If you're interested in getting some information about what's going on in Israel and Gaza--you know, beyond the Israel-bashing, "terrorists are victims" crap you get from the "mainstream" media--the Israeli Defense Force has now entered the Web 2.0 age.
The have a blog called IDF Spokesperson where you can catch some of the latest updates about the war against terrorism in the Middle East--specifically as it affects Israel.
The IDF also has a YouTube channel where you can view footage of some of the IDF precision strikes against terrorist strongholds. Unlike the terrorists who intentionally target innocent civilians, the IDF does everything it can to minimize noncombatant casualties.
An interesting post at the IDF blog yesterday points out the number of rockets and mortars fired against Israel since 2005.
In 2007 alone, there were more than 2,500!
Forget for a moment our peaceful relations with Canada and Mexico. Imagine 2,500 rocket and mortar attacks along the U.S. border in the last year.
Imagine rocket and mortar attacks along Washington State, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Imagine the property damage, the fear, the injuries, and the lives lost to these attacks. Since the borders of these states are immensely larger than Israel's borders, imagine these 2,500 attacks spread along the border Vermont.
Or if it's easier to imagine, think of Cuba lobbing 2,500 mortars and rockets at Florida over the past year.
Would we stand idly by and twiddle our thumbs as many demand Israel do? Would we expect our leaders to negotiate with these attackers as many demand Israel do? Would we think of these attackers as "victims" and blame the targets of these attacks as many do Israel?
Or would we do as we did after 911--as any decent and self-respecting nation would do--and retaliate with decisive force to remove the threat and disinvite future attacks?
For too long the West has sought to restrain Israel from defending herself. We are Israel's chief ally; it's time we started acting like it. It's time we got out of their way and let them bring the majority of Middle East terrorism to an end--by boldly demonstrating that it will not be tolerated, and will be met with crippling retaliation.
That is the only way to deal with evil, fanatical forces who are determined to annihilate you. Too many innocent civilians have died in the name of "civility" and "talks" and "negotiations." The job of ending terrorism is long overdue.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Israeli Defense Force Hits the Blogosphere
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Outrage Follows Christmas Address by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
By Aaron J. Leichman
Christian Post Reporter
Sat, Dec. 27 2008 09:28 AM EST
The holiday message delivered by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for Britain's Channel 4 television station drew a wide range of critics this week.
Although each year Channel 4 features an often controversial counterpoint to Queen Elizabeth II's traditional annual message, many disagreed with the network’s selection of Ahmadinejad, who denies the Holocaust, advocates the destruction of the sovereign state of Israel, and executes children.
"Outrage doesn't begin to explain it,” commented Ron Prosor, the Israeli ambassador to London.
In Ahmadinejad’s message Thursday, the Iranian head of state didn’t refer to rival nations or leaders by name but said Jesus Christ would undoubtedly “stand with the people in opposition to bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers.”
"If Christ were on earth today, undoubtedly He would hoist the banner of justice and love for humanity to oppose warmongers, occupiers, terrorists and bullies the world over,” he said, according to the English translation of the Farsi-language speech.
"If Christ were on earth today, undoubtedly He would fight against the tyrannical policies of prevailing global economic and political systems, as He did in His lifetime," he added.
Following the broadcast, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which represents the Jewish community in the United Kingdom, expressed how offensive the Christmas Day message was.
"To invite him to deliver a Christmas message, even a so-called alternative one, fills me with disgust," the group's president, Henry Grunwald, told The Associated Press.
Channel 4 was "aiding and abetting a tyrant," added British human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.
"This is the equivalent of giving [Zimbabwean ruler] Robert Mugabe a prime-time television slot to promote his propaganda," he said.
In response to the outcry against Ahmadinejad’s inclusion in this year’s broadcast, Dorothy Byrne, Channel 4's head of news and current affairs, said the Iranian president was picked because he is “enormously influential” as the leader of one of the most powerful states in the Middle East.
“As we approach a critical time in international relations, we are offering our viewers an insight into an alternative world view," Byrne told the press.
Since 1993, Channel 4 has broadcast an "Alternative Christmas message" featuring a contemporary celebrity delivering a message in the manner of Britain’s queen. Past message presenters include activist the Rev. Jesse Jackson, a Scottish male comedian playing Princess Diana (less than a year before her death), a celebrity chef, and Marge Simpson from The Simpsons cartoon series.
Byrne said Ahmadinejad’s message Thursday continued "a long tradition of offering a different perspective on the world around us."
Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
More From the 'Are You Surprised' File
You're not surprised, are you?
From WorldNetDaily:
JERUSALEM – The Hamas terrorist group believes the election of Sen. Barack Obama is an "historic victory" for the world and an opportunity to change U.S. foreign policy toward engagement with America's foes, Ahmed Yousef, Hamas' chief political adviser in the Gaza Strip, told WND in an exclusive interview today.
Yousef, speaking by cell phone from Gaza, said Hamas is drafting a letter of congratulation to be sent tomorrow directly to Obama. He said the current draft of the letter praises the president-elect as "another John F. Kennedy, or great Roosevelt."
"We want to be one of the first to congratulate him," Yousef said.
"This is an historic day, a turning point. I think this is the very first time in history that one country's election concerned everyone everywhere all over [the] world," said Yousef. "Everybody is looking forward to Obama's change, for a change in the U.S. policy, particularly in the Israeli-Palestinian equation, which is the mother of all conflicts."
Terrorist endorsement of a U.S. president-elect.
You asked for it, America...you got it.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Obama Hides His Sympathy With America's Enemies
More on Barack Obama's association with people who oppose our ally Israel and U.S. policy in the Middle East.
Thanks to Free Republic, I learned about an article at The Electronic Intifada ("intifada" means "shaking off" or "uprising" in Arabic) which is critical of Obama and fears that he might "love Israel."
The author, Ali Abunimah, said that when he first met Obama in 1998, he liked him: "Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict."
However, as Obama had to "mainstream" himself to win his campaign, he got a little too friendly toward Israel and a little too critical of terrorist attacks against Israel for Abunimah's comfort.
But, according to Abunimah, Obama did later apologize for letting him down publicly:
As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"
The article has a photo of Barack and Michelle Obama at a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago where Edward Said gave the keynote speech.
Wikipedia has some interesting things to say about Said:
Said's relationship with the Palestinian Authority was once so bad that PA leaders banned the sale of his books in August 1995, but improved when he hailed Arafat for rejecting Barak's offers at the Camp David 2000 Summit.
Barak bent over backwards and bared his neck for Arafat...but it wasn't good enough for Arafat (Israel still existed, perhaps?). Afterward, Arab terrorists launched a bloodbath.
It seems Said "got his head right," however. More from Wikipedia:
Ultimately, Said came to prefer and to support a state that would afford Palestinians a home with equal human rights in place of the 'Jewish' state of modern-day Israel.
"...in place of the 'Jewish' state of modern-day Israel"? Is that prettied-up language for "on the ruin of the former state of Israel"?
The entry also talks about and has a picture of Said throwing a rock at Israeli soldiers.
From working for years with domestic terrorist and anti-American Bill Ayers, to endorsements from terrorist organizations like Hamas to Obama's praise of spokesman for the terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization Rashid Khalidi to his willingness to talk without precondition with some of the most belligerent of America's enemies, Barack Obama has proven himself to be incapable of being trusted with America's international welfare.
How can we possibly entertain the notion of trusting a man like this at the helm of our great nation?
HT to Free Republic.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Poll: Most Jews Oppose Jewish Cooperation with Pastor Hagee
By Jennifer Riley
Christian Post Reporter
Tue, Jul. 22 2008 01:49 PM EDT
A majority of American Jews say Jewish groups should not partner with vocal Texas megachurch pastor John Hagee or other Christian Zionists that support Israel based on end-times beliefs, a new survey revealed.
More than three-quarters (78 percent) of the 800 American Jews questioned in a new J Street survey do not support Jewish groups working with Christian organizations that believe Jews must control the Holy Land before Jesus can return.
J Street is a non-profit, pro-Israel organization that promotes a diplomatic resolution to the Middle East conflict.
In particular, critics complain about Hagee’s controversial views on the Holocaust – that it was God’s way to force Jews to settle in Israel – and his fierce opposition to the Mideast peace proposal that calls for Israel to cede land to form a Palestinian state.
“The survey results are very eye opening. When presented with both sides of the debate over U.S policy in the Middle East, American Jews strongly favor the United States using its leverage to help resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict,” said Jim Gerstein, who conducted the survey, in a statement.
The survey was released ahead of Hagee’s annual Christians United for Israel summit in Washington, D.C., this week, July 21-24. The summit is the nation’s largest Christian Zionist conference and is scheduled to feature speeches by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who is an orthodox Jew, and Brad Gordon of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami says he hopes the poll will send a message to Lieberman and other Jewish organizations on how American Jews really feel about U.S. policies towards Israel and the Middle East.
“America's political leaders need to look beyond the loudest voices from the community to the opinions actually held by the broad majority of American Jews," Ben-Ami said.
“This is a strong message to the leadership of the American Jewish community that the members of the American Jewish community are not marching in lockstep behind them as they lead us off this cliff,” Ben-Ami said, according to Religion News Service. “The alliance that they have struck with [Hagee] over the past few years is one we would like to see brought to an end.”
The survey found that 75 percent of respondents view a two-state solution (Israel and Palestinian state) as necessary for Israeli security.
In addition to Jews voicing differences with Hagee, dozens of prominent evangelicals last summer also did likewise and supported a two-state solution. The evangelical leaders wrote a letter to President Bush emphasizing their support of a two-state solution in order to combat the “serious misconception” that all American evangelicals are against the creation of a new Palestinian state.
“Nothing could be further from the truth,” they stated in the letter. “We, who sign this letter, represent large numbers of evangelicals throughout the U.S. who support justice for both Israelis and Palestinians.”
Hagee had responded to the evangelical letter by saying, “The Palestinian people have never owned the land of Israel, never exited as an autonomous society,” he said. “There is no Palestinian language. There is no Palestinian currency. And to say that Palestinians have a right to that land historically is an historical fraud.”
Signers of the letter included Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary; David Neff, editor of Christianity Today; Richard Stearns, president of World Vision; and Joel Hunter, senior pastor of Northland Church in Longwood, Fla., and member of the executive committee of the National Association of Evangelicals.
There are an estimated 20 to 40 million Christian Zionists in the United States.
Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Anniversary of the Six Day War
American Minute from William J. Federer
JUNE 5, 1967, the Six-Day War began. Egypt sent 80,000 troops and 900 tanks to attack Israel. Jordan and Syria, with Soviet weapons, violently shelled Jerusalem and Israeli villages. Cairo radio announced: "The hour has come in which we shall destroy Israel."
The hot line between Washington and Moscow was used for the first time.
In a surprise move, Israeli Air Force destroyed 400 Egyptian planes, courageously drove Syria from the Golan Heights and captured all of Jerusalem.
In a CBS-TV interview, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion stated: "In Israel, in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles."
Seven months after the War, on Jan. 7, 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson toasted Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, saying: "Welcome to our family table...All Americans-and all Israelis-know...that none...can ever live by bread alone...One of your ancestors said it for all men almost 2,000 years ago...for peace it is written, 'pursue it.' That is our intention in the Middle East...To pursue peace...If we are wise, if we are fortunate, if we work together - perhaps our Nation and all nations may know the joys of that promise God once made about the children of Israel: 'I will make a covenant of peace with them...it shall be an everlasting covenant.'"
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Iran Tops Terrorist Sponsorship List
The latest report on state sponsorship of terrorism is out, according to NewsMax.
"Country Reports on Terrorism," published annually by the State Department, lists Iran as the "most active state sponsor of terrorism." This is the same country working on creating a nuclear program.
From the report:
Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Elements of its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) were directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts throughout the region and continued to support a variety of groups in their use of terrorism to advance their common regional goals. Iran provides aid to Palestinian terrorist groups, Lebanese Hizballah, Iraq-based militants, and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.
Iran remains a threat to regional stability and U.S. interests in the Middle East because of its continued support for violent groups, such as HAMAS and Hizballah, and its efforts to undercut the democratic process in Lebanon, where it seeks to build Iran’s and Hizballah’s influence to the detriment of other Lebanese communities.
The report also indicts Iran for its involvement in targeting U.S. military forces and Iraqi civilians in Iraq:
Iranian authorities continued to provide lethal support, including weapons, training, funding, and guidance, to some Iraqi militant groups that target Coalition and Iraqi security forces and Iraqi civilians
Fellow Axis of Evil member Syria also makes the list once again:
Since Syria’s 1979 designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, it has continued to provide political support to Palestinian terrorist groups. Syria has also continued to provide political and material support to Hizballah since that group's creation. HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PLFP), and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), among others, all have offices in Damascus and operate within Syria's borders. The Syrian government insisted that the Damascus-based groups are confined to political and informational activities, but Palestinian groups with leaders in Syria have claimed responsibility for anti-Israeli terrorist attacks.
As in 2006, President Bashar al-Asad expressed public support for Palestinian terrorist groups.
The brutal communist regime of North Korea received the cleanest terrorism prognosis of any member of the Axis of Evil:
It said North Korea "was not known to have sponsored any terrorist acts since the bombing of a Korean Airlines flight in 1987" but it still "harbored four Japanese Red Army members who participated in a jet hijacking in 1970."
We can't wait for these threats to come and visit us...unless we want another 911, perhaps a nuclear one next time.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Axis of Evil is Busy
If you're a patriotic American who greatly values our freedom, security and safety, you really have to wonder if and when our government will get its act together and deal with some serious threats.
Remember seven years ago when President Bush spoke of the "Axis of Evil"? That axis included Iraq, North Korea, and Iran; later that year, Syria was added to the "axis of evil," a group of nations seeking weapons of mass destruction, or pursuing terrorism, or both.
Well, here we are seven years later...and we've only dealt with one of those four threats. We did well with the first phase of taking out Iraq as a threat, but became bogged down with mismanagement of internal security, and were undermined by liberal elements internationally and here at home.
Meanwhile, Iran, Syria and North Korea have been busy funding terrorism and working on weapons of mass destruction.
Last September, Israeli warplanes struck a mysterious facility in Syria. At the time, both Israel and Syria denied any action; several days later, Syria reluctantly admitted a strike against one of their facilities, but few details came out at the time.
Muted speculation followed that the facility might have been nuclear, and that some leaked intel indicated a ship from North Korea had docked in the Med and a shipment from that boat went directly to this facility.
Now it's come out that this was indeed a nuclear facility in Syria. Further, Koreans were observed in and around the facility, the facility which bears striking engineering similarities to the reactor being built in North Korea. Intelligence estimates believe the Syrians were weeks or months from completing a reactor able to produce enough material to build 1-2 nuclear weapons a year.
But Syria and North Korea aren't the only belligerent nations trying to obtain nuclear weapons. Iran is busy working on "the bomb," too.
Despite a fair amount of muddled grumbling on the part of the West (muddled grumbling is always pretty intimidating), Iran is defiantly pursuing nuclear capability. In fact, today the New York Times features several photographs released by Iran of their nuclear facility.
Even the Times admits:
By this analysis, the move trumpets Iran’s defiance of the West and the United Nations Security Council, which has imposed three rounds of sanctions on Tehran for its refusal to halt the uranium enrichment.
But the threat to the United States from Iran isn't only a "future" problem; it's a "now" issue.
Just a few months ago, we had threatening actions from Iranian boats against U.S. navy warships.
Further, Iran is waging war against the U.S. inside Iraq. From the Wall Street Journal last Friday:
The U.S. military says it has found caches of newly made Iranian weapons in Iraq, leading senior officials to conclude Tehran is continuing to funnel armaments into Iraq despite its pledges to the contrary.
Officials in Washington and Baghdad said the purported Iranian mortars, rockets and explosives had date stamps indicating they were manufactured in the past two months. The U.S. plans to publicize the weapons caches in coming days. A pair of senior commanders said a presentation was tentatively planned for Monday.
Iran is also providing other aid to terrorists in Iraq, and is behind a lot of the terrorism which is taking the lives of American soldiers in Iraq.
Such actions could be considered an act of war by a nation with greater moral fortitude. But after five years of being undermined by some of our "allies" internationally and some of our own Americans here at home, the odds are the United States won't do anything about these emerging and serious threats...and Iran is counting on that assumption.
The saying goes that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The world has ample and bloody illustrations from which to learn, yet we never seem to.
In the days and years leading up to World War II, as Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles and began arming Germany, the free world did nothing. As the Axis gobbled up Czechoslovakia, Holland, Belgium, Norway and the Baltic States, the allies did little or nothing. Appeasement proved worthless, and still there was no action until the wolf was on the doorstep.
Is America prepared to allow the wolf onto our doorstep? This time, the wolf will come in civilian clothes, armed as a terrorist, striking on our home soil. This time the wolf may be armed with nuclear weapons, and possibly chemical and biological agents.
Will we learn from history, or are we doomed to repeat the catastrophic destruction of World War II?
Friday, April 25, 2008
Video: Israeli Strike on Syrian Nuclear Facility
The Washington Times reports that the reason the Bush Administration sat on its information on the Syrian nuclear facility bombed by Israeli aircraft in September 2007.
Here is video from CNN which illustrates why intelligence officials believe the Syrian facility was linked to North Korean nuclear efforts (remember that these are two of the "Axis of Evil" countries).
This is video of John Bolton on the strike:
Any chance some of Saddam Hussein's WMD materials made it to Syria before the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Friday, April 04, 2008
Bomber Catches Fire
It was initially thought that an American bomber crashed in Qatar, but the information has been updated and reports suggest that the aircraft was instead involved in a ground incident. According to reports from the Middle East the bomber hit something after landing and caught fire. The crew was able to evacuate without injury and the fire was contained.
Found on Reuters UK...
"UPDATE 2-US B-1 bomber catches fire in Qatar, crew unhurt
Fri Apr 4, 2008 10:10pm BST(Updates with Air Force statement)
WASHINGTON, April 4 (Reuters) - A U.S. B-1 bomber caught fire after landing at an air base in Qatar on Friday but the crew escaped without injury, the Air Force said.
Fire erupted as the plane taxied after landing at al Udeid Air Base around 1:10 p.m. EDT (1710 GMT) after what the Air Force described as "a ground incident."
"The crew evacuated the aircraft and is safe. The fire was contained," the Air Force said in a statement.
A board of inquiry has been appointed to investigate.
Read the rest of the article at Reuters UK .
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
CENTCOM Commander Admiral Fallon Resigns Over Iran Speculation
Admiral William Fallon, commander of the Middle East command CENTCOM, has resigned today, throwing fuel on the already burning flames of speculation about an attack on Iran coming before the end of the year.
Esquire Magazine did an article last week that made this implication and created the appearance of a rift between President Bush and one of his chief military commanders:
Last December, when the National Intelligence Estimate downgraded the immediate nuclear threat from Iran, it seemed as if Fallon’s caution was justified. But still, well-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable. If that were to happen, it may well mean that the president and vice-president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don’t want a commander standing in their way.
And so Fallon, the good cop, may soon be unemployed because he’s doing what a generation of young officers in the U. S. military are now openly complaining that their leaders didn’t do on their behalf in the run-up to the war in Iraq: He’s standing up to the commander in chief, whom he thinks is contemplating a strategically unsound war.
So questions concerning future U.S. military plans for Iran hinge not so much on anything Fallon said, but on the aforementioned opinion of writer Thomas P.M. Barnett.
Dana Perino was asked about this during a press briefing at the White House last week:
Q Dana, there -- I know you haven't read this, but if you'll trust me to quote from -- there is an article in Esquire Magazine about Admiral William Fallon. It says this: "Because of Fallon's caution on Iran, Fallon may soon be unemployed because he is doing what a generation of young officers in the U.S. military are now openly complaining that their leadership didn't do on their behalf in the run-up to the war in Iraq. He's standing up to the Commander-in-Chief, who he thinks is contemplating a strategically unsound war." Is that an accurate portrayal of the relationship?
MS. PERINO: You're right, before I came here I told you I haven't seen the article. I don't know who wrote it. I've never heard anything of that sort, except for in rumor mills that don't turn out to be true. So I'll check it out, but I don't think there's anything to it.
Now today comes word from AP and other sources that Admiral Fallon has resigned:
"Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region," Fallon, who is traveling in Iraq, said in a statement issued by his U.S. headquarters in Tampa, Fla.
"And although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there," he said.
The Pentagon has this video report of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates statement today:
Additionally Fox News adds these comments from Secretary Gates:
Gates said it is "ridiculous" to assume that because Fallon is leaving, the U.S. is preparing war against Iran or has changed its policy at all toward Iran.
"As I say, the notion that this decision portends anything in terms of change in Iran policy is, to quote myself, 'ridiculous,'" he said.
Whether Fallon's departure signals a buildup to action against Iran or not, action definitely needs to be taken against this terrorist-supporting state which is intent on gaining nuclear capability. Bush did list Iran as a chief member of the "Axis of Evil" at the onset of the War on Terror.
Whether that action will be taken by the United States in the waning months of the Bush Administration, or whether it will fall to Israel to destroy Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons, remains to be seen.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Middle East Scholar: MAD Doctrine Won't Work for Iran
From the World Tribune comes a sober warning to those who are inclined to appease the Iranians in their pursuit of nuclear weapons.
"Iran's leadership comprises a group of extreme fanatical Muslims who believe that their messianic times have arrived," Lewis said. "This is quite dangerous. Though Russia and the U.S. both had nuclear weapons, it was clear that they would never use them because of MAD — mutual assured destruction. Each side knew it would be destroyed if it would attack the other."
"But with these people in Iran, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent factor, but rather an inducement," Lewis said. "They feel that they can hasten the final messianic process. This is an extremely dangerous situation of which it is important to be aware."
The appeasers of the 1930s didn't realize their mistake until the wolf was not only at the door, the wolf was coming through the door.
Will world leaders wake up to the threat from radical Iran before it's too late? It's not looking good, so far.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Latest Threat Assessment Underlines Iranian WMD Threat
The annual threat assessment from the Director of National Intelligence for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is out.
While it continues some of the language used in the last NIE which was used to undermine President Bush's efforts to crack down on Iran and their nuclear program, it is more open in its admission that confidence levels in what Iran is doing is shaky.
The report points out that while they think Iran stopped its weaponization program in 2003, Iran is continuing efforts to produce enriched uranium--uranium that can also be used in nuclear weapons.
From the assessment:
We remain concerned about Iran’s intentions and assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We have high confidence that Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons until fall 2003. Also, Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons. Iran continues its efforts to develop uranium enrichment technology, which can be used both for power reactor fuel and to produce nuclear weapons. And, as noted, Iran continues to deploy ballistic missiles inherently capable of delivering nuclear weapons, and to develop longer-range missiles. We also assess with high confidence that even after fall 2003 Iran has conducted research and development projects with commercial and conventional military applications—some of which would also be of limited use for nuclear weapons.We learned just a couple of days ago that Iran has it's own space program. If you can get something into orbit, getting something on-target somewhere else on the globe is just a matter of refinement.
We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons design and weaponization activities, as well as its covert military uranium conversion and enrichment-related activities, for at least several years. Because of intelligence gaps, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that all such activities were halted. We assess with moderate confidence that Tehran had not restarted these activities as of mid-2007, but since they comprised an unannounced secret effort which Iran attempted to hide, we do not know if these activities have been restarted.
Can Iran build nuclear weapons at some point in the future? Are they inclined to?
We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons. In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons—and such a decision is inherently reversible. I note again that two activities relevant to a nuclear weapons capability continue: uranium enrichment that will enable the production of fissile material and development of long-range ballistic missile systems.
By the time Iran develops nuclear weapons, it will essentially be too late to do anything about it. Once they have the weapons, it is doubtful that any American president or any other world leader would attempt military action against Iran for fear that the nuclear weapons could be used before we could get control of them.
And nuclear isn't the only threat posed by Iran:
We know that Tehran had a chemical warfare program prior to 1997, when it declared elements of its program. We assess that Tehran maintains dual-use facilities intended to produce CW agent in times of need and conducts research that may have offensive applications. We assess Iran maintains a capability to weaponize CW agents in a variety of delivery systems.
We assess that Iran has previously conducted offensive BW agent research and development. Iran continues to seek dual-use technologies that could be used for biological warfare.
Iran is a leader if not the lead supporter of international terrorism. A nation that has such little regard for innocent human life cannot be trusted with technology that can wipe out an entire city with one strike.
The United States and other civilized nations must take a stand now, before it's too late, and use whatever means necessary to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
We must heed the lessons of history. By the time the free nations realized the threat posed by Adolf Hitler, the wolf was already at the door. This time, the wolf may have nuclear weapons.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Dealing with a Nuclear-Intent Iran
I've said since 2002 that dealing with Iraq was a necessary step on the way to deal with the biggest threat to stability and peace from the Middle East: Iran.
Iran, with its oil dollars, has long been the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world. Further, Iran has been pursuing a nuclear program for several years. A nuclear Iran possessed of a terrorist mindset would be lethal to hopes for stability and peace in the Middle East. And since terrorists are not confined by borders or easily identified by military uniforms, this poses a threat not only to Iran's Middle East neighbors, but to Israel, to our allies in Europe, and to the United States itself.
Norman Podhoretz has a lengthy article on the case for military action against Iran at Commentary Magazine.
Perhaps the best encapsulation of why Iran must be dealt with soon and dealt with decisively is in the eighth paragraph:
To begin with, Iran was (as certified even by the doves of the State Department) the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world, and it was therefore reasonable to fear that it would transfer nuclear technology to terrorists who would be only too happy to use it against us. Moreover, since Iran evidently aspired to become the hegemon of the Middle East, its drive for a nuclear capability could result (as, according to the New York Times, no fewer than 21 governments in and around the region were warning) in “a grave and destructive nuclear-arms race.” This meant a nightmarish increase in the chances of a nuclear war. An even greater increase in those chances would result from the power that nuclear weapons—and the missiles capable of delivering them, which Iran was also developing and/or buying—would give the mullahs to realize their evil dream of (in the words of Ahmadinejad) “wiping Israel off the map.”
The piece also points out that while the latest intelligence estimate contradicts the previous one of 2003, in this case claiming, well we don't think Iran is pursuing a military nuclear program, that the distinction really lies in the interpretation of whether the Iranian uranium enrichment program is intended for civilian or military application. When one can fairly easily be applied to the other, this is a dangerous distinction to make.
Yet the world body of nations, looking as usual for an excuse to play the coward and bury it's head in the sand, latched onto the intelligence estimate with a near-collective, "Whew! See, we don't need to do anything!"
The article also points out something interesting about the doctrine that helped keep us from nuclear annihilation during the Cold War: MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction.
For all the coldness of atheistic communism, the Soviets still had enough humanity (or self interest?) not to unleash a flood of nuclear death. But does the typical radical Islamist see life, for himself or others, this way?
Podhorez quotes Bernard Lewis, who he says is the leading contemporary authority on Islamic culture:
MAD, mutual assured destruction, [was effective] right through the cold war. Both sides had nuclear weapons. Neither side used them, because both sides knew the other would retaliate in kind. This will not work with a religious fanatic [like Ahmadinejad]. For him, mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement. We know already that [the mullahs ruling Iran] do not give a damn about killing their own people in great numbers. We have seen it again and again. In the final scenario, and this applies all the more strongly if they kill large numbers of their own people, they are doing them a favor. They are giving them a quick free pass to heaven and all its delights.
Failure to stop Iran from getting nukes may just usher in Armageddon and the end times spoken of in the Bible, with its images of the dead numbering in millions.
We cannot wait on the world body to, like the lion in the Wizard of Oz, find some courage. The vast majority of them lack the moral compass and fortitude to have the will do do what needs to be done. And many of them, while pretending to be our allies, would as soon or rather see the Iranians develop a nuclear weapons program. Nations like Russia and China are not our friends, and may actually be hoping for our demise, and the sooner we wake up to this reality, the better.
Once Iran has nuclear weapons, it will be too late. At that point, there is almost no world leader, in place or on the horizon, who would dare risk opening the Pandora's Box of even a limited nuclear exchange with Iran. They must be stopped NOW.
With the miserable prospects for who will next occupy the White House, it may fall to Israel to do what must be done, simply because unlike us, they do not have the luxury of a two-ocean buffer zone to fall back on.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Family News in Focus 01-28-08
Highlights:
Homosexuals looking for more gains this election year
Iowa judge redefines marriage, legislature fights back with impeachment drive
United Methodist Church divesting interests in Israel, Caterpillar company
Pre-k environments are varied, so are results
Click here to listen
From OnePlace.com
Friday, January 11, 2008
Misery in the Middle East
An article by Philip Carl Salzman in the Canadian National Post examines "Why Arabs suffer."
It catalogues a number of areas where the Arab world lags behind most of the rest of the world:
The Arab region not only ranked last on the freedom scale, but the gap between Arab countries and the next-to-last ranked region, Africa, was substantial. The authors also found the Arab world lagged in gender equality, education, Internet use, human welfare and technological development.
"The [total] average [scientific] output of the Arab world per million inhabitants is roughly 2% that of an industrialized country," the authors noted. "In 1981, the Republic of Korea was producing 10% of the output of the Arab world; in 1995, it almost equalled its output."
In the number of frequently cited scientific papers generated per million inhabitants, Switzerland scored 79.90, the United States 42.99, Israel 38.63. Among Arab nations, Kuwait led the pack with 0.53, followed by Saudi Arabia with 0.07, Egypt at 0.02, and Algeria at 0.01.
The piece places the blame not on Western imperialism--which usually gets the blame for everything under the sun--but on the governmental structure of Arab countries:
What is missing in the Arab Middle East are the cultural tools for building an inclusive and united state. The cultural glue of the West and other successful modern societies --consisting of the rule of law and constitutionalism, which serve to regulate competition among unrelated groups -- is absent in the Arab world. The frame of reference in a tribalized society is always "my group vs. the other group." This system of "balanced opposition" is the structural alternative that stands in stubborn opposition to Western constitutionalism.
The suffering is likely to continue until the Arab world decides to embrace an ordered system and the rule of law.
