War Clouds Continue to Gather?

It is about teachers. (See 1 below.)
---
Like it or not The Middle East is America's tar baby! (See 2 below.)
---
This from a long time friend and fellow memo reader responding to D'Souza video in a previous memo: "President Obama’s re-election strategy is clear-divide and conquer. First, the White House and President Obama’s union and ACORN allies organize the Occupy movement setting the 99% against the 1% (presumably protected by Republicans). This is class warfare at its best. Then comes women against the Catholic Church-a church weakened by recent scandals. This also taps into residual anti-Catholicism, particularly in potentially close Southern states. Playing the race card has expanded to playing the minority card in order to include Hispanics. This is, of course, to set up allegedly victimized minorities against the rest of us.

His next move may be to dump Vice-President Biden in favor of a white, preferably “Catholic” women-Kathleen Sibelius comes to mind.

Obama’s reelection coalition becomes minorities plus women plus the usual tax-supported wealth consumers (public service union members, university faculty of no particular use, etc.) versus the oppressor class-the white male power establishment. It just could work."

In addition to the above you have the various hyped emphasis and attacks by the press and media on Rush L's world.

The campaign strategy being employed by Obama and his minions is straight out of Alinksy's play book and it will get nastier and nastier. And then, icing on the cake will be the voter fraud efforts which worked to elect the comic Senator from Milwaukee, Al Franken.
---
Obama goes through life flipping and flopping and most do not take the time to connect the dots partly because relying upon the  press and media is no help since they are solely interested in protecting their anointed.  So you have to dig and think for yourself. Not a commodity most Americans seem they either have time for or are capable. (See  3 below)

---
Syria has plenty of chemical and biological weaponry at its disposal.  Will this prove to be a game changer vis a vis Israel's planning against Iran? (See 4 below.)
---
Brit think tank disputes Israeli attack on Iran .  (See 5 below.)
---
De Borchgrave sees trouble ahead. (See 6 below.)
---
I will go with McConnell and not Tom Friedman any day. 'Bubba' Mitchell was a long standing and dear friend who died prematurely of cancer.  (See 7 below.)
---

Dick

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)The Trouble With Humiliating Teachers
Making rankings public undermines the trust educators need to build collaborative teams.
By WENDY KOPP

When I dropped my kids off at school last week, I had a hard time looking their teachers in the eye. The New York City government had just posted their performance assessments online, and though I'm a strong supporter of teacher accountability and effectiveness, I was baffled and embarrassed by the decision.

So-called value-added rankings—which rank teachers according to the recorded growth in their students' test scores—are an important indicator of teacher effectiveness, but making them public is counterproductive to helping teachers improve. Doing so doesn't help teachers feel safe and respected, which is necessary if they are going to provide our kids with the positive energy and environment we all hope for.

The release of the rankings (which follows a similar release last year in Los Angeles) is based on a misconception that "fixing" teachers is the solution to all that ails our education system.

No single silver bullet will close our educational achievement gaps—not charter schools, or vouchers, or providing every child with a computer, or improving teachers. Each of these solutions may have merit as part of a larger strategy, but on their own they distract attention from the long, hard work required to ensure that our schools are high-performing, mission-driven organizations with strong teams, strong cultures and strong results.

It's true that teachers are vitally important. The current focus on them stems from an important body of research showing that highly effective teachers have a profound and lasting impact on students' academic trajectories, while the least effective teachers hold their students back for years to come.

A teacher helps a student create a papier mâché globe at Heber Hunt Elementary School in Sedalia, Mo., on Feb. 29.

But the question is how to cultivate high-quality teaching. At Teach For America, we are sometimes accused of relying on the examples of a few super-teachers who overcome every obstacle. In fact, our experience over the past 20 years has taught us how difficult it is for individual teachers—even exceptional ones—to achieve great results working within schools and systems that aren't set up to support them.

A few years ago, my son had a teacher who under the current system would probably be ranked in the bottom quartile of her peers. This wasn't for a lack of enthusiasm or effort on her part—you could see how desperately she wanted to connect with her students and be a great teacher. Knowing my son was in a subpar classroom didn't make me angry at the teacher. It made me frustrated with the school—for not providing this young educator with the support and feedback she needed to improve.

If you ask the principals of top-performing schools the secret to their success, they will tell you that it's about building teams and investing everyone in the mission of high achievement. At these schools, there is leadership and accountability at every level.

Teachers are not left by themselves to sink or swim—they are given feedback, support and professional development. Moreover, they operate in environments designed to meet the extra needs of kids from disadvantaged backgrounds while keeping expectations high.

We should make individual teacher ratings available to school principals to inform their work recruiting and developing teaching faculties, but releasing them publicly undermines the trust they need to build strong, collaborative teams.

Ensuring that every child receives an excellent education is going to require reshaping our schools so they have the mission, culture and operating approach that support strong teacher performance. We cannot produce 3.7 million effective teachers without overhauling the context in which they work.

That's why Teach For America focuses on channeling the energy of our country's future leaders against the problem of educational inequity. Investing in their success as teachers is important not only for today's students but also for cultivating their long-term leadership potential inside the classroom and outside of it—preparing them to drive changes in the ways schools operate, in the ways our school systems promote teacher development, and in the political and community contexts in which schools exist.

We've spent too much time over the past two decades caught up in a blame game. Just as we now know how wrong it was to blame kids and their families for the achievement gap, we should be careful not to get swept up in the trend of blaming teachers. Rather, we need to give all those who are engaged in this hard work the respect and support they deserve.

Ms. Kopp is founder and CEO of Teach For America and co-founder and CEO of Teach For All.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)America Is Stuck With the Mideast
Global oil markets and global commerce mean that American presidents will simply not be able to set this region off to the side.
By Walter Russell Mead

The Middle East is on fire. As waves of populist, ethnic and religious unrest sweep the region, long-established regimes totter like ninepins, violent conflicts explode in once-quiet countries, and all the rules seem up for grabs.

The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is on life support and Iran is marching steadily toward obtaining a nuclear weapon. And even as President Obama assures us that he has Israel's back and "will not countenance" Iran getting a nuclear weapon, as he did this week, his administration speaks about "leading from behind" and of a "pivot toward Asia."

Many observers see all this as reflecting a sharp decline in American power. But the reality is more complicated and less dramatic. The reality is that the United States remains the paramount power in the region and will remain committed to it for a long time to come.

In all the tumult and upheaval, it's easy to miss the main point: America's interests in the Middle East remain simple and in relatively good shape. The U.S. wants a balance of power in the region that prevents any power or coalition of powers inside or outside the region from being able to block the flow of oil to world markets by military means. It wants Israel to be secure. And in the middle to long term, it hopes to see the establishment of stable, democratic governments that can foster economic growth and peace.

If it must, the U.S. will act directly and on its own to achieve these goals. But given its global responsibilities and the multitude of issues in which it is concerned, the U.S. by nature is a burden-sharing rather than a limelight-hogging power. It prefers to work with allies and partners, preferably regional partners.

In today's Middle East, core U.S. goals enjoy wide, even unprecedented support. As the Sunni Arab world joins hands with Europe, pushes back against Iran, and works to overthrow Syria's Bashar al-Assad, a strong coalition has formed around Washington's most urgent regional priority—the Iranian drive for regional hegemony capped by its nuclear program.

France and the Arab League cursed the U.S. when it invaded Iraq in 2003; in 2011 they seconded and promoted the overthrow of Libya's Gadhafi. Turkey hesitated but joined. Now, as the crisis in Syria sharpens once again, U.S. objectives command enormous support across the region.

If this is decline, we could use more of it.

Yet those who believe the U.S. can now turn its full attention on Asia, ignoring the unhappy Middle East, miss the degree to which U.S. interests remain deeply bound up in the fate of the region. In recent weeks, rising Middle East tensions have helped drive up the price of gasoline in the U.S. More price increases will anger voters, scare consumers, and could well knock the nascent U.S. economic recovery on its head.

For President Obama, those developments would pretty much doom his re-election efforts. The same will be true of his successors. Even as the U.S. reduces its direct dependence on Middle East oil, the global nature of the world oil market, and the effect of supply insecurity in other major markets, which affect our economy given the globalization of commerce, means that American presidents will simply not be able to set this region off to the side. It is easier to pivot toward Asia than to pivot away from the Middle East. The reality is that the U.S. will have to walk and chew gum at the same time.

The U.S. government first began to play a major role in Middle East power politics after World War II. (As late as World War I, the U.S. stayed resolutely away, refusing to declare war on the Ottoman Empire and rejecting proffered League of Nations mandates over Armenia and Palestine.) That role has never been particularly pleasant. During much of the Cold War, public opinion in much of the Middle East favored the Soviets. America's relations with Israel were never popular in the Arab nations. Friendly regimes left over from the British era toppled in many countries, yielding to radical and anti-American juntas and dictators.

The U.S. changed alliances many times during the Cold War. Egypt started out as a pro-Western country, shifted to radical socialist nationalism, and came back to the West in the late 1970s. Iraq and Iran turned from staunch allies of the U.S. to bitter opponents. The Gulf states and the Saudis had little love for the U.S., but their interests lay so close to ours that most of the time alliances prospered even if friendship soured.

Today the grounds of alliance are once again shifting, and in unpredictable ways. Turkey and the U.S. are closer than they were three years ago; Egypt and the U.S. are further apart. The Saudis if anything are impatient with U.S. moderation on Iran; here they and the Israelis are reciting from the same book of prayers.

Should political conditions change in Iran, the kaleidoscope could change again. Before 1979, the U.S. and Iran were close allies; new leadership in Tehran might seek to rebuild the relationship. The Sunni world will likely divide if the Iranian threat diminishes, and as usual, some Sunni states will want U.S. support to protect them from others.

For now at least, the past looks like a good predictor for the next phase of American engagement with the Middle East. Often hated, rarely loved, the U.S. remains indispensable to the region's balance of power and to the security of the vulnerable oil-producing states on the Gulf. There are many people in the Middle East who would like the U.S. to bow out of the region, and there are many people in the U.S. who would like very much to leave.

For now, both groups must learn to accept disappointment.

Mr. Mead is a professor of foreign affairs and humanities at Bard College.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Obama and the 'Gravity of War'
By Ed Lasky

Barack Obama held a news conference yesterday to counterprogram against the GOP's Super Tuesday contest. It was one of his rare news conferences of late, as he has avoided them and preferred using direct means to communicate with his fans if not the rest of the American people.  At one point, Obama dismissed criticism of his rather feckless approach towards Iran by maligning Republicans. According to Obama, there is still " a window of opportunity where this can still be solved diplomatically" and when Republicans attack him for being too weak, that's only because they "don't understand the gravity of war."

Really, Mr. President?  Really?

Senator John McCain, who has been a hawk regarding Libya, Syria and has been a leading force in trying to compel Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program, was a Vietnam prisoner of war who was tortured during his years of captivity and still cannot lift up his arms over his head because of his life-long injuries. His father was a legendary Admiral, and his North Vietnamese captors offered to release him as a public relations move. He refused because he felt the honorable path to follow was to stay with his men, thereby subjecting himself to more torture.

Senator Mark Kirk, who has led the way in trying sanctions to force Iran to give up its nuclear program (his latest effort was the Kirk-Menendez amendment to the military authorization bill that would have allowed the President to sanction companies doing business with Iran's Central Bank), volunteered to join the Navy and has been an intelligence officer since 1989.  He was recalled to active duty in Operation Allied Force to help in the bombing of Yugoslavia.  He also flew numerous times over Iraq as part of Operation Northern Watch.  He has also served in multiple deployments in Afghanistan, with his latest concluding just a few months ago. He has been in the forefront, both as a Congressman and as a Senator, in seeking to  tighten the screws on Iran -- efforts that have apparently "earned" him multiple snubs from the Commander-in-Chief.

I think both of these men quite well understand the gravity of war far more seriously than a man who served at Occidental College, Columbia University and then Harvard Law (and associated with left-wing ideologues all his adult life, as opposed to having friendships with men and women who put their lives on the line for their nation).

Barack Obama has such respect for the military that he does not know how to pronounced "corpsman" (the teleprompter programmers must have forgotten to phonetically print this word),  gets the name of a Medal of Honor recipient wrong and confuses him with a dead man  and decided (yet again)  to play golf on Memorial Day -- the holiday that honors our men and women of the military who have fallen . He seems to have a serial problem with appreciating or even understanding Memorial Day. For example, in 2008, he gave a campaign speech in New Mexico on Memorial Day and had this to say:

On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.

Of course, Memorial Day honors soldiers who have lost their lives. His "gaffe" (the rare times when we see the real Obama) gave rise to jokes about Obama's Sixth Sense and his ability to see "dead people" (time for more séances in the White House?).

To top it off, he has an aversion to using the term "victory." How does that build morale among our men and women in uniform?  If Barack Obama alone understands the "gravity of war" one would think he would also appreciate the need to praise our soldiers for their successes in Iraq and Afghanistan -- but he clearly could not honor their efforts because to do so would also show a modicum of respect for the reviled George Bush.

His disrespect towards our men and women in the military is manifest in his administration's efforts to gut the military of the equipment and force levels we need. He is planning on slashing the medical care benefits for active duty and retired military while requesting money for a brand new soccer field for terrorists in Guantanamo Bay

Barack Obama also lifted the photo ban that prevented the media from publicizing photos of the coffins of our fallen. A leading military families group objected to the lifting of the ban believing the decision should be left to the survivors.  Clearly, they did not appreciate that the only individual Barack Obama feels should make this decision is the one he looks at (how often?) in the mirror every day.  For those wondering why Barack Obama would ignore the feelings of the survivors, one need not look beyond his campaign plan.  After his administration lifted the ban, the  White House alerted the media to Barack Obama's helicopter ride to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware where he was pictured honoring the return of the remains of 30 Americans killed when Taliban insurgents shot down their helicopter in Afghanistan. Treating our military men and women as campaign props is offensive on many levels, especially when they have been killed in action and their survivors wishes are ignored.

Incidentally, Barack Obama's Attorney General just appointed a lawyer who defends Taliban terrorists as his number three at the Department of Justice.

Obama claimed a great deal of credit for the Bin Laden mission -- with no mention of the fact that the groundwork for finding Bin Laden would not have existed but for our efforts in Iraq.  In his speech announcing the successful mission, he carried on his habit of claiming credit for the actions of others- an unpleasant character trait.  President Obama used his favorite pronoun quite often in that celebratory speech (" I directed Leon Panetta", "today, at my direction"  -- for more examples of the narcissism, not difficult to find when Obama speaks,  see the transcript). Compare Barack Obama egotistical approach to Ronald Reagan's who had a plaque on his desk said  'There is no limit to what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit ." Can anyone imagine those words coming from Barack Obama?

He is the anti-Reagan and it is particularly offensive when he hogs the credit for the heroism of our military.

But it is even worse  when Barack Obama exploits  their heroism for campaign purposes. His friends and donors in Hollywood are ramping up production of a movie celebrating the Bin Laden operation, and his administration has given the people behind the movie unprecedented access to military information. Does anyone doubt that one of the stars of this movie will be President Obama?  Hollywood is the land of illusion after all, the land of make-believe. It certainly would require one to suspend disbelief when it comes to reconfiguring the man who is rapidly drawing down our military as an action hero. And his use of a drones to pick off this "leader" or "that leader" does not alone make him a commander-in-chief (has anyone noted that the media is again carrying water for him by describing every one of his kills as a "leader"; when the Bush administration used such characterizations they were dismissed as propaganda).

But his willingness, if not eagerness, to use our military to bolster his own prospects is even worse than using them as props as a campaign commercial masquerading as a movie.  As Leif Babbin,  a much decorated Navy Seal noted in the Wall Street Journal, Obama's loose lips regarding their secret missions endangers the lives of Navy Seals, who are the people putting their lives on the line-all for the sake of politics.

The Republicans he denigrates are not calling for war. They are calling for something more muscular and impactful on the mullahs than the feckless policy he has followed for three years. He has had his palm and window for negotiation open for years now, and the Iranians have ignored his entreaties as they rapidly develop their nuclear weapons program. The people he insults are trying to avoid war, yet find his somnolence and nonchalance both naïve and dangerous.  His inactions are likely to lead to the Iranians developing nuclear weapons -- and the violence that follows from this leading state sponsor of terror (as Clinton dubbed the Iranian regime) will be far more tragic given his approach.  Yet, Republicans who have actually experienced war and are trying to prevent more deaths  are the ones he denigrates as not "understanding the gravity of war". The audacity!

Perhaps Barack Obama, who styles himself "a student of history" might heed the words of Winston Churchill who reflected after the end of World War Two:

There never was a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe.

Churchill, who actually served in war (as have Senators McCain and Kirk), knew that at various times in the late 1930's violence could have been avoided had the world's leaders taken more forceful and far-sighted actions than they did when by their very somnolence and fecklessness stumbled into a World War.

Yet Barack Obama insults those who are working to prevent war by claiming they do not understand the "gravity of war."

We have a President who slashes health benefits to our soldiers and veterans, does not know how to honor them or the holiday that celebrates their service, does not bother to learn how to pronounce their titles, uses them as campaign props and insults their survivors for the sake of photo ops.  He both disrespects them and then exploits them for political gain.

Does he understand or appreciate their service and sacrifice?

Indeed, does he understand the "gravity of war? 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4)Top US danger rating for Syrian chemical-biological missiles - ahead even of Iran 

US Gen. James Mattis, CENTCOM Chief

US military officials said on Wednesday, March 7, that contrary to the prevailing impression, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu discussed not only their dispute over an attack on Iran at their White House meeting on March 5, but devoted considerable attention to the Syrian crisis, focusing on the hundreds of surface-to-surface missiles armed with chemical and biological warheads possessed by Syria. The peril of the Assad regime launching them now tops America’s chart of the threats looming over Israel and Turkey.

The US president accordingly prevailed upon his Israeli guest to hurry up and patch up relations with Turkey, which he was willing to assist, because it would take a combined US-Turkish-Israeli military effort to ward off an attack by Syria’s poisoned missiles. Indeed, if the Syrian conflict is not solved, America might be forced to turn its missile shield against Bashar Assad’s missiles before they are needed against an Iranian attack.

The hazard could be accelerated by three elements, say American sources:

1. Assad might decide to respond with extreme violence to foreign military intervention in Syria, even an operation confined only to drawing the civilian population into security zones safe from the attacks of his security services.

On Tuesday, March 6, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan reverted to his call for security zones, and last week, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman offered humanitarian aid to Syria’s beleaguered civilian population. Both such actions, say the American sources, might well be taken by Assad as provocations deserving of reprisal by missiles – first those carrying chemical warheads, then biological ones.

Minister of Home Front Defense Matan Vilnai said Tuesday when he dedicated 14 public shelters at the two largest Druze communities in the Carmel district, Daliat al-Carmel and Usufiya, that “the Haifa district of the Home Front command is expected to be very important in the next war and we anticipate that hundreds of missiles will be fired at the home front.”
These shelters can accommodate 3,000 people.

2. Assad might respond to an Iranian request to take part in a preemptive strike launched by Tehran or Iranian retaliation for attacks on its nuclear facilities by the US or Israel.

3.  Assad might transfer the unconventional missions to Iran’s Lebanese surrogate, the Hizballah - in which case, the US, Turkey and Israel would have no option but to smash them.
US military sources say that although Israel possesses a strong air force and special forces able to sabotage Assad’s chemical and biological missiles, the United States and Turkey would have to pitch in with military resources to destroy them completely.

That arsenal is being closely watched by US surveillance drones after the lessons from the Libyan war when at least 5,000 advanced anti-aircraft missiles were spirited out of Qaddafi’s weapons stores, some of them smuggled into Gaza for Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations.

Testifying to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Wednesday, the Chairman of the Joint US Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey said the Assad regime had ““approximately five times more sophisticated air defenses than existed in Libya covering one-fifth of the terrain” and “about ten times more than we experienced in Serbia.” He also has chemical and biological weapons.
His words reinforced the testimony presented Tuesday to the Senate’s Armed Services Committee by two senior American generals. Marine Gen. James Mattis, head of the US Central Command which covers the Middle East and Gulf region, said: “Syria has a ‘substantial chemical and biological weapons capability and thousands of shoulder-launched missiles.”

Admiral William McRaven, head of the US Special Operations Command, also spoke to the committee about Syria’s weapons of mass destruction and American preparations to deal with this menace.

Those briefings were the first assessments of Syrian chemical and biological weapons capabilities to be given publicly by the heads of America's armed forces. This was the direct result, US sources say, of the candid and open conversation on the subject between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu Tuesday.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Think-tank: Israeli attack on Iran unlikely this year

Head of London-based Institute for Strategic Studies says only US capable of serious campaign against nuclear facilities; pre-emptive Israeli strike could backfire, he claims

An Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would only set back Tehran’s program by a couple of years, the head of a respected London-based think-tank said Wednesday.

International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) head John Chipman said an Israeli attack against Iran was unlikely this year, following US assurances this week to Israel that it would not rule out military action.

Only the United States could conduct a serious campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities, he said.

Furthermore, a pre-emptive Israeli strike could backfire because it is likely to push the Tehran regime to accelerate its nuclear ambitions, warned the IISS director-general at the release of its annual “Military Balance” report.

Western powers suspect Iran is seeking to build a nuclear bomb, a charge denied by Tehran which says its atomic program is for purely civilian purposes.

“My judgment is that an Israeli attack on Iran of an overt kind is unlikely this year,” Chipman told a news conference on the annual assessment of the global military power balance.

“Both Israel and the United States are conscious that Israel can conduct a raid; only the United States can conduct a campaign.

“I think that it’s the latter that would be necessary in order to delay, in any meaningful way, the acquisition of a confirmed Iranian nuclear military capability.

“The judgment of most military experts is that any attack - whether a raid or a campaign - would only delay such acquisition and could, of course, incentivize the regime, once it reorganizes itself, to move ever quicker towards that goal.”

Chipman said that in talks this week in Washington, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received an assurance from US President Barack Obama.

The promise was “in effect, that if Israel took US advice and did not attack prematurely, that when the threat matured, the United States would, if all other options failed, use the military option.”

“So my judgment is that it is unlikely that there would be an attack this year.”

He added: “Washington has appealed for patience, on the grounds that Iran is not on the verge of producing nuclear weapons, that Israeli air strikes would set back Iran’s program by only a couple of years, and that sanctions are now having a real impact on Iran.”

Iran could carry out its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz by mining the key shipping channel and using anti-ship missiles, torpedoes or rockets, Chipman said.


“While these capabilities could disrupt shipping temporarily, the US and its allies maintain significant maritime assets in the region and would soon be able to reopen the strait,” he said.

Iran could also try to impose more bureaucracy on shipping, increasing transit times by imposing more demands on vessels using the waters it controls.

Chipman said tensions remained high in the Middle East, with regional states concerned about Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

Gulf countries were continuing to buy a great deal of military equipment in response, he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Commentary: Is Syria 2011 Spain 1936?
By ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE

Is Syria's civil war a prelude to a larger Mideast conflict that would involve Israel, Iran, the Arab Gulf countries minus Oman (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain) and Israel?

Some knowledgeable military observers who have served or are serving in the Middle East say that the Arab Spring, which translated into chaos and intertribal warfare from Yemen to Libya to Syria, is a prelude to a much wider conflict involving Israel and Iran.

Saudi Arabia is assisting the Syrian rebels who now call themselves revolutionaries. Some "Gulfies," the colloquial label for Arab oil states in the Persian Gulf, assisted the anti-Gadhafi NATO forces in Libya last year, and Libya today is the chaotic domain of dozens of rival tribes once suppressed by the late eccentric and bloody dictator.

In Tripoli, the Libyan capital, Aldelkadir Elhaj, a former al-Qaida chief, once tortured by the Thais under the U.S. rendition program, holds sway with a big stick.

Privately, Persian Gulf leaders say Iran has concluded the United States' days as a superpower are numbered. Iran's aging theocrats tell their visiting gulf interlocutors that America has lost two wars in 10 years -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- and is pulling out of Europe and "pivoting" to Asia where China is already dominant.

Also on a wider front, Islamist fundamentalists hijacked the Arab Revolution in Egypt and would like to loosen the constraints imposed by the Camp David accords and the peace treaty with Israel.

The fundamentalist drama is still being played out in Egypt, Syria and Libya.

Denials notwithstanding, Persian Gulf rulers are secretly rooting for Israel against Iran. Privately, some have told trusted foreign friends that if the United States and Israel cannot rein in Iran's Revolutionary Guards, they will have no alternative but to accommodate Tehran.

The Spanish civil war (1936-39) killed 500,000 as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union backed opposite sides -- and Franco's fascists emerged victorious and remained in power until 1975.

In the Middle East, Syria's civil war -- which some observers are calling Spain II, or a prelude to World War III -- has been under way since Feb. 17, 2011. Saudi Arabia is helping arm Syrian rebels who now call themselves revolutionaries. Russia and China are backing the Syrian dictatorship, which is allied with Iran.

Russia, China and Iran are on the side of Syria's "Alouite dictatorship" headed by Bashar Assad. He inherited the country's dictatorship from his father Hafez who died in 2000 after almost 30 years in power.

Last week, a hastily organized Syrian plebiscite for a new constitution theoretically dissolved one-party rule but, also theoretically, gives Bashar Assad 18 more years in power for a total of 28, just one year shy of his father's record.

Between the end of the French mandate in 1945 and the military takeover of air force chief Gen. Hafez Assad in 1970, Syria experienced 21 coups. So no one is taking any bets on Assad's political longevity.

Unless Iran's current view of a rapidly declining U.S. superpower can be reversed, a number of Arab Gulf rulers will be tempted into longer lasting accommodation with Tehran.

Iran's revolutionary guards control the entire eastern side of the Persian Gulf from the Iraqi border to the Hormuz Strait, the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. All the Arab gulf states and their oil installations are in the sights of Iran's missile sites.

Some Iran-watchers consider Tehran's current narrative highly dangerous. Iran's leaders see themselves as still standing and in fighting trim after all manner of Western sanctions. They have apparently concluded among themselves and tell their Arab visitors that after the United States exits the gulf, they will still be there, the major force to be reckoned with, astride one-fifth of the world's oil supplies.

Tehran's view of its all-dominant strategic posturing is reinforced by what it sees as two anti-American powers on its right flank -- Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was Pakistan's Dr. A.Q. Khan, the world's leading nuclear black marketer, who sold Iran the wherewithal to start its journey toward becoming a nuclear power.

Today, Pakistan, in a paroxysm of anti-Americanism, brought about by last November's accidental killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers by a U.S. gunship over the Afghan border, have stalled thousands of supply trucks for NATO forces in Afghanistan. The successful SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden also rankled national sensitivities.

And Tehran's Revolutionary Guard generals also see Afghanistan moving away from its close alliance with the United States -- and vice versa. The idiotic mistake of U.S. personnel torching unwanted Korans was manna from heaven for Iran's mullahs.

In his meeting Monday with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, U.S. President Barack Obama, weighing the pros and cons of his chances for another four years in the White House, knows that major differences with the Jewish state on its existential crisis would probably cost him the election.

A congressional thunder clap from pro-Israel lobby group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is the last thing Obama needs eight months before the election. Israel's prime minister reminded him that the plan to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States in Cafe Milano, Washington's celebrity-studded "in" restaurant, was the real thing, the FBI said.

On the other hand, the current correlation of forces in the Middle East doesn't favor the United States and its Western allies. The United States clearly has the assets -- bombers, drones, deep penetration ordnance and SEALs -- to deprive Iran of nuclear weapons for several years. But Iran also commands sufficient terrorist assets to unleash massive, asymmetrical retaliatory blows, including thousands of mines in the Strait of Hormuz -- i.e., 20 percent of the world's oil.

Oil at $300 or even $500 a barrel for a while? That's $12 or $20 a gallon at the pump.

Netanyahu says "None of us can afford to wait much longer" and "I will never let my people live in the shadow of annihilation." If diplomacy fails and Obama decides to keep the United States out of what would be its third armed conflict in 10 years, he could easily be toast in November. And if he goes in, the result may be much the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)Senator Mitch McConnell's Address to CPAC

“Thank you Tim and thank you all for having me. I’m delighted to be here to affirm the strong and, indeed, unbreakable, bond that exists between Israel and the United States. And also to express my own personal commitment to the promotion and defense of that bond, in and out of season. These are sentiments I look forward to sharing with Prime Minister Netanyahu tomorrow as well."

“But before I get to the substance of my remarks, I’d like to acknowledge a few people in the audience. One of the best friends I ever had was the late, great Bubba Mitchell. Bubba and I saw eye to eye on just about everything. We shared a deep love of public service, college football, and our families. So I’m glad to see that Bubba’s wife, Arlene, and his daughters Melinda and Joy, and their husbands, Steve and Jimmy, are here carrying on the family tradition."

“I’d also like to recognize AIPAC President Michael Kassen, AIPAC’s immediate past president and current chairman, Lee Rosenberg; and Howard Kohr. Thank you for your service to this vital organization, which has helped me and my staff immensely over the years."

“Finally, I want to acknowledge all the Kentuckians who are here. We may not have a large Jewish population in the Bluegrass State, but I like to think we make up for it in heart."

“Now, as we all know, the U.S. and Israel have a lot in common. In addition to the strategic interests that bind us, both were born of conflict and built up by immigrants and pioneers, and both have always been firmly committed to the democratic ideals that have enabled their peoples to flourish."

“Because of these things, Israel has always enjoyed strong bipartisan support in Washington. But saying we support Israel doesn’t necessarily ensure it. And that’s why I wanted to come here tonight to share not just my good wishes, but to offer a concrete plan that would put our shared interests to the test."

“Because let’s face it, in the four years since I last spoke at this conference, very little if anything has changed in terms of America’s stated commitments with respect to Israel. And yet I think we’d all have to admit that when it comes to the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, we have now reached a point where the current administration’s policies, however well-intentioned, simply aren’t enough. Four years later, Iran’s actions and several other objective facts suggest that it has made significant progress in its quest to develop the capability to build a nuclear weapon."

“Let’s review. Iran is now believed to have produced at least five years’ worth of medium-enriched uranium for its medical reactors. According to the experts, such quantities raise serious suspicions about a military intent."

“In the fall of 2009, the U.S., U.K., and France presented detailed evidence to the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran had for several years been busy building a covert enrichment facility near Qom [ pronounced: Gome]. The implication of the report was clear: Not only does Iran have the ability to conceal enrichment from the IAEA and the rest of the world, but also the intent."

“Since I last spoke to this conference, Iran has also rejected an offer by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany, the P5+1, to exchange its stockpile of low-enriched uranium to be reprocessed and returned in sufficient quantities for medical use."

“Further, the IAEA report of November, 2011 raised serious concerns about the military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program, stating that “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device.”

“And Iran recently denied the IAEA access to the Parchin facility where it may have conducted a test in association 

with nuclear materials. What’s more, it refuses to explain the purposes of its activities at Parchin."

“Finally, and perhaps most ominously, Iran has acknowledged and the IAEA has confirmed that it is enriching uranium at the underground facility at Fordo near Qom [Gome], enabling it to accelerate enrichment, in an apparent attempt to shield it from a military strike."

“Taken together, these things present not only a compelling case against Iran, but also, regretfully, against the current administration’s efforts to halt the regime’s nuclear weapons program. Four years after expressing grave 

concerns about the Iranian threat, I regret to conclude that those concerns have only become more acute."

“Now, some people might raise a question at this point. Why exactly is a nuclear-armed Iran so dangerous? My answer to them is this: if Iran behaves the way it does without a nuclear weapon, then how would it behave with one." 

“Leave aside for a moment the way it’s treated weapons inspectors and the U.N. Just look at the rest of its record." 

“Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism which provides material support to Hezbollah and Hamas."

“It’s an avowed ally of Syria and continues to provide it with material support even now."

“It recently attempted to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, in the United States, flagrantly flouting U.S. and international law."

“It has provided weapons and training to Shiite militias within Iraq, and shipped weapons from inside Iran that were later used against U.S. military personnel in Iraq."

“It recently threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz."

“It continues to develop ballistic missiles, raising legitimate suspicions about the intended use of those missiles as vehicles for a nuclear weapon."

“And it provides sanctuary for financial backers of Al Qaeda."

“Ladies and gentlemen: these are not the actions of a state that’s comfortable with its place in the world. They are the actions of a self-described revolutionary state that is determined to shift the balance of power in the Middle East."

“A nuclear armed Iran would pose a threat to Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain. It would threaten sea lines of communication and commerce. And it would be further emboldened in its support for terrorist groups and arms proliferators, as President Obama conceded yesterday."

“Make no mistake: Iran has a goal in mind, one that it has pursued for years through terrorism, covert actions, and, I believe, through the active pursuit of a nuclear weapons program that would only bring its broader goals within closer reach."

“As the great theorist of international relations, Hans Morgenthau once put it, “The principal means … by which a nation endeavors with the power at its disposal to maintain or reestablish the balance of power are armaments.” This is what we’re witnessing in Iran. And it must be stopped."


“In the weeks and months ahead, Israel and the United States face a day of reckoning. We either do what it takes to preserve the balance of power within the broader Middle East, or risk a nuclear arms race across the region that’s almost certain to upend it."

“Now, President Obama knows all this as well as I do. That’s why he has said repeatedly, and as recently as yesterday, that he’s determined to prevent a nuclear Iran, and I appreciate this reaffirmation of our common goal. It is in service of this goal that the President has also insisted since taking office that, quote, ‘all options are on the table.’"

“The question isn’t whether we have the same goal. We do. The question is why the administration’s efforts haven’t succeeded in halting Iran’s nuclear weapons program. So let me suggest an answer to that question. The reason the administration hasn’t succeeded, in halting Iran’s nuclear program is that its policy contains a critical flaw."


“Here’s the problem. You’ll recall that upon taking office, President Obama took several steps to pursue negotiations with Iran. He famously suggested that if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they’ll find an extended hand from us. He recorded a YouTube message to the Iranian people. He also reportedly wrote a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader inviting him to talk without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. This was the engagement 

phase." 

“It was during this phase that the President presented Iran with two deadlines by which they could demonstrate progress, one in September 2009 and one in December 2009. But instead of using this period to demonstrate progress, Iran used it to continue enriching uranium and to divide the international community. And by the following year, one of the administration’s own former advisors on Iran would have to admit that the administration had, in his words, discounted the extent to which ‘the Iranian theocracy views engagement with the U.S. as a threat to its ideological identity.’"

“Meanwhile, Congress was growing impatient. And that’s why, as the administration was trying and failing to negotiate away Iran’s nuclear program, members of both parties in the House and Senate came together and began to put in place a sanctions strategy directed at Iran’s petroleum sector."

“Many in this room strongly supported this effort and made it quite clear that you did, despite the administration’s reluctance to embrace it. But at Congress’s urging, and yours, the President did reluctantly sign the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act into law on July 1, 2010. But make no mistake: with this legislation, Congress handed the President a tool that he did not seek."

“Last year, I worked to strengthen this sanctions strategy with an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act which sanctioned foreign banks for doing business with the Central Bank of Iran. This amendment became the basis for a negotiation with the Obama Administration on how best to sanction Iran without causing a shock to global oil markets."

“Senator Mark Kirk, who is unfortunately not able to be with us tonight, but thankfully is recovering well, was the primary author of this legislation, and I know he’ll remain vigilant in ensuring that the administration does not lightly issue waivers to those who’d like to evade these sanctions."

“But the bottom line is this: because of the failure of negotiations by the administration, Congress was forced to act. And the President, who initially opposed a strong sanctions strategy, was ultimately forced to accept it against his original wishes. And now the administration is making another mistake."

“Just as it initially sought to rely predominantly on negotiations, it’s now relying too heavily on sanctions, whether by the U.S. or by the EU, through its welcome decision to cease Iranian oil purchases starting in July."

“Now, the administration has attempted to rely on the ambiguity of its military policy by claiming at every stage that it continues to keep ‘all options on the table.’ But this is not a policy. It’s a talking point. And, as we’ve seen, a talking point will not deter Iran. What is needed when it comes to Iran is the one thing the administration hasn’t provided, and that’s a clear, declaratory policy that states what we will do and why."

“Here’s the administration’s mistake: in attempting to preserve all options, it has inadvertently blurred the most important one, and that’s a determined military campaign to end Iran’s nuclear program."

“The administration has used this same language about preserving all options in developing its policy toward Libya, Iran, and, now, Syria. Clearly, the threat has lost its intended purpose. And the markers this administration has identified, whether they be a program to enrich uranium to weapons grade levels, or a decision to construct a weapon, are only truly red lines if crossing them brings about painful consequences."

Another way to put it is that the administration’s mistake has been to pursue negotiations, and sanctions consecutively rather than simultaneously, without articulating a clear military consequence for the crossing of red lines." 

“But in my view, the only way — the only way — the Iranian regime can be expected to negotiate to preserve its own survival rather than to simply delay as a means of pursuing nuclear weapons is if the administration imposes the strictest sanctions while at the same time enforcing a firm declaratory policy that reflects a commitment to the use of force."

“This is so crucial a step, I believe, that tonight I am prepared to propose such a policy — that is, a policy which has the clarity and the specificity that the situation demands. And that policy is this: if Iran, at any time, begins to enrich uranium to weapons grade levels, or decides to go forward with a weapons program, then the United States will use overwhelming force to end that program."

“In my judgment, there is broad bipartisan support for the administration’s stated goal with respect to Iran, and a strong declaratory policy like this can be expected to have the support of strong majorities of both parties in 

Congress, and thus the solid support of the American people."
“All that’s been lacking until now is a clear, declaratory policy. And if the administration is reluctant for some reason to articulate it, then Congress will attempt to do it for him."

“So tonight I make the following commitment in support of the policy I have proposed: if at any time the intelligence community presents the Congress with an assessment that Iran has begun to enrich uranium to weapons grade levels, or has taken a decision to develop a nuclear weapon — consistent with protecting classified sources and methods — I will consult with the President and joint congressional leadership and introduce before the Senate an authorization for the use of military force."

This authorization, if enacted, will ensure the nation and the world that our leaders are united in confronting Iran, and will undermine the perception that the U.S. is wounded or retreating from global responsibilities."
“The authority will be focused to ensure the people of Iran and the international community that our disagreement is not with the population of Iran or the Muslim world. This authorization will not prevent the administration from pursuing diplomatic measures, continued negotiations and consultation with our allies. On the contrary, it will strengthen these efforts."

“This authorization will make clear that any effort by Iran or its proxy forces to retaliate against the interests of the United States whether our personnel, our bases or freedom of the seas will be met by overwhelming force."
“For the U.S., this debate and ultimate passage of an authorization for the use of military force ensures that we have a coherent, unified policy toward Iran and that we not take on another military action without bipartisan support. A decision to take military action against Iran should not be taken lightly. It should have the bipartisan support of Congress."

“For Israel, it ensures that Iran will never enter into a zone of immunity from which it can coerce and intimidate other countries."

“For the broader Middle East, it ensures that Iran will not be a regional hegemon free to export its revolution either by terror or propaganda, especially into those countries experiencing unrest and political turmoil after the Arab Spring."


“It is in the clear national interests of the United States to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons across the Middle East, to end Iran’s support of terror and the shipment of arms to Hezbollah and Hamas, and to protect freedom of the seas in the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. We share these interests with Israel. And we must face the threat to these interests together."

“Four years ago, in marking the 60th anniversary of Israel, I noted that while the bonds between the U.S. and Israel have grown stronger over the decades, it wasn’t until the events of 9/11 that most Americans fully appreciated the sacrifices that Israel has made to preserve a fragile peace."

“But as strong as those bonds have become, we cannot allow past or even current expressions of mutual respect and goodwill to obscure the urgency of the Iranian threat."

“Rather, we must build on that history of shared interests and shared respect to overcome a flawed policy and to develop the right one that the current situation demands." 

“Congress has helped play that role in the past. Current events compel us to do so again. And we will not shrink from that duty. Israel’s security is not negotiable. We can’t shrink from affirming that to the world. And we certainly can’t shrink from telling a sitting President how we think it’s best achieved."

“After all, we share a common goal. And we will only achieve that goal as long as we work together, in all candor and mutual respect. And once we have, and this current threat has passed, we will celebrate many more anniversaries, and an even stronger bond of friendship yet."
“Thank you.”

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