Divide and conquer politics. (See 1 below.)
---
'PNF/F' rejects building the pipeline. I will not get into the pros and cons because the article does that. (See 2 below.)
What I will set forth are some statistics that show what a fraud is being perpetrated upon our nation.
History shows England burned wood in the 1700's and it took coal about 50 years to replace wood as the main heating source. Then it took oil about 70 years to reduce the usage of coal to where it is today - still a major heating source and will remain so beyond 2040.
All of the 'green' energy sources are a drop in the bucket in terms of making energy inroads and because it remains unprofitable. Therefore, rejection of the pipeline is pure politics and reduces the prospect of good jobs and keeps us energy dependent on unreliable sources. Canada will eventually build a pipeline to Vancouver and sell the energy to China.
This decision alone should disqualify 'PNF/F's re-election.
---
The market is doing fine as it generally does, seasonally speaking in January. If January is a good month then it heightens the chance February will be as well.
Yes, the economy is improving mostly because of the effect of massive amounts of money pumped into it but then there is Europe which could suck the wind out of our own recovery, to some extent.
I still am circumspect about the future economic picture. I recognize it is an election year and the press and media are sure to turn one swallow into a huge spring in order to favor the anointed one's odds. So swallow hard. (See 3 below.)
---
Important. Just click where it says click and then listen.
Did you know certain new health care provisions will be coming into effect this year?
If you are age 55 or above, you should pay attention. It could impact your retirement in a big way.
Most folks don’t understand what these changes mean for them… That’s why we asked a medical doctor and retirement expert to explain the full situation to you.Click here for details.
---
Netanyahu and Israel continue to keep their cards close to their chest. Netanyahu appears unwilling to pledge Israel will give prior notice before any attack on Iran because he does not believe sanctions are working and he distrusts the West (read 'PNF/F') will actually do what they (he) say9s) they (he) are (is) willing to do.
Russia and China also remain flies in the ointment. (See 4 and 4a below.)
---
Important article by Cliff May explaining this administration is softening attitudes towards defining enemies. (See 5 below.)
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Obama’s Racial Politics
By Victor Davis Hanson
Never has America been more assimilated, integrated, and intermarried — as is evident in everything from politics to popular culture, from statistics to anecdotes. Yet from late 2007 to 2012, Barack Obama has been establishing new rules of racial referencing. In general, his utterances follow a disheartening pattern. When he is ahead in the polls, has won an election, and is not campaigning, then he emphasizes the unity of the country. But when he is running for president, or campaigning for others, or sinking in the polls, he and his closest associates predictably revert to charges of racial bigotry, albeit usually coded and subtle. America is redeemed when it champions the Obamas, but retrograde when it does not.
Obama’s race-based strategy is predicated on some unspoken assumptions: Any short-term damage incurred by engaging in racial tribalism can easily be later erased by soaring teleprompted speeches on racial harmony; the media will either not widely report his emphases on race or generally support his charges; a person of color can hardly be culpable of racial polarization himself given the history of racial discrimination in this country.
In a recent speech before a Latino audience, President Obama, in blasting congressional Republicans, recalled that he had run for office because “America should be a place where you can always make it if you try; a place where every child, no matter what they look like, where they come from, should have a chance to succeed.” The obvious conclusion from his increasingly frequent “look like” trope is that his critics predicate success in America on just the opposite criteria. That is, supposedly racist opponents do not wish every child to succeed, and so it certainly matters to them a great deal what Americans should “look like.”
Recently, First Lady Michelle Obama complained about a description of her White House infighting in an otherwise favorable account of the first family, written by a New York Times reporter. She suggested that the book’s criticism was unfair because “That’s been an image that people have tried to paint of me since, you know, the day Barack announced, that I’m some angry black woman.”
Oddly, the first lady did not cite anyone who, in fact, had tried to stereotype her as an “angry black woman.” To be sure, “people” have characterized her as “angry,” given her prominent role in the 2008 campaign, during which she repeatedly found herself in dramas of her own rhetorical making (saying Americans were “just downright mean”; never having been proud of America before the nomination of her husband; etc.). But no one suggested that her overt anger derived from being either “black” or a “woman.”
Again, these invocations of race always raise logical antitheses: Do only those who do not find Mrs. Obama “angry” escape her charge of racism? Second, the race-obsessed Mrs. Obama forgets that outspoken first ladies, especially those like herself who have refined tastes and are political infighters, are always natural media targets. The press savaged Nancy Reagan on topics as diverse as her purchase of new White House china, her reliance on astrology, and her legendary infighting with chief of staff Don Regan. Fairly or not, Mrs. Reagan never quite shook the stereotype that she had roamed the West Wing as a sort of Lady Macbeth with aristocratic appetites — a theme of Mr. Regan’s memoirs. It is likely that Michelle Obama will not either.
Attorney General Eric Holder has often found race a convenient refuge from criticism — most recently accusing his congressional auditors of racism, for their grilling him over government sales of firearms to Mexican cartel hitmen. Again, there is an obvious inference: To the degree that you do not criticize Eric Holder you are not racist; to the degree that you do, you may well be. Holder, remember, earlier called his fellow countrymen “cowards” for not sharing his own particular take on racial relations, as if all of a craven America had now become Barack Obama’s clueless Pennsylvania clingers. In exchanges over his office’s dismissal of voter-intimidation charges against New Black Panther Party members, Holder described African-Americans as “my people.” Again, note the natural corollary once we descend into these racial quagmires: If Holder can talk of his “people,” are those who do not share his racial heritage not then quite the attorney general’s “people”?
Our new racial profiling ripples out from the top. When Rick Perry referred to “a big black cloud that hangs over America — that debt that is so monstrous,” he was accused of racism; the second half of the quote was conveniently omitted. Chris Matthews referred to Perry’s support of federalism with the quip, “This is going to be Bull Connor with a smile.” Lee Siegel just wrote in the New York Times that “Mitt Romney is the whitest white man to run for president in recent memory.” Think for a minute of prominent public figures who at one time or another have been accused by the Obama team of either being racist or playing racial politics against them: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Darrell Issa, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum. The list grows in direct proportion to the uncertainty of Obama’s political fortunes.
President Obama and his supporters insist that they deemphasize matters of race, but their record in just the last four years reveals a veritable obsession with it, in a manner that was never true of prior minority members serving in high office — think of Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, or Alberto Gonzales. We are not that far away from Obama’s appearance on the national scene as a serious presidential candidate in early 2008. Yet he has already reformulated racial discourse in America, most famously blasting Pennsylvania whites who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them,” and introducing “typical white person” into the national lexicon and the racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright into the national consciousness. The mythography of the 2008 campaign was that Barack Obama overcame the burdens of racism; the reality was that racial intemperance during that long year came principally from Barack Obama himself or his personal pastor — and, in our disturbed culture, even to acknowledge that fact earns the charge of “Racist!”
Obama has mainstreamed the practice of profiling friends and enemies on this reactionary basis of racial identity. In a Democratic National Committee video in April 2010, Obama called on “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women . . . to stand together once again.” Are those not included in his categories, then, not to stand “together” again? Shortly before the November 2010 congressional elections, Obama suggested told a huge audience in Philadelphia that Republicans “are counting on black folks staying home.” In one of his most surreal speeches before the Congressional Black Caucus, Obama in affected fashion adopted the supposed patois of Black America in defining collective interests by shared race: “Stop grumblin’. Stop cryin’. We are going to press on. We’ve got work to do.” Separately, he appealed to Latino voters not to stay home from the 2010 election, but instead to “punish our enemies” — and not to fall prey to the Republicans’ “cynical attempt to discourage Latinos from voting.” I don’t think a president of the United States has ever, at least since the pre–Civil War era, openly called on a racial group to join with him to punish political adversaries.
Obama stereotyped the Cambridge police department as having “acted stupidly” for detaining his friend Henry Louis Gates, an African-American Studies professor at Harvard. He allegedly complained to political supporters that racial bias explains much of the Tea Party’s opposition to his administration. The wonder is not only that the president of the United States constantly refers to race, but that his serial obsession now earns snores rather than surprise.
Indeed, President Obama’s example has radically brought the politics of race into almost every conceivable forum. Members of the Black Caucus now routinely either allege outright racism or exhibit racist attitudes themselves if opposition arises to the Obama agenda. That is a serious charge, but it is one supported by numerous examples. For Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D., Mo.), white presidents must be “pushed a great deal more” to address black unemployment than would a black president. For Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D., Tex.), argument over the debt ceiling is proof of racial animosity toward Barack Obama; for Rep. Barbara Lee (D., Calif.), Republicans are trying to deny blacks the vote; for Rep. André Carson (D., Ind.), the Tea Party wishes to lynch blacks and hang them from trees; for Rep. Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.), Rick Perry’s job creation in Texas is “one stage away from slavery,” and on and on and on. Icons of popular culture — whether a Morgan Freeman (“It’s a racist thing”) or a Whoopi Goldberg (“I’m playing the damn [race] card”) — routinely accuse Americans of racism for their growing unhappiness over the record of the Obama administration.
What can we expect in 2012? Race all the time at every venue. In 2008, there were two general themes to the blank-slate candidacy of Barack Obama: (1) America could change history by electing its first African-American president, and (2) a vote for Barack Obama was a repudiation of the then-unpopular George Bush. But four years later there is now an Obama record of dismal economic growth, huge deficits, astronomical new national debt, high unemployment, fresh class and racial divisions, and a failed reset/outreach foreign policy that had promised breakthroughs with Iran, the Palestinians, Russia, Syria, and Venezuela, based on redefining traditional notions of friends and enemies.
Who would wish to run on a record like that?
But the alternative? In 2012, unlike 2008, there is less novelty in Barack Obama as our first black president. And George Bush is now four years into the past. For Obama, then, we are left with a demonized “them.”
Sometimes “they” are the suspect “1 percent” who enjoy their privileges through ill-gotten gains. Sometimes they are reactionary enemies of big government. And sometimes they are veritable racists — the sorts who stereotype minorities, who are cowards, who turn away voters from the polls, who do not like Americans who look different from them, who object to record debt largely as a way to disguise their own racial bias — and who surely need to be punished.
This is going to be an ugly campaign. The Obama team will revert to race unceasingly, in cry-wolf fashion, and thus cheapen the currency with every charge. In turn, the more we will hear allegations of “racism,” the less people will pay attention to them. And so all the more frequently will such discounted slurs have to be repeated — sort of like pushing about wheelbarrows of Depression-era inflated German marks to purchase ever fewer commodities.
There will be many legacies of Barack Obama. Racial divisiveness is proving the most disturbing.
— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author most recently of the just-released The End of Sparta, a novel about ancient freedom.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Obama Blames GOP Deadline for Keystone Rejection
The partisan fight over the controversial pipeline reignites after the president formally rejects the needed permit application.
By Josh Voorhees
President Obama on Wednesday formally rejected a permit application for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, saying that a Republican-mandated deadline to take action on the proposal left his administration with no other choice but to block the $7 billion project that would pump crude oil from the Alberta tar sands all the way to the Gulf Coast.
"This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people," Obama said in a statement. "I'm disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration's commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil."
Republicans, both in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail, wasted little time seizing on the decision to renew their criticism of an administration they say is siding with environmentalists to the detriment of the U.S. economy.
"President Obama is destroying tens of thousands of American jobs and shipping American energy security to the Chinese," House Speaker John Boehner said. "The president is selling out American jobs for politics."
The White House, however, is leaving the door open for TransCanada Corp. to reroute its proposed 1,700-mile pipeline and then reapply for the necessary federal approval at a later day, the Washington Post reports.
Under pressure from environmentalists and Nebraska residents and officials, the State Department announced in November that it would look into a new route for the controversial pipeline. At the time, it appeared as though that announcement would punt the politically-charged decision until after the 2012 elections, but pipeline backers in Congress forced the president's hand by inserting a Feb. 21 deadline for a decision in the year-end deal on the payroll tax extension.
For opponents of the pipeline, one of the biggest issues was that the project would have run above the Ogallala aquifer, which supplies a large swath of the Midwest with fresh water for irrigation and drinking. Environmentalists also oppose the pipeline wholesale, noting the impact of tar sands oil on the global climate. Backers of the pipeline, meanwhile, argue that it is necessary to decrease the nation's dependence on Middle East oil and to help spur domestic job creation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The Dollar’s Lucky Streak
By: Peter Schiff
Recent U.S. economic data, such as the modest drop in the unemployment rate and the massive expansion of consumer credit, have suggested that the American economy is finally recovering. Opposite conclusions are being thrown at Europe, where many are convinced that recession is returning. Not surprisingly then, the dollar is currently hitting a multi-year high against the euro. The strength of the dollar itself is often held up as one of the major proof points that the U.S. economy is “improving.” But the data points that I believe really matter continue to suggest an economy on life support. I believe that the dollar is rising for reasons that have nothing to do with America’s economic health.
The ongoing sovereign debt crisis in Europe is unquestionably the center ring in the current economic circus. Given the difficulty of setting policy across borders and national interests, the negotiations in Europe have been messy, acrimonious, inconclusive, and conducted under the glaring lights of global media scrutiny. The action has diverted attention away from America’s problems, which in many ways are even greater than those in Europe. In contrast, America’s ability to print the world’s currency at will, and the nearly seamless agreement of policy between the Administration and the Federal Reserve, means that the United States has been able to virtually ignore the issues that Europe has been forced to confront. This relative calm has been mistaken for strength, and the dollar has beckoned as the ultimate safe haven currency.
The fact that the dollar is perceived as a safe haven acts as a self–fulfilling prophesy. Investors flee the euro and pile into dollars. The dollar then rises to reflect the demand. The increase validates the decision to buy in the first place, and the rising dollar then attracts even more buyers looking to profit from its appreciation. It’s a nice ride while it lasts.
Most “safe haven” dollar purchases are directed toward U.S. Treasuries. As a result U.S. interest rates are far lower than they would otherwise be without this inflow of spooked liquidity. But objectively speaking, the U.S. and Italy, for instance, have very similar national debt profiles. Yet interest rates in Washington are currently 600 basis points lower than they are in Rome. This means that Americans can borrow and spend much more. The result of all this extra debt financed consumption is a boost in employment and GDP. The positive economic impact makes the dollar even more attractive, thereby perpetuating the cycle.
If rates in Italy (or Spain for that matter) were as low now as they were two years ago, those countries would not be experiencing the problems they are today. Their borrowing costs would never have risen and their budgets would still be manageable. Similarly, higher interest rates in the U.S. would completely take the shine out of our economy. Imagine what would happen here if rates were just 200 basis points higher, let alone 600? U.S. consumers, homeowners, corporations, and governments are particularly dependent on cheap financing. As bad as things are in Europe, they would be even worse here.
In other words, contrary to popular belief, the problems in Europe are helping, not hindering, the U.S economy – at least in the short-term. Over the long term, borrowing and spending more money to finance consumption and government red ink will not help the U.S. economy achieve a sustainable balance. If safe haven flows were to reverse (which could result from an improvement in Europe), the dollar would fall, interest rates and consumer prices would rise, and the U.S. economy would be right back in recession. The only “good news” is that such a positive development in Europe appears unlikely in the short-run.
All self-perpetuating virtuous cycles are vulnerable to a sudden break in the positive feedback loop. When reality rears its ugly head, and the spell breaks, the reverses can be vicious. It happened with dot com stocks, it happened with real estate, and I believe it will happen with the dollar and Treasuries. Even if Europe does not resolve its problems, the day of reckoning will still eventually arrive. The unfortunate truth is that the longer it takes, the worse it will be, as we will have that much more debt to reckon with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Dempsey visit will not alter Israel's refusal to notify US of an Iran strike
US top soldier, Gen. Martin Dempsey with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta
Gen. Martin Dempsey arrives Thursday, Jan. 19, for his first visit to Israel as Chairman of the Joint US Chiefs of Staff amid a major falling-out between the two governments over the handling of Iran's nuclear weapon potential. Military and Washington sources confirm Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stands by the view that Iran is advancing its plans to build a nuclear bomb full speed ahead, undeterred even by the threat of harsher sanctions. Netanyahu therefore stands by his refusal of President Barack Obama's demand for a commitment to abstain from a unilateral strike on Iran's nuclear sites without prior notice to Washington.
The US president repeated this demand when he called the Israeli prime minister Thursday night Jan. 13. Netanyahu replied that, in view of their disagreement on this point, he preferred to cancel the biggest US-Israel war game ever staged due to have taken place in April. The exercise was to have tested the level of coordination between the two armies in missile defense for the contingency of a war with Iran or a regional conflict.
The prime minister was concerned that having large-scale US military forces in the country would restrict his leeway for decision-making on Iran.
In an effort to limit the damage to relations with the US administration, Defense Minister Ehud Barak struck a conciliatory note Wednesday, Jan. 18, saying, "Israel is still very far from a decision on attacking Iran's nuclear facilities."
Striking the pose of middleman, he was trying to let Washington know that there was still time for the US and Israel to reach an accommodation on whether and when a strike should take place.
Sources doubt President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu are in any mood to respond to Barak's effort to cool the dispute. Obama needs to be sure he will not be taken by surprise by an Israel attack in the middle of his campaign for re-election, especially since he has begun taking heat on the Iranian issue.
Republican rivals are accusing him of being soft on Iran. And while the economy is the dominant election issue, a majority of Americans disapprove of his handling of Iran's nuclear ambitions by a margin of 48 to 33 percent according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll this week.
Wednesday (Thursday morning Israel time), President Obama responded by reiterating that he has been clear since running for the presidency that he will take "every step available to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
Echoes of Barak's arguments were heard in the words of US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Wednesday night: "We are not making any special steps at this point in order to deal with the situation. Why? Because, frankly, we are fully prepared to deal with that situation now."
Panetta went on to say that Defense Minister Barak contacted him and asked to postpone the joint US-Israeli drill "for technical reasons."
Before he took off for a short trip to Holland, Netanyahu instructed Barak and IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz not to deviate in their talks with Gen. Dempsey from the position he took with the US president, namely, no commitment for advance notice to Washington about a unilateral strike against Iran.
The Israeli prime minister is convinced that, contrary to the claims by US spokesmen and media, that current sanctions are ineffective insofar as slowing Iran's advance toward a nuclear weapon and the harsher sanctions on Iran's central bank and oil exports are too slow and will take hold too late to achieve their purpose.
In any case, say Israeli officials, Washington is again signaling its willingness to go back to direct nuclear negotiations with Tehran, although past experience proved that Iran exploits diplomatic dialogue as grace time for moving forward on its nuclear ambitions.
US spokesmen denied an Iranian report that a recent letter from the US president to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei proposed opening a direct channel for talks.
Still those reports persist. American and European spokesmen were forced to deny a statement by Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi Wednesday on his arrival in Ankara that Iran and the big powers are in contact over the revival of nuclear negotiations.
Netanyahu fears that dialogue between Iran and the five powers plus Germany (the P5+1) will resume after bowing to an Iranian stipulation that sanctions be suspended for the duration of the talks. Once again, Tehran will be enabled to steal a march on the US and Israel and bring its nuclear weapon program to conclusion, unhindered by economic constraints.
4a)Iran warns region against 'dangerous' stance on Hormuz
FM Salehi says Islamic Republic wants 'peace and tranquility' in region; Chinese premier defends extensive oil trade with Tehran
Iran's Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said on Thursday that Tehran had never tried to block the Strait of Hormuz but warned its neighbors against putting themselves in a "dangerous position."
"We want peace and tranquility in the region, but some of the countries in our region, they want to direct other countries 12,000 miles away from this region. I repeat that Iran has never tried to hinder this important route," Salehi, in Turkey on a visit, told Turkey's NTV broadcaster.
"I am calling to all countries in the region, please don't let yourselves be dragged into a dangerous position."
Salehi added the United States should express it is open for negotiations with Tehran without conditions, referring to a letter Iran says it has received from the US government about the Strait of Hormuz situation.
Meanwhile, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao defended his country's extensive oil trade with Iran against Western sanctions pressure in comments published on Thursday, and yet also warned that Beijing firmly opposes any efforts by Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons.
Wen spoke on Wednesday at the end of a six-day visit to the Middle East against a backdrop of tensions over possible US sanctions on nations that do energy trade with Iran, which Western powers say is focused on developing nuclear weapons.
Iran has insisted that its nuclear goals are peaceful, and in late December threatened to punish the latest Western sanctions by choking off oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for much of the Middle East's oil exports.
Wen said his government "adamantly opposes Iran developing and possessing nuclear weapons," and warned against potential confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz.
Beijing officials are usually much more coy about even suggesting that Iran could be seeking nuclear arms.
Speaking at a news conference in Doha, Wen also took aim at both potential threats to China's oil imports: the US sanctions pressure and the Hormuz tensions.
"I also want to clearly point out that China's oil trade with Iran is normal trade activity," he said in
response to a question about US and European efforts to curtail Iranian oil exports and revenues, according to a transcript on the Chinese Foreign Ministry's website.
"Legitimate trade should be protected, otherwise the world economic order would fall into turmoil," he added.
But Wen shrugged off worry about China's oil needs.
"I don't have this or that worry about China's oil supplies, and this time I didn't discuss this issue with the leaders of each country," he told the news conference, according to the official Chinese transcript.
Wen visited Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.
His comments laid bare the tricky course Beijing is trying to steer between pressure from Washington and its allies and expectations from Iran, which looks to China as a sympathetic power and its chief oil customer.
The tensions are a particular worry for China, the biggest buyer of Iranian oil, followed by India and Japan. Only Saudi Arabia and Angola sell more crude than Iran to China.
"We believe that, no matter what the circumstances, the security of the Gulf of Hormuz and normal shipping passage through it must be guaranteed, because this is in the interests of the whole world," said Wen.
"Any extreme measures on this issue would violate the wishes of all countries in the world and their people."
The Obama administration last week invoked US law to sanction China's state-run Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp, which it said was Iran's largest supplier of refined petroleum products.
The United States is also working out how to enforce a law enacted on Dec. 31 that targets foreign financial institutions doing business with Iran's central bank, notably to buy crude.
China has backed UN Security Council resolutions calling on Iran to halt uranium enrichment activities, while working to ensure its energy ties are not threatened.
In the first 11 months of 2011, Chinese crude imports from Iran were at about 553,000 barrels per day, a gain of nearly 30% on the same period a year before, according to Chinese customs data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US president repeated this demand when he called the Israeli prime minister Thursday night Jan. 13. Netanyahu replied that, in view of their disagreement on this point, he preferred to cancel the biggest US-Israel war game ever staged due to have taken place in April. The exercise was to have tested the level of coordination between the two armies in missile defense for the contingency of a war with Iran or a regional conflict.
The prime minister was concerned that having large-scale US military forces in the country would restrict his leeway for decision-making on Iran.
In an effort to limit the damage to relations with the US administration, Defense Minister Ehud Barak struck a conciliatory note Wednesday, Jan. 18, saying, "Israel is still very far from a decision on attacking Iran's nuclear facilities."
Striking the pose of middleman, he was trying to let Washington know that there was still time for the US and Israel to reach an accommodation on whether and when a strike should take place.
Sources doubt President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu are in any mood to respond to Barak's effort to cool the dispute. Obama needs to be sure he will not be taken by surprise by an Israel attack in the middle of his campaign for re-election, especially since he has begun taking heat on the Iranian issue.
Republican rivals are accusing him of being soft on Iran. And while the economy is the dominant election issue, a majority of Americans disapprove of his handling of Iran's nuclear ambitions by a margin of 48 to 33 percent according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll this week.
Wednesday (Thursday morning Israel time), President Obama responded by reiterating that he has been clear since running for the presidency that he will take "every step available to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
Echoes of Barak's arguments were heard in the words of US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Wednesday night: "We are not making any special steps at this point in order to deal with the situation. Why? Because, frankly, we are fully prepared to deal with that situation now."
Panetta went on to say that Defense Minister Barak contacted him and asked to postpone the joint US-Israeli drill "for technical reasons."
Before he took off for a short trip to Holland, Netanyahu instructed Barak and IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz not to deviate in their talks with Gen. Dempsey from the position he took with the US president, namely, no commitment for advance notice to Washington about a unilateral strike against Iran.
The Israeli prime minister is convinced that, contrary to the claims by US spokesmen and media, that current sanctions are ineffective insofar as slowing Iran's advance toward a nuclear weapon and the harsher sanctions on Iran's central bank and oil exports are too slow and will take hold too late to achieve their purpose.
In any case, say Israeli officials, Washington is again signaling its willingness to go back to direct nuclear negotiations with Tehran, although past experience proved that Iran exploits diplomatic dialogue as grace time for moving forward on its nuclear ambitions.
US spokesmen denied an Iranian report that a recent letter from the US president to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei proposed opening a direct channel for talks.
Still those reports persist. American and European spokesmen were forced to deny a statement by Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi Wednesday on his arrival in Ankara that Iran and the big powers are in contact over the revival of nuclear negotiations.
Netanyahu fears that dialogue between Iran and the five powers plus Germany (the P5+1) will resume after bowing to an Iranian stipulation that sanctions be suspended for the duration of the talks. Once again, Tehran will be enabled to steal a march on the US and Israel and bring its nuclear weapon program to conclusion, unhindered by economic constraints.
4a)Iran warns region against 'dangerous' stance on Hormuz
FM Salehi says Islamic Republic wants 'peace and tranquility' in region; Chinese premier defends extensive oil trade with Tehran
Iran's Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said on Thursday that Tehran had never tried to block the Strait of Hormuz but warned its neighbors against putting themselves in a "dangerous position."
"We want peace and tranquility in the region, but some of the countries in our region, they want to direct other countries 12,000 miles away from this region. I repeat that Iran has never tried to hinder this important route," Salehi, in Turkey on a visit, told Turkey's NTV broadcaster.
"I am calling to all countries in the region, please don't let yourselves be dragged into a dangerous position."
Salehi added the United States should express it is open for negotiations with Tehran without conditions, referring to a letter Iran says it has received from the US government about the Strait of Hormuz situation.
Meanwhile, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao defended his country's extensive oil trade with Iran against Western sanctions pressure in comments published on Thursday, and yet also warned that Beijing firmly opposes any efforts by Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons.
Wen spoke on Wednesday at the end of a six-day visit to the Middle East against a backdrop of tensions over possible US sanctions on nations that do energy trade with Iran, which Western powers say is focused on developing nuclear weapons.
Iran has insisted that its nuclear goals are peaceful, and in late December threatened to punish the latest Western sanctions by choking off oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for much of the Middle East's oil exports.
Wen said his government "adamantly opposes Iran developing and possessing nuclear weapons," and warned against potential confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz.
Beijing officials are usually much more coy about even suggesting that Iran could be seeking nuclear arms.
Speaking at a news conference in Doha, Wen also took aim at both potential threats to China's oil imports: the US sanctions pressure and the Hormuz tensions.
"I also want to clearly point out that China's oil trade with Iran is normal trade activity," he said in
response to a question about US and European efforts to curtail Iranian oil exports and revenues, according to a transcript on the Chinese Foreign Ministry's website.
"Legitimate trade should be protected, otherwise the world economic order would fall into turmoil," he added.
But Wen shrugged off worry about China's oil needs.
"I don't have this or that worry about China's oil supplies, and this time I didn't discuss this issue with the leaders of each country," he told the news conference, according to the official Chinese transcript.
Wen visited Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.
His comments laid bare the tricky course Beijing is trying to steer between pressure from Washington and its allies and expectations from Iran, which looks to China as a sympathetic power and its chief oil customer.
The tensions are a particular worry for China, the biggest buyer of Iranian oil, followed by India and Japan. Only Saudi Arabia and Angola sell more crude than Iran to China.
"We believe that, no matter what the circumstances, the security of the Gulf of Hormuz and normal shipping passage through it must be guaranteed, because this is in the interests of the whole world," said Wen.
"Any extreme measures on this issue would violate the wishes of all countries in the world and their people."
The Obama administration last week invoked US law to sanction China's state-run Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp, which it said was Iran's largest supplier of refined petroleum products.
The United States is also working out how to enforce a law enacted on Dec. 31 that targets foreign financial institutions doing business with Iran's central bank, notably to buy crude.
China has backed UN Security Council resolutions calling on Iran to halt uranium enrichment activities, while working to ensure its energy ties are not threatened.
In the first 11 months of 2011, Chinese crude imports from Iran were at about 553,000 barrels per day, a gain of nearly 30% on the same period a year before, according to Chinese customs data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)How terrorists lose their stigma
By Clifford D. May
 | |
It's not by accident that Vice President Joseph Biden claimed publicly the Taliban are "not our enemy"
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has described the Muslim Brotherhood as "secular." Vice President Joseph Biden recently said the Taliban "is not our enemy." According to John Brennan, assistant to the President for counterterrorism, terrorists who proclaim they are motivated by religionshould not be described using "religious terms." Where do such ideas come from? In large measure from advisors -- so perhaps it would be instructive to examine more closely what those advisors are actually saying.
U.S. Navy Commander Youssef H. Aboul-Enein "has advised at the highest levels of the defense department and the intelligence community" according to the jacket notes on his book, "Militant Islamist Ideology: Understanding the Global Threat," published by the Naval Institute Press. Raymond Ibrahim, a young analyst for whom I have great respect, recently gave the book a withering review. My reading is less harsh. I think CDR Aboul-Enein, who was born in Mississippi and raised in Saudi Arabia, is grappling, seriously and sincerely, with the pathologies that have arisen from within the Muslim world and struggling to formulate a coherent American response. That should not suggest that his efforts have been entirely successful.
Aboul-Enein states that the "challenge to America's national security in the twenty-first century" comes from "Militant Islamist Ideology." Good for him for not defaulting to "violent extremism," a term designed to hide rather than to reveal. He urges that policy makers adopt a "nuanced" approach to this challenge -- one that "disaggregates" Militant Islamism from both Islam and Islamism.
To charge that "all Islam is evil," he says, is a mistake. For many Muslims, Islam is "a source of values that guide conduct rather than a system that offers solutions to all problems." It is no less incorrect, he adds — with more intellectual honesty than many other analysts have demonstrated -- to "insist that all Islam is peaceful." Islamic scripture provides ample justifications for hating, oppressing and killing non-Muslims. But it is neither accurate nor productive, he argues, to confirm the militants' claim that theirs is the only authentic interpretation of Islam — that Muslims not waging a "jihad" against "infidels" are, at best, misguided; at worst, traitors to their faith.
As for Islamists, he confirms that they seek "unacceptable outcomes for the United States in the long run." Allow me to offer one example: Muhammad Badi, Supreme Leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, said last year that that Muslims should strive for "a government evolving into a rightly guided caliphate and finally mastership of the world."
Despite that, Aboul-Enein argues that Islamism has "potential" as an "alternative to Militant Islamist Ideology." His rationale: Islamists intend to achieve their objectives not through violence but "within the political and electoral frameworks of the countries in which they operate."
This is where, in my view, he gets lost in the analytic woods. Islamists may prefer ballots to bullets. But is that because, as Aboul-Enein asserts, they "abhor the violent methodologies espoused by Militant Islamist"? Or is because they see elections as a less bumpy path to power?
Sheikh Yousef Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual leader, has said that Islam will "conquer Rome � not by the sword but by preaching." But if you were to infer that he has a moral objection to violence, you'd be wrong. The proof: Qaradawi has praised Hitler for his "punishment" of the Jews, adding, "Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers."
What's more, Aboul-Enein's book is filled with examples of Islamists who became Militant Islamists — who picked up weapons when peaceful means failed to achieve the ends they sought, and who did so without remorse.
He devotes an entire chapter to Sayyid Qutb, who evolved from an Islamist intellectual into "perhaps the most influential Militant Islamist thinker of the late twentieth century." Among the experiences that militarized Qutb: a fellowship in the U.S. in 1948-50. In the sleepy rural town of Greeley, Colorado, Qutb attended church socials where men and women danced together. Based on such shocking experiences, he developed an "utter contempt for American society, which he viewed as decadent." (Given a chance to avoid execution in Nasser's Egypt in 1966, Qutb told his sister: "My words will have more meaning if they execute me!")
Aboul-Enein can't quite decide whether Hamas, which is committed to the genocide of Israelis, "is an Islamist or Militant Islamist group." He seems conflicted, also, in regard to Saudi Arabia, praising King Abdullah who, he writes, has "attacked terrorism, praised Saudi security forces in breaking cells, and exposed the realities of their ideology."
However, Aboul-Enein also notes: "Saudis have unfortunately been heavily involved in Militant Islamist groups, even volunteering to fight American forces in Iraq." And it was Saudi royals who gave refuge and teaching positions to such exiled Militant Islamists as Sayyid Qutb's brother, Muhammad Qutb, and to Abdullah Azzam, whose slogan was "Jihad and the rifle alone." Among their star students at King Abdul-Aziz University in Jeddah was the young Osama bin Laden.
Aboul-Enein laments, too, the fact that "Saudi Islamist Wahhabism," the ultra-orthodox variety of Islam that is the Kingdom's state religion, is "colonizing Islam around the world through money and proselytizing" and that these efforts are changing "the character of Muslim nations such as Indonesia or Morocco, marginalizing Sufism or the Maliki school of Sunni Islam in North Africa" in ways that are "not in the long-term interest of the United States or other nations."
Perhaps most difficult to square in Aboul-Enein's analysis is simply this: On the first page of his book he describes Militant Islamists as Muslims who call for "the strictest possible interpretation of both the Qur'an (Muslim book of divine revelation) and the hadith (the Prophet Muhammad's actions and deeds)." On the last page of his book, he endorses President George W. Bush's charge that "Militant Islamists have hijacked Islam." But can strictly interpreting Islamic scripture really be synonymous with hijacking Islam? If not, small wonder that so many American officials advised by Aboul-Enein and others sound confused.
Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism. A veteran news reporter, foreign correspondent and editor (at The New York Times and other publications), he has covered stories in more than two dozen countries, including Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, Ethiopia, China, Uzbekistan, Northern Ireland and Russia. He is a frequent guest on national and international television and radio news programs, providing analysis and participating in debates on national security issues.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment