Intro to ‘New Realism’

Gary H. Johnson, Jr. has sent an exclusive to SlantRight.com that I am certain will make it in some form to his AfPak Reader.

The theme of the essay is a “New Realism.” The foreign policy concept is supposed to be middle ground between allowing everything including the kitchen sink without preconditions and Right Wing Realism. The former uses Jimmy – Hamas – Carter as an example. The latter uses Neoconservatives as an example.

The New Realism’s (A Conservative’s View) primary advocates seem to be Dennis Ross (Profile from Left oriented Right Web) and Robert Baer. Johnson’s essay is kind of a critique of an article written in the Washington Post by Fareed Zakaria.

I’ll probably have to read Johnson’s essay a few times in an attempt to digest all the implications of the New Realism. Upon first glance (well maybe second glance) Zakaria appears to be a proponent of the New Realism.

Now here is the foundation of the New Realism in foreign policy: The acceptance of Iran as a Middle Eastern hegemon while using a combination of Saudi clout, European economic strength and American power in a carrot and stick scenario to counteract Middle Eastern Iranian hegemony. It sounds like a new Cold War scenario in which the West tries to fence in the Iranian National Agenda with both overt and covert agents. Russia and China will play the switch and bait game to placate their National Interests meaning sometimes supporting the West and sometimes supporting Iran. For Russia and China the bait and switch of support will be founded upon that which benefits the respective the global sub-hegemonic powers (i.e. assuming that America is still THE global hegemon).

Below is Johnson’s very loaded with geopolitical information essay.

JRH 9/29/09

Dore Gold and Nuclear Iran

Former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Dore Gold has written a book that should provide insights on how to deal with Iran and its unstated quest for nuclear weapons. The book is entitled, “The Rise of Nuclear Iran.”

Here is an excerpt of a review from the Human Events Book Service (link above):

In The Rise of Nuclear Iran, Gold traces the U.S.'s past failures to deal with Iran and explains why diplomacy alone will continue to backfire -- no matter who is president or which party is in power. Gold details how virtually every recent American administration has at some point reached out to Iran, but none of them ever succeeded in compelling the mullahs to make the slightest change in their unremittingly hostile behavior. Now, with the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran haunting the world, it is all the more urgent that these mistakes must not be repeated. Gold shows why -- and what the free world must do instead to protect itself from the maniacal Islamic regime in Tehran.

Dore Gold points out that a diplomatic solution or at least the kind of diplomatic solution that has been pursued is disastrously impotent to prevent Iran’s nuclear quest to evolve into a State possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) including inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBM).

Emily Belz writing for WorldMag.com gleans the essence of Gold’s call for a new strategy in an article entitled, “Feeling Alone.”

Included beyond the criticism Democratic Party and GOP Presidents over the years, is the stark fact that the MSM fails to report effectively on. The usurper of Iranian elections President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an extreme Shi’ite Twelver. Part of his theological beliefs is that global chaos is given a little push. The Hidden Imam (aka the 12th Imam and the Mahdi) will hasten his return to force planet earth to embrace Islam or die.

JRH 9/2/09

Israel and the ‘realists’

It is becoming clear that the so-called Foreign Policy “Realists” are actually Foreign Policy Arabists.

American Foreign Policy Realists hence are becoming “throw Israel under the bus” pro-Arab enthusiasts. In essence the reasoning is Israel no longer serves the National Interests of America. Indeed Israel’s National Interests may very well do harm to American National Interests by making Middle East oil producers (which includes Iran) to be hostile to America. Or so the Realist reasoning goes.

Caroline Glick tackles this Realist versus long time friend issue to task.

JRH 8/7/09

The Obama/Palestinian Deception

John R. Houk
© August 6, 2009

President Barack Hussein Obama has learned a practice from Palestinian terrorists who control the media of PA and Hamastan. That practice is telling the West one thing while telling their terror supporting constituents another. The former is smooth talking of peace and the latter is vile hatred toward Jews and America followed by promises of the destruction of Israel.

In BHO’s case he tells the American voters that America stands behind Israel out one side of his mouth and tells Israel it must aid in creating a Palestinian State that is devoted to the destruction of Israel from the other side of his mouth.

One of the great tragedies of America is that even American Jews buy into the crooked speech patterns of BHO concerning Israel.

As I write this the West Bank is having its Sixth Fatah General Conference. Look for the Western Media to cherry pick news that portrays Palestinian terrorists as making significant steps of peace and any delay of such is Israel’s fault.

The part the Western Media will ignore or at least be less privy to is the internal agenda that will encourage the destruction of Israel and no doubt make an attempt to address the corrupted rift between Fatah’s terrorists and Hamas’ terrorists.

Read an excellent analysis of the Sixth Fatah General Congress by Pinhas Inbari. The analysis points out this hypocrisy that is maintained by Islamic terrorists which is a kind of a taqiyya strategy of deceiving the kafir while pumping up the Muslim cadres.

JRH 8/6/09

Missing Our Moment in Iran

Victor Davis Hanson analyzes President Barack Hussein Obama’s foreign policy. Basically Hanson senses that BHO is sending a wrong message to allies and enemies alike.

BHO’s lack of forthright condemnation of Mullah repression had all kinds of consequences. It may have emboldened the Mullahs to execute extreme prejudice on its own citizens. The lack of initial condemnation certainly will irritate and possibly extinguish continued backbone to Iranian protestors. Since no early condemnation proceeded, BHO failed to bank on serious real sanctions that might have been used against Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.

Hanson goes on to excoriate BHO over inconsistencies with Israel’s Netanyahu, Afghanistan’s Karzai, Honduras’ expulsion of a Marxist President and so on.

Read Hanson’s essay:

JHR 7/3/09

Forget Negotiations, President Obama, Seize the Moment

Newt Gingrich pronounces a “The balls in your court, don’t loose it out of bounds” moment for President Barack Hussein Obama about the voter uprising in Iran.

JRH 6/26/09

Transcript of Netanyahu's Speech

Prime Minister Netanyahu gave an important speech yesterday. Many look upon this speech as the Israeli response to President Barack Hussein Obama’s Cairo Speech. Thanks to a link from Atlas Shrugs I am reposting the entirety of the Prime Minister’s on For Zion’s Sake blog.

According to Pamela Geller the Netanyahu speech was a smart eloquent response to the Cairo Speech.

Read the speech and tell me what you think.

JRH 6/15/09
*************************

Transcript of Netanyahu's Speech

For Zion’s Sake
Sunday, June 14, 2009

Below is the full transcript of Prime Minister Netanyahu's Speech
at the Begin-Sadat Center at Bar-Ilan University, courtesy of the Prime Minister's Office:

Honored guests, citizens of Israel.

Peace has always been our people’s most ardent desire. Our prophets gave the world the vision of peace, we greet one another with wishes of peace, and our prayers conclude with the word peace.

We are gathered this evening in an institution named for two pioneers of peace, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, and we share in their vision.

Two and half months ago, I took the oath of office as the Prime Minister of Israel. I pledged to establish a national unity government – and I did. I believed and I still believe that unity was essential for us now more than ever as we face three immense challenges – the Iranian threat, the economic crisis, and the advancement of peace.

The Iranian threat looms large before us, as was further demonstrated yesterday. The greatest danger confronting Israel, the Middle East, the entire world and human race, is the nexus between radical Islam and nuclear weapons. I discussed this issue with President Obama during my recent visit to Washington, and I will raise it again in my meetings next week with European leaders. For years, I have been working tirelessly to forge an international alliance to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Confronting a global economic crisis, the government acted swiftly to stabilize Israel’s economy. We passed a two year budget in the government – and the Knesset will soon approve it.

And the third challenge, so exceedingly important, is the advancement of peace. I also spoke about this with President Obama, and I fully support the idea of a regional peace that he is leading.

I share the President’s desire to bring about a new era of reconciliation in our region. To this end, I met with President Mubarak in Egypt, and King Abdullah in Jordan, to elicit the support of these leaders in expanding the circle of peace in our region.

I turn to all Arab leaders tonight and I say: “Let us meet. Let us speak of peace and let us make peace. I am ready to meet with you at any time. I am willing to go to Damascus, to Riyadh, to Beirut, to any place- including Jerusalem.

I call on the Arab countries to cooperate with the Palestinians and with us to advance an economic peace. An economic peace is not a substitute for a political peace, but an important element to achieving it. Together, we can undertake projects to overcome the scarcities of our region, like water desalination or to maximize its advantages, like developing solar energy, or laying gas and petroleum lines, and transportation links between Asia, Africa and Europe.

The economic success of the Gulf States has impressed us all and it has impressed me. I call on the talented entrepreneurs of the Arab world to come and invest here and to assist the Palestinians – and us – in spurring the economy.

Together, we can develop industrial areas that will generate thousands of jobs and create tourist sites that will attract millions of visitors eager to walk in the footsteps of history – in Nazareth and in Bethlehem, around the walls of Jericho and the walls of Jerusalem, on the banks of the Sea of Galilee and the baptismal site of the Jordan.

There is an enormous potential for archeological tourism, if we can only learn to cooperate and to develop it.

I turn to you, our Palestinian neighbors, led by the Palestinian Authority, and I say: Let’s begin negotiations immediately without preconditions.

Israel is obligated by its international commitments and expects all parties to keep their commitments.

We want to live with you in peace, as good neighbors. We want our children and your children to never again experience war: that parents, brothers and sisters will never again know the agony of losing loved ones in battle; that our children will be able to dream of a better future and realize that dream; and that together we will invest our energies in plowshares and pruning hooks, not swords and spears.

I know the face of war. I have experienced battle. I lost close friends, I lost a brother. I have seen the pain of bereaved families. I do not want war. No one in Israel wants war.

If we join hands and work together for peace, there is no limit to the development and prosperity we can achieve for our two peoples – in the economy, agriculture, trade, tourism and education - most importantly, in providing our youth a better world in which to live, a life full of tranquility, creativity, opportunity and hope.

If the advantages of peace are so evident, we must ask ourselves why peace remains so remote, even as our hand remains outstretched to peace? Why has this conflict continued for more than sixty years?

In order to bring an end to the conflict, we must give an honest and forthright answer to the question: What is the root of the conflict?

In his speech to the first Zionist Conference in Basel, the founder of the Zionist movement, Theodore Herzl, said about the Jewish national home “This idea is so big that we must speak of it only in the simplest terms.” Today, I will speak about the immense challenge of peace in the simplest words possible.

Even as we look toward the horizon, we must be firmly connected to reality, to the truth. And the simple truth is that the root of the conflict was, and remains, the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own, in their historic homeland.

In 1947, when the United Nations proposed the partition plan of a Jewish state and an Arab state, the entire Arab world rejected the resolution. The Jewish community, by contrast, welcomed it by dancing and rejoicing.

The Arabs rejected any Jewish state, in any borders.

Those who think that the continued enmity toward Israel is a product of our presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is confusing cause and consequence.

The attacks against us began in the 1920s, escalated into a comprehensive attack in 1948 with the declaration of Israel’s independence, continued with the fedayeen attacks in the 1950s, and climaxed in 1967, on the eve of the six-day war, in an attempt to tighten a noose around the neck of the State of Israel.

All this occurred during the fifty years before a single Israeli soldier ever set foot in Judea and Samaria.

Fortunately, Egypt and Jordan left this circle of enmity. The signing of peace treaties have brought about an end to their claims against Israel, an end to the conflict. But to our regret, this is not the case with the Palestinians. The closer we get to an agreement with them, the further they retreat and raise demands that are inconsistent with a true desire to end the conflict.

Many good people have told us that withdrawal from territories is the key to peace with the Palestinians. Well, we withdrew. But the fact is that every withdrawal was met with massive waves of terror, by suicide bombers and thousands of missiles.

We tried to withdraw with an agreement and without an agreement. We tried a partial withdrawal and a full withdrawal. In 2000 and again last year, Israel proposed an almost total withdrawal in exchange for an end to the conflict, and twice our offers were rejected.

We evacuated every last inch of the Gaza strip, we uprooted tens of settlements and evicted thousands of Israelis from their homes, and in response, we received a hail of missiles on our cities, towns and children.

The claim that territorial withdrawals will bring peace with the Palestinians, or at least advance peace, has up till now not stood the test of reality.

In addition to this, Hamas in the south, like Hezbollah in the north, repeatedly proclaims their commitment to “liberate” the Israeli cities of Ashkelon, Beersheba, Acre and Haifa.

Territorial withdrawals have not lessened the hatred, and to our regret, Palestinian moderates are not yet ready to say the simple words: Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, and it will stay that way.

Achieving peace will require courage and candor from both sides, and not only from the Israeli side.

The Palestinian leadership must arise and say: “Enough of this conflict. We recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in this land, and we are prepared to live beside you in true peace.”

I am yearning for that moment, for when Palestinian leaders say those words to our people and to their people, then a path will be opened to resolving all the problems between our peoples, no matter how complex they may be.

Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for ending the conflict is a public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.

To vest this declaration with practical meaning, there must also be a clear understanding that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel’s borders. For it is clear that any demand for resettling Palestinian refugees within Israel undermines Israel’s continued existence as the state of the Jewish people.

The Palestinian refugee problem must be solved, and it can be solved, as we ourselves proved in a similar situation. Tiny Israel successfully absorbed tens of thousands of Jewish refugees who left their homes and belongings in Arab countries.

Therefore, justice and logic demand that the Palestinian refugee problem be solved outside Israel’s borders. On this point, there is a broad national consensus. I believe that with goodwill and international investment, this humanitarian problem can be permanently resolved.

So far I have spoken about the need for Palestinians to recognize our rights. In am moment, I will speak openly about our need to recognize their rights.

But let me first say that the connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel has lasted for more than 3500 years. Judea and Samaria, the places where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, David and Solomon, and Isaiah and Jeremiah lived, are not alien to us. This is the land of our forefathers.

The right of the Jewish people to a state in the land of Israel does not derive from the catastrophes that have plagued our people. True, for 2000 years the Jewish people suffered expulsions, pogroms, blood libels, and massacres which culminated in a Holocaust - a suffering which has no parallel in human history.

There are those who say that if the Holocaust had not occurred, the state of Israel would never have been established. But I say that if the state of Israel would have been established earlier, the Holocaust would not have occured.

This tragic history of powerlessness explains why the Jewish people need a sovereign power of self-defense.

But our right to build our sovereign state here, in the land of Israel, arises from one simple fact: this is the homeland of the Jewish people, this is where our identity was forged.

As Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion proclaimed in Israel’s Declaration of Independence: “The Jewish people arose in the land of Israel and it was here that its spiritual, religious and political character was shaped. Here they attained their sovereignty, and here they bequeathed to the world their national and cultural treasures, and the most eternal of books.”

But we must also tell the truth in its entirety: within this homeland lives a large Palestinian community. We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them.

In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other.

These two realities – our connection to the land of Israel, and the Palestinian population living within it – have created deep divisions in Israeli society. But the truth is that we have much more that unites us than divides us.

I have come tonight to give expression to that unity, and to the principles of peace and security on which there is broad agreement within Israeli society. These are the principles that guide our policy.

This policy must take into account the international situation that has recently developed. We must recognize this reality and at the same time stand firmly on those principles essential for Israel.

I have already stressed the first principle – recognition. Palestinians must clearly and unambiguously recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The second principle is: demilitarization. The territory under Palestinian control must be demilitarized with ironclad security provisions for Israel.

Without these two conditions, there is a real danger that an armed Palestinian state would emerge that would become another terrorist base against the Jewish state, such as the one in Gaza.

We don’t want Kassam rockets on Petach Tikva, Grad rockets on Tel Aviv, or missiles on Ben-Gurion airport. We want peace.

In order to achieve peace, we must ensure that Palestinians will not be able to import missiles into their territory, to field an army, to close their airspace to us, or to make pacts with the likes of Hezbollah and Iran. On this point as well, there is wide consensus within Israel.

It is impossible to expect us to agree in advance to the principle of a Palestinian state without assurances that this state will be demilitarized.

On a matter so critical to the existence of Israel, we must first have our security needs addressed.

Therefore, today we ask our friends in the international community, led by the United States, for what is critical to the security of Israel: Clear commitments that in a future peace agreement, the territory controlled by the Palestinians will be demilitarized: namely, without an army, without control of its airspace, and with effective security measures to prevent weapons smuggling into the territory – real monitoring, and not what occurs in Gaza today. And obviously, the Palestinians will not be able to forge military pacts.


Without this, sooner or later, these territories will become another Hamastan. And that we cannot accept.

I told President Obama when I was in Washington that if we could agree on the substance, then the terminology would not pose a problem.
And here is the substance that I now state clearly:

If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitirization and Israel’s security needs, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.

Regarding the remaining important issues that will be discussed as part of the final settlement, my positions are known: Israel needs defensible borders, and Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel with continued religious freedom for all faiths.

The territorial question will be discussed as part of the final peace agreement. In the meantime, we have no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements.

But there is a need to enable the residents to live normal lives, to allow mothers and fathers to raise their children like families elsewhere. The settlers are neither the enemies of the people nor the enemies of peace. Rather, they are an integral part of our people, a principled, pioneering and Zionist public.

Unity among us is essential and will help us achieve reconciliation with our neighbors. That reconciliation must already begin by altering existing realities. I believe that a strong Palestinian economy will strengthen peace.


If the Palestinians turn toward peace – in fighting terror, in strengthening governance and the rule of law, in educating their children for peace and in stopping incitement against Israel - we will do our part in making every effort to facilitate freedom of movement and access, and to enable them to develop their economy. All of this will help us advance a peace treaty between us.

Above all else, the Palestinians must decide between the path of peace and the path of Hamas. The Palestinian Authority will have to establish the rule of law in Gaza and overcome Hamas. Israel will not sit at the negotiating table with terrorists who seek their destruction.

Hamas will not even allow the Red Cross to visit our kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, who has spent three years in captivity, cut off from his parents, his family and his people. We are committed to bringing him home, healthy and safe.

With a Palestinian leadership committed to peace, with the active participation of the Arab world, and the support of the United States and the international community, there is no reason why we cannot achieve a breakthrough to peace.

Our people have already proven that we can do the impossible. Over the past 61 years, while constantly defending our existence, we have performed wonders.
Our microchips are powering the world’s computers. Our medicines are treating diseases once considered incurable. Our drip irrigation is bringing arid lands back to life across the globe. And Israeli scientists are expanding the boundaries of human knowledge.

If only our neighbors would respond to our call – peace too will be in our reach.

I call on the leaders of the Arab world and on the Palestinian leadership, let us continue together on the path of Menahem Begin and Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein. Let us realize the vision of the prophet Isaiah, who in Jerusalem 2700 years ago said: “nations shall not lift up sword against nation, and they shall learn war no more.”

With God’s help, we will know no more war. We will know peace.

Surviving in a post-American world

I read a Caroline Glick article in the Jerusalem Post that is nearly a week old. Although my reading was a bit untimely, Glick hits the nail on the head and must be read several times so American voters comprehend the damage done to America by Mr. “Yes We Can.”

“Yes We Can” really means subvert America so much that the most powerful nation in the world becomes a Second Rate power forced to accept Western Leftist multiculturalism. This is a multiculturalism that will dissolve E Pluribus Unum into an identity that divides the nation into factions of race, religion and atheists that will pull the American Heritage into a Black Hole effectively ending the experiment of the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers. Darkness will envelope the light which united thirteen colonies into 50 United States.

JRH 4/12/09

Obama learns the Bush Lesson

Well it looks like President Obama has learned from one of President Bush’s mistakes. BHO is appointing (political rumor mill – not official) Charles Freeman Jr. as the Chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC). The NIC is the group of spooks responsible for writing a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to allegedly provide an unbiased report on the collected data of America’s Intelligence agencies.

The mistake President Bush made is that he failed to appoint Intelligence leadership that was inline with the Bush Agenda; thus a hostile Intelligence community often leaked classified information to the press meant to embarrass the President or stall a Presidential strategy.

BHO choice of Charles Freeman Jr. is a choice for President Obama’s world view a Foreign Affairs agenda.

According to Gabriel Schoenfeld, Freeman is completely pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian. You know the guys that are so anti-Semitic that Middle Eastern Public Media and Schools actually propagandize racial hatred toward Jews.

Also according to Schoenfeld, Freeman is completely in the tank as a Sinophile. For example Freeman has openly been an apologist for the Communist Chinese massacre of Tiananmen Square protesters for democratic reforms in China.

The lesson that President Obama has learned is that if you have an agenda make sure you have like-minded leadership in the government bureaucracies to move the Administration forward with the least resistance.

Expect to read or hear Obama Administration news demonizing Israel’s decisions at self-preservation as oppression to the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians.

Expect to read or hear Obama Administration news that China is not as great a human rights violator as perceived and the Chinese government’s efforts to literally persecute Chinese Christians with intimidation, violence and torture to be China’s business and the business of the Obama Administration that claims torture will not be practiced by Americans. Hello! What Obama has labeled torture of the last seven and half years by America’s military or Intelligence is laughable compared to the REAL torture the Chinese government does to its own citizens to mold thought and ideology of the Chinese Communist nation.

The hypocrite BHO is merely doing the very things he vilified Bush with except BHO is utilizing Leftist obfuscation to attain a Leftist and Secular Humanist American transformation. BHO is using a crisis in which he and (then) fellow Senators actually laid the foundation. Bush’s complicity in America’s financial crisis is in not publicly battling fringe Democrats about coercing banks to allow poor people to accept bad paper loans.

BHO is the man that American centrists joined Leftists to place in the Office of President merely because the Dems ingeniously made the War on Terrorism unpopular and placing the blame of bad decisions squarely on President Bush.

The only bad decision Bush made was caving into Arab-loving U.S. bureaucrats who felt battling Islamic terrorists was to great a risk to alienate Islamic States (some monarchies and some dictatorships – NO DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICS. This forced Bush to scale back on his Bush Agenda (implanting Western style democracies and eliminating transnational Islamic terrorists). In effect this decision to dilute the Bush Agenda led to a failure to vigorously fight for victory in Iraq and Afghanistan for fear of the perceptions of the indigenous population. In fact the Iraq surge proved that a more aggressive agenda to hunt Islamic terrorists upped the confidence level of the indigenous population toward the American military. The confidence in turn caused an “Awakening” in which the general Islamic population began to NOT support the ugly neighborhood Islamic terrorists.

With the likes of Freeman heading up the NIC, it signifies the undoing the benefits of the Iraq Surge, a lack of support for the only real Western style democracy in the Middle East and a surge of Islamic terrorism sponsored Twelfth Imam crazed Muslims from Iran.

JRH 2/26/09

What Message is Obama Sending…and to Whom?

I just finished reading an awesome analytical editorial of how Barack Hussein Obama is actually placing Americans at risk by redefining Bush’s methods to keep America terrorist free for a little over the last seven years since 2001.

The place to go is RationalLiberty.com.

JRH 1/27/09

Glick: The perils ahead

Caroline Glick’s analysis in her piece “The perils ahead” writes about President Elect Obama’s public pre-election portrayal as a centrist on foreign policy was merely a political gimmick not to lose votes.

Glick senses that foreign policy advisors that were an embarrassment during the campaign and jettisoned publicly have been privately working full speed ahead to prepare a Slanted LEFT foreign policy.

This means making deals with Syria and Iran that if implemented will undoubted bring peace to the Middle East; however at the cost of a Second Holocaust of all the Jewish lives in a butchered Israel.

This is yet another example that associations matter!

Read Glick’s piece which is a picture of an Obama Administration selling Israel via the advice Robert Malley, Zbigniew Brzezinski and sky and even current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

JRH 11/14/08

Brzezinski Turning Obama Into Another Carter

I find it incredulous that the various polls in America are showing that American voters are acquiescing to vote for Barack Hussein Obama.

One of BHO’s primary foreign policy advisors is Jimmy dhimmi Carter’s former Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski.

No doubt the influential advice of Brzezinski led to Carter’s decision to throw America’s ally Shah Reza Pahlavi of Iran under the bus believing Khomeini’s revolution was a move of the people for the people. The reality was that tossing the Shah replaced pro-Western (yet repressive) for the totalitarian medieval Sharia Law regime of Ayatollah Khomeini.

As Carter sold out the Shah and providing the foundation for the founding rogue terrorist supporting Iran, so Brzezinski will influence Barack Hussein Obama to offer Islamism in the Middle East everything including the kitchen sink under the delusion such conciliatory appeasement will bring global peace. Peace did not happen for Carter in Iran and neither will it happen for BHO in Iran.

Here are renowned Islamist expert Andrew Bostom’s take on Brzezinski:

The Ayatollah’s Z(B)ig Dhimmi, Obama, and Iran

The uniquely perceptive Professor Barry Rubin has published a serendipitous column on the same day when Obama’s erstwhile “adviser”—the maroonish Antisemite Zbigniew Brzezinski—suggested that the US negotiate with the Taliban. Daniel Casse attempted to penetrate Obama’s hubris (while they briefly interacted at the Asheville, North Carolina Grove Park Inn workout room) with this plea today, “Don’t listen to Brzezinski, he’s awful,” …He’s on TV talking about making deals with the Taliban.”

Given the destructive legacy of Brzezinski’s distressingly stupid courtship of Khomeini’s retrograde “revolution”—in reality a restoration of the kind of Shi’ite theocracy that ruled Iran almost continuously from Shah Ismail in 1502, until 1925—let us pray that Obama (should he be elected)—heeds Casse’s warning. Barry Rubin provides Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ response on September 29, 2008 to a query about how the next president might improve relations with Iran, while giving a lecture at the National Defense University:

“I [Gates] have been involved in the search for the elusive Iranian moderate for 30 years.” Then Gates revealed what was actually said at Brzezinski’s meeting, in which he participated, summarizing Brzezinski’s position as follows: “We will accept your revolution….We will recognize your government. We will sell you all the weapons that we had contracted to sell the Shah….We can work together in the future.”

Read the entire essay, “Giving Until It Hurts”

JRH 10/8/08

Barack Hussein Obama Skullduggery

John R. Houk
September 17, 2008

Let us see: Barack Hussein Obama stance to his voting base is to leave Iraq ASAP. BHO claims he was against removing genocidal tyrant Saddam Hussein. BHO says he was against the Surge implying it was a waste in a nation he believes to be a quagmire of American defeat.

Oops! President Bush (which Senator McCain fully supported) went ahead with the Surge to Left America’s horror. This is even more horrific for Left America: the Surge has been an amazing success even beyond President Bush’s expectations.

Understandably BHO being a good Leftist denied the success of the Surge for some time. Only when it became evident that BHO would look like a Foreign Policy fool to refute the success of the Surge did a Leftist spin begin.

That spin was something like this: BHO believed we had no idea the Surge would have been successful; ergo he would have still been against it on principle. I am guessing that principle is defeat rather than victory.

Now the even more hypocrisy for the Leftie who says CHANGE will be the theme of an Administration he would operate.

The New York Post reports that BHO on his only visit to Iraq demanded the Iraqi government to cease negotiations with the Bush Administration over a time frame for U.S. Troops to leave Iraq. Why? I believe reason incorporated something like the Bush Administration was an ineffective weak Presidency.

Hmm … Weak I guess even though after many bad decisions in a post Saddam regime to bring democracy to a much divided nation, President Bush made a good decision with the Surge. This is very Surge that has nearly decimated al Qaeda’s existence in Iraq. So the only real problem in Iraq is rogue Islamofascist Iran attempting to stir up trouble among the Iraqi Shi’ites.

BHO wants no credit to go to President Bush, Senator McCain and the Republicans for being correct about the Surge and how that success could actually bring Americans home earlier than anticipated. BHO wants to continue to paint a bad picture (with the help of his crony media supporters) about Iraq in order to grab the messianic hero adulation for bringing Americans home ALONE. Thus BHO’s idea of CHANGE is still NOT bi-partisan. It is fringe Leftist Democratic Party partisanship in an effort to work Americans at home into giving the Democrats more political power via the vote. Such political power will be an increase in taxes, government interference, restrictions on real Christianity (as opposed to fake Progressive Christianity), and the culmination of a Secular Humanistic transformation in America that will make deviants appear normal and Biblical morality to look deviant.

Here are some excerpts from a Move America Forward Freedom PAC email I received on September 16.

It is almost impossible to believe Barack Obama can be this arrogant. But sometimes the worst about politicians is true. It looks like Barack Obama told the Iraqi government to halt negotiations on troop withdrawals until after the election.

Obama is putting his own political objectives ahead of the safety of U.S. troops in Iraq. Apparently this all happened during his celebrated trip to Iraq - yes, the same trip where he refused to meet with American military personnel in the hospital in Germany because they wouldn't let news camera crews turn the visit into a circus and political stunt.

Iraqi government sources have revealed to the New York Post that Presidential candidate Barack Obama demanded that Iraqi officials stop negotiations with the Bush Administration to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. …

Fearful that the success in Iraq would harm his political aspirations, Obama sought to keep U.S. troops in Iraq so he can continue attacking the Bush Administration for not imposing a timetable for withdrawal. If these allegations prove to be true, it should be the end of the Obama campaign. The report says this was a demand Obama made to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari.

…

Obama should have the decency to recognize that he lacks the moral character to serve as Commander-in-Chief, and he should withdraw from the ticket. I have never heard of any candidate deliberately trying to get Americans killed to prove their point.

According to the New York Post story, not only did Obama seek to get the Iraqi to stop negotiating with Americans on the troop drawdown, he also tried to bully General David Petraeus to agree to a hard withdrawal date.

The hypocrisy of Barack Obama - to say, in the United States, that he wants a speedier troop withdrawal date - while telling the Iraqis to stop negotiating is appalling. Even supporters of a quicker U.S. withdrawal must be sickened by his conduct in Iraq. If there were ever a candidate who has demonstrated the lack of character and leadership to represent the United States in foreign affairs, it is Barack Obama.

…

It is very apparent to me that Barack Hussein Obama is NOT an agent of CHANGE. Rather BHO is an agent of political skullduggery.

JRH 9/17/08
***************************************
OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL

By Amir Taheri
Last updated: 2:34 pm
September 16, 2008
Posted: 4:02 am
September 15, 2008
New York Post

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.

According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years - departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.

Even then, the dates mentioned are only "notional," making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history."

Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show "a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues."

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January.

UPDATE 9/17/08 12:38 PM ET: BHO accuses author Amir Taheri of distortions which is code for you caught me and I have to lie my way out of it.
________________________________

Barack Hussein Obama Skullduggery
John R. Houk
September 17, 2008
_________________________________

Move America Forward Freedom PAC donation

______________________________

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL
Copyright 2008 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.

Neocon – Libertarian – Senate – Gas Tax

To those of you who can bear to read my scrawl over the years, you know that I have a Neoconservative slant among my brethren of the Conservative Right. If such a list was kept, I would be numbered by the Left as one that supports what is evil on planet earth. Of course my perspective is much different. I number myself among an enlightened handful that believe global democratic nations engender a greater possibility of global peace and capitalistic prosperity. It also means as an American that which benefits America and Americans is preeminent on my mind. Thus I believe in utilizing American power to promote global democracy where it can be planted. If democracy is actually rejected by a people (as opposed to a people’s ruling elite who may desire power for power’s sake) then it is in the National Interest and/or National Security to protect America’s interests at home and abroad.

It is particularly the later part that separates Neocons from the rest of the Right (e.g. Paleocons, Moderate Conservatives or Libertarian Conservatives and et al).

Among my fellow Conservatives I might even be maligned.

If you have read this far be patient as I pursue a point that is really beginning to bug me.

My son (who also happens to be my computer geek for our personal website) is leaning these days toward the Libertarian Right as espoused by former Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul. Neither of us are economic experts yet that did not prevent us from what on the Conservative side would best benefit America.

My son believes that America should withdraw American prowess from policing the world and not be involved in entangling treaties with other nations as indeed George Washington warned not to do as he left his second term in office as President. Now to me that sounded like Isolationism; however my son rebuked me by giving me another word which I cannot remember as a peck on the key board. So I asked him what that word meant. My son went on to describe every political theme that is isolationist. And I even told him that it sound like Isolationism by use of a synonym. So like you can call it anything you want but it comes out on the side of Isolationist political policies of an America that was wise but militarily weak.

Since World War II and the second deliverance of Europe from the aspirations of non-Democratic hegemons; America has been the global top dog. Indeed America did not wane in power but waxed stronger and stronger that its military policies terminated the existence of the Communistic Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The USSR can arguably be denounced as even a more brutal regime than Hitler inflicted Europe.

My Libertarian son argued that American entanglements are causing greater and greater debt that will lead to the collapse of the Dollar and American depression. Now I cannot say he is wrong; however I believe withdrawing from being the global top dog will make America a target for foreign economic manipulation and thus also leading to a dollar collapse.

I told him I felt the greatest threat to American prosperity is the control of the world’s oil reserves by Islamists, despots and nations leaning toward despotism. Thus it is in the American National Interest to secure Iraq by either persuading the Muslims toward a democratic government or failing that working a favorable deal to keep a Muslim despot or Islamic oligarchy in power that favors the American National Interests. That is just the plain reality of keeping America prosperous and secure even if non-American nations do not like.

I assure you a resurgent Russia or a growing China would do the same to America if one or both were the global hegemonic powers. China’s subjugation of Tibet is an example that proves that I am correct. A pro-active America will be a safe America.

Then my Libertarian son told me America has the largest oil reserves in the world and we can do without Middle Eastern oil. I told him he was mistaken. I agreed we have a substantial amount of oil reserves that currently is not economically feasible to extract or is prohibited from attaining by moonbat Leftist environmentalists.

We ended our discussion there up in the air.

Now here is thing that brought all this back to remembrance for me.

First a telephone discussion with my daughter in Washington State enlightened me that some Americans were paying $4.50/gallon (as of this post).

Second I received an email alert from Freedoms Watch spelling out the Democratic Party controlled Congress is preparing to raise taxes on gasoline at the pump for moonbat environmental reasons.

So I began to do a little preliminary digging into oil.

As of 2006 the top 10 nations with oil reserves are:

1. Saudi Arabia
2. Canada
3. Iran
4. Kuwait
5. Iraq
6. United Arab Emirates
7. Venezuela
8. Russia
9. Libya
10. Nigeria
Source: CIA – The World Fact Book

(I have to point out to my Libertarian son that America is not even in the top ten. It is off the point but snicker-snicker anyway. America is number eleven in 2006)

Of the top ten only Canada is a consistent and dedicated democratic nation. Russia is swaying back toward despotism. Venezuela foolishly elected a Marxist President who has taken it upon himself to undemocratically strengthen his power base. Nigeria’s democracy is not stable being highly influenced by its military and increasingly the Sharia Law minded Muslims getting the violently oppressive hand the Christians. The rest of the top ten are dominated by Mohammedan governments that apply non-democratic and oppressive Sharia Law in varying degrees of enforcement. The Sunni and Shi’ite Clerics for the most part preach and instill hatred toward America and Israel. Our so-called Arab friends like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan do little to offset the religious and Middle Eastern hate propaganda.

Ironically in May 2008 Iraq has discovered from recent geological surveys and seismic studies that their position in the top ten has been upgraded from number five all the way to the top at number one. While Iran and Syria send military aid to Islamist terrorists within Iraq, Iraq has still been able to increase its oil production in the very midst of a war.

I am beginning to ponder that there is some kind of price gauging between international oil companies and/or the oil producers. This is not good for the American consumer.

Now I am finding out via email that the Democrats are preparing to tax an already over priced gasoline market. Get upset!

Here is the email:

Stop the Senate from raising gas prices

Joe Eule
Freedoms Watch
Sent: June 5, 2008 6:13:05 PM

At $4 a gallon, Americans are hurting at the gas pump. Higher gas prices are affecting every part of our life. We’re paying more for food, milk, clothes, and cooling our homes. Even summer vacations are in jeopardy.

Yet the Senate is about to vote on a bill (S. 2191) that would make things worse by raising gas prices, increasing home energy bills, and slowing the economy, and we need your help to stop it. Send an email to your Senators and sign our petition today!

Sponsors say their bill will reduce the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. They call their plan "cap and trade," but it is really a huge hidden carbon tax on our economy that will have devastating consequences.

This bill could not come at a worse time. Last week General Motors announced it was closing four plants, putting nearly 5,000 Americans out of work. Thousands more in supporting industries will also lose their jobs.

Meanwhile, United Airlines announced it was slashing 1,600 jobs, idling older planes, and cutting routes - all because of skyrocketing gas prices.

Is your job next?

Incredibly, the bill before the Senate is estimated to raise the price of gasoline $1.10 a gallon, raise taxes, and increase your home energy bills (to find out what these higher costs will be where you live, click here).

This bill is so bad the Wall Street Journal called it “the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax.” That’s saying something.

So please help us stop this bill from becoming law. First, click here to send your senators an email opposing S. 2191. Second, sign our petition opposing this bill that we can deliver to the Senate on your behalf.

With your help, we can stop this liberal assault on the paycheck you work so hard to earn. Please act NOW!

Sincerely,

Joe EuleChief of Staff
Freedom's Watch

Paid for by Freedom's Watch, a 501 (C)4 issues advocacy organization. Contributions or gifts to Freedom's Watch are not refundable or transferable and are not deductible as charitable contributions for Federal income tax purposes. Freedom's Watch may accept contributions from individuals and corporations. Contributions from foreign nationals are prohibited.

Paid for by Freedom's Watch

info@freedomswatch.org
Copyright (c) 2008

Why Iran will fight, not compromise

Hello Barack Hussein Obama! Negotiation and Appeasement will not work with psycho Ahmadinejad or his sponsor Ayatollah Khamenei.

Come on BHO, read Spengler’s article in the Asia Times:

JRH 5/27/08 (Hat tip to ICJS Research)

Diplomats Ignore the Folly of Negotiating with Iran

I have read from pundits and experts alike that it is pure delusion to think the Western Democracies can negotiate anything positive with Iran. The simple truth is the Mullah ruled Islamofascist Shi’ite radical regime will in no way negotiate in good faith about anything that may contradict radical Shi’ite religious convictions about the spread of Mohammedanism and the global enforcement of Sharia Law.

In case you were unaware, Sharia Law is bad news and a contradiction of Western Democratic principles (premised on a Leftist or Conservative vision is irrelevant) to the radical Shi’ites.

And yet there are diplomats in the American State Department from both sides of the political spectrum that believe Western style diplomacy will convince Iran that the art of negotiation (give and take) can reach a beneficial solution to the current chasm that exists between Iran and America.

Michael Ledeen is one of many that delineates the reasons that talking to Iran under the current conditions will turn up zero conciliation between America and Iran. Iran’s pattern of Foreign Policy and internal affairs are set in stone under the current regime.

JRH
***********************

Talking to Iran


By MICHAEL A. LEDEEN
Wall Street Journal (Subscription Required)
August 18, 2007; Page A7
Blind Conservative E-List
Posted By Don M.


For some time now, the chattering classes have debated whether the United States should negotiate with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Both sides have endowed the very act of negotiating with near-mythic power.


The advocates suggest that "good relations" may emerge, while opponents warn it is somehow playing into the mullahs' hands. Both seem to believe that the three recent talks in Baghdad are historically significant, since they are said to be a departure from past practice.


That claim is false. Every administration since Ayatollah Khomeini's seizure of power in 1979 has negotiated with the Iranians. Nothing positive has ever come of it, but most every president has come to believe that a "grand bargain" with Tehran can somehow be reached, if only we negotiate well enough.


Washington diplomats have steadfastly refused to see the Iranian regime for what it is: a relentless enemy that seeks to dominate or destroy us. This blindness afflicted the first American negotiators shortly after the 1979 revolution, and has been chronic ever since, even though Iran declared war on us in that year and has waged it ever since.


During the first negotiations in early 1979, shortly after the Revolution, the Iranians denounced American meddling, and the Americans lamented Iran's dreadful human-rights practices. The Iranian negotiator, Deputy Prime Minister for Revolutionary Affairs Ibrahim Yazdi, said that Iran had just undergone "the cleanest revolution in world history," even though mass executions were underway throughout the country.


Yet American diplomats were optimistic that a grand bargain could be struck. The Iranians wanted arms, and American military men sat down to work out the details of new sales. On the diplomatic front, Assistant Secretary of State Harold Newsom reported that: "the Iranian suspicions of us were only natural in the post-revolutionary situation but that after a transition period common interests could provide a basis for future cooperation-not on the scale of before but sufficient to demonstrate that Iran has not been 'lost' to us and to the West."


This was written almost precisely a month before the American Embassy in Tehran was seized in November, 1979. For the next 444 days, diplomats talked and talked, until, minutes before Ronald Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were ransomed out.


Five years (and a new set of hostages) later, the Reagan administration commenced secret negotiations with the mullahs, using American, Israeli and Iranian back channels. Reagan's deep personal concerns about the fate of the hostages drove the policy, and inverted the logical strategic order.


Iran was a major problem for the U.S. -- hundreds of American marines and diplomats had been massacred in Beirut by Tehran's favorite terrorist instrument, Hezbollah -- and should have been dealt with on that basis. But some American officials convinced themselves that a deal could be made with Iranian "moderates," and a group led by former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane flew secretly to Tehran, met with a few mid-level Iranian officials, and returned empty handed. As in the Jimmy Carter years, the mullahs killed Americans, but America did not respond effectively.


The George H.W. Bush administration, with the Iran-Contra scandal fresh in their minds, avoided direct negotiations with Iran, but in recent years two of its leading officials -- National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and Secretary of State James Baker -- have been outspoken advocates for talking to the mullahs.


The Clinton administration passionately sought rapprochement. Believing that the Iranian "moderates" had grown more powerful with the election of President Mohammed Khatami, the president and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made public amends for real and imagined American sins against the Islamic Republic, and made a series of public and secret gestures calculated to show that the U.S. bore no ill will toward the mullahs.


Iran was secretly authorized to ship weapons into Bosnia in defiance of a United Nations embargo that was formally endorsed by the Clinton administration. Russia was secretly permitted to sell weapons and supply Iran's budding nuclear program, in violation of a law coauthored by Vice President Al Gore in his Senate years. Visas were issued to Iranian wrestlers and scholars, and some Iranian funds were unblocked.


This was all evidence of the American belief that an agreement could be reached. The Iranians exploited the opportunity, provided by our invitation to ship arms to the Muslims in the Balkans, by supporting a terror network in Bosnia. Mohammed Atta trained in Bosnia, from there he went to Hamburg, and thence to the U.S. Two other 9/11 terrorists -- Ramzi Binalshibh, and Said Bahaji -- were recruited into al Qaeda in Bosnian camps. We ignored the Iranian actions.


In 1996, the Iranians were up to their necks in the terror attack against Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Still, we pursued the mirage of a deal with our enemies. In the final months of the Clinton administration, former Spanish President Felipe Gonzales traveled secretly to Tehran to explore the possibilities of a new relationship. Like all the others, he made no progress.


The current administration has maintained the pattern. Despite a considerable volume of criticism of the mullahs, and open warnings of undefined consequences if Iran did not become more cooperative, various American officials and the usual private emissaries have explored the possibilities of better relations.


In 2001 and early 2002 we negotiated the future of Afghanistan after the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban, and although some diplomats praised Iranian "cooperation," military intelligence had hard evidence that the mullahs had sent killers into Afghanistan to attack our troops. Meetings were subsequently held with Iranian representatives in Geneva and Cyprus, and just last September, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked Mr. Gonzales to try again. He returned to Tehran, and emerged empty-handed.


The current negotiations are thus part of a well-established pattern. If anything, there is far less reason for optimism than in the past, since our knowledge of Tehran's war against us -- notably in Iraq and Afghanistan -- is broader and deeper than before. The Europeans' failure to make any progress at all in their diplomatic efforts to convince Tehran to abandon its nuclear weapons program should further convince an honest observer that the mullahs intend to build an atomic arsenal and use it against us and our allies.


As Jonathan Swift put it, you cannot reason a man out of something that he did not reason his way into. The Iranian war against the U.S. rests upon fanatical convictions, and Tehran has no interest in resolving it at a conference table.