Buy My Booklet - Romney /Obama Ripped!

"A Conservative Capitalist Offers: Eleven Lessons and a Bonus Lesson for Raising America's Youth Born and Yet To Be Born"

By Dick Berkowitz - Non Expert

I wrote this booklet because I believe a strong country must rest on a solid family unit.Brokaw's "Greatest Generation" has morphed into "A Confused, Dependent and Compromised Generation."

I  hope this booklet will provide a guide to alter this trend.

Please Buy My Booklet - Half The Proceeds Go To "The Wounded Warrior Project!"

You can now order a .pdf version from www.brokerberko.com/book that you can download and read on your computer, or even print out if you want. 

The booklet only costs $5.99.

Also feel free to forward this to anyone on your own e mail list and encourage others to order a copy.

 

----

Matters are so bleak I believe some humor is in order:

"A man who'd just died is delivered to a local mortuary wearing an expensive, expertly tailored black suit.

The female blonde mortician asks the deceased's wife how she would like the body dressed. She points out that the man does look good in the black suit he is already wearing.

The widow, however, says that she always thought her husband looked his best in blue, and that she wants him in a blue suit. She gives the Blonde mortician a blank check and says, 'I don't care what it costs, but please have my husband in a blue suit for the viewing.'

The woman returns the next day for the wake. To her delight, she finds her husband dressed in a gorgeous blue suit with a subtle chalk stripe; the suit fits him perfectly...

She says to the mortician, 'Whatever this cost, I'm very satisfied.. You did an excellent job and I'm very grateful. How much did you spend?' 

To her astonishment, the blonde mortician presents her with the blank check.

'There's no charge,' she says.

'No, really, I must compensate you for the cost of that exquisite blue suit!' she says.

'Honestly, ma'am,' the blonde says, 'it cost nothing. You see, a deceased gentleman of about your husband's size was brought in shortly after you left yesterday, and he was wearing an attractive blue suit. I asked his wife if she minded him going to his grave wearing a black suit instead, and she said it made no difference as long as he looked nice.'

'So I just switched their heads.'

(BET YOU DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING!!!) 

---
How does Moses make his tea?  Hebrews it.

Venison for dinner again?  Oh deer!

A cartoonist was found dead in his home. Details are sketchy.

I used to be a banker, but then I lost interest.

Haunted French pancakes give me the crêpes.

England has no kidney bank, but it does have a Liverpool.

I tried to catch some fog, but I mist.

They told me I had type-A blood, but it was a Type-O.

 I changed my iPod's name to Titanic. It's syncing now.

 Jokes about German sausage are the wurst.

 I know a guy who's addicted to brake fluid, but he says he can stop any time.

 I stayed up all night to see where the sun went, and then it dawned on me.

This girl said she recognized me from the vegetarian club, but I'd never met herbivore.

 When chemists die, they barium.

 I'm reading a book about anti-gravity. I just can't put it down.

 I did a theatrical performance about puns. It was a play on words.

 PMS jokes aren't funny; period...

 Why were the Indians here first? They had reservations.

We're going on a class trip to the Coca-Cola factory. I hope there's no pop quiz.

 I didn't like my beard at first. Then it grew on me.

 Did you hear about the cross-eyed teacher who lost her job because she couldn't control her pupils?

When you get a bladder infection urine trouble.

Broken pencils are pointless.

What do you call a dinosaur with an extensive vocabulary? A thesaurus.

 I dropped out of communism class because of lousy Marx.

All the toilets in New York's police stations have been stolen. 
The police have nothing to go on.

I got a job at a bakery because I kneaded dough.

Velcro - what a rip off!


---
Now for some seriousness:

a) Will the press and media continue to allow Obama and his cronies to lie their way back to a second term? You and the voters will decide in November.

and

 b)Sam Nunn and Martin Feldstein were interviewed on CNBC Thursday.  Sam is a man I begged run for the presidency, promised him six months of my life at no cost and then told him I  would return to my Wall Street job. He never had the fire in his belly.  Why Nunn, a Democrat?  Because he was/is one of the  most decent, honorable and smartest politicians/public servants I ever met and he was/is to this day a good friend who I think the world of.

Sam discussed his thoughts on how Congress could avoid going  off the cliff. You can see his interview by going to: "cnbc.com" and then click on U.S. video and scroll down etc. Basically he said Congress should agree to substitute The Boles-Simpson Report for the current sequestration approach, debate for six month and if they cannot produce an agreement - Boles-Simpson becomes the law automatically.

Obama did not support Boles-Simpson though he favored it being established.  More failed from the rear leadership.

Martin Feldstein, also a sound and rational  thinker, made some excellent tax reformation suggestions.

Sam commented there needed to be a more common sense and less partisan approach to today's knotty problems.

After watching his interview, I e mailed Sam and reminded him we were where we are today because of the many discussions we had over a fifteen year period when he was a Senator and was receiving my 'warning' memos which were then being typed and mailed.

I have been writing memos for well over 30 year and have been warning about where we would go if we kept doing what we were then doing.  If I say so myself, I have been spot on much to my chagrin.

There were times when Sam resisted/challenged my thinking and, he knows,  I did not agree with his vote against Bush Elder's "Gulf War," supplying Saudi Arabia with tanker fueling planes and his no vote of Justice Thomas.

I have not spoken with him in over four years though I have e mailed him and he has written me back so perhaps our views have come closer in terms of government spending, taxation policies etc.

I do have a  personally inscribed letter from Sam with a photo telling me he enjoyed my memos, always read them and would call upon me if he ever decided to toss his hat in the ring. It hangs below a  letter to my father from Justice Hugo Black in my den on my political wall.

Sam Nunn  is the epitome of what a great politician/statesman should be. Hugo Black the personification of a great jurist. (See 1 below)  
---
Sometimes history is more revealing than listening to liars. You decide. (See 2 below.)
---
Worth watching: "The RJC announces the release of the full 9-minute mini-documentary on Barack Obama and Israel, entitled "Perilous Times."

Click the image below to see it.

For anyone who cares about Israel or is worried about events in the Middle East, this documentary is a "must see."

 

In the film, leading Israeli experts and everyday citizens candidly discuss their concerns about the U.S.-Israel relationship under Pres. Obama. Among the notable experts consulted for this film are :

• Zalman Shoval, former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. and a highly-respected diplomat;
• Oren Kessler, foreign affairs correspondent at the Jerusalem Post;
• Barry Rubin, an expert on terrorism and Middle East affairs;
• Jacob Levy, Israel's leading pollster and founder of Gallup Israel;
• Itamar Marcus, founder and director of Palestinian Media Watch; and
• Yair Shamir, leading Israeli businessman; former chair of El Al and Israel Aerospace; son of former PM Yitzhak Shamir."
• ---
• Noonan draws a redline for Romney!  (See 3 below.)

Krauthammer to Romney: "...Time to go big!" (See 3a below.)

Has the biased media and press won one for the "flipper?"  Tragic if true! (See 3b and  3c below.)

• ---
• White House purple over Netanyahu's red line speech! (See 4 and 4a below.)
• ---

Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Fitch: US Fiscal Cliff Could Trigger Global Recession, Halve World Growth


The unprecedented belt-tightening known as the fiscal cliff that looms over the United States could, at the very least, cut world growth in half in 2013, Fitch Ratings said on Thursday.

The fiscal cliff — a double whammy of tax increases and spending cuts totaling about $600 billion — could tip the United States and possibly the world into recession, Fitch said.

"The U.S. fiscal cliff represents the single biggest near-term threat to a global economic recovery," the ratings agency said a research note released in London.

Most of the measures scheduled to take effect at the start of 2013 would reduce U.S. growth by $800 billion, or 5 percent, on an annualized basis, Fitch said, citing the U.S. Congressional Budget Office.

Fitch said a full-scale fiscal tightening was not the most likely scenario. The scale and speed of this action would probably push the U.S. economy into an avoidable recession, slicing about two percentage points off the firm's growth forecast of 2.3 percent next year.

"We therefore think the cuts will be pared back to a more manageable 1.5 percent of GDP," Fitch said.

“A U.S. fiscal shock would be exported to the rest of the world via a sharply weaker U.S. dollar and asset prices, lower U.S. price and wage inflation and heightened risk of deflation, and the impact on commodity prices,” Fitch warned.

The size and timing of the shock would be different for different countries, Fitch warned. 

"Export-orientated countries like China and Japan would experience the steepest falls in GDP in 2013. Growth would then resume at baseline rates, but at a lower level. Commodity exporters like Russia and Brazil would be less affected in 2013, but the effects would be felt into 2014," Fitch said.

Meanwhile, top U.S. executives have less confidence in the business outlook now than at any time in the past three years — and a key reason is fear of gridlock in Washington over the fiscal deficit and tax policy.

The uncertainty, coupled with slowing demand in Asia and Europe, is forcing corporate leaders to postpone decisions on major investments and hiring, and hurting sales of everything from textbooks to telephone lines.

"If we don't deal with the fiscal cliff and don't deal with predictability on taxes for both citizens and business, with the rest of the world in a struggling state, this is really bad for us," John Chambers, CEO of network equipment maker Cisco Systems Inc. told Reuters.

Some 34 percent of U.S. CEOs plan to cut jobs in the United States over the next six months, up from 20 percent a quarter ago, according to a Business Roundtable survey released on Wednesday. Only 30 percent plan to raise capital spending, compared with 43 percent previously.

The group's index of CEO confidence fell to its lowest point since the third quarter of 2009, when the United States had just emerged from its worst recession in 80 years.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2)UN Security Council Resolution 242

Adopted: November 22, 1967

The first principle of international law
Agreements must be honored and adhered to

Resolution 242 is the cornerstone for what it calls "a just and lasting peace." It calls for a negotiated solution based on "secure and recognized boundaries" - recognizing the flaws in Israel's previous temporary borders - the 1948 Armistice lines or the "Green Line"[1] - by not calling upon Israel to withdraw from 'all occupied territories,' but rather "from territories occupied." The United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 242 in 1967 following the Six-Day War. [2] It followed Israel's takeover of the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria, and the West Bank from Jordan. The resolution was to become the foundation for future peace negotiations. Yet contrary to Arab contentions, a careful examination of the resolution will show that it does not require Israel to return to the June 4, 1967 Armistice lines or "Green Line."

Resolution 242 was approved on November 22, 1967, more than five months after the war. Although Israel launched a pre-emptive and surprise strike at Egypt on June 5, 1967, this was a response to months of belligerent declarations and actions by its Arab neighbors that triggered the war: 465,000 enemy troops, more than 2,880 tanks and 810 aircrafts, preparing for war, surrounded Israel in the weeks leading up to June 5, 1967. In addition, Egypt had imposed an illegal blockade against Israeli shipping by closing the Straits of Tiran, the Israeli outlet to the Red Sea and Israel's only supply route to Asia - an act of aggression - in total violation of international law. In legal parlance, those hostile acts are recognized by the Law of Nations as a casus belli [Latin: Justification for acts of war].

The Arab measures went beyond mere power projection. Arab states did not plan merely to attack Israel to dominate it or grab territory; their objective was to destroy Israel. Their own words leave no doubt as to this intention. The Arabs meant to annihilate a neighboring state and fellow member of the UN by force of arms: [3]

• "We intend to open a general assault against Israel. This will be total war. Our basic aim will be to destroy Israel." (Egyptian President Gamal Abdel-Nasser, May 26, 1967)
• "The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence." (Egyptian Radio, 'Voice of the Arabs,' May 18, 1967)
• "I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation." (Syrian Defense Minister Hafez al-Assad, May 20, 1967)
• "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. ... Our goal is clear - to wipe Israel off the map." (Iraqi President Abdur Rahman Aref, May 31, 1967)

Arab declarations about destroying Israel were made preceding the war when control over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (or Sinai and the Golan Heights) were not in Israel's hands, and no so-called Israeli occupation existed.

That is why the UN Security Council recognized that Israel had acquired the territory from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria not as a matter of aggression, but as an act of self-defense. That is also why Resolution 242 was passed under Chapter VI of the UN Charter rather than Chapter VII. As explained above, UN resolutions adopted under Chapter VI call on nations to negotiate settlements, while resolutions under the more stringent Chapter VII section deal with clear acts of aggression that allow the UN to enforce its resolutions upon any state seen as threatening the security of another state or states.

Although Resolution 242 refers to "the inadmissibility" of acquiring territory by war, a statement used in nearly all UN resolutions relating to Israel, Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague, explains that the principle of "acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible" must be read together with other principles:

"Namely, that no legal right shall spring from a wrong, and the Charter principle that the Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State."[4]

Resolution 242 immediately follows to emphasize the "need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every state in the area can live in security."

While Resolution 242 may call upon Israel to withdraw from territory it captured during the war, the UN recognized that Israel cannot return to the non-secure borders existing before the Six-Day War that invited aggression - frontiers that the usually mild-mannered and eloquent former Israeli diplomat, the late Abba Eban, branded "Auschwitz borders."

The Meaning of the Words "All" & "The"

As noted above, the UN adopted Resolution 242 in late November 1967, five months after the Six-Day War ended. It took that long because intense and deliberate negotiations were needed to carefully craft a document that met the Arabs' demand for a return of land, and Israel's requirement that the Arabs recognize Israel's legitimacy, to make a lasting peace.

It also took that long because each word in the resolution was deliberately chosen and certain words were deliberately omitted, according to negotiators who drafted the resolution.

So although Arab officials claim Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw from all territory it captured in June 1967, nowhere in the resolution is that demand delineated. Nor did those involved in the negotiations and drafting of the resolution want such a requirement. Instead, they say Resolution 242 explicitly and intentionally omitted the terms 'the territories' or 'all territories.'

The wording of UN Resolution 242 clearly reflects the contention that none of the territories were occupied territories taken by force in an unjust war.

Because the Arabs were clearly the aggressors, nowhere in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 is Israel branded as an invader or unlawful occupier of the territories.

The minutes of the six month 'debate' over the wording of Resolution 242, as noted above, showing that draft resolutions attempted to brand Israel an aggressor and illegal occupier as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War, were all defeated by either the UN General Assembly or the Security Council.

Professor Eugene Rostow, then U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, went on record in 1991 to make this clear:

"Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until 'a just and lasting peace in the Middle East' is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces 'from territories' it occupied during the Six-Day War - not from 'the' territories nor from 'all' the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip."

Professor Rostow continues and describes:

"Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from 'all' the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the 'fragile' and 'vulnerable' Armistice Demarcation Lines ['Green Line'], but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called 'secure and recognized' boundaries ..."[5]

Lord Caradon, then the United Kingdom Ambassador to the UN and the key drafter of the resolution, said several years later:

"We knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers; they were a cease-fire line of a couple decades earlier. We did not say the '67 boundaries must be forever."

Referring to Resolution 242, Lord Caradon added:

"The essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary ... " [6]

In a 1974 statement he said:

"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967. ... That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to."[7]

It is true, as Arab leaders correctly note, that certain suggested drafts of Resolution 242 exist that contain that tiny controversial "the" in reference to territories. Arab leaders say this proves that Israel must withdraw from all territories captured in 1967. However, those versions of the resolution are in French. Under international law, English-language versions are followed and accepted as the conclusive reference point, and French versions are not.

Arthur J. Goldberg,[8] the U.S. Ambassador to the UN in 1967 and a key draftee of Resolution 242, stated:

"The notable omissions in language used to refer to withdrawal are the words the, all, and the June 5, 1967 lines . I refer to the English text of the resolution. The French and Soviet texts differ from the English in this respect, but the English text was voted on by the Security Council, and thus it is determinative. In other words, there is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from the (or all the) territories occupied by it on and after June 5, 1967. Instead, the resolution stipulates withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal. And it can be inferred from the incorporation of the words secure and recognized boundaries that the territorial adjustments to be made by the parties in their peace settlements could encompass less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories." [9]

Political figures and international jurists have discussed the existence of "permissible" or "legal occupations." In a seminal article on this question, entitled What Weight to Conquest, Professor, Judge Schwebel wrote:

"A state [Israel] acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense. ... Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.

"As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt." [10]

Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on the Law of Nations, has concurred, further clarifying:

"Territorial Rights Under International Law. ... By their [Arab countries] armed attacks against the State of Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973, and by various acts of belligerency throughout this period, these Arab states flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members to refrain from threat or use of force against Israel's territorial integrity and political independence. These acts were in flagrant violation inter alia of Article 2(4) and paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the same article."[11]

If the West Bank and Gaza were indeed occupied territory - belonging to someone else and unjustly seized by force - there could be no grounds for negotiating new borders.

The Drafting History of 242 Shows it Pertains to all Refugees - Jewish and Arab

Lastly, Resolution 242 speaks of "a just settlement of the refugee problem," not 'the Palestinian or Arab refugee problem.' The history of the resolution shows that it was intentional and reflected recognition that the Arab-Israeli conflict created two refugee populations, not one. Parallel to the estimated 600,000 Arabs who left Israel, more than 899,000[12] Jews fled from Arab countries in the aftermath of the 1948 war - 650,000 of them finding asylum in Israel.

A history of the behind-the-scenes work drafting the resolution shows that the former Soviet Union Ambassador Vasiliy Vasilyevich Kuznetsov sought to restrict the term 'just settlement' to Palestinian refugees only. But former U.S. Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, the American Ambassador to the UN who played a key role in the ultimate language adopted, pointed out:

"A notable omission in 242 is any reference to Palestinians, a Palestinian state on the West Bank or the PLO. The resolution addresses the objective of 'achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem.' This language presumably refers both to Arab and Jewish refugees, for about an equal number of each abandoned their homes as a result of the several wars." [13] 

Appendix A - UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967)
of 22 November 1967

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
2. Affirms further the necessity
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area; 
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

Adopted unanimously at the 1382 meeting

---

[1] Israel's pre-1967 borders reflected the deployment of Israeli and Arab forces on the ground after Israel's War of Independence in 1948. Professor Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, the former President of the International Court of Justice clarified in his writings Justice in International Law that the 1949 armistice demarcation lines are not permanent borders: "The armistice agreements of 1949 expressly preserved the territorial claims of all parties and did not purport to establish definitive boundaries between them." 
The boundaries were labeled the "Green Line" merely because a green pencil was used to draw the map of the armistice borders.[2] See Appendix "A" - full text of UN Resolution 242.[3] Disputed Territories: Forgotten Facts about the West Bank and Gaza Strip, MFA, February 2003, www.mefacts.com/cache/html/un-resolutions/11741.htm[4] Judge Schwebel, "What Weight to Conquest?" in Justice in International Law, Cambridge University Press, 1994. Opinions quoted in this article are not derived from his position as a judge of the ICJ.[5] Professor 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 become a key draftee of the UN Security Council Resolution 242.[6] Lord Caradon, interviewed on Kol Israel (The Voice of Israel Radio) in February 1973. Lord Caradon (Sir Hugh Foot) was the UK representative to the UN in 1967. His final draft becomes the foundation for UN Resolution 242.[7] Lord Caradon to the Beirut Daily Star on 12 June 1974.[8] Arthur J.Goldberg, was a professor of law at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago. He was appointed in 1962 to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1965 he was appointed U.S. representative to the United Nations. Judge Goldberg was a key draftee of UN Resolution 242.[9] Judge Goldberg. U.N. Resolution 242: Origin, Meaning, and Significance. National Committee on American Foreign Policy. See article at: www.mefacts.com/cache/html/arab-countries/10159.htm. (10159)[10] Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, "What Weight to Conquest?" in Justice in International Law, Cambridge University Press, 1994. Opinions quoted in this critiques are not derived from his position as a judge of the ICJ.[11] Professor Julius Stone, Israel and Palestine, Assault on the Law of Nations The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981.[12] The New York Times. "Jews in Grave Danger in all Moslem Lands" May 19, 1948.[13] Judge Goldberg, Resolution 242 After Twenty Years at: www.mefacts.com/cached.asp?x_id=10789. (10789)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3) ) 2012 Debates: This Is It, Mitt

How Romney can make the most of his face-off with Obama.

By Peggy Noonan

"Governor, the success or failure of your entire presidential campaign will come down to what happens between the hours of 9 and 10:30 p.m. on Wednesday, Oct. 3. We're at a hinge point in history. It's not too much to say the future of the American republic depends on how you do in that hour and a half."

"Um, specifically, what do you want me to do?"

"Be relaxed!"

That's what's coming from some of Mitt Romney's supporters right now—Wednesday night is critical, the last chance, so don't forget it's nothing, a walk in the park. He doesn't strike me as easily given to freak-outs, but if he is, this would be the moment.

Let's take a different approach.

It is true that the debate has the potential to alter the dynamic of the election. A good or great one, followed up by an improved, more serious campaign, could make everything new again. A bad one would do damage indeed.

But there will be three debates, and it's possible the truly high-stakes one will be the last, on Oct. 22.

And there are some institutional and personal elements surrounding the Wednesday debate that may well work in Mr. Romney's favor.

From a canny journalist with a counterintuitive head: "The media will be rooting for Romney." Two reasons. First, they don't want the story to end. They're in show biz: A boring end means lower ratings. Careers are involved! Second, the mainstream media is suddenly realizing that more than half the country (and some of their colleagues) think they are at least operationally in the tank for the president, or the Democrats in general. It is hurting the media's standing. A midcourse correction is in order, and Wednesday will offer an opportunity: I think it's fair to say Gov. Romney more than held his own this evening, and a consensus seems to be forming that the president underperformed.

Mr. Romney walks in as the underdog, behind in the polls. He's not the president, the other guy is. He's not world-famous, the other guy is. The president is known for smooth presentation and verbal fluidity, Mr. Romney more recently for awkwardisms and gaffes.

It's good to be the underdog. "Politics is exceeding expectations."

As the Republican candidate, Mr. Romney is used to being battered about. He can take a shot. But once you're president, you're never battered about. The mystique of the Oval Office is too great. People tell you what you want to hear. Everyone's too easy on you.

President Obama hasn't been challenged in public in a long time. He hasn't been challenged in private in a long time. So if Mr. Romney treats him with respect but not deference, if he really engages, challenges, questions and pushes, he just might knock the president off his stride.

There was something Mr. Romney did in the primary debates. When his competitors were answering questions, he didn't stand at the podium looking distracted. He'd turn and smile at them sweetly and encouragingly, as if he were thinking, "You're the cutest little shrimp." No one has looked at Mr. Obama like that since 2003. It's possible he wouldn't like it.

Everyone is waiting for the "Are you better off now . . ." question, but that's a little complicated. No one knew Reagan was going to uncork it in 1980, and so it had a chance to be devastating. This year, everyone knows it's coming. So maybe it won't come. Mr. Obama surely will have memorized a response. Or maybe he will bring it up first. "I'd actually like to talk about whether some people are better off now. It's a complicated question, but teachers and firefighters who've kept their jobs because of what we did might say they're better off . . ."

***

Mr. Romney should be wondering Which Obama he'll meet.

More-in-Sorrow-Than-in-Anger Obama? He patiently explains, until your eyes cross, the real facts of the economy and the beginning of recovery, the competing and even contradictory forces that determine outcomes. He speaks in soft, rounded phrases.

Faux-Humble Obama? I've made some mistakes, I'll admit it. I didn't always do so well explaining exactly what I was doing, in terms of policy, and all the reasons why. I haven't been perfect, but I wasn't wrong to help people get through the height of the crisis. I've learned a lot, but I didn't need to be told to save the U.S. auto industry.

Perturbable Obama? This is a proud man. He doesn't like to be questioned too closely, as he showed when he was pressed on Univision last week.

Rope-a-Dope Obama? As he showed on "60 Minutes," he can make it up as he goes along when he feels he needs to. If you endlessly correct his numbers, it could leave you sputtering digits, slinging factoids, losing the larger point.

Cool McCool? This Obama is tall, friendly, shows up on "The View" and has a smile so big it wrinkles his nose. But he can refer to himself as "eye candy," and reminds you of the old McCain commercial: "He's the biggest celebrity in the world."

Maybe Mr. Romney will meet all five.

***

Mitt Romney still sounds, at this late date in the campaign, as if he's talking to Republicans. But they don't have to be persuaded, they think Mr. Obama is a disaster and want him out. He should be talking to independents, centrists, suburban women, those who might be won over. A lot of them would be grateful to be impressed.

In that area, an idea. In 1980, a lot of people thought incumbent Jimmy Carter wasn't cutting it. It wasn't personal, he just didn't have the right answers for the problems at hand. But people had real doubts about Ronald Reagan—he was too shoot-from-the-hip, he'd start World War III. These were understandable reservations! He had to prove he was a pair of safe hands.

People think Mr. Romney's rich, doesn't understand regular people's lives. They're not sure he can turn things around. He has to prove he's a pair of safe hands.

One way to get at that: People hate it that Washington doesn't work anymore, that it's incapable of solving problems, that it can't even pass a budget. There is widespread knowledge that Mr. Obama, whatever his virtues, doesn't work well with others—he can't negotiate, can't bend them to his will, doesn't really listen, can't work it out, can't win them over. It's all stasis now. And will be if he is re-elected. The complaint that he is at once convinced, detached and uninterested is heard not only in Washington and among Republicans, but among foreign leaders.

Maybe Mr. Romney can note that he once ran a great state, that he faced a legislature dominated by the other party, that he worked with them, heard them, negotiated with them, and that together they produced a great deal. Even a health-care bill that didn't tear the state apart, didn't cause widespread bitterness, didn't inspire broad public resentment. It was, in these respects, the opposite of ObamaCare. Mr. Romney learned much from the experience about what works locally and can work nationally. It's actually not a story to avoid, it is a story worth telling.

3a)No More Small Ball: It's Time For Romney Campaign To Go Big

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/092712-627321-romney-campaign-needs-to-make-the-case.htm#ixzz27lCP2BoJ

In mid-September 2008, Lehman Bros. collapsed and the bottom fell out of the financial system. Barack Obama handled it coolly. John McCain did not. Obama won the presidency. (Given the country's condition, he would have won anyway. But this sealed it.)

Four years later, mid-September 2012, the U.S. mission in Benghazi went up in flames, as did Obama's entire Middle East policy of apology and accommodation. Obama once again played it cool, effectively ignoring the attack and the regionwide American humiliation. "Bumps in the road," he said.

Nodding tamely were the mainstream media, who would have rained a week of vitriol on Mitt Romney had he so casually dismissed the murder of a U.S. ambassador, the raising of the black Salafist flag over four U.S. embassies and the epidemic of virulent anti-American demonstrations from Tunisia to Sri Lanka (!) to Indonesia.

Obama seems not even to understand what happened. He responded with a groveling address to the U.N. General Assembly that contained no less than six denunciations of a crackpot video, while offering cringe-worthy platitudes about the need for governments to live up to the ideals of the U.N.

The U.N. being an institution of surpassing cynicism and mendacity, the speech was so naive it would have made a fine middle-school commencement address. Instead, it was a plaintive plea by the world's alleged superpower to be treated nicely by a roomful of the most corrupt, repressive, tin-pot regimes on earth.

Yet Romney totally fumbled away the opportunity. Here was a chance to make the straightforward case about where Obama's feckless approach to the region's tyrants has brought us, connecting the dots of the disparate attacks as a natural response of the more virulent Islamist elements to a once-hegemonic power in retreat. Instead, Romney did two things:

He issued a two-sentence critique of the initial statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on the day the mob attacked. The critique was not only correct but vindicated when the State Department disavowed the embassy statement.

However, because the critique was not framed within a larger argument about the misdirection of U.S. Middle East policy, it could be — and was — characterized as a partisan attack on the nation's leader at a moment of national crisis.

Two weeks later at the Clinton Global Initiative, Romney did make a foreign-policy address. Here was his opportunity. What did he highlight? Reforming foreign aid.

Yes, reforming foreign aid! A worthy topic for a chin-pulling joint luncheon of the League of Women Voters and the Council on Foreign Relations. But as the core of a challenger's major foreign-policy address amid a Lehman-like collapse of the Obama Doctrine?

It makes you think how far ahead Romney would be if he were actually running a campaign. His unwillingness to go big, to go for the larger argument, is simply astonishing.

For six months, he's been matching Obama small ball for small ball. A hit-and-run critique here, a slogan-of-the-week there. His only momentum came when he chose Paul Ryan and seemed ready to engage on the big stuff: Medicare, entitlements, tax reform, national solvency, a restructured welfare state. Yet he has since retreated to the small and safe.

When you're behind, however, safe is fatal. Even his counterpunching has gone miniature. Obama has successfully painted Romney as an out of touch, unfeeling plutocrat whose only interest is to cut taxes for the rich.

Romney has complained in interviews that it's not true. He has proposed cutting tax rates, while pledging that the share of the tax burden paid by the rich remains unchanged (by "broadening the base" as in the wildly successful, revenue-neutral Reagan-O'Neill tax reform of 1986).

But how many people know this? Where is the speech that hammers home precisely that point, advocates a reformed tax code that accelerates growth without letting the rich off the hook, and gives lie to the Obama demagoguery about dismantling the social safety net in order to enrich the rich.

Romney has accumulated tons of cash for 30-second ads. But unless they're placed on the scaffolding of serious speeches making the larger argument, they will be treated as nothing more than tit for tat.

Make the case. Go large. About a foreign policy in ruins. About an archaic, 20th-century welfare-state model that guarantees 21st-century insolvency. And about an alternate vision of an unapologetically assertive America abroad unafraid of fundamental structural change at home.

It might just work. And it's not too late..

3b)  It's Over

By William L. Gensert

Give up -- Barack Obama has won.  With the election only weeks away, it is clear from recent swing state polling that Mitt Romney has lost this election.  According to the Quinnipiac numbers, in the battleground states of Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, the president is ahead by 10%, 9% and 12%, respectively.

Romney can't win.  Just ask any journalist or newscasters.  He is toast -- stick a fork in him.

Bull...

If anything, the closer we get to Election Day, the more apparent it is that Obama is not only losing, but losing big.  The Obama campaign, and by "campaign" I mean members of the media and polling organizations, is trying to convince prospective Romney voters to believe that all is lost -- in which case, they hope, we will stay home.

But just because they say so, that doesn't make it true.

Everyone knew from the outset that Obama, with his sad record of continuous failure on almost every front, was going to air out his inner bitterness and envy, and campaign negatively.  But did anyone suspect that his sole hope for victory would rest on trying to suppress the vote of his opponent with naked media bias and polling -- most of which assumes a higher Democrat turnout than in 2008, when the electorate, many Republicans included, swallowed whole Obama's vision of "hope and change"?

Well, three and a half years later, the digestion of that particular meal has given America and Americans an ulcer -- a bleeding ulcer.  I can attest to that -- every time I see the man or hear him speak, it makes me sick to my stomach.

It is ludicrous to maintain that Obama, a curiously small giant of humanity, is ahead anywhere in this nation by 10%.  The recent meme of the inevitability of Barack Obama is merely the delusional desperation of sycophantic minions.  What else do they have?  What else can they say?  

The polls allege Obama is ahead by 10% in Ohio (or should I use the Hawaiian spelling, "Oiho") -- a mining state -- where part of the economy depends on King Coal and the money it brings in.  This is the man who, through his agents at the EPA, has singlehandedly destroyed the coal industry in America.

He is said to be ahead by 12% in Pennsylvania -- also a mining state, and home of the Marcellus Shale natural gas field.  Yet even the uninformed know that under Barack Obama there will be no drilling for oil, mining coal, or building nuclear power plants.  And probably in a second term, the EPA will shut down fracking, which means no natural gas either. 

Yeah...he's way ahead.

In Florida, he is leading by 9%.  It is beyond belief that the state, with its large population of seniors and Jews, is going to vote overwhelmingly for the man whose signature legislation, ObamaCare, decimates Medicare and who has marginalized and insulted Israel repeatedly during his entire term.  Remember, he had time for Whoopi, but not for Netanyahu.   

And let's not forget that Florida is a state with no state income tax.  In fact, many people move there for that reason -- how do you think they got Lebron?  Yet we are supposed to believe they will vote for the man who gave us 20 new taxes through Obamacare and plans to raise taxes all around?  And if you don't think his proposed one-year extension for most of the Bush tax cuts, set to expire January 1, 2013, is not a plan to let all tax rates rise a year later, you haven't been paying attention.

Yeah...he's going to win big there.

The truth is plain to see.  Obama is not going to pick up any new voters with his record of economic destruction and the misery he has foisted upon the electorate.  He will bleed support as his base withers away in the harsh glare of the Obama reality.

Take his vote total from 2008 and subtract out some portion of the voters who bought the dream but lived the nightmare. 

Then, subtract out some portion of the youth vote, who have discovered that hope means no jobs and student loans they can't pay, while change means whatever coins they can find underneath the cushions of their mother's sofa -- in whose house they are relegated to live because of poor prospects and lack of opportunity.

Remove the women who don't agree with abortion on demand and contraceptives for all -- free and clear.

Remove the Catholics and other religious "folks" (a favorite Obama term) for the same reason, in addition to his assault on religious freedom, support of same-sex marriage, and antipathy for insulting the prophet of Islam, while accepting any slight on the Judeo-Christian American tradition.

...Oh my goodness, did I just hurt the feelings of Muslims by not capitalizing "prophet"?  I anxiously await the knock on the door from the Obama secret police.

Remove the Jews who are appalled at his treatment of Israel and his obvious sympathy for Islamists.

Remove the sensible, who recognize Obama's impotence in the face of Iran's steady march toward acquiring a nuclear weapon.  After all, we have nothing to fear from Iran, a nation whose leaders continuously call for the destruction of Israel and America.

Take out all those people who can no longer afford the drive to work, now that Obama has allowed the price of gasoline to double during his tenure.

In addition, many blacks, who have suffered most under this man's policies, will not be there for him this time around.  They may not vote against him -- racial solidarity, and all that -- but many will certainly stay home. 

Remove the voters who do not like the fact that for Barack, the buck always stops at Bush.

Simply put, people will not go out of their way to support someone who has tortured them into submission for three and a half years.  Even though they may not tell pollsters that. 

With that in mind, can anyone say there is the same level of electoral enthusiasm for the president as there was in 2008? 

For many supporters, who still believe in the myth of Obama but are not so far gone they cannot see what he hath wrought lo these last few years, a second term for the president is like a colonoscopy -- they have to say yes.  But really, who looks forward to it?

The once unstoppable Obama movement has constipated to a halt.  He was once a god, and now he is man -- a nasty, unsuccessful man, who blames everyone and everything for his serial failures. 

After all is said and done, what is he left with?  The same hardcore group of delusional ideologues who would vote for him even if they came home from work and caught him beating their grandmothers to death with his Nobel Prize -- but these voters were never in play anyway. 

Obama is going to lose in a landslide.  And Barack Obama, the media, and the polling organizations will be appropriately shocked.

Shocked, I say! 

Round up the usual suspects.

3c)How Obama Misunderstands Freedom, and How He Failed It

By William Sullivan

Barack Obama addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations this week, and reaffirmed America's dedication to fostering democracy throughout the world, because "democracy put[s] us on the side of the people."  He suggests that America supports democracy because "we believe that freedom and self-determination are not unique to one culture."

As justification for his support of the Arab Spring uprisings, he says that he "believes" that a desire for freedom is "universal" among cultures and nations.  But there are certainly exceptions to that supposed "universality."  After all, in 2006, we "believed" that the people of Gaza might democratically opt for a peaceful and tolerant regime that could promote freedom.  As a result, the terrorist group Hamas was elected by a highly indoctrinated population and is now tied to the Palestinian Authority's bid for statehood, even as the group slaughters dissenters in Gaza and continues to routinely fire rockets into Israel.

In the absence of a population that respects freedom, democracy can yield a malignant blight, as we have witnessed in Gaza, rather than positive change.  It can be nothing more than mob rule, or as one old adage goes, democracy can be "two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner."  The lamb may very well desire that wolves and lambs live freely among one another, but that ideological distinction means little when murderous wolves are in the majority.  And by no coincidence, this is why our founders laid the framework of a constitutional republic based upon individual freedoms -- not a pure democracy.

To be fair, Barack Obama seems to recognize this within his address: 

The path to democracy does not end with the casting of a ballot... True democracy demands that citizens cannot be thrown in jail because of what they believe, and businesses can be opened without paying a bribe. It depends on the freedom of citizens to speak their minds and assemble without fear; on the rule of law and due process that guarantees the rights of all people.

In other words, true democracy -- real freedom -- is hard work.

This is promising rhetoric, sure.  But it is just rhetoric, and as this defense of free expression was closely followed by a condemnation of a video that is a stark example of free expression, it rings pretty hollow.  The substantive question remains for voters, however: what was it about these Arab Spring uprisings that made Obama "believe" that the protesting masses desired this "real freedom" when much of the Islamic world has historically favored sharia, which demands limitations on free expression and a religiously determined caste system?

Obama said in his speech that the "spark" came when the world witnessed a Tunisian vendor "set himself on fire" in an act of public protest.  Of course, this is an extremist act more akin to a suicide bomber seeking martyrdom than the civil protest common to Western societies.  But nevertheless, he says the act "captivated" the world, and with the ensuing protests "sparked" by that extremism, "we were inspired" to support uprisings against oppressive regimes throughout the Islamic world.  (Unfortunately for Iranians, I guess, protesters in Tehran in 2009 had the good sense not to find spectacular ways to murder themselves like Tunisians, Algerians, and Egyptians, and so didn't show Obama how serious those protests were.) 

Simply put, Barack Obama got caught up in the whirlwind of sensationalism and hopefulness about "change" surrounding the phenomenon of the Arab Spring.  But the world cannot afford for the American president to ignore realities in favor of entertaining such reckless indulgences of fantasy.

Obama contends that a "government by the people" holds the key to peace in the Middle East, but never once does he consider that the "people" inhabiting much of the Islamic world may desire something other than the freedoms we cherish.  He suffers from the multiculturalists' ailment and "believes" that all cultures share some sort of moral relativism -- that cultures are equally good and desire the same ends for humanity.  But our concept of "freedom" is uniquely good, and despite our president's delusions, it is not "universal" among cultures.  "Freedom" is but one ideological path to govern.  "Submission" is another, and one that has been far more prevalently applied throughout world history, particularly in the Islamic world.  And both have equal legitimacy in a purely democratic system when a "people" can demand either. 

So it is only logical that the Islamic world, so named because of the regional inhabitants' devotion to Islam -- Arabic for "submission" -- might choose to elect representatives that value "submission" to Allah's law and the practice of jihad rather than representatives that value the Western understanding of "freedom" that includes concepts like the right to free speech, peaceable assembly, equal rights to religious practice, gender equality, etc.

And as logic would have it, democratically elected Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi responded to Obama's U.N. address by rejecting the Western concept of freedom of expression in favor of touting the sharia notion that any insult against Islam should be punished -- and he called upon the international community to carry out that very punishment.  He has, in correlation with Ahmadinejad, taken up the Palestinian cause as a primary concern, demanding that we "put an end to colonization, settlement activities, and the alteration in the identity of Occupied Jerusalem."  And he has made it quite clear in the past that he does not accept the legitimacy of Israel's existence, so we can only expect this rhetoric to become more extreme, this being his first presidential address to the U.N. and all.

It is undeniable that our president's blind devotion to the democratic process and even blinder optimism about the Islamic world has created a much more ominous scenario than that which existed before the Arab Spring that Obama fondly recounts.  And to the West's detriment and Israel's peril, Obama's U.N. address shows no sign of changing his approach, which has proven to have miserably failed. 

As such, the world's need for a Romney victory in 2012 goes well beyond budgets.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4)White House irked by Netanyahu’s “red line” speech, reverts to Iran diplomacy

Clinton berated Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for the powerful presentation of his case for confronting Iran with red lines instead of hitherto failed diplomacy and sanctions in his speech to the UN General Assembly Thursday, Sept. 27. 

Neither released a statement from their conversation of an hour and a quarter one-on-one shortly after the speech.

Clinton made it clear that President Barack Obama would not tolerate the Israeli prime minister having a say in his Iran agenda. He remained committed to diplomacy regardless of Netanyahu’s warning that it was getting “late, very late” to stop a nuclear Iran.

Clinton accordingly announced a decision by the world powers to go into another round of nuclear negotiations with Iran, although after the breakdown of diplomacy in July, they expected an improved Iranian offer. EU foreign executive Catherine Ashton was directed to get in touch with Iran’s nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalilee for another attempt to set up talks, although when the two officials met in Istanbul on Sept. 18, they made no headway.

The U.S put the clock back five days to Monday when Obama dismissed Netanyahu’s advocacy of agreed red lines for warning Iran off its nuclear bomb program as “background noises” which he systematically blocked. This reversal came after White House and Israeli officials had begun discussing moving the critical timeline for that program to late spring, early summer 2013, instead of this year.

Addressing the UN General Assembly Thursday, Sept. 27  Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu graphically depicted Israel’s red line for Iran. He held up a simple diagram showing that Iran had covered 70 percent of the distance to a nuclear bomb and must be stopped before it reached the critical stage next spring or early summer of 2013.

He stressed that it is getting late, very late to stop a nuclear Iran.

The best way, he said, is to lay down a clear red line on the most vulnerable element of its nuclear program: uranium enrichment. “I believe that if faced with a clear and credible red line, Iran will back down and may even disband its program,” he said.  

Red lines prevent wars, don’t start them and in fact deterred Iran from blocking the Strait of Hormuz.
Israel and the US are in discussion over this issue, said Netanyahu. “I’m sure we can forge a way forward together."

He went on to accuse Iran of spreading terrorist networks in two dozen countries and turning Lebanon and Gaza into terror strongholds. Hoping a nuclear-armed Iran will bring stability is like hoping a nuclear al Qaeda will bring world peace, the prime minister remarked.

Washington sources disclose the White House and Israel emissaries have come to an understanding that Israel will hold back from attacking Iran’s nuclear sites before the US election in November, while a special team set up by President Barack Obama completes a new paper setting out the end game for Iran.

He put the team to work after concluding that negotiations with Iran had exhausted their usefulness. Gary Samore, top presidential adviser on nuclear proliferation, leads the team.

Netanyahu’s citing of late spring, early summer 2013, as the critical point on Iran’s path to a nuclear bomb appears to confirm that he has agreed to delay military action against Iran following negotiations with the White House on the next agreed steps. Sources report  the prime minister was represented in those talks by Defense Minister Ehud Barak and National Security Adviser Yakov Amidror.

According to another view, which is current in Washington’s intelligence community, Israel was finally persuaded to delay by fresh intelligence presented by the Obama administration which showed that Israeli estimates were overly pessimistic in judging the timeline for Iran’s nuclear facilities to be buried in “immunity zones.” That timeline extended to spring 2013, leaving Israel five to six months up to April-May for ordering a military operation against those sites.

However, Israeli intelligence circles dispute their American colleagues’ estimate as “interesting” but inaccurate.  Netanyahu, in his speech, confirmed that Washington and Jerusalem were constantly exchanging views and evaluations on the state of Iran’s nuclear program.

He also made the point that while intelligence services, American and Israeli alike, had remarkable aptitudes, their estimates on Iran were not foolproof. He was referrng to the Pentagon claim that when Iran was ready to build a bomb, American intelligence would know about it in good time.

4a)Tehran Declares Intent To Enrich Uranium To 90% For Military Purposes – Nuclear Submarines

By: A. Savyon & Y. Carmon*

Introduction

In recent months, Iranian regime spokesmen have conducted a campaign of
statements regarding Iran's intent to enrich uranium for use in
nuclear-fueled ships and submarines – the latter a patently military use of
nuclear power. Regime officials, regime dailies, and websites close to the
regime issued no fewer than 12 such statements, in which they declared
Iran's intent to enrich uranium for nuclear fuel to power both surface sea
craft and submarines. It should be noted that while nuclear fuel for surface
craft entails uranium enrichment of 50-60%, nuclear-powered submarines
require enrichment of 90%, which is the same level needed for the production
of a nuclear bomb.

From its inception, this campaign of statements was meant as a
counterargument to heightened Western sanctions. The regime said that in the
face of sanctions restricting its use of oil, Tehran had no choice but to
develop an alternative source of energy to fuel commercial transport, in
order to maintain its ties with the world.[1] However, in what would seem a
strategic error, regime spokesmen in their statements conflated nuclear fuel
for surface vessels for use in trade, with nuclear fuel for submarines which
are categorically designated for military use, not civilian use.

For this reason, after realizing that these statements had exposed Tehran's
intentions to attain the 90% enrichment needed for a nuclear bomb, the
Iranian regime has over the past month issued no further declarations
regarding nuclear submarines. Moreover, several regime spokesmen backed down
from the declarations, stating that Iran has no need at this stage for
uranium enriched beyond 20%, and that the country is nonetheless capable of
higher enrichment.

The following report will review these statements and the attempts to back
down from them:

Statements Declaring Iran's Intent To Enrich High Grade Uranium For Nuclear
Powered Sea Craft

For Ships (Commercial Use, i.e. 50-60% Enrichment):

1. Majlis members prepared a draft bill requiring the government to design
nuclear-powered merchant ships and provide them with nuclear fuel.[2]

2. Majlis member Allahoradi Dehqani explained, "The government must enrich
uranium to the level needed to provide fuel for these ships, since we cannot
end our trade relations with other countries due to Western sanctions.
Because of sanctions leveled by Western countries against Iran, which
include a ban on providing fuel to Iranian vessels, Iran will replace fossil
fuel with nuclear fuel in order to bypass the need to refuel during long
voyages."[3]

3. Another Majlis member involved in the initiative, Abu Al-Qasim Jarera,
said, "This [nuclear] fuel will undoubtedly [be enriched to a level] higher
than 25%- to about 50-60%."[4]

4. In an analysis published July 16, 2012, the website Mashreg News, which
is close to security circles in Iran, claimed, "Iran's nuclear industry will
have to increase nuclear enrichment to the average level of new marine
reactors, in the range of 50-60%. Considering the new sanctions and pretexts
meant to prevent the transfer of fuel to Iran's oil tankers, this move could
be a substantial step that will bring about the neutralization, uprooting,
and bypassing of the sanctions..."[5]

5. The head of the Policy-Making Council of Iran's Friday Prayer Leaders,
Hojjatoleslam Seyed Reza Taghavi, warned that Tehran would enrich uranium to
56% if the pressure on it continued.[6]

For Submarines (Military Use, i.e. 90%):

6. Iranian Navy Lieutenant Commander for Technical Affairs Rear Adm. Abbas
Zamini declared, on June 12, 2012, that Iran had taken preliminary steps
toward the construction of super-heavy nuclear-fueled submarines: "Right
now, we are at the initial phases of manufacturing atomic submarines."[7]

7. Amir Mousavi, a former advisor to the defense minister, said that Iran
has the necessary knowhow to enrich uranium to the 50-60% level needed to
fuel nuclear ships and submarines, but added that it was prepared to discuss
Western demands if the West recognized its right to develop civilian nuclear
technology.[8]

8. The Iranian website Fa.irannuc.ir, which is close to Iran's team of
nuclear negotiators, claimed, "Producing [nuclear] fuel for submarines and
ships entails raising the level of enrichment beyond 20%. However, it is
extremely important to note that this is an entirely civilian move, as,
according to the NPT, Iran has the right to enrich [uranium] to any level it
wishes, for civilian use. This [comes as] a direct response to Europe and
the U.S.'s recent sanctions against Iran..."[9]

9. The daily Etemad explained that the move would serve Iran in future
nuclear talks: "According to several Western commentators, the issue of
producing nuclear fuel for submarines will enable Iran to pave the proper
way for nuclear progress, as it will [entail] enriching uranium to a grade
higher than 20%. Under these conditions, Iran will benefit from a greater
potential for progress in future talks with the 5+1."[10]

10. The website Yjc.ir, which is close to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps (IRGC), claimed that "according to authoritative reports
published by scientific sources, producing fuel for nuclear submarines or
ships necessitates uranium enriched to a level of 90%, but technical experts
in Tehran say that not all nuclear submarines require [fuel] enrichment to
90%, and that fuel [enriched] to 52-57% will be sufficient."[11]

11. A September 5, 2012 article by international affairs expert Mirza Reza
Leilani discussed several scenarios entailing "Iranian opportunities and
threats as part of a coalition with China and Russia." Among them, Leilani
raised an optimistic scenario in which Iran would force Europe to recognize
it as a nuclear state: "According to this scenario, Iran will emphasize its
nuclear capabilities to enrich uranium to 60% for medical nuclear reactors,
and to enrich uranium to 90% for nuclear submarines. The Fordow [uranium
enrichment] facility will be completed, there will be chaos in the Strait of
Hormuz that will raise oil prices, and this, in turn, will pressure
Washington and harm the world economies. It will cause Europe to officially
recognize a nuclear Iran..."[12]

12. The daily Vatan-e Emrooz, which is close to the government of Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claimed that "the new wave of oil sanctions
on Iran by [the countries] of the West has once again placed Iran on the
path of acquiring preferable technology, [this time] by producing ships and
oil tankers [powered] by nuclear fuel; and Iran is [only a few] steps away
from this astounding achievement. While European countries have followed the
U.S.'s unilateral sanctions against Iran and instated an oil boycott, Iran
never considered relinquishing the nuclear path, but rather planned to
continue on this path and achieve nuclear fuel [enriched to a level] above
53% and up to 90% for intercontinental ships... The 5+1, which until now
were unwilling to submit to Iran's undeniable right to enrich uranium [to a
level of] 20%, will now be forced to watch Iran achieve fuel enriched to a
level needed for nuclear-powered oil tankers."[13]

Regime Officials Back Down: Iran Currently Has No Need For Enrichment Beyond
20%

In an apparent belated realization that the statements regarding nuclear
submarines and 90% had incriminated Iran in intending to enrich uranium for
military purposes beginning in early August 2012, Iranian media and regime
mouthpieces are now refraining from mentioning the demand or the ability to
enrich uranium to a level beyond 20%. Furthermore, since late July 2012,
regime officials have stressed that Tehran does not at this stage require
enrichment beyond 20%.

On September 19, 2012, Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) director
Fereydoon Abbasi stated, following a meeting with IAEA chief Yukiya Amano at
a gathering of the IAEA Board of Governors: "Iran has no intention of
enriching uranium beyond 20%."[14]

Majlis speaker Ali Larijani was interviewed by the Financial Times on
September 22, 2012. Asked about Iran's decision to build nuclear submarines,
which require enriched uranium beyond 20%, he said: "If the IAEA allows us
to have some products for peaceful technology and under its supervision,
then we can do it. But for now, we do not need it. If the IAEA had met its
obligations and had provided the Tehran nuclear reactor with fuel plates, we
would not have produced [even] 20% enriched uranium..."[15]

*A. Savyon is director of MEMRI's Iranian Media Project. Y. Carmon is
President of MEMRI.

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

[1] In this vein, the director-general of Iran's Supreme Council of Cultural
Revolution for International Affairs, Javad Mohammadi, said that Iran would
accelerate its nuclear program if the West heightened sanctions against it.
Fars (Iran), July 29, 2012.

[2] Fars (Iran), July 17, 2012.

[3] Fars (Iran), July 17, 2012.

[4] Fars (Iran), July 20, 2012.

[5] Mashriq News (Iran), July 16, 2012.

[6] Entekhab (Iran), July 22, 2012.

[7] Fars (Iran), June 12, 2012.

[8] Al-Alam TV (Iran), July 23, 2012.

[9] Fa.irannuc.ir, July 17, 2012.

[10] Etemad (Iran), July 18, 2012.

[11] Yjc.ir, July 28, 2012.

[12] Borhan.ir, September 5, 2012.

[13] Vatan-e-Emrooz (Iran), July 29, 2012.

[14] It should be noted that Abbasi had made similar remarks as early as
late July 2012, saying: "Iran has the ability to design nuclear fuel for
ships and submarines, but we have no intention at this stage to enrich
[uranium] beyond 20%... If the Iranian government so decides, and the people
so desire, we at the AEOI have no problem promoting this plan." Mehr (Iran),
July 22, 2012. This statement, however, was the only one of its kind at that
time.

[15] http://on.ft.com/STqL1W

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