Bush, Iran and Mid-Term Elections

How can President Bush both respond to Iran’s middle finger to the UN and revive his domestic political standing at the same time? By taking a very uncompromising and tough stance with Iran on the global stage while at the same time making a renewed push at home for Congressional approval to drill for oil and natural gas in Alaska’s Artic Natural Wildlife Refuge.

During the upcoming mid-term election year, a tough stance with Iran will predictably provoke Democrats to oppose the President based on an anti-war platform. This will appear like a no-brainer strategy as Mr. Bush has been routinely hammered in the polls for his administration’s management of the Iraq war. The Democrats will argue that they need to elect more members on their side of both houses to keep the President in check through the remainder of his term, the hidden message being so that we won’t go to war with Iran.

If Mr. Bush and the Republicans suffer a defeat in November based on this scenario, Iran will surely take note that the American people do not have the stomach to confront their quest for nuclear status and intention to reshape the Middle East. Therefore, it is imperative that Mr. Bush prevent this political defeat from occurring.

That is where ANWR comes into the picture. Mr. Bush should make a major push for ANWR on the basis of national security, making the point that we must not leave future generations in the vulnerable position that we find ourselves in today due to our reliance on the lifeblood of our economy from a region so hostile to us.

When those same Democrats who will oppose Mr. Bush’s tough stance with Iran scream and howl that we can’t disrupt the pristine Alaskan North Slope, Republicans will be able to pounce on the inconsistency of their position. They will be able to point out that Democrats don’t want the country to take a potentially military position today, but they also don’t want to do something that will make the prospect of future generations having to face just that horrible decision less likely.

Quick Comment on Iran & Sanctions

Below is an article from Fox News:

"U.S. Wants Quick Action at U.N. After Iran Deadline Passes"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211384,00.html

This sounds tough, but it isn't. The US is talking about a graduated set of sanctions that escalate over time, that wouldn't even begin right away, and that wouldn't have the backing of Russia and China.

Under these conditions, why would Iran halt its nuclear quest? It wouldn't. Ahmadinejad is clearly in the driver's seat and we're in peril.

How Iran Plans to Destroy Israel

Consider the following scenario:

One of Ahmadinejad's often stated aims is to wipe out the "Zionist" entity, which if accomplished would surely catapult him into being top dog in the Islamic world. While I fear he is one world leader who would be irrational enough to use a nuclear weapon, the fact is this scenario does not require bombing Israel. He has given us a clue to his tactics by recently speaking about a "one-state solution".

Ahmadinejad is likely in the midst of a plan to weaken Israel on two fronts; military and political. Militarily there is the war with Hezbollah, maybe Syria in the future, and funding, supporting and directing Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorist activities. Politically, the plan calls for weakening the ties between Israel and its supporters, mainly the US. Paradoxically, possession of nuclear weapons is necessary for Ahmadinejad to be successfull on the political front, but not the military front. Here's how.

When Iran will announce it has achieved nuclear status, Ahmadinejad believes that the US will then alter its Middle East policy to become much more cautious in its staunch support of Israel. The US would not want to provoke a nuclear Iran to confront its troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region.

The newly weakened US position, he hopes, would cause a chain reaction resulting in an implosion of the "Zionist" state whereby Palestinians, Hezbollah, etc. will win an ultimate battle against an unsupported Israel. A one-state solution would then come to fruition in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, providing a majority victory for Arabs in a democratically elected non-Zionist government, thus ending the state of Israel.

So, in this scenario, Ahmadinejad would never have to use a nuclear bomb to achieve his goal, just the possession of it could dramatically alter the power structure of the entire world, beginning in the Middle East.

Nasrallah is Losing the Hearts and Minds

Hassan Nasrallah gave an interview to a TV station in Lebanon and said that had he known the capture of 2 Israeli soldiers would have led to war, he wouldn't have done it. Given Hezbollah's actions in initiating the war, escalating the war and using its own civilians as shields, this is the most illogical analysis conceivable. But it also demonstrates that at least some form of democracy exists in Lebanon that Nasrallah feels compelled to respond to.

Nasrallah's statement is tantamount to taking repsonsibility for the war, which would be logical if he was claiming victory. But he wasn't. He was reacting to the building rage at Hezbollah for the death and destruction that was left in Lebanon in the after-math of his adventure. Now that many of the world's TV cameras have gone home and the citizens of Lebanon are left to pick up the pieces, many people are soberly reflecting on their ruined lives.

Nasrallah's first attempt at appeasing the people was the cash gift of $12,000 per household. While I'm sure the money came in handy, how could it replace lives, limbs, livelioods, property, etc? So now, the big apology. He wouldn't have done it, if he knew it would have led to war. How can the Lebanese victims, the ones that willingly provided their homes for rocket launches or the mothers and fathers who saw their young boys join the fight or all the innocent by-standers accept this? He is telling them that all the misery was caused by his political miscalculation. Oops.

Nasrallah would never demonstrate such weakness unless he knew he was losing the "hearts and minds" of the people. I'm sure the world press will be lulled into viewing him as some sort of statesman for his "honest" analysis, and will report that the people are on his side. Don't believe it. The Lebanese are not stupid and they will see the obvious contradiction in his statement. If he didn't think the abduction would lead to war, why didn't he return the soldiers in the days or weeks after the war began - better yet, why has he still not returned them?

Please Note: it is no longer necessary to log in to leave comments

Iranian Threat - Canada's Role

On Feb 11, 2006 I sent the email below to Canada's new Minister for Foreign Affairs, Peter Mackay, regarding the very real threat that the Iranian regime poses. Since that time, Iran has only become more belligerent and dangerous, and the West is sitting by as Ahmadinejad takes the world closer and closer to a major military confrontation.

Though I did not receive a response, I do note that the Canadian government took a very appropriate position with respect to the recent Israel-Hezbollah (Iranian puppet) conflict. In addition, the Canadian Government recently extended its military mission in Afghanistan, where it is taking a leading and very constructive role.

"Dear Mr. Minister,

I am writing to you to express my deepest concerns over recent overt threats by Iranian President, Ahmadinejad to the West and Israel in particular. I fear that a sovereign democratic nation is in immediate peril, much like Poland was in 1939. As we know, a mild, indifferent and ineffective response by the West back then lead to monumentally horrific consequences for the world. I know I don’t have to remind you that 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians and many more that make the numbers become numbing lost their lives.

I want to know that my government stands with other democratic nations against the threat of tyrants, and if necessary would provide material support to a Western effort to thwart the imminent, existential threats. The most recent comments by Ahmadinejad as published in the online version of the Bangkok Post must be met head on with unyielding strength immediately. Here is an excerpt as reported in the Post of some of his remarks:

"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them," Ahmadinejad said in a ceremony marking the 27th anniversary of the Islamic revolution.

"Do the removal of Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations," the ultra-conservative president said. He once again called the Holocaust a "fairy tale" and said Europeans have become hostages of "Zionists" in Israel.

We must work with other Western governments to make it plain to Iran that if they threaten Israel they are inviting a unified military response by the West. To do less would invite murderous consequences on Israel and would eventually lead to all out war. I would like to know the Canadian Government’s position on this matter and what steps we are taking to meet this threat."

If Today's NY Times Editorial Policy Was in Effect in 1943

North Korea Iran Connection

Japanese intelligence officials are alerting the world that North Korea is about to conduct a nuclear test. In response China and South Korea have declared that they will work together to prevent it from happening. This is very bad news for world stability, because China and South Korea are the least confrontational members of the group of nations dealing with the issue.

If North Korea is given any form of concessions at this point, Iran will take notice that the world doesn't have the guts to confront a nation who has the bomb, and thus will surely complete their uranium enrichment and build their own arsenal of nuclear bombs. And the danger posed by North Korea, while extremely troubling, is nothing compared to what the world would face with a nuclear armed Iran, intent on destroying Israel and imposing an Islamic state throughout the entire region.

North Korea should be made to understand that a nuclear test, would itself be considered an act of war, and that from that point forward, any missile launch of any kind from North Korea would be considered nuclear and the US (and hopefully, China and Russia as well) would immediately respond with nuclear weapons. This is essentially the policy of 'mutually assured destruction" that worked very well during the Cold War. Iran would have to take notice of this tough action. Anything short of it would give Iran the green light to carry on with their nuclear ambitions, and if Iran is going to be stopped, it better be done before they have nuclear bombs.

It does not appear that North Korea has any grand global designs, and thus would be contained by the nuclear threat. However, Iran is another story and we cannot rely on the hope that the concept of mutually assured destruction would keep them in a box. Ahmadinejad is motivated by his religious beliefs that provide the justification for him to create chaos and havoc. A nuclear exchange just may be something he is willing to contemplate. We must stop him before his nuclear goal is met.

Islamo-fascism Defined

Many people have quarreled with use of the term Islamo-fascism to define the Iranian regime, Hezbollah, Al Queda, etc. The criticism has fallen into three categories; that it is a lazy description of complex phenomena, that it is racist, and that it is an imposed term on a group that doesn't identify with it.

The fact is that the term has the simple quality of being accurate. Consider the definition of Fascism below, provided by Robert O. Paxton, an award winning Columbia University History Professor:

"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

The groups mentioned above clearly fit very nicely into this definition, modified by the cloak of Islamic belief that they wrap their pursuits around; thus Islamo-fascist.

So let's not be afraid to call something as it is. It is not racist as it defines only the fascist variety of Islamic people and it is not lazy as described by the definition above. If anything, those that use the term are guilty of calling people something they don't want to be called. So what! Should we be so sensitive to the purveyors of suicide bombs, that we don't want to hurt their fragile psyche with damaging labels?

President Bush has Iran Encircled

Whether by accident or by design, President Bush has succeeded in almost completely encircling Iran, a brilliant move that will be appreciated long after he leaves office.

Take a moment to study a map of the Persian Gulf, Middle East and Central Asia. President Bush has assembled an array of allies that should keep Ahmadinejad in his box. To Iran's west lies US and coalition forces in Iraq, across the Persian Gulf are Saudi Arabia and other US friendly Gulf States, to the east are Pakistan and US/NATO forces in Afghanistan. Other than the less reliable northern border area of Central Asia, Iran's madman is contained.

Just as important as the bordering states is the fairly new key strategic ally of India. In July of 2005, India and the US made a joint statement, that among other things said that they would "combat terrorism relentlessly and everywhere". As we all know, the US gave India a pass at that time with regard to its nuclear programs as well. This couldn't have happened without the quiet cooperation from Pakistan.

Why is Pakistan turning a blind eye to its traditional foe upgrading its nuclear capabilities? Because the Pakistanis know very well that the real threat emanates from Iran and its terrorist puppets, and India acting as a long range deterrent against Iran is very useful. Being a predominantly Muslim nation, Pakistan cannot be publicly seen taking a lead in confronting Iran in the event of a nuclear confrontation.

Iran's only strategy to deal with the mess is to find ways to force the US to leave, to destabilize allied regimes in the area and to find friends in Central Asia and Syria/Lebanon. That is why they sponsored Hezbollah's actions in Lebanon, why they are fomenting Shiite resistance in Iraq, why they are funding terrorist organizations around the world and why they are courting Syria and Central Asian states.

Although, Bush must work harder to bring the Russians into the fold as they could be helpful in bringing the Central Asian states more reliably into the West's camp, he really has achieved a master-stroke of brilliant geo-political significance. And for these reasons alone, the US cannot leave Iraq and if anything, should be building its forces in the region. That is the only way to prevent Iran from becoming dangerously adventurous.

Know Your Enemy

In their own words...

The following quotes are purported to be from Hassan Nasrallah, but seem chillingly similar to a former Fascist, Adolf Hitler.

"If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli." (New Yorker, Oct. 14, 2002)

"If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." (Daily Star, Oct. 23, 2002)

Nasrallah has characterized Jews as the "grandsons of apes and pigs" and "Allah’s most cowardly and greedy creatures." (MEMRI: Al- Manar, Feb. 3, 2006)

It is imperative to know your enemy. Read how Nasrallah views America and the West.

"Let the entire world hear me. Our hostility to the Great Satan [America] is absolute ...
I conclude my speech with the slogan that will continue to reverberate on all occasions so that nobody will think that we have weakened. Regardless of how the world has changed after 11 September, Death to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to America." (BBC Monitoring: Al-Manar, Sep. 27, 2002)

"Martyrdom operations - suicide bombings - should be exported outside Palestine. I encourage Palestinians to take suicide bombings worldwide. Don't be shy about it." (Washington Times, Dec. 6, 2002)

This is the group that the UN and France saved from destruction. What a travesty!


Now read what Nasrallah's senior partner, Iranian President, Ahmadinejad has said (as reported in the Jerusalem Post).

"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

"Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations."

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

"[There is] no significant need for the United States."

This mad man mean business, and he is a hair's breadth away from attaining a nuclear bomb.

Interesting Articles - August 20, 2006

Bush's final gamble: giving Iraq a dictator?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,29449-2320091,00.html

Bush is clearly frustrated by the lack of progress in Iraq, and is considering alternatives to turn the situation around. Whatever change of direction is forthcoming, he must keep his eye on the wider issue of the global war against Islamo-fascism.

Blair "feels betrayed by Bush on Lebanon"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=401414&in_page_id=1770

If Labour thinks the war the Islamo-fascists have brought onto the West will end when the Palestinians are happy, then we in the West will lose the war. Britain is a very important part of the Western front and I fear that Britain is about to take a giant step backwards when Blair leaves office.

The Islamo-fascists war aims are quite clear; establish a Fascist Islamic base in the Middle East from which to confront the West in a true battle of civilizations. At the moment there is an internal battle in the Islamic world over who will lead the eventual battle and Iran is in the best position to win if they develop a nuclear bomb. If and when that happens, look out, because we will all be at war, like it or not.

The Palestinians are being used as pawns by all factions in the Islamo-fascist world in an effort to weaken the West by restraining the only reliable military ally in the region - Israel. Pushing the Israelis into a premature compromise, as many in Labour are advocating, plays right into the Islamo-fascists hands, and Bush is exactly right to let the road-map languish.

Bush and War Politics

President Bush is not viewing the Iraq conflict in the proper context. The fact that he is frustrated that the Shia leadership and the Iraqi people are not publicly more appreciative of the US role is beside the point. As President Bush has said, we are at war with Islamo-Fascism. The Iraq conflict is just one of many battles in what will be a long protracted war.

President Bush has allowed the political opposition in the US to define his Presidency by the Iraq battle, and thus he is spending too much time worrying about whether he is appreciated or not.

He needs to refocus attention on the more general and relevant fact that we are at war with Islamo-Fascists, and that should be the defining element of his Presidency.

In that broader context, it matters not whether the US is loved in Iraq. What matters is whether the President has done enough to mobilize his country, militarily, culturally, economically, sociologically, etc. for this long difficult war.
The primary battle-fronts may today be in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they will surely be in many other places in years to come, and preparing the nation for the long war is what the President needs to focus his political efforts on.

Telling It Like It Is

Please view the attached video from a debate aired on Al-Jazeera in February, 2006. It features an Arab-American psychologist, Wafa Sultan, voicing her very passionate opinion about the clash of civilizations. You may be quite surprised by what you hear.

If this link is no longer active, please let me know.


http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv

Liberty in the Face of War

Yesterday's Federal Court ruling which agreed with the ACLU, that President Bush's terrorist surveillance program is unconstitutional, provides an instructive lesson on the meaning of liberty in the face of war.

As you can see from the description in this blog I consider myself a realistic libertarian. While unfettered liberty is a worthwhile ideal, I am realistic enough to know that true liberty cannot exist when one is under attack. I'd rather be a live realist than a dead idealist.

While Islamo-Fascists are attempting to fight a war against the US and the West in general, I believe that Libertarians as well as Left Wing groups like the ACLU should moderate their ideals and join the fight. Rather than doing the work of the enemy by watering down our defenses, I would rather see all freedom-loving groups support the war and the tactics being used to defend us.

I know that many will argue that the enemy wins when we give up our freedom. But I would argue that the enemy wins when we unwittingly aid and abet their efforts to kill us and impose their Islamo-Fascist society on us.

Interesting Articles - August 16, 2006

Three interesting articles regarding the after-math of the Hezbollah-Israel War

Iran Leader Praises Hezbollah Resistance
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060816/D8JHOAT00.html

As expected Iran is claiming a great victory. This cannot be good for Israel or the West in general.

Mossad Missed Hezbollah Threat
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060816-122813-5639r.htm

Olmert and the rest of the Israeli leadership wasn't ready for this fight.

Kerry Backing Anti-War Democrats
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/16/D8JHNU600.html

Anti-war Democrats just don't get it. Their short-sightedness may bring electoral success this November, but will produce another political disaster in 2008. Thank Goodness!

Olmert's Mistakes

In a move barely noticed by the world press and even less so by Prime Minister Olmert, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt publicly gave their tacit approval for Israel to destroy Hezbollah by blaming that organization for the war. Those "moderate" regimes must have taken that position because they believed that Israel could win and they wanted Hezbollah to lose.

Instead, Olmert dithered and did not order a full-scale invasion, resulting in a protracted stale-mate. Olmert failed to see that with Bush and Blair (and Germany, Canada, Australia and others) protecting Israel's flank at the UN and the "moderate" Arab support, that he was given a bright flashing neon green light to go in with no holds barred.

Olmert’'s lack of geo-political experience could cause enormous problems for Israel and the West's fight against Islamo-Fascism. Firstly, you can be sure that "moderate" Arab states will not take the same position again for a long time to come, if ever. Their tacit approval of Israel's military response was a calculated risk. They wanted Hezbollah to be defeated and humiliated so that the rise of Islamo-Fascism in the Arab street would dissipate. Unfortunately the opposite has occurred and more instability in the Middle East can be expected. Secondly, the stale-mate will be seen as a victory for Hezbollah by Islamo-Fascists, which will embolden them to fight on in Iraq, London, Madrid, etc. Thirdly, Lebanon took several steps away from freedom as Syria and Iran (through Hezbollah) will be emboldened to interfere in her affairs.
The only way out of this mess is to turn the current stale-mate into a victory by Israel. And unfortunately, the only way that could happen is if Hezbollah violates the terms of the UN resolution and Olmert learns his lesson and responds with overwhelming military force and wins the second half of the war.

Lebanon, Wake Up!

After several years of ceding sovereignty to Syria and the P.L.O., Lebanon has now handed over its sovereignty to Hezbollah. Is there any other country in the world that would allow a non-Government militia to take its nation to war and wield any degree of power? The world press and bleeding-hearts all cry for poor Lebanon, and I too have fallen into that trap in the past. But no more.
Lebanon is continually hijacked because the country has no moral compass. Leaving Syria aside, Lebanon has tolerated, supported and aided organized groups whose aim is to destroy an entire neighboring country, Israel. Did they not learn their lesson for supporting the P.L.O. in the 70's and 80's? Just like Arafat before him, Nasrallah's stated aim is to destroy Israel, and they use Lebanon as their base of operations. How morally bankrupt and utterly stupid.
What do you think Lebanon would do if a private militia formed in Northern Israel whose stated aim was to destroy Lebanon? Better yet, what do you think Israel would do? Like every other nation, Israel would marshall its resources to expel and destroy that internal threat. And there is a real life Arab example of this. In 1970, King Hussein ordered the Jordanian army to expel the P.L.O. from his country because it was using it to target Israel and destabalize Jordan.
The Prime Minister of Lebanon should have asked the UN for a much more aggressive resolution aimed at forcefully disarming Hezbollah and strenghening the Lebanese army. Maybe he didn't, because he is comfortable with Hezbollah and its objectives. If so, the cease-fire he signed will eventually be seen as his country's death sentence.