Tag Archives: war between iran and israel

Preparing for War: Middle East War Coming Soon



This is the kind of deal making and last ditch diplomatic moves before a major conflict begins.  The Jerusalem Post has confirmed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has taken a clandestine trip to Russia according to a Kremlin spokesman.  Nothing is known of the subject matter, or of the officials involved but the probability is that it involved the situation in Iran and perhaps Syria.  It was staged without knowledge of, nor coverage of the press corps, and without the trappings of an official state visit.  A leased Jet supposedly took the prime minister on this cloak and dagger mission and no information of any meaningful nature has been released by either government to a hoodwinked press corp.

You need not be Einstein to conclude that time is rapidly running out on Middle East peace.  If Middle East Oil is interdicted or facilities destroyed by a regional war the economic effects could be catastrophic throughout the world.  Israel has no option at all and must attack or be destroyed by an Iranian Nuclear Bomb and the fact that hush-hush meetings are taking place between Russia and the Prime Minister of Israel can only mean that the day of reckoning is close at hand.


Kremlin official confirms PM’s trip

Sep. 9, 2009
Herb Keinon and jpost staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

A senior Kremlin official confirmed Wednesday to the Russian paper Kommersant that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did indeed make a clandestine trip to Russia on Monday.

Commenting on the visit, the official said that “this kind of development could only be related to new and threatening information on Iran’s nuclear program.”

The Russian newspaper quoted experts speculating that such a trip would only be justified under extraordinary circumstances, “for example, in the case of Israel planning to attack Iran.”

The report comes despite a statement Wednesday from the Kremlin press service that “nothing is known” about reports of the visit. Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, also said he had no information, the Interfax news agency reported.

Nevertheless, there was never any official denial of the report from Moscow.

On Wednesday night, the Prime Minister’s Office appeared to stick to its original version of events: that Netanyahu was occupied with “secret and classified activities” during his unexplained absence of over 12 hours.

The PMO announced that Military Secretary to the Prime Minister Lt.-Gen. Meir Kalifi was not in contact with the prime minister.

According to the announcement, Kalifi undertook an independent initiative to safeguard these activities, and National Security Adviser Uzi Arad had no part in the affair.

Earlier Wednesday, the office neither explicitly confirmed nor denied a story that appeared in Yediot Aharonot claiming that Netanyahu had flown to Russia to talk about planned Russian arms sales to Iran.

Instead, Netanyahu’s spokesmen referred reporters back to the statement issued Monday evening amid a swirl of rumors that Netanyahu had gone abroad.

That statement, oddly released in the name of Kalifi and not in the name of spokesman Nir Hefetz, said, “The prime minister is visiting a security installation in Israel today.”

Asked explicitly if Netanyahu had left the country, another Netanyahu spokesman, Mark Regev, referred back to that statement.

That statement, however, did not rule out the possibility of a trip abroad, since after briefly visiting a security installation, Netanyahu could very well have flown overseas.

Faced with anger from the Israeli press that the Prime Minister’s Office had lied about Netanyahu’s whereabouts, Channel 2 reported Kalifi saying Wednesday night that, “in matters of national security, I take the prerogative of not saying the whole truth.”

Hefetz reportedly refused to issue Monday evening’s statement in his name because he was unable to confirm its veracity.

The whole mysterious episode has focused the spotlight on a reported fissure inside the Prime Minister’s Office, with Kalifi and Arad on one side, and Hefetz and Cabinet Secretary Tzvi Hauser on the other.

According to various new reports on Wednesday, Netanyahu – who was reportedly accompanied by Kalifi and Arad on the reported trip – leased a private jet from Merhav, a company owned by Israeli mogul Yossi Maiman, one of the shareholders of Channel 10 and EMG, an Egyptian company supplying gas to the Israel Electric Corp.

This was apparently done to make the trip as discrete as possible, since using an Israel Air Force jet – it was apparently thought – would have raised the suspicions of the Israeli media.

Maiman was reportedly not directly involved in leasing the jet, as this was done through a company he owns.

Senior Foreign Ministry officials, meanwhile, denied any knowledge of the trip, saying that Israel’s envoy in Moscow was also not appraised of it.

What is almost as mysterious as whether the trip took place, is what might have been discussed, with speculation focused on Iran, possible Russian arms deals to Iran and Syria, or the disappearance of the Arctic Sea cargo ship – suspected of carrying Russian made S-300 anti-aircraft missiles bound for Iran – that went missing last month.

The trip, if indeed it took place, would not have been the result of an impromptu, emergency decision, since there was already talk among Netanyahu’s inner circle during his visit to London and Berlin two weeks ago about a possible visit to Russia ahead of the United Nations General Assembly meeting at the end of the month.

Interestingly, almost exactly two years ago, then-prime minister Ehud Olmert paid a lightning visit to Moscow to meet with then-Russian president Vladimir Putin, a day after the Russian leader returned from a trip to Teheran in which he warned outside powers not to attack Iran and said there was no evidence it was developing nuclear arms.

Back then, the Prime Minister’s Office tried to dissociate Olmert’s trip from Putin’s statements in Iran, but it was clear from the snap manner in which that meeting at the Kremlin was organized and announced that the Iranian nuclear issue would dominate the discussion.

At that time, however, the Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement a day ahead of the trip, informing the media of the visit, even though they were not invited to cover it.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1251804532464&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull


Unprecedented Saudi Support for Israel: Moderate Arab States and Israel Dealing with Iran while Obama Chases Fantasy Diplomacy





First the Egyptians let an Israeli Dolphin Class Sub traverse the Suez Canal so that this nuclear capable submarine can take up a station in range of Iran; and now the Saudi’s may have given Israel permission to use their air space to attack Iran.  Ever since our new President threw the moderate Arabs and Israeli’s under the bus, to demonstrate his cultural sensitivity to the raving dictator Ahmadinejad; our betrayed allies have been cooperating with each other—- without Obama!  No sane nation in the region, regardless of other differences, want Iran to be a nuclear power and the abdication of leadership and trust by the United States, has forced former enemies to truly work together.  Even the naiveté of Obama may have the unintended consequences of forging a stronger relationship between the sane powers of the Middle East.


Consider this article from the Times Online:

From The Sunday Times

July 5, 2009

Saudis give nod to Israeli raid on Iran

Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv and Sarah Baxter

The head of Mossad, Israel’s overseas intelligence service, has assured Benjamin Netanyahu, its prime minister, that Saudi Arabia would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets flying over the kingdom during any future raid on Iran’s nuclear sites.

Earlier this year Meir Dagan, Mossad’s director since 2002, held secret talks with Saudi officials to discuss the possibility.

The Israeli press has already carried unconfirmed reports that high-ranking officials, including Ehud Olmert, the former prime minister, held meetings with Saudi colleagues. The reports were denied by Saudi officials.

“The Saudis have tacitly agreed to the Israeli air force flying through their airspace on a mission which is supposed to be in the common interests of both Israel and Saudi Arabia,” a diplomatic source said last week.

Although the countries have no formal diplomatic relations, an Israeli defence source confirmed that Mossad maintained “working relations” with the Saudis.

John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations who recently visited the Gulf, said it was “entirely logical” for the Israelis to use Saudi airspace.

Bolton, who has talked to several Arab leaders, added: “None of them would say anything about it publicly but they would certainly acquiesce in an overflight if the Israelis didn’t trumpet it as a big success.”

Arab states would condemn a raid when they spoke at the UN but would be privately relieved to see the threat of an Iranian bomb removed, he said.

Referring to the Israeli attack on an alleged Syrian nuclear facility in 2007, Bolton added: “To this day, the Israelis haven’t admitted the specifics but there’s one less nuclear facility in Syria . . .”

Recent developments have underscored concerns among moderate Sunni Arab states about the stability of the repressive Shi’ite regime in Tehran and have increased fears that it may emerge as a belligerent nuclear power.

“The Saudis are very concerned about an Iranian nuclear bomb, even more than the Israelis,” said a former head of research in Israeli intelligence.

The Israeli air force has been training for a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear site at Natanz in the centre of the country and other locations for four years.

The Clock is Running Out for Iran: Israel is getting into Position for War






Some people in the media like to pretend that Israel can’t effectively negate the Iranian Nuclear Program by military action.  Well, a nuclear strike on certain hardened underground facilities just might change the equation: and little known Israeli subs could well deliver such a knockout punch.  Interesting how this article in the Debka file mentions a low key traversing of the Suez Canal by an Israeli sub that can deliver nuclear armed cruise missile.  It seems to underline the growing friendship between Israel and moderate Arab states like Egypt and the Saudis with a low key display of cooperation. (About as subtle as a heart attack!)  It also manages to give Mr. Obama pause in thinking that he’s going to be the odd man out when the shooting starts because he’s clearly over his head in determining an effective Middle East Policy.

The allies that Obama foolishly threw under the bus will deal with this matter without worrying about the “culturally sensitive” potentate inhabiting the White House. 

Mr. Ahmadinejad would do well to consider giving up the game now before his country is taken into a fully preventable holocaust that must ensue if Iran will not give up its nuclear program.  The Program is vulnerable to Israeli attack but the cost in collateral damage with be huge due to the types of weapons necessary to do the mission.  Israel will pay that price because it knows it has no choice. 

Consider this article from Debkafile.com

Israeli sub said armed with nuclear-capable torpedoes navigates Suez Canal

DEBKAfile Special Report

July 3, 2009, 7:26 PM (GMT+02:00)


Dophin-class submarine

The Dolphin-class attack submarine is reported to be the first Israeli naval vessel to transit the Suez Canal in four years on its way from Haifa to Eilat last month. According to DEBKAfile‘s military sources, the move indicates a strengthening of the informal Israel-Egyptian-Saudi pact forged in recent months against Iran and first revealed by our sources. The three Middle East nations have opted for an Iran policy which is separate from the track pursued by US president Barack Obama.

According to foreign military sources, the Israeli Dolphins are stationed in the Mediterranean, the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean opposite Iran’s shores. They are said to be armed with torpedo tubes capable of launching nuclear-capable cruise missiles.

To transit the Suez Canal, the armed submarine would have required Egyptian permission at the highest level, possibly even President Hosni Mubarak. An official in Cairo told Reuters that its passage would not be problematic as Egypt and Israel are not at war.

This noncommittal response indicates that Egypt has no objection to Israeli military craft passing through the canal on their way to the Red Sea and on to the Persian Gulf in case of a decision to strike Iran. The alternative would be a voyage of weeks around the Horn of Africa.

Our military sources report that since the Israel Navy lost the Dakar submarine near Greece in 1968, all Israeli subs are armed when they move out of harbor. Disclosure of the Israeli sub’s passage through the Suez Canal last month is rated by our sources as of high regional significance, over and above the Middle East diplomatic moves afoot.

The Joe Biden Follies: Chronically Befuddled VP Green Lights Israel to Attack Iran



It should provide low level entertainment, in addition to some fascination by political junkies, to see how the Obama Administration reacts to the Befuddled Vice President’s remarks that seemed to give a green light to an Israeli attack on Iran.  Biden is notorious for foot-in-mouth disease, much to the reported consternation of Obama, who in latter days has tried, gamely, to keep Biden out of range of any microphones.

The White House maintains that nothing has changed in official US Policy and that Obama is still anxious to “talk nicely” to Iran and thus end their nuclear program. Lately, the Iranian government has cracked down, in brutal fashion, on its own people who took to the streets to protest an obviously stolen election. This made the Obama Charismatic I Respect Your Despotic-Freaky-Islamic-Terror-State policy look kind of silly if not naive. Having thrown Israel and moderate Arab states like Egypt under the bus, all to stroke Obama’s new best friend Iran, our American potentate has begun to look kinda stupid for abandoning our real allies for a fantasy about Obama’s own personal charisma. 


The only valid measure to measure Obama’s intentions, is his actions, because most of his words are meaningless, if not outright lies, chosen to mollify any given audience.  The Obama of the campaign trail and the Socialist-Fascist commissar his actions have proven him to be, since being sworn in, is ample evidence that the man is an unprincipled political opportunist for whom “the ends justify the means.”  Socialism-Fascism is clearly the ends that our Potentate Obama has in mind and he’s moved with blinding speed to achieve his ends with major nationalizations of the economy and by turning congress from a democratic deliberative body into a rubberstamp organization of fawning political sycophants that won’t bother to read legislation before passing it.  (So much for the checks and balances)

 A congress that falls down at the feet of the president with sickening adulation has forsaken its sacred obligation to function as a check on presidential power.  We depend on these checks and balances to keep a charismatic would-be-dictator from getting into office and proclaiming himself to be the new king or potentate. A congress this in awe of the president is even more dangerous than a press corps who has renounced its sacred obligation to report factual news instead of being the press office for some charismatic new president or potentate. 

So is the Administration Official, speaking for the president correct when he maintains our policy hasn’t changed?  Or is the Befuddled Vice President not actually speaking out of turn but simply providing cover by signaling a humiliating change of policy that Mr. Obama should have done himself? 

The weeks to come will tell the tale by the degree to which the Administration maintains that no change in policy has taken place.  Obama is now on record for having green lighted Israel and for insisting that we don’t want to interfere in Iranian Affairs.  It’s a lot like the campaign trail in that this man seems to have it both ways which given his opportunistic nature means that Obama is waiting to see which way the wind shifts in the days to come.  Personally I think the President should make it abundantly clear to all concerned where the USA stands on this critical issue if he wants his best chance to avoid war.  Unfortunately that would require our potentate, Obama, to stand on principle: which is about as likely as a Biden News conference that’s free of major gaffs.

Consider this story I found on Drudge written by the Associated Press National Security Writer:

Biden: Israel free to set own course on Iran


By ROBERT BURNS, AP National Security Writer Robert Burns, Ap National Security Writer – Sun Jul 5, 4:09 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Vice President Joe Biden signaled that the Obama administration would not stand in the way if Israel chose to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, even as the top U.S. military officer said any attack on Iran would be destabilizing.

Biden’s remarks suggested a tougher U.S. stance against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Nonetheless, administration officials insisted his televised remarks Sunday reflected the U.S. view that Israel has a right to defend itself and make its own decisions on national security.

In an interview on ABC’s “This Week,” Biden also said the U.S. offer to negotiate with Tehran on its nuclear program still stands. Some thought the administration’s approach might change in light of the Iranian government’s harsh crackdown on protesters after the June 12 presidential election. Opponents of the ruling authorities claimed the vote was rigged against them.

“If the Iranians respond to the offer of engagement, we will engage,” Biden said.

It was after meeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on May 18 that President Barack Obama said it should be clear by year’s end whether Iran was open to direct negotiations. Obama told The Associated Press last Thursday that persuading Iran to forego nuclear weapons has been made more difficult by the crackdown after the disputed re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Biden was asked whether Netanyahu was taking the right approach by indicating that Israel would take matters into its own hands if Iran did not show a willingness to negotiate by the end of the year.

“Look, Israel can determine for itself — it’s a sovereign nation — what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else,” Biden replied. He added that this was the case, “whether we agree or not” with the Israeli view.

Biden was then asked more pointedly whether the U.S. would stand in the way if the Israelis, viewing the prospect of an Iranian nuclear bomb as a threat to the existence of the Jewish state, decided to launch a military attack against Iranian nuclear facilities.

“Look, we cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do,” he said.

Pressed further on this point with a reminder that the U.S. could impede an Israeli strike on Iran by prohibiting it from using Iraqi air space, Biden said he was “not going to speculate” beyond saying that Israel, like the U.S., has a right to “determine what is in its interests.”

Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday that he has been concerned “for some time concerned about any strike on Iran.” He also said military action should not be ruled out and that a nuclear-armed Iran is a highly troubling prospect.

In Jerusalem, the Israeli government had no comment on Biden’s remarks.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said Biden was not signaling any change of approach on Iran or Israel.

“The vice president refused to engage hypotheticals, and he made clear that our policy has not changed,” Vietor said. “Our friends and allies, including Israel, know that the president believes that now is the time to explore direct diplomatic options.”

The Netanyahu government says it prefers to see Iran’s nuclear program stopped through diplomacy but has not ruled out a military strike. Israel, within easy range of an Iranian ballistic missile, has been skeptical of the administration’s aim of engaging in dialogue with Iran rather than threatening sanctions and military action.

The New York Times reported in January, shortly before Obama took office, that President George W. Bush had deflected an Israeli request in 2008 for specialized U.S. bombs that it would use for an airstrike on Iran’s main nuclear complex at Natanz. And it reported that Bush was persuaded by aides, including his defense chief, Robert Gates, that a U.S. strike on Iran would probably be ineffective.

Obama retained Gates as his defense secretary.

Iran insists that its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes.

There are many reasons for Washington to oppose an Israeli attack on Iran now, including the presence in neighboring Iraq of about 130,000 American troops, who could become targets for Iranian retaliation. The security consequences could be much broader.

Mullen, who as Joint Chiefs chairman is the top military adviser to Obama and Gates, said he worries about unpredictable consequences of an attack on Iran.

“I worry about it being very destabilizing not just in and of itself but the unintended consequences of a strike like that,” he told CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “At the same time, I’m one that thinks Iran should not have nuclear weapons. I think that’s very destabilizing.”

Mullen said he worries that, in the event Iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon, other countries in the Middle East would feel compelled to follow suit. That would open a door to a proliferation of nuclear technology that would be destabilizing, Mullen said, adding that this is a subject he discusses regularly with his Israeli counterpart.

The prospect of a regional nuclear arms race was raised by Obama in an AP interview Thursday.

“The biggest concern is not simply that Iran can threaten us or our allies like Israel or its neighbors in the region,” Obama said. “A very real concern is, is that Iran possessing a nuclear weapon triggers an arms race in the region and suddenly countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Turkey all feel obliged to get nuclear weapons. And if you’ve got the most volatile region in the world and everybody armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, you’ve got a recipe for potential disaster.”

Most experts believe that wiping out the Iranian nuclear program is beyond the ability of Israel’s military. In 1981 the Israeli air force destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in a lightning strike. But Iran’s facilities are scattered around the country, some of them underground.

Israel under the Bus: Obama sides with Arabs and Islamic Using Netanyahu as an Excuse



The Pro Islamic Obama Administration has thrown Israel under the bus in favor of a pie in the sky friendship with Islamic nations that have no hope of being realized.  It’s as if the Administration believes that it need not respect the work of previous administration that were not as enlightened, worldly, narcissistic and socialist as the Obama Administration.  Barak Obama is an ideological, hyper-partisan socialist who has absorbed, and now personifies the Anti Semitic stains of leftist ideology, and now has the ability to act out his ideological ignorance on the world stage. The only guide Obama has is the baby-boom, civil rights, anti white, and anti male bigotry that kindly Americans figured the higher educational system would one day evolve beyond.  This is a system that makes the so called victims, Blacks, Women, Hispanics, Kids, Handicapped people to be more human and of greater worth than white males who supposedly oppress them. Ironically this hateful doctrine is referred to as “multiculturalism” and its infested all the nations schools.  This is the social equivalent of junk science like “global warming” and the famous “gay gene”.  In other words these are publically generated abuses of “science” to perpetuate falsehood aimed at legitimizing a political aim or policy that could not otherwise be justified.

The fact that Israel has been and probably will remain a great ally and friend of the United States can’t compete with the leftist inclination, complete with a European flair of sophistication, to blame the Jews for the worlds ills instead of the clearly insane Islamic who are simply out of control. Israel is a modern, successful, freedom loving democracy that deserves many times over our admiration and support.  Most Middle East Arab/Islamic countries are backwards nations that despise freedom, enslave women and children, and hold the lives of anyone who disagrees with their world view very cheaply indeed. While it’s appropriate for us to respect the fact that hostile and repressive governments and cultures do exist and we need to be civil with them: it’s insane to suggest that such inhumane backwaters of bigotry and oppression should ever be favored over a democracy.  Israel has rule of law and the Islamic nations have a form of Sharia law that justifies the enslavement of millions to say nothing of the murder of non Muslims.  At the end of the day we’re pretending that Islam has produced a civilization that’s of greater worth and commands more respect than Israel: and that’s simply not true.  Islam is more a state of barbaric despotism than a legitimate state.  We need not and should not respect Islam when it calls for the destruction of Israel or when it calls the USA the “great Satan”. To take the side of the Arab/ Islamic nations against Israel who has offered peace from the beginning in favor of bloodthirsty Islamic jerks who want to destroy every Jew in Israel just for being Jewish, as they have consistently proclaimed over six decades, is obscene.

I’ve been monitoring the realization of Obama’s betrayal in the Israeli press for some time now and they’re far ahead of the American People in realizing that Obama has withdrawn American support for this good and trusted friend.  The American press continues to promote the Islamic view even after decades of Israeli concessions and Moslem lies and broken agreements.  If Islam had treated the United States the way they do Israel we would have wiped them out decades ago because we don’t have anything approaching the patience of our friend Israel.  Nevertheless Obama has become the Islamic champion of American Foreign Policy because he gets as much applause from European audiences for denouncing Israel as he does for defaming the nation he’s supposed to be leading. The betrayal of Barak Husain Obama means that Israel has nothing left to lose and a mortal enemy with a nuke salivating over the chance to wipe them off the face of the earth.  Obama’s ideological nonsense has made war inevitable and he has hastened the day it will come by his treachery and contempt for our best Middle East Allie. 

Consider the following story from the Debka File:


Clinton shreds Bush-Israel settlement understandings, fuels US-Israel row

DEBKAfile Special Analysis

June 6, 2009, 11:39 PM (GMT+02:00)


Gloves off, no more legalistic quibbling

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton roughly rejected any secret Bush agreements with Israel on expanding settlements. Her intention was to have the last word and so shut down the Obama administration’s argument with Israel over a West Bank settlement freeze. But she only threw fresh fuel on the fire when she stated emphatically on Friday, June 5, that according to the negotiating record which Bush officials turned over to the Obama administration, “There is no memorialization of any informal and oral agreements.”

Israel officials have protested that Barack Obama’s demand for a total freeze on settlement expansion contradicts a series of understandings – some written, some oral – with Bush officials which permitted expansion under certain conditions. This argument was put forward by prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu in his wide-ranging talks with the US president on May 18 and reaffirmed by Israeli officials when they met US Middle East envoy George Mitchell in London ten days later.

This key understanding referred to was reached in 2004: It provided for Israel’s voluntary evacuation of the Gaza Strip and the northern tip of the West Bank (which took place the following year) would be counter-balanced by Washington’s acceptance of the need for continuing construction in the large population blocks in other parts of West Bank territory to meet natural growth needs.

This understanding was reached by Bush’s national security adviser, Stephen Hadley and his deputy Elliott Abrams in talks with Israeli officials. Brig. Gen.

At their London meeting of May 28, Mike Herzog, defense minister Ehud Barak’s chief of staff, bore witness to Mitchell that he had led the Israeli team at the 2004 talks and that those talks had indeed ended with the two US NSC heads’ endorsement on behalf of the Bush administration of continued Israeli settlement construction to keep pace with the natural growth of those communities.

Elliott Abrams is quoted Friday by the Washington Post as acknowledging last week that there had been unwritten understandings between Washington and Jerusalem, as Brig. Herzog affirmed.

By repudiating any such understandings – written and spoken – Clinton has dragged US-Israeli relations into a new trough. It is now a straight issue of word against word, Washington versus Jerusalem’s. This is a dark point for restarting any peace process between Israel and Palestinians or other Arab governments for an accord on substantial issues which have defeated every past peace effort.

The “settlements” referred to by Obama in his demand for an end to all construction apply to five Israeli urban centers: its capital, Jerusalem, which the US does not recognize with or without its post-1967 extensions (although successive administrations have pledged to locate its embassy there), Maaleh Adummim just east of Jerusalem, Efrat to the south, Ariel to the north and Modiin Ilit, southeast of Tel Aviv.

Their total population is estimated between 250,000 and 300,000, plus isolated communities which are home to another approximate 180,000 Jewish inhabitants.

These figures do not include the unauthorized outposts over whose removal Israel is not arguing.

Abrams in an article he published on April 8 hinted that the passage in the 2004 Bush letter to Ariel Sharon – “It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities” – was an indirect recognition of demographic “changes” (in the Israeli and Palestinian populations over 42 years) and understanding for the “realities” applying to the large settlement blocks, meaning that Israel was entitled to continue their development.

However, DEBKAfile‘s Washington sources stress, Eliot Abrams has no standing in the new administration. Obama and his team will adopt or dump the understandings reached by his White House predecessors not according to archival evidence but according to whether or not they suit his new international policy directions over which Jerusalem is getting badly worried.

The Netanyahu government is now facing its first real test. In Washington, the gloves are off. If the prime minister holds to his defensive, accommodating posture toward on the settlement issue and fails to punch back with demands that the other side – and the United States itself stand by former accords and commitments – he will find himself inexorably forced back step by step on other vital security interests, including Iran’s accelerated nuclear weapons program.

Legalistic quibbling over dead letters will not avail – as Israeli officials will discover when confronted with new pressures for concessions from US envoy Mitchell next week.

Obama’s World View is a Threat to Peace: Ideological Foreign Policy Is Invariably a Disaster



It would seem that Obama has crossed the line that declares Iran’s quest for nuclear technology is understandable and legitimate.  According to Obama, the aspiration to nuclear energy, provided it is for peaceful purposes; is actually something of a “right.”  He goes on to suggest that the tensions between Muslims and West are based largely on cultural misunderstanding and the better our cultures get to know each other the less reason there will be for conflict between us.  It’s not that Obama is weak or stupid: it’s that he is taking the high road by refusing to impose our American cultural values on Iran by pretending we have the right to decide who is and is not worthy of nuclear technology.  It’s doubtless “oppression”, in the mind of Obama, for America to force the suppression of nuclear power in a Muslim country like Iran; and to wink and give tacit approval to the Israeli position of both nuclear technology and weapons.

Remember: Barak Obama is steeped in the academic view of America that says it’s largely “white male cultural values” that are fundamentally “oppressive” to the colored peoples of the earth in addition to women, children, and the disabled and non heterosexuals.  He’s also been steeped in the view that all distinctions of good and evil, right and wrong, good and bad, are “culturally created” and no given “culture” is better than another.  If Iran thinks its jolly good to treat women like chattel than we must give that view as much moral equivalence as the idea that women should be free to chose their life course, with equality, in a Post Christian America.  In the upside down ivory tower world of academics, over several decades, there is an insistence that a culture of cannibals that thinks we can eat our neighbor for dinner is morally equivalent to a culture that believes we should love and honor our neighbor. The nation’s academics believe that to make judgments about the cannibal’s “culture” or to call it “wrong” or “evil” is a fundamentally racist imposition of White Male Christian thinking that victimizes cannibal culture unfairly.  (And if the cannibals are non white it’s really white male RACISM, if not a Hate Crime!) 

Iran is a country of Muslims who declares (and who are we to suspect otherwise) that they want to develop nuclear power for their nation’s energy needs.  Obama says that’s a legitimate aspiration.  The fact that they may want to develop, and are developing nuclear weapons, is a cultural misunderstanding based on the realities of western oppression; and perhaps a misunderstanding about how their possession of nukes may cause other country’s to develop them as a deterrent. (Muslim nations like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and The Emirates and so on.) In the Ivory Tower World of Academic Ideology no nation can morally say to Iran: “You can’t have nukes, but we can” because in addition to being racist that would be unfair. This basic code of academic conduct and article of academic faith is part of what destroyed our education system and now it’s being elevated to determining the foreign policy of the United States of America. Take a good look at what moral relativism has done to our colleges and education system and ask yourself if you would like to live in a world governed by the mad hatter of political correctness.

Here is a stunning concept: Some cultures, like some people, are better than others and this has always and will always be the case. We’re created equally and that’s where equality ends. Life is unfair and man can’t make it fair. The Soviet Union and communism were human attempts at equality and would still exist today if communism had worked.  There is no equality but there are higher orders of morality toward which we can and should strive.  The Judaic/Christian culture that for a time flourished in the United States, as laid out by our founding fathers, was probably the best cultural roadmap ever envisioned by the mind of man toward a just society.  It was not perfect but it worked while people were taught that your values matter, rather than your values are culturally created “truth” that’s fundamentally a racist illusion. There is a difference between Good and evil it’s not just a matter of economic and social justice that will result in Utopia.  There is no Utopia.  That’s something the professors can never figure out.

I think Muslim Culture has real problems with its extreme wings in several countries but most especially in Iran.  I think that the Iranians will roast another six million Jews in Israel, without hesitation, if they get a nuclear bomb and I don’t care to understand a “culture” that says its justified in killing Jews just because they’re Jews.  I refuse to be “sensitive” to the mass murderer community.  I think it’s morally correct to stop such a slaughter if you have the power to stop it as we, the USA, does have the power.  Its neither an “imposition” nor “oppression” to insist that wiping out Israel, in a nuclear fireball, is wrong, evil, unjustified, and the act of stopping a nation whose “culture” gives them the liberty to wipe out those who disagree is good, right and justified. Does that mean that I think our Judaic/Christian respect for life is superior to the Muslim concept of Jihad and resistance offered to infidels? (Infidels= those who disagree with Muslims) You bet it does!

Christianity outgrew the crusades a long time ago but the Muslims are still playing with concepts like Jihad to the detriment of themselves and everyone on the planet.  You don’t see Lutherans blowing up Methodists or those pesky “New Age” people at coffee shops because they disagree do you?  You see a constant stream of Muslims blowing up “Infidels” and other Muslim sects, because they feel entitled to do so.  That stinks.  It’s wrong.  It’s Evil.  (And it’s not “racist” to say so, on the contrary, it would be unintelligent not to acknowledge this truth.) Perhaps it’s become a duty to replace politically correct thinking with rational thought.

Like a good academic, Obama wants to give Iran a pass on “nuclear power” just as he wanted to criminalize the Bush administration policy allowing water boarding.  Obama believes water boarding to be immoral because it’s “torturer”, just as getting tough with Iran on nuclear proliferation would be “oppressive”, and a morally repugnant imposition of our values on a poor country.

I would water board Obama, Obama’s Momma, and even your momma, if I thought it would help me save thousand, perhaps more, lives from a mad man from a backward culture steeped in hate. Water boarding works and it saved lives according to the memo’s Mr. Obama now doesn’t want us to see.  Bombing the nuclear facilities of rouge nations with very public vendettas against a neighboring nation saves lives and prevents another holocaust.  Mr. Obama would doubtless call this the typical kind of white male domination that created all our problems to begin with but I would just call it common sense.  You don’t give guns to angry children and you don’t allow guys like Hitler or Ahmadinejad to have nuclear weapons.  It may not be “sensitive” but it’s the truth.

All of law is a values statement.  Show me one law that is not a values statement. Law is an imposition of conduct by the government on its citizens that we all agree to abide by.  Those who don’t agree go to jail because we don’t value murder, rape, and stealing.  We have speed limits because we value safety in residential neighborhoods.  We have laws about not intimidating voters because we value fair elections.  We have gun laws because we value keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.  We have international law because we as a planet value harmony and peace among nations.  We have the right to insist that nuclear proliferation be halted, because it’s international law, based on a good and just value regarding keeping the peace and saving lives.

Law is not an “imposition of values” nor is it “oppression” to enforce it.  Lawless societies are not “more free” or morally superior to us they are states of anarchy that are rightly repulsive to our values.

Barak Obama was a constitutional law professor; and now he’s the President of the United States and he’s worried about “imposing our views” on Iran who’s openly bragging about how they’re going to wipe Israel off the map.  Obama sees himself as one wise enough not to “impose his views” and to correct the “institutional racism of American Foreign Policy”. Mr. Obama seems determined to do the “Politically Correct” thing of not “imposing our values” on Iran. Well that sure is a noble, if grandiose thought, and I sure hope it’s correct because I think avoiding a nuclear war in the Middle East is an attainable goal that is morally just and good.  I think we could help Israel bomb out the nuclear program of Iran, a culturaly backward country who wants to finish what Hitler started: and this would be the Morally Correct thing for us to do.

It’s a good thing Mr. Obama, steeped in academia as he is, need not concern himself with morality because he knows it’s all relative from one culture to the next.  There is no right and wrong.  I wonder if that’s why he would call me a “racist” and I wonder if he would ever figure out that calling people a racist is irrelevant if there is no right and wrong.

Consider the story below and the consequences of what happens if Obama and his politically correct foreign policy kills another six million or so Jews, our allies who trust in us, and ask yourself what this cowardly retreat before Iran does to the Moral Authority of America?  It’s a good thing that in Obama’s world “morality” is an illusion that fundamentally does not exist or we as a nation would have some explaining to do to our creator for why we let this happen.

The following article is from the Washington Post:

Obama says Iran’s energy concerns legitimate

The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 2, 2009 9:24 AM

LONDON — President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.

In a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday, he also restated plans to pursue direct diplomacy with Tehran to encourage it set aside any ambitions for nuclear weapons it might harbor.

Iran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. But the U.S. and other Western governments accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons.

“What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations,” Obama said, adding that the international community also “has a very real interest” in preventing a nuclear arms race.

The president has indicated a willingness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it does not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama has said Tehran has until the end of the year to show it wants to engage with Washington.

“Although I don’t want to put artificial time tables on that process, we do want to make sure that, by the end of this year, we’ve actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious,” Obama said.

Obama’s interview offered a preview of a speech he is to deliver in Egypt this week, saying he hoped the address would warm relations between Americans and Muslims abroad.

“What we want to do is open a dialogue,” Obama told the BBC. “You know, there are misapprehensions about the West, on the part of the Muslim world. And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West.”

Obama leaves in the evening on a trip to Egypt and Saudi Arabia aimed at reaching out to the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims. He is due to make his speech in Cairo on Thursday.

Obama sounded an optimistic note about making progress toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although he offered no new ideas for how he might try to secure a freeze on new building of Israeli settlements. The United States has called for a freeze, but Israeli leaders have rejected that.

Asked what he would say during his visit about human rights abuses, including the detention of political prisoners in Egypt, Obama indicated no stern lecture would be forthcoming.

He said he hoped to deliver the message that democratic values are principles that “they can embrace and affirm.”

Obama added that there is a danger “when the United States, or any country, thinks that we can simply impose these values on another country with a different history and a different culture.”


Obama Talking Tough to Israel: A Strange Diplomatic Dance Between Washington and Tel Aviv



The Neo Socialist Brain Trust of the Ideological Obama Administration continues to “pressure” the Israeli government to essentially disembowel itself, so that there might be peace on earth and good will toward men.  If Israel would simply assume indefensible boarders and give the Islamic everything they desire than surely Iran would give up its quest for nuclear weapons. Mr. Obama thinks the key to stopping a war between Iran and Israel is to settle the “Palestinian” issue.  (Oh brother) This month, a show of consultations will take place between Obama and various Israeli leaders: in which the coldness developing between the two governments will ensure a dangerous turn of events for Israel and the Western Democracies.  Barak Obama will attempt to convince Prime Minister Netanyahu to strip his nation naked, except for a bulls-eye on their butts, and tap dance in a minefield while Obama croons a siren song of peace to Ahmadinejad. Prime Minister Netanyahu will try to get the weak and ineffectual Obama to look with his own eyes instead of a Euro/American Socialists eyes to see that Israel has no choice but to attack.  It would be better for the entire world if Israel and America would coordinate their planning, on that score, but Obama’s appeasement minded administration will have nothing to do with realities they don’t “like”.


The Irony that no one seems to talk about is how much the Israeli Government and Moderate Arab governments have in common in denying Iran nuclear technology.  Moderate States like Egypt and Gulf nations are far more supportive of Israeli policy, and the unavoidable attack on Iran, than President Obama and his government. Every moderate Arab government knows full well that if Iran gets the Bomb than Iran will dictate policy for the whole region because they also know, as Israel does, that any nation not dancing to Iran’s tune is going to get clobbered. In a neighborhood of knife wielding bullies and thugs, one of the dirt bags will get an arsenal of machine guns!  Iran will rule the region unless they’re stopped and the moderate Arabs know it—- and have communicated it to Washington—- but Obama spouts Democrat Ideology with his eyes wide shut!  Washington and the West have nearly as much at stake as Israel because if hostile Iran comes to dominate the oil rich Middle East we’re dependant on for economic survival: we well and truly shafted.  Moderate Arabs, and Israel, telling Obama that the only choice with Iran is a military strike against Iran and still Obama can’t comprehend the situation!  The last time we had obstinacy and stupidity at this level it was Jimmy Carters refusal to support the Shaw of Iran according to treaty and the resulting foreign policy disaster is still going on to this very day! 


Neither Iran nor Israel is going along on Mr. Obama’s slow boat to Shangri-La and it’s far more of a certainty that there will be a regional war in the middle east this year because Netanyahu is a stony eyed realist with responsibility for keeping his people safe.  It’s shocking to see the degree to which Mr. Obama simply doesn’t understand or can’t relate to this simple, understandable, traditional mindset. Welcome to the real world professor Obama! 


Consider the following article from Reuters in which its focus is not so much if Israel will attack it’s how they’ll break the news to the denizens of Obama Island in Washington!


Israel would inform, not ask U.S. before hitting Iran

Wed May 6, 2009 5:34am EDT



By Dan Williams – Analysis

TEL AVIV (Reuters) – When he first got word of Israel’s sneak attack on the Iraqi atomic reactor in 1981, U.S. President Ronald Reagan privately shrugged it off, telling his national security adviser: “Boys will be boys!”

Would Barack Obama be so sanguine if today’s Israelis made good on years of threats and bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities, yanking the United States into an unprecedented Middle East eruption that could dash his goal of easing regional tensions through revived and redoubled U.S. outreach?

For that matter, would Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu readily take on Iran alone, given his country’s limited firepower and the risk of stirring up a backlash against the Jewish state among war-weary, budget-strapped Americans?

Obama is no Reagan. And many experts believe the two allies are now so enmeshed in strategic ties — with dialogue at the highest level of government and military — that complete Israeli autonomy on a major issue like Iran is notional only.

So while no one questions Israel’s willingness to attack should it deem U.S.-led talks on curbing Iranian uranium enrichment a dead end, such strikes would almost certainly entail at least last-minute coordination with Washington.

Israel would want to ensure that its jets would not be shot down by accident if overflying U.S.-occupied Iraq, and to give Americans in the Gulf forewarning of possible Iranian reprisals.

“Whether or not Israel got the green light from Washington to attack Iran is almost immaterial, as everybody in the region would believe that the U.S. was complicit,” said Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

One U.S. diplomat envisaged Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak telephoning Pentagon chief Robert Gates, unannounced, “to give a heads-up and explain” once the mission were under way.

Gates and the U.S. military brass have voiced distaste for pre-emptive strikes on Iran, which says its uranium enrichment is for legitimate electricity production, not weapons. But their public comments have acknowledged that Israel could break rank.

“I do not doubt that Israel will do what it thinks it needs to do, regardless of whether the U.S. approves,” said Mark Fitzpatrick, non-proliferation expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

“Israel would seek forgiveness, not permission.”

A retired Israeli general who advises the government on strategic issues suggested there was a tacit synchronicity in recent messages about Iran from Israel and the United States:

“The Israeli threat adds urgency to Obama’s calls for diplomatic engagement, and should Israel take things into its hands, the Americans retain wriggle room, some deniability.”


Israel’s bombing in 2007 of what the CIA described as a North Korean-built reactor in Syria may provide a precedent.

According to a source familiar with the operation, Israel carried out the sortie alone, but only after “letting the Americans know that something like this could happen. It’s the difference between informing, and seeking consent.”

It was the United States which, a year later, published the allegations about the bombed site, pitting its clout as a superpower against Syrian denials. Israel, which has never discussed the attack, was spared the burden of proving its case.

As both Obama and Netanyahu head new governments, the Israeli former general said any joint strategy would go unformed at least until the leaders held their first summit on May 18.

“There’s a sense that no decision has been made on either side,” he said. “My impression is that the current American statements are for the record, to convince the international community about the seriousness of the Obama administration’s efforts to talk Tehran into a solution.”

Regardless of Obama’s eventual stance, it would be severely tested should U.S. interests be threatened — say, with Iran answering an Israeli bombing by goading Shi’ites in Iraq to stoke the embers of their insurgency, or by choking off oil exports.

“Whatever temporary sense of solidarity with Israel that ensued would be through gritted teeth,” said Fitzpatrick, a former U.S. State Department official.

Then again, drawing in the United States, with its superior air power, could serve Israel’s endgame of putting paid to Iran’s nuclear facilities. Most analysts think Israel’s warplanes might set back Iran’s plans by a few years at best and could never erase the knowledge of Iran’s atomic scientists.

After reacting to the 1981 Iraq strike by saying — according to then-National Security Adviser Richard Allen — “You know what, Dick? Boys will be boys!,” Reagan rapped Israel by holding up a shipment of F-16 jets.

Future U.S. administrations would thank the Israelis for denting the might of Saddam Hussein — whom the Reagan White House backed against Iran at the time.

Fitzpatrick said U.S. public opinion would swing in Israel’s favor “if Iran is stopped from achieving a nuclear weapons capability, and the price is not too great in terms of attacks on American citizens and facilities.”

Obama’s punitive options could, in theory, include cutting the billions in U.S. defense aid and loan guarantees to Israel, though he would face opposition in an Israel-friendly Congress.

Washington could also call for a nuclear-free Middle East as part of a regional peace drive, arguing that, with Iran neutralized and the Arab world mollified, Israel’s own assumed atomic arsenal should no longer go unchecked.