SEMPER FI ! - Go Prager! The Darwins!

I called attention to the Nov. Issue of Commentary and the divergent articles on: "Are You Optimistic or Pessimistic About America's Future?"

I thought Dennis Prager best summed up my views when he wrote that many Americans have finally awoken to the dangers of Leftism. They now understand that bigger the government smaller the citizen; death of God leads to death of objective moral standards and the Marine Corps, not the Peace Corps, makes the word, safer. SEMPER FI!

Those who feel optimistic fall back on America and Americans have always faced threats and overcome them.

My own sense is, our independent culture has become infected by a sub-culture that is foreign to the tenets of what being an American once meant and the increasing belief the family and a solid education are irrelevant is a threat to the basic foundation of our Republic.

Mounting evidence suggests children born into and raised by a single parent family are less likely to compete and succeed. It stands to reason that lack of a male presence in a family defies natural law.

Soft education and a watered down curriculum neither prepare students to compete nor reason.

The election of Obama reflects the above in my opinion. We hired a rookie because we wanted to feel good about overcoming the race issue. What did we get? An incompetent who has divided us along every conceivable line.
---
Its Darwin Awards time! (See 1 below.)
---
Obama has to deal with Netanyahu, Sarkozy calls Netanyahu a liar but the world also has to deal with both of them. (See 2, 2a, 2b and 2c below.)

When Obama's term in office is finished he will have lost the advantage gained by GW's Iraq surge, the Afghanistan War, Obama said was so critical, Iran will have achieved nuclear status and our nation's currency will have been trashed beneath an Olympus of debt but Obama can claim he killed Osama while losing American influence throughout the world.

And that is just the beginning of the Obama tragedy there is much more to come as a consequence of his time in The Oval Office.

Wake up America!
---
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)The Darwin Awards are out! These Annual Honors are given to the persons who did the human gene pool the biggest service by killing themselves in the most extraordinarily stupid way.

You may recall that last year's winner was the fellow who was killed by a Coke machine which toppled over on top of him as he was attempting to tip a free soda out.

This year's winner was a genuine Rocket Scientist and remember each and every one of these is a true story. The nominees were:


Semifinalist #1
A young Canadian man, searching for a way of getting drunk cheaply, because he had no money with which to buy alcohol, mixed gasoline with milk. Not surprisingly, this concoction made him ill, and he vomited into the fireplace in his house. The resulting explosion and fire burned his house down, killing both he and his sister.

Semifinalist #2
Three Brazilian men were flying in a light aircraft at low altitude when another plane approached. It appears that they decided to moon the occupants of the other plane, but lost control of their own aircraft and crashed. They were all found dead in the wreckage with their pants around their ankles.

Semifinalist #3
A 22-year-old Reston, VA man was found dead after he tried to use octopus straps to bungee jump off a 70-foot rail road trestle. Fairfax County police said Eric Barcia, a fast-food worker, taped a bunch of these straps together, wrapped an end around one foot, anchored the other end to the trestle at Lake Accotink Park, jumped and hit the pavement. Warren Carmichael, a police spokesman, said investigators think Barcia was alone because his car was found nearby. "The length of the cord that he had assembled was greater than the distance between the trestle and the concrete," Carmichael said. Police say the apparent cause of death was "Major trauma."

Semifinalist #4
A man in Alabama died from numerous rattlesnake bites. It seems that he and a friend were playing a game of catch, using the rattlesnake as a ball. The friend - no doubt a future Darwin Awards candidate - was hospitalized, but lived.

Semifinalist #5
Employees in a medium-sized warehouse in west Texas noticed the smell of a gas leak. Sensibly, management evacuated the building, extinguishing all potential sources of ignition; lights, power, etc. After the building had been evacuated, two technicians from the gas company were dispatched. Upon entering the building, they found they had difficulty navigating in the dark. To their frustration, none of the lights worked. Witnesses later described the sight of one of the technicians reaching into his pocket and retrieving an object that resembled a cigarette lighter. Upon operation of the lighter-like object, the gas in the warehouse exploded, sending pieces of it up to three miles away. Nothing was found of the technicians, but the lighter
was virtually untouched by the explosion. The technician suspected of causing
the blast had never been thought of as ''especially bright'' by his peers.


And now the winner of this year's Darwin Award; as always, awarded posthumously;

THE 2011 WINNER!
Arizona Highway Patrol came upon a pile of smoldering metal embedded in the side of a cliff rising above the road at the apex of a curve. The wreckage resembled the site of an airplane crash, but it was a car. The type of car was unidentifiable at the scene.

Police investigators finally pieced together the mystery. An amateur rocket scientist had somehow gotten hold of a JATO unit (Jet Assisted Take Off...actually a solid-fuel rocket) that is used to give heavy military transport planes an extra 'push' for taking off from short airfields. He had driven his Chevy Impala out into the desert and found a long, straight stretch of road. He attached the JATO unit to the car,
jumped in, got up some speed and fired off the JATO!

The facts, as best could be determined, are that the operator of the 1967 Impala hit the JATO ignition at a distance of approximately 3.0 miles from the crash site. This was established by the scorched and melted asphalt at that location.

The JATO, if operating properly, would have reached maximum thrust within 5
seconds, causing the Chevy to reach speeds well in excess of 350 mph and continuing at full power for an additional 20 -25 seconds.

The driver, and soon-to-be pilot, would have experienced G-forces usually reserved for dog fighting F-14 jocks under full afterburners, causing him to become irrelevant for the remainder of the event.

However, the automobile remained on the straight highway for about 2.5 miles
(15-20 seconds) before the driver applied and completely melted the brakes,
blowing the tires and leaving thick rubber marks on the road surface, then becoming airborne for an additional 1.4 miles and impacting the cliff face at a height of 125 feet, leaving a blackened crater 3 feet deep in the rock. Most of the driver's remains were not recoverable.

Epilogue: It has been calculated that this moron attained a ground speed of
approximately 420-mph, though much of his voyage was not actually on the ground.

Really.....we couldn't make this stuff up and remember these people are all around us and they have kids and they vote for Democrats!-------- Just think of the number that did not make the semi-finals!!!??
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Report: Sarkozy calls Netanyahu 'liar'
Microphones accidently left on after G20 meeting pick up private conversation between US, French presidents. Sarkozy admits he 'can't stand' Israeli premier. Obama: You're fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day!

French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly told US President Barack Obama that he could not "stand" Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and that he thinks the Israeli premier "is a liar."

According to a Monday report in the French website "Arret sur Images," after facing reporters for a G20 press conference on Thursday, the two presidents retired to a private room, to further discuss the matters of the day.

The conversation apparently began with President Obama criticizing Sarkozy for not having warned him that France would be voting in favor of the Palestinian membership bid in UNESCO despite Washington's strong objection to the move.

The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared: "I cannot stand him. He is a liar." According to the report, Obama replied: "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!"

The remark was naturally meant to be said in confidence, but the two leaders' microphones were accidently left on, making the would-be private comment embarrassingly public.

The communication faux pas went unnoticed for several minutes, during which the conversation between the two heads of state – which quickly reverted to other matters – was all but open to members the press, who were still in possession of headsets provided by the Elysée for the sake of simultaneous translation during the G20 press conference.

"By the time the (media) services at the Elysée realize it, it was on for at least three minutes," one journalist told the website. Still, he said that reporters "did not have a chance to take advantage of this fluke."

The surprising lack of coverage may be explained by a report alleging that journalists present at the event were requested to sign an agreement to keep mum on the embarrassing comments. A Reuters reporter was among the journalists present and can confirm the veracity of the comments.

A member of the media confirmed Monday that "there were discussions between journalists and they agreed not to publish the comments due to the sensitivity of the issue."


He added that while it was annoying to have to refrain from publishing the information, the journalists are subject to precise rules of conduct.


2a)General Fuller's Career-Ending Message for Americans
By Fred J. Eckert


One of America's top generals in Afghanistan was fired last Friday for making "inappropriate public remarks."

Major General Peter Fuller's career-destroying offense was to publicly criticize Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai for saying during an October 22nd interview with Pakistani news media that that if the U.S. and Pakistan got into a war, he and Afghanistan would side with Pakistan in fighting against the United States. The general's critical comments were made during an interview Thursday with the left-leaning news website Politico.

"Why don't you just poke me in the eye with a needle? You've got to be kidding me. ... I'm sorry, we just gave you $11.6 billion, and now you're telling me, 'I don't really care?' " Fuller said.

General Fuller also referred to Karzai's being "erratic," expressed hope that Afghanistan's next leader will be more "articulate," said he thought Afghan government leaders are "isolated from reality" in their expectations of what America should expend in that country, and said those Afghan leaders "don't appreciate" the sacrifice that the United States is making in "blood and treasure" for the people of their country.

The general could have -- but didn't -- mention that Karzai is forever demanding apologies from us; that he has referred to the U.S. and other foreign soldiers protecting him and his country as "occupiers;" that he has publicly threatened to join the Taliban; that he now and then demands our "immediate" withdrawal; that his is a highly corrupt operation; that he is scheming to dismantle his country's constitution to perpetuate himself in power; that when an October 29th Taliban suicide bombing attack against a NATO bus in Kabul resulted in the deaths of some thirteen persons, most of them Americans, Karzai again insulted us by expressed condolences only for the four who were Afghans; and that it took our leaning on him to extract belated inclusion of the Americans and others.

The elite media is treating as a fairly big story General Fuller's being fired for saying what he said in public. Fair enough. But what the elite media have been missing and continue to miss -- and likely will keep right on missing -- is the bigger story of the bigger picture here.

Everything General Fuller said that got him fired is true and needs to be understood by the public and by the media. Bear in mind that General Fuller, a man who has served our country as a U.S. Army officer for more than 30 years, was the deputy commander charged with turning Afghan's military into an effective fighting force. Knowing this, there is something lacking in anyone's sense of patriotism who does not understand and share the general's annoyance and frustration about Karzai's revealing that he would have no qualms about ordering Afghan soldiers trained by Americans to fight and kill Americans.

And yet...it is not the place of General Fuller to presume without authorization to make and conduct U.S. foreign policy. Clearly he crossed the line. Thus, it is beside the point and matters not one bit that what he said in public is true and very likely echoes what the superior officer who fired him and just about every other American military official in Afghanistan says in private.

We can expect that most of the debate about the firing of General Fuller will center on the point just made and answered. Big mistake.

The firing of General Fuller raises a much larger unanswered question, the question that should have been raised and discussed in the media all along from the very moment that Hamid Karzai publicly made his inappropriate, insulting remarks at which
General Fuller and every other clear thinking American rightly takes great offense: what should U.S. leaders say and do when a foreign leader who owes his country's freedom, and perhaps even his own life, to American goodness acts towards America as one would act towards an enemy?

This bigger question remains unanswered in the public mind -- because the media does not discuss it, does not bother to put the question to those who should be made to answer it.

What did the president of the United States say or do about Karzai's volunteering a promise to fight against us? No one seems to have any idea. A good guess is that Barack Obama either went golfing or went fundraising, but that's only a guess. Did Obama issue a statement expressing his displeasure and calling upon Karzai to apologize and retract? No. Did the media ask him why not? No.

What did the Obama administration's secretary of state say or do? Hillary Clinton says she promptly called the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan and asked him to "go in and figure out what it means," "it" being these words uttered by Karzai on Pakistani media: "If fighting starts between Pakistan and the U.S., we are beside Pakistan."
Now, most people would take Karzai's statement as unequivocally declaring which side he would take in a war between America and Pakistan -- and that it would be against us. Pakistan's double-dealing government understood it -- and loved it.

But when the president of the United States is so weak, apparently his secretary of state felt that the best course was to try to protect him from embarrassing himself yet another time. So Secretary Clinton covered for Karzai, claiming that his remarks were "taken out of context and misunderstood." She gets it that what nowadays passes for journalism is not likely to run interference against a Democratic administration's attempt to hoodwink the American people.

What never got properly reported -- because the media never pressed the matter -- is that the Obama State Department contends that Karzai was merely making the observation that Afghanistan and Pakistan are nextdoor neighbors, and thus, anyone fleeing Pakistan during a war with the U.S. would not have to travel far to find welcome refuge. This is not a joke. This is Obama administration foreign policy in action. Try to imagine how the media would have played this had Condoleezza Rice resorted to such a cockamamie claim to spare George W. Bush from having to act in the face of such an affront to American honor.

Did Karzai ever issue a clarification explaining just why it is a "misunderstanding" to think he said what he said, that he would side with Pakistan against us in a war? No. Did the U.S. government demand it of him? No. Why don't the U.S. media ask? Can't they figure how to track down the ambassador of Afghanistan in Washington? Do you think the Pakistanis believe that Karzai didn't mean it when he said he'd side with them against us? Shouldn't the elite media ask?

When NATO and American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John R. Allen, explained that he was firing General Peter Fuller because of "inappropriate public comments," he may not have caught the irony. General Fuller's "inappropriate public comments" were a reaction to Karzai's wildly "inappropriate public comments" that insulted our country and are an affront to any and every American who has aided the people of Afghanistan.
General Allen also used the word "unfortunate" in his statement announcing the firing of General Fuller. It is indeed unfortunate for us all that it was General Fuller rather than President Obama who took Hamid Karzai to task for insulting America.
A president worthy of respect would have been man enough to take Karzai to task himself and not permit this sad spectacle of a long-serving soldier ruining his career for defending American honor when the president should have but didn't.

Barack Obama should have picked up the phone and told Hamid Karzai something like this: "I am alerting you that your life is suddenly in much greater danger and I urge you to take prompt action to lessen this increased danger. I expect you to appear on television and radio at the earliest possible opportunity and announce to the world that not only would you never side against America in a war but, rather, you would stand with us. Until you have done this, I have ordered the complete withholding of all personal safety protection provided by US military that you, your family and your colleagues have relied upon to keep you alive. The other affected parties are being informed of this in private. As soon as I learn that you have taken this step necessary to correct your insult to my country I will restore protection -- but not one moment sooner. If you do not act swiftly, I shall begin working on drafting eulogy remarks. Have a nice day."

I wonder -- don't you? -- which, if any, of the Republican candidates for president would handle things in such a firm and highly persuasive manner.
Don't you wish that someone in the media -- hey, it could certainly be one of the conservative outlets -- would approach Barack Obama or at least his press secretary plus each of the Republican presidential contenders, point to the firing of General Fuller, and then raise the big question this whole issue needs discussed and answered? Namely:

What should U.S. leaders say and do when a foreign leader who owes his country's freedom and perhaps even his own life to American goodness acts towards America as one would act towards an enemy?

It would be foolish of the media and the rest of us to now only focus on whether General Fuller should have taken it upon himself to be the one to publicly confront Harmed Karzai over his reprehensible insult to America (already asked and answered).
It's time to demand that the current president of the United States and anyone who might be president come 20 January 2013 be asked -- and forced to answer -- how they would deal with such an affront to American honor.

Fred J. Eckert is a former conservative Republican congressman from New York and twice served as a U.S. ambassador (to the U.N. and to Fiji) under President Reagan, who called him "a good friend and valuable advisor." He's retired and lives with his wife in Raleigh, NC.

2b)Obama flips on new sanctions, leaves Israel, Saudis head to head with Iran
Obama flips on new sanctions, leaves Israel, Saudis head to head with Iran


Economic constraints tie US hands against Iran

US President Barack Obama is backing away from crippling sanctions on Iran's central bank bank and an embargo on its oil trade. This was decided shortly before the International Atomic Energy Agency was due to confirm Tuesday or Wednesday, Nov. 8-9 that Iran's clandestine military nuclear program had reached the point of no-return, and after Israel intelligence experts found that Iran could build a weapon as soon as it so decided.

Four considerations persuaded the Obama administration to backtrack on new sanctions, thereby letting Tehran prevail in this round of the nuclear controversy:

1. Because it is too late. Even the harshest sanctions would not alter the fact that Iran has arrived at a position wherbey it is capable of building a bomb or warhead any time it chooses.

2. Severe penalties against Iran's central bank and its fuel exports would exacerbate the turmoil on international financial markets.

The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday, Nov. 8, "Though US officials had declared they would hold 'Iran accountable' for a purported plot [to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington], they now have decided that a proposed move against Iran's central bank could disrupt international oil markets and further damage the reeling American and world economies."

Instead, say those officials, Washington will seek to persuade some of Tehran's key trading partners, including the Persian Gulf states, South Korea and Japan, to join existing sanctions.

3. For the first time in American history, Washington has admitted its military capabilities are constrained by economic concerns.

This constraint was also reflected in the Washington Post of Tuesday: "The possibility of a US strike is considered remote, however. That is partly because there is no certainty it would successfully stop Iran and partly because of the diplomatic and political repercussions for a cash-strapped nation emerging from two wars."

4. Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Tuesday in a radio interview that he was not optimistic about tough sanctions because there was no international consensus to support them.

Intelligence sources report that Russia and China would not only cast their votes against stiff penalties but disrupt them through marketing mechanisms they have already put in place for bypassing international restrictions on Iran's foreign banking and exports.

Those mechanisms have also been placed at the disposal of Syria.

Tehran has therefore been able to pre-empt the IAEA report, however damning it may turn out to be, and can continue to develop its nuclear objectives without fear of punishing sanctions.

The Israeli defense minister noted that while it would be preferable in matters as grave as a potential attack on Iran's nuclear sites to work closely with the United States, Israeli is a sovereign country and its government cannot shirk responsibility for defending its security.

Israel's existence was not at stake, Barak stressed - either from Iran's missiles or Hizballah's rockets. An attack would cause suffering on the home front, he said, but nowhere near the 100,000 mentioned in the speculation of the last two weeks – or even 5,000. He dismissed much of this speculation as wildly irresponsible and unfounded.
If sanctions against Iran fall by the wayside, all other options stay on the table, said the defense minister. Israeli is holding intelligence exchanges with some friends but in the last resort must make its own decisions which he promised would be made responsibly.

Prime Minster Binyamin Netanyahu no doubt intended to go through the motions of demanding tougher sanctions against Iran after the publication of the IAEA report. But that option has vanished from the Washington landscape, leaving Israel with a choice between a military strike or bowing to the Obama administration's acceptance of a nuclear-armed Iran and learning to live with this ever-present menace.

The same stark choice confronts Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf.

2c)Waiting out Obama
By Caroline B. Glick


Over the past week, there has been an avalanche of news reports in the Israeli and Western media about the possibility of an imminent Israeli or American strike on Iran's nuclear installations. These reports were triggered by a report on Iran's nuclear program set to be published by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency later this week.

According to the media, the IAEA's report will deal a devastating blow to Iran's persistent claims that its illegal nuclear program is "peaceful." Specifically, the IAEA report is expected to divulge information about Iran's efforts to develop and test components that have no plausible use other than the production of nuclear weapons. These activities include experimentation with triggers used only for detonating nuclear weapons, and the development of missile warheads capable of carrying nuclear weapons. They also include the design of computer simulation programs to test nuclear weapons.

Most nuclear experts claim that Iran currently has sufficient quantities of enriched uranium to produce four or five nuclear weapons. They also claim that it will take Iran another three years to develop a fullblown nuclear arsenal. Finally, Israeli and Western sources claim that in light of Iran's bid to develop hardened, underground nuclear sites, its nuclear installations will be immune to ballistic missile attacks or aerial bombing within a year.

Confronting Iran's rapidly developing nuclear capabilities, Israeli hawks and doves are united in their view that Israel's preferred option is for the US rather than the IDF to launch a military strike to destroy Iran's nuclear installations. This view is reasonable because the US has the military capabilities to destroy Iran's nuclear program completely and do so with minimal risk to America's international prestige and position.

Moreover, if the US, rather than Israel attacks Iran's nuclear installations, Israel will be able to devote all of its own resources to fending off missile and ground assaults from Iran's proxy regimes in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria. Between them, Hamas, Hezbollah and Syrian President Bashar Assad have some 100,000 missiles aimed at Israel. For the past two years Hizbullah has been planning a ground offensive against northern Israel in conjunction with a missile offensive. Syria has chemical weapons.
If as expected, Iran unleashes these forces in response to a strike on its nuclear installations, the IDF will have its hands full.

As for the option of an Israeli strike on Iran, assuming a tactical nuclear strike is not under consideration, Israel probably lacks the ability to completely destroy Iran's nuclear facilities on its own. Unlike the US, Israel would have to limit any operation in Iran to destroying the most dangerous Iranian nuclear facilities while leaving others untouched.


THE LIMITED nature of an Israeli strike could enable Iran to rebuild its nuclear capabilities. If so, Israel would likely need to launch another strike later on.
Unlike the US, Israel would have no international coalition to fight with. Jerusalem would face the unpalatable prospect of being condemned for its action by UN and other international bodies, including by states that would quietly support it.
Most importantly, given the likelihood that Iran's proxies would launch a new round of aggression against Israel in response to a strike on its nuclear installations, Israel would be beset by a multi-front war at a time when much of its Air Force and perhaps other strategic assets are out of the country.

Against this backdrop, it makes sense to assume that reports of current Israeli preparations for a strike against Iran are less indications of an imminent strike than an Israeli attempt to send messages to two target audiences. First, Israel is signaling Iran that it has the capacity to strike its nuclear installations. Second, Israel is signaling the Obama administration that it is time for Washington to get serious about preparing a military operation to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, lest Israel be forced to act on its own.

There are some indications that even without Israeli maneuvering some Obama administration officials have finally awoken to the dangers. On Sunday The New York Times reported that the administration's assessment that it can contain a nuclear-armed Iran in much the same way the US contained the Soviet Union "took a hit," after Iran's plan to penetrate terror operatives into the US through the Mexican border was revealed. The thwarted Iranian plan to use terrorists brought in from Mexico to stage spectacular terror attacks against Israeli and Saudi targets in Washington taught administration officials that Iran continues to view terrorism as a strategic tool. They finally realized that it is impossible to rule out the possibility that Iran would use terror proxies to transfer and detonate nuclear bombs in third countries. And their inability to rule out this prospect placed their previous conviction that they can contain a nuclear Iran in serious question.

Unfortunately, from statements to the media last week by a senior US military source, it appears that the administration's belated recognition that Iran is more comparable to Nazi Germany than to Stalinist Russia does not mean that they are interested in actually doing anything to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
Speaking to reporters in Washington a senior US military official said that the US continues to view the prospect of an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear installations as just as problematic as a nuclear armed Iran. As he put it, the US is "absolutely" concerned about a potential Israeli attack, and "increasingly vigilant" with regard to activities in both Israel and Iran that could indicate military intentions.


THE OBAMA administration's stubborn refusal to acknowledge the obvious fact that a nuclear armed Iran constitutes a far greater danger to US interests than an Israeli military strike to deny Iran nuclear capabilities is in line with the administration's consistent refusal to treat Israel as an ally. Its unserious handling of Iran is of a piece with its gentle policies towards Hamas and Hezbollah, its refusal to call Fatah on its bad faith, its blindness to the threat emanating from Islamist movements in Turkey and North Africa, and its consistent pressure on Israel to appease its enemies. The administration's apparent antipathy for Israel has played a significant role in causing it to underestimate the threat that all these forces pose not only to Israel but to the US and to international security in general.

And Israel is not the US's only Middle Eastern ally that has suffered from its strategic myopia. Iran's pro- American Green Movement was betrayed by Obama's decision to side with the regime against the Green Movement in 2009. Iraq's pro-American political forces will be harmed if not destroyed in the aftermath of the administration's planned withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

Then there are the Sunnis. Under Obama, the US betrayed its most important Arab ally when it called for then-Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak to resign in response to the anti-regime demonstrations in Cairo. America is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. It supports the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated, Turkish organized Syrian opposition to Assad's regime. It upholds Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Islamist, anti-Semitic and anti-Western regime as the US's greatest regional ally.

With its dismal track record, it is far from clear that Israel is well-served by pressuring the Obama administration to take action against Iran. On Sunday, British military commentator Con Coughlin noted in theSunday Telegraph that in recent years, the "only measures that have had any demonstrable effect on slowing Iran's nuclear progress have been undertaken by Israel, via a skillful combination of targeted assassinations and cyber-warfare."

So Israel's low-key, tactical operations against Iran have been effective while all of Obama's high-profile strategic operations have empowered Israel's enemies.
True, Obama has not yet taken any operational steps to attack Iran's nuclear installations. But the dire implications of his track records cannot be ignored.
At least until the US presidential elections next year, Israel's best bet may be to simply step up its covert efforts to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.

The goal of these efforts should be to slow down Iran's nuclear progress sufficiently to prevent it from developing a nuclear arsenal or moving its nuclear project to hardened locations until after the US presidential elections. In the meantime, Israel should continue to develop its independent capacity to attack Iran. It should also take military action to weaken Iran's terror proxies in order to limit their capacity to wage war against Israel in the aftermath of an eventual, post-presidential election Israeli or US strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.
Obviously, it would be a mistake to assume that Obama will lose his reelection bid. But even if he wins, as a lame duck, second term president, he will have less power to harm Israel than he will as a first term president poised for reelection.


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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------