Israel: No Option Is Off the Table

Israel hardened its insistence Monday that it would do anything it felt necessary to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, just the ultimatum the United States hoped not to hear as it tried to nudge Iran to the bargaining table.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates reassured Israel that the new Obama administration was not naive about Iran's intentions, and that Washington would press for new, tougher U.N. sanctions against the Iranians if they balk. (I'm sure this has Iran shaking in their turbans.)

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak used a brief news conference with Gates to insist three times that Israel would not rule out any response — an implied warning that it would consider a pre-emptive strike to thwart Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

"We clearly believe that no option should be removed from the table," Barak said. "This is our policy. We mean it. We recommend to others to take the same position, but we cannot dictate it to anyone."

The question of how to deal with Iran's rapid nuclear advancement has become a notable public difference between the new administrations in Jerusalem and Washington, despite overall close relations. Israel considers itself the prime target of any eventual Iranian bomb.

Iran says it is merely trying to develop nuclear reactors for domestic power generation. Israeli leaders fear the U.S. prizes its outreach to Iran over its historic ties to Israel and appears resigned to the idea that Iran will soon be able to build a nuclear weapon.

Obama says he has accepted no such thing.

Read more...

Iran Launches New Missile

U.S. government officials are confirming that Iran launched a missile earlier today.

One official says it appears the test was a success -- that is, that Tehran succeeded in launching a medium-range missile.

A second official said only that the U.S. was able to detect the launch and was looking further into details. They both spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record.

Tehran says it test-fired a new advanced missile with a range of about 1,200 miles, capable of reaching Israel and U.S. Mideast bases.

Obama needs to be wary of Ahmadinijahd. The two of them are peas in a pod. Both are willing to talk about peace and common ground. Both express a desire to meet with political and ideological opponents to discuss issues, all the while planning to further their own agenda. The big difference is that Obama's agenda is a socialist and radical left political agenda, while Ahmadinijahd's agenda is to wipe Israel, Western Europe and America off the face of the earth.

Very little room for common ground, there.

Obama is scheduled to meet with Israeli leaders shortly, and is expected to ask them for patience and to announce to Him before any military action is taken.

When the U.S. had Israel's back (just a few short months ago), Israel probably would have given us what we wanted, as long as the request was reasonable. Now, Israel is pretty much on its own and will have to look out for itself. The Israeli leaders may put everything on the table for discussion with Obama, but don't expect them to wait for the U.S. to help out before they defend themselves.

Ahmadinijihad has little to worry about from Obama. Israel is a different story.

Read more...

Obama Warns Israel

U.S. President Barack Obama has sent a message to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanding that Israel not surprise the U.S. with an Israeli military operation against Iran. The message was conveyed by a senior American official who met in Israel with Netanyahu, ministers and other senior officials. Earlier, Netanyahu's envoy visited Washington and met with National Security Adviser James Jones and with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and discussed the dialogue Obama has initiated with Tehran. 

The message from the American envoy to the prime minister reveals U.S. concern that Israel could lose patience and act against Iran. It is important to the Americans that they not be caught off guard and find themselves facing facts on the ground at the last minute. 

Obama, engineered a huge surprise on the American Public by manufacturing a crisis of epic proportions and created a budget deficit nearly four times the amount that he criticized George W. Bush for during the 2008 campaign. It appears that Obama likes to surprise us, but doesn't like to be surprised.

Read more...

Hamas: Why are you bombing us?

I must say that I am completely befuddled by the general response by the world to Israel's attacks on Hamas.  It seems that most of the world's response outside of the USA (and Israel itself, of course), and much of the response within the US has been that Israel's bombings of Hamas has been, to use their word, "disproportionate" to Hamas' attacks on Israel.  

"Disproportionate."

What an awful sounding word.  Now, don't you feel duly chastised, Israel?  Bad country.  Bad, bad country.  (I hope you see me shaking my finger.)

Here is a typical example...

After several days of conflict in the Middle East, approximately 3,350 Gazans have been killed and another 1,450 have been wounded. On the Israeli side, three have died and three have been wounded.

Clearly, Israel’s response to the Hamas rocketfire has been disproportionate. In the beginning the targets were mainly stations of security forces, but the Israeli military operations have expanded to other targets, including police stations, organizations and other infrastructure. Women and children are being killed in Gaza.

The growing conflict reminds me of the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier in 2006 that led to massive attacks on Gaza, and later Lebanon, resulting in utter destruction of civilian infrastructure and a great number of deaths. 

What they are saying, in effect is:  "You should wait until Hamas kills many more of your citizens before you start killing so many of their leaders, Israel.  Don't you know you aren't playing fair?"

My response to the world is ... "Uh ... DUH!!!"  

If you're in a war, do you really want your leaders to limit their response to a "proportionate" response?  Seriously?  

We should look at "disproportionate" responses throughout history.

Image this:  General George Armstrong Custer is leading his 264 men into battle against the Sioux and Sitting Bull.  Custer realizes that Sitting Bull is riding with over 4000 Native American warriors.  So he rides up to Sitting Bull, and says "Listen, Sit.  You have too many men.  This is disproportionate.  You need to cut your troop size down to ... oh, let's say about 100 warriors."  Sitting Bull's response?  I'd bet it would be "disproportionate". 

I suspect that all of these "geniuses" calling Israel's response "disproportionate" would consider themselves to be "anti-war".   It's ususally the so-called "anti-war" crowd that makes these sort of stupid suggestions.  What they need to realize is that "proportionate" responses prolong wars.  Disproportionate responses end wars and save lives.  

World War Two would probably still be going on had the US not dropped two atomic bombs on Japan.  Yes, it was barbaric.  Yes, civilians died.  Yes, it was tragic.  It also, more that likely, saved more lives than it cost.  Japan surrendered instead of drawing the war out for several more years, which they would likely have done, even knowing they were losing.  In fact, may of those civilians who were killed by the atomic bombs may well have been killed anyway following a US led land invasion of Japan, along with countless hundreds of thousands of other Japanese civilians and US and allied troops.  

So I say, Israel, continue the pressure on Hamas.  In fact, Israel, if you REALLY want to end the violence, you need to step up the retaliation.  Make it MORE disproportionate.  

There is a saying here in America:  "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."  For anyone reading this post who is unfamiliar with that saying, allow me to translate:  Hamas, if you didn't want Israel to respond in a "disproportionate" manner, you shouldn't have attacked Israel in the first place.

Read more...