Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label attack on Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label attack on Iran. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Obama Puts Israel Between A Rock And A Hard Spot

Charles Krauthammer in his post on Israel Commentary http://israel-commentary.org/?p=2994  scared us to the bone when he quoted an Obama Administration official as saying: "So what is Obama’s real objective? “We’re trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel,” an administration official told The Post in the most revealing White House admission since “leading from behind.”


Just think about that comment for a minute. The President of the United States and his administration are intentionally endangering six million human beings with incineration because they want to be re-elected! He wants to put Israel in a position that they cannot act on their own to eliminate the risk to their country. That is criminal! If Iran should attack Israel and several million die, should there be consequences for the Administration?
We believe so.


Read the rest of the article and see if you agree.


Conservative Tom





Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Is Obama A Supporter of Israel?

For those of you who have followed this blog for a while, you know our answer would be no!  We do not trust the man, we do not believe in his rhetoric and we believe his history has shown him to be an undependable supporter of anything Israeli.  That is our opinion.


Bret Stephens (article follows) does a much better job explaining our position than we did in his article in the Wall Street Journal today.  We think it is very clearly explains why any supporter of Israel should  be wary of the President and his backing of Israel.


Obama said at AIPAC that he had Israel's back. Our concern is that he also has a knife in his hand and at the time when Israel needs the US, he will use stab her.  Words are easy to say and they come easily to this President. Backing up those promises are where the "rubber hits the road."  We are not so sure that he will be there when the time comes, especially if some in his staff suggest it would not be wise politically.


Israel CANNOT and MUST NOT depend on the United States. If the support materializes, great, however, they should assume there will be no help either with materiale or finances. To plan otherwise would be foolhardy. 


We sincerely hope there will be no need for the President to back up his words, however, should that come to pass, all  supporters of Israel should be willing to demand, yes demand, that Obama does what he said he would do.


Conservative Tom


The 'Jewish' President
Bret Stephens - The Wall Street Journal,  March 6th, 2012

Should Israelis and pro-Israel Americans take President Obama at his word when he says—as he did at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference in Washington, D.C., on Sunday—”I have Israel's back”?
No.
Here is a president who fought tooth-and-nail against the very sanctions on Iran for which he now seeks to reap political credit. He inherited from the Bush administration the security assistance to Israel he now advertises as proof of his “unprecedented” commitment to the Jewish state. His defense secretary has repeatedly cast doubt on the efficacy of a U.S. military option against Iran even as the president insists it remains “on the table.” His top national security advisers keep warning Israel not to attack Iran even as he claims not to “presume to tell [Israeli leaders] what is best for them.”
Oh, and his secretary of state answers a question from a Tunisian student about U.S. politicians courting the “Zionist lobbies” by saying that “a lot of things are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention.” It seems it didn't occur to her to challenge the premise of the question.
Still, if you're looking for evidence of Mr. Obama's disingenuousness when it comes to Israel, it's worth referring to what his supporters say about him.
Consider Peter Beinart, the one-time Iraq War advocate who has reinvented himself as a liberal scourge of present-day Israel and mainstream Zionism. Mr. Beinart has a book coming out next month called “The Crisis of Zionism.” Chapter five, on “The Jewish President,” fully justifies the cover price.
Mr. Beinart's case is that Mr. Obama came to his views about Israel not so much from people like his friend Rashid Khalidi or his pastor Jeremiah Wright. Instead, says Mr. Beinart, Mr. Obama got his education about Israel from a coterie of far-left Chicago Jews who “bred in Obama a specific, and subversive, vision of American Jewish identity and of the Jewish state.”
At the center of this coterie, Mr. Beinart explains, was a Chicago rabbi named Arnold Jacob Wolf. In 1969, Wolf staged a synagogue protest in favor of Black Panther Bobby Seale. In the early 1970s, he founded an organization that met with Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization—this being some 20 years before Arafat officially renounced terrorism. In the early 1990s, Wolf denounced the construction of the Holocaust Museum in Washington.
And, in 1996, the rabbi “was one of [Mr. Obama's] earliest and most prominent supporters” when he ran for the Illinois state Senate. Wolf later described Mr. Obama's views on Israel as “on the line of Peace Now”—an organization with a long history of blaming Israel for the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Mr. Obama had other Jewish mentors, too, according to Mr. Beinart. One was Bettylu Saltzman, whose father, developer Philip Klutznick, had joined Wolf in “his break with the Israeli government in the 1970s.” Ms. Saltzman, writes Mr. Beinart, “still seethes with hostility toward the mainstream Jewish groups” and later became active in left-wing Jewish political groups like J Street. Among other things, it was she who “organized the rally against the Iraq War where Obama proclaimed his opposition to an American invasion.”
Ms. Saltzman also introduced Mr. Obama to David Axelrod, himself a longtime donor to a group called the New Israel Fund. For a flavor of the NIF's world view, a WikiLeaks cable from 2010 noted that an NIF associate director told U.S. embassy officials in Tel Aviv that “the disappearance of a Jewish state would not be the tragedy that Israelis fear since it would become more democratic.”
Other things that we learn about Mr. Obama's intellectual pedigree from Mr. Beinart: As a student at Columbia, he honed his interests in colonialism by studying with the late pro-Palestinian agit-Prof. Edward Said. In 2004, Mr. Obama “criticized the barrier built to separate Israel and its major settlements from the rest of the West Bank”—the “barrier” meaning the security fence that all-but eliminated the wave of suicide bombings that took 1,000 lives in Israel.
Beinart's sources, longtime diplomat Dennis Ross was brought aboard the Obama campaign as part of what Mr. Beinart calls “Obama's inoculation strategy” to mollify Jewish voters apprehensive about the sincerity of his commitments to Israel. Not surprisingly, Mr. Ross was a marginal figure in the administration before leaving last year.
In Mr. Beinart's telling, all this is evidence that Mr. Obama is in tune with the authentic views of the American Jewish community when it comes to Israel, but that he's out of step with Jewish organizational leadership. Maybe. Still, one wonders why organizations more in tune with those “real” views rarely seem to find much of a base.
But the important question here isn't about American-Jewish attitudes toward Israel. It's about the president's honesty. Is he being truthful when he represents himself as a mainstream friend of Israel—or is he just holding his tongue and biding his time? On the evidence of Mr. Beinart's sympathetic book, Mr. Obama's speech at Aipac was one long exercise in political cynicism.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Another View of the Iran Israel Tension



The game that the Obama Administration is conducting is a dangerous one by playing the Iranians against the Israelis and vice versa.  Is this to be expected?  Is this from inexperience in the world? Is this purposeful?


The answer to these questions are that it is expected from an anti-Israeli administration who has no world experience and it is on purpose. This administration wants to see Israel disappear.


Obama as a pro-Arab President, believes the Israel is the burr under the Middle East's saddle and only when the irritant is removed, can things really progress in that part of the world.  Anyone who has been following the Obama Administration can see his action. They are not clandestine. He has made it very clear to those who wish to observe them.


Inexperienced pols who surround themselves with people with the same views, should not be surprised when things don't work out like they thought they would. This is true in foreign relations as well as domestic matters.  For these reasons, it is imperative that Obama be a one term President.

The following post by Ben Shapiro is worthy of your time as it gives more information regarding the way the Obama Administration has been and is operating when it comes to Israel.


Conservative Tom




The Obama Administration’s Anti-Israel Tenor Forces Iran and Israel Toward War

President Obama has made clear over and over again that he does not want Israel to strike Iran, no matter what the circumstances. Last week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta leaked to the Washington Post that “there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June – before Iran enters what Israel described as a ‘zone of immunity’ to commence building a nuclear bomb.” Now, the only reason to leak that information is to stop the attack. And that’s been the Obama Administration pattern, as I wrote over at David Horowitz’s FrontPageMag.com. In June 2010, the Administration leaked a secret deal between the Saudis and the Israelis that would have given Israel access to Saudi airspace for the strike. This is the pattern.
Sources inside the Israeli government know that if President Obama wins re-election, he will have no incentive to back Israel if they do strike Iran. That means that Israel’s window is closing fast. That’s why Panetta leaked the information, to try to push Israel’s attack past the election.
Israel can’t stake its future on a Republican nominee’s possible win. It must bank on Obama’s re-election for its own safety’s sake. And that means that it must attack now, hoping that Obama’s desire to look hawkish and to lock up the Jewish vote in states like Florida will prompt him to back Israeli action.
Incredibly, Obama’s anti-Israel position is also pushing Iran toward war. Iran can’t bet on Obama winning re-election, which means they will escalate action toward Israel in the hope of prompting Obama to continue to stymie Israel’s responsive actions, kicking the can down the road. Iran figures that if it can delay the attack past the election, it may have bought enough time to make its nuclear program irrevocable.
To that end, Iran ratcheted up its attacks on Israel, planting car bombs in New Delhi and Tblisi, Georgia to target Israeli diplomats. Iran, of course, blamed Israel for trying to ruin its relationships with India and Georgia – as though they had any real relationships to begin with. “In all these cases, the elements behind the attacks were Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah,” said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “We will continue to act with a strong hand, systematically and patiently, against international terrorism, whose source is Iran.” And, as usual, the Obama Administration pledged half-hearted support, with anti-Israel Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announcing, “we stand ready to assist with any investigation of these cowardly actions.” Note the language there: the U.S. doesn’t stand ready to actually back Israel based on the results of the investigation. The U.S. is just offering its super-sleuths.
Israel and Iran are on the brink of war – and it’s Obama’s fault. His pusillanimity (or outright favoritism for Islamism around the Middle East) has forced both Israel and the Islamists into a corner. And they’ll come out fighting

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Chinese Seek Saudi Oil







China is interested in more investment in Saudi Arabian oil as a way to ensure it  has enough oil if Iran cuts off the supply.  Not only is the US and Israel concerned with Iran, but is seems that China also is. 

Iran is an outlaw among nations and should be treated as such. If they attempt to close the Straits of Hormuz, their shore battreys and all their navy should be destroyed. This waterway is international waters and closing them would be a violation of international law.  We hope Iran's threat is all bluster.

In the meantime, the world must keep pressure on the leadership of Iran to make sure they know there will be a major response, if they attempt to prevent tranversing the Straits.

Here is the article on China seeking Saudi oil.  Are we on the right track?
Conservative Tom

China's Wen presses Saudi Arabia for oil access


By Chris Buckley
BEIJING (Reuters) - Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao pressed Saudi Arabia to open its huge oil and gas resources to expanded Chinese investment, media reports said on Sunday against a backdrop of growing tension over Iran and worries over its crude exports to the Asian power.
The Saudi kingdom is China's biggest source of imported oil, and securing energy security was high on Wen's agenda in Riyadh, in part reflecting concerns about how nuclear tensions and sanctions could unsettle ties with Iran.
"China and Saudi Arabia are both in important stages of development, and there are broad prospects for enhancing cooperation," Wen on Saturday told Prince Nayef, who is a senior member of the Saudi government, according to Xinhua.
"Both sides must strive together to expand trade and cooperation, upstream and downstream, in crude oil and natural gas," said Wen, referring to access to extracting oil and gas and then processing the them.
The Xinhua report made no mention of any discussion of Iran, whose oil exports to China face pressure from new U.S. sanctions. The U.S. sanctions threat is a particular worry for China, the biggest buyer of Iranian oil. Only Saudi Arabia and Angola sell it more crude.
"Beijing is concerned with the potential response to Iranian bellicose statements and with the spike in oil prices that would ensue from greater turmoil in Syria and Iran," Michal Meidan, an analyst in London with the Eurasia Group who studies Chinese energy investment and policy, said in an emailed research note.
Late on Saturday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry denounced U.S. punishment of China's state-run Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp.
On Thursday, the Obama administration invoked U.S. law to sanction Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp, which it said was Iran's largest supplier of refined petroleum products.
"Imposing sanctions on a Chinese company based on a domestic (U.S.) law is totally unreasonable, and does not conform to the spirit or content of U.N. Security Council resolutions about the Iran nuclear issue," the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said in a statement issued on the ministry's website (www.mfa.gov.cn).
"China expresses its strong dissatisfaction and adamant opposition," said Liu.
The Obama administration said its sanctions against the Chinese company and two other firms are part of a broadening effort to target Iran's energy sector and press Tehran to curb in its nuclear ambitions, which Western governments say appear aimed at developing the means to make atomic weapons.
Iran says its nuclear activities are legitimate and entirely for peaceful ends.
China cut oil imports from Iran in January and February in a commercial dispute over contract terms, and has been looking for alternative supplies.
Yet China is unlikely to dramatically boost crude imports from Saudi Arabia, even with the Iranian worries, said Meidan, the analyst with the Eurasia Group.
"In the likely event that Iran will offer discounted oil, Chinese traders will buy more Iranian barrels and could consequently reduce their Saudi imports," she said.
"Wen will therefore need to convey both commercial and diplomatic realities to Saudi Arabia, China's number one source of crude imports, and ensure that bilateral ties remain on steady footing."
MORE TRADE TOO, PLEASE
Wen also said his government wants "strong and reputable" Chinese companies to invest in Saudi Arabia's ports, railways and infrastructure, the Chinese Xinhua news agency reported.
China and Saudi Arabia should keep deepening cooperation "in the face of changeable and complicated regional and international trends," he said, according to Xinhua.
Crown Prince Nayef is King Abdullah's half brother and became heir to the throne in October. The Xinhua report paraphrased the prince as saying that Saudi Arabia is willing to expand cooperation in energy and infrastructure.
China is already Saudi Arabia's biggest customer and the kingdom is keen to diversify its economic ties.
On Saturday, the state-run Saudi oil giant Aramco and Chinese companies finalized an initial agreement signed last year to develop a 400,000 barrel per day (bpd) refinery in Yanbu, on the kingdom's Red Sea coast.
Aramco will hold a 62.5 percent stake in the joint venture formed to develop Yanbu Aramco Sinopec Refining Co (YASREF), and Sinopec will own the rest.
In the first 11 months of 2011, top supplier Saudi Arabia shipped 45.5 million tons of crude to China, a rise of 12.9 percent over the same period in 2010, according to Chinese customs data. Angola and Iran were China's second and third biggest suppliers.
Wen is also scheduled to visit the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.
(Reporting by Chris Buckley, Editing by Jonathan Thatcher)

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Should We Go To War With Iran?


Cogent, concise arguments are sometimes hard to come by. However, in the following article, Bruce Thornton, writing in FrontPage Magazine today, makes a very good case for military action against Iran. We were impressed with his explanation of the power structure in Iran and how religion directs it.


This is an excellent article. You might disagree with the premise but he makes a good case to taking  action against Iranian assets in an attempt to bring about change in the country. This is a good starting point for a discussion on the potential of a war with Iran. Do we want one?  Our answer would be no. However, if they shut the Straits or fire on one of our ships or other asset, it may come to that.

What is your opinion?

Conservative Tom

The Case for Military Action Against Iran

Bruce Thornton - FrontPage Magazine,  January 10th, 2012

Iran’s 30-year war against the United States may be reaching its decisive moment. Signs of the worsening crisis abound. Iran just announced it has begun enriching uranium at the Fordo underground nuclear site, a key step to producing more quickly fissile material for a nuclear warhead. As Europe moves closer to embargoing Iranian oil, deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guard Ali Ashraf Nouri threatens, “ If enemies block the export of our oil, we won’t allow a drop of oil to pass through the Strait of Hormuz,” through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil passes. In support of this threat, the regime continues to stage war games in the area and to warn American warships from passing through the strait into the Persian Gulf. Meanwhile the U.S. and Israel have announced a joint missile defense exercise, as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad​ visits America’s enemies in Latin America, bearding the U.S. lion in its own hemisphere of influence.
Iran may be just indulging bluster and bluff. Perhaps the mullahs recall the severe punishment inflicted on its navy in 1988 during the Tanker War​, an earlier attempt to disrupt oil shipments transiting the Persian Gulf. That effort ended when Ronald Reagan​ retaliated for a missile attack on an American warship by eventually destroying two Iranian oil platforms, two Iranian ships, and six Iranian gunboats. Yet our current president has not shown as yet any of Ronald Reagan’s guts and nerve, and the mullahs may be calculating that the bluff will work.
And why wouldn’t they? Iran has been killing Americans for 30 years with impunity, from the 241 military personnel killed in Beirut by a suicide bomber, to the hundreds more soldiers murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan by Iranian proxy terrorist outfits trained and armed by Tehran. Repeated rounds of sanctions, threats, U.N. Security Council resolutions, and deadlines for cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have been contemptuously ignored. Our citizens are arrested and held on trumped-up charges, our ally Israel is threatened with genocide, and incessant anti-American “Great Satan” rhetoric daily pours from Tehran. Just this week a former American Marine was condemned to death by an Iranian court for allegedly being a spy and a “mohareb,” or “fighter against God.” Yet Obama has answered this aggression against our security and interests with appeasing diplomatic “outreach” offered “without preconditions,” and pleas for “mutual respect” that the regime correctly interprets as a sign of weakness and failure of nerve.
Given that Iranian aggression has so far provoked appeasement and empty threats, the mullahs very well could believe that since they are the “best of nations,” as the Koran has it, in any conflict Allah will protect the Islamic Republic and render insignificant America’s overwhelming military superiority. After all, Muslims for centuries have believed in their superiority based on Allah’s special regard for them, as aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupéry noted in 1939: “Their [Muslims] pride was born of the illusion of their power. Allah renders a believer invincible.” The mullahs today will remember what the Ayatollah Khomeini​ said in 1980, after America’s ill-planned and half-hearted mission to rescue the embassy hostages was ignominiously thwarted by a sandstorm that caused two helicopters to crash and burn: “Those sand particles were divinely commissioned. . . . [President] Carter still has not comprehended what kind of people he is facing. . . . Our people is the people of blood and our school is the school of Jihad.”
Thirty years later, we still have not “comprehended” the nature of the Iranian enemy. We have continuously operated with a materialist calculus that ignores the spiritual motives that account for much of Iranian aggression. More depressing still, this is the same mistake the Carter administration made in 1979, when it ignored the religious roots of the Iranian Revolution​, dismissed Khomeini as “nutty” and “a crazy man,” as Carter did, and assumed that the secular political parties and technical elites would eventually rule Iran and marginalize the mullahs, virulent Iranian hostility would wane, and “after a transition period common interests could provide a basis for future cooperation,” as an assistant to the Secretary of State reported. Similarly the West today has assumed that economic punishment, or the desire for “greater international integration,” as Obama put it, can change Iranian behavior. We still don’t believe what a member of the Revolutionary Council said a few months after the seizure of our embassy: “No individual, no official and no Muslim has the right to show forbearance or compromise toward an enemy who is not defeated and is not overthrown.”
The melancholy lesson of history is that force is the “strong magic” that compels fanatical believers to abandon their murderous ideologies or keep them within their own borders. Equivocating about the use of force, or pursuing non-lethal ways to change behavior, such as diplomatic negotiation or economic sanctions, only convinces the fanatic aggressor that he has the gods or history or destiny on his side, that his enemy is weak and lacks conviction, and that a few more blows will achieve the aggressor’s aims. Nor does it matter if the failure to retaliate actually reflects other concerns such as political expediency. There were many reasons Clinton withdrew our forces from Somalia in 1993 after the “Blackhawk Down” battle in which 18 U.S. servicemen were killed, but political self-interest and survival were clearly the most important. Yet to bin Laden, the retreat from Mogadishu was like the withdrawal from Vietnam and Beirut after the Marine barracks bombing: the result of America’s “low spiritual morale” and “cowardice and feebleness.” And that perception fed bin Laden’s certainty that the U.S. rested on “foundations of straw” and could be toppled with spectacular terrorist attacks.
Settling the conflict with Iran and keeping it from acquiring nuclear weapons, then, will in the end be achieved with mind-concentrating force that convinces the mullahs to change their ways. One place to start would be to destroy Iran’s navy and shore missile batteries in the Persian Gulf. Degrading the military assets, bases, and production facilities of the Iranian Republican Guard Corp and the paramilitary Basij might provide an opportunity for the dormant Green Revolutionaries to effect regime change. As Indiana University’s Jamsheed K. Choksy wrote in The Wall Street Journal, “Once the power of the Basij and the IRGC to enforce the regime’s will upon the people has been seriously compromised, it would not be surprising to see large segments of Iran’s population casting off the theocratic yoke.” A saner regime perhaps would be more amenable to abandoning the pursuit of nuclear weapons.
The time is fast running out on policies that refuse to accept the necessity of force in changing Iranian behavior. Military action obviously involves unknowable risks and costs; but allowing a rogue regime, one situated in the middle of a region that produces one-fifth of the world’s oil, to acquire nuclear weapons will likely end up subjecting our security and interests to much greater risks and much higher costs.