Japan Catastrophy: What Else Should the West do About it?

A lot is going on that seems to undermine the West and its interests. The rise of China, the near-collapse of Capitalism, the loss of key allies in the Middle east, and now the near devastation of the last power standing between us and China. So I think It's time to reunite with old-Europe- France, the UK, and (even) Germany.

Two nuclear reactors are in near melt-down, whole towns were wiped off the map, and 10,000+ are dead. The unprecedented (8.9 on the Richter scale)earthquake that struck Japan, is being called the largest catastrophe that has struck Japan since WWII.

Beyond the devastation experienced by Japan, for which the West continues to respond generously, this catastrophe has extraordinary implications for America's strategic position in the Pacific. Yes, everyone has accepted that America’s place in that region is experiencing a steady decline. But the earthquake may accelerate that process. This is not to say that China will launch some premeditated action (China is very cautious and has a track record of non-interference) but rather it brings us that much closer to the point in which China will go on the offensive.

So, as in the past, we need to unite with our cross-Atlantic ideological brothers. The great alliances of the first half of the 20th century should be refurbished and a new and more powerful NATO formulated. While it will necessitate that Germany be included and that France and the UK increase their respective defense-budgets in a time of general austerity, it will not be used to make war, but to prevent it.

An emerging China and other states aligned with its goals- like Iran, Turkey, and Venezuela-should be made aware that the West is willing to support equitable distribution but will not capitulate. A united West can, and would, offer a mutual protective shield. Belligerent states -both passive and overt- respect the cumulative force of a a Dollar/Euro/Yen, and will hesitate going to war.
They -Iran, China, Venezuela, and North Korea etc.- have to be made aware that we will not budge one inequitable inch: Afghanistan and Iraq were, and are, only warning salvos for those that will resort to violence in their efforts to challenge America and the West.

Iran and Egypt: Why did Mubarak Fall?

Despite conventional wisdom and realistic expectations, the Egyptian riots have nearly pushed Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian dictator, out of office.

How did a leaderless protest movement successfully challenge one of the longest serving and savviest leaders in the Middle East? Adding to the mystery, how did the support of America, Jordan, and the Gulf states, for Mubarak, become moot?

I am not the first to ask this question, and the explanations abound. One compelling account asserts that America was planning an overthrow of Mubarak in 2011, under Bush in 2008.
True or not, Obama has not shied away from vaguely, but unambiguously (as only an American politician can) supporting the Egyptian street. And for the first time since the abortive Oslo Accords, Americas “meddling” is being applauded (or at least not be condemned) by the average Arab and Muslim. This lack of anti-America hate may be due to the fact for the first time in recent years America is turning away from an autocratic (in this case 30 years of loyalty) leader in favor of the common Arab.

Obama, for his part, supports the Arab/Muslim street because of realpolitik. In other words throwing a long standing ally to the wind simply serves America’s best interest. The Saudis, Israelis, Jordanians, and every other ally of America should take this lesson to heart.

That said, why did Obama not come out in support of the Green revolution in Iran? Instead, according to some intelligence sites like debka.com, Obama sent a private letter of support to Iran’s “elected” leader Ahmadinejad. The question is compounded when you consider that Mubarak was a friend while the Mullahs of Iran were our sworn enemies.

One may respond that the Green movement did not reflect the majority of Iranians - just look at the mass pro-Ahmadinejad protests. A fair point, but one could counter that the only difference between the Mullah’s response to the Green movement and Mubarak’s response to the Egyptian protests was political fortitude and strategy.

Thus the Mullahs of Iran expected protests immediately after the disputed elections, and were ready to respond, they also had no qualms about resorting, almost, immediately to mass violence. The anti-Mubarak elements may have learned a lesson. They surprised Mubarak months after the disputed elections, and also reached out to the Egyptian army so as to prevent them from becoming a tool of repression. Another key difference, as pointed out by Debka.com, was that the Iranians regime had a target- the opposition leaders- whereas the Egyptian protesters were leaderless, at least superficially.

Perhaps the difference is simple. Obama only supports movements that he believes will actually succeed because "to support the projected victor is to gain the allegiance of the winner". Or it may be that Obama was a freshman president with little experience when the Green movement emerged, whereas now he is a seasoned politician.

Regardless of Obama's inconsistencies (or consistencies). The real question is will this movement coalesce into an effective Democratic movement that is friendly to America and peace, or whether the ominous silence of Iran heralds a Middle-East that sees a certain genre of Islam, not stability, as the primary objective. The answer to the above question will likely explain why the Egypt movement succeeded while the Green movement failed?

Copts, Muslims, and Democracy: America Needs to Start Making the Right Choices

I recently had the privilege of meeting an Egyptian doctor in a Starbucks in the city. He had overheard my conversation with a Muslim friend, and decided to join. Amongst the interesting perspectives he offered on Egypt and the region was the issue of Mubarak as a dictator vs. Mubarak as a pacifier. He argued that one of the reasons why Egypt is as stable as it has been since the Camp David accords was due to the secular stability that Mubarak implemented. What I found to be most interesting was that this doctor was a Christian-Copt.

For those that don’t know, the Copts are an ancient Christian denomination; the largest minority in Egypt; and a group that has experienced terrible discrimination at the hands of the Arab-Muslim majority. Yet despite the oppression of the Copts, this highly educated individual was supporting Mubarak. Why? Because, Mubarak has kept Islamist extremism in check, maintained Egypt’s leadership position in the region, and has offered a relative degree of economic well being –primarily through American funded subsidies- to its citizens. The alternative, he argued, was an Islamist government closer to Saudi Arabia in nature i.e. few churches, no political rights, and little freedom

My new friend's perspective raises a larger and relevant question:

Should we in America advocate for Democracy even in cases where that freedom will be hijacked by Islamic-extremist or other anti-Democratic elements? Should we support dictators in Tunisia, and Yemen, so long as they suppress terrorist entities from using their territory as training camps for attacks on the West?

America has always been involved in the spread of Democracy, but we have also, mostly, tempered our Democratic expansion with an unapologetic realism (this realism is what explains why we didn’t try “Iraq” before hand and why we are not going to try it again). Yet the populations in question –in this case the Arab street- are not blind to the obvious contradiction. On one hand we in America portray ourselves as the leader of the free world; with the other hand we pass millions of dollars to autocratic and oppressive governments who support our interests. Yes we may call that political realism, but in the Arab-world our opponents label it hypocrisy.

My Egyptian friend felt that a sudden Democracy movement in Egypt that overthrew Mubarak would be appropriated by non-Democratic elements -as it was in Iran, Gaza, and now Lebanon- who would then use it to keep themselves in indefinite power. But many participants and observers disagree; they see no ideological component to the Tunisian protests only a citizen population that is fed up with the economic ineptitude of their autocratic government.

Indeed there is no one formula: In some cases, like Iraq, Pakistan, Lebanon, Gaza etc. we see Islamic-extremists capitalizing on general dissatisfaction. However, that does not mean that every Muslim and Arab nation that goes through a popular upheaval will invariably end up like Iran or Gaza.

The problem for us in America is we don’t understand the Muslim world enough to know when to stand behind a dictator and when to stand behind Democratic movements. Why did Obama ignore the Green revolution in Iran? Why did we think we could make Iraq a functioning Democracy? Why did we remove our support from Musharraf in Pakistan? Why did we support elections in Gaza? Why did we look the other way when Hezbollah joined the Lebanese political process?

Some of you reading this may respond: “That’s the point, America should mind its own business”. I disagree; the world needs America, which means we should start making the right choices.

"The WikiLeaks-Iran connection" From Haaretz.com

For all the conspiracy theorist out there an interesting development from Haaretz.com

http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/the-wikileaks-iran-connection-1.336790

"On November 4, Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, arrived in Geneva. He held a press conference in which he hinted that he was considering requesting political asylum in Switzerland. Assange spent two days there as the guest of an Iranian non-governmental organization, which also sponsored the press conference.

The NGO is called the International Institute for Peace, Justice and Human Rights, but the impressive title conceals the Iranian government, which finances the organization. Assange's press conference took place in a building of one of the UN institutions in the city. Iranian diplomats were in the audience, and Iranian photo crews made sure to document who was there, until one of the UN security people told them to stop. It's unclear what Assange, the founder of a website that discloses secrets, and Iran, have to do with each other. WikiLeaks did not respond when asked to comment.


After WikiLeaks began disclosing the U.S. State Department's confidential cables, a rumor mill thrived on websites, mainly Arab ones, that Assange had met in Geneva with Mossad officials and reached an agreement not to disclose documents that could harm Israel. This conspiratorial theory was also based on the fact that some of the published documents embarrassed Arab leaders who were depicted as secret supporters of a military attack by the United States or Israel on Iran.

Assange denied the claim, and the Mossad in principle does not comment on reports about the organization. It seems the truth is very prosaic. The Mossad, as far as I know, was not really interested in Assange and his site. It has more important things to deal with. It's likely, however, that Iran is interested in Assange. His releases are damaging the United States, and that makes Iran happy."

No, Iran was hurt by the last "dump" and wants to control who gets exposed next,but the point is well taken.

Imagine a Lebanon without Hezbollah

Yesterday’s announcement by the Lebanese opposition, Hezbollah, that they are leaving the governing coalition over the Hariri probe, is viewed by most as a harbinger of yet another bout of war and violence. These same analysts and dilettantes, conclude that this is bad. While I agree that most actions Hezbollah is associated with result in violence –which is bad- I disagree that Hezbollah quitting the Hariri led government is a negative development.

Of course, the prospect of further violence is in itself terrible, but the idea that Hezbollah would continue to obstruct the Lebanese government’s effort to improve the lot of their citizens is even worse. It is not insignificant that the Lebanese government has been unable to pass its 2010 budget because of Hezbollah opposition to any reasonable compromise. It is also telling that Hezbollah refuses to allow Lebanon to put the 2005 Hariri assassination to rest. Yet this assassination created a political and cultural chasm between the three main segments of the Lebanese population –Shia, Sunni, and Druse-Christian. The key to Lebanese prosperity is unity, if not compromise, amongst these three demographics. If Hezbollah was really serving the interest of Lebanon, and not Iran, then they would recognize this and put the Hariri assassination behind them –even if it meant admitting that some of its own high level commanders were involved.

This comes as no surprise. Hezbollah’s efforts to rebrand itself, after the 2006 Israel-Lebanese war, as a legitimate political entity determined to contribute to Lebanon’s renaissance was treated by most observers, as facile. The observes were right. Hezbollah’s 2008 commitment to renounce violence and become a political party like Ireland's “Sinn Féin (Irish political party that did) was always a monumental charade. Hezbollah still represents its founder, Khomeini, and the Shia ideology he espoused. This ideology is clearly reflected in Hezbollah's intransigence and obstructionism to the utter detriment of Lebanon. When Hezbollah pulled out of the government it exposed itself for what it always was – a terrorist organization loyal only to Tehran.

As long as Hezbollah has a say in governing Lebanon the nation will be incapable of reemerging as the mecca of tolerance and diversity it once represented. And as long as Lebanon and its neighbors continue to entertain the notion that Hezbollah is something more than a terrorist proxy of Iran, the whole region will suffer.

From this perspective, Hezbollah’s distancing itself from Lebanon’s government means the region is closer to peace -which is good.

Israel Must Support Mubarak

Egypt and Israel are in serious trouble!

The recent bombing outside a Copt church, was not committed (Debka.com) by foreign Al-Qaida extremists, but by homegrown terrorists intent on toppling Egypt’s secular regime. This bombing follows a rigged election which ensured that Mubarak would win. Domestic sectarian terror is not the only issue challenging Egypt. In the South, Egypt’s control of the Nile (its life blood) is being challenged. Egypt is also weary of the implications of Southern Sudanese independence (Huffingtonpost.com).

Don’t get me wrong, I am no supporter of Egypt. It is led by a corrupt government that has mostly squandered its position of leadership in the Arab world. However, Mubarak’s Egypt is an ally of America and does have a “peace” accord with Israel. If Mubarak’s regime falls, it is likely Egypt will go the way of Pakistan.

The Copt bombing which occurred following the red mosque fiasco could galvanize Egyptian Islamists. Mubarak is being heavily criticized, both domestically and internationally, for election fraud and the Islamists are attempting to create a tipping-point event to ensure that Mubarak is overthrown. Like post-Musharraf Pakistan, Egypt’s subsequent central government will be weak, and the Islamists who always seem to be lurking in the back waiting to jump will overrun Egypt. Who has been supporting the Islamists? According to a plethora of sources, including Mubarak himself, Iran.

If Egypt falls under Islamist control, peace with Israel will be a bitter-sweet memory. Jordan -seeing that Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt have fallen under the influence of Iran- will also submit to the anti-Israel coalition.

This will create a vacuum for a global-power, like China, to establish a foothold in the region. Unlikely, you say. Remember it was the Soviet Union which supplied Syria and Egypt to counter American influence, in the guise of Israel, prior to Camp David. China, like the Soviets, will likely jump at the opportunity to secure its growing energy demand, and will accomplish this by challenging American influence by arming its Iranian allies. Israel, surrounded by enemies on every side as it was prior to the Yom Kippur war, will be weakened, along with the power that rules it, America.

From Israel’s perspective, it would be akin to national suicide to stand by and watch itself be surrounded completely by Iran. An Iran that recently hanged an Israeli spy and has been the primary enabler of both Hamas and Hezbollah. Without peace with Egypt and Jordan, Israel will be back to the position it was before war with the Arabs, and this time around the Arabs will backed by a nuclear Iran.

For America the question is: do we allow a region, which supplies a significant amount of oil to America, to be controlled by a country that calls for a new world order (i.e. for America to be replaced)? Or do we continue pursuing our current policy of challenging Iran, and prop up Mubarak of Egypt? Barring a revolution in energy technology, American policy makers, both left and right wing, need to put ideology aside and not miss what is going on.

For Israel the issue is clear. It must do what it can to support Mubarak against the Islamists, and their Iranian backers.

Has Russia Finally Chosen Israel and the West?

Russian president Dmitry Medvedev recent confirmation that he will be visiting Israel in January may have serious implications for Israel, the region, and international relations.

First and foremost, it signifies a choice has been made by Russia regarding who it wishes to ally itself with in the middle-east. The origins of this choice hails back to 2005 when, then, Russian president Vladimir Putin became the first Russian head of state to visit Israel. But Putin was also dealing heavily with Israel’s and the Wests opponents. Indeed, since that 2005 visit Russia has built a permanent navy base in Syria and has been the main supplier, after North Korea, of nuclear know-how to Iran.

Through 2007, the Putin led Russia seemed to be leaning towards choosing Iran/Syria. This choice was made easier by Bush’s aggressive push for missile defense in Russia’s historic sphere of Influence -Poland and Ukraine. Russia was also pushed towards Iran/Syria by the revelations that followed the 2007 Georgian-Russian war. Russia discovered that tiny Georgia was fielding superior Israeli weapons (small arms and UAV‘s), and that Israel had trained Georgian commandos. However the Obama’s reset initiative, which included revising missile defense in conjunction with the election of a more modern thinking Medvedev, spurred Russia to reevaluate its Middle Eastern strategy.

The fruits of the last two years have evidently ripened as evidenced by the Russian president’s announcement to visit Israel. According to Debka.com the agenda will include:

1. Acquiring a billion dollars in Israeli UAV technology in exchange for a long term commitment to not sell advanced technology, like the S-300 air-defense system to Iran and Syria.
2. To not instinctively support unconditional Palestinian demands, .
3. To involve itself, along with Greece, in the process of developing and distributing, the three major oil/gas fields recently discovered off the cost of Israel, which some estimate to have over 30 trillion cubic feet of retrievable oil/gas.

From Israel’s perspective this is great news and a long awaited development because:

1. It seriously undermines Israel’s enemies in the region which history has shown is a prerequisite for peace. For example, it was only after Soviet backed Eygpt and Syria were defeated in the Yom Kippur war that Egyptian president Sadat was amenable to replacing Soviet arms with American dollars and peace with Israel. There is reason to believe that an Iran without the backing of Russia (and hopefully soon China) is an Iran that will open its eyes to peace through peace.

2. Russia’s acceptance of Israel reflects a Russia that is willing to deal rationally with reality; Israel is currently the most stable power in the Middle East- not Iran, Turkey, or the Arabs. (I know some of my Turkish friend may disagree, but Israel has a track-record that does not include a coup every 20 years and does include unwavering support for its friends, despite changes in political power, Turkey does not). This is always good for an Israel that is so often the target of irrational behavior.

3. The very fact that Russia, a long term opponent of Israel is reaching out to Israel is a sign of the times. Namely, rational and forward thinking countries want to be Israel’s friend, not because of some Zionist conspiracy but because Israel has so much to offer. China, a relatively pragmatic nation, has long attempted to establish a special relationship with Israel. But Israel, in its commitment to its closest ally America has “politely” rebuffed these efforts. For example in 2002 Israel violated a 2 billion dollar contract to upgrade Chinese military platforms over objections by America. Russia, like China, wants access to Israel.
Yet Russia’s realignment implies more than just an attempt to access Israel’s intellectual treasures.

Some have interpreted it as a strategic attempt at capitalizing on America’s failures in the region.

Indeed, if wikileaks has exposed anything it is that Obama is misguided, however well-intentioned, in his efforts to force an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord. Pressure on Israel inevitably strengthens Israel’s enemies by keeping Israel on the defensive, unable to leverage its formidable offensive apparatus. But these enemies, led by Iran, are perceived by everyone in the region excluding Turkey and Syria, as the most immediate threat to regional stability. Thus Russia, sees an Obama led administration as shooting itself in the foot, and wants to access the growing feeling in the Israeli and Arab political establishment that America is not as trustworthy an ally as it should be. Conversely, Russia is seen as capable of seriously undermining Iran by putting pressure on China, and halting its nuclear support to Iran.

The far-left and, some in, the far-right in the West may refuse to acknowledge this but Israel’s hegemonic military power is the stabilizing force in the middle-east and Israel’s allies benefit immensely from its position, not the cause of conflict. Russia has come to terms with this just as an Obama led America is moving away from this truth.

I don’t necessarily accept that Russia is attempting to replace America; it is also possible that Russia is coming to terms with its international responsibility, namely, to play a positive role in world affairs. From this perspective, Russia is a rational state that seeks to contribute positively in a way that maximizes its own benefit, and is developing stronger ties with other nations that wish the same –like Israel. This has the tacit effect of moving Russia away from failed ideologies that emanate from the rape-filled prisons of Iran and other such negative state-actors that seem to gravitate towards anti-Israel rhetoric/alliances.

Likewise, Russia may align itself with Israel and by proxy America in order to reinvigorate a Democratic world-order that is increasingly coming under the shadow of an emerging undemocratic China. In short, Russia -which has historically vacillated between the West and East-, is making a choice to align itself with the West as it is embodied by Israel.

Who knows, maybe the next batch of wikileaks will shed light on Medvedev’s Russia.

A New Paradigm for Linkage: The Iranian Threat is At the Root of Middle East Conflict

In an under-publicized July meeting between president Obama and 14 Jewish organizations, The ADL's Abe Foxman told the president.

"I agree with your goal to bring peace to the Middle East, But the perception is that you're beating up only on Israel, and not on the Arabs. If you want Israel to take risks for peace, the best way is to make Israel feel that its staunch friend America is behind it."

"You are absolutely wrong," the president replied. "For the past eight years [under the Bush administration], Israel had a friend in the United States and it didn't make peace."

Abe Foxman continued:

"I came away from the meeting convinced that Obama has introduced a new and dangerous strategy and that it's revealing itself in steps," Foxman told Edward Klein. "Unlike other administrations, this one is applying linkage in the Middle East. It's saying that if you resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the messiah will come and the lions will lie down with the lambs." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-klein/the-jewish-problem-with-o_b_748082.html?ir=Politics)

Obama argued that America needed to pressure Israel because the Israel conflict was at the heart of Middle-east instability. In other words Obama was arguing the old Jimmy Carter linkage line, "it's Israels fault".

I have always opposed this oversimplified, and frankly dilettantish, conception of that conflict. At the same time I believe there is evidence of a different type of linkage at play.

Iran's Ahmadinejad plans on visiting Lebanon October 13-14 and already there is talk of an Lebanese civil war . It seems that Ahmadinejad is worried that prominent leaders of his proxy occupying force in Lebanon, Hezbollah, will be indited for the assassination of former premier of Lebanon Rafiq Harari(http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=lebanon-heading-toward-crisis-over-hariri-case-2010-10-05, Debka.com).

Meanwhile, another proxy of Iran, HAMAS, has done all it could, including killing four innocent civilians, to upend the most recent American instigated peace initiative. In Iraq, wikileaks documents exposed Iran's comprehensive role in multiple attacks against American/NATO forces as well as civilian Iraqis, in order to destabilize, and ultimately defeat Americas efforts.

Iran is also making a concerted effort to block Israeli-Syrian peace, realizing that such an accord would strengthen Israel's and Americas position in the region. While Turkey finds it easier to dissolve old alliances in the region as they see Iran as an alternative to America and Israel (!).

Now there is evidence of Iran's bloody work in Yemen, Afghanistan (http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/international/afghan-police-seize-22-tons-of-explosives-from-iran-20101006-ncx), and North Korea.

All these leads me to the conclusion that Jimmy Carter/Obama/destabilizing-left and co. are right about the existence of linkage (please see post on "linkers and thinkers", for more) in the Middle-east. Only its the Iran threat, not the Israel/Palestinian conflict, that is at the root of instability in the region.

Ironically the Iran problem is allot easier to solve.

A Case Study in Subjective Journalism Gone Wild: Haaretz and the Middle East

Haaretz reports that the Palestinian Authority is facing a liquidity shortfall for September because the leading Arab contributors, which incidentally make up less than 30% of all aid to the Palestinians, have not met their pledges for 2010 (http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/palestinian-authority-faces-cash-crunch-as-arab-states-cut-aid-1.309025). Haaretz concludes that the two major non-western donors, the Saudis who contributed 242 million in 2008 and only 30 million this year and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) which has a dismal 171/0 split, are trying to force Hamas-Fatah reconciliation.

This explanation is deeply flawed and is a perfect example of subjective journalism gone wild.

Deeply flawed because it assumes that 1) reconciliation will make it easier to achieve peace instead of re-radicalizing the moderate West-Bank faction of Palestinians who would likely be overrun as they were in 2007, by a Hamas coup and/or influence. 2) that Iran will not see this as ready-made opportunity to strengthen its hold over the Palestinians by filling the vacuum left by its Sunni adversaries by funding Fatah itself. 3) even if the Sunni Arab regimes give Hamas the benefit of the doubt, namely that they do not ascribe to their own suicidal charter and will support an equitable peace after reconciliation, will Iran just walk away from its investment in cultivating a major proxy-weapon on/in Israel?

To be sure all Arab states have an incentive to advocate for peace, so as to assuage their, often irritated, populations and their own oil filled but marginally guilty conscience. It is also true that solving the Arab-Israeli conflict takes on different levels of urgency for different Arab states. For example, the Saudis and other oil rich states have less domestic problems and less reason to perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, because they are not is such a great need of a scapegoat. Indeed they now see Israel as the one sane power in the region that can check the mad ambitions of Iran and the misguided dreams of Erdogan’s Turkey. Other regimes like Syria, help perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because it helps deflect legitimate domestic rage over endemic social ills and oppression from the Assads tyrannical regime to the oppressive occupier (Israel). There are even some linkers (I strongly encourage you to view the “linkers and thinkers” series, which explores the pros and cons of the American-Israeli alliance) who argue that Iran’s impetus for supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, and nuclear weapons would be undermined by Israeli/Palestinian peace. They are right insofar that Iran would be all the more exposed for what it is, an old decrepit regime dreaming of the glory days when it ruled the middle-east. But Iran’s quest for power has nothing to do with helping the Palestinians or Pakistan, or Iraq… Iran has a second rate army and third tier economy so it requires its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, to counter Israel’s might if it can ever hope to be a hegemony in the region.

The Arab states, led by the Saudi’s, are the last ones to be fooled by Iran’s “altruistic” quest to end Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians –indeed the Iranians are relative novices, compared to the old guard Arabs, at manipulating and abusing the Palestinians out of pure unapologetic self interest.

The Arab states know that reconciliation between Hamas and the Fatah/PA/PLO means either that Hamas miraculously, separates from Iran and repudiates terror(!) or that Iran will have established its dominance over all the Palestinians through Hamas.

Given what happened last time reconciliation was attempted –Hamas and Iran won- and the fact that Hamas has actually gained strength since then, with the Turkish/Iranian alliance, it is ludicrous to assert that the Saudi’s, who discreetly offered their air space to attack Iran, would facilitate “reconciliation”.

Instead I believe the Arab states are pressuring Abbas and Fatah to stop their delay tactics and to immediately enter into the direct talks that Israel and America has been requesting all this time. Indeed the success of such pressure WOULD weaken Iran, proving that it is the Sunni-Arabs and America who are the regional movers, and that those states like Syria and Lebanon (please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/08/was-syria-behind-recent-lebaneseisrael.html) which are leaning towards Iran should give review their policies.

Of course Haaretz prefers convoluted irrational explanations over the obvious one. Why? Because the correct explanation strengthens the hated Netanyahu administration by pointing out that Netanyahu and Israel want to talk, and that the US, the West, and the Arab states agree.

How cliche, the most liberal paper in Israel, and probably the whole middle-east, takes the post modern position on truth; humans are all inherently subjective and because the only purveyors of truth are human there is no one truth. Haaretz, like other media outlets encompassing the far-left, indulge in the notion that there is no one truth. Perhaps this is the premise at the foundation of their coverage of Israel.

A deeply flawed result is the bastard child of subjective journalism gone wild.

The, Reality, Psychology, and the Future: Three Thoughts on the Pakistan Deluge

ONE, The Sad Reality:

Why has there not been a upwelling of Muslim support for the people of Pakistan?
When Israel defends itself and stops a flotilla dead in its track, the Muslim world erupts in anger, millions are raised to support further flotillas, and the UNGA is enveloped in yet another wave of anti-Israel fervor.

When a man publishes a caricature of Muhammad, people are murdered, embassies are burned, the Muslim world seethes, and religious fatwa’s are published by the dozen.

Why has there not been a surge of Muslim support for the people of Pakistan? Where are the fatwa’s declaring it obligatory for Muslims to help? Where are the public demonstrations in Indonesia, France, and the UK demanding foreign aid and/or focusing attention on the plight of millions? Where are the furious leftist of Huffington post, fundraisers of apartheid week, and the organizers of anti-Israel boycott campaigns?

20 MILLION people are HOMELESS!

Western news reports claim that the flood will halt NATO operations and allow the Taliban to regroup. But do they realize that the situation is far more dire? Al Qaida, the Taliban, and myriad other “fringe” Islamic extremists pray daily for such “opportunities”. While the secular government of Pakistan continues the trend –evident in their failure to eliminate the Pakistan Taliban- of acting against Pakistan's best interests, the murderers have begun pouring millions of dollars into relief efforts, replacing the government and establishing their grip on every day Pakistan.

Instead of the moderate Muslims community galvanizing to help the people of Pakistan, never mind helping affirm a peaceful image of Islam that their funds would foster in Pakistan, they are barely audible. Are they waiting for the next flair-up against Israel to muster their resources ad raise their voices?

Yes, I am intimately familiar with inter-group dynamics; how people tend to react when an outsider challenges an insider. Yes all groups rage when one of their own is attacked. But that there is such a discrepancy between the extraordinary resources used to fight the outsider and the pittance being offered amongst insiders (at Friday Mosque collections etc.). The inexplicable gap between the myriad articles published in the Muslim press regarding the ground zero mosque (please see Turkish English daily Hurriyet for a sampling ) and the few referencing the plight of Pakistani's.


For all peace loving people, people that believe that most Muslims want peace, the tepid Islamic support for their suffering brothers and their rage towards outsiders is...


TWO, The Self Defeating Psychology:

Why hasn't India jumped on the opportunity to help Pakistan’s flood victim and itself, by promoting stability on its border? Doesn't India have the most to lose if Pakistan descends completely into the hands of the Islamic extremists? Why hasn’t India offered a substantial relief package to Pakistan?


Another Question:

Why is it that the Muslim regimes of the Middle East do not embrace the opportunity in their midst. Imagine Israeli drip-technology irrigating the arid desserts of Syria, or its desalination plants replenishing Yemen's thinning water sources. Would not an (energy starved?) Iranian partnership with Israel developing solar technology serve Iran’s interest more than its current quasi-suicidal attempt at becoming a nuclear regime? Or an Erdogan who used Turkeys, then relatively, neutral position to foster peace, instead of exacerbating tensions in the middle-east in a mad attempt at consolidating his political power. Yes the Muslim street is full, and full of rage, but not because of Israel but rather because there are no jobs. Israel can drive the middle-east into the 21st century and in the process stabilize a slew of tottering illegitimate regimes -even eliminate the need for them.

But that requires peace, and peace requires a measure of humility.

Humility like that shown by Obama, (the leader of the greatest country the world has ever seen) when he stooped down to Iran,( a nation that served the Sun and Moon when it last experienced greatness), and declared “we will extend our hand if you unclench your fist”. Or the humility of Israel when it repeatedly ignores the homicidal mantras and monologues of its neighbors proclaiming it desires peace, and backing up that deceleration by heart-wrenching actions like expelling its own citizens, TWICE. Or the humility of Ataturk’s Turkey when it openly accepted aid from Israel after the devastating earthquakes, and then said thank you.

When will the majority of the middle-east shake off the antiquated and self-destructive culture of ego and put their own best interest before their misplaced self-importance (see the Arab mind 1973, by Raphael Patai)? When will the larger middle-east accept reality and harness its intrinsic potential?

Was Obama criticized for reaching out to Iran, even called weak? Yes. Were Israeli leader criticized and threatened when they forced 8,000 Jews from their homes in Gaza, or when they withdrew from Southern Lebanon, in their imprudent hope for peace? Yes, but they acted because they put their own self interest BEFORE PRIDE, if only the other side would have seen the reality of a peaceful opportunity instead of the mirage of Israeli weakness.

It is the psychology of Pakistan and most of the Middle-East to worship the delusional self-image despite the decaying body. To destroy 60 years of positive relations because you were humbled, in Davos, in front of the world. To even consider rejecting aid from India because that may foster the image of Pakistan’s inferiority.

So India offered a diminutive 5 million dollars, and Pakistan has yet to accept it (http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/pakistan-says-yet-to-decide-on-india-s-aid-offer-45186)...

THREE, The Frightening Future:

Will Pakistan become the next Iran?

After all the Islamic extremists used the upstanding Pakistan middle class –led by the supreme- court and jurists- to force the secular Musharraf’s resignation. Just as Khomeini fooled the moderate bazzar (the Iranian middle-class) into thinking he was rebelling against the corruption, and not replacing a secular tyrant with a adultery stoning Islamic tyranny ( Khomeini’s Ghost, Coughlin, 2009). It goes without saying that are differences that go beyond culture such as Pakistan long standing inability to centralize control over all its territory and the lack of a figure, such as Khomeini, who has the respect and fealty of the majority of the country.

Still no one believed that Khomeini could overthrow the Western-backed Shah, or that a theocratic regime in Iran would still be in power 30 years after its revolution. Indeed it is exactly this type of “G-dly punishment” (no doubt a consequence of Pakistan supporting pro-western activities) disaster that could catapult an Islamic tyranny/theocracy into power. Just try imagining a nation run by an Iran-like oligarchy WITH NUKES!

It's Not the First Time Syria is Behind a Lebanese/Israel Conflict

The Lebanese Army took responsibility for Tuesdays attack on an routine Israeli patrol, that left Israeli Lt Col. Hariri and three Lebanese soldiers dead. While violence on the Northern border is common, this event was unique for two reasons. First it was the most violent incident since the 2006 war, instigated by Hezbollah, that left Beirut in ruins, and caused thousands of Lebanese and Israeli casualties. Second, the UN actually laid the blame on Lebanon. No one disputes the narrative. The IDF was cutting down a tree on the internationally recognized Israeli side of the blue line after having informed the Lebanese of their intentions to do so. The Lebanese responded that they dispute this blue line and that they warned Israel.

The fact that the Lebanese army had the temerity to initiate an attack on Israel after experiencing 10-1 casualties in the 2006 war is astonishing; to do so under the nose of the UN peacekeepers is simply inexplicable. It’s one thing if Hezbollah was directly responsible, after all they are now being blamed by the tribunal investigating the 2005 assassination of Lebanese PM Hariri. A war with Israel -and the inevitable civilian casualties that come with Hezbollah terror tactics- would be a small price to pay for a distraction the emotions of which could be used to lay the blame on Israel’s doorstep. But despite that fact that the officer who ordered the Lebanese sniper ambush was a Shiite with close ties to Hezbollah, this act was committed blatantly and unapologetically by the Lebanese army. It was an act of war not by a proxy but a recognized state.

Why would Lebanon put themselves in a position of being pounded into dust by Israel, while giving Israel an excuse to preempt Hezbollah’s eventual attack?

This may very well be explained by an underreported power shift, reported by Debka.com (http://debka.com/article/8946/) in the region following the July 30th meeting between Lebanon’s current PM, Saad Hariri ( the son of the assassinated Rafiq Hariri), Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and the tyrant of Syria Bashar al-Assad. Following their meeting in Beirut, Damascus, reportedly, cut ties with the Iran backed Shia Hezbollah. It seems some deal was cut between the most vocal opponents of Shia Iran, the Sunni Saudis, and opportunist Syria.

This agreement not only weakens Iran’s position -which explains the Saudis involvement- in the region by eliminating the contiguous land route between Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon. It also allows Saad Hariri to turn his back on his major political opponents, Hezbollah, as he is now supported by Syria.

Indeed many have questioned why Hariri would ever ally with the group many suspected of being involved with murdering his father. It seems that until now Hariri had no choice, it was either accept that Hezbollah was backed by both Syria and Iran, and thus unassailable, or launch a failed civil war. Until now he collaborated with Hezbollah, no longer (?).

If Syria has in fact shifted its support from Hezbollah to Lebanon it would have to assuage its erstwhile ally Iran for two reasons. One, Iran is a major supplier of weapons to Syria, and supports it against Israel. Two, its relationship with Iran is a bargaining chip to be used with the West. So even though it agreed to shift its support in return some tantalizing incentives including by not limited to the following three incentives.

-One it regains the political hold in Lebanon that it lost in 2005, and the vacuum of which was filled by Iran with a revamped and expanded Shia Hezbollah. Two, the 2005 Hariri assassination is blamed on Hezbollah, not on the obvious suspect Syria. Three, Saudi Arabia and America, which is probably pulling the strings, offers Syria serious concessions, tying Palestinian/Israeli peace with the Golan etc.-

Still.

Syria is hedging its bets and authorized an attack on Israel which shows Iran that their relationship with Syria is still valuable. Because even though they have shifted their support from Hezbollah to the Sunni PM Hariri, Syria is still willing to use its newly reestablished clout to menace Israel’s northern border.

Syria which recently salvaged its relationship with Turkey has somehow leveraged its relatively small position in the middle east to its absolute benefit. As far as Syria’s actions jeopardizing Lebanon by using it as a tool against Israel. Well it won’t be the first time.

Are the Jordanians, Saudis, and Egyptians Really Pursuing Nuclear Weapons, Or...

Over the past year the “moderate” Arab nation block of Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia have patently publicized their intent to pursue “peaceful” nuclear energy.

Jordan's nuclear ambitions stretch back to 2007 when King Hussein of Jordan declared their nation's peaceful ambitions to acquire nuclear energy (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=178500). Recently Hussein has ostensibly ratcheted up his attempts, and even publicly admonished Israel for using its international political connections to hinder Jordan's nuclear ambitions (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/10321361.stm).

Meanwhile the Saudis too, are already in the process of establishing the prerequisite infrastructure, which the Saudis call "a renewable energy complex" (www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=173730).

Additionaly, there has been some Egyptian movement towards acquiring "peaceful" nuclear technology going back almost two decades. More recently, Egypt has displayed a new found earnestness when they signed a contract with an Austrian firm to find a suitable location in Egypt for the construction of an experimental nuclear energy plant (http://www.nuclearsafety.org/index.php/component/content/article/15-headlines/291-egypt-signs-160-million-deal-with-australias-worleyparson-for-nuclear-energy-plan).

It is no surprise that as the Shiite non-Arab Iranians move closer to becoming a nuclear power, the "moderate" Sunni Arab nations increase their efforts to acquire weapons in order to stave off Iranian domination. It is not an arbitrary correlation.

Of course the assumption is that the Arab states are not all of a sudden pursuing peaceful nuclear energy, but rather, like Iran, they use that terminology to cover up their true intentions. In other words as the Iranians get closer to developing "peaceful" nuclear power we can expect increased efforts by Arab states to acquire “peaceful” nuclear power.

But how credible are the attempts of these Arab states -all members of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)- to obtain nuclear weapons?

Iran is one thing. It has actively pursued weapons since the 1979 Islamic-revolution (please see Khomeini’s Ghost, for more on this). Iran has significant international alliances with nuclear powers willing to share. Like China, Pakistan, Russia, and especially North Korea, Iran has an exponentially growing domestic know-how. They are succeeding for these reasons, and these reasons alone.

The Saudis, Egyptians, and Jordanians, have NONE of the above. So if the Arab nations have unrealistic ambitions, what is behind their nuclear rhetoric?

Their motives can be interpreted in two ways.

1. The Arab nations are notorious for their delusional rhetoric. For example during their 1967 and 1973 wars with Israel they reported great victories over the radio, prompted at times by their leaders, while in actuality they were suffering extraordinary defeats (please see the Arab Mind by Raphael Patai). I do not want to go into more detail here, because, despite the many blood libels and propaganda commonly spread in these countries (MEMRITV), I believe that this time they are more calculated in their actions.

2. By ratcheting up their talk of pursuing nuclear energy, aka nuclear weapons, they indirectly, but unambiguously, affirm the notion that Iran's nuclear drive is creating yet another problem -a regional nuclear race, lending further credence to the anti-proliferation argument applied to Iran.

In other words they do not want Iran to have weapons and are doing everything to focus the international community’s efforts on stopping Iran.

What does this mean?

There are two ways at looking at this -from a sanctions standpoint and from a tactical strike perspective.

On one hand their actions are helping galvanize the sanctions movement supported by the Obama administration and most other countries.
Yet the more sanctions that are successfully passed (passed is not synonymous with effective), the more passive the international community becomes in actually stopping Iran. This is because they feel like they are doing enough (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-do-latest-unsc-sanctions-on-iran.html ).

This passivity in turn makes it more difficult to take the only action that will actually stop Iran, a tactical strike.

Or the international community may get the hint and recognize publicly what they know privately: A nuclear Iran would cause such a range of negative consequences that they may actually not repeat history, and support a strike. Not that they would have to raise a finger -Israel will, as usual, do the dirty work. On the contrary, don’t raise a finger, against Israel that is.
Predictably the skeptic will respond:

1.“Let Israel disarm first”. Or, “Iran is only protecting itself from Israeli/American nuclear aggression”.

The very fact that the Arabs, yes the Arabs, have responded to Iran’s actions as a real and immediate threat, should give us a clue as to the real difference between Israel and other countries. Israel will not be the first to use weapons, or use weapons as an umbrella to protect themselves from international terror and Iran… As for America, America could have already attacked Iran.

2.“Look at North Korea, there nuclear weapons are not such a big problem."

Oh, but you forget that it was North Korea that helped Iran along the way to near nuclear armament. The consequences of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons will only accelerate that process.

If the Arabs are on to Iran's game what excuse does the rest of the sane world have?

Saudi Arabia and Israel! Really?

The Timesoline ://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7148555.ece reported Saturday that Saudi Arabia has established a narrow corridor for Israel, or America, for use to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. Intelligence sources (http://www.debka.com/article/8845/) are reporting that the Saudis have run drills preparing to stand down their comprehensive air defenses for just such an eventuality. Predictably, the Saudis denied the "accusation".

Though Israel and America continue their petty quibbling over the flotilla debacle -spurred on by an inept Obama administration- and are unlikely to take advantage, I would like to attempt to evaluate the Saudis offer, from the Israeli perspective.

First, Israel should never forget that it was the Saudis, not the Iranians, who first helped establish the framework and infrastructure for international Islamic terror that plagues Israel. Moreover, the Saudis, though improved, have an abysmal human rights record. For that reason alone Israel should be weary.

Two, the Saudis, and most Arab nations, refuse to recognize the state of Israel, but now realize that it is precisely the non-existent Israel that stands between them, the Sunni Arabs nations (excluding Lebanon, and to a lesser degree Syria), and the tyrannical Shiite Mullahs of Iran.

Three, the Saudis as well as the other Arab nations were shocked by the speedy emergence of the non-Arab alliance that sandwiches them between Iran and Turkey (http://www.debka.com/article/8845/). Past Ottoman oppression and Iranian aspirations may be overlooked by the deprived Israel-hating Arab street, but the elites of the Arab nations know who their enemy really is.

So what should Israel do?

First, should Israel make the necessary decision to attack Iran, there will be serious repercussions for Israel. On the diplomatic front, there is no shortage of anti-Israel sentiment. Even in America, there are those on the far-left who savor the opportunity to bolster their highly questionable claim that Israel is a strategic liability America (please see post series "the thinkers and the linkers", for more on this). Ironically, the very Arab nations that Israel will save will likely be the first to condemn Israel.

On the military front, while it is not clear that an Israeli attack will be completely successful, it is clear that Iran will let loose its proxy terror apparatus, Hezbollah and Hamas. These organizations have amassed a spectacular arsenal of terror weapons that can reach every part of Israel. What many do not realize is that if these terror organizations do what they do best -kill civilians- successfully, Israel will be forced to step back from its usual highly measured a restrained approach to battle. Perhaps replicating what NATO and all other countries do on regularly -put their Israeli civilians and soldiers first. This would necessitate the complete elimination of Hezbollah, Hamas, and countless human shields.

Who knows how Erdogan-dominated Turkey would react?

Therefore.

Israel should make it clear that the Arabs -who will benefit greatly from such an attack- that Israel will not be both their whipping boy and their savior.

Israel should attempt to gain concessions from the Arab nations. Recognition may be a pipe-dream, but putting pressure on Hamas, the PLO/PA, for peace- real peace- is a legitimate option. Also, written guarantees to completely halt all anti-Semitic anti-Israel incitement (thus blood libels/organ harvesting, kill the Zionists, bad, criticism, like that found in the New York Times, ok, for more on this please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-have-no-problem-with-jews-its-just.html) that is regularly displayed and taught in all Middle-Eastern Arab nations (check out memriTV). Finally, the establishment of direct economic ties which is a prerequisite for Middle-Eastern development and eventual peace.

Of course the Saudis may not agree to such concessions, which is why Israel needs the Obama administration to wake up and reassert America’s rightful role as the only great AND just power in the universe. Many Americans, the pragmatic ones anyway, see the opportunity here, we should not overlook it. Besides, as in the past, Israel will be on the front line defending Western interests. But America needs to do its part.

Hopefully the above steps if taken and carried out may actually turn the Iranian crises, into a pivotal moment in history that could prevent another Iran from arising in the Middle-East.

What do the Latest UNSC Sanctions on Iran Mean?

After months of negotiations between the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) -America, Britain, France, Russia, and China- a watered down (for lack of a better term) resolution, sanctioning Iran, was passed.

The bottom line is that the UNSC failed to pass sanctions with teeth. By teeth I mean making it illegal to export refined gas/oil products to a country that, surprisingly considering all its oil reserves, imports 50% of their refined oil/gas.

So we must ask what does this fourth round of sanctions actually mean?


First, the very fact that Russia and China -who both have strong economic ties with Iran- signed on to this resolution reveals three points. 1. The Western powers, led by America, had to make serious concessions. Concessions, that no doubt affect missile defense in Eastern Europe, and Americas actions vis-a-vis Taiwan/North Korea in the East. 2. For once Ahmadinejad was telling the partial (I will explain partial in a moment) truth when he said the sanctions are "valueless" and should be thrown "in the waste bin like a used handkerchief". Otherwise China/Russia would not have signed on. 3. The Obama administration needed this diplomatic "victory", a need that Russia and China surely exploited, further explaining the worthless provisions.

Second, the Russia's decision to sign on to the resolution was most probably agreed upon between Putin and Ahmadinejad, when they recently met in Turkey. Thus when the Russia's Foreign Ministry announced that the measures in the resolution "exclude the possibility of employing force", he meant that this resolution was only worthless to those opposed to Iran's nuclear ambitions (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_nuclear_iran). In essence, this resolution is an umbrella protecting Iran from an attack by Israel. After all "Iran was sanctioned, what more can you, Israelis, possibly want"!?

Third, America, under the Obama administration, will not only not use military force to stop Iran, but it will also do all it can -as Nixon/Kissinger did leading up to the Yom Kippur war of 1973- to prevent Israel from doing what it feels it must. Including agreeing to meaningless sanctions to show that America is doing all it can, and that Israel should further delay any strike. This is not a critique of America, but rather a frank conclusion that the Obama administration agreed to this resolution in a misguided attempt to assuage China, Russia and Israel.

Put otherwise it is true that America does not have the ability now to open up a third front in Iran, at the same time America can work with its real allies, the Western powers, and sanction the export of gas to Iran. After all America and the EU, are the number one and number two consumer blocks, they have pull.

From this perspective, this resolution is part of a trend not an exception. Obama's is attempting to befriend Russia and China, and continues to place Americas real allies/friends second. Poland and the aborted missile defense- Russia. South Korea/Japan, and no action on North Korea - China. Now sacrificing Israels interests.
Why? For the sake of the pipe dream that America can be both a leader and a friend of Russia and China.

What do the latest UNSC sanctions mean? They mean a lot.

Iran is the True Winner of the Turkish-Israel Break.

Can it be that Erdogan, the savviest of savvy politicians, and Israel, the country of Nobel-prizes are being manipulated by Iran?

Certainly, there is a clear trend.

1. Turkey has distanced itself from Israel since Davos, defending Hamas, an Iranian proxy. Strengthening Iran's proxy while weakening Turkey and Israel by beginning to separate them.

2. Turkey attempted to "broker" a nuclear deal, that had no chance of being successful, distancing Turkey from America, while allowing the Iranians to again delay. Weakening Turkeys, prestige and political connections with America, Israel, and many in the West. Also further separating Israel from Turkey.

3. Turkey helps launch an anti-Israel flotilla. The results Israel and Turkey are weaker without each other, for all the reasons both sides refuse to acknowledge (militarily, economics, political, etc). Remember the Arab street may like Turkey now but, the Arab government are clear about who they do not want to have nuclear weapons.

Not to say that Iran created the seeds of this conflcit, but rather that it is watering the seeds of enmity with great alacrity.

So I ask again is Iran's influence lurking in the background? Is Iran the answer to all the conflict between the Turkish and Israeli narratives? Coincidence or planned, Iran is the true winner of the Turkish-Israeli break?

The only path to defeating the emerging Iran and Others coalition:

A costly strike on Iran’s nuclear arsenals by Israel or America is the only way to draw out Iran’s poison short-term. Yet all agree that it is only temporary solution.
The only way for peace-loving nations of the world to defang Iran and to reclaim the allegiance of the "non-aligned" nations of the world is to take away their unearned source of power, oil.

This is not a new idea. But oil interests both in and out of the United States have not only prevented US replacement of oil, it has also prevented Israel from turning its powerful technological industry focus on an oil solution.
While there are no clear indications that Israel’s lack of major progress in this field is due to American interests, the rational is clear.

1. If Israel is willing to continually freeze building in Israel, and place its people in danger because of American peace demands, i.e. American interests. Then it would be a cinch for American government urged on by industry, and Saudi Arabia, to influence Israel away from oil replacement.
2. In 1991, after the UN/US coalition invaded Iraq (1) Israel was attacked by a barrage of Iraqi scuds, and did not retaliate. One of these scuds was responsible for killing scores of US service-people in Saudi Arabia. Because it would endanger the US Arab/Muslim supported coalition.

These are just two KNOWN examples of Israel taking it on the chin for the sake of its alliance with America.

Now that the Obama’s efforts of reconciliation with Russia/Iran/Cuba/Turkey/Syria etc. failed, gaining nothing but a weaker America, that is not pursuing much needed missile defense in Eastern Europe. It is time for America to be smart and realistic about the future.
We can defeat the enemies of America, ALL who just happen to be the enemies of Israel, but depriving them, Russia Iran, of their unearned source of income. Oil. Besides it will result in a cleaner world, more jobs, and a more predictable economy. Let Israel and America focus their collective brilliance and do away with oil dependence.

Erdogan and Turkey: Are the Israelis right and has Ataturks legacy failed?

Israel attempt to bolster its relationship with Turkey with a February transfer of Herons (one of the most advanced Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) systems) to Turkey, had failed. This is due in no small part to Turkeys rhetoric prone Prime Minister Recap Erdogan, who is fixated on destroying the Israeli-Turkish relations.

The Israeli-Turkish relationship has always been emotionless, uncaring, and uneasy. At the same time there has been undeniable strategic partnership since Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognize Israel, in 1949. The relationship has paid off. Turkey has gained entrance into NATO, and has the 5th largest, and very well equipped, military on earth.

However this April’s revelation that Israel rejected Turkeys request for the Barack 8, a 360 degree naval defense shield, is a tangible indicator that Erdogans rhetoric driven campaign against Israel is succeeding. Israel, and its research partner India, fear Turkey will transfer advanced technologies to belligerent nations like Pakistan and Iran. The fact that Turkey is moving away from its historical relationship with Israel was affirmed when they pulled out of a NATO exercise due to the participation of the Israeli Air Force (AIF). If Turkey had not then staged military exercises with its neighbor Syria, and openly declared that it will not stand by if Israel launches an attack on Syria or Iran, the former move could have seen as simply a protest of the Gaza war of 2008.

The bottom line is that Erdogan has been rather aggressive and successful in his attempt to separate Turley and Israel. But why?

Unless Erdogan is looking for war, Erdogans effort to elevate Turkey to the regional power will have include the collaboration of Israel. Clearly Erdogan is not furthering that goal, at least not through peaceful means. Likewise, the view that Erdogans need to bash Israel to gain the trust of the Arab world is untenable. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan all work closely with Israel and would certainly accept Turkey into their alliance against Iran.

Instead Erdogan has aligned Turkey with the minority alliance in the region Syria-Iran-Hamas-Hezbollah. This too is confusing considering that Iran is aiming for regional hegemony, by pursuing nuclear weapons, weapons that would essentially obviate Turkey’s powerful, but un-nuclear military. Is Turkey submitting to Iran!

From a regional perspective it is difficult to defend Erdogans policies towards Israel. Then again that may be the key to understanding Erdogan – his aims are domestic not regional.

Over the last two years Turkey has seen two alleged coup attempts by the military, or so the AK, Erdogans Islamist-leaning party, would have you believe. The first in 2008 ostensibly was executed by the ultranationalist gang, "Ergenekon,” That aborted coup resulted in 400 arrests and zero known convictions ( Interestingly, the left/liberal-leaning new paper, Taraf, broke the story (http://www.csmonitor.com) and later alleged that the Israeli foreign intelligence unit, Mossad, was behind the attempt. The evidence rings of blood-libel proportions –a sack with an Israeli flag and Mossad memorabilia (?!) was found in a conspirators home. The left/Islamic relationship in secular countries is an established phenomenon; suffice to say it requires a separate analysis).

The second coup occurred in 2010 and included the arrest of 7 high ranking military officers, including the three former heads of the navy, air force, and Special Forces, along with 50 others.

For those that are unfamiliar with the modern Turkish system, this is part of the Turkish political process. The Turkish secular revivalist, and founder of the Modern Turkish state, Mustafa Kemal Pasha Ataturk, established a system whereas the military in Turkey is empowered to ensure the secular nature of Turkey –a check on the government if you will. Since 1945 there have been 3 major coups conducted by the military in 1961, 1970, 1980.

Some explain Erdogans attack as an attempt to subdue the military which impedes Turkey’s aspirations in the international community -and has often been pointed to as a major barrier to Turkey’s acceptance into the EU. At the same time Erdogan has repudiated Turkeys desire to join the EU, and his recent alliances with Syria and Iran do nothing to further Turkey’s acceptance into the EU.

What is infinitely clear is that whether the military coups were fabricated or real, the military and Erdogan perceive each other as a threat.

Were it not for this week’s resignation of Turkey’s long standing leader of the secular Republicans People Party, Deniz Baykal, over an alleged sex scandal, the above discussion would do little more than affirm the belief that Turkey is in the midst of a struggle over its nature Ataturk/secular/military or religious/ Muslim/Erdogan. Yet taken as a whole it seems that Erdogan is keen on taking complete power or at least minimizing all his opponents.

Placed in this light, Erdogans attack on Israel is really an attack on the two major forces of opposition in Turkey, the military and the secular parties. To be fair both of these groups are not friends of Israel, but they do have close ties with Israel and are actually supported by Israel. In other words Israel is not stupid; it did not transfer huran UAV’s because they trusted Erdogan. They did so because it would strengthen the hand of the secular/military in Turkey, who can claim “look it pays to be secular, it pays to ally with Israel”. Moreover, it indicates that Israel still believed that Turkey’s staunchly secular military would be able to reassert themselves against Erdogans political onslaught. After the latest failed coup, Israel’s decision not to provide further military hardware reflects Israel’s conclusion that the Turkish secular/military alliance has faltered (fatally ?).

Only a secular Turkey could ally itself with Israel, and Erdogan seeks to undermine his secular opponents in any way possible. By fostering anti-Israel sentiments in Turkey, Erdogan is also engendering negative attitudes towards Israel’s perceived allies within Turkey –the secular/military. Furthermore Turkey relationship with Israel is predicated on a simple trade, advanced military hardware, for political allegiance. But now that Israel refuses to give any more advanced weapons to Turkey the military in Turkey is further delegitimized. After all it was the military that pushed an alliance with Israel, but what has it done for Turkey, Israel won’t even provide weapons!

This also explains Erdogans alliance with Iran. If he is going to lose one nuclear regional power and supporter of his military he needs to trade it for another regionally and nuclear strong ally. Since Erdogan is focused on domestic hegemony, for the moment, his ire aimed at the larger barrier to that goal -Israel.

Erdogan is savvy politician and employing exceptional stratagem. The mistake of the observer was to accept it as a given that Erdogans main focus was regional, and that Israel was the ends of his strategy. In fact Israel is but one piece, one means, to Erdogan ends -national subjugation to his will.

But what are Erdogans national aims, and are the Israelis right, has Ataturk’s legacy failed Turkey?

BESIDES WHY SHOULD IRAN BE THE POWER IN THE REGION

The recent nuclear summit hailed by Obama as a monumental success has highlighted minor gains while completely ignoring the severity of the Iranian nuclear impasse.

Some conspiracy theorist have already hypothesized that this was the purpose behind the summit. They also contend that Netanyahu's real reason for not participating was to create noise as a reminder of the real issue at hand. Just as the real dispute between the White house and the Knesset is about Iran, not Israelis living in the old city of Jerusalem.

Regardless, the bottom line remains that Iran is on the cusp of nuclear armament and the international community refuses to confront the realities on the ground.

There are two views currently making their way through the halls of capitals across the globe.

1. Israel can be relied upon to take the Iranian threat out -and the diplomatic/military fall that will inevitably come along with it.

2. Israel's leadership does not have the political will nor the tools to attempt a strike. The world should prepare for the reality of a nuclear armed Iran, in part by convening high-profile summits affirming the international communities’ commitment to non-proliferation.

Unfortunately the second view, which under the Obama administration has taken hold, underestimates Israel's commitment to its security and Iran's commitment to arm itself.

1. Iran's nuclear aspirations date back to 1979 as part of the Islamic revolution in Iran.
2. Iran understands that as long as it doesn't have nuclear weapons it can not dominate the region.
3. Iran has shown that it is willing to kill its own people. Though I must add that one of my Turkish friends asserts that the protests since the disputed elections reflect a small minority of Iran, I respectfully disagree. Besides the bottom line is that Iran’s leader killed its own citizens.
So there is clear evidence that Iran puts its Mullahs/elites aspirations above the people. What does that mean for the MAD theories that support the notion that Iran would never use its nuclear arsenal?

1. Israel, despite having nuclear weapons has never spurred a regional nuclear arms race, why, because EVERYONE knows that it is a deterrent.
2. That deterrent does not counter an autocratic state like Iran that has as its platform the destruction of Israel.
3. Israel must remove that threat.
4. Israel attacks, then Lebanon, Gaza, and even Syria may get drawn in to a war.
And who knows who else?
5. The likely outcome is Israel’s victory, at a heavy and unwanted cost. Also energy prices, attacks on Americans and other random non-Iranians WILL occur.

Yet the International community had 6 years to stop Iran. Instead they concluded that either of the two views were inevitable and refused to take the threat seriously. Sanctions over a period of time could have worked. But for economic, and who knows what other reasons, Russia and China refused to serve the cause of humanity.

Some may contend that it is purely Israel’s problem. BIG MISTAKE, I have said it before and I will say it again Israel/Jews are the first targets of tyranny but never the last!

As a Jew and a person of conscious I can not stomach the notion that the Hitler of our day will get his hands on nukes, or the idea that there is EVEN A CHANCE THAT millions of my fellow Jews, Americans, Muslims, and people are killed (as was the case in world war II) we shoud not have to declare retroactively "never again".

I say Israel should take out Irans military NOW, before Israel gets drawn into a nuclear war. Israel cannot and should not rely on an international community that has never been up to the task of standing up to Hitler tyranny.

Besides WHY SHOULD IRAN BE THE POWER IN THE REGION

Palestinians and Iranians HAVE TO BE WONDERING...

So Iran which began its genocidal mantra with threats against Israel, has finally come out in the open claiming that if attacked, they will detonate nuclear weapons in American cities (http://debka.com/article/8713/).

The obvious irrationality of murdering 10,000s of men, women, and children in response to attack on Iranian military installations, is not new. On the contrary it is a manifestation of the same perverse model followed by terrorists, primarily claiming to be Muslims, only this time officially sanctioned by a state. Regardless this homicidal equation was at first applied, only, against Israel. The International community myopically ignored the writing on the wall. Now it has spread like a cancer, to every continent, with nuclear undertones.

Despite this clear cut and historically predictable equation i.e. evil targeting Israel/Jews is evil that will eventually attack the world (please see post on "Ann Coulter silenced..."). I can only wonder whats going through common Palestinian and Iranian minds.

For example lets say America or more likely Israel attacks Iran nuclear installations and Iran's Mullahs follow through on their genocidal-rhetoric,and launch indiscriminate attacks on America/Israel. Thousands of Palestinians, whether they support intifada or not, would be killed by a nuclear detonation. After all Israel is so small that Israelis, both Jewish and Arabs, are crammed into a proverbial closet.

Likewise Iranian civilians most of whom, I hope we can assume, want nothing to do with the Mullahs genocidal plans would be disintegrated by thousands.

Thus Palestinians and Iranians have to be wondering...Where is THEIR voice?

The Linkers and the Thinkers": Is Americas Support For Israel Hurting America (3)

The argument that linkers present is that it is in America’s STRATEGIC interest to do everything possible to pressure Israel to do "so and so" in order to gain the good will of the Arabs, and the Muslim world.

Thinkers dispute this strategic claim on two grounds.

1. While it is better for America and Israel, if Israel is at peace with its neighbors, the fact that America supports Israel’s self determination is not the reason why so many in the larger middle-east are at odds with America. For example al-Qaeda spokesmen have repeatedly pointed to Americas corrupting influence in Muslims societies and America’s military presence in countries like Saudi Arabia, for their attacks. Iran's revolution aims at establishing a global Muslim society; of course America and Israel are equally in opposition to this goal. Israel is officially in a state of war with Saudi Arabia yet the Saudi's are staunch allies of America, the same can be said of the Gulf States.

Thus the assertion that Israel is the reason for the instability in the middle-east and that America by supporting Israel losses out strategically is patently false.

Do terrorists use Israel as an excuse to attack westerners, yes, but there is NO real evidence that it is more than an excuse. Should America pull back its support for Israel simply because some terrorists want to kill two birds with one stone -justify their terror and at the same time drive a wedge between America and its natural ally?!

However the thinker concedes that even if it’s just an excuse still it is a minor reason why America should withdraw support from Israel, IF AND ONLY IF there are not real and important reasons not to withdraw support.

In other words if America gains nothing by supporting Israel why bother. The thinker contends that there are tremendous strategic benefits to maintaining a strong relationship with Israel. This leads into the second part of the thinker’s argument.

1. Israel is a reliable AND stable ally in a region where a friendly regime can turn into a mortal enemy in the blink of an eye. Take Iran's secular Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, Shah of Iran, who was a staunch strategic ally of America until over night the Iranian Islamic revolution occurred... Egypt is a somewhat strong ally of America but Mubarak is old and who knows how influential the Muslim Brotherhood is...etc. Israel however, has real ideological reasons to ally, with America. There are historical ties going back to Truman's support for the establishment of Israel, and cultural ties of the two biggest Jewish communities in the world. Furthermore Israel like America is a nation of immigrants who believe in hard work, equal opportunity, separation between religion and state, protection of basic freedoms etc. Most importantly Israel like America has a stable political structure founded on staunch Democratic foundations. America CAN RELY ON ISRAEL'S SUPPORT REGRDLESS OF WHO IS INCHARGE.

2. Israel has the highest rate of start-ups, per capita in the world, followed by America. This translates into a vibrant and exceptionally innovative economy. Thus Israel developed the cell-phone, and was a major contributor to R&D of solar power, desalination of water, and the first known vaccine for cancer (cervical cancer). Like America, much of Israel’s civilian innovation stems from its security needs and the tremendous investment in advanced military technology. Thus the internet developed as a fall-back communication option for the American military has been transformed into the number one means of communication in the globe -the proverbial "beat your swords into plowshares".
American companies realize this and IBM and Intel have their biggest plants, outside the USA, in Israel. Strong support for Israel translates into preferential exchange of ideas between these two great innovators.

3. The flip-side of pulling support from Israel means that other emerging and ambitious economies will invariably step in. China has already begun to establish cultural roots in Israel. OF COURSE Israel prefers a moral and democratic society like America as a partner, but Israel will NOT BE LOOKED OVER BY AMERICAS COMPETITORS!
Indeed in 2002 Israel canceled a deal to upgrade Chinese military vehicles because of American objections, that may not be the case in the future.

4. Linkers like to point to numbers: there are over a billion Muslims and only 5.9 million Jewish-Israelis and 14 million Jews. America should view the numerical disparity and, for strategic reasons, side with the Muslims. The thinker responds that in this era quantity does not necessarily trump quality. Yes there are over a billion Muslims, and over 350 million Arabs surrounding Israel, but Israelis still the power of the region. The only way to explain this, from a secular standpoint, is that Israel's quality outperforms Arab/Iranian quantity.

5. The above are just strategic reasons why America is blessed by its relationship with Israel. There are myriad moral reasons, religious and secular.
G-d promised the land of Israel to the Jews. Muslims and Christians believe in the Bible, though many Muslims have conveniently turned their back on this.
From a secular standpoint, Israel has rabid anti-Israel and anti-Semitic Arabs in its parliament. Why because they where democratically elected. Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia do not, because they do not believe in equality.

Moreover the reason why Congress and many Americans support Israel is NOT BECAUSE OF THE ISRAELI LOBBY AIPAC BUT BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE REASONS THAT AIPAC REMINDS AND EDUCATES AMERICANS ABOUT.

The recent gaff between America and Israel is unfortunate and normal between friends but for America to pull support from Israel, for the thinker, is a strategic blunder of EPIC PROPORTIONS.