tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post4889925527183809655..comments2024-02-29T02:10:56.878-08:00Comments on J O S H U A P U N D I T: Obama Okays Iran's Obtaining Nuclear WeaponsFreedom Fighterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-19518753024028474652013-12-04T08:28:00.385-08:002013-12-04T08:28:00.385-08:00There is one thing that Mr. Friedman got right. H...There is one thing that Mr. Friedman got right. He points out that Israeli influence in America is less than it used to be, however, he mistakenly assumes that Israel has ever had significant influence over US policies. B.Posternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-41102757354150257182013-12-04T08:25:33.558-08:002013-12-04T08:25:33.558-08:00GB: While it does seem clear that Mr. Obama does w...GB: While it does seem clear that Mr. Obama does want to distance the US from Israel as is true for most in the US government. Given America's current dire security situation, I think this is a bad idea. <br /><br />With that said, I think Mr. Obama and his team really does realize the danger of an Iranian nuclear weapon. Essentially there really isn't any ill will per say with regards to this issue in particular with regards to Israel. Instead it is a case of bad advice and classic incompetence on the part of the Administration and their advisors.<br /><br />If you reference www.stratfor.com and read the recent article by George Friedman regarding their assessment of Israel's strategic position, since it's known that Stratfor gets much of it's information from US intelligence sources, this pretty much summarizes the thinking on the part of US intelligence who is giving advice to POTUS and his team. <br /><br />The article by Mr. Friedman is so full of errors it is absolutely breathtaking and hard to know where to begin. The following is by no means exhaustive of the errors contained in the article but it is a brief summary. 1.)The article underestimates Iran's ability to produce and deliver nuclear weapons. 2.)The article overestimates Israeli defense abilities such as being able to intercept a nuclear weapon delivered by ship or truck. 3.)The article blithely assumes that somehow America monitoring of Israeli ports is somehow going to stop Iran from shipping a nuclear weapon out of the country. (Like Iran has not already figured out how to get around that and our "allies" are really going to allow us to intercept an Iranian ship or would back us up should we do so.) 4.)The article underestimates the Israeli ability to conduct a successful military strike on Iran and it underestimates Israeli intelligence capabilities with regards to such an action. <br /><br />Again, this is not exhaustive but it does scratch the surface. If this were not so serious, Mr. Friedman could serve a comic relief. Actually I realized about six years ago after a pathetic performance by Mr. Friedman on the O'reilly Factor on Fox News that this is not a man who should be taken seriously. <br /><br />Hard to believe people pay BIG bucks for the services of his company. I think they pay to get what they want to hear. This can be a problem with business personnel. There is a tendency to present customers and potential customers with what they want to hear rather than the facts. <br /><br />Furthermore Stratfor relies heavily on sources within US intelligence. This is the same bunch who missed it on Iraqi WMD, the Iraqi insurgency, and other matters. Necessary reforms were never made to this group. As such, by relying on them POTUS and his team appear to be making horrific and strategic error. <br /><br />As for the truth of this situation, as reported by Israelnationalnews, Iran will be able to produce a nuclear weapon within 36 days. The Israeli experts are not business people peddling a product their customer or potential customer wants to hear but the survival of Israel depends upon them being right. As such, they are more credible and their advice should be sought when formulating US policy toward Iran and the current people supplying the advice. B.Posternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-49958630330680007212013-12-03T07:48:51.638-08:002013-12-03T07:48:51.638-08:00"...what would he do differently?" Firs..."...what would he do differently?" First of all, in terms of leadership, Mr. Obama does not appear to be a good leader. A good leader would have, at a minimum, done the following: 1.)Immediately pull all US forces out of the Middle East and elsewhere and redeploy those forces to positions where they have a fighting chance to defend America, 2.)Secure the borders, 3.)Place a moratorium on all immigration for a minimum of 10 years and an indefinite moratorium on immigration from predominantly Islamic countries, 4.)closely monitor the mosques, 5.)develop all of our own oil and gas reserves, 6.) increase our refining capacity, and 7.)perhaps most importantly of all, at least as it pertains to Israel, stop meddling in Israel's affairs making it easier for Israel to engage in military action against Iranian nuclear facilities should this be necessary. Do all of this and we have a much better chance of defending our nation and growing our economy than any thing we are currently doing. I've discussed all of these at length here and elsewhere a number of times. <br /><br />Right now we are in the way with regards to Israel. We need to get out of the way for the good of our own defense. while Israel is fully capable of handling this problem, our own interference is not helpful in this matter either for us or Israel. <br /><br />Secondly, America's power is strictly limited in this matter. Sanctions were essentially useless. Even if they were kept in place, other nations would simply do an end run around them any way and they were so riddled with loop holes as to make them worse than useless. Furthermore any agreement that might be made would have to have the approval of the other P5+1 members. In other words, the US cannot simply unilaterally make an agreement. This is especially problematic when considering that Russia and China have a visceral hatred of the United States and the European nations don't like us much more either. As such, they'd most likely be pleased to see calamity befall us. <br /><br />With all of this said, there may be some hope. The "fact sheet" posted on the White House web site would have had to have been vetted by the other members of the P5+1 and they would have needed to sign off on this. In other words, they thought we had a deal. They may not take kindly to being humiliated. As tyrants often do, the Iranians may have overplayed their hand. Let's certainly hope so. Of course these days hatred for America often trumps all other things including common sense. As has been pointed out on this web site and elsewhere a number of times, the threat posed by a nuclear armed Iran is not going to stop with the United States and Israel. <br /><br />Since help from other nations in handling this problem is unlikely to come and we lack a viable military option to deal with it, our best approach is steps 1 to 7 mentioned above. Israel is in a much better position to deal with this via a military operation should that be necessary, which at the moment it appears this will be the only option. B.Posternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-45154834135380262672013-11-30T18:50:03.677-08:002013-11-30T18:50:03.677-08:00"It's obvious by now that our president h...<i>"It's obvious by now that our president has no intention of stopping Iran from achieving nuclear weapons"</i> <br /><br />Yes, it is obvious and some of us have been saying it for years. <br /><br />And, both Obama and his administration KNOW the consequences of Iran gaining nuclear weapons capability, as the following quotes demonstrate;<br /><br />"A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained, it would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations and the stability of the global economy ...When we think of the major threats to our national security, the first to come to mind are nuclear proliferation, rogue states and global terrorism." Barack Obama <br /><br />“the region will be far less stable and far more threatened if Iran were to have a nuclear weapon. It will spur a nuclear arms race. It has risks for greater terrorism. It will be destabilizing." <br /> <br />Kerry said the threat extends beyond the possibility that Iran could actually use the weapon on its enemies, specifically Israel. Iran simply having a nuclear weapon would "spur a nuclear arms race" in the region and could be used to support terrorists groups like Hezbollah, he said. Interview with SecState John Kerry - March 5, 2013 <br /><br />So given all of this, it is also obvious that Obama is, by just his inaction, <i>facilitating</i> a future clear and present danger to the republic. <br /><br />Some cling to the illusion that Obama's consistent actions in the M.E. are fumbling attempts at appeasement. But that supposition begs the question; if Obama actually did want Iran to gain nukes, what would he do differently?Geoffrey Britainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01663224962346593872noreply@blogger.com