining atomic weapons. An Israeli air force drill last month raised speculation it was planning an attack.

A senior Iranian official was quoted this month as saying Iran would destroy Israel and 32 U.S. military bases in the Middle East if the Islamic Republic was attacked.

6a) Barack Obama to arrive in Israel Monday
By Barak Ravid

U.S. Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama is scheduled to land in Israel on Monday for a visit, which will include meetings with Israeli and Palestinian officials in Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Obama is scheduled to dine with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert tomorrow, and will later visit the Western Wall in the Old City of Jerusalem. Over dinner, the prime minister plans to discuss Israel's military intelligence on the Iranian nuclear program and stress the importance of maintaining diplomatic pressure on Tehran.

Obama, who was in Afghanistan yesterday, will be accompanied by 100 U.S. reporters.

On Wednesday morning, he will meet with officials including opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.

Livni to join tour

Livni will then accompany Obama on a tour, including a helicopter flight over the disputed areas with the Palestinians and a visit to the Qassam-stricken city of Sderot, where Obama will meet with Mayor Eli Moyal and residents.

Later in the day, he will travel to the West Bank city of Ramallah, where he will meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

The trip is being organized by two former senior diplomats: Dennis Ross, who was a special envoy to the Middle East under U.S. president Bill Clinton, and Dan Kurtzer, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel. Obama's trip coordinators have asked Israeli officials not to treat the event as a state visit and to give it the same attention as they did John McCain's visit a few months ago. He will fly to Europe on Thursday morning.