a
The news on Thursday evening was full of 'no fly zone' talk, our inability to meet Qaddafi's challenge so Libyans rebels are on their own and finally, invasions onto Texas farms by members of Mexican drug cartels.
Perhaps the defense Department could at least undertake to impose a no fly zone over New York City and save tax payers some money when the Obama entourage wants a night out on the town.
Obama continues to tell Qaddafi he has to leave while at the same time assuring Israelis, America will always stand by them. Book end diplomacy?
Co-operation between the Pentagon and Israel is better than ever but that is probably because, when and if it hits the fan, Israel will be pretty much on their own and then there is the feckless and amoral world community, working through the equally feckless and amoral U.N, which will certainly pile on by attacking Israel for defending itself.
After two years, it is quite evident Obama's word is worth less than our shrinking dollar. Ask American farmers in Texas how much protection they are receiving from our government against incursions from Mexican crack lords. Again tonight (Thursday) another news report interviewing Texas farmers who are being warned to stay off their land.
All presidents swear to defend our nation and uphold our Constitution. I doubt some Texas farmers would buy that when it comes to this president.
Our borders are no longer secure, citizens next to Mexico live in fear, deficits are rising at historical rates, the dollar is evaporating, states are trying to stave off bankruptcy while public unions, that helped cause the problem, are in revolt and are being defended by the same president who said he would restore calm and confidence.
The list of consequences of Obama's incompetence and inept leadership is virtually endless.
If I have overstated the argument please show me where.
The mere fact that Obama could actually be re-nominated would be another blight on Democrats and that he could possibly be re-elected is an even greater indictment against the sanity of our nation's voters.(See 1 below.)
---
There are many ways to fix the Social Security problem and each will meet resistance because it will entail sacrifice.
This is one method that could do so painlessly but probably would be rejected by politicians who want to continue spending that Gore 'lock box' money.
Instead of having social security payments go into the general fund, so politicians can spend it, invest it in a selected pool of top American equities whose returns, historically run circles around government bonds.
That way, the money is no longer reachable by politicians and the government would be forced to build a pool of investible capital thus shoring up our nation's lousy savings rate.
Secondly, the government would still guarantee a fixed retiree return and could use any prospective surplus to return the fund to financial stability.
Rather than obstruct Capitalism our government would be supporting it - fertilizing the tree from which our nation's fruit grows.
Most politicians are slick, Liberals and Obama, Reid, Pelosi etc. perhaps the slickest of them all. Why then, are they unwilling to drill for oil, oil shale and gas and mine coal located on our continent? (See 1 below.)
---
Europe to Uncle Sam - You Be Lets! (See 2 below.)
---
Delusional 'J-erk' Street!(See 3 below.)
---
Hit 'em when they are down. Pursuing fraud may have consequences Obama never figured on and they could be devastating to Egypt's economy, thus, paving the way for further rebellion - all playing into the hands of the virtuous Muslim Brotherhood standing in the wings! (See 4 below.)
---
Dr. Lerner writes Natanyahu needs a Plan B. (See 5 below.)
---
I have a long time friend and fellow memo reader who is enthralled with Obama, gets constant tingles up his leg and hates GW and Cheney. He recently sent me a humorous spoof entitled "The President's Speech" parodying GW, his Texas drawl and mis-pronunciations.
I responded that he should give up his obsession with GW - yesterday's news - and be careful what he wishes for because Obama is making Carter look credible. His response was: "Yup, VERY happy, the economy is coming back, it is morning in America, after too many years of Bush/Cheney inspired paranoia and nastiness. Hoorah!! ... And, the world is now a better place....."
I responded not a safer place, a more expensive and indebted place and I hope he reads Glick's assessment. (See 6 below.)
---
We are entering the 'even sillier' political season.
Daniels has a commendable record but physical attributes could do him in and the writer has some favorable things to say about Huntsman.
I agree with his overall assessment of the Republican field. Voters go for style not substance and that is why we are stuck with Obama and may be again.
There are several Republican candidates better suited for assuming the job of president than Obama but Obama is slicker and snakier than oil, as noted above, and since more than half of the Americans do not have skin in the game (pay no taxes) and blacks tend to vote as a block it will take a 'heap of hurt' to send Obama back to Chicago where he belongs.
Perhaps our only hope for a rational contest is for the liberal media folks to curb their bias and be realistic in assessing the record of on one of their own - fat chance!(See 7 and 7a below.) ---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)The Only Way Out for the American Economy
By Steve McCann
Economic despair reigns in America, as stagnation and mounting debt make our future look hopeless. Yet America is uniquely positioned to rebound and recover our economic preeminence. All that is necessary is a political decision to reverse our energy policy and stimulate domestic production of hydrocarbons. From that would flow a true economic stimulus that would mend many of our ills.
The United States is again, for the second time in less than three years, being reminded of its absurd dependence of foreign sources of energy, most notably, oil. The upheavals in the Middle East have driven up the cost of a barrel of oil into triple digits as it was in 2008. The increasing demands of countries such as China and India and the deliberate devaluation of the dollar by the Federal Reserve and the Obama administration are steadily pushing up oil prices in dollars.
The country's dependence of foreign sources has increased to 52% of the daily requirement as compared to 45% just 15 years ago. Over half of that amount comes from countries that are inherently unstable or ruled by despotic regimes whose interest it is to de-stabilize the United States.
Yet the United States is sitting on the world's largest untapped oil reserve. A natural resource that would not only mitigate the over $400 Billion sent overseas to other countries but could create untold millions of jobs and put the country on a sound financial footing.
The untapped reserves are estimated up to 2.3 Trillion barrels, nearly three times the reserves held by the OPEC countries and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand, at today's levels -- for auto, truck, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.
The US could become the single largest exporter of oil and oil related products in the world, thus potentially eliminating its trade deficit, and increasing the national standard of living as well as making a massive dent in the national debt.
Here is a look at some of the largest untapped reserves:
The Bakken Fields in North and South Dakota. New drilling and oil recovery technology is making the capture of this oil feasible and some development is now underway. It is estimated that there is at least 200 Billion barrels of oil in this region. At a price of $100 per barrel the value of this find is $20 Trillion.
The Outer Continental shelf. It is estimated that around 90 billion barrels of oil sit beneath the ocean bed 50 to 100 miles off the shore of the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts. The value: $9 Trillion.
The Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. About 10 billion barrels are locked up here with a current value of $1 Trillion.
Tar Sands: Around 75 Billion barrels of oil could come from these areas which are similar to the Canadian tar sand fields and which now produce about 2 million barrels per day. The value: $7.5 Trillion
Oil Shale. This is the most massive area of potential oil production in the world with an estimated 1.5 Trillion barrel potential. The technology necessary to extract this oil is now in place and being operated on a pilot project basis. The value of this resource: $150 Trillion
There also the very real potential that further finds will be discovered as technology continues to improve.
In total the value of the potential oil reserves of the United States listed above exceeds $187 Trillion. The current national debt is $14.2 Trillion or less than 8%.
Despite the protestation of President Obama and the environmentalists the world and particularly the United States is not running out of oil. Their foolish tilting at windmills and solar will never produce energy sufficient to operate a $14Trillion and hopefully growing economy. It will be decades if not the rest of the 21st Century before any meaningful substitute for fossil fuels will be developed and additional time and investment will then be necessary to distribute the product.
Mankind's ingenuity has and will continue to develop technology to safely extract, process and market fossil fuels (which is a naturally occurring resource). But the United States must begin now to open the areas for exploration, and permit the construction of refineries and pipelines.
It is beyond absurd that a country sitting on so much natural wealth refuses to exploit it for the benefit of its citizens and instead deliberately puts the nation in the position of being subjected to the whims of others and face national insolvency. It almost appears to be deliberate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Why Does Uncle Stupid Have to Handle Libya?
By James Lewis
Europe is the world's hostile-dependent Welfare Queen, and it is high time for the United States to stop indulging Europe's childish irresponsibility. The Euromedia are constantly telling us they have the answer to the world's problems, and just to prove it, they never actually do anything but criticize Uncle Sam. They call our indulgence of their hostile dependent rage "American Imperialism." The average lefthead in Europe is convinced that all the world's troubles can be blamed on us, and that Progress and International Love and Peace are bound to come... whenever. Meantime they celebrate their own morally superiority and never do anything responsible.
Think Barack H. Obama when you think Europe. He is a European socialist of the Third World (Leninist) variety. Except that now he has to face reality. Soon, they will hate him, too.
When George W. Bush intervened in Iraq, Europe's ruling elite carried on a sustained campaign of personal hatred and rage against Bush for eight years, knowing full well that without American intervention in the Gulf their economies would be starved for lack of fuel.
They have been playing that hostile-dependent game for sixty years and America has indulged them like an overprotective mom. For them America it's not Uncle Sam but Uncle Stupid.
Now that the civilized world claims to be horrified by a grotesque and ranting Col. Khadafi bombing his own people in Libya, Europe is waiting for the United States to put our military lives at risk to protect their southern flank. But Tripoli is only 200 miles from Malta (a member of the EU), Italy is 350 miles, France, Greece and Spain are less than 1,000 miles. That's New York City to Chicago. Sending a dozen jet planes to buzz Col. Khadafi is well within the military capabilities of 300 million prosperous people in Europe. But nobody is talking about it.
Turkey is the biggest military power on the southern NATO flank and desperately wants to be a member of the EU. Let the EU put together a small expeditionary force, control the air by flying their idle military jets over Libya, save the rebellion and starve Khadafi out of power. The United States is expected to do it, while at the same time keeping the peace in the Persian Gulf and Korea.
The Europeans have knowingly eaten their seed grain. They have cannibalized their militaries to run a corrupt and anti-democratic European Union, leaving the primitive duty of self-defense to the United States, a country they feel morally obliged to abuse and trash in public at every possible opportunity.
American radical Leftism is a hostile European ideology that has poisoned our public discourse, the universities, the media. Europe dominates the United Nations in cahoots with reactionary Arab states. Europe constantly tries to compete with us economically by subsidizing their airplane industry (to name but one), and yet it still expects us to take up the complete burden of their defense.
Sixty years ago Europe was in ruins, and it made sense for the US to defend it against a direct Soviet threat. Today Europe has imported 53 million Muslims from the badlands of the world as cheap votes for the Left. Just recently signs of sanity have been appearing in Europe, as Germany's Angela Merkel, France's Nicolas Sarkozy, and Britain's David Cameron have all turned around and finally talked sense about Europe's rush to demographic suicide. But they still won't do what's obvious to a child of six, which is to defend their own southern flank.
Libya is Europe's problem. Turkey was a stable centrist near-democracy until the EU insisted (just like Obama did with Egypt several weeks ago) that elections be held to include the Muslim Brotherhood. Now Turkey's giant armed forces are anti-American, anti-Israel, pro-Islamic, and have a dangerous alliance with Ahmadinejad.
The European Union is unelected, and it claims near-total Nanny State control over all Europeans, cleverly by-passing their elected Parliaments. Europe's ruling class has no electoral legitimacy, which is why they are easily corrupted by Arab oil and Russian natural gas. This is what rich teenagers like Bill Ayers do if they are raised without earning their keep.
America must finally let the European delinquent protect itself. Libya is the perfect test case: It is next door to them, and thousands of miles away from us. Khadafi is really a miserable ruler and a loony-tunes to boot. He is killing his own people by the thousands. But he has bought influence in London and Rome with Libyan oil money.
Four weeks ago Obama was all in favor of pushing over Egypt's Mubarak without knowing what the outcome would be. That rash and self-indulgent grandstanding act may well turn Egypt into a radical Islamist nation. One obvious Western policy in Libya (and Egypt) is to assist its modernizing factions (which do exist), and to keep that line of support going as the revolution settles out. That's Diplomacy 101. It's how the West kept influence in Pakistan and Turkey until the rise of Islamist radicalism turned us stupid.
All this is plain and simple. What's suicidal and grotesque is the failure of the United States to stand back and tell Libya's Mediterranean neighbors: You help to defeat the loony tunes in Tripoli, and keep supporting the saner factions over there for the next ten or twenty years to protect yourself. Act, don't dither. Don't expect us to pull your cookies out of the fire, the way you've done for sixty years. Become sovereign and responsible powers again.
And if you can't do that, the fault is yours. Don't look to us to protect you from Islamist bombers and Libyan WMDs. We will protect our own neighborhood. Your safety is up to you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Time on the J Street Ward
By Lori Lowenthal Marcus
While attending the J Street conference I wondered whether I had entered some alternative dimension, where facts known by the rest of the world, and basic principles of reasoning, just didn't operate in quite the same way as they do on the rest of planet Earth. I think I know what's operating.
Psychologists teach that an obsession is "a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling." There is a persistent theme on J Street: a Palestinian State must be created RIGHT NOW ("PSRN"), and it's almost as if there is a complete memory block about the refusals of varying forms of the state, including the original offer by the United Nations of yet another Arab State in 1947.
That PSRN is J Street's obsession is revealed by the fact that unanimity on that "solution" co-exists with radical disagreement about the nature of the problem. Here's an abbreviated list of the ideological positions you pass as you walk down J Street:
Over here we have Daniel Levy, one of J Street's founders, Advisory Board member and policy consultant (yes, the one who admitted forgiving the world for the mistake of Israel because he understood they were reeling from the nasties of the Holocaust). Levy peddles the principle that Hamas is a serious regional player and that Israel must include them in the negotiations to create a Palestinian State. Levy is down the block from al-Jazeera's senior political analyst Marwan Bishara who explains that Hamas is dedicated to Israel's annihilation (which received applause from a J Street U member in the audience) and that the only way for Israel to protect itself from them is to create a Palestinian State.
Around the corner we learn from Knesset member Shlomo Molla that bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Arab Palestinians are the only way to move towards peace in the region. Two houses down on the same street, Tom Dine of Search for Common Ground tells us that bilateral movement is impossible, and instead a regional approach is the only possibility for peace. And that the only choice open to Israel is to create a PSRN.
Just across J Street from these guys is New York Times reporter Roger Cohen who insists that the unrest in the Middle East is actually weakening Iran, while down the block we learn from the Saban Center's Shibley Telhami that Iran is the main threat in the region. Iran is weaker, says Cohen, so now is the time to create a Palestinian State, and Iran is the major threat, says Telhami, so now is the time to create a Palestinian State. Polar opposite reasoning, yet naturally both ineluctably lead to the conclusion that the only possible answer is the immediate creation of a Palestinian State.
Hebrew University professor Bernard Avishai berated Dennis Ross for wimpishly claiming that "bilateral negotiations is the only mechanism" for achieving peace. Avishai instead called for an "Obama Blueprint" in which the US uses its bully pulpit to galvanize "international momentum and pressure" (on Israel, of course), to create a Palestinian State. In the same building but down a few flights we heard from the ubiquitous Egyptian journalist Mona Eltahawy that the "West has become irrelevant" and that rather than the West, the region demands freedom and dignity for the Palestinians. Both agreed about one thing -- wait, I'm trying to remember -- oh yes, the need to create a PSRN.
Near the end of the block on J Street are two Israelis who insist that the world doesn't distrust or dislike Israel, and that those who see such hostility are deluded by the evil Netanyahu who uses it to prevent an agreement on, you guessed it, the creation of a Palestinian State. One of these is Ron Pundak, the director general of the Peres Center for Peace. Pundak is convinced the world is full of love for the Jewish State and claims that Israel can survive just fine with a nuclearized Iran. The other, Knesset member Daniel Ben-Simon, insists that Israel is a world super power and has nothing to fear from anyone. They agree, however, that the beloved super power Israel must immediately create a Palestinian State or it will lose its standing.
And finally, at the end of J Street are several more Israelis, including Kadima party Members of Knesset Nachman Shai (who was unable to rouse any enthusiasm by demanding that Gilad Shalit be released before the restrictions on Gaza be eased) and Yoel Hasson. Both of these men claim that Fatah is the solution to the Arab-Israel conflict, and that Israel has to help them by creating a Palestinian State. These two are around the bend from Ophir Pines-Paz, former Labor Knesset member and Minister who intones that the Palestinians are entirely disunited and can't deliver peace and security, so the solution is a Palestinian State.
In a world where Arab regimes are collapsing, or not collapsing because they're bribing their people (Bahrain) or conciliating them (Jordan); where they are murdering their citizens (Libya) or not murdering them (Egypt); intimidating them into silence (Iran) or not intimidating them and letting them speak (Iraq) -- no-one claims to know what the Arab world thinks or where it is headed.
And yet, in the middle of this storm there is one unalterable fact: the solution to Israel's problems (whatever they may be), to the Arab world's problems -- and for many denizens of J Street, the solution to most of the world's ills -- is simply and only the creation, RIGHT NOW, of a Palestinian State. If that one thing happens then all will be well with the Jewish world, the Arab world, and much of the entire world; the lion (6 million Israeli Jews) will lie down with the lamb (338 million Arabs); the Muslims of France will eat croissants and stop setting fire to cars; the Muslims of London will drink tea and stop setting fire to the underground; and the Muslims of Chechnya will drink vodka and stop trying to set fire to Russia.
Rational political discourse tries to define problems and propose solutions -- and we can assess the quality of the discourse by looking to see whether the problems and solutions are logically connected to each other. But when the same solution is offered to solve every problem in the world and its exact opposite, it becomes clear that what's operating in the mind of the people proffering that solution is not logic. It's an obsession with that solution. The J Street conference was not an exercise in political discussion; it was a ward, holding but not treating people suffering from an intellectual monomania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Mubarak faces corruption probe on gas to Israel, warrants for Israeli, US partners
The prospects of Egypt resuming its gas supplies to Israel dropped to zero Thursday, March 3 when Egypt's state security prosecutor Abdel Magid Mahmud announced that deposed president Hosni Mubarak would be summoned for questioning next week about allegedly corrupt deals for selling Israel Egyptian gas at knock-down prices, Cairo sources report. Mahmud claimed he had documentary evidence that Egypt lost more than half a billion dollars on its gas sales to Israel and sought to follow up suspicions that the difference was shared out between the Mubarak family and the Israeli and American partners in the transaction.
The flow of gas to Israel was suspended on Feb. 5 when Hamas blew up the pipeline running through Sinai during the Egyptian uprising. Sources confirm that supplies will not be renewed until the end of the corruption inquiry which could go on for years.
In response to a statement by the Merhav company, the Israeli partners of the joint company EMG, that supplies would be resumed Friday, March 4, word came from Cairo that there is no such intention.
Damage to Israel's power supply is substantial. Egyptian gas fuels 40 percent of Israel's electricity requirements. Meanwhile, world fuel prices have shot up and Israel has been forced to convert its power stations from gas to heavy fuel, incurring extra outlay running into hundreds of millions of dollars a month.
The new military rulers of Egypt, headed by Defense Minister Field Marshal Mohammed Tantawi, appear helpless to halt the corruption probe against the former president and his family.
It had been hoped in Washington and Jerusalem that, in the meantime, the generals would at least get the pipeline repaired and the gas flowing again to Israel, in accordance with Cairo's international contract obligations. But the army chiefs refrained from doing so, just as they allowed Prosecutor Mahmud to place the Israel gas deal at the top of the corruption file against Mubarak.
The prosecutor evidently intends to press ahead with the investigation and release findings scandalous enough to throw Egypt's relations with the United States and Israel into deep crisis.
Whereas the Americans involved in the gas deal were private businessmen, the Israelis were government officials from the infrastructure ministry in the governments headed by Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert.
The Egyptian prosecutor is already seeking to question Hussein Salem, 83, a close friend of Mubarak and one of the richest men in the country who escaped to Dubai at the start of the uprising; also Yossie Maimon, head of Merhav, Sam Zell, the American financier who invested in EMG by buying out some of Hussein Salam's shares in 2007.
For now, Cairo sources add, the military junta has no intention of interfering in the prosecutor's case or plans to summon to Cairo for questioning the Israel and American representatives of the firm. If they refuse to come, the prosecutor is considering issuing international arrest warrants through Interpol, thereby curtailing their travel plans.
The military junta, by permitting the prosecutor to inflate the gas deal with Israel to scandalous proportions, has darkened the hopes entertained in Jerusalem until now that the new rulers will provide Egypt and its relations with stability and show an interest in preserving the thirty-year old peace treaty with Israel.
But now, the generals are demonstrating peace relations with Israel do not serve their ends and have no compunctions about sacrificing their peace partner's interests in order to pander to Egyptian public opinion - even at a loss of the desperately needed $2 billion a year which the gas deal brought the Egyptian treasury.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5). Netanyahu Needs a Plan B
By Dr. Aaron Lerner
Here is the argument:
If Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu doesn’t get in front of the ball the
U.N. will declare a sovereign Palestinian state encompassing the entire West
Bank (including eastern Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip in a few months.
Sanctions will follow to force Israel to respect the sovereignty of
“Palestine” in all facets of its expression.
The assertion that, if created, a sovereign Palestinian state would “live
side by side in peace with Israel” is faith-based rather than logic-based,
so debating it is doomed to failure.
The firestorm sweeping the Middle East, with the very real possibility that
radical Islamic regimes may ultimately bracket the Jewish State isn’t
relevant, the argument continues, because President Obama insists that
analysis ignore the very existence of “radical Islam”.
Netanyahu thus, the argument goes, has no choice but to propose a sovereign
Palestinian state to pre-empt these developments.
Here’s the problem: None of the above addresses that problem that a
sovereign Palestinian state would inevitably serve as the launching pad for
a deadly assault to destroy Israel.
This is not the assessment of a radical right minority.
There’s a wall-to-wall consensus in Israel on this point. And polls of the
Palestinians show that they do indeed see the creation of a Palestinian
state next to Israel as no more than one step in the process that will
ultimately lead to Israel’s demise.
And since a sovereign state, once created, continues to exist even if it
violates the agreements and understanding that were the basis for its coming
into being, the verbiage that accompanies the creation of the state can’t
overcome this fundamental problem.
Yes, the situation is challenging.
But a plan that takes us out of the frying pan and into the fire is not the
solution.
We need a “Plan B”.
It’s not too late.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)The world is actually now a far more dangerous place. Why is our foreign policy still out of step?
By Caroline B. Glick
Read for enlightenment, but be prepared for anger
A new Middle East is upon us and its primary beneficiary couldn't be happier.
In a speech Monday in the Iranian city of Kermanshah, Iranian Revolutionary Guards' Politburo Chief General Yadollah Javani crowed, "Iran's pivotal role in the New Middle East is undeniable. Today the Islamic Revolution of the Iranian nation enjoys such a power, honor and respect in the world that all nations and governments wish to have such a ruling system."
Iran's leaders have eagerly thrown their newfound weight around. For instance, Iran is challenging Saudi Arabia's ability to guarantee the stability of global oil markets.
For generations, the stability of global oil supplies has been guaranteed by Saudi Arabia's reserve capacity that could be relied on to make up for any shocks to those supplies due to political unrest or other factors. When Libya's teetering dictator Muammar Ghaddafi decided to shut down Libya's oil exports last month, the oil markets reacted with a sharp increase in prices. The very next day the Saudis announced they would make up the shortfall from Libya's withdrawal from the export market.
In the old Middle East, the Saudi statement would never have been questioned. Oil suppliers and purchasers alike accepted the arrangement whereby Saudi Arabian reserves — defended by the US military -- served as the guarantor of the oil economy. But in the New Middle East, Iran feels comfortable questioning the Saudi role.
On Thursday Iran's Oil Minister Massoud Mirkazemi urged Saudi Arabia to refrain from increasing production. Mirkazemi argued that since the OPEC oil cartel has not discussed increasing supplies, Saudi Arabia had no right to increase its oil output.
True, Iran's veiled threat did not stop Saudi Arabia from increasing its oil production by 500,000 barrels per day. But the fact that Iran feels comfortable telling the Saudis what they can and cannot do with their oil demonstrates the mullocracy's new sense of empowerment.
And it makes sense. With each passing day, the Iranian regime is actively destabilizing Saudi Arabia's neighbors and increasing its influence over Saudi Arabia's Shiite minority in the kingdom's Eastern Province where most of its oil is located.
Perhaps moved by the political unrest in Bahrain and Yemen, Saudi regime opponents including Saudi's Shiite minority have stepped up their acts of political opposition. The Saudi royal family has sought to literally buy off its opponents by showering its subjects with billions of dollars in new subsidies and payoffs. But still the tide of dissent rises. Saudi regime opponents have scheduled political protests for March 11 and March 20. In an attempt to blunt the force of the demonstrations, Saudi security forces arrested Tawfiq al-Amir, a prominent Shiite cleric from the Eastern Province. On February 25 al-Amir delivered a sermon calling for the transformation of the kingdom into a constitutional monarchy.
Iran has used his arrest to pressure the Saudi regime. In an interview with Iran's Fars news agency this week, Iranian parliamentarian and regime heavyweight Mohammed Dehqan warned the Saudis not to try to quell the growing unrest. As he put it, the Saudi leaders "should know that the Saudi people have become vigilant and do not allow the rulers of the country to commit any possible crime against them."
Dehqan continued, "Considering that the developments in Bahrain and Yemen affect the situation in Saudi Arabia, the [regime] feels grave danger and interferes in the internal affairs of these states."
Dehqan's statement is indicative of the mullah's confidence in the direction the region is taking. In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged that Iran is deeply involved in all the anti-regime protests and movements from Egypt to Yemen to Bahrain and beyond. "Either directly or through proxies, they are constantly trying to influence events. They have a very active diplomatic foreign policy outreach," Clinton said.
Iranian officials, Hizbullah and Hamas terrorists and other Iranian agents have played pivotal roles in the anti-regime movements in Yemen and Bahrain. Their operations are the product of Iran's long running policy of developing close ties to opposition figures in these countries as well as in Egypt, Kuwait, Oman and Morocco. These long-developed ties are reaping great rewards for Iran today. Not only do these connections give the Iranians the ability to influence the policies of post-revolutionary allied regimes. They give the mullahs and their allies the ability to intimidate the likes of the Saudi and Bahraini royals and force them to appease Iran's allies.
This means that Iran's mullahs win no matter how the revolts pan out. If weakened regimes maintain power by appeasing Iran's allies in the opposition — as they are trying to do in Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Algeria, Bahrain, Oman and Yemen -- then Iranian influence over the weakened regimes will grow substantially. And if Iran's allies topple the regimes, then Iran's influence will increase even more steeply.
Moreover, Iran's preference for proxy wars and asymmetric battles is served well by the current instability. Iran's proxies — from Hizbullah to al Qaida to Hamas — operate best in weak states. From Hizbullah's operations in South Lebanon in the 1980s and 1990s, to the Iranian-sponsored Iraqi insurgents in recent years and beyond, Iran has exploited weak central authorities to undermine pro-Western governments, weaken Israel and diminish US regional influence.
In the midst of Egypt's revolutionary violence, Iran quickly deployed its Hamas proxies to the Sinai. Since Mubarak's fall, Iran has worked intensively to expand its proxy forces' capacity to operate freely in the Sinai.
Recognition of Iran's expanded power is fast altering the international community's perception of the regional balance of forces. Russia's announcement last Saturday that it will sell Syria the supersonic Yakhont anti-ship cruise missile was a testament to Iran's rising regional power and the US's loss of power.
Russia signed a deal to provide the missiles to Syria in 2007. But Moscow abstained from supplying them until now — just after Iran sailed its naval ships unmolested to Syria through the Suez Canal and signed a naval treaty with Syria effectively fusing the Iranian and Syrian navies. So too, Russia's announcement that it sides with Iran's ally Turkey in its support for reducing UN Security Council sanctions against Iran indicates that the US no longer has the regional posture necessary to contain Iran on the international stage. Iran's increased regional power and its concomitant expanded leverage in international oil markets will make it impossible for the US to win UN Security Council support for more stringent sanctions against Tehran. Obviously UN Security Council sanctioned military action against Iran's nuclear installations is out of the question.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration has failed completely to understand what is happening. Clinton told the Congress and the Senate that Iran's increased power means that the US should continue to arm and fund Iran's allies and support the so-called democratic forces that are allied with Iran.
So it was that Clinton told the Senate that the Obama administration thinks it is essential to continue to supply the Hizbullah-controlled Lebanese military with US arms Clinton claimed that she couldn't say what Hizbullah control over the Lebanese government meant regarding the future of US ties to Lebanon.
So too, while Palestinian Authority leaders burn President Barack Obama in effigy and seek to form a unity government with Iran's Hamas proxy, Clinton gave an impassioned defense of US funding for the PA to the House Foreign Relations Committee this week. Clinton's behavior bespeaks a stunning failure to understand the basic realities she and the State Department she leads are supposed to shape. Her lack of comprehension is matched only by her colleague Defense Secretary Robert Gates' lack of shame and nerve. In a press conference this week, Gates claimed that Iran is weakened by the populist waves in the Arab world because Iran's leaders are violently oppressing their political opponents.
In light of the Obama administration's refusal to use US military force for even the most minor missions — like evacuating US citizens from Libya — without UN approval, it is apparent that the US will not use armed force against Iran for as long as Obama is in power.
And given the administration's refusal to expend any effort to protect US interests and allies in the region lest the US be accused of acting like a superpower, it is clear that US allies like the Saudis will not be able to depend on America to defend the regime. This is the case despite the fact that its overthrow would threaten the US's core regional interests.
Against this backdrop, it is clear that the only way to curb Iran's influence in the region and so strike a major blow against its rising Shiite-Sunni jihadist alliance is to actively support the pro-democracy regime opponents in Iran's Green movement. The only chance of preventing Iran from plunging the region into war and bloodshed is if the regime is overthrown.
So long as the Iranian regime remains in power, it will be that much harder for the Egyptians to build an open democracy or for the Saudis to open the kingdom to liberal voices and influences. The same is true of virtually every country in the region. Iran is the primary regional engine of war, terror, nuclear proliferation and instability. As long as the regime survives, it will be difficult for liberal forces in the region to gain strength and influence.
On February 24, the mullahs reportedly arrested opposition leaders Mir Hossain Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi along with their wives. It took the Obama administration several days to even acknowledge the arrests, let alone denounce them.
In the face of massive regime violence, Iran's anti-regime protesters are out in force in cities throughout the country demanding their freedom and a new regime. And yet, aside from paying lip service to their bravery, neither the US nor any other government has come forward to help them. No one has supplied Iran's embattled revolutionaries with proxy servers after the regime brought down their Internet communications networks. No one has given them arms. No one has demanded that Iran be thrown out of all UN bodies pending the regime's release of the Moussavis and Karroubis and the thousands of political prisoners being tortured in the mullah's jails. No one has stepped up to fund around-the-clock anti-regime broadcasts into Iran to help regime opponents organize and coordinate their operations. Certainly no one has discussed instituting a no fly zone over Iran to protect the protesters.
With steeply rising oil prices and the real prospect of al Qaida taking over Yemen, Iranian proxies taking over Bahrain, and the Muslim Brotherhood controlling Egypt, some Americans are recognizing that not all revolutions are Washingtonian.
But there is a high likelihood that an Iranian revolution would be. At a minimum, a democratic Iran would be far less dangerous to the region and the world than the current regime.
The Iranians are right. We are moving into a new Middle East. And if the mullahs aren't overthrown, the New Middle East will be a very dark and dangerous place.
JWR contributor Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, where her column appears.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)2012: Yes, maybe, and unelectable
By Scot Lehigh
THE PERIOD is upon us when politicians gaze in the mirror, see a potential president smiling back at
Thus it’s time for a (subjective) look at some of the Republican Party’s prospective 2012 candidates. If you start with the assumption that a candidate must have a plausible path to both the nomination and the presidency, the prospects of the might-be candidates fall into three categories: Believable, conceivable, and unachievable.
Let’s begin with Newt Gingrich, who bumbled his way toward launching a presidential exploratory effort this week. Gingrich has never won an election in anything bigger than a congressional district. His mid-1990s reign as speaker was marked by petulance, pugnacity, and backlash-begetting budgetary brinkmanship.
His personal conduct has been, um, Edwardsian. Meanwhile, consider this assertion from his latest book: “The secular-socialist machine’’ — by which Gingrich means the Obama administration and its allies — “represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did.’’ If you overheard that on the street, you might well mistake it for the ravings of a lunatic. Let’s label Newt’s hopes: Unachievable.
He’s joined in that category by Sarah Palin. So far over her head in 2008 that some of John McCain’s own advisers fretted at the prospect of having her a septuagenarian heartbeat away from the presidency, Palin has hardly allayed doubts about herself since. If the GOP really wants a lighter-than-air disaster, why not just nominate the Hindenburg?
Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour is by no means a lightweight, but does anyone honestly think that a former tobacco lobbyist who sounds like Boss Hogg and has a history of dumb or dubious remarks related to race is going to be president? Add in former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, eccentric libertarian Ron Paul, and Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann, and you have a hopeless half-dozen.
Mitt Romney tops the list of the believables. Yes, it’s true that when it comes to convictions, Mitt is more likely to be mistaken for a clipper ship running downwind than the Rock of Gibraltar. Still, he does have business, management, and mess-fixing expertise (plus, of course, creative canine-conveying skills).
His 2008 candidacy gave him a nationwide network, while his bottomless pockets ensure a well-financed multi-state campaign. His biggest hurdle, obviously, is RomneyCare, the model for ObamaCare, which wild-eyed types like Gingrich mistake for socialism. Still, in a race that lacks a clear leader, Romney’s latent strengths make him the default frontrunner.
He’s joined in the believable category by two-term Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty. Daniels’s business-boosting, budget-cutting, debt-decimating record has made him someone the PBR — Please Block Romney — crowd gazes hopefully toward. Five-foot-seven and balding, Daniels doesn’t look the part of a president, but the skills he has demonstrated in Indiana (if not as George W. Bush’s first budgeter) certainly match the moment.
Twice elected in deep-blue Minnesota, Pawlenty is a Republican with blue-collar roots, obvious political talent, and conservative governing success. Add in crossover appeal to Tea Party types and religious conservatives, and he’s someone to watch.
Finally, there are the conceivable, might-bes who can’t be dismissed out of hand, but whose prospects are problematic. Former Southern Baptist minister and erstwhile Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee usually polls well, and if Palin doesn’t run, he’d start as the social conservatives’ favorite. Still, he would have to broaden his reach — and as we saw in 2008, that’s a challenge. Further, the 2009 murders of four Washington police officers by a man made eligible for early parole because Huckabee commuted his sentence could dog him the way the Willie Horton issue did Michael Dukakis in his 1988 presidential campaign.
Then there’s former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, who has just resigned as ambassador to China to explore a presidential run. Some positions — like, say, a past willingness to credit the scientific consensus on global warming — would clearly run afoul of Republican purists, as would his service in President Obama’s administration. And yet the wealthy, charismatic, twice-elected Huntsman was considered an effective governor; further, he has foreign-policy experience, something few of the other hopefuls can claim. More moderate than doctrinaire, he’s the type of figure who just might gain a foothold in a field that found conservative allegiances split. Call him an intriguing question mark.
And that’s the way it looks from here — at least until the Conceivables become Believables.
7a)Will it be Obama versus the economy
By Patricia Zengerle
With a leading Republican candidate yet to emerge, the biggest risk to President Barack Obama's quest for a second term next year is a jobless rate that has hovered between 9 and 10 percent for months.
Friday's jobless report is expected to show nonfarm payrolls soared in February by 185,000 jobs, but the overall unemployment rate is nonetheless expected to edge up to 9.1 percent.
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich is edging toward entering the presidential race but heavyweight Republicans like him have yet to formally line up to oppose Obama in the 2012 election, making the monthly unemployment report one of the best early guides to the president's re-election prospects.
Analysts say the jobless rate needs to drop below 8 percent by autumn 2012 for voters to feel optimistic about the economy -- and Obama's handling of it -- when they go to the polls that November.
"The problem for President Obama is that the window to achieve that kind of growth is closing. Without significant job growth this year, he will be in an economically challenging position to open the 2012 race," said Matt McDonald, an analyst at the Washington policy advisory firm Hamilton Place Strategies.
Voters may be temporarily captivated by turmoil in the Arab world, disputes between Republican state governors and unions or policy squabbles in Congress, but no issue preoccupies Americans as persistently as their own bank accounts and job outlook.
"Unemployment is the best-known measure of the health of the U.S. economy and it's an indicator of economic performance that is lagging badly," said economist Gary Burtless at the Brookings Institution, adding that the jobless rate would become more important closer to the November 2012 election.
McDonald estimates the economy needs to add 190,000 jobs per month in the next 1-1/2 years for unemployment to drop below 8 percent by Election Day 2012. "If more people are getting jobs, they are happier about the economy and happier about the job that the president is doing," he said.
Besides Gingrich, senior Republicans including former governors Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty are thought to be planning to seek the Republican presidential nomination, though none has formally announced a plan to run.
And no-one has emerged as a Republican favorite. The famously outspoken Gingrich is remembered from his years in Congress as a polarizing figure.
And Romney, a leading candidate in the 2008 presidential race, is accused of having "flip-flopped" on issues. Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, while a darling with some media, is seen as popular only with the most conservative voters.
As of now, the presidential election is expected to be very close, whoever ends up running against Obama.
A recent Gallup poll showed Obama tied with any generic Republican candidate among registered voters, with 45 percent likely to back the incumbent Democrat and 45 percent saying they would support "the Republican party's candidate."
Sputtering economy or not, senior Republicans say Obama could win re-election. Karl Rove, a Republican strategist considered a major force behind George W. Bush's two presidential election victories, was quoted this week as saying Obama should still be considered the favorite.
Incumbents typically have a strong advantage in presidential races.
"The unemployment rate is important, but it is not the only factor that will determine the 2012 elections," said Allan Lichtman, a political historian from American University.
"Other factors include major success or failure abroad, avoidance of scandal, an uncontested nomination, the lack of a third party contender, Obama's charisma and the lack thereof of the GOP contenders."
(Editing by Alistair Bell and Todd Eastham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment