Think About It

Is War with Iran Inevitable?

Reuters is reporting that a spokesman for the Iranian government flatly stated in a press conference yesterday that Iran will not give up its right to enrich uranium.  Meanwhile, a committee representing the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China are putting together an “upgraded package of incentives”  (which is a nice name for a bribe) to try to coax Iran into halting its program to enrich uranium.  Iran has rejected previous “incentive packages.” 

Iran claims it wants to develop nuclear energy to generate electricity, but this statement is suspect when one considers Iran is the fourth largest producer of oil in the world.  Three things are clear: 1) Iran is going to proceed with its development of nuclear energy; 2) Iran will develop nuclear bombs and warheads; 3) Iran has pledged to destroy Israel.

Questions:

Will the U.N. sanctions have any effect?

Will the West allow Iran to develop nuclear bombs?

What kind of action will be taken, if any?

After all the criticism the U.S. has taken over going to war with Iraq, can we take unilateral action against Iran?

Will Israel take unilateral action?

When will this action be taken?

If Iran’s nuclear site is destroyed, how can we be sure it’s their only site?

Is the End Near for Osama bin Laden?

An interesting shift is taking place in Islam. Yesterday, Osama bin Laden broadcast another proclamation from his cave, but instead of the usual Death to America speech, , bin Laden denounced Arab leaders for sacrificing the Palestinians.  Osama bin Laden is now urging Muslim militants to liberate the Gaza by going to war with Arab regimes that have aligned themselves with Israel.  These regimes include Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Kuwait, and Jordan.   He devoted much of his speech to Egypt, who he urged to use force to break the blockade around the Gaza.  Bin Laden called Arab leaders “agents of the crusaders” and “wolves.”

It is interesting to note that bin Laden is now urging Muslims to ignore the Islamic prohibition against going to war with other Muslims.  Bin Laden gets around this prohibition by claiming the leaders of Muslim countries who support Israel are not governing according to Islamic law.

“Those (Arab) kings and leaders sacrificed Palestine and Al-Aqsa to keep their crowns, but we will not be relieved of this responsibility,” said bin Laden.

Bin Laden singled out the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, for criticism.  He said Nasrallah has claimed he had enough money and men to fight Israel, but he has not fought to liberate Palestine.  Bin Laden was also critical of Iran, accusing it of trying to dominate the Middle-East.

Israel and Egypt have closed their borders with Gaza since Hamas seized control of the Palestinian territory in June last year. The closure brought about food and fuel shortages in the already impoverished strip where 1.4 million Palestinians live.

Questions:

What does all this mean?

Will this further fractionalize the militant Islamists?

Will those in militant Islam attack the heads of states, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt?

Will this cause some in Islam to mark Osama bin Laden for death or capture?

Obama's Journey Towards Appeasement

Wow, President Bush hit a nerve when he spoke to Israel’s Knesset.   Barack Obama and the usual suspects in the Democratic Party went ballistic.  So, what did Bush say that upset our liberal friends?  Bush spoke to Israel’s parliament on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the Jewish state, and as would have been expected, he pledged U.S. support for Israel and placed Iran on notice.  I am quoting much of President Bush’s speech, because it was a good speech, a speech that Churchill would have been proud to make.   "America is with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists' sanctuary. And America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," said Bush.

Bush’s speech could have been given by a European leader before one of the crusades.  “The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle… This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves.

President Bush goes on to make it quite clear that the U.S. and Israel are now together in the struggle against radical Islam.  “And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties," said Bush.

“Then Bush turned his attention to the naïve among us.  “There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously.  Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

“President Bush then goes on to utter those lines that caused a hysterical breakdown within the Democratic leadership.  “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

“Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you,” said Bush.

“It is questionable whether Obama really took that much offense to President Bush’s comments or he simply saw this as a good opportunity to stir a national debate about the merits of face-to-face discussions with our adversaries in the Middle-East.  If that was Obama’s intent, then he has succeeded.  There are pros and cons to face-to-face discussions – and we will hear them all in the next few months.”

Questions: 

Is it wise to enter into sit-downs with the leaders of Hamas or Hezbollah?

Should our President meet with the President of Iran?

Obama has cited previous cases where U.S. Presidents have met successfully with our enemies.  He cites Reagan and Gorbachev, and Nixon and Mao as examples.  Did it work then and will it work now?

Is the U.S. Going to War with Iran?

There is a lot of rumbling about a possible U.S. invasion of Iran, which has been brought about by Iran’s stubborn refusal to stop it’s nuclear development program.  A leading member of America’s Jewish community told Newsmax that a military strike against Iran is likely.

Contrary to some claims that the Bush administration will allow diplomacy to handle Iran’s nuclear weapons program, a leading member of America’s Jewish community tells Newsmax that a military strike is not only on the table – but likely.  “Israel is preparing for heavy casualties,” the source said, suggesting that although Israel will not take part in the strike, it is expecting to be the target of Iranian retribution.

Israel is conducting the largest military exercises in its history, and Israel’s Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer has allegedly sent a stern warning to Tehran:  “An Iranian attack will prompt a severe reaction from Israel, which will destroy the Iranian nation.”

He predicted that in a future war, “hundreds of missiles will rain on Israel,” but added that Iran “is definitely aware of our strength.”

Iran has been arming Hezbollah and Hamas and many predict huge missile attacks against Israel will be launched from Lebanon and Palestine

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is allegedly telling his associates privately his number one priority is have the Israeli military strike Iran if the U.S. is unwilling.

The Saudi government has approved nuclear fallout preparations, and the Iranian press reported that the approval came a day after Cheney met with the kingdom’s high-ranking officials, further stating that the U.S. “is now informing its Arab allies of a potential war.”

The questions are:  Is this just more saber rattling or the real thing?  Will the U.S. spearhead the attacks?   Or, will Israel go it alone in attacking Iran?   Can the U.S. afford to become embroiled in a war with Iran?