Ahmadinejad and Morsi: Two Jew-Haters Meet in Cairo

Currently, the US is attempting to isolate Iran as it proceeds pell-mell with its nuclear weapons development program. In parallel, Obama is attempting to paint the transition of Egypt from the Mubarak regime to a government headed by the extremist Muslim Brotherhood as a success ("You know, when it comes to Egypt, I think, had it not been for the leadership we showed, you might have seen a different outcome there," http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57565734/obama-and-clinton-the-60-minutes-interview/?pageNum=5).

So, it should come as no surprise that Egyptian president Morsi ("the Jews are descendants of apes and pigs") yesterday hosted Iranian president Ahmadinejad ("Israel must be wiped off the map") in Cairo, representing the first visit by an Iranian leader to Egypt in decades.

Meanwhile, the US continues to provide Egypt with more than a billion dollars of military aid annually (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-approves-1-3-billion-dollars-in-military-aid-to-egypt-1.420447).

Will the Obama administration continue to fund the Egyptian army as Egypt draws nearer to Iran? Was there ever any doubt?

Iranian President Ahmahinejad: Israel Is a Cancerous Tumor Soon to Be Excised

When Obama became president, one of his first diplomatic initiatives was to make overtures to the Islamic Republic of Iran, which, according to several of his close aides, had been "misunderstood" by the Bush administration. See below his naive March 2009 Nowruz address to the Iranian leadership:



You will also recall Roger Cohen's infamous series of New York Times op-eds from Iran during the first six months of 2009, declaring that Iran is "not totalitarian." And there were also the incessant guest New York Times op-eds written by Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett, imploring Obama to forge a new approach toward Iran.

When Iranians took to the streets during the July 2009 Green Revolution to bring down the Ahmadinejad regime, Obama, wishing to cozy up to the mullahs, did nothing as protesters, calling out his name, were gunned down, tortured and imprisoned.

And there have always been those from the left who denied Iranian intentions to annihilate Israel. Well, there can no longer be any denying Tehran's plans.

As reported by Lebanon's Daily Star (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Aug-17/184932-tumour-of-israel-will-soon-be-destroyed-ahmadinejad.ashx#axzz23uytDpvD), Iranian President Ahmadinejad stated yesterday:

"'The Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumour,' he said. 'The nations of the region will soon finish off the usurper Zionists in the Palestinian land.... A new Middle East will definitely be formed. With the grace of God and help of the nations, in the new Middle East there will be no trace of the Americans and Zionists,' he said."

Even Roger Cohen would have a hard time misconstruing these words.

David Brooks, "The Credit Illusion": Stunningly Gorgeous Irrelevance

Some seven years ago, we took a new mortgage and added two rooms to our house. Unbeknownst to me, our contractor put a concrete pillar around an existing sewerage line, where a short vertical pipe descends steeply into a more gradually descending horizontal conduit. As we all know - in this case very literally - shit happens, and after 13 years without a problem, roots got into the line encased in the pillar, blocking the flow at this vital junction. What to do? After many sleepless nights considering the problem, I began to burrow under our house, much akin to "The Great Escape." I left instructions with the family that if they should not hear noise from my digging after several minutes, they should dial 911. If memory serves me correctly, my wife made a casual inquiry about my life insurance policy and began to examine Hawaii vacation brochures.

After several days of digging, drilling into concrete, and pondering in the darkness the meaning of life, I gained access to the offending roots and unblocked this artery. The government, society, my forbears, and my youngest son, also locked in the darkness behind a computer screen, did not help me. In this last battle - I will never attempt this again - it was Jeffrey against nature. Just this once, Jeffrey won.

In his latest New York Times op-ed, "The Credit Illusion" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/opinion/brooks-the-credit-illusion.html), David Brooks breaks life down into decades of changing perspective:

"In short, as maturity develops and the perspectives widen, the smaller the power of the individual appears, and the greater the power of those forces flowing through the individual."

This is a magnificent essay written by Brooks, and I could hear in the background Frank Sinatra singing "It Was a Very Good Year." Most of my life, however, continues to be accompanied by the Bee Gees' "Stayin' Alive," and this isn't going to change anytime soon.

In case you didn't notice, Iran's Ahmadinejad has again called for world forces to annihilate Israel, blaming the Jews for all of mankind's ills during the past 400 years (see: http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=279903). Meanwhile, in Israel, Efraim Halevy, ninth director of Mossad and the 4th head of the Israeli National Security Council, is warning, "If I were an Iranian, I would be very fearful of the next 12 weeks" (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/world/middleeast/in-israel-panetta-warns-iran-on-nuclear-program.html?_r=1&src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fworld%2Fmiddleeast%2Findex.jsonp), whereas Maj.-Gen. (res.) Aharon Ze’evi Farkash, head of Israeli Military Intelligence from 2001 to 2006, does not recommend that Israel attack Iran at this time (see: http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=279955).

Yeah, I know that Plato was credited with saying, "An unexamined life is not worth living." And David Brooks informs us in his charming opinion piece, "Then in your 50s and 60s, you will become a sociologist, understanding that relationships are more powerful than individuals."

Me at 58? I don't have time for self-examination or sociology as I grow increasing less fond of government, government officials and government officialdom. Keep the change and the credit. I'm still trying to stay alive.

Will Israel Attack Iran?

“The tumor of Israel, which is in fact cancerous, must be removed from the region, and this will definitely happen.”

Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei speaking to worshippers yesterday during prayers at the campus of the University of Tehran.

The above quote reported by Iran's Mehr News Agency (http://www.mehrnews.com/en/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1524218) cannot possibly be misinterpreted. Although there have been many efforts to mitigate the underlying intent of Iranian president Ahmadinejad's 2005 declaration that "Israel must be wiped off the map," there can be no mistaking what Khamenei has in mind, i.e. a second Holocaust. Moreover, according to Israeli intelligence experts, Iran would be willing to "martyr" half of its population as part of an effort to eradicate Israel.

Even without an atomic bomb in the hands of the mullahs, Israel is currently facing an arsenal of some 200,000 rockets and missiles, amassed by the allies of Iran -- the murderous Assad regime in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Gaza -- and Iran itself. In many respects this existential threat is grimmer than the stranglehold placed on Israel by Nasser prior to the 1967 Six Day War.

Jonathan Tobin of Commentary wrote yesterday (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/03/obama-leads-behind-israel-iran/#more-782751):

"Most observers have spent the past few months trying desperately to interpret the mixed signals emanating from the Obama administration on Iran."

In fact, such attempts at interpretation are futile given that the Obama administration has never had a strategy for dealing with Iran; there are now only delaying tactics intended to smooth Obama's path to re-election in November.

In a Washington Post op-ed entitled "Is Israel preparing to attack Iran?" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-israel-preparing-to-attack-iran/2012/02/02/gIQANjfTkQ_story.html?hpid=z2), David Ignatius observes:

"[US Defense Secretary] Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a 'zone of immunity' to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily.

. . . .

President Obama and Panetta are said to have cautioned the Israelis that the United States opposes an attack, believing that it would derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the threshold. But the White House hasn’t yet decided precisely how the United States would respond if the Israelis do attack."

Ignatius further suggests that Israeli Defense Minister Barak "may have signaled the prospect of an Israeli attack" when Israel cancelled "Austere Challenge," a joint US/Israeli anti-missile exercise scheduled for April.

Obama and Panetta can't fathom that economic sanctions will not alter Khamenei's mindset. This is a man willing to sacrifice millions of lives in order to attain his goal of removing the profane presence of the Zionist intruder from the Muslim Middle East.

In response to Ignatius's question whether Israel is preparing to attack Iran, could Israel possibly not prepare for war in light of Iran's unequivocal goal of annihilating Israel? Given Obama's ambivalence, indecision and overriding concern with re-election, Israel may indeed have to go it alone.

Roger Cohen, "Doctrine of Silence": Foreign Policy Is Obama's "Strongest Suit"

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Doctrine of Silence" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/opinion/cohen-doctrine-of-silence.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Roger Cohen questions the use of unconventional methods of warfare by the Obama administration, including drone attacks, to thwart al-Qaeda and to subvert Iran's nuclear weapons development program. Always seeking a new way to "slime" Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Cohen writes:

"In general, it’s hard to resist the impression of a tilt toward the extrajudicial in U.S. foreign policy — a kind of 'Likudization' of the approach to dealing with enemies. Israel has never hesitated to kill foes with blood on their hands wherever they are.

This is a development about which no American can feel entirely comfortable."

Just to set the record straight, Ehud Olmert of the Kadima Party, who was prime minister of Israel prior to Netanyahu and who offered Abbas peace along the 1967 lines with land swaps and sharing of Jerusalem's holy places, also agreed to "targeted killings" (see, for example: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=25722). But why should Cohen concern himself with the facts?

Cohen concludes:

"Just because it’s impossible to talk about some operations undertaken within this doctrine does not mean the entire doctrine can remain cloaked in silence.

Foreign policy has been Obama’s strongest suit. He deserves great credit for killing Osama bin Laden, acting for the liberation of Libya, getting behind the Arab quest for freedom, winding down the war in Iraq, dealing repeated blows to Al Qaeda and restoring America’s battered image.

But the doctrine of silence is a failing with links to his overarching failure on the economy: it betrays a presidential reticence, coolness and aloofness that leave Americans uncomfortable."

"Foreign policy has been Obama's strongest suit"? Given the deteriorating state of the US economy, perhaps this is true, but it is hardly a compliment.

Yes, Obama deserves credit for killing bin Laden and assassinating other al-Qaeda leaders, but how can one claim that he acted "for the liberation of Libya"? The flag of al-Qaeda is now flying over Benghazi, and as observed by Caroline Glick in her most recent Jerusalem Post column (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=246922):

"In Libya, after facilitating Muammar Gaddafi’s overthrow, the US is faced with the prospect of dealing with an even more radical regime that is jihadist, empowered and already transferring arms to terror groups and proliferating nonconventional weapons. If the Obama administration and the US foreign policy establishment acknowledge the hostile nature of the new regime and refrain from supporting it, they will be forced to admit they sided with America’s enemies in taking down Gaddafi."

Obama merits praise for "getting behind the Arab quest for freedom"? Although Obama was quick to bring down US ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, he was loathesomely late in calling for the departure of Syria's president, even as Assad murdered thousands of his countrymen. This was indeed an instance where Obama "led from behind."

Re the winding down of the war in Iraq (I opposed the Second Gulf War), we have yet to see the consequences of precipitously removing all US troops at a time when Iran is aggressively threatening its neighbors and increasingly becoming involved in Iraqi affairs. Note that Iran's President Ahmadinejad is now planning to visit Iraqi Kurdistan (see: http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2011/11/state5601.htm), which in the past steadfastly supported the US.

Obama warrants our gratitude for "restoring America’s battered image"? This is truly inane. As reported by Farah Stockman of boston.com (http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/07/obama-viewed-less-favorably-arab-world-poll-shows/yIVn6f6PueWbdhZutglhoJ/index.html):

"The United States is viewed less favorably in much of the Arab world today than it was during the final year of the Bush administration, and President Obama is less popular in the region than Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, according to a poll released today by the Arab American Institute, a nonpartisan research and advocacy group.

. . . .

In 2008, the final year of the Bush administration, only 9 percent of Egyptians had a favorable attitude towards the United States. A year later, after Obama took office, that number jumped to 30 percent. But now it has plummeted to just 5 percent of Egyptians who view the United States favorably.

Similar figures in Morocco, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates show that the United States is viewed less favorably now than the final year of the Bush administration."

If foreign policy is indeed Obama's "strongest suit," as Cohen would have us believe, Obama is in deep trouble.

Thomas Friedman, "A Long List of Suckers": Or Opening the Floodgates of Hell

All who read this blog know that I have long opposed US ground involvement in Afghanistan, and I regarded Obama's decision to escalate American involvement in Afghanistan, i.e. Obama's attempt to mimic Bush's surge in Iraq, as a tragic mistake. As such, I welcomed Thomas Friedman's call in his latest New York Times op-ed, "A Long List of Suckers" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/02/opinion/friedman-a-long-list-of-suckers.html?ref=opinion), to curtail the US military presence in Afghanistan.

However, in this op-ed, Friedman also endorses Obama's precipitous decision to yank American troops from Iraq, and here I would observe that Friedman is mistaken in a number of his assumptions. Moreover, this determination by Obama could well open a Pandora's box, whose ultimate repercussions cannot possibly be known.

I opposed the Second Gulf War, given that the toppling of Saddam Hussein was certain to destroy the equilibrium of power between Iraq and Iran. In addition, I believed that Iran was a greater threat to US interests than Saddam. Bush nevertheless waged this war, and unlike Friedman, I fear that sudden removal of American forces will indeed leave Iranian regional ambitions unchecked, particularly at a time when Tehran is threatening to send warships off America's East Coast (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/10356471/iran-says-could-deploy-navy-near-u-s-coast-report/) and to sink US naval vessels in the Persian Gulf (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/07/ap-iran-to-target-us-carriers-if-attacked-070911/).

Although the Iranian threats are toothless, timing is all important, and Obama, who never learned to play the game, is currently sending the wrong obsequious message to Tehran.

Friedman is not afraid of Iranian designs in Iraq, believing that Arab/Persian enmity will trump Sunni/Shiite hatred:

"Iraqis are a proud people. Once our troops are gone, Iraqi Arabs will surely focus entirely on their own government’s performance and on any Iranian or other attempts to try to be the puppeteer of Iraqi politics. Any Iraqi leader seen as Tehran’s lackey will have problems.

I actually think the dominant flow of influence will be from Iraq toward Iran — if (and it is still a big if) — Iraq’s democracy holds. If it does, Iranians will have to look across the border every day at Iraqis, with their dozens of free newspapers and freedom to form any party and vote for any leader, and wonder why these 'inferior' Iraqi Arab Shiites enjoy such freedoms and “superior” Iranian Persian Shiites do not."

"Iraqis are a proud people"? Remarkably, Friedman does not once mention the semi-autonomous Kurdish minority in Iraq's north, comprising over 15% of Iraq's population. Other than Israel, the US has no better friend in the Middle East than Iraq's Kurds, who are now suddenly hedging their bets.

On Saturday, the president of Iraq's Kurdistan region, Massoud Barzani, arrived in Tehran in order to meet with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei and Iranian president Ahmadinejad (see: http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2011/10/irankurd809.htm). Barzani declared:

"We will not forget the assistance of the Iranian people and government during the hard times passed by Iraq.

To preserve our victory, we need Iranian assistance and guidance in this sphere."

I view the Kurds as a weathervane in this area, and Barazani's meetings signal stormy weather ahead. Friedman questions whether Iraq's democracy will hold. Answer: Not a chance at this time.

The Kurds are not the only ones getting nervous about Obama's decision to precipitously evacuate American troops from Iraq. As reported by Yaakov Lappin of The Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=243954):

"Over the past several days, Hebrew media reports have been engaged in intense speculation regarding a possible imminent Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear sites."

In short, Obama may have just opened the floodgates of hell in the Middle East.

Obama, Iran and Twittergate: J'accuse!

J'accuse! The cat is out of the bag.

This has nothing to with Donald Trump and the inanity involving Obama's birth certificate. Rather, this has everything to do with the duplicity of Obama's decision to abandon those who took to the streets of Iran during the 2009 Green Revolution, owing to the president's belief in his own omniscience.

This also has everything to do with further attempts by the Obama administration to depict another murderer, Bashar al-Assad, president of Syria, as a "reformer", and Obama's delay in responding to the plaintive cries of those being gunned down in Daraa, Izraa and Homs.

Obama was sworn in as president on January 20, 2009, and exactly two months later, on March 20, 2009, he extended a new year's ("Nowruz") greeting to the Islamic Republic of Iran whereby he sought reconciliation with the mullahs:

"So in this season of new beginnings I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.

You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right -- but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.

So on the occasion of your New Year, I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek. It's a future with renewed exchanges among our people, and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce. It's a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace."

This was all part of Obama's agenda to prove that there was a different way to approach the world's tyrannies, and that with kindness and humility they could be brought into the fold. Obama was determined to demonstrate the error in Bush's ways, that only he knew best, and that what had been deemed the "axis of evil" by the former president would, like the American electorate, succumb to his charm.

On June 4, 2009, still courting Iran and seeking to smooth out any remaining differences, Obama declared from Cairo:

“I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.”

During these same months, just by chance, Roger Cohen of The New York Times was busy writing innumerable op-eds from Tehran, disseminating the message that Iran is "not totalitarian".

During these same months, just by chance, The New York Times published two guest op-eds by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett seeking "a new approach toward Iran."

And if that was not enough, even the editorial board of The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/opinion/09mon1.html), as early as February 8, 2009 (only three weeks after Obama's inauguration), just by chance, got into the act and stated:

"President Obama has set a constructive new tone for trying to engage Iran. He told an Arabic-language TV network: 'If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.' And he showed refreshing humility after the Bush administration’s arrogance: 'Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes.'”

Rapprochement with Iran was clearly the keystone of Obama's revolutionary foreign policy, and he was getting all the support from the press that he could possibly imagine.

But then came the fraudulent election of Ahmadinejad in June 2009, when Iranian protesters took to the streets in what became known as the "Green Revolution" or "Twitter Revolution", owing to the reliance of the protesters upon Twitter and the Internet to communicate with one another. Brutally beaten, imprisoned, tortured and murdered, the protesters called out Obama's name from the streets of Tehran, but Obama ignored their pleas for help, refusing even to bring the matter before the United Nations.

Was Obama's failure to respond to the pleas of the Iranian protesters simply a matter of inexperience? Sadly, we are now learning that Obama's indifference to the Green Revolution was a calculated decision to adhere to his policy of currying favor with the mullahs, as evidenced by a New Yorker article entitled "The Consequentialist" (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/02/110502fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all), written by Mr. Ryan Lizza:

"A week later [after Obama's Cairo speech], however, a disputed Presidential election in Iran triggered large demonstrations there, which were soon labelled the Green Revolution. For the first five months after his Inauguration, Obama had tried to engage with the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in an effort to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Now he faced the choice between keeping his distance and coming to the aid of the nascent pro-democracy movement, which was rallying behind Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who had finished second behind Ahmadinejad. Obama chose to keep his distance, providing only mild rhetorical support. In an interview with CNBC after the protests began, he said that 'the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised.'

During the peak of the protests in Iran, Jared Cohen, a young staffer at the State Department who worked for Slaughter, contacted officials at Twitter and asked the company not to perform a planned upgrade that would have shut down the service temporarily in Iran, where protesters were using it to get information to the international media. The move violated Obama’s rule of non-interference.

White House officials 'were so mad that somebody had actually ‘interfered’ in Iranian politics, because they were doing their damnedest to not interfere,' the former Administration official said. 'Now, to be fair to them, it was also the understanding that if we interfered it could look like the Green movement was Western-backed, but that really wasn’t the core of it. The core of it was we were still trying to engage the Iranian government and we did not want to do anything that made us side with the protesters. . . . The official said that Cohen 'almost lost his job over it. If it had been up to the White House, they would have fired him.'”

Interviewed by Mr. Hugh Hewitt (http://www.hughhewitt.com/transcripts.aspx?id=daf95729-9b04-484a-acb3-6c834217a155) and as noted by Mr. Rick Richman of Commentary in an "Contentions" item entitled "Leading from Behind 2.0" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/27/leading-from-behind-2-0/), Mr. Ryan Lizza further explained in this regard:

"I was very surprised to find that this young guy, Jared Cohen, who unilaterally, essentially all by himself, contacted Twitter, and told them to delay a scheduled maintenance upgrade so that the Iranians could continue to use Twitter. It was a very controversial, I mean, inside, someone at the White House referred to it as, when I asked about it, they said oh yeah, you’re talking about Twittergate, right?"

Needless to say, Obama's refusal to support the protesters did not earn him any credit with Ahmadinejad or Khameini.

But that did not prevent Obama from persisting in his ways and seeking to win over Syria. He repeatedly sent Kerry to Damascus. He ignored the murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri by Assad in 2005 and appointed a new ambassador to Syria. He ceded Lebanon to Hezbollah. Notwithstanding the murder of protesters, Hillary saw fit to refer to Assad as a reformer, and now Obama has allowed Europe to take the lead in condemning the massacre of unarmed civilians.

Obama has proven himself a prisoner of his own narcissism and conceit, incapable of remorse, and unable to acknowledge his errors, which continue to exact a high toll of innocent bloodshed, but which go ignored by his fawning admirers.

Time to Reassess America's Relationship with Turkey

It's time for the U.S. to reassess its relationship with Turkey.

After Obama became president, the first Muslim country that he visited in April 2009 was Turkey, where he told the Turkish parliament that he favors Turkish membership in the European Union. Beyond that, Obama has systematically reneged on his campaign promise to recognize Armenian Genocide. What has the U.S. gotten in return?

Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has publicly supported Iran's nuclear program, claiming that it is for civilian purposes only (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8570842.stm), notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and hosted Ahmadinejad in late December 2010.

Erdogan was also among the few world leaders to congratulate Ahmadinejad after the spurious Iranian presidential election in June 2009 (http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/17322.htm), notwithstanding the brutal suppression of subsequent mass protests in Tehran.

In December 2010, Erdogan traveled to Tripoli to receive the "Qaddafi International Prize for Human Rights". Previous recipients of the prize, worth some $250,000, have included Louis Farrakhan (1996), Fidel Castro (1998), and Hugo Chavez (2004).

Earlier this month, Turkey opposed sanctions passed by the U.N. Security Council against Libya, and Erdogan announced that he would also object to NATO enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya (http://www.hudson-ny.org/1927/turkey-opposes-no-fly-zone-over-libya-and-un).

Now, Turkey's deputy prime minister, Bülent Arınç, is voicing support for airstrikes against Israel (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/03/21/turkey%e2%80%99s-deputy-prime-minister-calls-for-airstrikes-on-israel/).

Given all of the above, does the U.S. seriously intend to proceed with its plans to provide Turkey with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter? Time for Obama and friends to give this a little more thought.

Qaddafi, Ahmadinejad and the Bomb

Imagine for a moment that Libya's Qaddafi had an atomic weapon at his disposal. Faced with his current predicament, would Qaddafi choose to launch the weapon at his domestic enemies, Israel or Europe? Under the present circumstances, I believe that there would be an excellent chance that he would let a nuclear tipped missile fly.

Fortunately for the world, Qaddafi was defanged. In an excellent article entitled "In U.S.-Libya Nuclear Deal, a Qaddafi Threat Faded Away" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/world/middleeast/02arms.html?hp), David Sanger of The New York Times recently wrote:

"Senior administration officials and Pentagon planners, as they discuss sanctions and a possible no-flight zone to neutralize the Libyan Air Force, say that the 2003 deal removed Colonel Qaddafi’s biggest trump card: the threat of using a nuclear weapon, or even just selling nuclear material or technology, if he believed it was the only way to save his 42-year rule. While Colonel Qaddafi retains a stockpile of mustard gas, it is not clear he has any effective way to deploy it.

'Imagine the possible nightmare if we had failed to remove the Libyan nuclear weapons program and their longer-range missile force,' said Robert Joseph, who played a central role in organizing the effort, in the months just after the invasion of Iraq.

'You can’t know for sure how far the Libyan program would have progressed in the last eight years,' said Mr. Joseph, who left the administration of President George W. Bush a few years after the Libya events, partly because he believed it had gone soft on nuclear rogue states. But given Colonel Qaddafi’s recent threats, he said on Monday, 'there is no question he would have used whatever he felt necessary to stay in power.'”

Query: Is Iran's Ahmadinejad any less crazy than Qaddafi? Although their symptoms might be different, both men are dangerously psychotic.

Now consider Roger Cohen's April 8, 2009 New York Times op-ed "Israel Cries Wolf" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/opinion/09iht-edcohen.html), in which Cohen wrote:

"What’s critical right now is that Obama view Netanyahu’s fear-mongering with an appropriate skepticism, rein him in, and pursue his regime-recognizing opening toward Tehran, as he did Wednesday by saying America would join nuclear talks for the first time."

Cohen's prattle was consistent with the views of other left-leaning commentators: If Israel has nuclear weapons, why shouldn't Iran be given the same rights, which might force Israel to make peace?

As we watch Qaddafi in his death throes, the need to control Iranian nuclear ambitions has never been clearer.

Her Hideousness, Catherine Ashton, Receives a "Very Important" Letter from Iran (II)

At the end of October, EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton announced that the EU had received a letter from Saeed Jalili, the top Iranian nuclear negotiator, saying that Tehran is ready to restart negotiations with the P5+1 world powers over its nuclear program after November "in a place and on a date convenient to both sides." In Brussels at a summit of EU leaders, Ashton stated: "It's a very important development and we're now in touch with Iran to see if we can agree the time and the place which is possible." See: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/10/her-hideousness-catherine-ashton.html

On Tuesday, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast stated that "under no condition will we discuss the issue of fuel swap in our meeting with the 5+1 group." See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101109/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpolitics_20101109175818

Ahmadinejad today further qualified the topics open for discussion with the 5+1 group:

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stressed the importance of holding talks on equal footing, saying the Islamic Republic will never talk about its absolute rights.

According to Press TV, President Ahmadinejad in an address to thousands of enthusiastic people of the central city of Qazvin on Wednesday said 'Iran is ready to hold talks on equal conditions to help settle ongoing problems; ease international concerns; and establish peace and security in the world.'"

http://english.irib.ir/news/political/item/67654-iran-never-talks-about-absolute-rights

What happened to Ashton's "very important development"? Does her inanity know any bounds?

A Crack Appears in the Syrian-Iranian Axis

An "unknown" organization is threatening violence if Iran's president, Ahmadinejad, goes ahead with his scheduled visit to Lebanon. As reported by Haaretz:

"A previously unknown group threatened action Monday during Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's planned visit to Lebanon this week, local media reported.

A statement by a group calling itself the Abdaullah Azzam Brigades warned: 'The whole of Lebanon will tremble and its ground will quake if Ahmadinejad steps foot on it.'

'We will do the impossible to thwart this' the statement added.

Ahmadinejad is due to pay an official two-day visit to Lebanon on Wednesday and Thursday, during which he will hold talks with Lebanese officials and tour areas near the border with Israel.

The visit of the Iranian leader coincides with threats by Hezbollah of a fresh round of violence in Lebanon stemming from the UN tribunal investigating the 2005 assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri.

That threat comes after reports indicated that the tribunal planned to indict Hezbollah members in the bombing attack."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/previously-unknown-group-threatens-ahmadinejad-s-lebanon-visit-1.318430

The "Abdaullah Azzam Brigades" is indeed an unknown organization, given that it is also a figment of the imagination of Syrian President Assad.

The problem involving Lebanon, which is fast becoming the powder keg of the Twenty-First Century, is that both Iran and Syria perceive the country as part of their spheres of interest. Cordial to Iranian efforts to gain Middle East hegemony until now, Syria will not permit Iran to claim property rights over Lebanon, which has long been viewed by Assad and his father as belonging to Greater Syria.

Meanwhile, with the results of the UN tribunal's Hariri murder investigation expected soon, it will be interesting to see if Hezbollah will cause provocations on the Lebanese border with Israel in order to distract the Arab street.

Never a dull moment.

Assad Meets Ahmadinejad: A Summit for Tyranny and Repression

On Saturday, Syria's Assad arrived in Iran to meet with Ahmadinejad and to receive the Grand National Order of the Islamic Republic of Iran. As reported by the Teheran Times:

"Earlier in the day, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad awarded Iran's highest national medal, the Grand National Order of the Islamic Republic of Iran, to the Syrian president for his support of the Palestinian and Lebanese nations.

This medal is a sign of Iran’s profound gratitude to the Syrian government and nation for their serious efforts to establish peace in the region, Ahmadinejad said during a ceremony held at the Foreign Ministry.

If it were not for Syria's resistance, no country in the region would have been unaffected by the Zionist regime’s aggression, the Iranian president added."

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=227807

Assad's "support of the Palestinians and Lebanese nations"? I suppose Ahmadinejad is referring to Assad's willingness to harbor the Hamas leadership in Damascus, which has gone to extraordinary lengths to oppress Gazans and promote terror in the region, and Assad's complicity in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.

Remember the long private dinner party held by Senator John Kerry, Assad and their wives at the Narenj restaurant in the old city of Damascus in March 2009? Remember Syria's declarations of "respect and friendship" between Kerry and Assad? Remember Obama's overtures to the Islamic Republic of Iran, encouraged by the Leveretts, at the beginning of his presidency?

The meeting of Assad and Ahmadinejad on Saturday serves as a testimonial to the naivete and abject failure of Obama's foreign policy.

Ground Zero Mosque: Confessions of an Islamophobe

Time to be politically incorrect.

Yesterday in a New York Times op-ed entitled "How Fox Betrayed Petraeus" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22rich.html?ref=frankrich), drama critic Frank Rich excoriated those who oppose the Ground Zero Mosque:

"The 'ground zero mosque,' as you may well know by now, is not at ground zero. It’s not a mosque but an Islamic cultural center containing a prayer room.

. . . .

So virulent is the Islamophobic hysteria of the neocon and Fox News right — abetted by the useful idiocy of the Anti-Defamation League, Harry Reid and other cowed Democrats — that it has also rendered Gen. David Petraeus’s last-ditch counterinsurgency strategy for fighting the war inoperative. How do you win Muslim hearts and minds in Kandahar when you are calling Muslims every filthy name in the book in New York?"

The Ground Zero Mosque is not a mosque? Peculiar. Rich would have us believe that within the $100 million, 13-story complex only one tiny room is intended for prayer, when in fact the "prayer space" is intended for up to 2,000 Muslims. Does Harvard educated Rich take us all for idiots? Perhaps.

Rich appears to divide those opposing the Ground Zero Mosque into two categories: the Islamophobic neocon Right and the "useful idiots", which has me asking, into which of these two categories do I personally fall?

I have consistently opposed U.S. ground involvement in Afghanistan and am pro-choice, so the totality of the first of these two possibilities appears inapplicable to me. So then, am I a "useful idiot"? Of course, I might be deemed a fool by Frank, but on the other hand, I have two university degrees, speak several languages, worked in the past for a leading M&A law firm, and my IQ exceeds that of Forrest Gump.

According to Rich, the only remaining possibility seems to be that although not a neocon, I am still an Islamophobe, but if this is indeed the case, I can't help wondering if my fear is irrational.

Charles Krauthammer, hardly a Neanderthal, but who would probably be placed by Rich in the neocon category, observed in a August 20 Washington Post op-ed entitled "Moral myopia at Ground Zero" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/19/AR2010081904769.html):

"Radical Islam is not, by any means, a majority of Islam. But with its financiers, clerics, propagandists, trainers, leaders, operatives and sympathizers -- according to a conservative estimate, it commands the allegiance of 7 percent of Muslims, i.e., more than 80 million souls -- it is a very powerful strain within Islam. It has changed the course of nations and affected the lives of millions. It is the reason every airport in the West is an armed camp and every land is on constant alert."

Forgive me for asking whether that radical 7 percent of Muslims also includes those who condone "honor killings"? Throughout the entire Muslim Middle East, women are being murdered by male relatives for so-called affronts such as using a cell phone to call a man outside the family. Each year some 5,000 Muslim women fall victim to "honor killings", which are now also occurring in the U.S., Canada and Western Europe (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/search/label/honor%20killings).

Do honor killings also just belong to Islam's radical fringe?

In addition, let's look at Libya, where Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi, convicted in connection with the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 above Lockerbie, is roaming free after being released from a Scottish prison on August 20 last year on compassionate grounds. Although we were told that Al-Megrahi, suffering from prostate cancer, had less than three months to live, he is still very much alive, and the U.K. recently warned Libya not to engage again in celebrations over his release (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wirestory?id=11442584&page=1).

Not frightening enough for you? Consider Qaddafi's plans for Europe, enunciated in a speech broadcast by Al Jazeera on April 10, 2006 (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/05/qaddafi-europe-and-the-us-should-agree-to-become-islamic-or-declare-war-on-the-muslims.html):

"Some people believe that Muhammad is the prophet of the Arabs or the Muslims alone. This is a mistake. Muhammad is the Prophet of all people. He superseded all previous religions. If Jesus were alive when Muhammad was sent, he would have followed him. All people must be Muslims. . . . We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades. . . Allah mobilizes the Muslim nation of Turkey and adds it to the European Union. That's another 50 million Muslims. There will be 100 million Muslims in Europe. Albania, which is a Muslim country, has already entered the EU. Fifty percent of its citizens are Muslims."

No reason for concern? Qaddafi is again just Islam's fringe?

No one will forget the pictures of President Obama bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. No, this act of obeisance doesn't have me worried, but I am extremely troubled when women who are gang raped are sentenced to lashings and prison (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/search/label/Abdullah). Moreover, this week's report that a Saudi judge, pursuant to Islamic law, is seeking a hospital willing to paralyze a person convicted of paralyzing another person, does not leave me with a warm fuzzy feeling (http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/saudi-judge-considers-paralysis-punishment-1.309494).

Yeah, I know: only Islam's fringe.

Should the calls of Iran's Ahmadinejad to wipe Israel off the face of the map and his threats against the U.S. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7590529/Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-threatens-US-over-Mid-East-peace-plans.html) just be ignored? Are Iran's stoning of female "adulterers", its savage persecution of its Baha'is, and, together with Syria and Turkey, its abuse of the region's 35 million Kurds of little consequence? Again, I know, I'm being paranoid: it's just the fringe, having nothing to do with mainstream Islam.

Then, also, there are the interminable wars involving almost all of the Muslim Middle East countries, the vast majority not involving Israel (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/09/roger-cohen-again-demonizes-israel.html). In this regard, I would feel much better if occasionally I heard calls for brotherhood from the two mosques situated within earshot of my home, but it's just not the case.

Of course, I'm not saying that Christianity and Judaism didn't have their extremely violent pasts, and maybe in another century Islam will find the route to tolerance and coexistence, but that time has yet to come.

So before the Ground Zero Mosque is built, notwithstanding testimonials to Rauf's sterling character, forgive me if I ask from where the funds for the construction of this "Islamic cultural center with a prayer room" are coming.

Maybe a little honesty will do much to allay my irrational Islamophobic concerns.

Guess Who Is Also Worried by Erdogan? The Palestinian Authority

Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, a person suffering from extreme bouts of narcissism, is currently basking in the attention being showered upon him in the wake of the Gaza flotilla. And not to be outdone by Turkey, Iran's Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, who are the primary suppliers of armaments to Hamas, are now also planning to send "aid" by sea.

Who is worried by this attempt to glorify Hamas and facilitate free shipment of goods, including missiles, into the Gaza Strip? The Palestinian Authority. As reported today by Khaled Abu Toameh for the Jerusalem Post:

"The Palestinian Authority is concerned about Turkey’s increased support for Hamas, a PA official in Ramallah said on Monday.

The official said that the PA leadership was “unhappy” with Turkey’s policy toward Hamas, especially with regard to pressure to lift the blockade on the Gaza Strip unconditionally.

'Turkey’s policy is emboldening Hamas and undermining the Palestinian Authority,' the official told The Jerusalem Post.

'Of course we want to see the blockade lifted, but Hamas must also end its coup in the Gaza Strip and accept an Egyptian proposal for achieving reconciliation with Fatah.'

* * * *

The PA is also concerned the reopening of the Rafah border crossing to Sinai would enable Hamas to tighten its grip on the Strip.

'We wish to remind the Turkish and Egyptian governments that the border crossing was controlled by the Palestinian Authority before Hamas launched its coup in 2007,” the official added. “If the Rafah border crossing is going to be reopened, that should be done in coordination with us and not with Hamas.'

Azzam al-Ahmed, a top Fatah official in the West Bank, was quoted over the weekend as saying that he was opposed to the lifting of the blockade on the Gaza Strip until Hamas agreed to end the dispute with his faction.

Ahmed stressed that there was no humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip because the PA government was sending aid through Israeli border crossings."

* * * *

PA President Mahmoud Abbas, who visited Istanbul on Monday, was said to have relayed to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan his concern over the rapprochement between Turkey and Hamas, the official revealed."

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=177779

Even more worrisome is the seeming indifference of the Obama administration to these developments. At issue is the erosion of the coalition of pro-American Arab nations with a resultant heightened risk of war. The Obama administration is not doing anything to rein in Erdogan, while it allows Ahmadinejad to pursue his nuclear program. As a consequence, U.S. credibility in the Arab world, which has no love for Turks or Persians, is at an all-time low.

Yet another instance of Obama fiddling while the world burns.

Thomas Friedman's "The Ballgame and the Sideshow": Both Right and Wrong

In an op-ed in today's New York Times entitled "The Ballgame and the Sideshow" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/opinion/06friedman.html?hp), Thomas Friedman concludes:

"Palestinians building real institutions from the ground up and getting Israel to cede to them real authority — is the ballgame. Make it work across the West Bank and find a way to transfer it to Gaza (how about reopening the Israel-Gaza border and letting the new Palestinian N.S.F. control the passages to Israel?) and a two-state solution is possible. Let it fail, and we’ll have endless conflict. Everything else is just a sideshow."

"Everything else is just a sideshow"? Not by a long shot.

Not when there is a dangerously narcissistic, out of control, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, empowered by Obama, willing to sacrifice lives in order to establish his place as the Middle East's preeminent power broker.

Not when Iran is hell-bent on achieving a nuclear weapons capability and Obama has demonstrated to the world that he is impotent to stop Ahmadinejad.

But did you notice that while the Turks were busy demonstrating in Istanbul in the thousands, the West Bank remained quiet? Why? Because the Palestinians living in the West Bank value their 8% GDP growth and freedom of movement and are scared to death that Hamas will again raise its ugly head in Hebron, Bethlehem, Ramallah, Jericho, Jenin, Nablus, Qalqilyah and Tulkarm.

Sure there was the obligatory demonstration in Bil'in with the participation of activist pilgrims from overseas. However, hosting of these activists has become something of a cottage industry, and Bil'in's villagers could hardly go without producing the weekly show. (Long gone are the activists painted blue to conjure images of the innocent natives from "Avatar", and instead we were presented with a wonderfully constructed stage prop modeled after one of the Gaza flotilla's ships.)

Friedman correctly notes the dramatic reduction in the number of West Bank checkpoints. But that's not the entire story. Of far greater importance is the ease with which the overwhelming majority of Palestinians can pass through these checkpoints, which underlies the 8% GDP growth of the Palestinian Authority.

Abbas and Fayyad are treading a delicate line, which requires periodic theatrical denunciations of Israel following, for example, the Gaza flotilla PR show, but the bottom line is that they are the primary beneficiaries of Israel's efforts to control Hamas radicalism. Abbas and Fayyad must continue playing the game; however, imbued with realism, they know the boundaries of the playing field and where their self-interests lie.

Peace is possible with Abbas and Fayyad, if not torpedoed by Erdogan and his new found friend, Ahmadinejad, and if Obama does not cut the legs out from under Israel. Abbas and Fayyad cannot permit themselves to make demands upon Israel any smaller than those being made by a naive American president.

Dissed by Karzai, Obama Seeks to Kiss and Make Up

On Monday there was an eye-opening article in The New York Times, written by Dexter Filkins and Mark Landler and entitled "Afghan Leader Is Seen to Flout Influence of U.S.", which discloses Afghan President Karzai's utter contempt for Obama:

"This month, with President Hamid Karzai looking ahead to a visit to the White House, he received a terse note from aides to President Obama: Your invitation has been revoked. The reason, according to American officials, was Mr. Karzai’s announcement that he was emasculating an independent panel that had discovered widespread fraud in Mr. Karzai’s re-election last year.

Incensed, Mr. Karzai extended an invitation of his own — to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who flew to Kabul and delivered a fiery anti-American speech inside Afghanistan’s presidential palace. 'Karzai was enraged,' said an Afghan with knowledge of the events, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the issue. 'He invited Ahmadinejad to spite the Americans.'

The dispute was smoothed over only this week, when Mr. Obama flew to Kabul for a surprise dinner with Mr. Karzai. White House officials emphasized that the most important purpose of Mr. Obama’s trip to Afghanistan was to visit American troops there.

. . . .

Mr. Karzai recently told lunch guests at the presidential palace that he believes the Americans are in Afghanistan because they want to dominate his country and the region, and that they pose an obstacle to striking a peace deal with the Taliban. During the recent American-dominated military offensive in the town of Marja — the largest of the war — Mr. Karzai stood mostly in the shadows."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/world/asia/30karzai.html

White House officials emphasized that the most important purpose of Mr. Obama’s trip to Afghanistan was to visit American troops there? Tell me more sweet lies.

Obama knows that Afghanistan has become his war after foolishly deciding to escalate the conflict, and he has no choice other than to bend to Karzai's will.

Karzai, albeit a tin-pot dictator, sees Obama for what he is: a one-term president, incapable of confronting Ahmadinejad, who is a dangerous neighbor destined to be around longer than Obama.

Obama wouldn't dine with Netanyahu, a loyal ally, following an Obama administration manufactured crisis, yet here we have the panic stricken U.S. president begging Karzai to come back to the fold over a banquet at the presidential palace in Kabul. This is more humiliating than Obama bowing to King Abullah of Saudi Arabia.

Yesterday, in his NYT op-ed, "Lo, the Mideast Moves", Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen would have us believe that Obama is a latter-day John F. Kennedy. A John F. Kennedy? Obama is a clueless featherweight, who is bankrupting the U.S. ethically and financially while wasting precious American lives in an ill-fated escapade.

Ahmadinejad, Assad and Nasrallah: A Banquet from Hell

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syrian President Bashar Assad and Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah had dinner together yesterday evening in Damascus. Although the lamb was tasty, you can be certain that the conversation focused on impending war with Israel.

What is Obama doing to derail this axis? As earlier noted, the U.S. is sending an ambassador to Syria after a 5-year hiatus and looks forward to "working constructively with Syria" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/02/effectuating-obama-doctrine-new-us.html). Regrettably, the naivete, dilly-dallying, and appeasement which characterize the Obama administration's foreign policy will only hasten the advent of the next Middle East war.

Will Israel's next conflict be one-front, two-front, three-front or four-front (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/01/will-iran-attack-israel-in-2010.html)? Much depends on whether Assad will renege on his promises to Nasrallah and watch the destruction of Hezbollah's rocket arsenal from the sidelines. Israel learned the lessons of the Winograd Report, and this will not be a prolonged conflict.

February 11 in Tehran: What Will President Obama Do?

On February 11, the anniversary of the revolution against the Shah, the Iranian masses will again take to the streets of Tehran, protesting against the savage totalitarian regime of Ahmadinejad. The tension is high following the executions of dissidents and after today's instructions from Ahmadinejad to produce twenty percent enriched uranium fuel.

And when there is tension on the streets of Tehran, what are you going to do? The answer is obvious: Blame Israel and threaten its destruction.

"Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ali Khamenei stated on Sunday that the will of God is set for an end to the oppression in the region and the defeat of the hegemonic powers.

The Supreme Leader made the remarks in a meeting with Ramadan Abdullah, the secretary general of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement.

Israel is going downhill toward decline and fall and God willing its obliteration is certain, the Leader noted."

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=213925

According to U.S. Secretary of Defense Gates, it's not too late to impose additional sanctions against Iran. Yeah, sure, let's fix another date for compliance and see what effect that has on Ahmadinejad and his Revolutionary Guard. And even if sanctions are imposed, do you think for one moment that the Chinese won't cut a deal to allow the Revolutionary Guard to circumvent the restrictions?

So what's it gonna be in another four days when the protesters chant: "Obama, are you with us or against us?"

Most likely just another vote of "present".

Will Iran Attack Israel in 2010?

Will Iran attack Israel in 2010? Regrettably, the chances of this happening are high. Rationale:

1. Were Iran to initiate a war with Israel, either directly or via its proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah and/or Syria), Ahmadinejad might sense that he could relieve the pressure building on the streets of Tehran against his regime.

2. Obama continues to draw lines in the sand, and now, instead of the "crippling" sanctions against Iran that had long been threatened at yearend, his administration is considering a "more calibrated approach" involving "targeted" sanctions. Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad has come to regard Obama as a paper tiger.

3. Egypt continues to build a steel wall under its border with Gaza, which could choke off, to some degree, additional military supplies. In the interim, Hamas has fully replenished its rocket supply, and after a cowardly military display during Operation Cast Lead - its forces stripped off their uniforms and avoided pitched battles with the Israel Defense Forces - Hamas may be looking to regain some of its honor. Note the recent Cast Lead anniversary commemoration which was almost entirely ignored by Gazans.

4. Hezbollah's backing and popularity among Lebanon's Shiites is premised in no small part upon its ability to distribute Iranian funding to its social welfare network of schools, clinics, etc. Eliminate their funding, deprive them of their steady flow of Iranian weaponry and training, and the house of cards collapses. As such, Hezbollah head, Nasrallah, will likely abide by any determination of his Persian mentors, notwithstanding the likelihood of sledgehammer Israeli retaliation.

War or no war? It's a coin toss. The more upbeat, flip side of the coin? Here's one possible scenario:

1. The dissidents again take to the streets in Tehran and dislodge Ahmadinejad, who is replaced by Mousavi. Mousavi is anything but a "reformist"; while prime minister of Iran in the past, he refused to tolerate dissent and was responsible for the execution of thousands of opponents of the regime. Also, while prime minister, he refused to seek the release of the U.S. embassy hostages, and he was instrumental in creating Hezbollah.

2. Mousavi, who now claims he is "ready for martyrdom", is nevertheless a pragmatist and a survivor, and as prime minister, he may decide that Iran can no longer afford to pay for its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, given Iran's weakened economy. He might also seek some sort of lukewarm relationship with Obama.

3. Don't get your hopes up too high: Mousavi will still try to pursue Iran's program for the development of nuclear weapons. The name of the game remains Middle East hegemony.

4. Israel is granted a temporary reprieve from what stands to be a brutal war in which Israel's civilian population would be targeted. At least Mousavi, unlike Ahmadinejad, acknowledges that the Holocaust did in fact occur.

When asked by friends what I want most in life, my steadfast reply is "boredom". Let's hope for a "boring" 2010, free of military threats and war.

Ahmadinejad Declares His Support for Hamas As Tehran University Is Surrounded

Today Iranian President Ahmadinejad declared his support for visiting Hamas leader, Khaled Mashaal, who is based in Damascus. Ahmadinejad stated that Palestine symbolizes the global front of freedom-seekers and declared:

“The government and the people of Iran will always stand by the Palestinian resistance and the Palestinian people.”

http://www.trt-world.com/trtinternational/en/newsDetail.aspx?HaberKodu=7f0564fa-8c66-4a4e-8730-846fb7fc831a

Meanwhile, Iranian police have surrounded protesting students in Tehran University, and it remains to be seen how many of these students will be imprisoned, murdered, tortured and raped.

Where are the outraged voices of the left? Let's see if Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen wishes to comment on this siege.

And where is Obama, who has refused to offer even moral support to Iran's dissidents and who continues to draw lines in the sand, daring the Iranians not to pursue their nuclear armament ambitions? Although Tehran has long claimed that its intentions involving nuclear development solely involve future energy requirements, The Times (U.K.) now reports:

"Confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb.

The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.

. . . .

The technical document describes the use of a neutron source, uranium deuteride, which independent experts confirm has no possible civilian or military use other than in a nuclear weapon. Uranium deuteride is the material used in Pakistan’s bomb, from where Iran obtained its blueprint."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6955351.ece