Israel, in Today's News 03.14.10

Israel. The media can't get over the Israeli "insulting behavior" toward United States Vice President Biden during his recent visit. Hillary* even got in on the act, making a phone call to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.

What the media misses is the cleverness of the Israeli actions. Biden went to Israel to discuss the Obama agenda of pretending to be sympathetic to the Arab world. The Israelis, of course, wanted nothing to do with that discussion. So, to avoid the discussion, the Israelis simply announced as Biden was landing that they were putting up more housing in the Palestinian sector. Immediately the agenda was totally changed. Instead of the Obama agenda, the topic of concern was the Israeli actions. Everyone forgot about the Obama agenda.

The price the Israelis paid was a small one. They made Biden look like a fool, but that doesn't really matter to the Israelis. Soon the world will not pay much attention to the new housing. And so, things will be right back where they were before Biden's visit.

IOW, the Israelis completely out-maneuvered Obama. In fact, they made Obama look a little silly. But, the media has no intention to accurately report what happened. Their job is to enhance the image of Obama. So, they complain about the Israeli bad manners.

Much is being made also of the differences between Israel and the United States. Basically the differences are tactical. Both countries share the same objective to make Israel the premier country in the middle-east, and to do this by force when the time comes.

The media is making a big noise about the 'differences'. After all it sells. But, the differences don't amount to much. With one caveat: the hysterical Israelis can get very worked up over tactical matters, and they are capable of most anything. The recent actions of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee to pressure Obama are an example.

* - Hillary is still trying to get even with the Israelis for the way they treated her after she appeared on the same platform with Mrs. Arafat.

Pakistan and India, in Today's News 01.24.10

Pakistan and India. United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been visiting India, then Pakistan. The purpose of the tour seems to be to convince the two countries to end their hostility and instead oppose the enemies of Israel. 

Gates has made a big push on how Al Qaeda and others are trying to foment conflict between India and Pakistan. Gates is pleading with them to not fall for this, and realize their joint enemy is Al Qaeda et al.

Gates' point about Al Qaeda trying to cause a regional conflict is questionable. What Al Qaeda would have to gain by such a conflict is a mystery. But, Gates does know that a defense of Israel requires at least neutrality toward Israel by mideast and asian nations. 

Israel's illegitimate presence in the mideast will continue to provoke conflict. Moreover, Israel continually makes aggressive moves toward the Palestinians and its neighbors in a misconceived effort to defend itself.

The Israelis target-of-concern nowadays is Iran. Israel has been seeking US support for a military confrontation with Iran for more than a couple of years. The US, for its part, has preferred to try to undermine Iran through CIA sponsored internal conflict. When this US strategy runs its course with no appreciable results, the US will be stuck with the Israeli alternative of direct engagement with Iran.

Enter Gates and his attempt to line-up two asian and mideast powerhouses against Arab militancy. When a confrontation with Iran occurs, it will be a big help to the US and Israel if the major players in the region don't get in the way.

*****

BTW, shouldn't the Secretary of State be involved in these kinds of discussions? Well, no. Obama smartly prefers to keep Hillary Clinton involved only with secondary issues. 

Iran, in Today's News 01.09.10

Iran. In a Wall Street Journal article today titled "U.S. Shifts Iran Focus to Support Opposition" the following sentence occurs:

"In recent weeks, senior [Iranian] Green Movement figures -- who have been speaking at major Washington think tanks....."

And what do you think this means? It does not mean they were 'speaking.' It means these figures have been meeting with the senior cryptocracy brain trust to plan the overthrow of the Iranian regime.

The headline is misleading. The US is not shifting focus. Its focus has always been to create, fund, and build an internal opposition within Iran that seeks to take power. The US call for negotiations with the Iranian regime has simply been cover to give the CIA and others the opportunity to go to work within Iran.

In other words, the US policy has been to foment civil war in Iran. A senior State Department official is quoted in the article, "Do we expect the current government to be overthrown? I wouldn't say that at the current time. But a crack can certainly grow over time."

The media likes to make a big point about the alleged differences between Israel's orientation to Iran and the US's. But there is no difference. Both policies are for the destruction of the Iranian government and its replacement with a regime that Israel can tolerate. The US negotiation gambit and its sponsorship of an internal opposition only lay the basis for the Israeli desire for military action against Iran.

The US and Israel are playing with fire, of course. In the context of several civil wars or pre-civil war situations throughout the mid-east, to try to overthrow the Iranian government can have widespread and unpredictable consequences. Any dramatic occurrence could result in a full mid-east war on multiple fronts. Russia and China could not ignore such a development.

Pray that these mad-men will exercise some restraint.

[By the way, the Iranian movement calling itself "green" is a give-away of American involvement. Giving the movement a color-name is the standard way of providing an intervention with personality and to make it easier to identify with. The parallel is the Soros-CIA intervention in the Ukraine under the Orange revolution.] 

Yemen, in Today's News 01.08.10

Yemen. In case no one has noticed, the United States and the world are edging ever closer to an all-out mid-east war. The slope to this disaster is becoming more and more slippery. Only major policy changes by key governments and by the Church will prevent this turning point in human history.

The United States or Israel are at war or engaged in a war-like intervention in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Palestine, and now Yemen. In addition, many mid-east governments are not partial to the US and Israel, such as Syria, Algeria, and Lebanon. and to some degree Egypt. The client states of Saudi Arabia and Jordan are quite vulnerable to influence by Arab popular pressure. 

This volatile mix is in effect waiting for the fuse to burn down. It would not take much to transform these engagements into a general war. An invasion of Iran could do it, as could any number of unpredictable events. 

What unifies the various regimes and combatants is militant opposition to Israel and thereby to the United States for its unqualified support to the Israeli foreign policy. Israel actually is surrounded by the sea on one side and all these battles in a wide semi-circle on the other. A provocation by the US or Israel could easily inflame these struggles into a generalized war.

So far, oil is not directly involved in the various mid-east confrontations. But if it were, as when the Saudis become militarily involved or feel threatened, then a most powerful dimension will be added. China, for one, would become very interested and directly engaged to protect its oil supply. Russia, with its soft underbelly bordering the mideast, is already staking out its position in case of dramatic developments.

In short, the Israelis are steering the world into a cataclysmic war that would forever change the face of the world. World Wars I and II would seem like trifles in comparison to a mid-east war involving all the world's major powers and the billions of Arabs and their governments.

Can anything stop this growing possibility? Were the United States to develop and follow a foreign policy that actually was in the national interests, this war-threat would end immediately. But, such is not going to happen. Decades of work by Zionists have transformed the American government into a colony-like status to Israel. The web of control is so complete that any attempt to break out of it, would be instantly thwarted.

The other possibility is the Church. Shouldn't the leaders of the Church and the various Catholic organizations be sounding the alarm that the Christ-haters of this world are pushing the planet into a conflagration that will set back humanity? Shouldn't these leaders explain to the faithful and the rest of the population that the policies of Israel and the United States will inevitable lead to another world war, this time of far graver consequences. Shouldn't these leaders use their influence to help stay the hands of the mad men who think nothing of starting such a war? Shouldn't these leaders call the faithful to prayer, asking almighty God to help us prevent this disaster?

The Church leaders instead act according to an accommodationist policy. The Vatican seems to be on a permanent effort to make nice to the Israelis and their rabbinic spiritual leaders. Barely a month goes by without the Pope saying something positive about the religion inspired by the Talmud or actually visiting a synagog or some shrine of holocaustianity.

This orientation will spell doom for the human race because it forfeits the Church's power as the prime human instrument to stop diabolic actions designed to destroy God's creation. Prayers that the hierarchy of Catholicism will see the light before it is too late are much needed.

Hillary Clinton, in Today's News 11.09.09

Hillary Clinton. The repercussions from Clinton's foray into the middle east politics continue to pile up.

First, shortly after Clinton positioned the United States as giving some support to the Israeli settlement policy, the various political forces in the middle east went into uproar. Clinton, the State Department, and the White House had to go on a special footing to spin her remarks into 'no change in the American position of non-support to the settlements.'

Next, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas announced that he would not seek re-election in protest over the US bias in favor of Israel. 

And now Obama has to scramble to assure Israel of the United States' real position. A meeting between the two has been scheduled.

Clinton is so used to having her big-mouth remarks explained away by the media and her team, that she can't quite seem to adjust to the world of diplomacy where every word counts.

Clinton is now finished as a politician. Her frequent mis-steps as Secretary of State, starting with her "reset" fiasco in Moscow, will haunt any future attempts by her to achieve the presidency, or any other office.

Hillary Clinton, in Today's News 11.02.09

Hillary Clinton. She's done it again. Another disastrous trip as Secretary of State to foreign lands. Clinton is proving to be one of the worst Secretaries of State in the nation's history.

1). Clinton made her first official trip to Pakistan to, as the Wall Street Journal put it, "to smooth relations strained by terms of an American aid package for the key South Asian ally."  WSJ: "Clinton said she will seek to clarify issues related to the aid during her meetings with Pakistani officials...while also working to forge closer economic, diplomatic and cultural ties."

And so, what happened?  "A stream of people grilled Mrs. Clinton on the merits of a new multibillion-dollar US aid bill for Pakistan that they claimed was tailored to constrain Islamabad's military and nuclear programs. Lahore university students argued that the Pentagon's drone strikes against Taliban and al Qaeda militants in Pakistan's tribal regions were increasingly causing violence to spill out into their country's major cities and urban areas."

Of course, Clinton took the bait, lost her cool, and insulted her hosts. "In a particularly blunt exchange, Mrs. Clinton told a gathering of newspaper editors that the US didn't believe Pakistan's government had done all it could to hunt al Qaeda leaders...whom Washington believes are still hiding in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan."

In other words, Clinton succeeded in doing just the opposite of her stated goal of smoothing relations.

In her defense, it is possible that Clinton was set up by the Obama team. Obama's people were surely aware of the Pakistan discontent with the new aid package. They could have reasoned, 'send Clinton and let her take the heat.' It's a lose-lose situation for her, and a winner for the Obama people.

2). After the Pakistan debacle, Clinton travelled to mid-east for two days "aimed at getting the Palestinians and the Israelis to return to peace talks..." (WSJ). To which one can only comment, 'you got to be kidding!!'

Clinton thinks that she can swoop in for a couple of days and the forces who have been battling for decades will suddenly recognize her superior wisdom and return to negotiations.

Even so, she managed to screw things up a bit further. She positioned herself closer to the Israeli policy of settlements, and as a result the Palestinians strengthened their resolve to stay away from negotiations.

In other words, Clinton achieved just the opposite of what she set out to do.

The media, of course, gives her every break. But, the Obama team knows all the better why it is crucial to keep her away from the administration's key foreign policy discussions and actions.

One other comment: in reading Clinton's various statements on these trips, it becomes clear that her knowledge of the situations is no greater than what one would get from reading the New York Times and the Washington Post. 

Israel, in Today's News 10.28.09

Israel. Prosecutors have begun the trial of Radovan Karadzic, Bosnian Serb wartime leader, in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The case against him revolves around his alleged plan to build a mono-ethnic Serbian state through terror and murder.

A significant charge against Karadzic. One wonders if there are any other nations that have sought to build a mono-ethnic state through terror and murder.

And, by golly, there is!! There is a country that not only had such a plan, they actually carried it out, and continues to do so!

One wonders when the leaders of this country will be brought to trial and when the media will denounce the obvious racism.

Don't hold your breath.

Israel, in Today's News 10.06.09

Israel. One of the risks taken by Obama in delaying an attack on Iran, is that the Israelis will take action anyway that would precipitate American involvement in militarily confronting Iran. Obama is undoubtedly acutely aware of this danger. If he is smart he is having the US intelligence agencies working extra hours to keep track of what the Israelis are up to.

But, as time marches on, the Israelis become more and more frustrated with Obama trying to buy time as he pretends to negotiate with the Iranians. One can be sure that Israel has a plan to force the US into an attack on Iran. Sooner or later, and sooner is getting closer and closer, they will implement their plan.

On October 5 the US took an unprecedented action to deter Israel. The US actually abstained on a resolution before the United Nations Security Council that Israel give up its nuclear weapons!! Diplomatic circles were stunned by the US failure to defend Israeli nuclear weapons, as they had done repeatedly in the past. Usually the US votes 'no' on such resolutions, ignoring the nuclear weapons in Israel while demanding Iran produce none.

In effect, the US was making a shot across the bow of Israel. The message certainly was that if Israel attacks Iran directly or indirectly, the backing of US is not assured. 

The US did this because they are getting worried about Israel's plans. As a discussion piece in today's Wall Street Journal (page A21) said, "Also factoring in the administration's thinking are reports that the Israelis are in the final stages of planning an attack on Iran's nuclear installations." [!!!!!!!!]

Be prepared for all kinds of fireworks on the Iran issue in the next few months.

BTW, the strain between Obama and Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu was shown in Netanyahu characterizing Obama over an accidentally open microphone as "worse than Chamberlain" .

Iran, in Today's News 10.02.09

Iran. The United States-Israel hype about Iran's potential for nuclear weapons is all a ruse, of course. The real goal of these two powers is to bring Iran to its knees so that Israel has predominant power in the middle east. The nuclear-weapons accusation is just the best way of covering the real aim.

But, since the accusation is false, it is relatively easy for Iran to defuse the propaganda. They just stick to the facts and its disarms the opposition.

Case in point is today's reported events. Iran has agreed to allow inspectors to visit the now famous 'secret' new nuclear facility that got Obama and his buddies so excited a few days ago. Because there is no nuclear weapons production or potential at the site, the inspection should go moderately well and Iran will have undermined the recent widely trumpeted charges of secret facilities.

One can almost hear the frustration of the war planners. Here they had a perfectly nice little justification for war building up, and Iranian President Ahmadinejad goes and spoils everything.

Another case in point. Iran has agreed to transfer the bulk of its nuclear fuel to other countries to enrich it. This decision so upset the war-planners that the Wall Street Journal couldn't help editorializing that Iran was faking it. Here's a first-paragraph quote from the page one WSJ article, "The officials said the surprise move could temporarily reduce Tehran's potential to make bombs, but analysts cautioned that the Iranians merely may be seeking to defuse pressure for sanctions while continuing their nuclear program."

Translated: they completely out-maneuver us, but we are  going to keep saying the same things anyway.

Iran, in Today's News 09.28.09

Iran. One of the pleasures of political commentary is that every once in a while Hillary Clinton will step forward with some stupidity. Clinton can be relied upon to provide comic relief to the serious business of world politics.

Clinton never does anything unless it is strictly in her own interests. Now she has figured out that Iran is a big deal and will provide many opportunities to get her face before the public. So, she steps in on the action.

Yesterday, she horned in on a media conference by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Her amateur contribution: She said to the Iranian government, "Don't assert it [peaceful intentions], prove it..." Someone should tell Hillary that this kind of bluster is best suited to a high school political campaign.

And just how is Iran supposed to prove it? "...they can open their entire system to the kind of extensive investigation that the facts call for." [!!!] Extensive investigation of the entire system?????? Is there a country in the world that would be so out of their mind as to allow this? Let alone a country that everyday has to listen to threats from Israel and the United States to destroy their country as it exists today. The only way any government would permit this is if they were militarily smashed.

The reaction that could be expected from the Iranians would be some raucous guffaws. Members of the State Department and Obama's team probably also got a few laughs out it. The Obama-team resolution to keep Clinton away from the central issues could only be reinforced by her remarks.

Iran, in Today's News 09.24.09

Iran. Today's Wall Street Journal headline: "Obama Gains Russian Support on Iran". The reality is actually quite a bit different.

The Obama administration announced a week or so ago that the US would unilaterally abandon its effort to build missile interceptors and radar in Poland and the Czech Republic. The goal was to make a concession to the Russians in the hope that Russia would modify its support of Iran. Russian support to Iran is a major obstacle to US and Israel efforts to confront Iran. It would be a help to the US if the Russians did nothing when the US and Israel attack Iran.

This diplomatic maneuver was to bring results this week when Obama and Russian President Medvedev met at the G-20 meeting.

So, what happened? The Russians agreed....to a proposal that they had already supported!!!! "The US and its allies [read Israel] have decided to present Iran once more with a version of an offer they have made previously: They would halt efforts to enact new economic sanctions against Tehran in exchange for it freezing it production of nuclear fuel..." This stance is know as the 'freeze for freeze' proposal.

So, in other words, what the US achieved with its overture to the Russians was absolutely nothing!!! Even worse Obama managed to give away a key bargaining chip in exchange for zilch. Experienced negotiators must be stunned by the incompetence of Obama and his team.

The WSJ and others in the media are portraying this development as a great victory for Obama. "President Obama scored a potential victory in his diplomatic engagement with Iran by gaining what appeared to be a commitment from...Medvedev..."

Note that the puff language to build up Obama is qualified by 'potential victory' and 'appeared to be'. The heavy thinkers on the cryptocracy team know what happened (or didn't happen), but they must nonetheless build up their spokesman Obama.

The truth is this little diplomatic adventure was debacle. The cryptocracy for one and the Israelis for two are not going to be pleased. Their desired war on Iran remains stalled.

Pope Benedict XVI, in Today's News 09.21.09

Pope Benedict XVI. "Pope announces synod in Middle East for 2010." (Catholic News Service headline today.)

Here's hoping the Pope knows what he is doing politically because his Talmudic friends are not going to be happy about a gathering in their area of world that gives impetus to Catholic, Orthodox and Christian activity.

Or does Benedict really think he can pull of such an event and give it a philo-Judaic slant?

*******

Postscript (09.22.09). Benedict was undoubtedly infuriated when Palestinian Catholics strongly criticized him on the details of his trip to Israel before the trip began. Namely, they said the Pope should go to Gaza first instead of to the holocaust memorial.

Benedict's trip was planned for months, if not years. The purpose was to further demonstrate the Pope's and the Church leaders' profession of admiration toward Israel and Judaics. 

To have the Palestinian question and what Catholic leaders really ought to be doing about it thrust upon on the Pope on the eve of the trip must have been aggravating, to say the least.

One therefore might conclude that one of the purposes of the Mid-East Synod would be to make sure that kind on nonsense never occurs again. It is of supreme importance to the Pope and the Vatican that Mid-East Catholic leaders be brought into line with the Vatican's philo-Judaism. At the very least these critics must be silenced to prevent any more embarrassment. 

Incidentally, in the articles concerning the Synod there is no Vatican reference to the situation of the Palestinian faithful and the Palestinians as a whole. There is mention of Christians leaving the Mid-East, which is an indirect reference to the murderous attacks on Christians in Iraq. But there is no reference, direct or indirect, to the plight of the Palestinians and the Palestinian Church. 

Such neglect is an absolute disgrace.

********

Postscript II (09.22.09). Today's Catholic News Service has an article on the North African reaction to the Synod. Here's a key quote, "Some portions of the African Church do not find their experiences or issues reflected in the Synod's themes...'

If Benedict wants to achieve his goals (see above) he certainly has his work cut out for him.

********

Postscript (09.23.09). It turns out that Benedict does know what he is doing politically with the Synod in the Mid-East. And he probably has the okay from the Zionist board that monitors his actions and gives him advice.

Objectively the Synod fits in with the cryptocracy's efforts to pacify the Mid-East in the interests of the Israeli stat.

But Benedict is taking a chance. There happen to be many Catholics and clergy in the Mid-East who can clearly see the nature of Zionism. And they are sure to be vocal leading up to and at the Synod. Also, the very holding of the Synod will encourage Catholic action, which will not be pleasing to the Israelis.

Benedict is betting that his authority and that of Vatican leaders backed up by the philo-Israeli media can overcome the opposition. It will be interesting to watch. 

Iran, in Today's News 09.17.09

Iran. The preparations for a United States confrontation with Iran are growing more serious. The US is now trying to clear some of the obstacles to the US-Israel plan to bring Iran to its knees. One of the principle obstacles is Russia's support to Iran.

On September 16 the Wall Street Journal ran a story covered by all the media. The headline: "Medvedev Blasts Russian System." If one reads the article one learns that Medvedev did no such thing. His criticisms of Russian corruption, etc., were the same as Putin's, with whom Medvedev says he talks regularly. The article implies a break between Putin and Medvedev which exists only in the imagination of the author.

What's going on here? Believe it or not, but the cryptocracy's employees actually think that they can drive a wedge between Medvedev and Putin, by indicating to Medvedev that if he plays ball they will be helpful to him. Somehow the foreign policy experts think they have a better chance of neutralizing Russia on the Iran issue with Medvedev. Fat chance.

Then today, the White House leaked that the "US to Shelve Nuclear-Missile Shield" (page one headline in the Wall Street Journal). The US is now abandoning the Bush Administration plans to build a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The idea is to please Russia, but the 'allies' will be infuriated. That the US is willing to make such a dramatic move indicates how seriously the US wants the confrontation with Iran and wants it with no opposition from Russia.

The message to Medvedev is pretty clear: the US is willing to make big efforts to show that Russia is better off under him than Putin. The US may have some intelligence to show that these maneuvers may actually work, but success is highly doubtful. The US actions seem to be a fairly desperate attempt to get Russia out of the way.

Israel keeps pushing the US to end Iran's nuclear efforts and to secure Israel's position of dominance in the middle east. The pressure keeps mounting and Obama's time to make some sort of decision grows short. 

The decision to confront Iran is a 'lose-lose' proposition, but Obama has little choice than to go ahead. 

These American maneuvers are part of the build up to a meeting between Medvedev and Obama at the G-20 meeting next week.

Obama, in Today's News 09.15.09

Obama. The left tends to see Obama in messiah-like terms and the right tends to see him as evil-incarnate. The truth is that Obama is just a central employee of the cryptocracy and he does what they want. And right now his handling of several of the cryptocracy's projects is no doubt causing the cryptocracy some displeasure.

Twice in one week Obama has had to give speeches that he shouldn't have had to make. It is always a sign of trouble when the top guy has to intervene to try to salvage a project that a subordinate should have handled. Obama last week tried to save the health plan in a speech to congress and the nation, and to save the reorganization of financial regulation in a speech on Wall Street.

Both projects are high priority for the cryptocracy and both are stumbling badly. So bad that Obama is trying to make a last desperate gamble to save them. Especially with the health issue Obama is staking his political capital. His prospects for success are not great.

The health reform is now tied up in a myriad of disputes, objections, partisan politics, public opposition, and you name it. About all that Obama and the cryptocracy can hope for is to pass something that gets the health reform off the ground.

Obama's speech on Wall Street yesterday appealed for support for his plan to transfer powers to the Fed. Not one CEO of a top bank attended his talk in an amazing display of opposition and lack of respect!! That dramatic rudeness just about says all that needs to be said about Obama's prospects on financial regulation reform.

The cryptocracy precipitated the economic crisis in part to establish an atmosphere that would better enable adoption of the health reform and the financial re-regulation. Both reforms are crucial for the cryptocracy to ensure the security of their wealth-producing set-up. Obama's failure to shepherd these projects to a successful conclusion has to cause pause for thought about Obama among the cryptocrats.

Obama's difficulties are complicated by two other situations: Afghanistan and Iran. Very soon Obama will have to make a decision on how to salvage the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. Any decision he makes will increase his problems. If he sends in more troops the American people and the left of his own party will object. If he leaves the situation to its own devices, he faces the possibility of a soviet-type debacle in Afghanistan.

The cryptocracy would very much like to see Iran brought to its knees so that the cryptocracy's mother country, Israel, will have dominance in the middle east. While the US and Israel both agree on what should be done to Iran in the long run, some tactical differences have emerged under the Obama regime. Probably what has happened is that Obama has far too many central projects to be able to spend time and effort on Iran. Thus he has consistently pushed for negotiations to gain some time.

Israel, on the other, hand is becoming quite impatient. Israel has, in effect, given the US until spring 2010 to do something or Israel itself will militarily attack Iran. Today's Wall Street Journal has a column by Bret Stephens, "Obama is Pushing Israel Toward War." Stephens diligently puts together all the Israeli threats to the US if the US doesn't act. The column is meant as a shot-across-the-bow for Obama.

********

Incidentally, Obama's speech on Wall Street contains a quote that is pure bluster and also almost a declaration of war on the street. "Hear my words: We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses."

One can almost hear the central bankers thinking, "Who the hell does guy think he is? 'Hear my words.' Give me a break!!!!" 

Behind the bluster, though, Obama is asserting that he is more powerful than the street, and he intends to exert that power. One wonders how he thinks he can carry this threat out. At the very minimum he has made permanent enemies of the financial chiefs, and he will face a stupendous political fight.

Afghanistan, in Today's News 08.10.09

Afghanistan. Anyone who has followed the fiasco-in-the-making in Afghanistan will not be surprised by today's front page headline in the Wall Street Journal: "Taliban Now Winning".

First paragraph, "The Taliban have gained the upper hand in Afghanistan, the top American commander there said, forcing the U.S. to change its strategy in the eight-year-old conflict by increasing the number of troops in heavily populated areas like the volatile southern city of Kandahar, the insurgents spiritual home."

"The coming deployments are...[General Stanley] McChrystal's strategy for Afghanistan, which puts a premium on safeguarding the Afghan population rather than hunting down militants."

Several comments:

---The U.S. cannot win this engagement. It has been eight years since the first shock-and-awe attack put the U.S. in Afghanistan. The relationship of forces has steadily declined for the U.S. influence ever since. Now the Taliban is mounting significant and sophisticated attacks resulting in a higher rate of casualties for the American forces. Anyone familiar with trend lines can see where all this is headed.

---The U.S. experience is a repeat of the Russian debacle in Afghanistan a couple of decades ago, only in a little slower motion.  Even the American command is aware of the parallel. "'How many people do you bring in before the Afghans say, 'You're acting like the Russians'?' said one senior military official..."

---The US will soon have 68,000 troops in Afghanistan; NATO has an additional 30,000 troops. The Afghan army is to be boosted to 240,000 from 135,000 and the Afghan police to 160,000 from 82,000. Estimates vary, but some think it will take 250,000 American troops to control the situation. Clearly this 'deployment' is rapidly becoming a Vietnam-type mobilization. Did the American people sign-on for this level of engagement?

---The talk about 'safeguarding the Afghan population' is code for protecting the current American-installed regime. The US also wants to keep Afghan citizens from joining the Taliban. This style of 'protection' was tried in Vietnam with disastrous results, which is just about what can be expected in Afghanistan.

---The 'safeguarding the Afghan population' is an indirect acknowledgement by the American command that the Taliban is reaching the Afghan population. Such a development is ominous indeed for the 'allies.'

---The US involvement in Afghanistan has nothing to do with American interests. The US is simply doing a favor to Israel by engaging Islam militants so that they will be less likely to attack Israel. The favor has now turned into a quite significant drain on funds and troops. One can witness the slow draining of American credibility as the war goes down the tubes.

---Israel, for its part, could care less about American prospects. It is quite happy to have the US engaged in Afghanistan and if the US stays engaged, all the better. Israel's interest are to keep any potential threats against Israel from actually exercising that threat.

Israel, in Today's News 07.28.09

Israel. Headline on page A8 of today's Wall Street Journal: "U.S., Israel Divide on Iran Nuclear Program".

The media and various commentators are working hard to convince the public that there is a growing difference between Israel and the US over how to handle Iran. The headline refers to a news conference with US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, where they did not say exactly the same thing.

The talk of differences, however, is all baloney. What we have here is a classic case of good-cop/bad-cop. The US tries to inveigle Iran into negotiations and Israel rattles sabers. The two sides support the single, agreed-to aim of bringing Iran to its knees. The US and Israel agree that Iran cannot be allowed to become a pole of attraction in the mideast, and cannot be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.

At the present time the US Mideast Envoy, the National Security Advisor, the White House Mideast Advisor, and Gates are in Israel. They are not there to take in the sights or make a religious pilgrimage. This concentration of American decision-makers in Israel can only mean they are there to discuss the next steps in the confrontation with Iran.

Israel may be a little nervous because it seems to some of their leaders that Washington is over-playing its good-cop role, but don't be fooled -- each side knows exactly what the other is doing.

The media's cry of differences sells papers and programs, but it greatly exaggerates what are just tactical differences.

Israel, in Today's News 07.25.09

Israel. The Zionists are getting a little testy about the Obama administration's policy toward Israel.

First some sixteen Zionist leader met with Obama to express their concern (and make veiled threats). (See here.) Now in today's Wall Street Journal appears an opinion piece by the editor of the quarterly journal of the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

The article is meant as a further warning to Obama. "Mr. Netanyahu was sworn in as Israel's Prime Minister on March 31. Shortly thereafter, the Obama administration confronted Israel's new leader in a very public way regarding Israeli settlements in the West Bank...This was an extremely unusual way for an American president to greet the new leader of a liberal democracy that's a close ally of the U.S."

Obama is an old, old friend of the Zionists. But his maneuvering around the mideast issues (Palestine, Iran, militant Muslim-ism) is making the Israelis very nervous.

And if the past is any indication, you better know what you are doing if you are going to irritate the Zionists.

Hillary Clinton, in Today's News 07.23.09

Hillary Clinton. Clinton's foot-in-mouth tour of Asia continues. Today's display of total ineptitude involves her statement on Iran in which she managed to anger the Arab client-countries, Iran, Israel, and Asian nations, and embarrassed the Obama administration.

Wall Street Journal: "...Hillary Clinton caused waves in the Middle East during her visit to Southeast Asia, telling a Thai television program that Washington could extend a 'defense umbrella' to protect its Arab allies if Iran succeeds in developing nuclear weapons."

"...her comments...left the impression among some Middle East diplomats Wednesday that the U.S. envisions having to find ways to defend its Persian Gulf allies from a nuclear-armed Iran -- rather than preventing Tehran from ever getting that far."

Washington tried to spin her statement into something supporting what Obama has said, but the attempt was pretty lame, and not worth quoting.

Israel, of course, was none-too-happy. The minister of intelligence and atomic energy said that Clinton's remarks indicated the U.S. had "already come to terms with a nuclear Iran." He added, "I think that's a mistake." Those who can read Israeli diplomatic language will realize that Israel saying the U.S. has made a mistake is tantamount to accusing the U.S. of betrayal. Which, of course, is a serious, serious charge coming from Israel.

Clinton may well have been expressing where Obama wants to go on Iran policy, but her communication handicap has managed to put Obama in a very tight spot.

Clinton is so used to having a back-up squad to tailor and explain her remarks that she feels she can just shoot off her mouth anytime. But there is no such squad now; she's on her own; and Obama must be losing patience.

What will she do next? Stay tuned.

Obama & Jewish Leaders, in Today's News 07.14.09

Obama and Jewish Leaders. The media failed for the most part to report on a meeting at the White House on Monday between Obama and 16 Jewish leaders. No other group (based on nationality, religion, cause or whatever) has this kind of access to the presidency, and no other group has such immunity from the media.

Obama was groomed for many years by the Pritzkers of Chicago. He has a record of loyalty to the interests of the Israeli state. He was strongly supported for President by Zionist interests. His chief of staff is the son of an Israeli terrorist leader. He is the first President to have a seder in the White House. 

This meeting then was a meeting of old friends. But as to be expected from the ever-dissatisfied Zionists, many at the meeting did not appreciate Obama's speech in Egypt that called for a stop to Israeli settlements while negotiations with the Palestinians were attempted. Obama in the speech was merely trying to sucker the Palestinians into compromising their stand by pointing to how the Israelis had allegedly given up something. 

Such diplomatic maneuvering, however, was alarming to some of the Zionist leaders because it didn't coincide with the stance of the current Netanyahu regime. It is reported that some participants made a thinly veiled threat by saying that only when the United States and Israel are in lockstep is any progress made. It was left to the imagination what might happen if the two countries are not in lockstep.

In general, the leaders felt that Obama was being too critical of longtime ally Israel and too lenient toward Palestinians and their Arab neighbors.

Obama tried to explain that it is all a maneuver, but did not make much progress.

(One error Obama makes is to assume the Israel wants a settlement of the mideast situation. Israel has never wanted this. All their words and diplomacy are simply attempts to gain time and superior position for the eventual eradication of the Palestinians.)

Iran, in Today's News 07.08.09

Iran. President Obama over the weekend gave interviews in which he, in effect, rebuffed Vice President Biden's remarks on July 5 that indicated a change in US policy toward military action against Iran. 

Obama's statements seem to be pro forma, and nothing more. It is the old game of asserting something baldly, and then 'retracting' it via a more reasoned statement that still supports the original. Biden has an inability to state things without causing controversy, and so Obama had to 'clarify' the US position.

The United States still is not ready to militarily attack Iran, but it is proceeding with preparations behind the scenes and in cooperation with Israel. This is shown by a statement made by the top US military officer, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff yesterday.

Adm. Mullen, according to today's Wall Street Journal (page A9)"...told a Washington think tank that Iran was likely just one to three years away from successfully building a nuclear weapon, which means that U.S. and its allies are running out of time to persuade Iran to abandon it nuclear program."

Further WSJ: "In his remarks Tuesday, Adm. Mullen said that the U.S. is keeping all options on the table as it worked to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons, 'including certainly military options.'" [Emphasis added.]

WSJ: "Still, Adm. Mullen made clear that an Israeli strike was far more likely than an American one."

Clear enough? Be prepared at any time for any option from the current diplomatic busywork, to an Israeli military attack, to a US military attack.

And now for the double-standard and a full dose of hypocrisy. All this hullabaloo is over Iran and nuclear weapons.  And yet, (WSJ) "Earlier this week, an Israeli submarine believed to be carrying nuclear-tipped missiles returned to the Mediterranean after crossing the Red Sea and moving towards Iran. An Israeli official said in an interview that the maneuver was meant to show Iran that 'they are not beyond our reach.'" [Emphasis added.]

So, it is forbidden for Iran to try to produce nuclear weapons, but not only is it okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons, but is also okay for them to sail around the mideast threatening to actually use them.

This is the double-standard epitomized. And it is also more than alarming that Israel is so close to using nuclear weapons. (See Michael Collins Piper's book, "The Golem," published by American Free Press, for background on Israel's nuclear threat.)