All those who believe otherwise have to be left panting!
===
Yisrael Ne'eman hangs make believe "Nation State Idiocy" on the same clothes line! (See 1 below.)
More Obama self deception supported by The New York Times!
What chemicals have been removed is what Assad claims existed but since no one can believe Assad , Obama blithely swallows what he is fed knowing the press and media will ignore any discrepancy or circle the wagons as The N.Y Times does religiously!
Obama will claim what will become a Pyrrhic Victory. (See 1a below.)
===
Now for some moon humor:
===
Maybe Hillary, maybe all of us, need to take a page from Harry's sense of ethics and love for the office cast upon him without warning!
He would be mortified and aghast if he were alive today and, no doubt, would be tagged a racist by the president of his own party. (See 2 below.)
===
I was having lunch with some of my buddies this past Friday and one posed this question: "What are the two greatest threats facing our nation today?"
The friend asking the question proffered his own first answer so he could direct the discussion and stated it to be 'income disparity.'
Another responded and the discussion went where I knew it would - back and forth between a liberal and a conservative.
I remained uncharacteristically silent knowing I would be derided if I entered the fray so I let them finish exhausting themselves and then interjected: "the biggest 'domestic' threat facing our nation was the decline in the belief and abject loss of faith by citizens, that government was effective, cared about or even could serve their interests any longer."
It was then time to leave so my comment was left, more or less, unchallenged on the table.
I, therefore, did not have time to submit that the second biggest threat to our nation was 'external' and was the re-establishment of a Caliphate and the scourge of radical Islam, its spreading reign of terror.
I believe wealth disparity is a problem for sure but not one of the most critical issues threatening our nation. It is dangerous and more a manifestation of unintended consequences of government intrusion. I would like to explain my view as to its genesis.
When government chose to codify 'the prudent man rule' and passed all kind of retirement legislation corporate America began to distance itself from its employees. Employee loyalty was fast becoming a thing of the past and this served to hasten corporations distancing themselves from the legal and moral responsibility of employee retirement and their connection to same.
Corporations brought in consultants and eventually these consultants were called upon to set standards for executive employment as well. In doing so, they began to outdo each other and designed compensation which included fancy perks and this extended to director compensation as well. I have referred to instances where corporate documents relating to compensation run into hundreds of pages of gobbledygook and comparisons all done to cover the behinds of granting executives gross corporate salaries, bonuses and other distributive income by way of golden parachutes and option grants etc.
These consultants are naturally saving their own jobs by coming up with fancy golden garbage which executives like and can claim are derived at in an arms length objective manner. More nonsense!
Until government got involved, the disparity between corporate executive and worker pay was in the neighborhood of 50 to one and less in many cases. Today, comparisons are off the charts.
Outrageous corporate pay has also caused far too much focus on stock prices and not where it should be, ie.long term strategic growth involving near term costs such as research, plant expansions and modernization etc.
I agree, the distance between haves and have nots is unhealthy but, once again, in my opinion, it is traceable to the unintended consequences of government intrusion and, I repeat, is not only not one of the two most serious issues facing our nation but also is correctable if stock holders rise up, like The Tea Party, and demand change!
===
Yes, clueless and the economic consequences. (See 3 and 3a below.)
Takes more words to explain stupidity. (See 3b below.)
===
As I previously warned this is now being reported: "Israel to Intervene If ISIS Threatens Jordan Stability?"
Obama may not understand or care about the implications of Jordan succumbing to a radical Islamist threat but Israel does. (See 4 below.)
Stay tuned!
===
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Iraqi "Nation State" Idiocy
By Yisrael Ne'eman
The West is once again playing "make believe" in claiming that Iraq is a secular nation state similar to those in Europe. The EU and Americans continue in the ridiculous policy of calling for "unity" between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds (who are also Sunnis but not Arabs) in the hope everyone will rally around the Iraqi flag. Iraq is no more a nation state with a secular Mesopotamian Arab identity as the determining factor any more than the Sykes-Picot Agreement and border demarcations of yesteryear between Syria and Iraq count for anything in today's Arab/Muslim World divided by religious denominations and loyalties. Secular Arab nationalism is at best a secondary or more likely a tertiary identity. First there is religious sect, then tribe, clan or family loyalties and only afterwards do we find a loose collective Arab identity. Even here the original Ba'ath ideal of a unifying Arab ID is as far off the mark as the Bolsheviks were when uniting the USSR and developing a new identity around the "new Soviet man." Such leaders as Bashar Assad of Syria or the late Saddam Hussein of Iraq were and are about as close to the Ba'ath ideal as Stalin was to building a true equality based communist state.
The West must internalize the fact that Middle Eastern loyalties are religious, ethnic and sectarian. If not, tried and true failed policies will repeat themselves without end. The West cannot impose the fictitious Iraqi-Syrian border demarcation as drawn up in London and Paris (known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement) after WWI when those on both sides of the frontier have much more in common with each other than they do with either of the regimes in Baghdad or Damascus. Today the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) also known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) represents not only radical Sunni interests sweeping eastern Syria and western Iraq but also many of the tribes and disillusioned formally Ba'ath Sunni forces supporting Saddam Hussein who find themselves without influence in what is left of the above mentioned entities. Policy makers need to refrain from defining either Iraq or Syria as "states," they are rather broken down entities reforming themselves into new political frameworks. The ISIL is assembling a third, radical Sunni entity between Baghdad and Damascus, threatening both with a new hybrid state to include Sunni al-Qaeda theology integrated with a Ba'athist (but in essence Stalinist) praetorian ideal.
American and western attempts at peace or conflict resolution are useless and just going through the motions. The Islamist perspective of an ever expanding homeland transcending artificial boundaries is the reality. The USA/West have no real policy options. Intervention is of no use and will only result in casualties with no democratic influence or change of lifestyle. Non-intervention is seen as "accepting defeat" but no one truly believes this is a war that can be won by the secular and/or democratic West harboring ideals so far removed from Jihadi Islam and the Ba'ath leadership of today. In essence the West (including Israel) must accept this reality.
So what is the solution? Strange as it may sound the West must let Iran get directly involved on the side of the Iraqi Shiites without easing up on any sanctions or forming an alliance of any sort. Iran and their Hezbollah proxies are already deeply involved in rescuing the Assad regime from extinction. It is likewise in their interests to save Shiite eastern Iraq. Many conservatives demand some form of western intervention to halt the ISIL advance and to keep Iranian influence from dominating eastern Iraq. Bombings and drone strikes will do little good against the ISIL and even "boots on the ground" may win a temporary victory for al-Maliki but as we have seen, once the Americans/EU are gone it is all back to square one of sectarian and religious slaughter. Secondly, Iran is the most influential factor in Shiite Iraq, it is about time they paid for it. Why should the West commit unlimited amounts of men and resources in the name of Iranian influence? Democratizing Iraq is not about to happen anytime soon. The Islamic Awakening of 2011 (it was never an "Arab Spring") will continue for at least a generation (and most likely two) before the next step of true democratic ideals will permeate the Middle East and not just appear with a few high profile intellectuals and western educated student leaders who make for wonderful interviewees and photo-ops.
At present everyone needs Iran including Israel, but only temporarily. And let it be repeated - there should be no deals and no lessening of sanctions. What we have is a confluence of interests which may last a few years and maybe even a decade or two. Iran already has advisors and some troops in Iraq but is not seeking a full-fledged conflict and most likely ISIL will not be able to overcome the Iraqi Shiite defense of Baghdad. But should they have no choice, the Iranians will be forced to fight rather than allow Baghdad to fall to ISIL with the resulting expulsions, Shiite flight, massive refugee problems and massacres. Iran will be involved in a two-front war (Syria and Iraq) with its resources stretched to the maximum. Such economic weakening may cause more instability in Tehran and the accompanying demands for reforms. Without a credible liberalization process the ayatollahs may face a rebellion.
The West cannot halt ISIL or Iranian influence in Shiite Iraq, yet it will still be able to pressure Tehran into freezing its nuclear program. The Iranians will certainly choose a free hand to help the Iraqi Shiites and secure their western front while avoiding new clashes and sanctions from the West over nuclear development.
As for ISIL in alliance with its Ba'athist and tribal allies, they will have the Tigris and Euphrates River water resources in the mid-stream region they control. So far oil installations are being retained in eastern Syria while the Mosul and Baiji refineries in Iraq are the scenes of intense battle. The developing Jihadi state has no port. Certain analysts believe this to be the ISIL Achilles heel. But who seriously believes that Kuwait and/or northern Saudi Arabia are not endangered? ISIL does not recognize state boundaries. There is no reason for this three way alliance not to seek more oil and a port on the Persian Gulf. We are not in 1991 anymore, one cannot expect Barak Obama to send troops. Would the US/EU intervene to halt an ISIL takeover of Kuwait in the northwest Persian Gulf? For sure there will be air and drone strikes, but a commitment of hundreds of thousands of American and NATO troops seems unlikely.
Has anyone considered an ISIL link-up with the Saudi Wahhabists? Remember them? Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden found their roots and inspiration from the Wahhabists. ISIL is the more extreme break off from Wahhabism and al-Qaeda. But the newly developing Islamic State is being "moderated" (as far as Islamic law and identity are concerned) by their Sunni tribal allies and former Ba'ath army officers in their ranks.
The Wahhabists, who control religious law and behavior in Saudi Arabia, might be convinced to ditch their alliance to the House of Saud and join ISIL in the ultimate Jihad. Sounds crazy – right? Such a shift in allegiance makes much more sense than the continuing Wahhabist loyalties to what they consider to be a very corrupt western influenced Saudi regime. Overrunning Kuwait and expelling the Arab Shiite minority from northeastern Saudi Arabia while capturing the main oil facilities in these regions would place the new Islamic State firmly on the map. Is this an overly pessimistic analysis? Maybe, but how many expected an ISIL alliance and such a successful offensive?
The Middle East looks to be on the verge of a total Shiite-Sunni clash and ensuing slaughter crossing European imposed state borders some one hundred years ago. The Iran-Iraq War (1980-88) might be considered the beginning but it was contained to two countries and had Persian-Arab nationalist overtones. The Shiites led by Iran are stretched thin in Syria and Lebanon but have no choice but to fight in Iraq where one can expect the ISIL advance on Baghdad will be halted.
Tehran's over investment militarily and financially may well lead to internal instability. The Iranians cannot win an overall war against the Sunnis but they can hold them off. We may be witness to demands for more reforms and social unrest. If nothing else Iran will suffer further economic weakening.
So what's the bottom line? We can all expect an intensified Jihadi extremism to sweep the Arab/Muslim Middle East and Islamic World (Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan). Such extremism will continue spilling over state boundaries or arise from fanatical movements within those countries. Lebanon, Jordan and Yemen may all be on the brink due to outside pressures and those from within. Only the non-Arab Kurds, who control no recognized state, exhibit political unity and command and control of their army in the field. The West faces the dilemma of defending its own interests while not being sucked into an unwinnable war where one is never sure which side to support. In other words there do not seem to be any "good guys," only unsavory characters who may turn on you at any moment.
A policy of "minimalism" may be the order of the day whereby the West only gets involved in a pinpoint fashion to protect strategic interests and/or when the opportunity arises to bring stability. Otherwise there is little incentive for intervention.
1a)
|
U.S President Barack Obama assured outgoing President Shimon Peres, who was at the White House for a farewell visit this week, that the United States will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, and will continue to remain steadfast on topics central to Israel’s security in the nuclear negotiations. This is a reassuring message as representatives of the P5+1 (the US, Russia, China, France and Britain plus Germany) get set to sit down with their Iranian counterparts in Vienna this coming Wednesday for the sixth round of talks on stopping the Islamic Republic’s nuclear weapons program. Besides Obama’s promises, however, there are very few reassuring signs that Iran is willing to comply with even the most basic demands made by the US and other members of the P5+1. The two sides have reached tentative understandings on reducing the amount of plutonium – a second route to fuel for a bomb besides enriched uranium – that will be produced by a heavy-water reactor under construction near the town of Arak. And there are reports of a possible compromise that would turn a deep underground facility called Fordow, where there are 3,000 centrifuges, into a “research facility.” But there is no agreement on almost every other relevant issue. While the US and other P5+1 members want to reduce the number of centrifuges Iranians currently have to enrich uranium, the Iranians want to actually increase the number of centrifuges by over 10,000 from the current number of 19,000. Even if the number of centrifuges remain unchanged, Iran would be able to make a “dash” for a bomb in a few months, as US Secretary of State John Kerry noted in comments made to the Senate in April. There are other unresolved disputes, including whether Iran would have to reveal to international inspectors work that it is suspected of doing on weapons design in the absence of conclusive proof. Senior American negotiator Wendy R. Sherman, undersecretary of state for policy, was diplomatic yet clearly pessimistic when she said she doubted whether “Iran is really ready and willing to take all the steps necessary to assure the world” it has no desire or ability to produce a nuclear weapon. Iranian duplicity regarding its nuclear arms program is nothing new. But perhaps never before have the potential dangers of an Islamic Republic with nuclear capabilities been so evident. The Islamic Republic’s aspirations to expand its influence throughout the region are not just hypothetical. Iran is capitalizing on the dissolution of old national borders. The Iranians are providing troops, weapons and advice to Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria and expanding their influence in Lebanon via their proxy, Hezbollah. In Iraq there are reports that Iranian drones are being used against Al Qaeda-affiliated, Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) forces. And if it has not already begun to send troops into Iraq to carve out territory for a Shia state, Iran might begin to do so soon. There are reports that Shia forces fighting in Syria against Sunni opposition groups are now heading to Iraq. Hezbollah, meanwhile, may be sending more militants to Syria to replace them. The US and Israel actually have an interest in seeing Iranian- backed militants battle it out against ISIS forces and weaken one another. In fact, as the Islamic Republic increasingly becomes over-extended in Syria and Iraq, and as sanctions continue to take a toll on the Iranian economy, Iran might be more willing to make concessions on its nuclear program. At the same time, however, the Iranians are even more desperate than ever to attain nuclear weapons capability. They realize that having a nuclear bomb would be a game changer in the Sunni-Shia clash. They already have the missile capability to hit almost every capital in the Middle East, but the Iranians would not have to actually use their nuclear weapons. The very fact that they have them would provide the Islamic Republic and their proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and the Gaza Strip ‘a nuclear umbrella.’ Any group or state attacked by Iran or one of its proxies would think twice before striking back against so powerful an enemy. That’s why it is imperative for the P5+1, who convene in Vienna next week for the sixth round of negotiations with the Islamic Republic, to keep in mind precisely what is at stake. |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) We should be so lucky to have succeeding Presidents with his character!
Many of the nation's lawmakers are clueless about American history, according to Walter E. Williams, a renowned economist at George Mason University.
"I would say a large percentage of the congressmen, they don't know our history,'' Williams told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
"They do not understand, they do not know the Constitution and as a matter of fact … most congressmen — and I'm sad to say that most Americans — have contempt for the American Constitution.''
Williams, a syndicated columnist, believes President Barack Obama can count himself a member of the group by "kind of leading the fray.''
He added that if Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson and James Madison "came back today and said the kind of things they said — that charity is no legislative duty of government — the American people would run them out of town on the rail.''
2) We should be so lucky to have succeeding Presidents with his character!
When he retired from office in 1952 his
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3) Economics Prof: Founding Fathers Would Be Run out of Town Today
Many of the nation's lawmakers are clueless about American history, according to Walter E. Williams, a renowned economist at George Mason University.
"I would say a large percentage of the congressmen, they don't know our history,'' Williams told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
"They do not understand, they do not know the Constitution and as a matter of fact … most congressmen — and I'm sad to say that most Americans — have contempt for the American Constitution.''
Williams, a syndicated columnist, believes President Barack Obama can count himself a member of the group by "kind of leading the fray.''
He added that if Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson and James Madison "came back today and said the kind of things they said — that charity is no legislative duty of government — the American people would run them out of town on the rail.''
3a) Obamacare Puts Damper on First-Quarter Economy
Obamacare apparently led to a drop in healthcare spending that stifled the economy in the first quarter, and some experts say that trend will be lasting.
GDP shrank 2.9 percent in the first three months of the year, partly because healthcare spending dropped as Americans seemed to have signed up for Obamacare but had not paid for it yet.
“It is amazing that healthcare spending’s contribution to first-quarter growth went from an initial estimate of plus 1.1 percentage points to minus 0.16 of a percentage point," economist Joshua Shapiro of MFR wrote in a commentary obtained by International Business Times.
"This is a crazy-sized revision, and speaks very loudly to the fact that nobody has a real handle on how the introduction of Obamacare has affected these data, nor for how long the distortions may last until things settle down."
After the initial estimate of a healthcare spending increase, the Obama administration argued that the Affordable Care Act was boosting the economy.
"Using the White House analysis, the lack of increased consumer spending on healthcare indicates that the economy-tamping effects of Obamacare will outstrip whatever consumer impulses it produces, even when consumer use should be highest, as people gain coverage and can access provider networks for the first time," political analyst Edward Morrissey writes in The Fiscal Times.
"Get ready for more dampening effects on the economy from Obamacare, too. The employer mandates will soon come into force for most businesses, which now have to make decisions on staffing, hours, and benefits for their 2015 budgets."
Investor's Business Daily cites 400 mid-size and large companies that will or already have cut employee hours to avoid the full-time classification that would make them offer health insurance or pay fines. The evidence shows that businesses are indeed trimming their workers' hours, Morrissey says.
"As businesses cut hours and postpone or cancel expansion plans, fewer jobs are created and workers who do have jobs earn less money," he writes.
"That soft labor market also hampers wage growth and has a dampening effect on consumer spending. That’s before the cost of Obamacare hits the workers themselves."
University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan agrees that Obamacare is hurting the economy.
"Can we begin to take seriously the idea that the fiscal policies and regulations hidden in the Affordable Care Act are shrinking our economy?" he writes on Real Clear Markets.
"Politicians and journalists use the term tax more narrowly than economists do, but the economic definition is needed to understand the economic effects of the ACA."
Withholding benefits from people who work amounts to an implicit tax, Mulligan says.
"What really matters for labor market performance is the reward to working inclusive of implicit taxes," he writes.
"The ACA . . . is full of implicit taxes. Many of them have remained hidden in the fog of controversy surrounding the law."
GDP shrank 2.9 percent in the first three months of the year, partly because healthcare spending dropped as Americans seemed to have signed up for Obamacare but had not paid for it yet.
“It is amazing that healthcare spending’s contribution to first-quarter growth went from an initial estimate of plus 1.1 percentage points to minus 0.16 of a percentage point," economist Joshua Shapiro of MFR wrote in a commentary obtained by International Business Times.
"This is a crazy-sized revision, and speaks very loudly to the fact that nobody has a real handle on how the introduction of Obamacare has affected these data, nor for how long the distortions may last until things settle down."
After the initial estimate of a healthcare spending increase, the Obama administration argued that the Affordable Care Act was boosting the economy.
"Using the White House analysis, the lack of increased consumer spending on healthcare indicates that the economy-tamping effects of Obamacare will outstrip whatever consumer impulses it produces, even when consumer use should be highest, as people gain coverage and can access provider networks for the first time," political analyst Edward Morrissey writes in The Fiscal Times.
"Get ready for more dampening effects on the economy from Obamacare, too. The employer mandates will soon come into force for most businesses, which now have to make decisions on staffing, hours, and benefits for their 2015 budgets."
Investor's Business Daily cites 400 mid-size and large companies that will or already have cut employee hours to avoid the full-time classification that would make them offer health insurance or pay fines. The evidence shows that businesses are indeed trimming their workers' hours, Morrissey says.
"As businesses cut hours and postpone or cancel expansion plans, fewer jobs are created and workers who do have jobs earn less money," he writes.
"That soft labor market also hampers wage growth and has a dampening effect on consumer spending. That’s before the cost of Obamacare hits the workers themselves."
University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan agrees that Obamacare is hurting the economy.
"Can we begin to take seriously the idea that the fiscal policies and regulations hidden in the Affordable Care Act are shrinking our economy?" he writes on Real Clear Markets.
"Politicians and journalists use the term tax more narrowly than economists do, but the economic definition is needed to understand the economic effects of the ACA."
Withholding benefits from people who work amounts to an implicit tax, Mulligan says.
"What really matters for labor market performance is the reward to working inclusive of implicit taxes," he writes.
"The ACA . . . is full of implicit taxes. Many of them have remained hidden in the fog of controversy surrounding the law."
3b) Obama EPA's Rules Are 38 Times Longer Than the Bible
Since President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency "has proposed and promulgated numerous regulations" regarding pollution control, a report from the Congressional Research Service observes.
How numerous?
The EPA has issued 2,827 new final regulations, taking up 24,915 pages in the Federal Register, totaling an estimated 24,915,000 words, according to an analysis by CNS News.
The Gutenberg Bible, published in two volumes in 1455, contains 1,282 pages and 646,128 words.
So the new EPA regulations issued by the Obama administration contain about 19 times as many pages and 38 times as many words as the Bible.
The EPA regulations also have 22 times as many words as the entire seven-book Harry Potter series, and 5,484 times as many words as the U.S. Constitution, CNS News calculated.
The regulations cover greenhouse gases, air quality, emissions, hazardous substances, and other topics.
CNS pointed out that in addition to final rules, the Federal Register publishes proposed rules, notices, interim rules, corrections, and drafts of final rules. The analysis considers only final rules from the EPA, which include the likes of "Revised Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guidelines."
Critics of the EPA "have reacted strongly" to the deluge of new regulations, the Congressional Research Service noted. "Many, both within Congress and outside of it, have accused the agency of reaching beyond the authority given it by Congress and ignoring or underestimating the costs and economic impacts of proposed and promulgated rules."
The CRS report acknowledged that "environmental groups and other supporters of the agency disagree that EPA has overreached.”
"In several cases, environmental advocates would like the regulatory actions to be stronger."
But the report also noted that The Wall Street Journal has charged that the EPA "has turned a regulatory fire hose on U.S. business."
And the U.S. Chamber of Commerce called the EPA's actions "a series of one-sided, politically charged regulations that are intended to take the place of legislation that cannot achieve a consensus in Congress."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4) ISIS Edging Closer to Israel
Thomas Sanderson, co-director for transnational threats at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the Daily Beast that in his estimation any ISIS attack on Jordan would be viewed in both Washington and Jerusalem as a threat to national security.
by Yaakov Levi
Speaking Sunday, former National Security Council director Yaakov Amidror said that if Jordan requested Israeli assistance in preventing its border with Iraq from being overrun by forces belong to to ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, then Israel would have little choice but to help.
“It's not just in Jordan's interest, but in Israel's as well to work together to solve this problem," he said.
As the Sunni Islamist forces of ISIS have overrun Iraq, edging ever closer to that country's border with Jordan, Amman has expressed nervousness that it could be the group's next target. Some ISIS sources have already made unconfirmed claims to have seized a Jordanian town, although those reports appear to be false.
Jordan on Friday deployed massive army forces on its Iraqi border, including tanks, army vehicles, missile launchers and soldiers, reported Yedioth Aharonoth, citing the Arab news source Asharq Al-Aswat.
In the Arabic report, Jordanian sources were quoted as claiming that the Iraqi army still controls the area just over the Jordanian border, but that they have already lost control over adjacent areas. A senior Jordanian captain told the paper the army is at maximum preparedness so as to be able to get involved at a moment's notice.
Jordan has good reason to worry; ISIS Islamists have publicly called for Jordanian King Abdullah's execution, declaring him a traitor to Islam who has joined forces with the West.
ISIS threatened to "slaughter" the "tyrant" Abdullah in a recent video, which was uploaded to YouTube. The video features a Jordanian citizen and member of the Islamist group, who is seen tearing up his passport and throwing it in a fire while vowing to launch a suicide attack inside Jordan.
Earlier this month, former Israeli intelligence expert Jacques Neriah suggested in a CNN interview that Israel must prepare itself for the eventuality that the battle could reach the shores of Tel Aviv - despite the fact that the fighting rages more than 915 kilometers (595 miles) away.
According to Neriah, the current crisis in the Middle East has made Israel relatively quiet, and could buy the IDF time to prepare.
"Everyone is busy killing one another in the Arab world - it gives Israel a 'time out' to reorganize and to prepare itself for the long run," Neriah stated. "If Iraq falls in the hands of ISIS, then we will have a terrorist state - where terrorists will be trained, will be equipped, will be financed by an [entire] state and not by an organization which is [in] hiding."
Meanwhile, a report in the Daily Beast claimed that Israeli and US officials have already confirmed that their countries would join the battle against ISIS should it attack Jordan, with whom Israel has a peace treaty.
Thomas Sanderson, co-director for transnational threats at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the Daily Beast that in his estimation any ISIS attack on Jordan would be viewed in both Washington and Jerusalem as a threat to national security.
"I think Israel and the United States would identify a substantial threat to Jordan as a threat to themselves and would offer all appropriate assets to the Jordanians," he said.
Concerns in Israel over ISIS's rapid territorial gains in Syria and Iraq comes amid claims ISIS-linked terror cells have been involved in recent rocket fire against southern Israel. On Saturday it was revealed that two Gazan terrorists killed in an IAF precision strike for launching rockets against Israeli civilians were members of a jihadi group linked to ISIS.
No comments:
Post a Comment