Posts
Wafa Sultan is a Syrian expatriot and Psychologist, a courageous woman who told off
the Muslims for their anti-Semtism, their backwardness, and for treating
women like animals -- all in Arabic, live on Al Jazeera. You may view that exchange of Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYB4pG3kHIY. Her response to Now this
Obama's speech in Cairo is must read material. Her speech in its entirety is below
www.Husdson-NY.org
June 12, 2009 6:30 AM
By Wafa Sultan
Who Should We Believe?
After President Obama's Cairo speech, many of my Middle Eastern Arab readers
reacted with bewilderment. As one of them expressed; "Who should we believe,
Obama or you?" in particular his statement that "America and Islam overlap
and share common principles, the principles of justice, tolerance and
dignity for human beings".
True, reading the Arab press's reaction to his speech it is clear that many
Muslims now love Obama. After all, he introduced to them a narrative that
affirms their conspiracy theories and their identity as victims of the West.
Hence, the Arab media expressed their confidence that the speech will
provide a "new stance towards Islam and the Muslims, after centuries of
aggression and hostility." (Al Ahram - Egypt- MEMRI)
More than anything, I am reminded of a story by Nizar Qubbani, the famous
Syrian poet. His young son was a physician and suffered from an acute heart
problem. When Nizar asked his son about his heart condition, the son drew a
red heart. Being a poet, the father interpreted the drawing as a sign of a
vibrant and healthy heart and took great comfort in believing this to be a
sign of recovery. After his son's passing, Nizar wrote a poem describing his
feelings as a heartbroken father. He felt unbearably saddened as he realized
he had misinterpreted the drawing. Obviously, the son's sketch of a red
heart was meant to convey no hope for his profusely bleeding heart, while
the father's understanding of the symbol as a hopeful one was wrong.
The poet and the physician perceived reality in totally different ways;
similar to the dichotomy between President Obama's view of the Islamic world
and mine.
The truth is, however, that only one reality exists.
Mr. Obama is a politician, and a very astute one. However, his speech
revealed that his view is unduly influenced by naïve desire. His perception
of Islam and the reality of Islam need to be synchronized. I am a physician
and a realist who has lived and experienced the effect of my Arab culture
and Islamic religion since childhood.
The president pandered to Muslims: praised their accomplishments,
commiserated with their grievances, and apologized for injustices done to
them by centuries of colonialism -- without once mentioning the history of
rampant and violent Arab colonialism. He avoided any mention of Jihadi
tenets, or of the Islamic political ideology of supremacy over non Muslims
-- principles embedded in Sharia law. These are taught and sanctioned openly
by Al-Azhar, the university that hosted him, the foremost center of Sharia
studies. Obama underscored the supposed American mistreatment of terrorists
and apologized for torture in Guantanamo, forgetting that Islamic regimes
are brutal to their own people. The president also repudiated significant
U.S. contributions in both the lives of its soldiers and humanitarian aid to
Muslims across the globe made throughout history -- despite Muslim attacks
against America and Americans. In short, parts of his speech sounded like a
new Pan-Arab messiah come to usher the Arab world back into its rightful
world dominion.
Most disturbing was the president's call to defend Muslims against negative
stereotypes. A dangerous precedent is set when freedom of speech is silenced
and ideological criticism forbidden. This, again, is the stuff of
nightmarish totalitarian regimes. The beauty of the US Constitution is its
balance, and the wisdom it embraces by distinguishing between that which
should be protected and defended and that which should be prosecuted and
decried. Encouraging laws to make criticism of Islam an offense punishable
by law is troubling.
Since arriving in the US, I have enjoyed the freedom to educate my Arab
brothers and sisters in the Middle East, who yearn for real freedom - and I
have seen successes. Mr. Obama calls these very successes into question
rather than championing freedom.
As the president embarks on his new task to defend Muslims "against negative
stereotypes," does this mean he will somehow interfere and undermine that
message? Or, perhaps it means he may join with the Organization of Islamic
Conference, the 57 Muslim countries that work relentlessly to promote a
United Nations resolution to suppress voices of dissent against Islam? I am
confident we would all come to regret this.
Obama sidesteps the acute state of affairs in the Islamic world with
flattery, failing to encourage accountability for rhetoric, practices and
the behavior that feed stereotypes. I did not hear an exhortation to the
Islamic world to open itself to diversity, to accept women as equal citizens
with the same rights and protection under law as men. I did not hear a
challenge to the Muslim world to accept other religions and their ability to
practice openly within the Islamic world -- where the practice of
Christianity, Judaism and other religions could cost an individual his or
her life. I did not hear a call to erase for all time, Dhimmi racism -- the
Sharia law-based dictate that Christians and Jews are inferior and should be
suppressed. Are these "…the principles of justice, tolerance and dignity
for human beings"?
In contrast, I see my people's heart bleeding and know the pressing need for
self-correction and honest examination for the sake of urgent repair. Obama
dangles the carrot but shies away from the imperative issues boiling beneath
the surface.
Obama's reality makes my work and that of others who speak up against
intolerant Islamic doctrines more challenging. He undermines this mission
by placating abusive, xenophobic policies and enabling those within the
Islamic world to subjugate others, to coerce others to its beliefs, and to
continue these pursuits with his blessing.
The president failed to join freedom-loving individuals, liberated Arabs
like myself. He failed to lead the Muslim world into modernization and vital
reform.
Rather than calling out, "The house is on fire." Obama smiles and tells us
how beautiful the house is as it burns out of control and threatens to
destroy us.
To the question I received on my e-mail; "Who should we believe, Obama or
you?" I elaborated to my Moroccan reader that Obama is a politician who
wishes to use sweet talk and to whitewash reality to make amends with
Muslims.
I, on the other hand am a pragmatic Arab woman who escaped the prison of
Islam to the free world and now devotes her life to expressing views freely
and pressing for a genuine difference in Islam. We cannot have it both ways.
Intolerance never tolerates freedom.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
America’s Islamist President
The author is a refugee from Iran and an Muslim apostate. He is also a psychiatrist who is an expert on Islam, psychodynamics of individuals.
America’s Islamist President | Faith Freedom International
http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/06/12/americas-islamist-president/
America’s Islamist President
Politics Add comments
Ali Sina
Obama chose the Islamic university of Al Azhar to deliver his speech to Muslims. He started by talking about the tension between Islam and America.
America sees Islam as a religion. America does not have tension with any particular religion. It’s Muslims - who see Islam as a world government - that have tension with everyone. They see all governments not based on Sharia law as usurpers to the throne of Allah and want to topple them.
Then Obama made a wrong diagnosis. He said, “The tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies.”
If those were the only reasons, how can we explain Islamic terrorism in India, Indonesia, Somalia, Egypt and the Philippines? These countries were never colonialists nor did they treat Muslims as proxies.
Obama continued:
America and Islam are not exclusive. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
This is not true! Islamic justice does not extend to non Muslims who according to the Quran must be treated harshly.
The Quran 48:29, says “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are harsh against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.”
9:14, Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, and heal the breasts of Believers,
As for progress, what progress? Progress is not allowed in Islam. Progress requires innovation. You have to be able to adapt your way of thinking. This is prohibited in Islam. It’s called bid’a. Muslims must avoid bid’a and follow the sunna, the traditions of Muhammad.
Islamic tolerance is also a myth.
Ch 3: v. 85 of the Quran says “And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him”
And how can there be dignity for all human begins when the Quran instructs Muslims to fight against those who do not believe, until they pay the Jizyah submissively, and after being humiliated?
Then Obama said that “he had known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.
If he thinks the Quran is a revealed book, why did he leave Islam?
Obama had a Muslim father and was raised as a Muslim. Therefore, according to Islamic law he is a Muslim. If a Muslim leaves Islam he must be killed.
There is a big difference between a Christian who converts to Islam and a Muslim who converts to Christianity.
A Christian who converts to Islam is led to believe that Jesus was a prophet of God who foretold the coming of Muhammad and that by converting to Islam he is fulfilling his command.
When a Muslim converts to Christianity, it’s because he believes that Muhammad was not a prophet of God.
Obama also said, “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam.”
Exactly what debt does civilization owe to Islam? From the countries conquered by Islam, many great scientists such as Al Razi, Khayyam, Ibn Sina, Al Farabi and Al Khwarizmi emerged. Firstly, these men were Persians and others were from other non-Arab nations. Secondly, many of them were rationalists and not believers in Islam. Thirdly, why Islam should be credited for their contribution to science and civilization? Do we call Copernicus, Galileo, and Da Vinci, Christian scientists?
One can overlook these platitudes as flatteries to cajole the Muslims. What is troubling however is when Obama starts talking about the “partnership between America and Islam.”
Does America have partnership with Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism or even Christianity? What kind of partnership can exist between a country and a religion?
Obama did not stop there. He went on to say “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”
Is defending a religion, any religion, part of the responsibility of the US president?
Isn’t the separation between religion and state a requirement of the constitution of the USA?
He added:
“The U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.
What Mr. Obama is forgetting is that his duty is not to defend the Sharia law but the Constitution of the US, where the freedom of speech and the right to criticize religion is enshrined.
Mr. Obama wants to bring two-tier laws, and create an Islamic state within the United States.
What is interesting is that Mr. Obama who claims to be a Christian specifically requested a picture of Jesus on the cross be removed from the wall that would be behind him when speaking at an event in Georgetown University, last month.
In his Cairo speech he further said:
The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills a person, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.
This is not what the Quran teaches. This is part of a story from the Talmud about Able and Cain that Muhammad rehashed in the Quran. The logic of this story is that since Able and Cain were the only humans on earth, if one of them were killed, he would not have been able to procreate, and his descendants would not have been born.
It’s a fable. It comes from Judaic mythology and not a teaching of Muhammad. Taken out of its context, as Obama did, it makes no sense. Killing one person is not like killing two persons, let alone all mankind.
Muhammad had no respect for human life. He assassinated his opponents, and massacred thousands of people.
The Quran is full of verses inciting the believers to kill. Following the teachings of the Quran, Muslims killed an estimated 270 million people during a period of 1400 years. No other cause has produced so many deaths in human history.
Obama quoted another verse that says, ‘Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.’
But whose truth? Truth - according to Muslims – is only what Muhammad said and not what is factual. For Muslims, the Quran is the only truth.
Obama was reading from chapter 9, verse 119. The verse that follows says “It does not behoove the people of Mecca and its surroundings, to hold back from following Allah’s Apostle (to war,) or to care for their own selves more than for him, for whenever they take any step which angers the disbelievers, a good deed is recorded in their favor.
This is one of the very last verses spoken by Muhammad and sums up the message of Islam.
Muhammad ended this verse by saying “Allah never fails to recompense those who are righteous.”
As you see, the concept of just and righteous in Islam is not the same as we understand it. ‘Righteous’ is a person who abuses and enrages the disbelievers.
If you loot, rape, kill and anger the disbelievers, you are righteous. Muslims often desecrate the cemeteries of non-Muslims to anger them and to be righteous the Islamic way.
Obama then affirmed that “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism - it is an important part of promoting peace,” he said
Nothing can be further from the truth. Islam IS the problem. It is the violent teachings of the Quran that drives Muslims to terrorism. The more a Muslim tries to follow the Quran, the more likely it is that he will become violent. That is why terrorist training camps teach the Quran.
The fourth issue that Obama raised was democracy.
When he mentioned this word, the audience cheered. But democracy was not what Obama had in mind. Quite the contrary! Instead, he said,
“So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.
Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone”
After dashing the hopes of the seekers of democracy in the Islamic countries, he gave lip service to the rights of people “to speak their minds in how they are governed, and in a government that is transparent and does not steal.”
Speaking of transparency Mr. Obama, where is your birth certificate?
Obama’s message about democracy is that he is going to abandon Bush’s agenda, and that America will no longer pursue democracy in Islamic countries.
In an address to university students in Cairo in 2005, Condoleezza Rice explained the “Bush Doctrine in these terms: “For 60 years, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East - and we achieved neither. Now we are taking a different course.”
As the result the Bush Administration pushed for the improvement of human rights, freedom of speech, free elections and removed two obnoxious regimes in Islamic countries.
Mr. Obama wants to scrap that policy and return to the same old policy that America pursued for 60 years and angered the Muslims while labeling it “A New Beginning”
The truth is that neither policy works. There can be no change in the Islamic world because Islam does not allow change.
The only thing that works is to wean Muslims from Islam itself. That can be done when the truth is not suppressed. Obama wants to suppress the truth. He thinks it is part of his mandate to silence the critics of Islam.
Who gave him that mandate? Not the voters! It’s at times like this that one wonders where did Obama get that billion dollars to run his presidential campaign, the source of which he never disclosed, and what was that obsequious bow from a haughty man like him to the Saudi king all about! It seems that by joining a few dots a troubling picture start taking shape.
What is so striking is that this gentleman who claims to be a Christian, while crusading for Islam has no problem criticizing the Bible, as he did during his campaign, but he says he will punish you if you criticize the Quran.
Finally, Obama said he is “committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill Zakat.”
Zakat is monetary contribution that Muslims are required to make if they are unable to fight in jihad personally. Since Jihad is an obligation for every Muslim, if you cannot participate, you can be rewarded nonetheless, if you sponsor someone else to fight as your proxy.
The only reason Zakat came under scrutiny, was because it was discovered that many Islamic “charitable foundations” were actually fundraisers for various terrorist organizations. So it would seem that Mr. Obama wants to ensure that American Muslims can fund the jihad with peace of mind.
Obama ended his self proclaimed “historic speech” by adopting a messianic tone, preaching how everyone must put aside their differences, come together and work in harmony.
But Obama’s problem is credibility. He is a narcissist, and as such, he likes to preach. Narcissists are full of good advice, but they do not walk the talk.
Obama has been a member of a racist church throughout his adult life. His close friends and mentors were mostly crooks, terrorists and hate mongers. Supposedly has now he has become the savior of the world and the harbinger of peace to mankind. This disconnect is what makes him a pathological narcissist. Narcissists are bereft of conscience, while at the same time they believe they are called upon to be God.
Narcissists love life in the limelight. They love to preach and sound holy. But there is a huge gap between what they preach and what they practice.
Is Obama a Muslim?
Obama has allegiance to Islam. He is partly Islamist, partly Marxist, partly appeaser, partly fascist, partly despot, partly slavish, partly racist, and partly a wishful-thinker simpleton idealist.
His elusive character cannot be pinned down because he is a narcissist. He is a man with many masks, but no fixed identity. Behind those masks there is a neglected child, crying out for attention and love. The best description of Obama is a quote from his own book, ‘The Audacity of Hope,’ where he wrote, “I serve as a blank screen, on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
Obama went to Turkey and then to Cairo to receive approbation. He will always go to those who will cheer for him loudest, and tell them what they want to hear. Obama is an emotionally needy man, a narcissist in a perpetual hunt for applause and admiration.
America’s Islamist President | Faith Freedom International
http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/06/12/americas-islamist-president/
America’s Islamist President
Politics Add comments
Ali Sina
Obama chose the Islamic university of Al Azhar to deliver his speech to Muslims. He started by talking about the tension between Islam and America.
America sees Islam as a religion. America does not have tension with any particular religion. It’s Muslims - who see Islam as a world government - that have tension with everyone. They see all governments not based on Sharia law as usurpers to the throne of Allah and want to topple them.
Then Obama made a wrong diagnosis. He said, “The tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies.”
If those were the only reasons, how can we explain Islamic terrorism in India, Indonesia, Somalia, Egypt and the Philippines? These countries were never colonialists nor did they treat Muslims as proxies.
Obama continued:
America and Islam are not exclusive. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
This is not true! Islamic justice does not extend to non Muslims who according to the Quran must be treated harshly.
The Quran 48:29, says “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are harsh against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.”
9:14, Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, and heal the breasts of Believers,
As for progress, what progress? Progress is not allowed in Islam. Progress requires innovation. You have to be able to adapt your way of thinking. This is prohibited in Islam. It’s called bid’a. Muslims must avoid bid’a and follow the sunna, the traditions of Muhammad.
Islamic tolerance is also a myth.
Ch 3: v. 85 of the Quran says “And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him”
And how can there be dignity for all human begins when the Quran instructs Muslims to fight against those who do not believe, until they pay the Jizyah submissively, and after being humiliated?
Then Obama said that “he had known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.
If he thinks the Quran is a revealed book, why did he leave Islam?
Obama had a Muslim father and was raised as a Muslim. Therefore, according to Islamic law he is a Muslim. If a Muslim leaves Islam he must be killed.
There is a big difference between a Christian who converts to Islam and a Muslim who converts to Christianity.
A Christian who converts to Islam is led to believe that Jesus was a prophet of God who foretold the coming of Muhammad and that by converting to Islam he is fulfilling his command.
When a Muslim converts to Christianity, it’s because he believes that Muhammad was not a prophet of God.
Obama also said, “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam.”
Exactly what debt does civilization owe to Islam? From the countries conquered by Islam, many great scientists such as Al Razi, Khayyam, Ibn Sina, Al Farabi and Al Khwarizmi emerged. Firstly, these men were Persians and others were from other non-Arab nations. Secondly, many of them were rationalists and not believers in Islam. Thirdly, why Islam should be credited for their contribution to science and civilization? Do we call Copernicus, Galileo, and Da Vinci, Christian scientists?
One can overlook these platitudes as flatteries to cajole the Muslims. What is troubling however is when Obama starts talking about the “partnership between America and Islam.”
Does America have partnership with Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism or even Christianity? What kind of partnership can exist between a country and a religion?
Obama did not stop there. He went on to say “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”
Is defending a religion, any religion, part of the responsibility of the US president?
Isn’t the separation between religion and state a requirement of the constitution of the USA?
He added:
“The U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.
What Mr. Obama is forgetting is that his duty is not to defend the Sharia law but the Constitution of the US, where the freedom of speech and the right to criticize religion is enshrined.
Mr. Obama wants to bring two-tier laws, and create an Islamic state within the United States.
What is interesting is that Mr. Obama who claims to be a Christian specifically requested a picture of Jesus on the cross be removed from the wall that would be behind him when speaking at an event in Georgetown University, last month.
In his Cairo speech he further said:
The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills a person, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.
This is not what the Quran teaches. This is part of a story from the Talmud about Able and Cain that Muhammad rehashed in the Quran. The logic of this story is that since Able and Cain were the only humans on earth, if one of them were killed, he would not have been able to procreate, and his descendants would not have been born.
It’s a fable. It comes from Judaic mythology and not a teaching of Muhammad. Taken out of its context, as Obama did, it makes no sense. Killing one person is not like killing two persons, let alone all mankind.
Muhammad had no respect for human life. He assassinated his opponents, and massacred thousands of people.
The Quran is full of verses inciting the believers to kill. Following the teachings of the Quran, Muslims killed an estimated 270 million people during a period of 1400 years. No other cause has produced so many deaths in human history.
Obama quoted another verse that says, ‘Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.’
But whose truth? Truth - according to Muslims – is only what Muhammad said and not what is factual. For Muslims, the Quran is the only truth.
Obama was reading from chapter 9, verse 119. The verse that follows says “It does not behoove the people of Mecca and its surroundings, to hold back from following Allah’s Apostle (to war,) or to care for their own selves more than for him, for whenever they take any step which angers the disbelievers, a good deed is recorded in their favor.
This is one of the very last verses spoken by Muhammad and sums up the message of Islam.
Muhammad ended this verse by saying “Allah never fails to recompense those who are righteous.”
As you see, the concept of just and righteous in Islam is not the same as we understand it. ‘Righteous’ is a person who abuses and enrages the disbelievers.
If you loot, rape, kill and anger the disbelievers, you are righteous. Muslims often desecrate the cemeteries of non-Muslims to anger them and to be righteous the Islamic way.
Obama then affirmed that “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism - it is an important part of promoting peace,” he said
Nothing can be further from the truth. Islam IS the problem. It is the violent teachings of the Quran that drives Muslims to terrorism. The more a Muslim tries to follow the Quran, the more likely it is that he will become violent. That is why terrorist training camps teach the Quran.
The fourth issue that Obama raised was democracy.
When he mentioned this word, the audience cheered. But democracy was not what Obama had in mind. Quite the contrary! Instead, he said,
“So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.
Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone”
After dashing the hopes of the seekers of democracy in the Islamic countries, he gave lip service to the rights of people “to speak their minds in how they are governed, and in a government that is transparent and does not steal.”
Speaking of transparency Mr. Obama, where is your birth certificate?
Obama’s message about democracy is that he is going to abandon Bush’s agenda, and that America will no longer pursue democracy in Islamic countries.
In an address to university students in Cairo in 2005, Condoleezza Rice explained the “Bush Doctrine in these terms: “For 60 years, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East - and we achieved neither. Now we are taking a different course.”
As the result the Bush Administration pushed for the improvement of human rights, freedom of speech, free elections and removed two obnoxious regimes in Islamic countries.
Mr. Obama wants to scrap that policy and return to the same old policy that America pursued for 60 years and angered the Muslims while labeling it “A New Beginning”
The truth is that neither policy works. There can be no change in the Islamic world because Islam does not allow change.
The only thing that works is to wean Muslims from Islam itself. That can be done when the truth is not suppressed. Obama wants to suppress the truth. He thinks it is part of his mandate to silence the critics of Islam.
Who gave him that mandate? Not the voters! It’s at times like this that one wonders where did Obama get that billion dollars to run his presidential campaign, the source of which he never disclosed, and what was that obsequious bow from a haughty man like him to the Saudi king all about! It seems that by joining a few dots a troubling picture start taking shape.
What is so striking is that this gentleman who claims to be a Christian, while crusading for Islam has no problem criticizing the Bible, as he did during his campaign, but he says he will punish you if you criticize the Quran.
Finally, Obama said he is “committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill Zakat.”
Zakat is monetary contribution that Muslims are required to make if they are unable to fight in jihad personally. Since Jihad is an obligation for every Muslim, if you cannot participate, you can be rewarded nonetheless, if you sponsor someone else to fight as your proxy.
The only reason Zakat came under scrutiny, was because it was discovered that many Islamic “charitable foundations” were actually fundraisers for various terrorist organizations. So it would seem that Mr. Obama wants to ensure that American Muslims can fund the jihad with peace of mind.
Obama ended his self proclaimed “historic speech” by adopting a messianic tone, preaching how everyone must put aside their differences, come together and work in harmony.
But Obama’s problem is credibility. He is a narcissist, and as such, he likes to preach. Narcissists are full of good advice, but they do not walk the talk.
Obama has been a member of a racist church throughout his adult life. His close friends and mentors were mostly crooks, terrorists and hate mongers. Supposedly has now he has become the savior of the world and the harbinger of peace to mankind. This disconnect is what makes him a pathological narcissist. Narcissists are bereft of conscience, while at the same time they believe they are called upon to be God.
Narcissists love life in the limelight. They love to preach and sound holy. But there is a huge gap between what they preach and what they practice.
Is Obama a Muslim?
Obama has allegiance to Islam. He is partly Islamist, partly Marxist, partly appeaser, partly fascist, partly despot, partly slavish, partly racist, and partly a wishful-thinker simpleton idealist.
His elusive character cannot be pinned down because he is a narcissist. He is a man with many masks, but no fixed identity. Behind those masks there is a neglected child, crying out for attention and love. The best description of Obama is a quote from his own book, ‘The Audacity of Hope,’ where he wrote, “I serve as a blank screen, on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
Obama went to Turkey and then to Cairo to receive approbation. He will always go to those who will cheer for him loudest, and tell them what they want to hear. Obama is an emotionally needy man, a narcissist in a perpetual hunt for applause and admiration.
Obama-first mayors lead 14 of 15 most dangerous cities
An interesting bit of news ignored by the media.
Obama-first mayors lead 14 of 15 most dangerous citiesBen-Peter Terpstra
When Mayor Giuliani, the feisty Italian-American Republican took charge of New York, he meant business. Crime went down, down, down.
Alas, today's big city mayor is more likely to be a soft-on-crime Democrat.
What do I mean? When Forbes magazine listed the 15 most dangerous cities in America - the political class ignored one embarrassingly obvious fact. Yes: 14 of the 15 mayors leading America's most dangerous cities are Obama-first leaders.
Here's the beef:
No. 15 Philadelphia, Pa. Mayor Michael Anthony "Mike" Nutter (Democrat)
No. 14 Charlotte, N.C. Mayor Patrick "Pat" McCrory (Republican)
No. 13 West Palm Beach, Fla. Mayor Lois J. Lois J. Frankel (Democrat)
No. 12 Baton Rouge, La. Mayor-President Melvin "Kip" Holden (Democrat)
No. 11 New Orleans, La. Mayor Clarence Ray Nagin, Jr. (Democrat)
No. 10 Baltimore, Md. Mayor Sheila Ann Dixon (Democrat)
No. 9 Nashville, Tenn. Mayor Karl Foster Dean (Democrat)
No. 8 Charleston, S.C. Mayor Joseph P. Riley, Jr. (Democrat)
No. 7 Little Rock, Ark. Mayor Mark Stodola (Democrat)
No. 6 Orlando, Fla. Mayor John Hugh "Buddy" Dyer (Democrat)
No. 5 Stockton, Calif. Mayor Ann Johnston (Democrat)
No. 4 Las Vegas, Nev. Mayor Oscar Baylin Goodman (Democrat)
No. 3 Miami, Fla. Mayor Manny Diaz ("Independent,"Obama-first voter and 2008 DNC speaker)
No. 2 Memphis, Tenn. Mayor Willie W. Herenton (Democrat)
No. 1 Detroit, Mich. Mayor David Bing (Democrat)
Thanks to the "watchdog media," there are no efforts underway to determine whether or not America's Obama-first mayors are using "green issues" to distract us from their out-of-control crime rates. This is unacceptable.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/obamafirst_mayors_lead_14_of_1.html
Obama-first mayors lead 14 of 15 most dangerous citiesBen-Peter Terpstra
When Mayor Giuliani, the feisty Italian-American Republican took charge of New York, he meant business. Crime went down, down, down.
Alas, today's big city mayor is more likely to be a soft-on-crime Democrat.
What do I mean? When Forbes magazine listed the 15 most dangerous cities in America - the political class ignored one embarrassingly obvious fact. Yes: 14 of the 15 mayors leading America's most dangerous cities are Obama-first leaders.
Here's the beef:
No. 15 Philadelphia, Pa. Mayor Michael Anthony "Mike" Nutter (Democrat)
No. 14 Charlotte, N.C. Mayor Patrick "Pat" McCrory (Republican)
No. 13 West Palm Beach, Fla. Mayor Lois J. Lois J. Frankel (Democrat)
No. 12 Baton Rouge, La. Mayor-President Melvin "Kip" Holden (Democrat)
No. 11 New Orleans, La. Mayor Clarence Ray Nagin, Jr. (Democrat)
No. 10 Baltimore, Md. Mayor Sheila Ann Dixon (Democrat)
No. 9 Nashville, Tenn. Mayor Karl Foster Dean (Democrat)
No. 8 Charleston, S.C. Mayor Joseph P. Riley, Jr. (Democrat)
No. 7 Little Rock, Ark. Mayor Mark Stodola (Democrat)
No. 6 Orlando, Fla. Mayor John Hugh "Buddy" Dyer (Democrat)
No. 5 Stockton, Calif. Mayor Ann Johnston (Democrat)
No. 4 Las Vegas, Nev. Mayor Oscar Baylin Goodman (Democrat)
No. 3 Miami, Fla. Mayor Manny Diaz ("Independent,"Obama-first voter and 2008 DNC speaker)
No. 2 Memphis, Tenn. Mayor Willie W. Herenton (Democrat)
No. 1 Detroit, Mich. Mayor David Bing (Democrat)
Thanks to the "watchdog media," there are no efforts underway to determine whether or not America's Obama-first mayors are using "green issues" to distract us from their out-of-control crime rates. This is unacceptable.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/obamafirst_mayors_lead_14_of_1.html
An Open Letter to Jimmy Carter
Dear Mr. Carter,
I have been following the elections in Iran closely, and there seems to be much debate on the fairness and openness of the election. I believe the word du jour is "transparency". You have been on the forefront worldwide as an election observer. You have traveled to many countries as an independent observer. Yet you are remarkably, and atypically, silent about the election in Iran. Will you publicly condemn this election or perhaps volunteer your services to ensure a free and fair recount in Iran or perhaps even monitor another election there?
I am sure that even in these tight economic conditions, you can fund this mission from the proceeds of your blockbuster book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid., which is so full of errors that to quote the Washington Post "Jeffrey Goldberg, who lambasted the book in The Post last month, writes for the New Yorker. Ethan Bronner, who in the New York Times called the book "a distortion," is the Times' deputy foreign editor. Slate's Michael Kinsley declared it "moronic." Dennis Ross, who was chief negotiator on the conflict in the administrations of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, described the book as a rewriting and misrepresentation of history."
Sincerely,
JohnFrum
I have been following the elections in Iran closely, and there seems to be much debate on the fairness and openness of the election. I believe the word du jour is "transparency". You have been on the forefront worldwide as an election observer. You have traveled to many countries as an independent observer. Yet you are remarkably, and atypically, silent about the election in Iran. Will you publicly condemn this election or perhaps volunteer your services to ensure a free and fair recount in Iran or perhaps even monitor another election there?
I am sure that even in these tight economic conditions, you can fund this mission from the proceeds of your blockbuster book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid., which is so full of errors that to quote the Washington Post "Jeffrey Goldberg, who lambasted the book in The Post last month, writes for the New Yorker. Ethan Bronner, who in the New York Times called the book "a distortion," is the Times' deputy foreign editor. Slate's Michael Kinsley declared it "moronic." Dennis Ross, who was chief negotiator on the conflict in the administrations of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, described the book as a rewriting and misrepresentation of history."
Sincerely,
JohnFrum
History Repeating Itself
Josef Stalin once said, "It doesn't matter who votes. What matters is who counts the votes." Well history is repeating itself.
This first story is from Reuters. Mr. Obama is "excited" about the healthy debate in Iran and the possibility of a run-off election. The second article, also from Reuters, is about Ahmadinejad's landslide win and voter fraud. Yup, Barack, you got it right again.
This first story is from Reuters. Mr. Obama is "excited" about the healthy debate in Iran and the possibility of a run-off election. The second article, also from Reuters, is about Ahmadinejad's landslide win and voter fraud. Yup, Barack, you got it right again.
Obama "excited" by Iran's robust election debate
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Friday he was hopeful the robust debate taking place in Iran's presidential election would advance his administration's efforts to engage longtime U.S. rival Tehran in new ways.
"We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran," Obama told reporters when asked about the Iranian election during an event at the White House.
"Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact there has been a robust debate hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways," he said.
Iranians voted on Friday in a hotly contested election that will determine whether hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets a new term or is unseated by one of his more moderate challengers.
The United States has had no ties with Iran since shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution, but Obama has expressed an interest in a dialogue if Tehran "unclenches its fist."
Obama said he had tried to send a clear message during a speech to the Islamic world last week in Cairo that his administration sees a possibility for a change in relations.
He said while "ultimately the election is for the Iranians to decide," voters in the Middle East had shown they were looking at the possibility of a change.
Obama was referring to the victory of Saad al-Hariri's anti-Syrian bloc in Lebanon on Sunday. The bloc won 71 of parliament's 128 seats, versus 57 for an opposition alliance that included Hezbollah, a pro-Iranian group Washington formally has designated a "foreign terrorist organization."
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she was encouraged by the size of the Iranian voter turnout.
"It's a very positive sign that the people of Iran want their voices and their votes to be heard and counted. And like many people inside and outside of Iran we are going to wait and see what the results are," Clinton told reporters.
A senior State Department official said the United States would not be surprised if there was a run-off.
"It's anyone's guess what is going to transpire. If you were a betting person you would probably look at some sort of run-off," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
There will be a run-off on June 19 between the two front-runners if none of the four candidates wins 50 percent of the votes in the first round.
Ahmedinejad wins disputed Iran vote, crowds clash
By Parisa Hafezi and Fredrik Dahl
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told Iranians Saturday to respect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's victory in a presidential election that his closest challenger described as a "dangerous charade."
The scale of Ahmadinejad's triumph upset widespread expectations that the race would at least go to a second round and his re-election is unlikely to help unblock a standoff with the West over Iran's nuclear program.
Trouble erupted on the streets when riot police, on motorcycles and armed with batons, beat supporters of presidential candidate Mirhossein Mousavi who were protesting against the result of Friday's vote.
Khamenei, Iran's top authority, told defeated candidates and their supporters to avoid "provocative behavior."
"The chosen and respected president is the president of all the Iranian nation and everyone, including yesterday's competitors, must unanimously support and help him," Khamenei said in a statement read on state television.
Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli, an ally of the hardline Ahmadinejad, declared the president had been re-elected to a second four-year term with 62.6 percent of the vote, against 33.7 percent for Mousavi, in a record 85 percent turnout.
Mousavi, a veteran of the 1979 Islamic revolution, protested against what he said were many obvious election violations.
"I'm warning I will not surrender to this dangerous charade. The result of such performance by some officials will jeopardize the pillars of the Islamic Republic and will establish tyranny," Mousavi said in a statement made available to Reuters.
Mousavi urged senior clerics in Iran's Shi'ite religious center of Qom to speak out.
"Today all the ways to preserve our rights are closed. Silence of the ulema and grand ayatollahs may create more harm than fixing voting," he said in a statement on his website.
Iranian and Western analysts abroad greeted the results with disbelief. They said Ahmadinejad's re-election would disappoint Western powers aiming to convince Iran to halt nuclear work they suspect is aimed at making bombs, and could further complicate efforts by U.S. President Barack Obama to reach out to Tehran.
"It doesn't augur well for an early and peaceful settlement of the nuclear dispute," said Mark Fitzpatrick at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies.
A bitter election campaign generated strong interest around the world and intense excitement inside Iran. It revealed deep divisions among establishment figures between those backing Ahmadinejad and those pushing for social and political change.
Ahmadinejad accused his rivals of undermining the Islamic Republic by advocating detente with the West. Mousavi said the president's "extremist" foreign policy had humiliated Iranians.
Friday night, before official results emerged, Mousavi had claimed to be the "definite winner." He said many people had been unable to vote and ballot papers were lacking.
He also accused authorities of blocking text messaging, with which his campaign tried to reach young, urban voters.
Saturday, Iran's students' news agency ISNA quoted Tehran's Deputy Prosecutor General Mahmoud Salarkia as saying 10 people had been detained for "agitating public opinion through websites and blogs by propagating untruthful reports."
Trita Parsi, president of the Washington-based National Iranian American Council, expressed astonishment at the wide margin in Ahmadinejad's favor. "It is difficult to feel comfortable that this occurred without any cheating," he said.
STREET SCUFFLES
The three-week election campaign was marked by mudslinging, with Ahmadinejad accusing his rivals of corruption. They said he was lying about the economy. Inflation, officially put at 15 percent, and unemployment were core issues in the debate.
Scuffles broke out overnight between police and chanting Mousavi supporters in a Tehran square, a Reuters witness said. Police said they had boosted security across the capital. All gatherings were banned until final results are declared.
Saturday police moved in to disperse stone-throwing Mousavi supporters staging a sit-in at Vanak Square in the capital. Some protesters were arrested and two men were carried away from the scene.
Hundreds of his backers later gathered in side streets near Vanak, chanting anti-Ahmadinejad slogans and bringing traffic to a standstill. "We are Iranians too," and "Mousavi is our president," they shouted.
Ahmadinejad draws most of his support from rural areas and poorer big city neighborhoods. Mousavi enjoys strong backing in wealthier urban centers, especially among women and the young.
Two other candidates attracted only minimal support.
Ahmadinejad, 52, won power four years ago, vowing to revive the values of the Islamic revolution. He has expanded the nuclear program, which Iran says is only for electricity generation, and stirred international outrage by denying the Holocaust and calling for Israel to be wiped off the map.
"If there was a shadow of hope for a change in Iran, the renewed choice of Ahmadinejad expresses more than anything the growing Iranian threat," Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said in a statement. "The international community must stop a nuclear Iran and Iranian terror immediately."
Mousavi, 67, rejects Western demands that Iran halt uranium enrichment, but argued for a different approach to Iran-U.S. ties and nuclear talks -- although these are policy areas ultimately controlled by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The United States has had no ties with Iran, the world's fifth biggest oil exporter, since shortly after the revolution. Obama said his country had "tried to send a clear message that we think there is the possibility of change."
(Additional reporting by Hossein Jaseb, Hashem Kalantari, Zahra Hosseinian in Tehran and Alistair Lyon in Beirut; Writing by Dominic Evans and Fredrik Dahl; Editing by Alistair Lyon and Kevin Liffey)
What If Israel Strikes Iran?
Irrespective of whether one likes Bolton, his analyses are always direct, thoughtful, incisive and provocative.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124467678369503997.html
What If Israel Strikes Iran?
The mullahs would retaliate. But things would be much worse if they had the bomb.
By JOHN R. BOLTON
Whatever the outcome of Iran's presidential election tomorrow, negotiations will not soon -- if ever -- put an end to its nuclear threat. And given Iran's determination to achieve deliverable nuclear weapons, speculation about a possible Israeli attack on its nuclear program will not only persist but grow.
So what would such an attack look like? Obviously, Israel would need to consider many factors -- such as its timing and scope, Iran's increasing air defenses, the dispersion and hardening of its nuclear facilities, the potential international political costs, and Iran's "unpredictability." While not as menacingly irrational as North Korea, Iran's politico-military logic hardly compares to our NATO allies. Central to any Israeli decision is Iran's possible response.
Israel's alternative is that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs reach fruition, leaving its very existence at the whim of its staunchest adversary. Israel has not previously accepted such risks. It destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981 and a Syrian reactor being built by North Koreans in 2007. One major new element in Israel's calculus is the Obama administration's growing distance (especially in contrast to its predecessor).
Consider the most-often mentioned Iranian responses to a possible Israeli strike:
1) Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz. Often cited as Tehran's knee-jerk answer -- along with projections of astronomic oil-price spikes because of the disruption of supplies from Persian Gulf producers -- this option is neither feasible nor advisable for Iran. The U.S. would quickly overwhelm any effort to close the Strait, and Iran would be risking U.S. attacks on its land-based military. Direct military conflict with Washington would turn a bad situation for Iran -- disruption of its nuclear program -- into a potential catastrophe for the regime. Prudent hedging by oil traders and consuming countries (though not their strong suit, historically) would minimize any price spike.
2) Iran cuts its own oil exports to raise world prices. An Iranian embargo of its own oil exports would complete the ruin of Iran's domestic economy by depriving the country of hard currency. This is roughly equivalent to Thomas Jefferson's 1807 embargo on American exports to protect U.S. shipping from British and French interference. That harmed the U.S. far more than the Europeans. Even Iran's mullahs can see that. Another gambit with no legs.
3) Iran attacks U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some Tehran hard-liners might advocate this approach, or even attacks on U.S. bases or Arab targets in the Gulf -- but doing so would risk direct U.S. retaliation against Iran, as many U.S. commanders in Iraq earlier recommended. Increased violence in Iraq or Afghanistan might actually prolong the U.S. military presence in Iraq, despite President Barack Obama's current plans for withdrawal. Moreover, taking on the U.S. military, even in an initially limited way, carries enormous risks for Iran. Tehran may believe the Obama administration's generally apologetic international posture will protect it from U.S. escalation, but it would be highly dangerous for Iran to gamble on more weakness in the face of increased U.S. casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan.
4) Iran increases support for global terrorism. This Iranian option, especially stepping up world-wide attacks against U.S. targets, is always open. Assuming, however, that Mr. Obama does not further degrade our intelligence capabilities and that our watchfulness remains high, the terrorism option outside of the Middle East is extremely risky for Iran. If Washington uncovered evidence of direct or indirect Iranian terrorist activities in America, for example, even the Obama administration would have to consider direct retaliation inside Iran. While Iran enjoys rhetorical conflict with the U.S., operationally it prefers picking on targets its own size or smaller.
5) Iran launches missile attacks on Israel. Because all the foregoing options risk more direct U.S. involvement, Tehran will most likely decide to retaliate against the actual attacker, Israel. Using its missile and perhaps air force capabilities, Iran could do substantial damage in Israel, especially to civilian targets. Of course, one can only imagine what Iran might do once it has nuclear weapons, and this is part of the cost-benefit analysis Israel must make before launching attacks in the first place. Direct Iranian military action against Israel, however, would provoke an even broader Israeli counterstrike, which at some point might well involve Israel's own nuclear capability. Accordingly, Iran's Revolutionary Guards would have to think long and hard before unleashing its own capabilities against Israel.
6) Iran unleashes Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel. By process of elimination, but also because of strategic logic, Iran's most likely option is retaliating through Hamas and Hezbollah. Increased terrorist attacks inside Israel, military incursions by Hezbollah across the Blue Line, and, most significantly, salvoes of missiles from both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip are all possibilities. In plain violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, Iran has not only completely re-equipped Hezbollah since the 2006 war with Israel, but the longer reach of Hezbollah's rockets now endangers Israel's entire civilian population. Moreover, Hamas's rocket capabilities could easily be substantially enhanced to provide greater range and payload to strike throughout Israel, creating a two-front challenge.
Risks to its civilian population will weigh heavily in any Israeli decision to use force, and might well argue for simultaneous, pre-emptive attacks on Hezbollah and Hamas in conjunction with a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Obviously, Israel will have to measure the current risks to its safety and survival against the longer-term threat to its very existence once Iran acquires nuclear weapons.
This brief survey demonstrates why Israel's military option against Iran's nuclear program is so unattractive, but also why failing to act is even worse. All these scenarios become infinitely more dangerous once Iran has deliverable nuclear weapons. So does daily life in Israel, elsewhere in the region and globally.
Many argue that Israeli military action will cause Iranians to rally in support of the mullahs' regime and plunge the region into political chaos. To the contrary, a strike accompanied by effective public diplomacy could well turn Iran's diverse population against an oppressive regime. Most of the Arab world's leaders would welcome Israel solving the Iran nuclear problem, although they certainly won't say so publicly and will rhetorically embrace Iran if Israel strikes. But rhetoric from its Arab neighbors is the only quantum of solace Iran will get.
On the other hand, the Obama administration's increased pressure on Israel concerning the "two-state solution" and West Bank settlements demonstrates Israel's growing distance from Washington. Although there is no profit now in complaining that Israel should have struck during the Bush years, the missed opportunity is palpable. For the remainder of Mr. Obama's term, uncertainty about his administration's support for Israel will continue to dog Israeli governments and complicate their calculations. Iran will see that as well, and play it for all it's worth. This is yet another reason why Israel's risks and dilemmas, difficult as they are, only increase with time.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124467678369503997.html
What If Israel Strikes Iran?
The mullahs would retaliate. But things would be much worse if they had the bomb.
By JOHN R. BOLTON
Whatever the outcome of Iran's presidential election tomorrow, negotiations will not soon -- if ever -- put an end to its nuclear threat. And given Iran's determination to achieve deliverable nuclear weapons, speculation about a possible Israeli attack on its nuclear program will not only persist but grow.
So what would such an attack look like? Obviously, Israel would need to consider many factors -- such as its timing and scope, Iran's increasing air defenses, the dispersion and hardening of its nuclear facilities, the potential international political costs, and Iran's "unpredictability." While not as menacingly irrational as North Korea, Iran's politico-military logic hardly compares to our NATO allies. Central to any Israeli decision is Iran's possible response.
Israel's alternative is that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs reach fruition, leaving its very existence at the whim of its staunchest adversary. Israel has not previously accepted such risks. It destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981 and a Syrian reactor being built by North Koreans in 2007. One major new element in Israel's calculus is the Obama administration's growing distance (especially in contrast to its predecessor).
Consider the most-often mentioned Iranian responses to a possible Israeli strike:
1) Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz. Often cited as Tehran's knee-jerk answer -- along with projections of astronomic oil-price spikes because of the disruption of supplies from Persian Gulf producers -- this option is neither feasible nor advisable for Iran. The U.S. would quickly overwhelm any effort to close the Strait, and Iran would be risking U.S. attacks on its land-based military. Direct military conflict with Washington would turn a bad situation for Iran -- disruption of its nuclear program -- into a potential catastrophe for the regime. Prudent hedging by oil traders and consuming countries (though not their strong suit, historically) would minimize any price spike.
2) Iran cuts its own oil exports to raise world prices. An Iranian embargo of its own oil exports would complete the ruin of Iran's domestic economy by depriving the country of hard currency. This is roughly equivalent to Thomas Jefferson's 1807 embargo on American exports to protect U.S. shipping from British and French interference. That harmed the U.S. far more than the Europeans. Even Iran's mullahs can see that. Another gambit with no legs.
3) Iran attacks U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some Tehran hard-liners might advocate this approach, or even attacks on U.S. bases or Arab targets in the Gulf -- but doing so would risk direct U.S. retaliation against Iran, as many U.S. commanders in Iraq earlier recommended. Increased violence in Iraq or Afghanistan might actually prolong the U.S. military presence in Iraq, despite President Barack Obama's current plans for withdrawal. Moreover, taking on the U.S. military, even in an initially limited way, carries enormous risks for Iran. Tehran may believe the Obama administration's generally apologetic international posture will protect it from U.S. escalation, but it would be highly dangerous for Iran to gamble on more weakness in the face of increased U.S. casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan.
4) Iran increases support for global terrorism. This Iranian option, especially stepping up world-wide attacks against U.S. targets, is always open. Assuming, however, that Mr. Obama does not further degrade our intelligence capabilities and that our watchfulness remains high, the terrorism option outside of the Middle East is extremely risky for Iran. If Washington uncovered evidence of direct or indirect Iranian terrorist activities in America, for example, even the Obama administration would have to consider direct retaliation inside Iran. While Iran enjoys rhetorical conflict with the U.S., operationally it prefers picking on targets its own size or smaller.
5) Iran launches missile attacks on Israel. Because all the foregoing options risk more direct U.S. involvement, Tehran will most likely decide to retaliate against the actual attacker, Israel. Using its missile and perhaps air force capabilities, Iran could do substantial damage in Israel, especially to civilian targets. Of course, one can only imagine what Iran might do once it has nuclear weapons, and this is part of the cost-benefit analysis Israel must make before launching attacks in the first place. Direct Iranian military action against Israel, however, would provoke an even broader Israeli counterstrike, which at some point might well involve Israel's own nuclear capability. Accordingly, Iran's Revolutionary Guards would have to think long and hard before unleashing its own capabilities against Israel.
6) Iran unleashes Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel. By process of elimination, but also because of strategic logic, Iran's most likely option is retaliating through Hamas and Hezbollah. Increased terrorist attacks inside Israel, military incursions by Hezbollah across the Blue Line, and, most significantly, salvoes of missiles from both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip are all possibilities. In plain violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, Iran has not only completely re-equipped Hezbollah since the 2006 war with Israel, but the longer reach of Hezbollah's rockets now endangers Israel's entire civilian population. Moreover, Hamas's rocket capabilities could easily be substantially enhanced to provide greater range and payload to strike throughout Israel, creating a two-front challenge.
Risks to its civilian population will weigh heavily in any Israeli decision to use force, and might well argue for simultaneous, pre-emptive attacks on Hezbollah and Hamas in conjunction with a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Obviously, Israel will have to measure the current risks to its safety and survival against the longer-term threat to its very existence once Iran acquires nuclear weapons.
This brief survey demonstrates why Israel's military option against Iran's nuclear program is so unattractive, but also why failing to act is even worse. All these scenarios become infinitely more dangerous once Iran has deliverable nuclear weapons. So does daily life in Israel, elsewhere in the region and globally.
Many argue that Israeli military action will cause Iranians to rally in support of the mullahs' regime and plunge the region into political chaos. To the contrary, a strike accompanied by effective public diplomacy could well turn Iran's diverse population against an oppressive regime. Most of the Arab world's leaders would welcome Israel solving the Iran nuclear problem, although they certainly won't say so publicly and will rhetorically embrace Iran if Israel strikes. But rhetoric from its Arab neighbors is the only quantum of solace Iran will get.
On the other hand, the Obama administration's increased pressure on Israel concerning the "two-state solution" and West Bank settlements demonstrates Israel's growing distance from Washington. Although there is no profit now in complaining that Israel should have struck during the Bush years, the missed opportunity is palpable. For the remainder of Mr. Obama's term, uncertainty about his administration's support for Israel will continue to dog Israeli governments and complicate their calculations. Iran will see that as well, and play it for all it's worth. This is yet another reason why Israel's risks and dilemmas, difficult as they are, only increase with time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)