Middle East Decision Time?

"Yesterday I had an exchange with someone, formerly associated with an American intelligence agency, who claims to be knowledgable about the Middle East. I offered the following view on the Middle East, to which he later responded: Quite naturally the [US] has important interests in the Arab world, especially in terms of a commitment to protect certain Arab princes in the Gulf region, and to protect 'democracy' in Iraq. At the same time we wish to prevent a second holocaust--a second mass extermination of Jews. Seen by many to be an ally and friend to the Arabs, the [US] is an ally and friend to Israel as well. This is a very uncomfortable position for America, because the conflict between Israel and the Arabs appears to be non-negotiable (especially with the insertion of Islamism into the conflict). We are thus confronted with a dilemma. Either Israel will survive and Islamic power will be broken for centuries to come, or Israel will be destroyed and Europe will come under the same pressure Israel now feels. ... For peace to come about in the Middle East, it is not enough that the Israelis show sympathy for the plight of the Arbas. This is what we would all like to see. But what of Arab sympathy for the plight of the Jews? But no one is sufficently 'insensitive' as to insist on this. ... If Israel is considered an outpost of the West, can the Arabs agree upon a border with Israel? Or must we accept the destruction of Israel? Here the bitter experiences of India, alongside those of Israel, suggest that peace with Islam is always and forever problematic. Do we imagine there is no lesson to be found in the Islamic invasions of the Roman Empire, Europe and India. We are told to be sympathetic to the Islamists, to the plight of the Arabs. What about sympathy for Christians and Jews? ... The ultimate target of the hateful rhetoric in the Middle East is America and not Israel. It is capitalism and the West", JR Nyquist at Financial Sense, 4 June 2010, link:

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2010/0604.html.

"What do the following have in common: the piling on Israel after the botched interception of the Hamas relief flotilla, the Chinese military telling the US secretary of defense that he was not welcome in Beijing, and the declaration by Nick Clegg--now deputy prime minister of Great Britain--that his country's special relationship with America is over? Answer: The Obama adminstration has managed to convince most countries around the world that we are worth little as friends and even less as enemies. ... Last week, Israel walked into a trap set by a flotilla of Hamas sypathizers and what Lenin used to call useful idiots. Israeli commandos who were being attacked by burly men trying to throw them overboard or beat them senseless killed a bunch of people whom they would rather not have killed. ... The Israelis have a right to blockade Gaza, from which they withdrew only to soak up several thousand rockets in return, and they did what they could to get the ships to send supplies into Gaza through their ports. Until Vice President Jow Biden plucked up the courage to acknowledge on 'Charlie Rose' that the Israelis are at war with Hamas and have the right to prevent arms from entering Gaza, the Israelis could have been foregiven for thinking that we would hang them out to dry. ... The folly here is to think that leaving the Israelis open to these kinds of diplomatic attacks will buy good will in a Middle East that gets its opinions from Al Jazeera and a venomous media that routinely prints outratgeous lies and hate literature that echoes Nazi Germany. That part of the world, as Osama bin Laden once correctly observed, prefers a strong horse to a weak horse. ... When did the Israelis withdraw from Gaza? When they had a president in the White House upon whom they knew they could count. If, as is the case now, Israel is alone and desperate, is it more or less likely to conclude it has no choice but to attack Iran's nuclear facilities... What precisely have we gained from reaching out to the Syrian government", Eliot Cohen at the WSJ, 7 June 2010, link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704875604575280462094012870.html.

Quoted without comment.

It may be decision time for the US: we side with Israel or the Arabs. We'll see.

Spengler on the Flotilla

"Israel mishandled the Gaza 'humanitarian aid' flotilla through extreme forebearance, and will suffer a marathon on tongue-clicking and hand-wringing by diplomatic hypocrites who know better. The Jewish state lost the propaganda battle the moment the floating time bomb disguised as a humanitarian mission sailed from Turkey. ... Jonathan Schanzer, a former US government official specializing in terrorist financing, provides the details and links to the relevant US government documents in a post at the Weekly Standard blog. ... Turkey's secular government of a decade ago banned the IHH from contributing to earthquake relief because of its terrorist ties, as Caroline Glick observes in the Jerusalem Post. The fact that the present Islamist government of Prime Minister Tayyip Erodgan has embraced IHH is consistent with Erdogan's public support for Iran. ... Israeli authorities offered to allow the flotilla to land at the Israeli port of Ashdod and ship its cargo of humanitarian aid to Gaza overland after appropriate security inspection; the flotilla refused. ... In short, the Gaza flotilla caper was the invention of an organization with deep ties to terrorist financing of Hamas to ameliorate a humanitarian problem that doesn't exist while refusing an Israeli offer to deliver its aid to Gaza. ... Evidently, Israel has trouble accepting the reality on the ground, just as other governments do. There is not going to be a peace negotiation, but rather a war, and that war will be terrible and bloody. ... The Gaza flotilla affair should teach Jerusalem that no matter how gingerly it approaches the threats on its borders, and how gently it responds, it ends up holding the bag for the region's problems. It might as well get down to the business of war", Spengler at Asia Times, 2 June 2010, link:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LF02Ak03.html.

As usual, I agree with Spengler. In part, the flotilla was designed to enable Turkey to unseat Iran as Hamas major '"protector".

Obama in Wonderland

"When I was a little girl, at the height of the Cold War, I used to wish, deeply, and fervently, that nuclear weapons had never been invented. An accompanying fantasy placed me at the center of world events. Just as the two superpowers were preparing to launch a devastating exchange of nuclear weapons, I would step between the two. Seeing an innocent child, the hard-boiled men of the world would soften and reconsider their terrible course. In other words, at the age of seven or eight, I was a liberal. As I grew, I came to understand a) that it was not possible to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle, and b) that the way to safety lay not in arms control but in strength prudently pursued. Liberal approaches to foreign policy continue to rely more on wishful thinking than on realism or maturity. But even in the context of liberalism, President Obama's recent policy declarations on the matter of nuclear weapons are juvenile and disturbing. ... Here's a thought experiment: Imagine that all of the existing nuclear powers agreed that their weapons were more of a threat to 'peace and security' than they were worth, and voluntarily destroyed them all. Would the world immediately become a safer place? No. It would become far more dangerous. ... So, one outcome might be that North Korea would instantly become a superpower. ... We have to insist, 'Yes, we can.' That's security policy by bumper sticker. ... So as Iran closes in on a nuclear weapon--a result the adminstration has repeqatedly declared to be 'unacceptable'--the administration is getting really serious by ... setting a good example. ... Underlying all of these naive gestures is the belief that it is the weapons that threaten the peace, not their owners. ... This is a fatuous distraction from the main issue--Iran. It is also a transparent attempt to gang up on Israel. ... But above all, it ignores the glaring fact that the treaty has been a total failure", Mona Charen (MC) at National Review, 11 May 2010, link:

http://article.nationalreview.com/433868/a-world-without-nuclear-weapons/mona-charen.

"Now boys and girls, remember, in case of nuclear attack do not face the windows. You don't want to have your faces hit with flying glass. Duck and cover!". I remember. I never shared MC's fantasy. Arms control? Anyone remember 1922's Washington naval conference? Boy, I must have been a skeptical kid. I made MC's "thought experiment" in 1958! Really!!!!! Concluding the experiment would fail. Now Obama aren't "arms for hugging"?

Spengler Exposes Petraeus

"Memo to heads of state: beware the clever general who turns up at a tough moment, and says 'Leave it to me. I can fix it for you.' ... General David Petraeus, who heads America's Central Command (CENTCOM), taught the land to live off him. Petraeus' putative success in the Iraq 'surge' of 2007-2008 is one of the wierdest cases of Karl Marx's quip of history repeating itself first as tragedy second as farce. The consequences will be similar, that is, hideous. ... And now America is engaged in a grand strategic withdrawal from responsibility in the region, leaving behind men with weapons and excellent reasons to use them. ... With American money, weapons and training, the remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime have turned into a fighting force far more effective than the defunct dictator's state police. ... America is pouring money--which is to say weapons--into disputed areas of Afghanistan, and building the core of a Palestinian army. The latter's mission is to impose a pro-Western Palestinian government on a population of whom two-thirds oppose the two-state solution. It more likely will end up fighting Israel. ... Iran is patient, playing for time, possibly to acquire nuclear weapons--which Washington has all but conceded--and until the Americans withdraw, which they must sooner or later. ... Having armed all sides of the conflict and kept them apart by the threat of arms, the [US] now expects to depart leaving in place governments of national reconciliation that will pursuade well-armed and well-organized militias to play by the rules. ... At some point the whole sorry structure will collapse, and no-one knows it better than Petraeus. ... Petraeus made his reputation on the surge, and needs someone to blame for its prospective failure. His choice is Israel. ... 'The upshot of this could not be clearer: Petraeus is echoing the narrative peddled incessantly by leftists in the government he serves and by Islamists in the countries where he works.' ... Because Petraeus sold the 'surge' to former president George W, Bush, allowing the Republicans to claim a certain degree of success for the largely unpopular Iraq War, his influence vastly exceeds that of a career officer. ... The Republicans are like investors involved in a Ponzi scheme; if any of them disavows it, everyone will, and the scheme will collapse. In order to justify their past support of nation-building in Iraq, they have difficulty disowning Petraeus--even when Petaeus puts the onus for the failure of American policy on Israel. ... Petraeus' formulation lends respectability to the fanciful idea that Iran would listen to reason if only Israel would stop building apartments in East Jerusalem. ... There is not a government in world that believes that 'effective sanctions against Iran' are anything more than a euphemism for catastrophic failure of American policy. ... If the [US] merely is going through the motions, why should the Russians or Chinese prejudice their commercial interests in order to assist the face-saving inanities of American diplomacy?", Spengler at Asia Times, 3 May 2010, link:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LE04Ak01.html.

I agree with Spengler. As usual.

Cockroaches Eat Israel

"Weaning itself off socialist-influenced policies that once brought 400% inflation and 60% income-tax brackets, Israel's economy is now growing despite the international financial slowdown. ... But one Israeli economist is warning that beneath Israel's back-patting lurks a hidden peril--fueled by demographic trends and political choices--that could eventually mean an end to the country. ... According to [Dan] Ben-David, nearly one in five Israeli men between 35 and 54--a group that he believes has 'no excuse' for not working--are not part of the labor force. That's about 60% higher than the average among nations in the [OECD], an international forum fostering market-based economies that Israel joined Monday. ... Nearly 27% of Arab men and 65% of ultra-Orthodox Jews don't work, government figures show, The non-employment rate for ultra-Orthodox men has tripled since 1970, Ben-David says. ... What worries Ben-David most is that the nonproductive part of Israel's population, which survives largely on welfare, is also growing the fastest. Today Arabs and the ultra-Orthodox together make up less than 30% of the population, but they account for nearly half of school-age children. ... 'Eventually it's going to break the bank,' the economist said. 'We're on trajectories that are not sustainable.' ... A radio talk-show host recently described ultra-Orthodox Jews as 'parasites.' Tel Aviv's mayor said the fast-growing ultra-Orthodox community was 'endangering' the economic strength of the 'silent majority'," Edmund Sanders at the Los Angeles Times, 10 May 2010, link: http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/topofthetimes/topstories/la-fg-israel-idle-20100511,0,6313284.story.

Did Sanders write this because "LA Times" management would not let him write of Hispanic immigration's economic effects on California? The ultra-orthodox Jews, haredim, are pejoratively called cockroaches in Israel. They do not work and produce families of 6-8 children, supported by the Israeli state. This trend, if unchecked may destroy Israel long before Iran can. It's ironic that Europe imported Moslems to increase its welfare recipients.

Low Yields?

"As bond yields soar across Western Europe, other countries once considered much riskier as issuing debt at among their lowest interest rates ever. Russia, returning to the market for the first time since defaulting on its debt in 1998, recently sold 10-year bonds with a yield of 5%. Investors charged Egypt 5.75% on its 10-year bonds. In contrast, Portugese bonds are yielding 6% and Ireland's are yielding 5.8%", Tom Lauricella at the WSJ, 6 May 2010, link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703322204575226721369616334.html.

Narrowing spreads between US Treasury interest rates and those of other governments may be saying something Timmy Boy Geithner might not want to hear. You should. Bonds are a sell! Even US Treasuries? Yes.

Even Bolton Wan't Say It

"Benjamin Netenyahu's first term as Israeli prime minister collapsed in 1999 in part because he had an unhappy relationship with President Bill Clinton. It is understandable then that Mr. Netenyahu's current government had, until last week, strived to stay close to President Barack Obama. ... But Mr. Obama is different. He is our first post-American president. He looks beyond American exceptionalism and believes our role on the world stage should be merely one nation among many. Mr. Netenyahu's strategy is therefore out-of-date and flawed. Israel has sought to accommodate Mr. Obama on two critical issues: negotiations with Palestinians and Iranian nuclear weapons. ... But now the suppressed conflicts and fully visible and will either be resolved or cause a serious collision between Israel and the US. ... Mr. Obama almost certainly believes that the real obstacle to peace is not new housing or unfortunate timing but so-called Israeli intransigence. ... As time passes, Israel's military option grows more difficult and the chances for succes shrink as Iran seeks new air-defense systems and further buries and hardens nuclear facilities. Mr. Netenyahu's mistake has been to assume that Mr. Obama basically agrees that we must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But the White House likely believes that a nuclear Iran, though undesirable, can be contained and will therfore not support using military force to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. ... We are moving inexorably toward, and perhaps have now reached, and Israeli crisis with Mr. Obama. American's must realize that allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons is empowering an existential threat to the Israeli state, to Arab governments in the region that are friendly to the US, and to long-term global peace and security", my emphasis, John Bolton at the WSJ, 17 March 2010, link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703734504575125433891508788.html.

Obama, who Michael Beschless said has an "IQ off the charts", pushes his policy in the hope Iran destroys Israel. Once Israel ceases to exist all Middle Eastern problems will be solved. I believe Obama believes this. I can't believe double-Ivy League Obama is so stupid he doesn't see where his policies are leading.

Obama's Brain?

"Why has President Barack Obama decided to foment a crisis in US relations with Israel? ... It is not credible to argue that Jerusalem's local planning board's decision to approve the construction of 1,600 housing units in Ramat Shlomo drove cool Obama into a fit of wild rage at Prime Minister Binyamin Netenyahu. Obama himself claims that he launched a political war against Israel in the interest of promoting peace. But this claim, too, does not stand up to scrutiny. ... First, Obama's assault on Israel is likely related to the failure of his Iran policy. ... By this line of thinking, if Israel simply returned to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, Iran's centrifuges would stop spinning, and Syria al-Qaida, the Taliban, Hizbullah, Hamas and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards would all beat their swords into plowshares. Second, even more important that its usefulness as a tool to divert the public's attention away from his failure of Iran policy, Obama's assault on Israel may well be aimed at mantaining that failed policy. ... That is, the anti-Israel campaign may be a means to force Israel to stand by as Obama allows Iran to build a nuclear arsenal", Caroline Glick at Frontpage Mgazine, 22 March 2010, link: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/03/22/obamas-war-on-Israel/

Obama's letting Iran build nukes jeopardizes US interests in the Middle East. Does he not know this? Bad? Or does he know it? Worse. What Iran policy?

Israel and Iran

"The fact that Ha'aretz, Israel's left-leaning daily, found it necessary on February 17 to warn the Benjamin Netenyahu government not to attack Iran strongly suggests that the option is on the table. ... Hillary ... Clinton was quoted as saying that the 'evidence doesn't support' Iran's claim it is pursuing a peaceful nuclear program. ... Israel ... can act like an American client state, or a regional superpower. Either decision would have substantial costs. ... That is the concern of the editors of Ha'aretz: 'The chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, warned in Tel Aviv on Sunday of the unepected consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran, just as he did during the days of the [George W] Bush administration. ... No matter how much 'intelligence help' and diplomatic support' Israel might get from the [US], Israel's capacity to deliver conventional munitions at a distance of 1,250 miles (2012 kilometers) could not eradicate the Iranian nuclear program, which is located in hardened underground facilities. ... Iran's perceived attempt to acquire nuclear weapons, though, is not Israel's problem as such; the problem is that Israel is the ally of a superpower that does not want to be a superpower, headed by a president with a profound emotional attachment to a nostalgic image of the Third World. If America were in fact acting like a superpower, the problem would not have arisen in the first place, for the [US] would use its considerably greater resources to destroy Iran's nuclear program. Rather than focus on the second-order effect--the consequences of Iran's possible acquisition of nuclear weapons--Israeli analysts should consider the primary issue, namely the strategic zimzum of the [US]. The correct questions are: 1) can Israel act as a regional superpower independently of the [US], and 2) what would Israel do to establish its regional superpower status? ... To act as a regional superpower, Israel would have to take actions that shift the configuration of forces in its favor. ... First, the Sunni Arab states have a stronger interest than Israel's to stop Iran from possibly going nuclear. ... The Saudis have done everything but take out a full-page ad in the Washington Post to encourage the Obama adminstration to attack Iran. Prince Saud al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, warned on February 15 that sanctions were a long-term measure while the world faces a short-term threat from Iran. Egypt reportedly has allowed Israeli missile ships to pass through the Suez Canal en route to the Persian Gulf. Secondly, Russia might well prefer to deal with Israel as an independent regional power than as an ally of the [US]. ... Russian-Israeli cooperation in a number of military fields has improved markedly during the past year, including the first-ever sale of Israeli weapons to Russia (drones) and Israeli help for the Russian-Indian 'fifth generation' fighter project", my emphasis, Spengler at the Asia Times, 17 February 2010, link: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LB18Ak01.html.

I think Spengler has this knocked. Israel fought the Arabs in 1948 using Czech weapons. Huh? Did Stalin supply those? Yes.

Wilson's Continuing Failure

"'America is losing the Free World,' was the arresting headline over the Financial Times column by Gideon Rachman. His Thesis: 'The largest democracies of South America, the Middle East and Asia--South Africa, Turkey, India--are all moving out of America's orbit. (T)he assumption that the democracies would stick together is proving unfounded.' ... The ruling parties in all four were democratically elected. Yet, in all four, democratic solidarity is being trumped by an older solidarity--of Third World people of color against a 'white, rich Western world.' ... What makes this frightening,' says [Geoffrey] Wheatcroft, 'is that many American politicians and commentators ... have yet to grasp this reality. Such ignorance is evident in the bizarre notion--current even before George W. Bush took the oath of office--that America not only can and should spread democracy, but that this would be in the American national interest. Why did anyone think this?' ... What, then, is the rationale for the National Endowment for Democracy to continue tax dollars to promote such elections? ... When colonialism ended in East Africa, Indians were massacred. The Chinese suffered a horrible pogrom in Indonesia in 1965, when the dictator Sukarno fell--and another when Sukarto fell. Picked clean, two-thirds of the 250,000 whites in Rhodesia when Robert Mugabe took powwer are gone. ... If racial and religious bonds and ancient animosities against the West trump any democratic solidarity with the West, of what benefit to America is democracy in the Third World? ... Is democratism our salvation--or an ideology of Western suicide?", Pat Buchanan at Vdare, 7 January 2010, link:

http://vdare.com/buchanan/100107_democratization.htm.

Hitler was elected too. So? Consider this article's implications for American and European immigration policies.

Saudi Arabia-World Hypocrite

"In one of the supreme acts of chutzpah of our new decade, Saudi Arabia [SA] has just accused Israel of behaving like a 'spoilt child,' getting away with 'war crimes' ... and 'violations of international law'. ... 'When they violate international law, other countries get punished, but not Israel ... Israel has become like the spoilt child of the international communtiy,' declared Saudi Foreign Minsiter Price Saud al-faisal at a meeting with Palestinian Acuthority President Mahmoud Abbas on Janaury 2. 'It ... gets away with anything it does without accountability or punishement,' he added. Orwellian Newspeak can only take hold if the population stops protesting when the language is misused. The Saudi minister's declaration easily qualifies as Newspeak, and I'm calling him on it. ... Every day, I bear witness to the extraordinary free speech in Israel. My students are Jewish, Druze, and Muslim. ... On the other hand, if there is a spoilt child in the international community, Saudi Arabia ... easily qualifies for the epithet ... [SA] is a primitive embarassment to the world", Michael Krauss at American Thinker, 5 January 2010, link:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/saudi_arabia_spoilt_child_of_t.html.

15 of the 19 9/11 highjackers were Saudis. Why didn't we invade SA instead of Iraq and Afghanistan? What's going on here? Did you know a non-Moslem cannot go to SA to view the Hajj? Did you know only Moslems can be citizens of SA? That SA ended slavery in 1961? That SA executes Islamic apostates? Why not? SA's oil is more valuable to the world than Joo blood. That's the bottom line. Anthing else you've been fed is nonsense.

Blackwater's Black Hats?

"So much of federal prosecutions depend on the Court being able to rely on the credibility of federal prosecutors. There's no reason for courts to do that any longer and we all will suffer because of the unethical behavior of a series of [DOJ] lawyers who simply refuse to follow their professional responsibility", Clarice Feldman at American Thinker, 1 January 2010, link:

http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/1/508687.html.

"The sudden blow to the case against the former Blackwater security guards over a shooting that killed 17 Iraqis and wounded at least 20 may have come as a surprise to the public in Iraq and the [US], but the legal problem that the judge cited Thursday when he threw out the indictments was obvious to American government lawyers within days of the shooting. The issue was that the guards, as government contractors, were obligated to give an immediate report of what they had done, but the Constitution prevents the government from requiring a defendant to testify against himself, so those statements could not be used in a prosecution. ... The prosecutors were also concerned, even when using qwhat they called a 'taint team' to try to prevent information in the guards' compulsory statements from influencing the investigation, according to the 90-page ruling by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina of the Federal District Court in Washington. The judge said the prosecutors had failed to take 'coomon sense precautions' to avoid the problem. The ruling led to disappointment in the [US] as in Iraq. ... Judge Urbina's decision would make it difficult for prosecutors to reinstate the original charges. Information that the guards were required to give immediately after the shootings was deeply woven into the governments effort to secure the indictments, he wrote. ... Investigators did not find physical evidence of an attack by Iraqis, the judge's decision said. ... But in their presentations to the second grand jury, the prosecutors also edited out evidence that suggested that the guards were firing in self-defense, the judge said, and those omissions were improper", my emphasis, Matthew Wald at the NYT, 2 January 2010: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/02/us/02legal.html.

"Iraqis seeking justice for 17 people shot dead at a Baghdad intersection responded with bitterness and outrage Friday at a US judge's decision to throw out a case against a Blackwater security team accused in the killings. The Iraqi government vowed to pursue the case, which became a source of contention between the US and the Iraqi government", my emphasis, Rebecca Santana at the Houston Chronicle, 2 January 2010.

"The dismissal of charges against five Blackwater Worldwide security guards accused by the [DOJ] of recklessly shooting in a Baghdad traffic circle in 2007 potentially strains US-Iraqi relations at a critical moment and raises new questions for the Obama administration about effective legal ovesight of battlefield contractors. ... 'Investigations conducted by specialized Iraqi authorities confirmed unequivocally that the Blackwater guards committed the crime of murder and broke the rules by using arms without the existence of any threat obliging them to use force, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement, the AP reported", my emphasis, August Cole at the WSJ, 2 January 2010, link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126229226969112429.html.

The DOJ's Blackwater Five (BF) case stank from the start. It had problems with: evidence, chain of custody, crime scene control and witness statements. Lastly, any statement by a Moslem with respect to non-Moslem matters must be viewed through the lens of takiwa and Sharia's blood money concept. My conclusion: the DOJ brought this case for political purposes to ingratiate the Bush administration with Iraq. What would the DOJ have done if the case was tried and the BF were acquitted? Call the jurors stupid?

Did the DOJ immediately dispatch CSI NY's incorruptible Gary Sinese to Iraq to "control the crime scene" and collect evidence? There was no "physical evidence of an attack by Iraqis". So? The Iraqi investigators destroyed it. In my opinion. A decent defense attorney would have made mincemeat of the DOJ's case if it went to trial. This was a political prosecution. That's my bottom line. The State Department saw the BF as "expendibles". My surprise was that Urbina had the cojones to throw the indictment out. I wouldn't have, but forced the case to trial and ruled against the DOJ on evidence issue after evidence issue. Then empanel the jury and let the DOJ's case collapse. In public. Urbina did the DOJ a favor by dismissing the indictment. It kept the DOJ's dirty laundry from the public. In some schools of Islamic jurisprudence a kaffir may not even testify against a Moslem! Why should we credit anything an Iraqi says? "This declaration defines human rights according to Islamic law, which prohibits critcism of Islam. Indeed, Iraq's US-enabled 2004 constitution enshrines Islamic law above all. Little wonder Iraq consistently votes at the United Nations with the OIS and against the [US] on this key ideological divide between Islam and the West, most recently in November. ... Guess we're supposed to look the other way. But that's like applauding the Status of Force Agreement (SOFA) between the [US] and Iraq without noticing that the agreement prohibits the [US from attacking Iran (or any other country) from Iraq", Diana West at Townhall, 29 December 2009, link:

http://townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2009/12/29/the_surge_and_success,_part_ii. Until you understand Sharia, you can't understand what really happened here. Iran won our war with Iraq. Brilliant.

Big deal. Outrage. What is outrageous is that this case was ever brought.

Who were these "specialized" authorities? Iraq's answer to Saudi Arabia's mutwain, operating under Sharia's rules of evidence? Our Iraq "excursion" has been a total failure. That we would concern ourselves with relations with Iraq shows we wasted $700 billion and 5,000 lives. It is inconceivable to Iraqis that dhimmi could ever be justified to shoot Moslems. Get over it.

Pax Obamicana

"History speaks of a Pax Romana, a Pax Britannica, and a Pax Americana--but no other namable eras of sustained peace, for the simple reason cited by Henry Kissinger: nothing maintains peace except hegemony and the balance of power. The balancing act always fails, though, as it did in Europe in 1914, and as it will in Central and South Asia precisely a century later. ... Those who wanted an end to US hegemony will get what they wished for. But they won't like it. ... The failure of the region's most populous state--in that case the Ottoman Empire, in this case Pakistan--makes shambles of the power balance, leaving initiative in the hands of irredentist radicals who threaten to tug their sponsors among the great powers along behind them. ... The US-sponsored frontier war amounts to Punjabis--traditonally the core of the country's military--killing Pashtuns. The default view of area defense analysts has been that army operations against the Taliban may turn into a Punjabi-Pashtun ethnic conflict. ... Pakistan is being ground between two millstones: the Afghan war and the global economic crisis. Half the country is illiterate, and half of Pakistanis live on less than US$1 a day. ... The credibility of secular government--with its promise of economic improvement--is threadbare. The alternative is an Islamist regime committed to confronting India over Kashmir and suppressing the Shi'ite minority that comprises 30% of Pakistan's population. ... Russia faces a slow demographic death, but it remains a great power in terms of military techonology: its surface-to-air-missile systems are as good as anything American [sic] can field, and its newest system, the as yet undeployed S-500, may be better. ... But Obama's budget cuts have hit military aviation hard, leaving its closest allies--including Israel and Australia--without a clear alternative to the aging F-16 force. Russia and India, meanwhile are developing a 'fifth generation' fighter, with some inputs from, France and Israel. There is widespread speculation that Russia's decision to cancel deliveries of its S-300 anti-missile system to Iran carried a price tag for the Israelis: order the latest Russian systems for their own use, and make available the entire package of Israeli avionics. ... In short, Washington appears to have driven its two closest allies in Asia--Isreal and India--into a technology alliance with Russia that may have enormous long-term consequences. ... China cannot sit by and allow India to encircle and eventually crush Pakistan--not because China has fundamental strategic interests in Pakistan, but because it cannot tolerate such a blemish to its credibility. The problem does not lie in Pakistan, but in the mutual capacity of India and China to destabilize each other. ... The implications of such an exercise in great-power politics [by the US] are in some respects ugly. ... The most dangerous undertaking of the Obama administration is not the petty failures of policy, such as the hapless effort to appease the Palestinians over West Bank settlements, or Pakistan over Kashmir. If America's technological leadership in fighter aircraft, surface-to-air missiles, and related technologies continues to erode, the [US]--like Britain in 1914--no longer will have the power and credibility to enforce an agreement among prospectively hostile players. America's self-sabotage in this regard is a unique act of abnegation in the history of world strategy", my emphasis, Spengler at Asia Times, 23 December 2009, link:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/KL24Ag01.html.

Yes Spengler. Now tell that double-Ivy League nitwit in the White House. Well Generals McCrystal and Petreus, what say you?

Stuck With Sukuks

"The debt crisis in Dubai is about to test one of the fastest-growing areas in banking, Islamic finance, and put the city-state's opaque judicial system on trial, according to bankers and experts in finance. Many loans and bonds that comply with Shariah, or Islamic law, were issued in recent years by Dubai World [DW], the investment arm of Dubai, and other Persian Gulf companies as oil-rich Middle East nations increased spending, and the global credit crisis fed-debt investments in emerging markets. ... This is likely to create many legal issues for investors in [DW], which sent jitters through global markets, by seeking to delay payments on $59 billion in debt. ... Shariah-compliant investments prohibit lenders from earning interest, and effectively place lenders and borrowers into a form of partnership. Yet there are no consistent rules about who gets repaid first if a company defaults on such debt, said Zaher Barakat, a professor of Islamic finance at Cass Business School in London. ... 'No one has tested the legal system or the documentation,' a lawyer briefed on the situation said. ... In October, the British Treasury drew up rules that would soon allow Britain to issue Shariah-compliant government debt. The same month, the World Bank issued $100 million in Shariah-compliant bonds", Heather Timmons at the NYT, 1 December 2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/business/global/01islamic.html.

DW sukuks were a disaster waiting to happen, see my 3 July 2009 post: http://skepticaltexascpa.blogspot.com/2009/07/eichmann-moment.html. I can't imagine how a government could issue Sukuks unless they are paid from some specific tax.

Israel, Iran, Russia and Obama

"Iran has blamed the [US] for Sunday's suicide bombing in Sistan-Balochistan province in which six Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps commanders were killed, as well as 37 other people. In an indirect way, the charge is true. ... The most dramatic response to Washington's abdication of power may be Israel's. ... A complex negotiation involving Russia and Israel is underway. ... The question is: what does Russia want from Israel in return for refraining from arming Iran? ... For the first time since World War II, America's rule of the skies may be challenged by its failure to invest adequately in the next generation of American aircraft. Russia and India have already agreed on joint development of a fifth generation fighter based on existing Russian airframes. ... If Israel joined the consortorium, the product might challenge the F-35 in the world market for military aviation. ... Were Israel to strike Iran during the next few weeks, it might do so not as a proxy for the US, but as part of a broader agreement with Russia. America may have missed the point of Russian policy. The entire issue of sanctions on Iran may seem like diplomatic idiocy to the Russians; the question, in Moscow's judgment, may come down to a digital decision: either attack Iran, or don't. ... The [US] may cast away its technological edge in air power without a second thought, but Russia understands that superpower status today depends more on military technology than any other factor. ... If Israel were to set back Iran's nuclear weapons development, the position of the Tehran regime would deteriorate, particularly at the expense of Pakistan. ... The world's attention will shift from the shadow-play of interests between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, to the Pakistan-India theater. Pakistan is the natural center of militant Islam. ... What is most astonishing is that official Washington seems entrely oblivious to the crack-up of American influence occuring in front of its eyes. ... The reason for Obama's peculiar mode of governance, though, may have less to do with his apparent narcissim than with his objectives. It is a credible hypothesis that this president holds views that he cannot easily share, even with his own staff. ... There is some basis for the conjecture that his innermost sentiment is hard-core, left-wing Third World antipathy to the [US]", my emphasis, Spengler at Asia Times, 19 October 2009, link:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KJ20Ak03.html.

As ususal, I agree with Spengler. Obama is the first US president whose administration I've lived through who I suspect of treason. I can't believe double-Ivy League Obama is as ignorant as he appears. He is disarming the US and pushing Israel into Russia's lap. Brilliant.

I Remember

"On Monday, June 5, 1967, we woke up and turned on the TV, and before our ears had disgested even the first word we knew there was war. We didn't see Barbara Walters on the 'Today' show; instead there was a stagehand pinning a map of the Middle East onto an easel and an insecure commentator saying, 'That's all we have from the war zone at this time. When further word is forthcoming we'll relay it to you without delay.' The Arab communiques were bone-marrow-curdling. 'Two Egyptian tank columns are knifing through the Negev [southern Israel], blared Radio Cairo; 'Haifa is in flames.' The scary part, for those who side with Israel, was that Israel said nothing. Nothing! ... Israeli Gen. Chaim Herzog came to America and appeared on my radio show. 'General Herzog,' I began, 'You knew before we in America even woke up Monday morning that you'd destroyed five Arab air forces on the ground, you'd pierced Egyptian defenses in Gaza, you'd taken Khan Yunis, there was nothing between there and the Suez Canal to stop you; you knew you were going to storm East Jerusalem the next day, you knew you were saving Syria for Thursday. Why did you give friends of Israel heart failure by--for the first time in history--concealing victory?' 'You see,' explained Herzog, 'we knew that as long as the the world believed Israel was losing, the United Nations would do nothing.' So, as long as the world though Israel had come to an end, the [UN] would remain glassy-faced and silent. Only when they learned that Israel was the winner would the international wailing for cease-fire and withdrawal and the rest begin", original italics, my emphasis, Barry Farber (BF), 3 November 2009, link: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=114879.

I remember this show. I consider BF one of the great all time talk radio show hosts. See my 14 January 2009 post: http://skepticaltexascpa.blogspot.com/2009/01/bleat-goes-on.html. The 1967 war made me pro-Israel and convinced me Israel's Arab neighbors are genocidal maniacs. Sooner or later the West will crush them or be crushed by them. The Arabs bragged about "driving the Jews into the sea" and drowning them all. Anyone who wonders about the relative "rightness and wrongness'" of the various parties claims in the area should think about that. Question: What really happened with the "Liberty Fiasco"? I also mentioned BF on 7 December 2008: http://skepticaltexascpa.blogspot.com/2008/12/bloodless-coup-continues-6.html.

Was Franz Pick Right After All?

"It is only fitting on a day where the price of gold hit a new, nominal high that I should discuss the last days of the US dollar as a 'reserve currency.' ... Instead, it is the pseudo-money, the paper 'fiat currencies' which are currently all plunging steadily downward in value--with no currency able to keep up with the collapse of the US dollar. ... For decades, the Gulf oil producers have had their currencies 'pegged' pegged to the US dollar (a fixed exchange rate versus the dollar) as part of their massive oil-export business to the US. ... However, as the US economy degenerated into a Ponzi-scheme economy (where total collapse is now only avoided through creating ever-larger-asset-bubbles), the currency-peg of the Gulf regimes has become poisonous to their own economies--essentially forcing them to 'import' US inflation (which the US government claims doesn't exist). ... Indeed, it is likely that crushing the crude oil market was in part vindictiveness by Wall Street--punishing the Gulf states for turning their backs on the US. ... If this wasn't sufficient, by itself, to provide the impetus for the secret deal (or "non-deal") between Gulf oil-producers and their new, best customers, the US government has provided the final impetus itself--with its permanent near-zero interest rates. ... As a result of this policy-of-failure, the US dollar is becoming the new 'carry-trade' currency. ... The consequence of the carry-trade is that the currency which provides 'free money' is now dumped into global markets in unprecedented quantities. ... Thus, the US's incompetent, two-party dictatorship is essentially forcing former economic 'partners' like the Gulf states to drop their reliance on the dollar as a matter of economic survival--due to their essentially permanent, near-zero interest-rate policy. ... Instead, the more likely options are that the US either suffers a debt-implosion (like the former Soviet Union), or ignites hyperinflation--through reckless money-printing required to avoid a debt-implosion. ... In all these scenarios it is nothing short of economic suicide to have holdings in US dollars, or to simply hold dollars as a currency 'reserve'. ... The new, nominal high today for gold is not an ending, it is a beginning--while for the US dollar, the 'obituary' is already written", original italics, my emphasis, Jeff Nielson (JN) at Gold Eagle, 6 October 2009, link, http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_08/nielson100609pv.html.

JN, you're 26 years late. Franz Pick, 1898-1985, wrote The US Dollar: An Advanced Obituary in 1983. If curious, you might find a used copy of this out-of-print gem. See also my 8 January 2009 post: http://skepticaltexascpa.blogspot.com/2009/01/galbraiths-dialectic.html. Import inflation? Jacques Reuff screamed about in the 1960s. That's it, cheat: Arabs, Chinese, Russians and Japanese to float Wall Street. This is wonderful foreign policy. It's also war-mongering.

China Sells Dollars-5

"China's sovereign-wealth fund is fast becoming a major backer of natural-resource companies world-wide, as the $300 billion fund seeks to buy into a global rebound. ... CIC's willingness to dole out cash contrasts with other sovereign-wealth funds, for example those in the Middle East [ME] and Singapore, which remain cautious after having seen their portfolios hurt in the financial crisis. ... CIC's resource plays dovetail with China's long-term strategic interest in securing access to natural resources. Chinese officials have pushed state-owned firms to buy overseas mining and oil assets this year as commodity prices dropped. ... This spate of activity signals renewed confidence at CIC, which endured criticism over poor timing on its high-profile purchase of stakes in Blackstone Group LP and Morgan Stanley in 2007", Rick Carew and Tom Wright at the WSJ, 24 September 2009, link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125373234125034921.html.

Disagreeing with Carew & Wright, CIC's actions do not contrast with those of ME sovereign wealth funds. CIC just sees dollars as riskier than commodity-based investments and the ME sovereign wealth funds disagree as to where the risks lie.

Israel, Iran and Obama

"The International Atomic Energy Agency has produced another alarming report on Iran's nuclear programs, though it hasn't released it publicly, only to governments that would also rather not disclose more details of Iran's progress toward becoming a nuclear theocracy. ... The mullahs understand that the only real challenge to their nuclear ambitions is likely to come from Israel. They've long concluded that the UN is no threat, as IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei has in practice become an apologist for Iran's program. They can also see that the West lacks the will to do anything, as the Obama adminstration continues to plead for Tehran to negotiate even as Iran holds show trials of opposition leaders and journalists for saying the recent re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was fraudulent. The irony is that the weaker the West and UN appear, the more probable an Israeli attack becomes. ... Israelis can see the relentless progress Iran is making toward enriching uranium, building a plutonium-breeding facility and improving on its ballistic missiles--all the while violating UN sanctions without consequence. ... Israel also looks wearily on the Obama Administration's policy of diplomatic pleading with Iran, which comes after six years of failed diplomatic overtures by the European Union and Bush Administration", Editorial at the WSJ, 31 August 2009, link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574348533106427974.html.

"Events are fast pushing Israel toward a pre-emptive military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, probably by next spring. That strike could well fail. ... So why is the Obama administration doing everything it can to speed the war process along? ... All this only helps persuade Israel's skittish leadership that when President Obama calls a nuclear-armed Iran 'unacceptable,' he means it approximately in the same way a parent does when fecklessly repremanding his misbehaving teenager. ... It is certainly in America's supreme interest that Iran not acquire a genuine nuclear capability, whether of the actual or break-out variety", my emphasis, Bret Stephens at the WSJ, 15 September 2009, link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574410672271269390.html.

Like the UN, Obama's policy with respect to Iran is a joke. Either we destroy Iran's nuclear facilities or Iran will have atomic weapons. It's that simple. Instead of destroying them, we dance in Iraq and Afghanistan. Go figure.

If Stephens is right, we should have destroyed Iran's nuclear facilities years ago. Using our planes in Saudi Arabia and having Saudi and Israeli pilots join in the action.

The Palestinian Solution

"'The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable,' declared [US] President Barack Obama in his June 4 Cairo address. Really? Compared to what? Things are tough all over. The Palestinians are one of many groups displaced by population exchanges that followed World War II, and the only ones whose great-grandchildren still have the legal status of refugees. Why are they still there? ... The standard tables of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita show the West Bank and Gaza ar US $1,700, just below Egypt's $1,900 and significantly below Syria's $2,250 and Jordan's $3,000. ... Why should any Palestinian refugee resettle in a neighboring Arab country? ... Other data confirm that Palestinians enjoy a higher living standard than their Arab neighbors. A fail-safe gauge is life expectancy. ... Without disputing Obama's claim that life for the Palestinians is intolerable, it is fair to ask: where is life not intolerable in the Arab world? ... Why should Western taxpayers subsidize an Arab in Ramallah, when Arabs in Egypt are needier? ... Once the problem is diagnosed with this kind of clarity, the solution becomes obvious: Cut Western support to the Palestinians with the aim of reducing living standards in the West Bank to those prevailing in Egypt, as an incentive for emigration. Demilitarize Palestinian society", Spengler at Asia Times, 17 August 2009, link: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KH18Ak01.html.

Thank you Spengler. I suggested this decades ago.