Space Cadets

Or maybe I should have said “cavemen in outer space.” The Iranian government has announced that its Imam Khomeini Spaceport will be operational by spring of 2013. Missiles for peace and exploration are the focal point. Nothing offensive, of course. Just science for the advancement of mankind. Iran says its goal is to launch manned space flight by 2020, and a manned moon landing by 2025.

I'm reminded of Wernher von Braun's book I Aim For The Stars. Shortly after its publication, comedian Mort Sahl said it should have a subtitle: “But Sometimes I Hit London.” In this case, we could add “sometimes we hit Tel Aviv.” It's a little hard to believe that Iran has peaceful intentions, though the arrogance of the whole program has a small ring of truth. Planting the Iranian flag on the moon would be one helluva big deal.

So far, the Iranian space program has been fairly successful. It has launched a communications satellite. It has sent rats and turtles into space. Unfortunately, the monkey they tried to launch didn't make it. How much more it will be able to accomplish within the time frames it has set itself remains to be seen. The step from sending rats and turtles into space and sending live human beings into space and bringing them back safely is a very large one, even if the program weren't facing huge opposition from the outside.

Unfettered by internal restraints or external sanctions, China has experienced setback after setback in its space program. At the same time, Iran is hampered by moderately effective Western sanctions and opposition to its nuclear program. Before Iran can aim for the stars and “accidentally” hit Tel Aviv, it faces the very likely possibility that Israel will strike at both Iran's nuclear facilities and its missile launch sites.

As recently as this past week, Iran has reaffirmed its position that Israel must be wiped off the face of the map. It is unlikely that Iran would carry out that threat by flying Sopwith Camels over Israel and dropping bombs by hand. The Iranian air force is at best pathetic in comparison to the Israeli air force. But missiles, ah, missiles. Even with the best technology available, short range and intermediate range ballistic missiles are hard to stop once they've been launched. The difference between a missile launching men into space and a missile launching nuclear weapons at a nearby target is minimal.

Even the United States has to take notice of the fact that a missile which can launch men into space has intercontinental capabilities as well. New York, DC, and Los Angeles may be safe now, but for how much longer? During the days of the Cold War, America and the Soviet Union raced into space for national honor and scientific achievement, but were also honing their military capabilities. Still, even the hardliners in the Kremlin weren't suicidal, and mutually-assured destruction (MAD) kept both sides from thinking the unthinkable.

The same is not true of national leaders who believe that to die in the cause of jihad is an automatic entry into paradise, complete with seventy-two virgins awaiting their arrival. Vile, but not crazy described the Kremlin hardliners. Vile and crazy describes the Teheran hardliners. The Iranian people may not be in sync with the leadership on self-immolation, but the ayatollahs look at them as collateral damage.

So far, Iran's missile program has proceeded more successfully and more quickly than that of its Asian counterpart, North Korea. China is highly suspicious of North Korean missile capabilities, but both China and Russia have been exporting missile technology to Iran, in spite of and in defiance of international sanctions. It isn't just Israel and the United States who are leery of Iran's advancement in the missile field. Britain’s Foreign Office said the [most recent Iranian] launch underscored “our serious concerns about Iran’s intentions” and “sends the wrong signal to the international community which has already passed five successive UN Security Council resolutions on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program.” Of course, the UN is big on resolutions and nasty notes to crazy tyrants, but lagging seriously in actual action.

So someday soon, somebody is going to decide that Iran's space program is really an earth program and will take action against it. If Iran can't be persuaded to abandon its missile and nuclear programs, the result is not going to be pretty, nor is the outcome certain.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Here Comes “The Republican War On Jews”

Obama has a Jewish problem. That’s been pretty obvious. You just can’t keep attacking people without them eventually getting upset. And Romney is now trying to win over Jewish votees. So it’s time for Obama to whip out the dirty tricks. Here comes the War on Jews.

Let’s start with the obvious. Obama lacks popularity. Anyone who has followed his approval rating knows that it looks like the famous Al Gore “hockey stick” only held the other way around. Check out this graph from Rasmussen, which shows a quick fall followed by remarkably stable unpopularity.

Obama has made this worse with policies that have hurt people and rhetoric that offends them. What this means is that Obama no longer has broad popularity and he needs to spend his time trying to excite his supporters group by group. That’s why we had the War on Women meme, the War on Hispanics/Immigrants meme, the War on Blacks meme, the War on the Poor meme, the War on the Middle Class meme, and a few others I’ve probably forgotten. Now it’s time for the War on Jews.

Obama’s popularity among Jews is fading. He’s down to 68% according to Gallup, though the real number is likely lower. Why? Well, his policies have largely undermined Israeli security in favor of the Palestinian radicals he knew in his youth. ObamaCare threatens Medicare, which is very popular with older Jewish voters in places like Florida. And his attacks on bankers have a distinctly anti-Semitic ring to them, so much so that the Wall Street community has openly complained about his rhetoric and have begun to close their wallets. And with Romney now making a play for Jewish support, it’s clearly time to act.

Hence, Nancy Pelosi fired the opening shots in the new meme this weekend when she claimed that Republican-leaning Jews are “being exploited” and that Republicans are merely “using [support for] Israel as an excuse, what they really want are tax cuts for the wealthy. So Israel, that can be one reason they put forth.” In other words, Jews, like blacks and women and everyone else before them are too stupid to realize that the Republicans are only lying to them about their beliefs and only want their votes so we can cut taxes on the wealthy. This woman is insane.

Interestingly, Pelosi must have realized calling Jews stupid was a bad move, so she quickly added this little contradiction: “And they’re smart people. They follow these issues. But they have to know the facts.” How can they both know the issues and yet not know the facts? That’s like saying, “he understands football, he just doesn’t know how football works.” Then she proceeded to explain some of the facts these silly deluded Jews didn’t know:

“The fact is that President Obama has been the strongest person in terms of sanctions on Iran, which is important to Israel. He’s been the strongest person on whether it’s Iron Dome, David’s Sling, any of these weapons systems and initiatives that relate to Israel. He has been there over and over again.”

Ok, so they didn’t realize that Obama has been pushing sanctions, that he’s been “the strongest person” on various weapons systems being built by Israel, and that he’s been to Israel. Uh... if they don’t know these “facts” then can we really say they know the issues? These aren’t factors anyone who “knows the issues” could have missed. Frankly, I’m finding her whole line of “you’re so deluded but you’re really smart but you don’t actually know jack” a tad bit insulting. Also, I should point out that Obama has not yet visited Israel even once since he's been in office, so she’s lying. . . as usual

Anyway, this weekend also saw Obama using foreign policy for electoral gain. Romney has been talking about Israel. He also just visited. And his speeches have gone down rather well. Said Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu about Romney’s Nevada foreign policy speech, “Mitt, I couldn't agree with you more.” Netanyahu also pointed out this about those sanctions Pelosi thinks Israel wants:

“We have to be honest and say that all the sanctions and diplomacy so far have not set back the Iranian program by one iota. And that's why I believe that we need a strong and credible military threat coupled with the sanctions to have a chance to change that situation.”

So much for Pelosi’s facts. Romney, by the way, said in Israel that he has a “zero tolerance” policy toward Iran obtaining nuclear capability and said:

“Make no mistake: the ayatollahs in Tehran are testing our moral defenses. They want to know who will object, and who will look the other way. My message to the people of Israel and the leaders of Iran is one and the same: I will not look away; and neither will my country.”

One of his advisors even said that Romney would respect Israel’s right to strike Iran unilaterally.

So guess what mysteriously happened this weekend? SOMEONE let slip that Team Obama has presented Israel with a plan of attack for striking Iran. Let’s be honest. Obama’s national security team chose this weekend to leak that they have a plan to attack Israel because Romney’s speech was very well received and his support among Jews is growing. This leak is a disgusting political ploy which risks the lives of US personnel in the event of an attack, and it fits the pattern of leaks Team Obama has been guilty of in trying to make their effete foreign policy seem more muscular. Heads needs to start rolling for these leaks.

This administration really needs to be shown the door.

99 days to go!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Are We About To Bomb Iran? Yep.

I mentioned the other day that Obama seems to be getting ready to bomb Iran before the election. Not only do I stand by that, but I think the evidence for it is growing. If I’m reading the signs right, look for three weeks of bombing at the end of August.

Before we hit the evidence, let me dispel a few conservative myths. Contrary to what people with Obama Derangement Syndrome will tell you, Obama’s foreign policy is remarkably similar to Bush’s foreign policy. His rhetoric is weaker, but his actual policies are the same. Indeed, he’s almost been trigger-happy by comparison. He’s authorized thousands of drone strikes in countries like Pakistan, Yemen and throughout Africa (things Bush was afraid to do), he’s authorized the bombing of Libya, and he’s sent US troops into a half-dozen conflicts. He’s authorized the killing of American citizens who are suspected terrorists, he hasn’t renounced “enhanced interrogation,” and he even tried to erase the legal existence of the people they are holding at Gitmo. All in all, he’s been more than willing to fight.

Moreover, his latest chest thumping about killing Osama bin Laden, tells us that he thinks it will be vital to his re-election to appear tough. What this means is that Obama is willing and able to strike and most likely sees it as being in his interests to strike before the election.

But how do we know he will strike Iran? Well, for starters, he’s been laying the groundwork for some time. For two years, Obama spoke incessantly about sanctions while promising carrot after carrot if Iran would just play nice. They didn’t. And he can now tell his supporters he tried. Then last year, things began to change. The IAEA issued a stinging report saying that not only was Iran cheating, but that they would soon have a bomb. Meanwhile, Obama’s people created this bizarre story of Iran working with Mexican narco-gangs to assassinate people in the US. That story didn’t wash (except Rick Santorum believed it) but it signified a rhetorical shift toward getting the public ready for a possible attack. And with each of the Republican candidates buying into the need for an attack (except Ron Paul), Obama now has a green light to act.

At the same time, Obama apparently authorized the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and authorized the use of sophisticated computer virus attacks against Iran’s nuclear capabilities. These are acts you take before an attack, not when you are just passing time.

Now we’re suddenly getting a slew of clues that something is imminent:

● A few weeks ago, Obama moved a second aircraft carrier into the region. American attacks in the modern era always use two carriers. And they are rarely together otherwise.

● The troops in Iraq, who would have been a major target for Iranian counter-attacks, have been removed to safer Arab countries.

● A few months ago, Obama approved the sale of a sophisticated anti-missile system to the United Arab Emirates for $3.6 billion. Why would something like that be needed? To make them less nervous about hosting US troops should hostilities break out and to protect US troops in the country.

● Then last week, we learned that the Air Force positioned F-22 Raptors (the latest generation stealth fighter/penetrator) in those very same UAE. The F-22 is the perfect plane to get through Iran’s defensive grid. The Air Force claims this is all just a normal deployment, except that’s not true. The Air Force does not send F-22 Raptors to just anywhere.

● Yesterday, Obama signed an Executive Order allowing the US to boycott anyone who still does business with Iran. Notice the lack of fanfare. That’s key here because when countries aren’t ready to fight, they bang the table and make threats. When they are preparing to fight, they go silent and don’t trumpet their actions. And my guess is this Order will allow the seizure of assets at a critical time.

● Also yesterday, Prime Minister Netanyahu for the first time mentioned moving elections up from November to August. Why? Because you can’t start an attack if you’re going to go before the voters right after it begins. This suggests the timeline is a late-August attack.

● And then this came out last night. The Pentagon has leaked that it is revising its defense strategy in accordance with current threats. Mentioned in the assessment is that U.S. Central Command is conducting “war planning” for Iran, with the belief that we can destroy Iran’s conventional armed forces in about three weeks “using air and sea strikes.” Further, the Pentagon is “now conducting a step-by-step surge of forces in the Gulf.” Specifically mentioned were “maintaining two aircraft carriers in the region and increasing the number of mine-detection ships and helicopters” as well as the deployment of the F-22. In other words, everything I mentioned above.

All this tells me that the Pentagon is getting ready to strike. It’s building the military capability and it has already assured the neighbors, who no doubt already gave a green light or we would be hearing screaming. Politically, Obama has clearly coordinated with Israel and is factoring this attack into his election plan. He’s also set the Treasury up to seize Iranian assets once the shooting starts.

Based on Israel and how unlikely it is that the Air Force would leave the F-22’s sitting over there too long or the Navy would leave two carriers floating in the gulf longer than necessary, I would expect an attack no later than the end of August, with the current plan being three weeks of bombing.

So the next question is will this help Obama's re-election chances? I doubt it. Weak- appearing leaders tend to get hurt when they start wars because people see it as a desperate attempt to look tough. Libya gave Obama his standard three point bounce which faded almost before it was recorded. I would expect this will give him a 10% bounce, which will fade in week two of the bombing and go negative if bombing goes on beyond three weeks. . . which it will. Plus, as he's shown with his Afghanistan garbage, he will quickly try to politicize it, and that will truly anger average Americans.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Iran: Sanctioning Stupity

I always enjoy it when The Economist presents insanely stupid liberal arguments with a straight face. That’s high entertainment, like exquisite parody. The latest example involves an attempt to explain why Obama is doing just fine in his efforts to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. This argument is so awful that a child could see the problems with it. But apparently, The Economist can’t.

The Economist’s argument runs like this. First, they claim that Obama is on the verge of solving the Iranian problem because he just signed a measure into law which imposes “sanctions of unprecedented severity.” Yep. Specifically, these sanction will “ban” sales of Iranian oil to Europe, Japan and South Korea, who currently account for 40% of Iran’s sales. It will also “punish any foreign financial institution transacting business with Iran’s central bank.” This is meant to pressure Iran into stopping its development of nuclear weapons and “to show a jumpy Israel that there is an alternative to a military attack.” This is important because a military attack would raise tensions and might not actually work.

Makes sense, right?

Well, that depends on whether or not you keep reading the article. For in the very next breath, The Economist admits that skeptics “are entitled to ask” if sanctions will really work, “given that a variety of sanctions over the past 30 years has failed to change Iran’s behavior.”

Ok, let’s stop right there. This 30-years-of-failure fact tells us that the skeptics have been 100% right for 30 years now and what The Economist proposes has a miserable track record of absolute failure. Hence, the skeptics are more than just “are entitled to ask.” To the contrary, they are entitled to laugh uproariously at this idiotic suggestion. Indeed, what The Economist is doing fits Einstein’s definition of insanity -- doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Also, let’s be clear, this is the same Economist which claims that sanctions against Cuba can’t work but which now says they will work in Iran.

So why does The Economist think these will work? Because these sanctions are different. These are “sanctions of unprecedented severity” (sounds like “rodents of unusual size”). Indeed, according to The Economist, these sanctions will finally hurt the regime because they will stop Iran from selling its oil! Ah ha! Take that you Iranians! And take that too you dirty “Republican candidates” who are cynically trying to “depict Mr. Obama as weak.”

Yep, Obama is great. The end.

Oh wait, there are more words in this article. Words like this: “China, which is Iran’s biggest trading partner and has little truck with sanctions, will probably take up much of the slack created by Europe and America’s Asian allies.” Hmm. So Iran will shift its sales from Europe to China and Iranian sales will decrease by exactly 0%. Interesting. And no one at The Economist thought this might make their description of these as “sanctions of unprecedented severity” suddenly seem rather ridiculous? No one thought that Iran suffering NO economic consequences at all from these sanctions meant their estimate that “the latest sanctions will cause [Iran] more pain,” could perhaps be completely and utterly wrong?

It gets worse.

See, it turns out that this could be bad for Europe and the US: “the fragile economies of Europe and America would suffer if Iran’s oil exports disappeared from the world market.” Now think about this. This means these powerful sanctions will result in ZERO harm to Iran, but could tip the West into recession, thereby weakening Iran’s enemies. Yet The Economist, with a straight face, says this is “nevertheless worthwhile.”

Soooooo, let me see how this logic works. Doing something that hurts you but not the person you want to hurt is worthwhile because it will somehow force them to change their behavior. Hmm. Well, in that light, I think we should shoot pineapples up the rear ends of everyone who works for The Economist. That might just be what’s needed to stop Iran. Sure, I can guarantee you that it won’t actually do anything to Iran and it will certainly hurt the staff at The Economist, but it’s “nevertheless worthwhile” because. . . well, because it is. Problem solved, crack the bubbly!

Idiots.

Anyways, the pineapple sitters at The Economist aren’t done supporting their argument. They say, it’s clear that Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz is proof that the mere threat of these sanctions has put the regime under strain.

Of course, it’s more likely the Hormuz threat is a direct response to Israel fueling up its jets. But let’s not confuse The Economist with facts or logics as they clearly are not equipped the handle either. Also, for the record, this is the same threat Iran makes whenever something displeases it. They made it during the Iran-Iraq war, in response to the 30-years of ineffective sanctions, in response to UN reports, in response to Gulf Wars I & II, Saudi saber rattling, movies they didn’t liked, etc. In other words, thinking this threat shows a regime under pressure is purely wishful thinking.

The Economist also thinks Iran is worried about the Arab Spring. Of course, it conveniently ignores the fact that Iran already had its spring and the springers lost.

Finally, it suggests offering Iran “a carrot” by telling it everything it stands to gain if it just starts playing nice. This is idiocy. Can they really believe that Iran doesn’t know what it could gain or lose either way and hasn’t made a rational decision that it has more to gain going this route? “Wait Ahmed, you mean the Americans will open a McDonalds in Tehran if we stop trying to kill them? Why has no one told me this before?!”

The Economist also suggests we could promise to enrich their uranium for them. Yay! Never mind that this was only ever a temporary suggestion to slow Iran’s own enrichment and it’s been offered twice, by France the first time and then Brazil and South Africa the second, and Iran laughed it off because they want to build a bomb.

Liberalism is a mental condition and articles like this prove it. No human being with even a hint of intelligence could think that a plan which would do no harm except to the person proposing the plan will cause a bad guy to become a good guy. Yet here it is. I am honestly at a loss for words to describe how stupid this is.

I swear I’ve been punked.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Fruits, Newts and Nuts

Let’s keep is simple today. Let’s do a bit of a news roundup mixed with some discussion questions. Feel free to add your own thoughts on anything else that comes to mind.

● You Dirty Fruits: Check out the article Patti found (HERE) dealing with Islam’s war against the perverted fruits and vegetables that will lead women astray. Not coincidentally, Saudi Arabia just executed a woman for “sorcery.” The religion of peace, huh? Sounds like an Erectile-Dysfunction-Idiocracy.

● Our Impotent President, Part 507: Speaking of impotence, the military lost a drone the other day over Iran. Obama failed to allow the military to destroy the drone. This news has gone virtually unreported, but here’s why it’s important. In the 1990s, when Clinton decided to bomb Serbia, a stealth fighter crashed. The US failed to recover most of that plane. It is now believed that Chinese agents acquired the parts and used them to engineer their own stealth fighter, which they recently showed to the world. Letting Iran have this drone was stupid. It gives Iran the capability to make very long range, cheap drones. If a fleet of these things appears over Israel in a couple years, think back on Obama’s decision.

● Tebowmania: Is Tim Tebow for real? How far will Denver go? Is this the greatest story or what? Where does all the hate come from against this kid? And do you think God really is helping Tebow... maybe just a little?

● International What?: With Climategate 2.0 heaping fresh disgrace upon climate change enthusiasts, the UN has gone on the offensive and proposed an International Climate Court of Justice to make Western governments pay for their climate crimes. This would impose a mandate to “respect the rights of Mother Earth” and to pay a “climate debt.” If you ever had doubts about the motivates of these enviro-fascists, this should settle it.

● Liar of the Week: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the vile DNC Chair proved yesterday that she’s delusional as well. In an interview on Fox, Debbie Dumbass actually claimed that it is a myth that unemployment went up under Obama. She repeated this several times, finishing thusly:

“Unemployment is nearing right around where it was when President Obama took office and it's dropping. You just said it's been increasing and that's not true.”

For the record, unemployment was 6% when Obama took office, it’s 9% now and that’s after millions of people stopped looking for work and thus stopped counting against the number. So is Debbie Dumbass that stupid or is she just a pathological liar?

● Newt Watch: I have resigned myself to Newt being our nominee. Hail Nero! But some conservatives and moderates (and whackos) are trying to warn us:

■ Glenn Beck: Beck said yesterday he would support Ron Paul in a third party bid before he would vote for Newt.

■ Rep. Pete King (NY): King credits Newt with winning back the House for Republicans in the 1990s. What does he think about Newt as our nominee? “He’d be a terrible nominee.” Why? Because Newt’s destructive and he’s in it for himself: “It’s not like, with Newt, you end up dying for a noble cause. You end up dying for Newt Gingrich, because he puts himself in the center of everything.”

■ New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu: Sununu gave the most direct warning:

“He has a personal priority over all else. The country comes maybe second or third. Philosophy comes maybe fifth. This is a man who is unable to prioritize needs in a constructive way. And frankly, his colleagues saw that when he was leader. . . This man is not stable.”

■ Former Gingrich collaborator Marvin Olasky: “Wisdom is knowing the difference between good and bad ideas. Newt is very intelligent; he has lots of ideas. But I’m not sure he always distinguishes between good and bad.”

■ NYT RINO David Brooks: “Gingrich loves government more than I do.”

■ National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru: “The people who know Gingrich best — the ones who worked for him, or worked with him, or watched him closely as journalists in the 1990s — have almost all concluded that he is a bad fit for the presidency. That judgment is shared by conservative and moderate congressmen, by people who support Romney and people who want an alternative to [Romney]. The common denominator is alarm at what Gingrich would do to the Republican party as nominee and to the country as president.”

● Write Ins/Drop Out: Finally, a question. Several readers (looking at T-Rav and Indi) have said they will write in the name of a suitable candidate when they get to vote. The Elves seem to be contemplating moving to Singapore. I’m buying a new pitchfork. Anyway, given the other available choices in this primary, it’s hard to say a write in would be a wasted vote. But do you think writing in someone’s name helps?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Primer: Obama/Holder v. Iran

I figured you might like a primer on the new Iranian issue, as it’s all over the headlines and it’s an issue which could actually lead to war if mishandled -- although that’s extremely unlikely. Here’s what’s up:

● What Happened: On Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the DEA and FBI had foiled a plot to murder the Saudi Arabian ambassador and blow up the Saudi and Israeli embassies. This plot was supposedly masterminded by Iran’s “elite” Quds military unit. The Quds are a special unit within Iran’s Revolutionary Guard whose job it is to “export” Iran’s Islamic revolution to other countries.

According to Holder, Manssor Arbabsiar (a Corpus Christi, Texas car salesman) was tasked by the Iranian government with finding someone to carry out the killing and the bombings. Arbabsiar turned to the nastiest of the Mexican drug cartels, Los Zetas, a group of former special forces soldiers who started their own cartel. I wrote about Los Zetas here: LINK. Arbabsiar wanted Los Zetas to do both the killing and the bombings and he wanted them to agree to funnel tons of opium from the Middle East into Mexico.

However, the person Arbabsiar contacted turned out to be a DEA informant. Whoops.

● Team Obama’s Response: The administration accuses Iran and describes this as: “a dangerous escalation of Iran's long-scale use of violence.” The reason they claim Iran did this was “the Iranians watch the Saudis roll tanks in Bahrain, and they see a key ally in Syria going down, so they step up the Quds Force.”

Joe Biden has been sent forth from the Idiotorium to take the lead on this. He described this as “really over the top” and said it was “an outrage that violates one of the fundamental premises on which nations deal with one another.” He also said that “no options have been taken off the table” for dealing with this, though the administration has already ruled out military action. Instead, they are considering sanctions, the standard response by liberals when they don’t know what to do.

● The Saudi Response: Saudi Arabia and Iran are bitter regional rivals largely because their versions of Islam consider the other to be heretics. The Saudi embassy said this was “a despicable violation of international norms, standards and conventions,” and their former head of intelligence said Iran will have to “pay the price.” They have not been more specific yet. However, Saudi Arabia does not have a military capable of defeating Iran.

● The Iranian Response: For its part, Iran denies involvement. They told the UN they are “outraged” and “strongly and categorically reject these fabricated and baseless allegations, based on the suspicious claims by an individual.” Tehran claims Obama has fabricated this to “divert attention from the Wall Street uprising.” Ha ha! They also repeated claims the US has assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists in the past two years.

For the record, the only link so far to Iran is that the car dealer apparently is a cousin of someone in the Qud and he visited Iran right before $100,000 was wired into the informant’s account by the car dealer. The FBI claims this was wired from a Qud bank account.

● The World Reaction: The world reaction has been skeptical. Iranian experts say that Arbabsiar does not fit the profile of the typical Iranian agent, who tend to be professionals. And they say it’s unlikely Iran would be behind such a plot. Similarly, an Iranian expert in Berlin said these claims would be viewed with skepticism as “everyone is extremely skeptical about US intelligence revelations” and added, “I don’t regard it as impossible but rather improbable, even if the details of the story presented by the attorney general are essentially true.”

One western diplomat said: “I don't believe Iran's regime was behind the plot. If we assume it was Iran's plot, it would seem like a group of professional gangsters hiring a careless agent for their most important project. It's impossible.”

Even a senior American law enforcement official said (on condition of anonymity) that the US isn’t quite sure what this was and it was likely a “rogue plan. . . so outside their normal track of activity.”

● Some Questions: This all leaves us with some odd questions. If we assume Holder is correct, then what will Obama do about it? Even Clinton dropped a few cruise missiles on Sudan after the embassy bombings in Africa. So Obama can’t just pretend this didn’t happen.

But if Holder is wrong, then is he simply wrong or is there more to this?

I never like conspiracies as an answer, especially when there are more likely answers -- such as this guy just being a nut job. But it is extremely coincidental that the day after Darrell Issa starts talking about subpoenaing Holder to answer for what are likely criminal acts related to Fast and Furious, that Holder manages to unveil a huge distraction involving the very elements of Fast and Furious -- DEA, drugs, Mexican cartels and cross border crime. This is one of those coincidences you can’t put in films or people will lose their suspension of disbelief.

My normal response would be to trust professional law enforcement. BUT we’ve already seen how compromised they’ve been by Democratic Justice bosses, such as when Janet Reno ordered the Branch Davidian attack to show that she was tough or the Elian Gonzalez deportation to show Castro goodwill or Holder’s actions in Fast and Furious itself, where potentially hundreds of lives have been taken or destroyed by Holder’s attempt to use the ATF for political purposes. Trust is in short supply here.

So I think we should keep an open mind at this point and not assume anything unless and until strong, verifiable, independent proof is provided.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Modern Day Christian Martyrdom

The barbarians of Central Jihadistan (or as Barack Hussein Obama calls it, the Islamic Republic of Iran) are in the final stages of deciding whether or not to hang a Christian pastor for his religious belief. The primitives are debating among themselves whether he is an apostate, a capital crime among Islamists who believe they commune directly with Mohammed the Prophet.

So far, they've largely decided it doesn't matter if he's actually a sharia-defined apostate. He's a Christian, and that's good enough. Evangelical Christian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani accepted Christianity as his faith at age nineteen. He was not a convert, which would be clear apostasy under Islamic law. He says that he was never a practicing Muslim, and the Iranian authorities have never proved otherwise. But there's always that handy-dandy thing about being born into a family where mom or dad or both are practicing Muslims.

Apostasy, even in Muslim lands, has the definite meaning of having been a practicing member of the religion of peace, then consciously leaving that clan of cave-dwellers to become a member of one of the false religions which Allah condemns (through his prophet Mohammed and the Book of Mass Murder). The Koran actually is unclear on whether apostasy by proxy such as Pastor Nadarkhani's is a crime punishable by death. But what the heck, it could be, so the Iranian clerics have found ways to make sure their blood-lust is satisfied.

Under the form of sharia law embedded in Iran's political system, the punishment for apostasy is death, but the statute under which Pastor Nadarkhani was convicted uses the far more nebulous word "abandonment" of Islam. In order to protect his parents, Pastor Nadarkhani "abandoned" the family when he was baptized as a Christian. By Iranian logic, he abandoned a Muslim family, so he abandoned Islam, and he is therefore an apostate, even though he never professed Islam himself.

The statute was passed in September of 2008, and Pastor Nadarkhani was one of the early prominent Christians to be arrested under the statute in 2009. By then, the now thirty-two year old pastor had a wife and two small children. So far, the Iranian government hasn't managed to find a sharia rule that provides death for apostasy by association, so the pastor's wife and children are temporarily not being prepared for the gallows. Still, I have no doubt that the ghoulish mullahs and ayatollahs are searching mightily for a way to take their lives as well.

Iranian "law" provides that the accused apostate must be given three opportunities to renounce his apostasy and return to the gentle arms of the religion of peace. Those opportunities were presented to Pastor Nadarkhani, and on each occasion he said "I cannot reject Jesus Christ." The founder of my church, Martin Luther, said something similar at the Diet of Worms just short of five hundred years ago. One would be hard-pressed to find an American Lutheran today who would be willing to repeat the words echoed by Pastor Nadarkhani when facing death: "I cannot, I will not recant. Here I stand. God help me I can do no other."

After passage of the statute by Iran, the European Union sent the Iranian government a letter of protest (the Europeans are very good at protesting rather than acting). It said: "In the past, the death penalty has been handed down in apostasy cases [in Iran], but it has never before been set down in law." What exactly do they think Islamic law (sharia) is? They fail to understand that in throwback Islamic nations such as Iran, the law is a creature of the religion, not a thing apart from it. All Iran did was codify what the ayatollahs had already determined was what Mohammed and Allah want.

Pastor Nadarkani's plight is only one highly-publicized case of religious suppression and state-sanctioned murder in Iran and its barbarian fellow-travelers throughout the Middle East. Thousands of less high-profile religious martyrs are being held in Iranian prisons, with drastic sentences ranging from life in prison to hanging awaiting them. Christian organizations throughout the world have been attempting to get world-wide assistance in stopping the pending execution of Pastor Nadarkhani.

Barack Obama's mouthpiece Jay Carney read a statement from the President: "A decision to impose the death penalty would further demonstrate the Iranian authorities' utter disregard for religious freedom, and highlight Iran's continuing violation of the universal rights of its citizens. We call upon the Iranian authorities to release Pastor Nadarkhani and demonstrate a commitment to basic, universal human rights, including freedom of religion."

The statement of course is something less than a revelation to anyone except possibly Obama himself. Perhaps he should have used the words of his own former pastor to say "No, no, no. God damn Iran." At least I think that's what Rev. Jeremiah Wright said. The statement comes from the same president who did everything in his power and utilizing every bit of his lack of skill in foreign diplomacy to miss the opportunity to give strong and material support to the freedom movement in Iran. He lifted not a finger to help the pro-civilization movement as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's thugs beat and murdered them by the thousands. Does he think the primitives are going to listen to him now?

In the long run if the pastor's life is spared, which we should all be praying will be the ultimate result, it will be because citizens and governments from the West put enough pressure on Iran to make it worthwhile for them to call off the hanging. It won't be because a pathetically weak American president threatened not to hug Ahmadenijad at the next U.N. confab. In order to save face, the ayatollahs will suddenly have to find a passage in the murder manual which revisits the way the pastor became a Christian so that his act of conscience does not amount to apostasy. After all, Humpty Dumpty sharia law means exactly what they say it means, no more, no less.

Lest it sound like I am not exactly a devotee of Islamic law, let me point out that I'm aware that Islam treats women far more fairly than you have been led to believe. The penalty for male apostates in Iran is death by hanging. For women, it's merely life in prison without possibility of future release.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Do We Really Want The Hikers Back?

San Francisco Chronicle headline: "U. S. Hikers Leave Iran Prison Fitter With Sean Penn to Thank." By their friends shall ye know them. Iran has kept two of the three American hikers in prison for 781 days, releasing them earlier this week. They were finally released after the Sultan of Oman paid their $1 million bail (read "ransom").

I truly hope the United States government doesn't decide to reimburse the sultan with taxpayer money for the return of these two twerps. It isn't just that they didn't have the brains to stay out of harm's way. It's the question of whether these two were worth all the breathless headlines and sob-stories that led up to their release. In case you didn't know the details, these two (along with a female companion who was released earlier) couldn't find a good hiking trail anywhere in America or Europe, so they decided to take a jaunt around the Iraq-Iran border.

All three were arrested by Iranian storm troopers and tried on charges of spying. Needless to say, they were found guilty. Is anyone brought before an Iranian court ever found not guilty? Whether they were actually inside Iranian territory is debatable, as is the question of whether or not they knew exactly where the border is. So naturally, American indignation was fanned into a blaze. American diplomacy failed to get them released. We must obtain the release of these young American innocents! How dare Iran imprison such fine young American patriots?

Despite my feelings about Iran, its insane concept of "justice," and the imprisonment of American citizens, I can't get too exercised about their incarceration nor too joyful about their release. Let's take a slightly closer look at these sweethearts. Asked why they were stupid enough to explore a waterfall in the wilds of Kurdish Iraq without a map, they acted as if the questioner was the stupid one. "This was never about crossing the unmarked border. We were held because of our nationality. We do not know if we crossed the border. We will probably never know."

I'm not one for believing anything that the government of Iran tells us, but how did the Iranians know what nationality they were when they were arrested inside Iranian territory? Their nationality may very well have been the big issue at the show trial, but it has damned little to do with their original arrest. Sarah Shourd, who was the earliest of the trio to be released (on $500,000 "bail") said: "We regret we didn't know more about the area." Well, duh.

Shourd and Shane Bauer had been shacking up with each other in Damascus before they got the brilliant idea of hiking along the Irag-Iran border with their companion, Josh Fattal. Shourd was studying Arabic and teaching English to our good Syrian friends when they all met up in Damascus. Fattal is a radical environmentalist who joined the other two just before they went hiking. When they encountered locals who spoke Farsi rather than Arabic, Shourd should have been able to figure out they weren't in Kansas anymore. And if Fattal wants to investigate waterfalls, then I suggest he visit Yosemite next time, and gaze at the wonders of Bridalveil Falls. Or Niagara, maybe.

Ironically, all three of these UC Berkeley graduates are ardent advocates of closing the detention facilities at Guantanamo. And surprise, surprise, they compare the two as if the purposes of the Iranian jails are based on the same rationale as Guantanamo and as if the two facilities are like each other. That silliness is worth another entire article, so I won't bother vetting that argument here. But whether it's Stockholm syndrome or their radical education at Berkeley, the trio found very little negative to say about their Iranian captors. (Full disclosure: These clowns are among the multiple reasons why I am not attending my 45th Berkeley reunion, despite multiple pleas, letters and e-mails from the Alumni Association).

At their homecoming festivities, the families of the former captives read a written statement in which they credited the release to Hollywood celebrities and heads of state. Chief among the former was America-hating Sean Penn. It's probably no coincidence that the Chronicle ballyhooed Penn's role, since they also used him as a "war correspondent" during the hostilities in Iraq. Among the latter group, Venezuelan socialist dictator Hugo Chavez (a great friend of Iran) received special notice, as did the Sultan of Oman (for obvious reasons).

We are expected to celebrate their safe return. Cindy Hicks (mother of Shane Bauer) praised her son's brillance in keeping fit by exercising using full water bottles as exercise equipment. Well, I guess that shows that a UC Berkeley education is worth it. "They're both thinner than when we left them," she said, "Their hair is nicely cut. They had slight gray under their eyes because they did not have much sunshine. No vitamin D." Well, that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

On the same day that the two fans of Mideast democracy returned to New York, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived at the United Nations building to make his speech damning American imperialism, touting the elimination of Israel from the face of the map, repeating his Holocaust denial, and charging capitalism with the decimation of the world economy. I'm not so sure that the unholy trinity of Bauer, Fattal and Shourd would disagree with Ahmadinejad.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Like Father, Like Son

For a couple of decades now, we’ve been subjected to the entertaining but left-skewed works of film director Oliver Stone. The torch is being passed to a new generation in the form of Stone’s son, Sean. Sean Stone has accompanied his father on grand visits to such fine people as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, and supports them as enthusiastically as his father. Sean has inherited his father’s taste for dictators and mass-murderers.

Sean is not exactly a big-time legendary actor, having appeared in small parts in his father’s movies such as The Doors, Natural Born Killers, Any Given Sunday, and most notably (or ignobly) Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. We’re supposed to believe that his acting career and his father’s tutelage will make him a great director. That may be true, but like his father, it may also make him a big-time nutcase propagandist.

Sean was returning from the Toronto Film Festival when he got cornered by reporters with nothing better to do. So they asked him about his plans to become a director in light of his recent favorable remarks about Iran and its apocalyptic leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The younger Stone bypassed arguments that Iran’s current nuclear development is all about energy-production, and went straight to defending Iran’s right to have nuclear weapons. Says Sean: “Israel has nuclear weapons, Iran has the right to them. Every nation has the right to self-determination for defense.”

Even Ahmadinejad doesn’t go so far as to admit that Iran’s nuclear facilities are going to be used for the production of nuclear weapons. He still spouts the pretense that only the production of energy is involved in those facilities, despite the fact that his nation is sitting on an ocean of oil. But like young Sean, Ahmadinejad will, if pushed, loudly and clearly proclaim Iran’s right to have nuclear arms to defend against nuclear Israel.

So, let’s count the number of times that Israel has been the aggressor in Middle East Wars. Um, zero. But it has been attacked by its Muslim neighbors many times, always to the dismay of the members of the People’s Republic of Jihadistan who lose wars like I lose car keys. Iran is about the only nearby Muslim neighbor that hasn’t attacked Israel. But a nuke or two might just make the odds more attractive. Only the blind, the stupid, and Sean Stone could believe for a minute that the weapons would be for self-defense.

Iran must be wiped off the face of the map. No, wait. It’s Israel that must be wiped off the face of the map, or so says Ahmadinejad. In a war that Iran will initiate in self-defense, no doubt. Stone doesn’t say the magic Jew words of Ahmadinejad, he merely defends them. A-Jad denies the Holocaust, says unreservedly that 9/11 was an inside job executed by the loathsome US/Israel alliance to stir up aniti-Muslim hatred, and categorically proposes that both World Wars were started by Zionists to increase their wealth and create the State of Israel.

Does Stone outright defend these vile libels? No. After all, he’s a big intellectual who is far more nuanced. Stone tosses out his defense of Ahmadinejad in a different way: “He did come to America to extend a hand. And there’s a lot of mistranslation, literally, I’ve seen it. Ahmadinejad will say something and it will be mistranslated. A lot of this is bullshit, mistranslation. It’s an aggressive attitude on both parts, mostly on the American side.”

Now how one “mistranslates” something like “Israel must be wiped off the face of the map” is entirely beyond me. But what do I know? I’m not a film maven. From daddy Oliver’s love for Castro, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and Chavez, it’s only one small step for son Sean to tout Ahmadinejad and Iran. Sean even makes sure you understand how well he knows Iran and its regime by stating “Iran is ruled by law.” Yep, Sharia law. You know, the law that would wipe out most of his potential stars because of homosexuality, lack of Islamic devotion, and general all-around immorality since Iranian Sharia requires death for each of those offenses.

Stone also supports the right of benign leaders like Ahmadinejad to maintain law and order against pesky dissidents. When challenged about Ahmadinejad’s brutal suppression of the growing freedom movement in Iran, Stone shot back: “People don’t like Ahmadinejad, but that doesn’t warrant a war or an uprising.” Stone has previously supported exactly that in several nations during the “Arab Spring.” But a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, and Sean has no doubt that his mind is big enough to pick and choose which rebellions to support.

Iran has arrested or banned all Iranian film-makers who have dared to utter a word of criticism against the current regime. In this, A-Jad has had the active assistance of the ayatollahs. But there probably won’t be the same enmity toward Stone, who apparently knows more about the lack of repression in Iran than actual Iranians and sees the actions of the regime as simply avoiding civil unrest. If an American cop looks the wrong way at a property-damaging anti-government rioter, Stone goes off the cliff in his condemnation of brutal, fascist American tactics. But in Iran, where enforcement of civil order includes government-sanctioned rape and summary execution, well, we just don’t understand Iran as well as he does.

So what is Stone actually planning—film-wise? He says he wants to introduce Persian culture and civilization to the West in his upcoming films. He had better introduce them to the Ahmandinejad regime first, since anything that doesn’t comport with the ayatollahs’ primitive form of Islam is ruthlessly suppressed. Omar Khayyam would have been hanged from the mosque minaret if only for his admiration of “comely youths.” Any culture that was uniquely Persian prior to its Islamization has been wiped from the official registry of Iranian culture.

Knowing that Stone will be welcomed with open arms and open wallets by the Hollywood crowd, I want to cash in on his future fame. I am writing a movie script for him in which it is revealed that a Jew who hated the ayatollahs conspired with the Mafia and the CIA to assassinate John Kennedy by using a Kaballah-blessed magic bullet. It should be a big hit, and Sean can pride himself on the fact that he discovered the true conspiracy that his father missed when making JFK. Maybe I’m a film maven after all. Anyone have a suggestion for a working title?

EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT! At 7 PM (Eastern/Blogger Time), 4 PM (Pacific Time) The T-Rav Sockpuppet Theater will live blog the Republican debates and at the same time give you plenty of time to make pre-debate predictions. Come early, stay late.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Crips vs. Bloods--Iran Style

What mainstream press and TV there has been concerning unrest in Iran has largely been about the pro-democracy movement and demonstrations against the most recent rigged presidential election. But the story that is little covered is the clash between the two oppressive factions which are running Iran.

In Libya, Egypt and Syria, the clashes are between the Muslim radical public and the Muslim repressive regimes. It's a choice between arsenic and cyanide. Whoever wins, it's bad for the West. The clashes are painted as pro-democracy, anti-dictatorship, but that is just plain wishful thinking. If there's any democratic tendency there at all, it's the typical "one man, one vote, one time" version. Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood have their fingerprints all over the uprisings.

The pro-democracy movement in Iran actually has strong underpinnings of democratic desire. Two generations of young people have grown up under the thumb of presidential tyrants and apocalyptic ayatollahs. The large student population is well-educated, and if there is any such thing as moderate Muslim thought and genuine democratic sentiment in the Middle East, you're most likely to find it in Iran. Still, the movement has little physical ability to overthrow a sophisticated, well-armed militaristic government. Tepid support from the United States and the West, combined with in-your-face determination from the Iranian regime has left the democracy movement to die aborning.

The only thing that might distract the Iranian powers-that-be and give the democracy movement a chance to be reborn is the battle between madman president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and insane Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. There has been bad blood between the two and their factions for some time, but only recently have the "blood threats" actually materialized. In the past few days, they've spilled into the streets. On Saturday, supporters of the two nutcases met in violent confrontations in Tehran. The security forces which are supposed to break up unauthorized demonstrations are reported to have simply stepped aside. The same paramilitary teams that ruthlessly suppressed the pro-democracy demonstrators seemed unable to choose a side in this conflict.

There were clashes throughout other parts of the capital city, but the numbers were smaller and the presence of the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij militia kept bloodshed to a minimum. The more disorganized local anti-riot police didn't seem to be able to prevent roving confrontations between the highly-mobile, black-garbed demonstrators. In the Naarmak section of Tehran, the bustling clerical businesses which double as funeral homes and places of worship have become hastily-converted barracks. The two sides seem to have split the barracks about equally. But since Naarmak is the home base of Ahmadinejad, security forces are pouring into the area. Contrariwise, the Avlieh Amr, troops loyal to the ayatollah, have surrounded the Shaheed Mottahari Complex where his and the president's offices are located.

Several observers have reported that they found it hard to tell from their clothing and arms which group was which. But when they clashed in the streets, the demonstrators themselves seemed to have no problem telling friend from foe. Separation of mosque and state is not an issue in this gang fight. The impossibly-knotted political/religious nature of fundamentalist Islam makes this a clear battle between the secular-religious president and the religious-secular ayatollah. And then you have to add the additional ingredient of the Islamic belief-system unique to Iran and its current leaders.

The whole wonderful mess seems to have started with a movie produced a few months back. A "documentary" entitled The Coming Is Upon Us was commissioned by Ahmadinejad. It played on an Iranian Muslim theme centered on the return of the "mahdi" also known as the twelfth or "hidden imam." It is a Shiite belief that has become particularly potent in fundamentalist Iranian religious practice. And like apocalytpic Christian belief, it posits that the end times are coming very soon. The true believers are convinced that the hidden imam is already among them. And therein lies the conflict.

Ahmadinejad maneuvered the filmmakers into painting a picture that was designed to lead toward the belief that he is that hidden imam. Khamenei took strong exception. Neither has actually claimed to be the hidden imam, but their followers have made that claim on their separate behalves. The two leaders are pointing their fingers at each other over the issue, but Khamenei got the jump on Ahmadinejad by getting the clerics in the holy city of Qom to denounce the movie as empowering the West to divide the Iranian faithful while also revealing the "private" beliefs of Iranian Islam.

The opening salvo came when Ahmadinejad fired Minister of Intelligence Heidar Moslehi, and Khamenei reinstated him. A common religious belief had to step aside for the resolution of the question "who's in charge here?" Moslehi was too close to the ayatollah for the president's tastes, while Khamenei wanted to maintain control over Iran's spy rings. Fundamentalist clerics quickly rallied behind the ayatollah, announcing that disobedience of the ayatollah was an offense against Allah.

Khamenei's faction subsequently arrested two dozen prominent political figures who supported Ahmadinejad, and used their intelligence wing to block pro-Ahmadinejad websites. He even went so far as to arrest the prayer leader of the presidential palace. That resulted in Ahmadinejad's use of the Revolutionary Guard to threaten "blood in the streets." That was no idle threat, and came to fruition this past weekend.

This is a falling-out among thieves that Westerners should be able to enjoy and Israelis should cheer. Every day the two factions go at each other is another day that Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are distracted from their duties to destroy Western civilization and wipe Israel off the map. Meanwhile, if the bloody dispute grows, the Obama administration and the MSM (mostly one and the same) will have to take notice of it. This should be an interesting test for the Obama administration. It can't claim it supports the pro-democracy faction since neither side represents anything faintly representing democracy. Both sides claim that Allah is on their side. How can a good Christian like Barack Hussein Obama claim to know which is right?

It's too early to tell if this conflict will grow into a major battle between Satan and Beelzebub. But if it does, will President Obama grasp the opportunity to use American intelligence agencies to help stir the pot? And will he at the same time grasp the opportunity to give real, genuine support to the pro-democracy movement that could benefit from the dueling dictators? Given his weak-kneed personality, it is more likely that he will stand back and wait to see which faction wins, then give another mealy-mouthed speech praising the growing warmth between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. He doesn't know enough history to see that this is just the conflict between Hitler and Roehm written in Farsi.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Hypocrite: (noun) Obama.

Obama is an awful President. He’s also a hypocrite. From his heavy vacationing and lavish spending at the same time he’s telling the rest of us to tighten our belts, to his wife's diet-tribes, to his tax cheat cabinet, to his exempting his friends from his own policies, to his strange disparate handling of issues in the Middle East, he’s a hypocrite.

Hypocrisy One: Vacation-O-bamarama

You may recall the late unpleasantness, i.e. the recession that cost millions of Americans their jobs or significant pay cuts. Unemployment hit a level not seen since the inept Jimmy Carter. Tax revenues are down too. So both individuals and governments from Spain to China to Wisconsin to California have been forced to tighten their belts. Obama even spoke some words of sympathy to us, assuring us he felt our pain. Only, he didn’t. Obama never stopped taking luxury vacations. This week, Michelle Obama is in Vail, enjoying a wonderful skiing holiday with her fabulous friends, as they gorge on ribs.

But never fear all of the “personal expenses” were paid by the Obamas. Ok, what about the rest of it? The plane, the staff, the security and their room and board? We're paying for that.

At least she didn’t bring O’Biden, he’s in the Florida Keys for a well (un)deserved vacation.

And don’t get me started on the food hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy Two: Do As I Say Taxpayer. . .

You should have known something was wrong the moment Obama started advocating tax increases “for the rich” at the same time he tried to pack his cabinet with tax evaders. Seriously, how is it that so many of his people felt they didn’t have to pay the same taxes we do? Then came ObamaCare. Did you notice how hard Team Obama worked to make sure the healthcare plans belonging to his union buddies would not be subject to the Cadillac tax? Somehow, the taxes were good for everyone else, but not Obama’s friends. And everyone in Congress and the White House were exempted from ObamaCare. Why? Then we learned that hundreds of friends of Obama were submitting waiver requests so ObamaCare wouldn’t apply to them, and GE got a waiver from EPA rules it had been lobbying for.

Do as I say, not as I do, indeed.

Hypocrisy Three: Some Oppressors Are Worse Than Others

Remember how Obama didn’t care at all about terrorism until it hit an African country? In fact, he couldn’t even bring himself to say the word. . . “man-made disaster” my shiny butt.

Then we had a true moment of inspiration on the international front, as a people, tired of their brutally oppressive government, rose up and tried to bring down their insane dictator. I’m talking, of course, about Iran. As the protestors took to the streets in Iran, Obama said.... nothing. As the army beat the protestors, tear gassed them and shot them, Obama said.... nothing. A few days later, he went on television to proclaim his fondest hopes that both sides would play nicely. As if the protestors were the bad guys!

Obama had another chance when crowds rose up against the thuggish leader of Tunisia. He said nothing.

Then came Egypt. After an initial period where he, O’Biden and Shillary Clinton sent the mixiest of mixed signals, Obama finally got his foreign policy legs and came down firmly on the side of freedom against this not especially repressive regime, who happened to be a long term American ally. So we finally have the new Obama Doctrine, right? Obama would now side with the people?

Well, no. He hasn’t said jack about Libya. As Gaddafi’s army guns down protestors by the hundreds, Obama spent his time fretting about a dispute between Democrats and Republicans in Wisconsin. There is no legitimate foreign policy distinction to be made here. If anything, he should have be more vocal against people who aren’t our allies, like Iran and Libya, and people who are gunning down their own citizens. Yet he doesn't. Why?

Because the man is a bully. He throws his weight around against people who won’t fight back, and he remains noticeably silent as evil dictators mow down their own citizens. At the same time, let me remind you that Obama used to rail against Bush for supporting dictators throughout the world. . . the same dictators he now coddles or whose atrocities he turns a blind eye to in places like Libya, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Venezuela, etc.

Unless I'm missing something here, the man is a hypocrite. Is that how you see it?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Iran Calls Off Its Ships

Oops. Wrong picture. That's the Spanish Armada. I wanted to post a picture of the Iranian "flotilla" attempting to send "humanitarian aid" to Gaza. But that picture will not be available, since Iran backed away from its commitment to join the other Muslim terror ships attempting to break the Israeli blockade.

The Iranian ship (or ships) was supposed to join the latest flotilla yesterday (Sunday). But they got cold feet at the last minute. Iran set up its own "relief committee" of fellow Muslim Israel-haters called The International Conference for the Support of the Palestinian Intifada. Its chief spokesman, Secretary General Hossein Sheikholeslam, announced "the trip is not going to happen." Instead of the usual "we ain't scared a no Jews" rhetoric, the thrust changed slightly: "Due to the restrictions from the occupying Zionist regime, it was decided that this ship would not sail. The Zionist regime has made the blockade a political issue and we do not wish to politicise this kind of humanitarian aid because the most important thing for us is to break the blockade of Gaza. Therefore, we have canceled the sailing."

But what really caused Iran to back off and decide that it would try to get supplies to Gaza by other routes? Sheikholeslam himself told us. "The voyage was canceled because Israel had sent a letter to the United Nations saying the presence of Iranian and Lebanese ships in the Gaza area will be considered a declaration of war on that regime, and it will confront it (emphasis added)." That's a whole lot different rhetoric from "we will wipe Israel off the map," now isn't it?

For a country which claims to have superior forces and a complete lack of fear of Israel, Iran suddenly sounds pretty shaky about taking on a nation which has declared that there is now a line drawn, and if certain states cross it, it's war. Internally, and out of public sight and hearing, I'm guessing that Iran is finally getting the message that Israel is on the brink of doing the job the United Nations and the cowards in Washington DC won't do. Israel is letting Iran know that Iran's assistance to terrorists in Palestine is not a good enough diversion from their nuclear ambitions. Israel is further making it clear that it's about ready to accept not one more provocation from its sworn enemy in Tehran.

Michael Ledeen at PajamasMedia wonders what would happen if the jellyfish in the White House suddenly developed the same backbone and announced that any attacks on Israel would be tantamount to an attack on America (anybody remember John Kennedy and the Cuban Missile blockade?). He also points out, appropriately, that Bush had that opportunity as well, and didn't take it. Fair enough.

Even something less than total defeat in a military confrontation with America and Israel could very well be the catalyst that reawakens the opposition in Iran and brings about the fall of the Iranian dictatorship. A direct confrontation with Israel in the flotilla, assuming it failed, would probably be a mortal blow to the ayatollahs and Imadinnerjacket. It would also mean the death of imprisonment of Iranians when the whole idea is to have Arabs become martyrs with Iranians egging them on. Israel, 1. Iran, 0. America, on the sidelines.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Snookered--Again.

Earlier in the week, our brilliant president got one-upped by third world countries and the canny Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And in the process, we seem to have lost any influence we had with one of our former allies. Turkey is now spitting in America's face as part of a growing Islamic coalition, with the help of socialist Brazil. Well done, Mr. Obama.

The growing crisis of Iran and its influence with its neighbors requires the talents of true experts in diplomacy, particularly the iron fist in the velvet glove. Instead we have the most lily-livered president since Jimmy Carter and a diplomatic corps made of morons, cowards, liars, and an occasional America-hater. It has been reported by multiple sources that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had put her faith in the perfidious Lula da Silva of Brazil to mediate an effort to turn Iran away from further sanctions, and was caught "completely off-guard" when he failed utterly.

One of the weakest and most exploitable traits of this administration is its ridiculously high expectations in its own ability to influence, and its complete lack of backup plans when their expectations are not fulfilled. Not only should Clinton not ever have relied on da Silva to broker any kind of decent deal, but she should have been prepared to tell Iran that if this UN-backed effort failed, we would be forced to act independently in consultation with our NATO allies to force Iran to rid itself of fissionable material, nuclear bomb plans, and missile delivery systems purchases.

But given Obama's track record so far, that threat would have meant absolutely nothing. Obama's knees are weak, and he's well-known for avoiding personal failures by abandoning and humiliating former allies (personal and international). Ahmadinejad has exploited Obama's weaknesses at every turn. He knows that Obama's policy is to speak softly, and carry a nerf bat. The Three Stooges were more dangerous and more believable than anything that is coming out of this White House.

Of course that other canny tyrant, Vladimir Putin, pushed his puppet president Dmitri Medvedev into setting the stage for guaranteed failure by by having Medvedev announce that "Brazil's efforts were the last chance to avoid sanctions." That worked very nicely. And when may we expect those sanctions to go into effect, Mr. Medvedev? At the same time, China didn't even have to pretend it might support sanctions.

Meanwhile, back at the tent, former ally Turkey hopped into the game and announced that in the interests of world peace (God help us), Turkey would accept low-enriched uranium from Iran in exchange for selling Iran fuel-rods of uranium for use in (get this) a Tehran medical research research reactor. Ahmandinejad keeps upping the ante, and with each threat finds an even cleverer way to outmaneuver the wimpy and incompetent Obama State Department.

Obama, a devotee of the United Nations, is going to have a hard time knocking either Brazil or Turkey for stabbing America in the back. The two nations have alternating rotating seats on the UN Security Council, and have innate clout with Obama because of his UN worship. Once again, thanks to the amateur from the South Side of Chicago, America has painted itself into a corner. Even the pro-Obama Los Angeles Times recognizes what a foolish move has been made. Says the Times: America is now in the position of having to "face a choice of rejecting the deal and appearing intransigent, or accepting it, potentially allowing Iran to defuse mounting international pressures through an infinite delay."

Clinton, on the other hand, learned everything she knows from the former Philanderer in Chief, husband Bill Clinton. Thanks to similar diplomatic detours, North Korea today is not only armed with nukes and missile delivery systems, they also have an excellent computer network. A few more Democratic administrations like this, and America will be entirely without a nuclear arsenal to protect itself, and the penguins in Antarctica will be launching 100 megaton hydrogen bombs at us within a couple of decades.

An old and honored diplomatic rule is "never back your opponent into a corner from which he cannot retreat, and from which he cannot advance without all-out attack." Ahmadinejad knows that Obama will retreat all the way into that corner, cower for awhile, and then attack--verbally and verbosely. On the other hand, Clinton-style diplomacy leaves Iran half-way around the world from any corner, and Ahmadinejad would be more than willing to launch an all-out attack to bring on his Islamic version of Armageddon.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Hang On To Your Hat

Beside the hot air Barack Obama has been blowing at him, there's another hot wind blowing in the Middle East. Afghanistan's questionably elected president Hamid Karzai just paid a visit to his counterpart in Washington, DC. The two agreed that they must dismantle the Afghan insurgency, but the word "Taliban" hardly arose. After all, Karzai recently told Obama he might join the Taliban if Obama didn't lay off his criticism.

During the DC confab, the two leaders spoke a great deal about how they should handle the issue of the unnamed insurgents in the border regions with Pakistan. But during those discussions, the 500 pound gorilla in the room went unnoticed--Iran. It would appear from statements made by Karzai subsequent to the meetings with Obama that Iran was far too insignificant a problem for the two great ones to bother with.

So at a White House appearance, Karzai casually mentioned how important friendly relations with Iran are to his country. This occurred during a joint press conference, while Obama looked on with his usual stone face. The buddy-buddy routine about Iran didn't seem to phase the messiah at all. It's almost as if he fully expected it. Karzai apparently found nothing inconsistent about saying that though "Afghanistan is a partner and a friend of the United States--the U.S. is our greatest contributor to stability," still "Afghanistan's position here is clear to our brothers and counterparts in Iran." Brothers? Counterparts?

In case we didn't understand the first time. Karzai repeated that Afghanistan wants to be friends with both Iran and the United States (in that order). "Afghanistan is engaged in a strong, steady, long-term relationship with America. We also spoke to our American counterparts that Iran is our neighbor and brother. They have contributed to the Afghan reconstruction. We hope to remain friendly with both." So you get it, right? Iran has been declared a terrorist state, and by its own declarations will see to the destruction of both Israel and America. Nice friends, Hamid. Since they're a neighbor, will you wander across the border and ask "Hi, neighbor, may I borrow a nuke or two?"

Obama's mouthpiece, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, said on Tuesday that "We've given [Iran], I think, plenty of opportunity with which to join the international community, but being part of the international community means living up to the obligations and the treaties that you sign that are part of the international community. You can't be part of the international community and then not live up to your responsibilities as it relates to nuclear activities." Obama showed no signs of discomfort at Karzai announcing his friendship with a nation that lies about its nuclear activities.

Obama's own State Department says: "Iran remained unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qaeda members it has detained, and has refused to publicly identify those senior members in custody. Iran has repeatedly resisted numerous calls to transfer custody of its al-Qaeda detainees to their countries of origin or third countries for trial. Iran also continued to fail to control the activities of some al-Qaeda members who fled to Iran following the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan." Piffle. Details. Why should this have any impact on Obama's warm feelings toward Karzai and his friends in Iran?

This is all part of a pattern of Obama behavior. He harshly criticized Karzai long-distance over the obviously crooked elections in Afghanistan that retained Karzai as president. But when Karzai came into town, robe and hat and all, Obama is suddenly either dumbstruck or cowed. As with all the Middle East dictators, potentates and simple crooks who come to the White House, Obama becomes obsequious. For some reason unknown to me, the only White House guest whom Obama has outright insulted, humiliated and ignored, was ally Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. Maybe Netanyahu just has the wrong friends and neighbors. It makes me wonder when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be invited to enjoy the comforts of the Lincoln Bedroom.

On a somewhat related matter, today is Armed Forces Day. Instituted to remember and honor our men and women who have fallen in service to their nation, the flag should be raised briskly to the top of the staff, then lowered respectfully to half-staff until evening.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Durka Durka, What A Burqa !

Iran has decided to give up its bid for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council. Whew! We dodged that bullet. But wait! There's more! The Islamic Republic of Iran, as it is affectionately known by Barack Hussein Obama, has bigger fish to fry. With a tough vote facing them for the Human Rights Council, the liberal government of Iran snuck its way onto the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women instead. No, seriously. I mean it. Stop laughing.

Obama and his administration were, as usual, absent without leave when the motion to allow Iran on the Women's Commission was raised. With the help of the non-action by eleven other western democracies, Iran got the seat. Iran's application went entirely unchallenged, which proves that the United Nations is either as totally under the spell of radical Islam as we've suggested a few times, or its members have the most twisted sense of humor in all of human history.

If the U.N. ever creates a Commission on Gay Rights, I'm sure Iran will immediately get the chairmanship. As it is, starting in 2011, Iran will be instrumental in setting U.N. policy on women worldwide for four years. The seating of Iran on the Commission comes about a week after a senior Islamic cleric in Tehran pronounced that "immodest dress and behavior by women is to blame for an increase in earthquakes." Very enlightened, and very scientific. Buckle your seatbelts, ladies, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Among the issues paramount to the Commission is gender-equality. A group of 200 Iranian women's rights advocates had warned the U. N. in an open letter that Iranian membership "would be a serious threat to the Commission's goals and mission, and would curtail progress and the advancement of women." That sounds like an understatement to me. Had America, Canada, Australia or any of the European nations on the Economic and Social Council which controls the membership of the Commission raised an objection, there would have been a debate followed by a secret ballot in which Iran might not have been so lucky. But at the U.N., as in Anglo-American common law, silence shows consent. So Iran was placed on the Commission by acclamation.

Since there were two seats open on the Asia Regional group, and only two names were placed in contention, Iran and Thailand are now the two happy new members. Iran is a cesspool of male oppression of women, and Thailand is one step away from civil war. Definitely the right choices for the two open seats. Allegedly, the Asian caucus decided on the two nations in order to strike a deal with Iran to drop its bid for a seat on the Human Rights Council. I guess they figured that it was better that Iran be involved in oppressing only half the world's population rather than oppressing men and women equally.

The United States State Department has previously issued papers which state that "Provisions in the Islamic civil and penal codes, particularly sections dealing with family and property law, discriminate against women. Under Iranian law, the testimony of a woman in court is worth half as much as that of a man. Women sometimes (sometimes?) received disproportionate punishment for crimes such as adultery, including death sentences." Not to mention that if a woman is raped, she is still usually treated as a willing adulteress. In order to prove it was truly rape, she must produce the testimony of four men, or three men and two women who personally witnessed the rape. Good luck with that in any Islamic country.

If an Iranian woman appears in public without the proper hijab, she can be sentenced to a brutal lashing, or a fine, or both (usually, it's both). The hijab is de rigeur in Iran. The burqa is a different version of the garb, most often seen in Afghanistan and other stone-age societies. It's not clear how our U.N. delegates or Secretary of State Hillary (I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar) Clinton feel about Iran creating an all new and improved smoked-glass ceiling for women. But of course if any one of them had spoken out at the U.N. selection process, Iran wouldn't be helping to make policy for the next four years.

Professor Mahboubeh Mobasheri, a female professor at a Tehran university, was introduced to the Commission by delegation leader Mohammed Larijani. The university is restricted to proper Islamic women, but that's just a quibble. Clad in the proper hijab so she wouldn't be stoned or whipped, Mobasheri stated "the significant advancement of Iranian women's status since the Islamic revolution is undeniable. Benefiting from the religious teachings and observing the principles of moderation and strengthening the institution of family, the Islamic Republic of Iran has provided a favorable situation, without any legal impediments for women's promotion."

I'm afraid the Iranian women I know here in the States whose families fled Iran would beg to differ. To me, it sounds like the Islamic version of "keep them in the kitchen where they belong, barefoot and pregnant." That attitude has largely disappeared in the United States in the past three or four decades. But now it will re-emerge on the international level, with the assistance of Iran, the blessing of the United Nations, and the silence of the American government. Well done, Mr. Obama. Have you told Michelle yet?
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Then We'll Fight In The Shade

Iran's crazed leader has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Emperor Barack Xerxes Obama cannot have his subjects fighting with each other, and since Iran is an older part of his empire, he has decided that Israel must bow to Iran or the arrows of Iran will darken the sky. The emperor will do nothing to stop it. Since the empires of China and Russia will not cooperate in restraining Iran, Israel is on its own.

All right, that's enough of the tortured 300 references. But you get the idea. Obama, in his deluded arrogance, has decided that it has no real stake in defending our ally, Israel--the only genuine pro-western democracy in the entire Middle East. As the blundering president and his state department kowtow to Islamic potentates and Muslim zealots and dismiss our allies with a wave of the hand, he weakens the ability of the United States and the west to protect themselves from nuclear rogue nations. Obama sends his emissaries into Israel to dictate the future of the small nation by repeating Palestinian demands for the creation of a separate state with headquarters in the heart of Jerusalem. Then he schedules nuclear disarmament talks which exclude Iran and North Korea while maximizing the humiliation of Israel.

Depending whom you listen to, Iran is somewhere between three months and three years from having sufficient nuclear-grade materials to produce atomic weapons. Obama knows this, but he's too busy unilaterally disarming America to be bothered with the problem of preemptive disarming of Iran. His disarmament initiative is the most feeble plan to reduce the global nuclear threat since Rodney King asked "can't we all just get along?" As Wes Pruden said in The Washington Times, "[The recent maltreatment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he was a guest in the White House] now looks like an exploitable opportunity for the man who learned about who's evil in the world from a crazy, Jew-baiting preacher in Chicago."

Even the tone-deaf Obama can't be oblivious to the fact that if the United States, its allies, and the autocrats in the East do not destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, Israel will have no choice. Better to risk annihilation during a lopsided war with the Muslim world than to surrender to the near-inevitable annihilation raining down from a nuclear Iran. But as long as Obama is president, our allies have no faith in America's will to stand firm, and the Russian and Chinese autocrats laugh at his silly attempts while sabotaging his ludicrous efforts to get real, crippling sanctions against Iran. He views the Iranian leader as a rational though vicious opponent, instead of the madman Ahmadinejad truly is.

Obama thinks even a tyrant will yield if he's given enough love, and is occasionally warned with meaningless threats. As an "expert" on Islam, Obama should know that death is not a threat to a madman who believes that if Iran were nuked out of existence, the Twelfth Imam would lead all the faithful to paradise. Death is only death to the infidels, but a Muslim martyr's death is the sure road to the garden of celestial delights. If the Iranian nuclear facilities are not utterly destroyed and its people freed to rule themselves, Israel will risk its own destruction rather than wait for its assured destruction from Iran.

Obama simply has no compunctions about abandoning Israel to its fate while seeking the good will of Islamic and Latin American dictators. America's long affinity for the tiny Israeli democracy is to be replaced by the hope of friendship from people who clearly hate us. Pruden channels Obama by asking: "Why retain an emotional attachment to the sources of American law and literature when you could bow to the Saudi king and and court the leaders of Iran, Syria and Venezuela?"

There is still time for Obama to avoid the inevitable violent clash between Israel and the Muslim world, but there is no reason to believe he will grab the opportunity. His roots are far too closely enmeshed with those of Kenya, Indonesia, his leftist mentors in Hawaii and Chicago, and Islam to allow him to see that the interests of America and Israel are far more natural than any he would prefer. This skewed and dangerous view comes from the man who proudly announced that America is one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. Not only is that factually untrue, but it is philosophically, intellectually, and unpatriotically delusional and disengenuous.

Instead of pulling the world away from the brink of nuclear war, Obama's policies are the most dangerous kind of naive foolishness that history tells us leads directly to war. Negotiation from a position of weakness and idle threats only embolden bloodthirsty tyrants. And the first victim of his feckless behavior will be the State of Israel, which Obama compares constantly to "The Islamic Republic of Iran." That appellation alone tells anyone who is paying attention that Obama simply has no conception of the enemy that Israel, America and the entire world actually face.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Some Thoughts On Iran

Several people have asked me in recent months what we should do about Iran. Unfortunately, I am forced to admit that there is no clear path forward. Iran presents a real dilemma. Nevertheless, there are some options. So let’s talk about the Iranian problem.

For starters, we need to acknowledge some of the facts. First, let’s consider Iran’s perspective:

Motivation: Iran has genuine motivations that we need to consider -- they are not just causing trouble, which is the false narrative adopted by our media. Geographically, Iran is easily the most important country in the region. It is a large country that dominates the Persian Gulf. It sits between the combustible Middle East, the combustible Afghanistan, the combustible Pakistan, and the ever-more important India. And it is the most populous country in the region. Iranian influence runs throughout the region and, without the United States as a counter-balance, Iran would be the biggest player.

Historically, Iran views itself as the cradle of civilization. At one point, it was far advanced compared to the Western World, and it, i.e. the Persian Empire, spread from Iran to Greece to Libya to China and well into India. Thus, Iran has a proud and ancient history. But the Persian Empire fell and the region came to be dominated by foreign powers -- from the Ottomans to the British. That colors their present thinking, as they see themselves as a much more significant force than they have become, and they bristle at the idea of outsiders controlling them.

Legitimate Reasons To Go Nuclear: Our media likes to paint Iran’s civilian nuclear ambitions as false, and it wonders why the Iranians would want nuclear power when they sit on so much oil. The answer is simple -- they can’t use the oil they have. Iranian oil is “sour crude” meaning that it is polluted and difficult to refine. Iran has no refineries that can handle this type of crude. Thus, despite sitting on all that oil, Iran suffers from gasoline and fuel shortages. Adding civilian nuclear energy actually makes sense for them.

Nuclear Rights And Wrongs: Many countries object to the idea that the rest of the world can tell them whether or not they can have the right to develop nuclear power. And indeed, even under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, any member can develop nuclear energy for civilian purposes.

Now let’s consider the counter argument:

Civilian Use My Glowing Green Ass: Despite their assertion that they are only looking to develop nuclear power for civilian purposes, the evidence is overwhelming that the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons. They have been caught working on triggers for bombs, trying to enrich uranium far beyond civilian usefulness, and skillfully hiding everything they’ve been doing. There is no definitive proof yet that they have an active weapon’s program, but you’d have to be an idiot not to see what they are doing.

Madness In Their Method: If Sweden went nuclear, few would be concerned. But Iran is not being run by stoic Swedes. Iran is being run by insane as~holes. From their crazy Ayatollahs to the fruity Ahmadinijad, these are guys who would clearly like to use an atomic weapon. From their sponsorship of Hezbollah, to their war with Iraq, to the terrorist bombings to which they’ve been linked, to the shooting of British cops from their embassy in Britain, to their involvement in the bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina, to their repeated hostage taking, these guys have shown no restraint. They’ve even taken recently to murdering demonstrators and opposition candidates. Combined with Ahmadinijad’s repeated threats to wipe Israel off the map, these guys are simply too insane to let them have an atomic bomb.

Now we come to the real problems in terms of making policy.

Away With The Bombs: A lot of people have suggested bombing Iran. But the problem with this approach is that we don’t know where their facilities really are. And for those of you who say, “oh, we really know,” we really don’t. Our intelligence people have admitted as much by failing to present more proof of Iran’s activities to the IAEA and by being caught by surprise by Iran’s recent announcement of a facility that no one had ever heard of before.

Our generals have publicly estimated that it would take us thirty-days of constant bombing to be sure that we got everything. . . which means that they are guessing. And if you will recall from Iraq, a country that we thought we knew every inch of, months after we took over the country, we were still finding hidden facilities and discovering that things we thought we knew were mockups.

Moreover, how well is this going to work if the Iranians hide their facilities under hospitals or mosques or inside schools? How long will public opinion last with pictures of Iranian children being blown to bits -- whether we did it or not? And what would be the price we pay throughout the world?

Not to mention that while the leadership is weak now, any attack would strengthen the leadership immeasurable and would buy them time and support from their own people. That’s the natural and inevitable reaction when outsiders attack. . . no matter how nasty the infighting was before the attack.

The short answer is that bombing is simply not an option. We don’t know what to strike, we can’t control the collateral damage, and we could never be sure that we hit what we needed. We simply can’t take the chance of missing something after taking such a provocative act.

Boots On The Wrong Ground: Invading the country may be our best military option. But we can’t do this. Why? Because we don’t have the troops we would need because they are busy propping up the Afghan government. Also, going the invasion route would cause a huge publicity problem as we invaded a third Muslim country in ten years. If we do this, we better expect that we would face an all-out Muslim war, fought in many countries, and likely many western cities.

Insurrection: We can’t openly support the Iranian opposition. They have made it very clear that any help from the West would lose them support, not help them.

The Iranian Sanction: Wait for sanctions we’re told. But it’s not clear that sanctions can work. They would work in a democracy where various interest groups would pressure the government to bend. But dictators are not subject to such pressures. Moreover, the current sanctions regime is a joke. Not only does it not even include weapons, but Iran’s biggest supporters refuse to join the sanctions, e.g. China, North Korean, Russia. Even Brazil told Hillary Clinton this week that they would make up their own mind about sanctions against Iran, and likely would not join them.

The dilemma defined.

Thus, we have a dilemma. We cannot allow this regime to go nuclear. But we can’t work toward regime change, we can’t bomb them, and we can’t invade them. Sanctions also appear ineffective, at least in their current form. So what do we do?

Here is probably the best solution.

Like all attempts to motivate, we need to figure out what we ultimately want and then we need to figure out the best combination of carrots and sticks to get us there. In this case, the best long term solution would be to replace this regime with one that isn’t insane. We should probably admit right now that (1) we’re not going to get a happy democracy, (2) we’re not going to get a pro-American government, and (3) we’re not going to stop them from developing civilian nuclear power, so I'd abandon that thinking at the door.

The Carrot: So let’s start by offering the following carrots. We would happily work with any new government to help the Iranians develop civilian nuclear power. Of course, we’ll decide later if the new government is acceptable, but there’s no need to mention that right now. As part of this, we could re-offer the current offer by France to refine Iran’s uranium for them, with the idea being that Iran would not be in the business of refining uranium, and thus could not build a bomb.

We could also promise further respectability for Iran, playing on their historical humiliations, but offering to create a counsel of five or some such thing to resolve Middle East issues. . . with Iran to be offered a seat at this table once it gets a new (read: acceptable) government.

We also need to stop talking about invading or attacking Iran, because this plays into the hands of their current government. Don’t feed the trolls.

The Sanctions Stick: If we are serious about sanctions, and I certainly think they are a good idea no matter what else we try, then we need to make them enforceable. That means throwing around American weight. Team Obama is currently getting the Saudis to bribe the Chinese to participate, but I don’t think that will be fruitful.

Rather than begging the Russians or Chinese to help us, we should (1) draw up a list of goods and services that are vital to keeping Iran’s government functioning, e.g. weapons, vehicles, fuel, base metals, technology, etc., and (2) pass a law imposing such sanctions, and (3) pass an additional law that requires the President to prohibit the importation of any goods and services from any country that is found to have dealt with Iran in these items. Such a law would cause the export dependent sectors of countries like China and Russia to do the lobbying for us, as those countries would now pay a price for going against our embargo.

The Military Stick: If none of this works, then we need to consider military options because the alternative is simply too horrific to allow. Unfortunately, neither air strikes nor invasion appear viable. Thus, we may have no choice but to eliminate their leadership through other means. I wouldn’t announce this publicly and I certainly wouldn’t take credit for it. But if the choice comes down to the elimination of Ahmadinijad and a few of his deputies or letting them turn a city to ash, then the choice is obvious.

Finally, if none of this works, then we need to think about bombings and invasions.


Are these the best approach? I think so. Will they work? I don't know. But there is no reason we couldn’t try each of these in turn. One thing is for certain though, hope is not a strategy and a handful of ineffective sanctions are not a deterrent. The longer we wait to get serious, the fewer options will be available to us. And if we wait too long, millions of people won’t live to regret it.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...