Honest Obama and Iran

It's only fair to share...Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Email this to someone

In his first week and a half in office, US President Barack Obama has proven that he is a man of his word. For instance, he was not bluffing when he said during his campaign that he would make reconstituting America's relations with the Islamic world one of his first priorities in office.

Obama's first phone call to a foreign leader was to PLO chieftain Mahmoud Abbas last Wednesday morning. And this past Tuesday, Obama gave his first television interview as president to the Al-Arabiya pan-Arabic television network.

In that interview Obama explained the rationale of his approach to the Muslim world.

"We are looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest," the new president said.

Obama distanced his administration from its predecessor by asserting that rather than dictate how Muslims should behave, his administration plans "to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years. And I think if we do that, then there's a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs."

In short, Obama argues that the root of the Islamic world's opposition to the US is its shattered confidence in America's intentions. By following a policy of contrition for Bush's "cowboy diplomacy," and acting with deference in its dealing with the Muslim world, in his view, a new era of US-Islamic relations will ensue.

Obama's honesty was a hot subject during the presidential campaign. Many analysts claimed that he was a closet moderate who only made far-left pronouncements about "spreading the wealth around," and about meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "without preconditions," to mollify his far-left partisan base.

Others argued that Obama was a man of his word. From his voting records in the Illinois Senate and the US Senate, and in light of his long associations with domestic and foreign policy radicals, these commentators predicted that if elected, Obama's policies would be far to the left of center.

Judging by his actions since entering office last week, it appears that the latter group of analysts was correct. Obama is not a panderer.

Between his $819 billion economic "stimulus" package, which involves a massive intrusion by federal government on the free market; his decision to close the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay; his dispatch of former senator George Mitchell to the Middle East to begin pushing for a Palestinian state two weeks before Israel's general elections; his announcement that he will begin withdrawing American forces from Iraq; his repeated signaling that the US will no longer treat the fight against Islamic terrorism as a war; and his attempts to engineer a diplomatic rapprochement with Iran, Obama has shown that his policy pronouncements on the campaign trail were serious. The policies he outlined are the policies with which he intends to govern.

ON A strategic level, the most significant campaign promise that Obama is wasting no time in keeping is his attempt to diplomatically engage with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Teheran is the central sponsor of the global jihad. Hizbullah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are all Iranian proxies. And, as is becoming increasingly undeniable, al-Qaida too enjoys a close relationship with the mullahs.

The 9/11 Commission's final report noted that several of the September 11 hijackers transited Iran en route to the US. And in recent weeks we learned that after spending the past six years in Iran, where he played a major role in directing the insurgency in Iraq, Osama bin Laden's eldest son Sa'ad has moved to Pakistan.

Beyond its sponsorship of terrorism, due to its nuclear weapons program Iran is the largest emerging threat to global security. Together with its genocidal rhetoric against Israel, its calls for the destruction of the US, and its incitement for the overthrow of the governments of Egypt and Jordan, among others, Iran is the single largest source of instability in the region. Moreover, as US Defense Secretary Robert Gates made clear in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, Iran is working actively in South and Central America to destabilize the western hemisphere.

Obama caused an uproar when during a Democratic primary debate last spring he said that he would meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. In subsequent months, he sought to soften his declaration. It is now apparent that his statement was not a slip of the tongue. It was a pledge.

The Iranians, for their part, have reacted to the new president with a mixture of relief and contempt. On November 6, two days after the US election, Ahmadinejad sent a congratulatory letter to Obama. Ahmadinejad's letter was considered a triumph for Obama's conciliatory posture by the American and European media. But actually, it was no such thing. Ahmadinejad's letter was nothing more than a set of demands, much like those he had set out in a letter to then-president George W. Bush in 2006.

In his missive to Obama, Ahmadinejad laid out Iranian preconditions for a diplomatic engagement with America. Among other things, Ahmadinejad demanded that the US send all its military forces back to America. As he put it, the US should "keep its interventions within its own country's borders."

Ahmadinejad further hinted that the US should end its support for Israel and withdraw its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. In his words, "In the sensitive Middle East region… the expectation is that the unjust [US] actions of the past 60 years [since Israel was established] will give way to a policy encouraging the full rights of all nations, especially the oppressed nations of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan."

The Western media made much of the fact that some conservative press organs in Iran condemned Ahmadinejad for sending the letter. They claimed that this meant that Ahmadinejad himself was tempering his animosity toward the US in the wake of Obama's election. But in fact, most of the conservative media in Iran viewed the letter as an attack on Obama, whom they attacked with racial slurs.

The Sobh-e Sadegh weekly, published by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and controlled by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, wrote in an editorial on November 10 that negotiations with Obama would only be worthwhile if "coexistence with a nuclear Iran and acceptance of its regional role are part of the US negotiating position."

On November 11, the Borna News Agency, which is aligned with Ahmadinejad, called Obama "a house slave."

In general, Iran's government-controlled media outlets reported that Ahmadinejad's letter was an ultimatum and that if Obama did not submit to his demands, the US would be destroyed.

This week Ahmadinejad made Teheran's preconditions for negotiations even more explicit. In statements at a political rally on Tuesday, and in a television interview given by his adviser on Wednesday, Ahmadinejad said that Iran has two conditions for engaging Washington. First, the US must abandon its alliance with Israel. In his words, to have relations with Iran, the US must first "stop supporting the Zionists, outlaws and criminals."

The second condition was communicated Wednesday by Ahmadinejad's adviser Ali Akbar Javanfekr. Echoing Sobh-e Sadegh's editorial, Javanfekr said Iran refuses to stop its nuclear activities.

Notably, also on Wednesday, the US-based International Institute for Strategic Studies released a report concluding that Iran will have a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium to make an atomic bomb in a matter of months.

To summarize, Iran's conditions for meeting with the Obama administration are that the U
S abandon Israel (which as Ahmadinejad reiterated at his annual Holocaust denial conference on Tuesday, must be annihilated), and that Obama take no action whatsoever against Iran's nuclear program.

FOR ITS part, the Obama administration is signaling that Iran's conditions haven't swayed it from its path toward a diplomatic engagement of the mullahs. In her first statement as US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice said Tuesday, "We look forward to engaging in vigorous diplomacy that includes direct diplomacy with Iran."

And in his Al-Arabiya interview, Obama implied that the US may be willing to overlook Teheran's support for terrorism when he referred to Iran's "past" support for terrorist organizations. Obama placed a past tense modifier on Iranian sponsorship of terrorism even through just last week a US Navy ship intercepted an Iranian vessel smuggling arms to Hamas in Gaza in the Red Sea. Due to an absence of political authorization to seize the Iranian ship, the US Navy was compelled to permit it to sail on to Syria.

The most sympathetic interpretation of Obama's desire to move ahead with diplomatic engagement in spite of the mullocracy's preconditions is that he has simply failed to countenance the significance of Iran's demands. This means that Obama remains convinced that the US is indeed to blame for the supposed crisis of confidence that the Islamic world suffers from in its dealings with America. By this reasoning, it is for the US, not for Teheran, to show its sincerity, because the US, rather than Teheran, is to blame for the dismal state of relations prevailing between the two countries.

If in fact Obama truly intends to move ahead with his plan to engage the mullahs, then he will effectively legitimize – if not adopt – Teheran's preconditions that the US end its alliance with Israel, which Iran seeks to destroy, and accept a nuclear-armed Iran. And under these circumstances, Israel's next government – which all opinion polls conclude will be led by Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu – will have to adopt certain policies.

First, in keeping with his campaign rhetoric, Netanyahu will have to make preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons his most urgent priority upon entering office.

And second, to withstand US pressure to allow the Obama administration time to develop its ties with Teheran, (time that Iran will use to build its first nuclear bomb), Netanyahu will need to form as large and wide a governing coalition as possible. All issues that divide the Israeli electorate between Right and Left must be temporarily set aside.

In the age of Honest Obama, Israel is alone in recognizing the necessity of preventing Iran from acquiring the means to destroy the Jewish state. Consequently, Netanyahu's government will need to proceed with all deliberate speed to take whatever actions are necessary to prevent Israel's destruction.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

It's only fair to share...Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Email this to someone


  • Marcel 01/30/2009 at 21:34

    ‘Israel is alone in recognizing the necessity of preventing Iran from acquiring the means to destroy the Jewish state ‘
    Has Israel finally figured out that the Road Map always led to a major confrontation with Iran (Islam) ?
    if Bibi hasn’t figured this out yet someone had better tell him.
    By following the land for peace agenda of the West Israel oozed out weakness and capitulation to all her enemies, especially Iran.
    If you were so easily talked into restraint and would not even hold onto your God given land,they assumed it was time to finish off this weak and faithless people who stand for nothing except for what Washington decides.
    With Iran you will have to deal with Syria and Lebanon.and very likely Egypt and the Hamas army they have helped to arm which Israel did not have the sense to defeat when they could have.
    After Iran ,you will have Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab world including ‘liberated Iraq’ to deal with because they don’t like infidels defeating fellow moslem’s .
    And of course Russia will not take Israel’s attack on their Allies lying down and neither will China .And then we have instability with Pakistan and North Korea
    The fact that WWII lifted many nations out of depression should cause us to dread what is before us once again because this will be like no other war before on this earth.
    The Jewish prophet Zechariah tells us what will befall Israel’s enemies in the coming wars.
    ‘And this shall be the plague with which the LORD will strike all the people who fought against Jerusalem:
    Their flesh shall dissolve while they stand on their feet, Their eyes shall dissolve in their sockets,
    And their tongues shall dissolve in their mouths.’
    Zech 14:12
    The wicked are being drawn like moths to the fire and there is nothing to stop historys prophetic culmination as written long ago in the Bible.
    Here is what Isaiah wrote thousands of years ago about our day.
    “Moreover the multitude of your foes Shall be like fine dust, And the multitude of the terrible ones Like chaff that passes away;
    Yes, it shall be in an instant, suddenly. You will be punished by the LORD of hosts With thunder and earthquake and great noise,
    With storm and tempest And the flame of devouring fire. The multitude of all the nations who fight against Ariel,(Jerusalem)
    Even all who fight against her and her fortress, And distress her, Shall be as a dream of a night vision.
    Isaiah 29
    WWIII is on the horizon and that the U.S. will not come out if it on top,but under the rubble.
    The Jewish prophet Obadiah makes that clear in one chapter
    It’s time to seek the Holy One of Israel alone.
    Obama is just more evidence that America is now under God’s Genesis 12:3 curse and Israel is more endangered than ever because she followed the false peace Road Map assuming her treacherous protector would help her along the way,especially with Iran
    Israel ,you were betrayed long ago when you fell for the land for jihad treachery of your false ally.
    America can’t even safeguard peanut butter and Israel still places her hope and faith in this rotting corpse of an empire.
    The good news is that this all fits into God’s plan written down long ago and all the survivors of the Nations will know that the God of Israel is God alone and there will be no more Islam.
    The treacherous dealers have dealt treacherously, Indeed, the treacherous dealers have dealt very treacherously.”
    Fear and the pit and the snare Are upon you, O inhabitant of the earth.
    Isaiah 24

  • Ron Grandinetti, USA 01/30/2009 at 21:48

    Needless to say Caroline you are right on course with this one. It’s real scary.
    The U.S. is stuck with a timid and weak administration that has some cockamamnie idea that you can work with the likes of a terrorist regime as Iran. Good luck!
    What a bunch of fools. Sending George Mitchell to the ME to listen is ridicules to say the least, what a waste of time. Better off buying him a ticket to Disney World.
    He and his associates better recognize Iran for what they are and their ambitions.
    They are on the expressway of nuclear domination in the ME and will not hesitate to use the nasty bomb on Israel or the U.S..
    Can you imagine the whole Islamic world with this kind of weapon?
    Iran doesn’t believe the new U.S. administration poses a threat to them so it’s smooth sealing ahead.
    Besides, don’t count on our European allies to take up the slack.
    I hope and pray the Israeli election will result with the selection of Binyamin Netanyahu as PM.
    He could be the one to make the world a little safer.
    The plug has to be pulled on Teheran, the sooner the better.

  • David Kerner, San Francisco 01/30/2009 at 22:46

    Obama also slipped addressing AIPAC (“undivided Jerusalem”), whatever that meant.
    Your column is stimulating and scary, as usual. But I fear you are mostly read by those already awake. Hesitantly, wanting to do no harm but taking Iran seriously, I make a suggestion:
    A few days ago, Miri Eisen had a brief article in that other paper. I give the link because it was not obvious how to locate it on their website: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059104.html.
    Miri is very effective speaking to American audiences. I heard her during Defensive Shield and Lebanon 2, but knew nothing about her until stumbling across a briefing and Q&A on CSPAN; her skill and sincerity were obvious. Normally, the word “narrative” scares me off, but in this case I believe she is sharing a powerful communication technique.
    And with Americans, communication is the problem.
    Most people, even here in San Francisco, tell me they support Israel, but then whisper “you know it’s no longer taboo to critize Israel”) and I want to scream. It’s like Jimmy Carter going on every radio and TV show whining that the Jews don’t let him speak. Argh…
    I would love to see you reach a wider audience. I don’t know about Eurabia, but the chances of Obama becoming a great friend will increase if Israel frames its message honestly, consistently and clearly.

  • FulghumInk 01/30/2009 at 22:51

    This is the first President we have ever had that has sympathies with an enemy-Muslims. Not just Islamofascists-Muslims.
    He parcels his words well. In so doing, he (under the standard of transparency) uses language that he knows will be received one way but has a totally different meaning to him as he communicates with Arabs. For example, when he says, “We are looking at the region as a whole…” he is sympathetic to “the whole” as it relates to his Muslim pals NOT Israel.
    Binyamin Netanyahu is just the guy to handle someone like Hussein Obama. It is this citizen’s view that he is desperately needed at this time in history in freedom’s history.
    From all that I have read, Hussein Obama voters are already turning against him. We can only HOPE that this CHANGE will translate to a 2010 landslide for Conservatives-NOT Republicans-Conservatives!
    PROUD Supporter of Israel

  • Phil S 01/31/2009 at 0:38

    When Obama tells Muslims the USA will not dictate to them is he willing to make the same promise to Israelis. If Jews decide that it makes no sense to displace tens of thousands of Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria and it makes no sense for Israel to endanger its safety by handing over parts of Eretz Yisrael to Arab Nazis that will threaten Israel from those strategic areas, will Obama say that the USA will not tell Israel what to do, or will he put pressure on them to make suicidal concessions.

  • Marc Handelsman, USA 01/31/2009 at 1:30

    President Obama will operate his administration on three worn-out tracks. Domestic policy will deal with resolving the deepening Recession and stabilizing the financial system. The second track will use available resources to resolve the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. The third track will attempt to resolve the nuclear standoff with Iran by diplomacy. The President will soon discover that America is headed for a derailment and bankruptcy. And if the US Treasury keeps borrowing money at unprecedented levels, it might need to ask the Bank of Israel for a bailout.

  • dan katz 01/31/2009 at 1:33

    caroline: brilliant article.
    special request that you e-mail me at address provided, as there is a subject of great importance i would like to discuss with you, on topic, although not in a public forum.

  • Bob 01/31/2009 at 7:55

    It is starting ..the Jews who voted for Obama will have a hand in the attempted destruction of Israel … we need Bibi, we need him to act quickly and desively in Gaza and Iran and we need Israel to find a way to arm itself without relying on the US

  • Pops in Vienna 01/31/2009 at 12:53

    Well, Caroline…..I would say that Israel is “home alone” and will have to handle this without the help of so called grown ups (USA & EU).
    If Bibi gets elected, he should go ahead and do what needs to be done and make profound apologies afterwards. Probably Obama could give him a lot of help with the apologizing. The lights burn late at the State Department as the best minds in the country craft an apology going all the way back to 1954.
    Stay safe Caroline. Stock up on bottled water and iodine.

  • David Kerner 01/31/2009 at 23:24

    At least our new President (11 days) is engaging swiftly, so both he can get quick feedback, learn and adjust (as he does). Better to figure out where things stand sooner rather than later.

  • Mike Marks 02/01/2009 at 5:23

    As usual your comments hit the nail on the head. Obama’s message to the Muslims has already been characterized as weak and illustrative of the failure of the west by the leadership of Iran.
    I too hope that Bibi is elected to Prime Minister in the coming election. IMHO the US is largely responsible for the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We should also should be part of the solution, particularly in preventing a Nuclear Iran.
    I’m hoping that Bibi can make the same impression on the Iranians that Ronald Regan did. Within hours of his innaguration our hostages were released.
    Tyrants respect strength and resolve in leadership.

  • Bill K. 02/01/2009 at 9:26

    Putting the most generous spin on it, Obama is indifferent to the fate of Israel. He is a fair weather friend at best and in the gathering storm in the Mideast he cannot be depended on.
    This is the ideal time for Israel to declare its independence from the United States. For decades the United States has used and abused its close relationship with Israel to advance its ephemeral and highly dubious contacts in the Muslim/Arab world. It has all been for naught. After thirty years our standoff with Iran has become much worse. Islamic fundamentalism has grown more powerful. Lebanon has been sucked up by Iran. In short, American efforts to pacify the Mideast have been total failures. The United States does not know what is doing there. It does not understand the people, the cultures and the precarious situation Israel finds itself in. San Diego, Tucson and El Paso do not live under the threat of daily rocket attacks.
    Assuming Netanyahu is the next prime minister he should politely but firmly tell the United States to butt out of Israeli affairs unless they are willing to help take out the mullahs and end the threat of a nuclear Iran.
    In the likely occurrence that Obama will persist in his puerile fantasy of talking Iran out of its nukes Netanyahu has some difficult choices to make. Will he:
    1. Take Washington’s word and assume Israel will be protected by American ABMs and the American nuclear umbrella?
    2. Take the wraps off Israel’s own nuclear weapons which by most reports would dwarf anything that Iran could build?
    3. Launch a supremely ambitious and difficult attack to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities?

  • James 02/01/2009 at 10:54

    what is the “undeniable” tie between Iran and Alqaeeda? Alqaeeda has repeatedly threatened Iran, Ms. Neo-Con Propagandist.

  • Luigi Frascati, Canada 02/01/2009 at 11:32

    I did observe in a prior comment that dropping a nuke on Tehran would appear to be the only action which will have a long-lasting impression on the Mullahs, and I still stand behind this observation.
    There are two remarks I would like to make. The first relates to Obama the non-panderer. The President has underscored several times, and reiterated once again in the interview to Al-Arabiya, America’s support for Israel and has further recognized the “paramount” importance of Israel’s security. Hence, if those who view Obama as a man of his word are correct, arguably it follows that he will continue to honor said support for Israel, just as he will continue to pursue all other policies outlined in the electoral campaign.
    With that said, there is a lot of posturing coming from Washington and very little substance. This is true for the USD 819 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, formerly USD 825 billion “stimulus package”, now in effect over the spread of four years, formerly over two years, as it is true for the inconclusive dispatch of Mitchell to the Middle East “to listen” (not “to talk”, mercifully).
    It pays to note, furthermore, that the Act in its proposed form bears the signature of Obama, but it is the brainchild of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, among nine other Democratic representatives. A fact this which, all and by itself, not only makes Obama, in fact, a panderer but even promotes it all the way to the rank of master grand pimp. Even the choice of Al-Arabiya as opposed to the more extremist Al-Jazeera, where the President certainly would have been subjected to a far tougher line of questioning, can be construed as a sign of the dawn of this Administration’s diplomacy in the Middle East.
    The second remark has to do with the overall geopolitical situation of the region, and on how this Administration intends to deal with the “New Middle East”, as termed by Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki. This term encompasses the formation of a modern-day Safavid Empire, which will extend from the shores of the Mediterranean through Syria, past the Euphrates into Mesopotamia, from the Zagros Mountain to the far reaches of the Lout Desert, descending from the foothills of the Hindu Kush into the plateau of Turkmenistan, all the way down to the white beaches of the Gulf of Oman. An Empire comprising of some 150 million people, militant and nuclear – the new Immortals.
    And, more importantly, the question revolves around how Obama intends to cope with the threat that such a hostile Empire will represent for America’s and indeed Western strategic interests in the Middle East, particularly in relation to the oil fields of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
    Robert Gates seems to begin losing sleep over this, and with good reason. Extending olive branches and engaging in “vigorous” diplomatic overtures will not do.
    If history is of any guidance, it pays to go back seven hundred years to the time when Pietro Gradenigo, Doge (King) of Venice, after the Maritime Republic had beaten the Eastern Orthodox Church and sacked Constantinople during the last act of the Great Schism from the Roman Catholic Church, was contemplating sending his fleet past the Aegean to secure trading routes in the Black Sea. The Doge then asked Marco Polo, the illustrious Venetian explorer, to assess the odds of Venice conquering the Southern Shores of the Black Sea, an important passage for the spices and silk coming from the Orient. Marco Polo, who had visited the region while escorting the Mongol princess Koekecin, admonished the Doge on how the “Viziers” (the Republican Guards of the time), after having sacked the Christian town of Artvin in Eastern Anatolia, had “turned the streets into rivers of blood” and “severed the heads of men, women, and children” which were then “neatly stacked into carefully constructed pyramids, around which the carcasses of the city’s dogs and cats were placed”.
    Marco Polo, therefore, began his assessment with these words, which have made their way into the annals of the history of Christendom:
    “Sire, the Children of the Immortals are hardened and tempered;
    They make Death their Princess;
    And take no Prisoners”. [Marco Polo, Il Milione]
    For centuries thereafter Venice, the most extended and resilient maritime power in the Eastern Mediterranean, never again dared venturing beyond the Dardanelles.
    And thus, my initial observation.

  • marcel 02/01/2009 at 14:46

    ‘what is the “undeniable” tie between Iran and Alqaeeda? Alqaeeda has repeatedly threatened Iran’

  • Scott 02/01/2009 at 18:05

    Gonna be a long 4 years

  • James 02/01/2009 at 21:30

    Perhaps for the same reason u could conclude that the current Turkish administration is the ally of ALQAEEDA?

  • Hartmut Pilch 02/01/2009 at 23:00

    Marcel, I see no evidence of Russia or China seriously backing the enemies of Israel. All their reporting on the Gaza issue was very restrained. The quasi-governmental news agency rian.ru refers to Hamas as “extremists”, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (CN-RU-based military alliance) has kept the Iranians out and told their president to speak only about economic matters when attending one of their meetings (and especially not about matters such as fighting Israel or the US).

  • Hartmut Pilch 02/01/2009 at 23:24

    Any attempt to prevent aquisition of nuclear arms by Iran may be too costly for Israel to be a true option, no matter how hawkish its new government may be. There may be little else to do than to assure Israel’s capability for nuclear retaliation and hope that the jihadists at the helm of states like Iran are in reality not as keen on collective suicide as they make many people believe. If a balance of MAD can be maintained long enough, the jihadists may eventually lose the hearts and minds of their populations who will, as Obama said in his inaugural speech, measure them by what they can build rather than by what they can destroy.

  • Dan 02/02/2009 at 6:15

    This isn’t just about Jews and Israel.
    It was never thus. When the mohammedans drove out the Crusader kingdoms from Palestine and the Levant, ————- were they content to rest on their arms? Of course not. They immediately resumed their thrust to drive down the Byzantine Empire. And once that was down, they drove for Vienna.
    This isn’t about Israel.
    This is about the entire West.
    Obama is de facto signaling that he’s more than willing to move beyond the “honest broker” role, and start throwing Israel under the bus.
    Once Israel makes it’s intentions clear to Obama, that they intend to strike at Tehran’s Manhattan project, and once Obama says no, and delivers an emphatic no at that, then Israel has to inform the United States that they will go nuclear themselves, tactical nuclear weaponry, to utterly destroy Tehran’s nuclear dreams.
    Don’t go to him requesting permission, deliver to him a fair accompli.
    Good God, how could it ever have been allowed to come to this!

  • Marcel 02/02/2009 at 14:49

    Perhaps for the same reason u could conclude that the current Turkish administration is the ally of ALQAEEDA?
    Of course,YES.Even a ‘bad’ moslem will side with Al Queda in the end against an infidel especially a Jew and most especially Israel.
    The gulliable always ignore the warning signs to keep their delusional fantasies alive.
    Thats why the 2 state solution is still followed by Likud after we saw the results of the ethnic cleansing of Jew’s from Gaza almost 4 years ago.
    Turkey will break with Israel soon.It’s the way of Islam.
    The naive western mind still can’t figure this out because they have been successfully brainwashed by the corrupt governmentmedia cartel just like Israel has been dumbed down to accept their self destruction under the farce peace.

  • George 02/10/2009 at 20:53

    As an American voter in the last election, my vote was not for McCain, but against Obama. Why? Simple, because it was obvious that Israel will be his victim. Obama is our President, I wish him no ill. Israel will be his downfall. The United States of America has been designated since May 14, 1948 as the prime protector of Israel. People need to ask themselves what time it is. Where are we in the history of a nation unique to this planet. Why is Israel fighting for its very existence? What other nation on earth has been reborn after 70AD? Not in just any location, but right where they were first placed. Why are these things happening? Obama claims to be a Christian. If he is, he is a very ill informed one. Christians who understand the Old Testament normally belive that the land certain leaders, using the term loosely, have given away was never theirs to give. In this lies the problem. Obama is on quicksand. He will go down fast, so will the USA. Israel, back in the land for the world to see. No leader on earth,who has been or will be, shall alter the final roll of the greatest nation that has or will exist. No weapon formed against her will prosper. Do not fear Israel, though the entire world comes against you. Your future is secure.

  • PG 03/04/2009 at 23:28

    Great article! I had a bad feeling about Obama from the beginning. His radical friends reinforced that feeling. Israel is on her own now.


Leave a Comment