Playing Chess with the Persians

Fresnozionism.org
28 May '10

The consensus of opinion is that the sanctions to be applied against Iran’s nuclear project will not stop it. Even if they were truly ‘biting’ (to use one of our President’s favorite expressions), one has only to consider the importance of nuclear weapons to Iran’s overall goal to realize that they would have to bite really, really hard to outweigh this.

And these sanctions barely nip. Now the talk is about the best way to ‘contain’ the nuclear Iran.

Israel’s position seems to be that the costs for it to strike Iran will be so high and the benefits so temporary that it will not do so unless there is a clear and present danger of a weapon being used against it. This may well be correct.

To be honest, although the outcome is vital for Israel, Israel is only a minor player in the game, which is about the expulsion of Western influence from the Middle East, representing the defeat of the United States of America by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

It seems to me that we are at one of those watershed moments. Future historians will point to it and say “this is when the Pax Americana ended and the Second Islamic Conquest began.”

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Israeli nukes are legal and pro-peace

Fresnozionism.org
08 May '10

George Jahn of the AP writes,

VIENNA — Israel’s secretive nuclear activities may undergo unprecedented scrutiny next month, with a key meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency tentatively set to focus on the topic for the first time, according to documents shared Friday with The Associated Press.

A copy of the restricted provisional agenda of the IAEA’s June 7 board meeting lists “Israeli nuclear capabilities” as the eighth item — the first time that that the agency’s decision-making body is being asked to deal with the issue in its 52 years of existence…

The 35-nation IAEA board is the agency’s decision making body and can refer proliferation concerns to the U.N. Security Council — as it did with Iran in 2006 after Tehran resumed uranium enrichment, a potential pathway to nuclear weapons…

The latest pressure is putting the Jewish state in an uncomfortable position. It wants the international community to take stern action to prevent Iran from getting atomic weapons but at the same time brushes off calls to come clean about its own nuclear capabilities.

This article obscures an important point, which is that the IAEA — and the UN — have no authority over Israel’s nuclear capability. And it gives the impression that Iran and Israel’s nuclear programs are both in some way in violation of international law, and that if action is taken regarding Iran it should also be taken toward Israel. This is entirely false.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Iranian Website: Iranian Nuclear Bomb Spells Death to Israel

Graphic: Stephen Hughes
MEMRI
23 February '10

On February 18, 2010, the Iranian website Asr-e Iran posted an editorial stating that Iran's possessing nuclear weapons will threaten Israel's existence and lead to its elimination – even if they are never used. The editorial explained that Israel's raison d'être is the illusion that it can provide absolute security for the Jewish people, and that it has security supremacy. Once Iran possesses nuclear weapons and shifts the balance of power in the Middle East, it states, this will be end of Israeli society.

The following is the translation of the article:

"The Zionist Regime Must Continue to Preserve this Illusion of 'Absolute Security' within the Borders of Israel"

"Since its establishment in 1948, the central pillar on which Israel is founded has been 'creating a secure territory for the Jewish people, in order to protect it from any possible danger.' This issue is so important to the elected officials of the Israeli regime that in the country's 62 years of existence, they have dealt harshly with any element, [even] the most minor, that could possibly strike at or harm 'the famous Paradise.'

"In order to continue to be a safe haven for Jews from all over the world, and to continue to draw human, economic, and other capital from all over the world, the Zionist regime must continue to preserve this illusion of 'absolute security' within the borders of Israel (i.e. occupied Palestine).

"For this reason, and driven by this strategy, in the 1960s Israel produced dozens of nuclear warheads (as the Western countries looked the other way, and some even collaborated, such as France) – so that it would, or so it thought, attain absolute supremacy in the Middle East balance of power.

"The truth is that for Israel, not just insecurity, but even the mere sense of insecurity is deadly poison. That is why this regime focuses all its efforts on preventing what it sees as the nuclearization of Iran.

"Israeli officials are well aware of what nuclear weapons mean and of the scope of their deterrence. They know well that using nuclear weapons as deterrence in a first strike capacity means mutual destruction if the other side has them as well. Thus, it cannot be assumed that a country that has nuclear weapons will use them against another country (particularly if that country also has them).

(Read full article)
.

Sanctions, shmanctions

Fresnozionism.org
14 February '10

News item:

Visiting U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen declared Sunday that Washington was committed to Israel’s security, voicing concern over the “unintended consequences” a war in the Middle East over Iran’s contentious nuclear program would bring.

“I worry a great deal about the unintended consequences of a strike,” he told reporters during a visit to Tel Aviv, referring to Iran’s threats to retaliate against Israel and U.S. sites in the Gulf. “I think the Iranians are very difficult to predict.”

Translation: he’s worried about Israel’s security so much that he really doesn’t want Israel to attack Iran. This makes little sense. Nobody is more aware than Israel of Iran’s ability to retaliate in many unpleasant ways, and so it’s very likely that it would not take that step unless there was absolutely no alternative. It would only attack if the consequences of not attacking were judged to be worse.

(Read full post)
.

Israel’s nuclear traitor

Nuclear traitor Mordechai Vanunu

FresnoZionism
29 December 09

‘Any other country in the world would…’ department:

In 1985, Mordechai Vanunu, left his job as a technician at Israel’s nuclear installation in Dimona. Before leaving he took several rolls of film and in 1986 helped the UK Sunday Times write a bombshell story (so to speak) exposing the extent of Israel’s nuclear weapons program. Vanunu revealed that Israel had ten times the number of bombs heretofore thought, and that it was developing hydrogen and neutron weapons.

Vanunu was lured into a trap in Italy by a female Mossad agent; he was brought back to Israel and sentenced to 18 years imprisonment for “transmission of secret information with the intent to harm state security, collecting secret information with the intent to harm state security and of aiding the enemy during a state of war”. When he was released in 2004, he was forbidden from leaving the country, meeting foreigners or even having a cell phone. I presume he is carefully watched day and night.

Born a Jew in Morocco in 1954 (but not, as Wikipedia says, the son of a rabbi), Vanunu converted to Christianity and now lives in an Anglican monastery in Jerusalem. He insists that he was incarcerated as punishment for his conversion. Right.

(Read full article)
.

Parsi's Precedent

Backspin/Honest reporting
30 November 09

At the Huffington Post, Trita Parsi argues that the US can and should stop Israel from attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. He even cites this precedent:

On August 2, 1990, almost a year after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Iron Curtain divide, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Within months, the George H. W. Bush administration carefully assembled a coalition of states under the UN flag and defeated the Iraqi army and restored Kuwait's ruling family, the House of Sabah. The Bush senior administration saw particular value in ensuring that the international coalition contained numerous Arab states. But to get the Arab's to join a war alongside the US and against another Arab power, Israel needed to be kept out of the coalition.

This turned out to be a tricky issue, particularly when Saddam Hussein hurled thirty-four Scud missiles at Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities, in an obvious attempt to lure Israel into the war . . . .

Just as Israeli retaliation against Iraq in 1991 would have been devastating for the US, an Israeli preventive attack against Iran today would spell disaster for US national security.

The Israeli debate over deterrence vs. undermining coalition forces was as anguished as Parsi goes on to describe. There was the added uncertainty -- which Parsi doesn't acknowledge -- of Saddam's Scuds being outfitted with chemical or biological warheads. Fortunately, Saddam Hussein didn't raise the stakes with a non-conventional attack.

Parsi expresses no concern for the threat Iranian nukes pose to Israeli national security (and Palestinian national security, for that matter).

We've seen that the Israeli public is remarkably resilient in the face of Iraqi Scuds, Palestinian Qassams and Hezbollah Katyushas. But Parsi's then-and-now comparison breaks down because air strikes on Iran would be to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.

.

Neville Chamberlain Was A Far-Sighted Hero Compared To This

Melanie Phillips

The Spectator

15 September 09

Barry Rubin says this is the big one and I agree. Obama’s decision to accept Iran’s, er, offer of talks is a mistake of simply staggering proportions. It was inevitable – and yet even so it is hard to believe that an American President can be quite this reckless.

As we all know, Obama offered Iran a hand of friendship in the hope that this would finally encourage the regime to open up its clenched fist. Months passed; Obama’s hand remained open, the Iranian fist remained clenched and Iran made good use of the precious gift of time Obama had given it to advance its nuclear programme to the point where it is now variously estimated as soon able /already able to manufacture a nuclear weapon.

As time and credibility drained away, the Obama administration announced that if Iran hadn’t moved by late September, the US would finally get tough, which meant some kind of souped-up sanctions regime. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to work out what would happen next. Having contemptuously disdained the idea of talking to the US, a few days ago Iran suddenly said it would indeed talk to the Great Satan – but not about its nuclear programme, only about ending nuclear proliferation (guess which country it has in mind for a cosy chat with Obama?) and getting rid of great power vetoes at the UN.

In other words, it has graciously consented to talk about terms for the surrender of the west. In doing so, it would park the sanctions threat indefinitely and tie the US up in further knots for months, thus ensuring the tranquil completion of its nuclear programme, and make the US look so weak and pathetic that Neville Chamberlain would retrospectively appear heroic and far-sighted by comparison, thus hugely endangering not just America but the world. In the circumstances, only an imbecile, brainwashed ideologue or lunatic would agree to pick up Iran’s gauntlet of contempt.

Obama has agreed.

‘There's language in the letter that simply says the government of Iran is willing to enter into dialogue,’ State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said. ‘We are going to test that proposition, okay? And if Iran is willing to enter into serious negotiations, then they will find a willing participant in the United States and the other [partner] countries. If Iran dissembles in the future, as it has in the past, then we will draw conclusions from that.’

The US will ‘draw conclusions’, eh! Doubtless when Iran tests its nuclear weapon the US will ‘draw conclusions’ from that as well; and when the balance of regional and world power finally tips irrevocably towards Iranian hegemony and the nuclear blackmail of America and the world, not to mention the nuking of Tel Aviv, the US will ‘draw conclusions’ from that too. But it will never act. Instead the US, having dug itself into the ground up to its neck so that it can be stoned, is going to enter into ‘serious negotiations’.

What about?

Rubin observes:

At first, the leaks were that both the United States and the Europeans rejected the letter. Yet within two days this was all reversed and they accepted it. Why would such a thing happen? Unless they received some secret Iranian assurances—which is possible—it means that the State Department mid-level officials scoffed at the letter but as it went up the chain of command, to Obama itself, he chose to accept it. There’s no doubt that this decision was made at the very top and there are also indications that wiser heads who understand the situation better were against it.

For those waiting for the Administration to make some dreadful mistake, they now apparently have their case. One close Washington observer of Iran policy stated in bewilderment, ‘This makes no sense.’ But it can be made sense of in several ways. One is that the Administration leadership has no idea of what it’s dealing with. Another is that it has fallen prey to wishful thinking. Both are true but the real answer might also involve something else: a government desperately seeking to avoid even a lower-level confrontation and passionately desiring to do nothing about the most dangerous issue it and the world faces.

We will draw our own conclusion: it was always going to be like this.

.

An Introductory Guide To A Very Big Mistake: Analyzing the U.S. Decision to Negotiate with Iran’s Regime

Barry Rubin

The Rubin Report

13 September 09

Forgive me for a bit of repetition but what has just happened is so important that it deserves the closest attention and clearest analysis. A more comprehensive explanation is here. This article presents these themes in a brief, straightforward manner.

1. President Barack Obama produced the theme of U.S. engagement with Iran and proposed a world free of all nuclear weapons as a goal.

2. The United States had tried to engage with Iran but that country refused. Nominally this can be attributed to being busy with stealing an election and repressing the opposition but it would have happened any way.

3. Iran is now governed by its most radical government since the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini twenty years ago. Extremist and adventurist, anti-American and antisemitic, this is a government bent on getting nuclear weapons (at least as leverage, not necessarily to use), destroying U.S. influence in the region, and wiping Israel off the map.

4. Seeing that engagement wasn’t working, the U.S. government made a plan to bring together key countries and raise the level of sanctions in late September.

5. Seeking to stall such measures in order to consolidate the regime, which is relatively weak given domestic opposition, the Tehran regime at the last minute sent an insulting note to the United States trying to change the subject. Rather than focus on the nuclear weapons’ drive, they called for changing the UN to empower non-Western states (an old regime theme) and rid the world of all nuclear weapons. In other words: Iran will be the champion of the Third World in getting rid of great power vetoes at the UN and keep on developing nuclear weapons until the United States gets rid of all those it has.

6. Remarkably, Obama accepted the Iranian offer.

7. Since the U.S. proposal was for unconditional negotiations this means that it cannot ask Iran to do anything—reduce sponsorship of terrorism, decrease internal repression, slow its nuclear program—as long as the talks are going on.

8. Apparently, the United States is not going to pursue the plan for increasing sanctions while the talks go on.

9. The U.S. government is also not setting a deadline for progress.

10. This means: By sending a five-page insulting letter the Iranian government has derailed the sanctions’ project and will gain in prestige without any cost.

11. In addition, the Iranian regime suffers no cost for stealing the election, repressing the opposition, and appointing a wanted terrorist as defense minister. One might expect international outrage and isolation of Iran on those points alone. Here, too, the regime has won a total victory.

12. The cover story is: The U.S. government offered to engage so it must keep its word. Supposedly, various factors will be impressed by this effort and be more willing to support sanctions after talks fail.

13. Yet it is never explained who these parties are? France, Germany, Britain, and other European states are ready to support sanctions increases now. Russia and China oppose raising sanctions now and will continue to do so. Even American domestic opinion doesn’t need this: if Obama, who is wildly popular on the left and seems to own much of the media, wants to raise sanctions what significant forces would oppose it?

14. In short, engagement has no purpose in terms of gathering support for sanctions.

15. What is really going on?

--The Administration simply wants an excuse for doing nothing.

--It really believes talks with Iran might lead somewhere, though some high officials, notably Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, say they won’t work.

--Seeing that the sanctions effort cannot get unanimous support, it does not want a messy fight with Russia and China or the appearance of failure.

16. The policy can be defended by saying that talking doesn’t hurt.

17. But of course it does. Not only has Iran reversed the direction of events, sabotaged the sanctions, and escape any censure over the regime’s policies, it gains time to build nuclear weapons. Presumably, talks will eat up at least six months after which additional time would be needed to increase sanctions. By then, too, the Chinese project to double Iran’s capability to produce its own refined oil products—one of the main things sanctions would deny the country—will be completed.

18. If the United States had turned down the Iranian offer, the West Europeans would have done so also.

19. It is impossible to see how this decision does the United States any good and it does America, Europe, and the Middle East a great deal of harm.

20. Will the Obama Administration itself derive political benefits at home? Short-term, perhaps but not significant. But what about when crises take place or its policies are perceived as failures as Iran not only gets nuclear weapons but uses them to extend its influence; intimidate Western and regional opponents; and subvert neighbors?

Conclusion: This is the most important foreign policy decision made so far by the Obama Administration. It is a very bad one. Even in the context of its overall policy, it would have done far better to continue with the raised sanctions.

--By letting its own strategy be derailed it looks ineffective.

--By accepting an insulting proposal obviously meant to change the agenda it will be perceived as being humiliated.

--By ignoring the recent behavior of the Iranian regime it will invite more of the same.

--By letting Russia and China veto a U.S. policy it seems to have abandoned American leadership in the world, or at least of the West.

--By allowing the Iranian regime to stall for time it has apparently moved a long way toward acceding to Iran’s having nuclear weapons, and not just the weapons but weapons in the hands of the country’s most extreme faction.

A big price will be paid in future for this mistake.

[I wonder if the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, or other major news outlets will publish anything presenting the above points. The NY Time has already informed us that only "conservatives" and "human rights' activists" will oppose it, thus in a sense ruling out any serious criticism beforehand--since the first group is deemed evil and the second well-meaning but naive.]

Related: Iran Outmaneuvers U.S. Govt., Dialogue of the Deaf: Obama's Sanctions
.

Iran Outmaneuvers U.S. Government: Obama Scores Three "Own Goals"

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
11 September 09

President Barack Obama didn’t understand how quickly and easily his diplomatic “generosity” and readiness to make concessions becomes a trap or also how his self-professed reluctance to do anything tough turns into a terrible vulnerability. Now he faces being outmaneuvered by Iran.

The Tehran regime took three of Obama’s policies—engagement with enemies, global nuclear disarmament, and partnership over leadership—and has turned them against the U.S. government.

The score today is Iran: 3, United States; 0. And all three of Iran’s scores were actually U.S. “own goals.” For non-football—or if you wish soccer--fans, that’s when you kick the ball into your own goal scoring a point for the other team.

First, Obama has talked a great deal about engaging Iran, claiming this would show the world America’s good intentions and thus clear the way for tougher sanctions. By the time sanctions are raised, if they are, the Obama administration will have wasted all of 2009 on this process.

But guess what? The Iranians can play that game also. At the last minute, Iran came up with an offer to meet, obviously just a stalling tactic. Some in the American media fell for the trick, with the Los Angeles Times saying that it didn’t matter if the ploy was a trick the United States had to play along. Now that’s judo in action.

There’s more, however. Second, the Iranian regime said that it wouldn’t talk about its own nuclear program but proposed instead that all nuclear weapons in the world be eliminated.

Now where did they get this idea? Why, from Obama himself of course! He proposed this in his Cairo speech (and forgive me for reminding you I warned that this would happen) and he is about to chair a UN session on this very point. In fact, at Obama’s request, the session he’s running was changed from a debate focussing on immediate nuclear weapons' threats (Iran and North Korea to a general one about ridding the world of nuclear weapons. The Iranians will have a field day outmaneuvering him on this issue at the UN session.

And that’s not all! For this credibility through engagement thing works both ways. When Obama says the United States must show the world that it tried to engage Iran, he’s being not just Eurocentric but Western Eurocentric. There’s a flip side. Now Iran is offering to talk and the United States is refusing. This will make the United States look quite worse, very hypocritical in the Muslim-majority world and other places outside of Western Europe.

Third, the Russians accepted it. Jumping at the chance for an excuse not to raise sanctions, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said there won’t be any new sanctions because he thinks the Iranian proposals are just dandy and more time should be spent (wasted) in more meetings.

Incidentally, as I’ve previously reported, the Russians have been talking this way for months. Yet while the danger was clear, the Obama Administration ignored it, pretending all was well with Moscow. There was never any chance of the Russians, or China for that matter, supporting the U.S. strategy. Isn’t Obama going to look like a fool or failure when his grand strategy against Iran is shown to be hollow?

In the end, though, the Obama administration decided to step into the trap and negotiate with Iran. Why? Here's the key statement:

"..Officials said their expectations were extremely low. They also said their willingness to proceed was based in part on a recognition that some form of talks had to take place before the United States could make a case for imposing far stronger sanctions on Iran.

“`We’ll be looking to see if they are willing to engage seriously on these issues,'” said a State Department spokesman, Philip J. Crowley. “`If we have talks, we will plan to bring up the nuclear issue.''”

But why do there have be some kind of talks? Who is going to care? How long are these going to take, no doubt well into 2010. Also note that Crowley has to mention the nucler issue as only one of those being discussed. The Iranian regime will use all sorts of other issues as distractions.

Moreover we should remember this is a post-stolen election regime which is putting peaceful reformers on trial, and whose hardline defense minister is wanted for terrorism. Even if the United States would have been perfectly justified in carrying out talks with the Iranian government in the past, this is the kind of government which should be boycotted.

Remember that any government can have its policy fail but what's really a mistake is to pursue a policy which any serious and objective observer can see well ahead of time is inevitably going to fail.

So far the U.S. government is losing the game on own goals.
.

Re: Getting to “No”?

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
10 September 09

This report suggests that the administration doesn’t comprehend that the U.S. and “international community” have been given the brush off by the Iranian regime—or they do and they aren’t yet ready to answer the “What now?” question. Laura Rozen reports that Dennis Ross, NSC Middle East adviser, and William Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, met with a few hundred Jewish activists. Here is the gist:

Essentially, Ross and Burns reiterated that the administration’s objective is to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The strategy has been “engagement without illusions.” But the President will take stock in September and revisit further at year’s end, the conference was told.

They are engaging countries around the globe to help the effort. Burns did say they are starting the planning of the tough sanctions steps now, so that if/when the President decides to take that decision, they are ready to go.

Did you catch the “year end” part? Well, that September deadline is now, it seems, a December 31 deadline. The attendees told Rozen that the bottom line is, aside from the fact that there isn’t really a bottom line, that “it’s time to get the wheels of tough sanctions turning.” But the president is going to take stock. And check back at year’s end. And so it goes. One imagines the Iranians are not exactly quaking in their boots.
.

Column One: The Rigged Game

Caroline Glick
JPost
28 August 09

On Tuesday the Guardian reported that the Obama administration is now making Israel an offer it can't refuse: In exchange for a government order to freeze construction for Jews in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, the administration will adopt a "much tougher line with Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program."

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu prior to their meeting in Berlin, Thursday.
Photo: AP

Israel should refuse this offer.

What the Guardian account shows is an Obama administration looking to blame Israel for the failure of its policy of attempting to appease the likes of Iranian dictator Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Come September, US President Barack Obama is going to have a difficult time of it. He set a September deadline for his strategy of diplomatically courting the mullahs. This policy involves deferring further sanctions against Teheran and all but openly renouncing the option of using military force to destroy Iran's nuclear installations while waiting politely for the mullahs to sit down for tea with US officials.

Far from accepting Obama's offer, the Iranians have spit on it. Indeed, they have been too busy brutalizing their own people and building bombs and missiles to even respond to him directly. Instead, they have signaled their contempt for Obama by promoting known arch-terrorists to high office. For instance, Ahmadinejad just appointed Ahmad Vahidi, the suspected mastermind of the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia where 19 US servicemen and women were murdered to serve as defense minister.

In support of Obama's appeasement efforts, both the House and the Senate Foreign Relations committees set aside veto-proof bills that would place sanctions on companies exporting refined fuel to Iran. But Congress, now on summer recess, reconvenes in September and members are anxiously awaiting a green light from the White House to put the bills before a vote.

So unless something saves him, Obama will look like quite a fool next month. His appeasement policy has given the mullahs eight precious months of unimpeded work at their nuclear installations. Their uranium enrichment facility at Natanz is now operating some 5,000 centrifuges, with another 2,400 centrifuges about to go on line. That is an eightfold increase in centrifuge activity from a year ago.

Obama now turns to Israel to avoid embarrassment. If he can convince Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that the White House will only get serious about Iran's nuclear weapons program if Netanyahu freezes Jewish building in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, then Obama can present his sudden willingness to sign on to veto-proof congressional sanctions legislation not as a consequence of his own failure, but as a result of Israeli pressure.

If Obama succeeds in getting Netanyahu on board, the American media discussion of sanctions will focus on the issue of Israeli power over US policy. The so-called Israel lobby will be pummeled as pundits argue about whether Obama was right or wrong to succumb to Israeli pressure to support congressional sanctions. No one will remember that Obama was forced to support the sanctions because he had no other choice, since next month his engagement policy will become indefensible.

On the other hand, if Israel refuses to play ball and doesn't provide Obama with a concession which he will be "forced" to pay for with a harder line on Iran, then he will still have to adopt a harder line. In this case, however, it will be attributed to the failure of his appeasement policy toward Iran rather than to the success of his Middle East diplomacy against Israel.

Obama's apparent interest in setting Israel up as the fall guy for the failure of his engagement policy is the same policy he will doubtless follow if matters continue on course and Teheran acquires nuclear weapons. At that point, Obama can be counted on to claim that it was Israel's recalcitrance in the negotiations with the Palestinians or the Syrians or the Lebanese that forced the mullahs' hands. That is, he will say it is the absence of "progress" in the "peace process" due to whatever imagined Israeli intransigence that made it impossible for the Iranian "moderates" to convince the "hardliners" to give up their nuclear weapons program.
(Continue)

Iranian Fanatics

20 August 2008

No one on the on the international scene is ready or willing to stop the growing menace of Iranian fanaticism, missiles, and nukes ...and the current bumbling and inept Israeli government can't be relied upon.

The world is in the grip of a planet-wide religious war. A conflict in which the "End Times" prophecies of the Bible and the Koran seem to be playing out. Prophecies in which the fate of the Jews and the tiny Jewish State are pivotal to the future of humanity.