This frequently happens because the press and media dolts are prone to believe whatever they are told by the Palestinians who won the propaganda war eons ago.
The media and press in the Middle East are so hungry for stories they, all too often, are told what they must report for fear of being denied access. (See 1 and 1a below.)
---
More responses from those who know and support Meg Heap and why!
Hope you will please attend the March 13, 5PM 'Meet Meg Event' and draw your own conclusions. (See 2 below.)
---
Do Iran's nuclear facilities remain vulnerable? Was one actually attacked and destroyed? I have been told it was. (See 3 below.)
The Economist weighs in on the subject. (See 3a below.)
---
More from The Heritage Foundation about 'Obama Foreign Flop!' (See 4 below.)
---
Nothing sacred about voting in Minnesota because winning is everything. (See 5 below.)
---
It is 'algae time' for the 'wine and cheese' intellects. (See 6 below.)
---
It is a dollars to donut bet Obama will continue to do everything in his power to thwart an attack on Iran by Israel. Our apologist president has no desire to see his election problems widen so he will continue to press forward with his limp efforts to appear tough with too late sanctions, more blusters and empty threats.
AI would venture to say all this will do is drive Israel into a corner and make Netanyahu more reluctant to fall into the 'Obama Doctrine' trap.(See 7 below.)
---
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Political Rights in Palestine
"Neither customary international law nor the United Nations Charter acknowledges that every group of people [Palestinian Arabs included] claiming to be a nation has the right to a state of its own." [1]
By Eli E. Hertz
The Mandate for Palestine, a legally binding document under international law, clearly differentiates between political rights - referring to Jewish self-determination as an emerging polity - and civil and religious rights, referring to guarantees of equal personal freedoms to non-Jewish residents as individuals and within select communities. Not once are Arabs as a people mentioned in the Mandate for Palestine. At no point in the entire document is there any granting of political rights to non-Jewish entities (i.e., Arabs). Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine explicitly states that the Mandatory should:
"Be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."
Political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed by the League of Nations in four other mandates - in Lebanon and Syria [The French Mandate], Iraq and later Trans-Jordan [The British Mandate]. Political rights in Palestine were granted to Jews only.
International law expert Professor Eugene V. Rostow, examining the claim for Arab Palestinian self-determination on the basis of law, concluded:
"The mandate implicitly denies Arab claims to national political rights in the area in favor of the Jews; the mandated territory was in effect reserved to the Jewish people for their self-determination and political development, in acknowledgment of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land. Lord Curzon, who was then the British Foreign Minister, made this reading of the mandate explicit. There remains simply the theory that the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have an inherent 'natural law' claim to the area."
[1] See Eugene V. Rostow, The Future of Palestine, Institute for National Strategic Studies, November 1993. Professor Rostow was Sterling Professor of Law and Public Affairs Emeritus at Yale University and served as the Dean of Yale Law School (1955-66); Distinguished Research Professor of Law and Diplomacy, National Defense University; Adjunct Fellow, American Enterprise Institute. In 1967, as U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, he became a key draftee of UN Resolution 242. See also his article: "Are Israel's Settlements Legal?" The New Republic, October 21, 1991.
1a)Netanyahu Slams Abbas' 'Contemptible' Doha Speech
By Chana Ya'ar
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had fiery words for Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas Sunday evening after a day in which the Fatah and PLO leader delivered a speech that attempted to deny the ancient Jewish roots of Jerusalem. Abbas told Arab leaders in Doha that visiting "occupied Jerusalem" was the goal of every Muslim, Arab and Christian.
Speaking at the International Conference for Defense of Jerusalem on Qatar, Abbas said “The Israeli occupation authorities are using the ugliest and most dangerous means to implement plans to erase and remove the Arab-Islamic and the Christian character of east Jerusalem.”
He accused Israel of surrounding Jerusalem with “an apartheid wall and a band of settlements in order to isolate the city from its surroundings in the West Bank.” Abbas added that Israel had made it “almost impossible to obtain” permits for PA Arabs to enter the city and said that visiting “occupied Jerusalem” was the goal of every Arab, Muslim and Christian.
"This is a harshly inflammatory speech from someone who claims that he is bent on peace,” Israel's prime minister responded. “The time has come for the Palestinian leadership to stop denying the past and distorting reality."
“For thousands of years Jerusalem has been the eternal capital of the Jewish People. Jerusalem, under Israeli sovereignty, will continue to be open to believers of all faiths. There is freedom of worship for all and Israel will continue to carefully maintain the holy places of all religions.
“Abu Mazen [Abbas -- ed.] knows full well that there is no foundation to his contemptible remarks, including his baseless and irresponsible claims regarding the al-Aqsa Mosque. The State of Israel expects that one who supposedly champions peace would prepare his people for peace and coexistence and not disseminate lies and incitement. This is not how one makes peace."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Dear Richard, I agree with you as Meg Heap was the lawyer, as Assitant D.A., for the case of my sister. My sister is a Retired Col. USNC and retired after 33 years of having served as Chief Nurse of hospitals, and at Buzzards Bay. She was a victim of idenity theft by her care giver, big time. Meg was so thorough, considerate of my sisters health and brought in evidence that was truly professional, intelligent and has great integrity. She knew of resources that my family could not believe. She is honest, resourceful and we felt a great credit to the Justice Department of Savannah. We were sorry to see her leave the D.A.'s office and are hoping to campaign for her this year. She is a role model for all prosecutors. She was able to put the care giver for a minimum of five years in jail. I concur with your approval as do my sisters. Thanks for your note. Joan Carroll, Janet Hanley, Retd Col. Margaret Baskfield and John Baskfield
Subject: Why don't we have qualified candidates running for office
People frequently pose this question to me: "Why don't we have qualified candidates running for office"
I understand their frustration and tell them there is no one reason but many. They involve the high cost of a campaign, the sacrifice for their family and themselves and most of all the vulnerability these days of being in the public arena and the abuse and vitriol one takes.
Well, we do have a qualified candidate in Meg Heap and she deserves your consideration.
I met Meg because a long and dear mutual friend of my wife and Meg's urged me to meet her and give her my support if I deemed her candidacy worthy. I did and am.
The one drawback with Meg is she is extremely qualified and that is a rare and novel thing in Savannah politics these days.
I am happily hosting a "Meet Meg" event Tuesday, March 13, at the Ballroom of The Plantation Club at the Landings at 5PM. Please come and if you are not a Landings resident let me know and I will place your name on a list at the main gate.
The current serving DA has now been sued for sex bias. He is a lousy administrator and an incompetent. People have left his office in droves and Savannah has a serious crime problem.
For these and many more reasons, I am supporting Meg Heap who is running to succeed Larry Chisholm.
MEG DALY HEAP
22 E. Bryan Street, Suite #143
Savannah, Georgia 31401
912-398-1512
Email: meg4da@gmail.com
PERSONAL:
Born: September, 1964
Marital Status: Married - Children: 2 sons
EDUCATION:
Saint Vincent's Academy 1982 - Honor Graduate Savannah, Georgia
Georgia Southern College June 1986 Statesboro, Georgia Cum Laude - Honor Graduate
Mercer University May 1992 - Juris Doctorate Walter F. George School of Law,
Macon, Georgia
EXPERIENCE:
Solo Practitioner December 2011 to present
Attorney at Metts Law Firm August 2011 to December 2011
West Congress Street, Savannah, Georgia
Staff Attorney September 2010 to July 2011
Judge Penny Freesemann Superior Court of Chatham County Savannah, Georgia
Chief Assistant District Attorney January 2009 to August 2010
Eastern Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office, Chatham County Savannah, Georgia
Assistant District Attorney July 1995 to December 2008
Eastern Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office, Chatham County Savannah, Georgia
December 2005: Assigned to prosecute the abuse of the elderly and disabled adults.
The position was the first elder abuse prosecutor in the State. Duties also included education for the community and law enforcement.
Previously assigned to the Superior Court Division prosecuting felonies. From 1995 to 1997. Also assigned to the State Court Division prosecuting misdemeanors.
Assistant District Attorney 6/1/92 to 7/30/95
Blue Ridge Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office, Cherokee County Canton, Georgia
Prosecuted felonies in the Superior and Juvenile Courts and handled civil condemnations. Offenses ranged from murder, child molestation, to burglaries, thefts and any other offense where the overall needs of the office dictated.
Volunteer Coordinator July 1986 to August 1989
Victim Advocate:
Victim-Witness Assistance Program, Savannah, Georgia
Recruited and trained volunteers in Chatham County to work with victims of crime through our court system.
Volunteer coordinator of the year for Chatham County in 1988.
Worked with victims of crime in coordination with DA's Office.
Career Highlights:
• September of 2005: Presenter clergy training seminar called "Ministering to Vulnerable Populations: Child and Elder Abuse."
• December 2005: attended the National Triad Training Symposium in Tunica Mississippi.
• March 2006: Presenter at the Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center Area Agency on Aging: Issue: Elder Abuse (Richmond Hill, G.)
• April 2006: Adult Protective Services Statewide Seminar - prosecuting elder abuse. Skilled to Build: Shaping and Enhancing Services to Protect Georgia's Vulnerable Adults
• April 2006: Presenter at the statewide Adult Protective Services Seminar
• April 2006: Presenter at First Baptist Church "Classics", group of seniors on the issue of elder abuse
• May 2006: Presenter at a training sponsored by the Greater Savannah Coalition on Aging for professionals who work with elder or disabled adults.
• May 2006: Presenter on elder abuse at Consumer College, a training symposium for elderly citizens.
• May 2006 - Greater Savannah Coalition on Aging: Adult abuse prosecution in Chatham County
• May to June 2006: Presented training for law enforcement officers of Port Wentworth, Tybee Island and Savannah Chatham Metro PDs highlighting elder abuse law
• June 2006: Training presenter for emergency room nurses for Memorial Medical Center- elder abuse warning signs, prevention and protection
• September 2006: Presenter Smart Seniors at Candler Hospital - the issues of elder abuse
• September 2006: Elder abuse to Georgia Recreation and Park Assoc.
• October 2006 - Presenter at Tara Nursing Home - training of staff
• October 2006: Presenter at Ga. Commission on Domestic Violence - best practices: redefining best practices through the survivor’s eyes
• June 2007 World Elder Abuse Awareness Day - Brunswick for the Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center
• August 2007: Statewide Ga. IAFN
• Year of 2008: Presented a 2 hour block of instruction bi-weekly to officers with the Savannah Chatham Metropolitan Police Department
• Spring 2008: Article on in Georgia Generations - Scams that target seniors
• March 2008: Ludowici Police Department - training on elder abuse
• April 2008: Elder Abuse Conference (Valdosta State University)
• April 2008: Consumer College (SALT) elder abuse and exploitation
• July 2008: Presenter for the Coalition on Aging
• August 2008: Presenter at the Utah Municipal Prosecutors on the issues of elder abuse
• August 2010: Collaborated with Department of Homeland Defense in drafting a curriculum for training law enforcement on Native American lands on the issue of domestic violence.
.
Member of:
• Greater Savannah Coalition of Aging
• Elder Abuse Multi-disciplinary Team
• Adult Services Advisory Council
• S.A.L.T. Council (Seniors and Law Enforcement Together)
• Senior Medicare Patrol Advisory Council
• Advisory Council for the State Long-term Care Ombudsmen Program
• Coastal Children's Advocacy Center, Board of Directors
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Iran’s Gamble – The Proliferation Sprint
By Gavriel Queenann
Iran stands at the threshold of a nuclear weapons capability as the world watches in indecision.
Sanctions, covert action, and diplomacy have failed to alter Iran’s nuclear policy. Nor have they had a visible effect Iran's the enrichment program – including Tehran's growing stockpile of 19.75% low-enriched uranium (LEU).
Obtaining weapons-grade high-enriched uranium (HEU) is the most difficult and technically challenging obstacle to acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Assessing the “breakout” time – the time required to convert LEU to weapons-grade HEU – is therefore a critical component of determining progress toward a nuclear weapons capability.
Iran’s bank of rapidly spinning centrifuges has produced a growing stockpile of low-enriched uranium, able to fuel nuclear reactors, but able also to fuel nuclear weapons if further enriched. Enrichment raises the concentration of the uranium isotope U-235, which fissions in first-generation nuclear weapons.
As Iran increases its stockpile of low-enriched uranium, and its stockpile of uranium is enriched to 20 percent U-235, it will consolidate its status as a "virtual" nuclear weapon state.
Iran's enrichment activities occur at its facilities in Natanz and Fordow. The Natanz facility is above ground and – despite Iran's attempts to protect it with anti-aircraft defenses and a fighter screen – remains vulnerable to attack.
As a result, Iran has accelerated its uranium enrichment activities at the Fordow facility. The site – once covert and grossly mischaracterized by US officials as a façade – is buried in the side of a small mountain outside Qom.
Considered a "hard target" by military analysts, Fordow is the focus of intense scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the subject of the nuclear watchdog’s detailed analysis of Tehran's weaponization work.
According the IAEA, Fordow began producing uranium enriched to 20 percent earlier this year and has recently seen an expansion of its advanced centrifuges – the key and difficult-to-obtain component in enrichment activities.
These developments reduce the time Iran needs to produce fuel for a nuclear weapon and accelerate the stockpiling of weapons grade uranium. Should Iran choose to make a dash for a nuclear weapon, the world will be faced with a narrow window in which both to discover the move and take action to stop it.
The most recent IAEA report published earlier this month predicts Iran will possess enough 19.75% LEU for a 15 kiloton nuclear bomb – sufficiently large to be strategically useful – by 1 June 2012.
The worst case scenario is that Iran could reach the 90% HEU threshold for weapons grade uranium within one month of beginning its proliferation sprint. However, this scenario is considered highly unlikely and relies on contested technical assumptions about Iran's enrichment capabilities.
Proliferation experts say the most likely scenario would be Iran's reaching 90% HEU within 2.5 to 3 months of beginning its break-out.
A second concern is Iran's attempts to render its critical centrifuge operations both more diffuse and impenetrable, which would take Iran into Defense Minister Ehud Barak's "immunity zone."
At present the destruction of the Fordow and Natanz sites could set Tehran's enrichment program back years, giving sanctions time to have their desired effect. While the Natanz site is vulnerable to attack, US officials have recently said neither Washington nor Jerusalem have the ability to penetrate the Fordow facility.
Simply destroying the Natanz facility while Fordow remains operational would only extend the window for an Iranian nuclear break out – to perhaps one year – rather than stopping it. According to Air Force officials, its current 20.5 foot-long Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) carries over 5,300 pounds of explosive material and is designed to penetrate up to 200 feet underground before exploding.
The mountain above the Iranian enrichment site at Fordow is estimated to be at least 200 feet tall, which has raised doubts about the MOPs ability to effectively destroy Fordow. Those doubts have prompted Pentagon officials this month to secretly submit a request to Congress for funding to enhance the bomb's ability to penetrate deeper into rock, concrete and steel before exploding.
The push to boost the power of the MOP is part of stepped-up contingency planning for a possible strike against Iran's nuclear program, say U.S. officials. US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has said the current generation of MOPs could cause "a lot of damage" to the Fordow facility, but wouldn't necessarily destroy it outright.
"We're developing it. I think we're pretty close, let's put it that way. But we're still working at it because these things are not easy to be able to make sure that they will do what we want them to." he said. Panetta added: "But I'm confident, frankly, that we're going to have that capability and have it soon."
As a result, Tehran finds itself facing a ticking clock of its own and will have to time its nuclear sprint – should it choose to make one – to beat Washington's own rush for a bigger and better bunker-buster. The Air Force has so far contracted to buy 20 of the new bombs and more deliveries are expected in early 2013.
Israel has large bunker-buster bombs, but the US hasn't provided the MOP to Jerusalem. Nor is Washington likely to provide Israel with its replacement in 2013. Analysts believe it is highly unlikely repeated strikes with Israel's current bunker-busters would prove effective in destroying Fordow. Those doubts render an Israeli strike on Iran fraught with difficulty and potential failure.
This stark reality that Israel's leaders must confront is rendered even more complicated and dangerous by the Obama administration's diffident posture vis-a-vis taking direct military action against Iran. Washington has declared an Iranian nuclear bomb is "unacceptable," but refuses to commit to a strike on Natanz and Fordow should Iran choose to make a nuclear sprint.
That leaves leaders in all three capitals – Jerusalem, Tehran, and Washington – watching the clock and waiting for the starter's gun to fire.
3a)The probability of an attack on Iran’s nuclear programme has been increasing. But the chances of it ending the country’s nuclear ambitions are lo
THE crisis has been a long time coming. Iran started exploring paths to nuclear weaponry before the fall of the shah in 1979. Ten years ago the outside world learned of the plants it was building to provide “heavy” water (used in reactors that produce plutonium) and enriched uranium, which is necessary for some types of nuclear reactor, but also for nuclear weapons. The enrichment facilities have grown in capability, capacity and number; there has been work on detonators, triggers and missile technology, too.
Iran wants, at the very least, to put itself in a position where it has the expertise and materials with which to build deliverable nuclear weapons quickly. It may well want, at some point, to develop the bombs themselves. This is deeply worrying to Israel, which is threatened by Iran’s proxies in Lebanon and Gaza and disgusted by the anti-Semitic rants of Iran’s leaders. It also alarms Arab states, which fear Iranian power (and their own Shiite minorities). That alarm could lead some of them—Saudi Arabia, Egypt, perhaps Turkey—to seek nuclear weapons of their own. Many fear that this would make the region even less stable than it is. Even if it did not, it would make the possible consequences of instability much more terrible.
Outside powers, especially America, would give a great deal to avoid the prospect of an emboldened, nuclear-armed Iran. Hence ever-stronger sanctions designed to get Iran to cease enrichment and content itself with reactor fuel made elsewhere. Hence, also, a willingness by America and others to keep open the option of military strikes.
In Israel that willingness has hardened close to the point of commitment. Israel has nuclear weapons itself, including submarine-based weapons that could posthumously annihilate any aggressor who destroyed the country. But this deterrent is not enough to stop Israelis from seeing a nuclear Iran as the precursor to a second holocaust. The problem is that military action will not necessarily bring about what Israel wants—and could, in the medium to long term, make matters worse.
Short fuses
The possibility of an Iranian bomb comes closer with every revolution of the centrifuges in its underground enrichment plants (see article
Israel’s defence minister, Ehud Barak, talks of the Iranian programme entering a “zone of immunity” well before any bombs are built. This year some of Iran’s centrifuges have been moved to a previously secret facility near the holy city of Qom. This site, Fordow, is buried deep within the bowels of a mountain; hence Mr Barak’s talk of Iran reaching a stage “which may render any physical strike as impractical”.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says Fordow has room for 3,000 centrifuges, compared with the 9,000 Iran claims at its first enrichment plant, Natanz. Mr Barak fears that once Fordow is fully equipped Iran will leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). That would bring the IAEA’s inspections to an end, as well as its safeguard procedures aimed at tracking nuclear material. North Korea left the NPT in 2003, two years before announcing that it had the bomb and three years before testing one.
Not all Israeli security officials agree with Mr Barak. Some think that the time may already have passed when Israel on its own could carry out such a strike; others reject the idea that Fordow is a uniquely difficult target. Many of their American peers see a focus on Fordow as too narrow. There are less well defended facilities that are also critical to Iranian nuclear ambitions: sites that make centrifuges and missiles, for example.
Iran’s decreasing vulnerability is not the only reason for thinking that, after talking about it for many years, Israel might actually be about to strike. It has been building up its in-air refuelling capacity, and thus its ability to get a lot of planes over targets well inside Iran. And the Arab spring has reduced Iran’s scope for retaliation. The plight of the beleaguered Assad regime in Syria removes Iran’s only significant Arab ally from the fray. A year ago both Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza might have been relied on to rain missiles on Israeli targets after a strike against Iran. Now Hamas is realigning itself away from Iran and towards Egypt, and the situation in Syria means that Hizbullah cannot be certain that, if it fires at Israel, its Iranian-supplied arsenal will be replenished.
Awkward allies
Then there is the American presidential election. Like the Bush administration before it, Barack Obama’s White House sees Iran’s nuclear ambitions as a huge concern. But it worries that the consequences of an attack on Iran, whether by Israel or America, are unpredictable and scary: oil prices would rocket—at least for a while—endangering the economic recovery; allies in the Gulf already shaken by the Arab spring could be further destabilised; jihadist terrorism could be re-energised; America could be deflected from its primary goal of balancing the power of a rising China in the western Pacific.
Leon Panetta, America’s secretary of defence, says an Israeli attack might delay the advent of an Iranian bomb by “maybe one, possibly two years”, which looks like too little reward for such risks. Mr Obama has insisted that the Israelis give more time for diplomacy, an ever-tightening sanctions regime and intelligence-led efforts to sabotage Iran’s progress. In the period between September last year and January this year Mr Panetta and the chairman of the joint chiefs, General Martin Dempsey, both warned Israeli leaders that if they attacked they would be on their own.
But the election may give Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, something to bargain with. In the face of a hawkish Republican rival and in front of an electorate that is in parts fiercely pro-Israel, Mr Obama may feel he has to welcome, or even build on, an Israeli fait accompli in a way he would not have done earlier and might not do after his re-election, should it come about. In March Mr Netanyahu is planning a trip to Washington. He is likely to remind a broadly sympathetic Congress where America’s duty lies in confronting the “existential threat” to Israel. Although Mr Netanyahu is a more cautious character than some suppose, it would be a mistake to think he is bluffing when he says privately that on his watch Iran will not be allowed to take an irreversible step towards the possession of nuclear weapons.
In early February Mr Panetta appeared to reflect the sense that an Israeli attack was becoming increasingly likely when sharing his thoughts with a journalist from the Washington Post. He said he now believed there was a “strong likelihood” that Israel would attack Iran between April and June this year. Other sources put the odds of an attack this year a bit over 50%.
Such an attack would be a far more complex undertaking than the Israeli strikes against Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 and Syria’s reactor near al-Kibar in 2007. The Iranian nuclear programme looks as if it has been set up with air strikes in mind. Its sites are spread across more than a dozen supposedly well-defended locations.
Israel would probably pay particular attention to the enrichment plants at Natanz and Fordow; after them would come the facility at Isfahan that turns uranium into a gas that the centrifuges can work with and the heavy-water reactor under construction at Arak, both of which are above the ground. The larger Russian-built reactor at Bushehr would probably escape unscathed; it is less relevant to weapons work and damage to it could spread contamination across the Gulf.
Israel’s main attack force would consist of two dozen F-15Is and 100 F-16Is, variants of American fighter bombers that have been adapted for long-range missions, along with tankers for aerial refuelling, perhaps supplemented by armed drones and submarine-launched cruise missiles. The planes’ most likely route would be over Jordan and then Iraq, which has almost no air defences. Iran is defended, but mainly by Soviet-era surface-to-air missiles of a kind the Israelis have dealt with before. Iran has fighter aircraft, too, but the Israelis are not too concerned about them.
Plans of attack
Israel has at least 100 two-and-a-quarter tonne (5,000-pound) GBU-28s precision-guided bunker-busting bombs and even more of the smaller GBU-27s. Natanz would be vulnerable to these if they struck with sufficient accuracy and in sufficient numbers.
The biggest question is whether an Israeli strike would have any impact on the centrifuge chamber at Fordow, said to be buried 80 metres deep. According to Austin Long, an academic who used to work for the RAND Corporation, if every one of the F-15Is aimed the GBU-28 it was carrying, along with both its GBU-27s, at a single point, there would be a 35-90% chance of over half the weapons arriving at just the right place and at least one bomb would penetrate the facility. So if carried through with impeccable precision an attack on Fordow would have a reasonable chance of inflicting a bomb’s worth of damage.
But even if things went off without a hitch Iran would retain the capacity to repair and reconstitute its programme. Unless Israel was prepared to target the programme’s technical leadership in civilian research centres and universities the substantial nuclear know-how that Iran has gained over the past decades would remain largely intact. So would its network of hardware suppliers. Furthermore, if Iran is not already planning to leave the NPT such an attack would give it ample excuse to do so, taking its entire programme underground and focusing it on making bombs as soon as possible, rather than building up a threshold capability. Even a successful Israeli strike might thus delay Iran’s progress by only three or four years, while strengthening its resolve.
An American attack might gain five years or even ten; it could drop more bombs on more of the sites, and much bigger bombs—its B-2s carry GBU-57 “Massive Ordnance Penetrators”, weighing almost 14 tonnes. Mindful of its greater capability, in May 2008 Israel’s then prime minister, Ehud Olmert, asked George Bush whether America would, if needed, finish the job that Israel had started and stand by its friend no matter what the consequences. Mr Bush, preoccupied with Iraq, turned him down.
What are friends for?
Mr Obama, whose relations with Mr Netanyahu are much cooler than were Mr Bush’s with Mr Olmert, says he is “leaving all options on the table”. An American attack thus remains a possibility, and will continue to be one up to the day Iran fields weapons. But America is unlikely to rush into a strike following an Israeli mission. Administration officials suggest that America would aim to stay firmly on the sidelines, though they are resigned to the fact that, however strong its denials, its complicity would be widely assumed. America would, however, respond vigorously to any attack on its own forces, the oil installations of its allies, or shipping.
Despite a lot of huffing and puffing from Iranian commanders about closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 35% of the world’s seaborne oil passes, Iran lacks the ships and firepower with which to mount a conventional blockade. Mines, torpedo-carrying mini-submarines and anti-ship missiles would still allow the Iranians to damage poorly defended tankers. But a spate of such attacks would probably bring an overwhelming response from the carrier groups of America’s Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain. Iranian action that managed to be more than a nuisance while not provoking a decisive counter-attack by America would require finely judged and innovative tactics.
Wars at home
Nevertheless, to maintain its credibility the Iranian government would feel compelled to retaliate. As well as threatening shipping, it has also said that it will strike back at any Gulf state from which attacks on it are launched. America has bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates; those countries could become targets if Iran chooses to see America as directly implicated in any attack. Iranian strikes on the Gulf states could, in turn, lead America to retaliate against non-nuclear targets in Iran.
Then there are attacks on Israel proper. Although Hizbullah and Hamas may not launch attacks as fiercely as they might have done a year ago, they could still do damage. Iran may also try to hit Israel with its own ballistic missiles, though this would come up against the obstacle of Israel’s missile defences, and could also spur a forthright American response.
A regional conflagration cannot be ruled out. But the biggest downside of an attack on Iran may be the possibility of revived patriotic support for an unpopular and incompetent regime. Even the most virulently anti-regime Iranians today fear that an attack on the country’s nuclear installations could rekindle the revolutionary Islamic patriotism of the Iran-Iraq war, validating decades of paranoid regime propaganda and cementing the Revolutionary Guard’s increasingly firm hold on politics and the economy.
Although such fears may be overdone, so too may be the hopes of some outside Iran that an attack could have the opposite effect, with Iranians turning against the regime. It is true that Iran is embroiled in a power struggle (see article
But discontented though they may be, Iranians are for the most part quite proud of their nuclear programme, seeing no reason why so ancient and grand a nation should not have nuclear weapons. They point out that Pakistan is a far less stable and more dangerous member of the nuclear club than Iran would be, and that Western powers are hypocritical in their tacit acceptance of Israel’s nuclear weapons. Iran, they say, has not launched a war since the 19th century; Israel has never been completely at peace.
This adds to the case that, although bombing could delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it stands little chance of diminishing them; further entrenching them looks more likely. Perhaps, in the time gained by an attack, today’s regime might fall, its place taken by one less committed to nuclear development. But it is also possible that reinvigorated sanctions might convince even today’s regime that the cost of becoming a nuclear power was too high. Coupling sanctions with the threat of an attack may make them yet more convincing—even if, paradoxically, an actual attack would lessen their force.
The sanctions have become so tough, though, only because the world takes the risk of an Israeli attack seriously and it needs an alternative. Sword-rattling can sometimes have its place. But the swords are sharp—and double-edged.
Nearing a point of no return
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Obama Doctrine Failure
Three years ago, President Barack Obama set forth to recast American foreign policy in an image of his own design. It was one in which the White House engaged with enemies and undercut allies, apologized for American exceptionalism, and favored the "soft power" of treaties and international organizations. This "Obama Doctrine" was tailor made to burnish America's supposedly flagging reputation on the world stage. Today we are seeing the disastrous results of a doctrine gone wrong.
The Middle East is a logical starting point of this Obama Doctrine retrospective, a region where the President's soaring aspirations have been mugged by the reality on the ground. Beginning in Iran, Obama sought to engage a regime led by a man who has openly called for the destruction of Israel. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was not mollified by the President's charm offensive, and now, even in the face of escalating sanctions, Iran is ratcheting up its rhetoric, threatening to cut off a quarter of the world's energy supply, and marching toward a nuclear weapon. The Obama Administration's response? An admonishment of Israel for considering a strike against the murderous Iranian regime.
Syria, too, is yet another example of the Obama Doctrine failure. The President entered office hoping to engage the hostile regime of Bashar al-Assad and soft-pedaled its criticism of Assad's violent crackdown on anti-government protesters. The result? Syria ordered the attack on the U.S. embassy in Damascus, threatened the U.S. ambassador, and to date has killed more than 7,500 Syrians who are standing against the autocratic government.
The President's failure to discern friend from foe in foreign affairs left it flatfooted in the Arab Spring awakening last year, as well, and that too has put America at a loss. In Egypt, the President hesitated when the people called for Hosni Mubarak's ouster, but wound up supporting his overthrow in the end. Now, though, the Muslim Brotherhood is within inches of grasping power, the country's peace treaty with Israel is being questioned, and pro-democracy American workers there are facing criminal trial. In Libya, the President was forced into action by European allies, withdrew as quickly as possible, and the country is seeing increased instability as its militias are being accused of war crimes. None of the above is in America's interests.
In each instance, the Obama Administration was caught leading from behind, uncertain of the role the United States should play or how to react, instead of taking clear, assertive action to defend U.S. interests. Unfortunately, the one area where the President does display clarity is where his political interests come into play. That, too, has left American interests worse for wear.
In Afghanistan, the President has insisted on a speedy withdrawal of U.S. forces while pursuing negotiations with the Taliban -- a veritable enemy that has launched lethal attacks against American troops. Neither tactic is a strategy for victory or for preventing Afghanistan from once again becoming a safe haven for terrorists. In the middle of this tinderbox, anti-American protests are flaring after the apparent burning of Korans at a U.S. military base. The President issued an apology, yet the Taliban is calling for retaliation against the United States -- and that is the same Taliban which Vice President Joe Biden said "is not our enemy."
Iraq, too, has devolved into violence following the President's decision to withdraw U.S. troops. It has been just over two months since the last U.S. forces left Iraq, and in that time the country has witnessed ongoing insurgent attacks, a mushrooming political crisis, and the threat of a civil war which will aid neighboring Iran.
As these international threats simmer to a boil, the President is undercutting America's ability to defend its interests at home and abroad. Under Obama's new budget, the military faces nearly half a trillion dollars in cuts, on top of $400 billion the President has already slashed. That does not include the half trillion in funding that will have to be cut under the debt limit agreement Congress reached last summer. Vital defense programs have been killed, next generation weapons will be delayed or eliminated, and troops will be reduced. And it's all being done in the name of freeing up funding to pay for the President's domestic agenda.
In the course of three years, President Obama has pursued a foreign policy that has left America less secure today and even more at risk tomorrow. A nuclear Iran, a failed Afghanistan and Iraq, an unfriendly Egypt, an Israel at risk, and an underfunded military are all serious concerns for the American people. Rather than continue pursuing the ill-advised Obama Doctrine, it is time for the President to put defending America first and appeasing our enemies last. That is a doctrine the American people can depend on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)
Absolutely Incredible!!!! Our votes today are worthless and they used to be the backbone of our American system! Who allowed this system to collapse? Why isn't proof of residency and photo ID's mandatory in order to a) register to vote and b) to actually cast a ballot, respectively??? What possible arguments can you raise to dispute this? Unless you want to commit voter fraud!!!
Hidden camera in MN voting
This sickens me...It needs to hit national TV somehow!
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=GqMVxeZhflI&feature=player_embedded "<http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=GqMVxeZhflI&feature=player_embedded> #!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)More On Obama’s Algae ‘Energy’ Nonsense
Obama thinks pond scum is a good bio-fuel for our military jets.
Obama’s plan to use algae as an energy resource is more advanced than we knew last week.
In his speech at the University of Miami last week, Obama told his fawning audience: “If we can figure out how to make energy out of that, we’ll be doing alright. Believe it or not, we could replace up to 17 percent of the oil we import for transportation with this fuel that we can grow right here in America.”
He wants algae to fuel our jets.
The Department of Energy is spending $85 million on 30 different projects to “develop algal biofuels.”
The Department of Defense is investing $500 million to develop algae based biofuels for the Navy. The company developing the algae jet fuel is Solazyme, run by T.J. Glauthier, an Obama transition team member who was heavily involved in crafting the energy portion of the 2009 stimulus package. Isn’t that special?
An MIT study found that the price of algae as jet fuel would be twice as high as the cost of traditional jet fuel. And a study from the University of Virginia discovered that production of algae-fuel requires more water and more petroleum based energy than other biofuels.
In short, Obama’s latest nonsense is just designed to provide jobs for his green cronies and to waste millions of taxpayer dollars on more failed experiments with alternative energy resources.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)US and Israel update Iran intelligence for Obama-Netanyahu summit
How real is this scenario?
The media duel over Iran between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government went up a notch Tuesday, Feb. 28 with an Associated Press report by Kimberly Dozier asserting that Israel had decided finally that if an attack on Iran was judged necessary, the US would be kept in the dark “so as not to be held responsible for failing to stop a potential Israeli attack.”
Referring to this claim, military and intelligence sources note Washington would hardly need a heads-up from Israel because it commands every possible resource for finding out for itself what Israel is up to and for determining if its actions are for real or red herrings.
Indeed, last Sunday, Feb. 19, Washington’s suspicions were aroused by an Israeli military spokesman’s bulletin on the stationing of an Iron Dome anti-missile battery in the Tel Aviv district. Israel was asked for clarifications. To avoid appearing to have buckled down under US pressure, Israel waited four days before announcing a change of plan and the deployment instead of three batteries in Beersheba, Ashkelon and Ashdod, towns which are in line for missile attacks from Gaza rather than Iran.
US and Israeli sources stress that if the country were indeed headed for war, it would not be possible to conceal every sign of preparation, especially such civil defense measures as building up stocks of medicines, fuel and food, or orders to local authorities to make bomb shelters ready.
Whenever Israel is suspected of switching over to eve-of-war mode, the Obama administration sends high officials over to talk to Israelis and find out what is going on. Indeed Western intelligence sources have taken to using the frequency of those visits as a barometer for judging the seriousness of an approaching Israeli attack on Iran.
Last week, the US President’s National Security Adviser Tom Donilon spent time in Israel after Chairman of the US Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey. He left Tuesday, Feb. 21, followed two days later by National Intelligence Director James Clapper. Sunday, Feb. 26, Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak flew to Washington. March 5, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu arrives at the White House for his date with President Barack Obama.
Most of these US-Israeli discussions have been devoted to laying the ground for this summit by a joint reevaluation of US and Israeli intelligence on Iran’s nuclear progress, whose conclusions will be put before the two leaders.
Both governments are meanwhile setting the scene for the event with tendentious media leaks, often drawing on outdated, long-refuted materials.
One of the least plausible items was run by AP Tuesday, claiming, “US intelligence and special operations officials have tried to keep a dialogue going with Israel, despite the high-level impasse, sharing with them options such as allowing Israel to use US bases in the region from which to launch such a strike as a way to make sure the Israelis give the Americans a heads-up.”
The basic facts emerging from the hot air surrounding the issue are that the Obama administration is dead set against any Israeli military action against Iran and that it remains an active option. The president and his advisers are working overtime to prevent it happening. The last thing on Washington’s mind therefore would be to support an attack by making US bases available merely for the sake of a heads-up. And another point: if Israel feels the need to absolve the US of responsibility, why would it use US bases?
The presence of US intelligence and special operations and intelligence officials at Israel military facilities is not news; this level of military cooperation goes back years.
Tehran draws its own conclusions from the pace of US official visits to Israel and the ding dong between the two governments over an attack on its nuclear sites. This week, Iranian Defense minister classified the dispute as “a war game” and a deliberate game of deception. Of late, whenever top White House officials touch down in Israel in unusual numbers, Tehran announces yet another “large-scale military maneuver.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment