Iran Commander: We Have Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles

Iran Commander: We Have Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles

Reza Khalili

Iran has the technological ability to target any point
on the planet with an intercontinental ballistic missile should it choose to,
according to Brig. Gen. Seyyed Mehdi Farahi of the Revolutionary Guards Corps,
who is the director of the Iranian air and space industries.

A
recent editorial
in
the Iranian Keyhan newspaper, the mouthpiece of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei, reports on Iran’s ballistic missile technology with a headline
“Iran Now Exports Ballistic Missiles.”

In the report the general brags about Iran’s military
might and its ability to simultaneously launch 14 or more rockets with extreme
precision. He says that the export of ballistic missiles and the progress in
Iran’s space program are signs that Iran has achieved the highest levels of
military and technological excellence.

 

Despite international sanctions, the general
boasts:

“Today, I proudly announce that an Islamic Iran is not
only capable of exporting industrial and defense products but also technology
and defense technology as well.”

Military experts and analysts who cover Iranian
military and defense issues have acknowledged that Iran does in fact have the
strongest ballistic missile program in the Middle East and that the low costs of
the missiles has in fact taken the ballistic missile market out of the West’s
hands, the editorial says.

The newspaper cites recent testimony before the U.S.
Senate Armed Services Committee by the director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence
Agency, Lt. Gen. Ronald L. Burgess. “Iran’s progress in building ballistic
missiles is noticeable, and with the launch of satellites to space it became
clear that Iran has succeeded in building intercontinental ballistic missiles,”
the general testified, according to the paper. The successful launch of the
Rasad satellite to space drew the attention of observers and foreign
counterparts, the general reportedly testified.

 

The Safir missile is capable of transporting a
satellite into space and indeed a ballistic missile that can reach beyond the
earth’s gravity into orbit. The missile has twice been vertically shot over the

earth’s atmosphere, the editorial says, “but if one day Iran decides that this
missile should be shot parallel to the earth’s orbit, the missile will actually
be transformed into an intercontinental ballistic missile (that) has the
capability to destroy targets in other continents.”

“In other words,” the editorial concludes, “the fact
that Iran currently possesses technology that can put satellites into orbit
means that Iran has also obtained intercontinental ballistic missiles with solid
fuel capabilities and that at any moment, this technology can be put to military
use.”

 

Iranian officials recently announced that they have
successfully developed the necessary technology to build and launch satellites
designed to travel in an orbit 21,750 miles above the earth’s equator  — and
that, in the next few months, they will launch another rocket into space, this
time carrying a monkey with a payload of 330 kilograms..

According to Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, a nuclear weapons
expert who has served in the CIA, “Historically, if a nation could put a large
payload (hundreds of kilograms) into orbit, that has been treated as a milestone
signifying that they have a military ICBM capability. We appear to have changed
this rule for Iran’s space program.  If Western analysts today applied the same
standards to Iran that we have applied to the USSR and China in the past, we
would conclude that Iran already has an ICBM capability.

“It seems that the Obama administration is unwilling
to acknowledge this, perhaps not seeing it in its best interest, alluding that
it still has time to negotiate,” says Pry, who has also served with the EMP
Commission and is now president of EMPact America.

The radicals ruling Iran have now passed a major
threshold in both their nuclear and missile programs. Barring any military
action, which seems unlikely, there is no stopping them.

We only have ourselves to blame as it is now certain
that the Jihadists in Tehran will have nuclear bombs with the delivery system to
target any country on the planet. Though the West relies on the policy of Mutual
Assured Destruction, it will find how wrong this policy is with
Iran.

Reza
Kahlili

is a pseudonym for an ex-CIA spy who requires anonymity for safety
reasons. He is the author of
A Time to Betray, a book about his double life as a
CIA agent in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, published by Threshold Editions, Simon
& Schuster, April 2010
. A Time to Betray was the winner of the 2010
National Best Book Award, and
the 2011
International Best Book
Award
.

Iran demonstrators clash with police, Rev Guard

Iran demonstrators clash with police, Rev Guard

Rick Moran

 

You’ve got to hand it to the thugs running Iran. They
learned a thing or two about how to break up demonstrations during the last go
around with the reformers and have applied the lessons with vigor.

The
Beeb:

Thousands of opposition supporters have clashed with security forces
in the centre of the Iranian capital, Tehran.
Police used tear gas and detained dozens rallying in solidarity with
uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia. There was one report of a death in Tehran.
The BBC also received reports of similar protests being held in the cities of
Isfahan, Mashhad and Shiraz.
Earlier, the police placed opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi under house
arrest, according to his website.
It said the move was intended to prevent the former prime minister attending
the march in Tehran, which the authorities had prohibited. The road leading to
Mr Mousavi’s house was also blocked by police vans.
Fellow opposition leader Mehdi Karroubi, a former speaker of parliament and a
senior cleric, is also reportedly under de facto house arrest.

The situation got ugly, quickly: CNN
reports:

Uniformed security forces and pro-government Basij militiamen had earlier
advanced on crowds who chanted “Death to the dictator!” during demonstrations in
the city’s Imam Hossein Square — the planned starting point of a scheduled
rally, a witness said.
“We definitely see them as enemies of the revolution and spies, and we will
confront them with force,” said Cmdr. Hossein Hamedani of the Revolutionary
Guard, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency.
Thousands of security personnel lined Revolution Avenue, allowing the march
to continue but preventing the marchers from congregating in Azadi Square –
considered a rallying point by opposition groups.
“You can’t take two steps without running into security personnel,” one
witness said. “They’re all over the place.”
Several protesters who were diverted by police to side streets were beaten
with batons and gassed by security officers who were waiting at those locations,
witnesses said.

That the protestors were able to organize at all is a testament to the adage
“Where there’s a will, there’s a way.” It takes more than guts to join a protest
these days in Iran – as evidenced by what happened to so many after the last go
around:

The opposition says more than 80 of its supporters were killed over the
following six months, a figure the government disputes. Several have been
sentenced to death, and dozens jailed.

Can the Iranian opposition rev up the demonstrations again? They may try, but
unlike Egypt, Iran has the state security apparatus that would have no problem
massacring their own people – the basij and the Revolutionary Guards. It will
take a lot of moxie to participate in protests when you know the security forces
could open fire at any time.
 

NETANYAHU WARNS OF “A NEW CALIPHATE”


NETANYAHU WARNS OF “A NEW CALIPHATE”
By Joel C. Rosenberg


(Washington, D.C., February 9, 2011) — Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered an important address to a policy
conference in Jerusalem on Monday of some 400 European lawmakers and
dignitaries, organized by the European Friends of Israel. During the address,
which I encourage you to read in its entirety, Netanyahu warned of several
serious threats to world peace and Western civilization:

1. The
expressed ambition of Shia and Sunni Radical Muslims to build a Islamic kingdom
or “caliphate” that will encompass the Middle East and North Africa, and then
Europe, and then North America, and then the entire world. Netanyahu did not say
the caliphate would be achieved, but he rightly warned that this is what the
Radicals want to achieve.

2. The rise of an Iranian regime with nuclear
weapons and ballistic missiles that can not only reach Israel but more and more
of Europe.

3. An Egypt that doesn’t develop into a peaceful, moderate,
secular democracy with a prominent role for the military to provide stability
and security but into one of two other scenarios: A) one in which “the Islamists
exploit the[ir] influence to gradually take the country into a reverse
direction, not towards modernity and reform but backward; or B) one in which
“Egypt would go the way of Iran, where calls for progress would be silenced by a
dark and violent repression that subjugates its own people and threatens
everyone else.”

Netanyahu did not say these threats would inevitably
come to pass. To the contrary, he stated clearly, “The good news is that nothing
is inevitable. We have the power to protect our common civilization, to roll
back the forces of radicalism and to advance a secure peace. One of the keys to
defeating this fanaticism is to be able to distinguish friends from enemies.”

Well put, Mr. Prime Minister. Let us pray more people have ears to hear,
eyes to see and hearts to understand.

>> I’ve posted key excerpts
from the speech on the blog, along with a link to the full text. We’ve also
posted links to several interviews I have done in recent days on the Egypt
Crisis, including those with Glenn Beck, CBN, Janet Parshall, and Fox News,
along with links to the latest headlines from Egypt and the epicenter. Just go
http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/. Thanks.

(Photo: PM Netanyahu
addressing the European Friends of Israel conference in Jerusalem.)

Barack Obama’s top ten insults against Israel

Barack Obama’s top ten insults against Israel

 

By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: April 26th, 2010

97 Comments Comment on this article

Last week Israel celebrated its 62nd year as a nation, but there was major cause for concern amid the festivities as the Israeli people faced the looming menace of a nuclear-armed Iran, as well as the prospect of a rapidly deteriorating relationship with Washington. The Israel-bashing of the Obama administration has become so bad that even leading Democrats are now speaking out against the White House. New York Senator Chuck Schumer blasted Barack Obama’s stance towards Israel in a radio interview last week, stating his “counter-productive” Israel policy “has to stop”.

At the same time a poll was released by Quinnipiac University which showed that US voters disapproved of the president’s Israel policy by a margin of 44 to 35 percent. According to the poll, “American voters say 57 – 13 percent that their sympathies lie with Israel and say 66 – 19 percent that the president of the United States should be a strong supporter of Israel.”

I recently compiled a list of Barack Obama’s top ten insults against Britain, America’s closest ally in the world. This is a sequel of sorts, a list of major insults by the Obama administration against America’s closest ally in the Middle East, Israel. As I wrote previously on Obama’s treatment of both Britain and Israel:

In the space of just over a year, Barack Obama has managed to significantly damage relations with America’s two closest friends, while currying favour with practically every monstrous dictatorship on the face of the earth. The doctrine of “smart power” has evolved into the shameless appeasement of America’s enemies at the expense of existing alliances. There is nothing clever about this approach – it will ultimately weaken US global power and strengthen the hand of America’s enemies, who have become significantly emboldened and empowered by Barack Obama’s naïve approach since he took office.

The Obama presidency is causing immense damage to America’s standing in the free world, while projecting an image of weakness in front of hostile regimes. Its treatment of both Israel and Britain is an insult and a disgrace, and a grim reflection of an unbelievably crass and insensitive foreign policy that significantly undermines the US national interest.

So here’s my top 10 list of Obama administration insults against Israel after just 15 months in power:

1. Obama’s humiliation of Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House

In March, the Israeli Prime Minister was humiliated by Barack Obama when he visited Washington. As The Telegraph reported, “Benjamin Netanyahu was left to stew in a White House meeting room for over an hour after President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of tense talks to have supper with his family”, after being presented with a list of 13 demands. As I wrote at the time:

This is no way to treat America’s closest ally in the Middle East, and a true friend of the United States. I very much doubt that even third world tyrants would be received in such a rude fashion by the president. In fact, they would probably be warmly welcomed by the Obama White House as part of its “engagement” strategy, while the leaders of Britain and Israel are frequently met with arrogant disdain.

2. Engaging Iran when Tehran threatens a nuclear Holocaust against Israel

In contrast to its very public humiliation of close ally Israel, the Obama administration has gone out of its way to establish a better relationship with the genocidal regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which continues to threaten Israel’s very existence. It has taken almost every opportunity to appease Tehran since it came to office, and has been extremely slow to respond to massive human rights violations by the Iranian regime, including the beating, rape and murder of pro-democracy protesters.

3. Drawing a parallel between Jewish suffering in the Holocaust with the current plight of the Palestinians

In his Cairo speech to the Muslim world, President Obama condemned Holocaust denial in the Middle East, but compared the murder of six million Jews during World War Two to the “occupation” of the Palestinian territories, in a disturbing example of moral equivalence:

“On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”

4. Obama’s attack on Israeli “occupation” in his speech to the United Nations

In his appalling speech to the UN General Assembly last September, President Obama dedicated five paragraphs to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, without once referring directly to Palestinian terrorism by name, but declaring to loud applause “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” He also lambasted the Israeli “occupation”, and drew a connection between rocket attacks on Israeli civilians with living conditions in Gaza. The speech served as a ghastly PR exercise aimed at appeasing anti-Israel sentiment in the Middle East, while bashing the Israelis over the head.

5. Obama’s accusation that Israel is the cause of instability in the Middle East

As The Wall Street Journal noted, “the Obama Administration seems increasingly of the view that Israel is the primary cause of instability in the Middle East”, citing a recent press conference where he stated:

“It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.”

6. The Obama administration’s establishment of diplomatic relations with Syria

While actively appeasing Iran, the Obama administration has also sought to develop closer ties with the other main state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East, Syria, establishing diplomatic relations with Damascus in February. Syria remains a major backer of Hamas and Hizbollah, both responsible for a large number of terrorist attacks against Israel.

7. Hillary Clinton’s 43-minute phone call berating Netanyahu

As The Telegraph reported, Hillary Clinton sought to dictate terms to Israel in the wake of Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Jerusalem:

“In a telephone call, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, ordered Mr. Netanyahu to reverse a decision to build 1,600 homes for Israeli settlers in occupied East Jerusalem that sparked the diplomatic row. She also instructed him to issue a formal pledge that peace talks would focus on core issues such as the future of Jerusalem and the borders of a Palestinian state. In addition, the Israeli prime minister was urged to make a substantial confidence-building gesture to the Palestinians. Mrs. Clinton suggested this could take the form of prisoner releases, an easing of the blockade of Gaza and the transfer of greater territory in the West Bank to Palestinian control.

Last time I checked, Israel was still an independent country, and not a colonial dependency of the Obama White House. Yet that still hasn’t stopped the Secretary of State from acting like an imperial Viceroy.

8. David Axelrod’s attack on Israeli settlements on “Meet the Press”

It is extremely unusual for a White House official to launch an attack on a close US ally on live television, but this is exactly what the President’s Senior Adviser David Axelrod did in an interview in March with NBC’s Meet the Press, designed to cause maximum humiliation to Israel, where he stated in reference to new settlement construction in East Jerusalem:

“This was an affront, it was an insult but most importantly it undermined this very fragile effort to bring peace to that region. For this announcement to come at that time was very destructive.”

9. Hillary Clinton’s call on Israel to show “respect”

As The Telegraph revealed, the Secretary of State lectured the Israelis at a dinner attended by the Israeli ambassador and the ambassadors of several Arab states in mid-April, urging Israel to “refrain from unilateral statements” that could “undermine trust or risk prejudicing the outcome of talks”. In Clinton’s words:

“Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu has embraced the vision of the two-state solution. But easing up on access and movement in the West Bank, in response to credible Palestinian security performance, is not sufficient to prove to the Palestinians that this embrace is sincere. We encourage Israel to continue building momentum toward a comprehensive peace by demonstrating respect for the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, stopping settlement activity and addressing the humanitarian needs in Gaza.”

10. Robert Gibbs’ disparaging remarks about Israel

Not one to shy away from criticizing America’s friends when the opportunity arises, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs entered the fray in an interview on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace in March where he attacked the Israeli government for weakening “the trust that’s needed for both sides to come together and have honest discussions about peace in the Middle East.” In condescending terms he stated that Benjamin Netanyahu should start “coming to the table with constructive ideas for constructive and trustful dialogue about moving the peace process forward.”

Israel’s Right to Exist as a Jewish Homeland

Israel’s Right to Exist as a Jewish Homeland

By Salomon Benzimra

The U.S. regularly reiterates its support of Israel’s security, but it says nothing about Israel’s legal rights. These legal rights originated at the San Remo Conference, and the Resolution passed on April 25, 1920 is enshrined in international law. The commemoration of the ninetieth anniversary of this event will certainly open a new vista on the Middle East conflict.

Our calendars are strewn with special dates that link us to the past. In March we celebrated the two hundredth anniversary of Chopin’s birth. Every Fourth of July, we celebrate Independence Day. Remembrance days are important, whether they pay homage to greatness or they unite people in national pride.
But there have been momentous events in recent history that remain unnoticed, if not entirely forgotten. One such event redrew the map of one of the most politically contentious regions of the planet, it shook the preexisting world order, it proclaimed the rebirth of a nation, and it marked the end of the longest foreign occupation in history. Yet few people have ever heard of it.
That event took place ninety years ago in the wake of World War One at the Italian resort town of San Remo. On April 25, 1920, after two days of intense discussions, prime ministers and high ranking diplomats of the victorious Allied powers signed the San Remo Resolution and sealed the destiny of the former Turkish possessions in the Middle East.
The Middle East has been a locus of legal misrepresentations and a cauldron of violence ever since, in part because this landmark Resolution, which initiated further agreements enshrined in international law, has seldom been publicized. An uninformed public allowed often poorly informed politicians to concoct implausible — dare I say unlawful? — peace plans, the failure of which is too obvious to ignore.
So on April 25, 2010, we should commemorate the ninetieth anniversary of the San Remo Conference and make the public aware of the crucial decisions that were made then and the effect these decisions should now have on the lands and peoples concerned.
In San Remo — and for the first time in 1,800 years, since Roman times — the geographical region known as “Palestine” acquired a legal identity. Even though the boundaries of Palestine were not precisely defined in San Remo, the prevailing idea was to draw them as close as possible to the historical boundaries of the ancient Jewish kingdoms of Israel and Judah. In that regard, the expression “from Dan to Beersheba” was introduced by Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister at the time, and it often appeared in subsequent documents.
By referring specifically to the Balfour Declaration of November 1917 — which was essentially an expression of British foreign policy — and by reproducing its wording literally, the San Remo Resolution entrenched the provisions of the Balfour Declaration in international law. Thus, the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine received international recognition.
The legal title to Palestine was officially transferred from the League of Nations — when Turkey was dispossessed of its rights to the region at the Paris Peace Conference a year earlier — to the Jewish people, who became the national beneficiary under a mandate awarded to Britain, thereby designated as the trustee.
The transfer of title and the sovereignty of the Jewish people in Palestine remain binding in international law to this day. Similarly, equivalent national rights were conferred to the Arabs in both Syria/Lebanon and present-day Iraq under two other transitional mandates awarded to France and Britain, respectively. It should therefore be apparent that the legitimacy of the present Arab states of Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq derives from the same international law which reconstituted the Jewish nation in Palestine.
Besides fulfilling the national aspirations of the Jewish people (Zionism), the San Remo Conference also marked the end of the longest colonization in history. Whereas European powers extended their colonization in Africa, Asia, and the Americas for a period not exceeding four hundred years, Palestine has been occupied and colonized by a succession of foreign powers for about 1,900 years (Romans, Byzantines, Sassanid Persians, Arabs, Crusaders, Mameluks, and Ottoman Turks). This early episode of liberation, which preceded the global decolonization process by more than thirty years, should be welcome by all progressive minds.
The commemoration of the San Remo Conference on its ninetieth anniversary is a different kind of remembrance in that it primarily serves an educational purpose. In fact, the European Coalition for Israel, a non-Jewish European organization based in Brussels, is planning to do exactly that in San Remo on April 24-25, in a two-day official gathering at the very place where the event took place in 1920.
By bringing the San Remo Conference to the fore, the public will be better-informed, opinions will be more solidly founded, and decision-makers might revisit their geopolitical plans.

Truman Was Right; Netanyahu Would Be Right===Barack Obama is the most anti-Israel president in U.S. history

Truman Was Right; Netanyahu Would Be Right

By Ken Blackwell

President Obama’s new Nuclear Posture Review has succeeded mightily in muddying the clear waters. He says that we will not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear power. Except Iran. Except North Korea. If we are attacked with biological or chemical weapons, we will not retaliate with nuclear weapons. Is this a green light for another attack on the homeland? And what are the former captive nations of Europe supposed to think? Does any NATO member — like Poland, like Estonia — sleep more soundly with this ringing declaration of confusion, this uncertain trumpet?

When he was in Japan last fall, Mr. Obama pointedly avoided saying that the U.S. use of nuclear weapons to end the carnage of World War II was justified. The American left — Barack Obama’s base — has been indicting Harry Truman for decades for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.
Truman faced the horrible prospect of losing 600,000 American lives in an invasion of the Japanese home islands. He also had to consider the real danger of millions Japanese civilian deaths in the combat and from mass suicides. The leftist Truman-haters also never consider the 10,000 allied POWs dying weekly in Japanese captivity.
When Mr. Obama bowed low before Emperor Akihito, it was a tacit apology for all of that. Japan in 1945 was a non-nuclear power. The new Nuclear Posture Review is Obama’s elliptical way of saying that Harry Truman was wrong.
Now we come to the mortal peril of Israel. Barack Obama is the most anti-Israel president in U.S. history. He has been willing to excoriate Benjamin Netanyahu’s shaky coalition government over Jews building apartments in East Jerusalem while cooing to despots in Riyadh and Cairo. Nobel Peace Prize Winner Elie Wiesel, a liberal supporter of Barack Obama, is in anguish. “Jerusalem is Jewish history,” he said in a full-page ad, an open letter to the president. “Jerusalem,” this Holocaust survivor said, “is the heart of our heart.”
Martin Peretz of the New Republic, another liberal Obama-backer, noted that Obama’s stiff-arming of Israel has served only to stiffen Palestinian intransigence. The PLO “quickly surmised that Obama was in their corner and would not push them much. Their surmise turned out to be correct.” Former New York Mayor Ed Koch is distraught. He endorsed Barack Obama for president, but now cries: “I weep as I witness outrageous verbal attacks on Israel … that are being orchestrated by President Obama.”
Add to this dangerous mix Mr. Obama’s cool and detached analysis of sanctions against an Iranian regime hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. “Sometimes they work, sometimes they don’t.” Actually, most of the time, they don’t work. And they are especially doomed to fail when those who are supposed to be “crippled” and “bitten” by the “tough and smart” sanctions know that there is no muscle behind the bluster. Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — Mr. Obama’s top military man — knows that his administration has no clue what to do about Iran.
Mahmoud Admadinejad, the mouthpiece for the Iranian mullahs, repeatedly says he envisions a world without Israel, a world without the U.S. And he responds to Obama’s neutering Nuclear Policy Review with withering scorn. He celebrates Iran’s unimpeded advance toward nuclear weaponry with open taunting of the toothless U.S. policy.
I believe Truman was justified in that hardest of all presidential decisions. Tens of millions of Americans and Japanese are alive today because Truman had the determination and grit to make that awful decision.
As justified as we were then, Israel would be even more justified in using tactical nuclear weapons now to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat to the world. Japan in 1945 presented no existential threat to the U.S. Iran is just such a threat — to Israel, to NATO, and to us.
When the Israelis struck Saddam Hussein’s nuclear Osirak plant in 1981, the world howled. Even our U.S. State Department — under Alexander Haig — condemned the raid. The anti-Israel majority at the U.N. threatened sanctions against the Jewish state. President Reagan effectively sidetracked sanctions then.
But if Israel had not acted swiftly and effectively against Saddam Hussein then, the United States would not have been able to eject him from Kuwait a decade later with so little loss of American life. Saddam would have become the dominant power in the Mideast. That he did not rain nuclear missiles on Israel in 1991 is wholly attributable to the Israelis’ brave and skillful raid of 1981.
Mr. Obama’s feckless policies are giving the Israelis no choice. He wasted fifteen months in fruitless overtures to the Iranian terror leaders. He advanced toward them with an open hand; they spit in his open hand. Bullying democratic Israel and coddling terror states is no policy.
April is the month when millions of Jews and their righteous Gentile friends around the world reflect on what it means to be a stateless, powerless, hunted people. Jews remember the Holocaust and say “Never Again.” Whether the United States under Barack Obama is with them or not, Israel has a right to act to make sure: Never Again.

Ken Blackwell is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council. He serves on the board of directors of the Club for Growth, National Taxpayers Union, and National Rifle Association.

The time of testing is coming for Obama

The time of testing is coming for Obama

Jim Stuart

In 1962, after nuclear missiles were discovered in Cuba, President John F. Kennedy faced down his Soviet Rival Nikita Khrushchev, almost precipitating a nuclear exchange. The principal reason JFK took a firm stand was to protect his image. In those days, with the Cold War in full swing, it was important to maintain a posture of strength and resolve.

Each side was constantly testing the other for signs of weakness that could be exploited. Earlier in 1961, Kennedy had been humiliated at the Bay of Pigs, and Eisenhower had warned him that the Soviets would be emboldened as a result. So when the missiles were discovered, Kennedy’s primary concern was not any strategic advantage they might pose (the US had offsetting nuclear missiles already installed in Italy and Turkey), but rather, that he not appear weak. Such was his concern for his image of strength and resolve that he was willing to risk a nuclear confrontation.Fast forward to the year 2010. While the Cold War has ended and the Soviet Union exists no longer, there is no shortage of hostile regimes or groups facing off against the US. These – Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, North Korea, Russia, China, and Al Qaeda who – while not as powerful militarily as was the USSR – are perhaps more aggressive and less predictable than the old foe. Certainly, there is little doubt that any one of them could wreak havoc if a major conflict were to break out.

From the perspective of our enemies, how is this administration shaping up in the area of strength and resolve? Under little or no pressure, Obama withdrew missile defenses in Eastern Europe. He has created deadlines and threatened sanctions against Iran which have been ignored without consequences. He has refused to confront Islamic jihad, treating the threat as a criminal issue, and been unwilling to address the theological roots of the conflict. When Russia orchestrated a coup in Kyrgyzstan, the Obama administration did not react. When China insisted that Obama not meet with the Dalai Lama, he backed down. When our military leaders recommended a surge in Afghanistan, Obama waffled for months, finally agreeing, but with the proviso that the troops be pulled out in 18 months. The 4th generation advanced fighter (Raptor) program was cancelled, as was our manned space program. Missile defense development has been curtailed. The primary military initiative of this administration has been political correctness with respect to Muslim extremists, the equal treatment of homosexuals in the army, and prosecuting Seals and CIA agents.

The administration has virtually and publically withdrawn its support for Israel, while Syria has been funneling large quantities of Iranian rockets and other weapons to Hezbollah, in violation of UN agreements. Recently, it was reported that these weapons included Scud missiles. Hardly a week goes by without an announcement by Iran that it is expanding and accelerating its uranium enrichment program, and will not reverse course under any circumstances. On the contrary, it has signed technology-sharing deals with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, who, given the a little more time, will surely become a serious troublemaker himself. Lastly, but by no means least, a South Korean naval vessel was recently sunk by what is currently thought to have been a North Korean torpedo. What could possibly be North Korea’s intent, by such an action, except to test South Korea and the US?

Most of us have been too fixated by the spectacle of our country being overturned by Marxist revolutionary zealots to pay much attention to external threats. But in the meantime, our enemies have been watching as the US shows no will to fight, and no inclination to oppose aggression with anything stronger than teleprompted words. Surely, they must think, – this situation will not last, and that now is the time for adventurism. I do not believe we have long to wait.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers