Saudi King Abdullah Dies At A Critical Time In The Middle East

Saudi King bin Adbul Aziz has died at 90 years of age.His death was announced on Saudi state TV by a presenter who said the king died at 1 a.m. on Friday, local time.

His death came at a critical time in the region and could set off a major succession battle among the Saudi royals that could affect U.S. policy in the region.

Abdullah was a key figure in both the Sunni alliance against Shi'te Iran and western efforts against Islamic State.More importantly, in spite of major disagreements with the Obama Administration over Iran and other issues, he kept the status quo going in OPEC of keeping oil trades delineated in U.S. dollars.

King Abdullah is going to be succeeded on the throne by his brother, Crown Prince Salman. Essentially, that puts the leadership of America's most important relationship in the Arab world in the hands of a 79-year old in poor health and who reportedly suffers from dementia.

 

What that means is a likely power struggle among the Saudi royals at some point, especially since the crown prince is likely going to be regent for the ailing Salman.

King Abdullah obtained power in exactly this way. His predecessor, King Fahd, had a debilitating stroke in 1995 and Abdullah, as crown prince, assumed most of his duties and responsibilities, running the country as regent until Fahd’s death in 2005.


By Saudi tradition, the King is chosen from among the sons of the first King Adbulaziz bin Saud, who died in 1953. Salman is the sixth son of Abdulaziz and few if any of Abdulaziz's remaining sons are either healthy enough or competent enough to rule in the event of Salman's death or incapacity.

Recognizing this, Abdullah took the step last year of naming his own alternative heir, 69-year-old Prince Muqrin, his youngest brother who is also director general of Saudi Arabia's intelligence agency Al Mukhabarat Al A'amah.This defied the tradition of each new king picking his own heir, which didn't sit well with many of the members of the Saudi royals,particularly a powerful clique of princes known as the “Sudairi Seven,” all sons of Abdul Aziz and his favorite wife, Hassa bint Ahmed. Among other things, Muqrin's mother was a Yemenite concubine, not a Saudi, and Abdullah's action was seen as trying to pre-empt Salman choosing his own heir so Abdullah could advance his own faction.

 

King Salman has already named Prince Muqrin as his official heir and elevated him to the position of Crown Prince and regent. But what after that? It's not clear who in the next generation would take power after him, or when that question would need to be addressed.

Saudi Arabia is now in a state of flux. While Abdullah contributed  to the country's stability by diversifying its economy  to a degree,building up its armed forces and pushing certain mild reforms, the country faces foreign policy challenges from Iran and Islamic state and internal ones that could end up being even more serious.

While its leaders may be elderly, its population is quite young. Almost two thirds of its citizens are below the age of 30, and the Saudi practice of importing cheap foreign labor means many of them have no jobs. For years, this has been offset with subsidies provided by the Saudi oil wealth, but plummeting oil prices along with the need to spend more on self defense could to cut into the funds available for that severely.

There's also the growing problem of Saudi Arabia's Shi'ite underclass. This population is mainly situated in the country's northeast, where most of Saudi Arabia's oil is located, and just across the Persian Gulf from Iran. And as you can imagine, Iran has been agitating this population for some time. That's also something the KSA has been kicking down the road for some time that needs to be dealt with.

And what about oil?

King Abdullah's policy lately has been to take short term losses for long term gains. His reaction to increased  oil production in the U.S. due to fracking and increased use of privately owned oil land was not to cut production in the hopes of prices stabilizing or even rising but to increase it,causing prices to drop still further.

This wily strategy caused some short term pain in the KSA and other GEC countries, but they had the financial depth to ride things out. And it produced a two fold benefit. First, it severely weakened both the Iranians, who lack that financial depth and IS, a big chunk of whose revenues depend on smuggled oil.

And second, it is already causing manufacturers in America to cut back on production and rely again on the cheaper imported oil.

I would expect King Salman and Price Mubrik to continue that policy, since it's working...but enjoy the cheaper gas prices while you can.

The Saudis Look At Dumping Obama And Changing Sponsors

Two weeks ago in my piece, "What the Media Won't Tell You About What's Really Going On In Egypt", I let you in on the fact that the chief of Saudi intelligence, Prince Bandar, spent 4 hours closeted with none other than Russian President Vladimir Putin on July 31st.

As I revealed back then, part of the conversation involved Saudi client Egypt and Egypt's General al-Sissi finding a new arms supplier and best friend in the Kremlin in response to President Obama's threats.

Putin would sell Egypt arms in a heartbeat and would love nothing better than to get another warm water Mediterranean port for the Russian navy.

But more was discussed than just that. The Saudis are fed up with President Obama and his clueless, duplicitous antics, especially his dithering on Iran and his shilling and enablement of the Muslim Brotherhood at every turn. And they're willing to discuss a deal for the Russians to become what members of the Mob refer to in these situations as 'a new sponsor.'

Let me briefly reiterate our relationship with the Saudis and the other GCE countries to spell out what this is important before we get to the grim details.

The Arabs sell us oil, which they make sure that OPEC continues to delineate in US dollars. They also spin a certain amount of that money back at us in the form of buying our debt, rewarding U.S. politicians who see things their way with lucrative business opportunities, investments in businesses and funds owned by influential Americans, the funding of presidential libraries and foundations, six figure speaking fees and honorariums, anything you can imagine. More importantly, by making sure that oil continues to be traded in dollars, they import a certain amount of our inflation, which they cover to some extent as necessary by raising wholesale prices on crude...but not too much, just enough to keep everyone happy and keep certain politicians doing their best sabotaging energy creation here in America unless in involves green energy scams never intended to work in the first place run by well connected political donors, or electric cars that are ultimately powered by oil, which is what powers the plants where most of the electricity to power them comes from.

In exchange, we protect them militarily, sell them arms and look after their interests,including the promotion of Wahhabi Islam here in America.

Needless to say, OPEC members like Putin, the Iranians and Obama's late unlamented BFF Hugo Chavez screamed bloody murder about this for years because they were getting nothing but a financial loss out of this arrangement.

What the Saudis are discussing with Putin is changing this arrangement, if a few deal points can be worked out.

The Lebanese newspaper As-Safir has a piece worth reading that they're representing as a basic rundown on what went what on. Some of it appears to be fairly accurate, at least in terms of the subjects that were discussed, especially in light of a few details I'm aware of but some of it is also highly unlikely, which we'll get to. You have to keep in mind that As-Safir is a Lebanese paper and thus a paper that exists as part of the Iran/Syria/Hezbollah bloc...which colors their coverage.A free press and the Muslim world don't exactly go together.

Here's the main, most important part, and the part I would say is 100% accurate:

The Saudis are offering to partner with Russia in essentially controlling the price and supply of a lot of the world's energy. The article doesn't say this, but it's obvious that the Saudis are asking, essentially, for Russia to sponsor them as members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a group long time members of Joshua's Army may recall me mentioning.

The SCO is basically a partnership which was founded five years ago under Chinese leadership to foster regional security and economic cooperation.China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan make up the group, and Iran, Pakistan, Mongolia and India all have observer status.

The six member states control 60% of the land mass of Eurasia and its population is a quarter of the world's people. With observer states included, its members account for half of the earth's population. It also offers an alternative bloc to western democracy and to using the U.S. dollar as reserve currency for energy dealing (they're working on putting together a gas cartel) and other joint development projects.

Turkey has been banging on the SCO's door for quite a while, and Tayyipp Erdogan would happily leave NATO and sell out its secrets to get into this club .

The Saudis joining the SCO would give the group more stability and coverage, control over a huge part of the world's energy, and of course, the prices. And it would end the use of the U.S. dollar as the currency used in energy trading, with some interesting results on our currency, at least until we got our own act together energy independence-wise.

Syria and Iran were almost definitely on the agenda.

As-Safir says that Prince Bandar told Putin that he had spoken with the Americans before the visit, and they pledged to commit to any deal the Saudis and Russians made on a diplomatic solution to Syria. This is almost definitely not true, since Putin would have laughed at it and Bandar knows it.

Putin has not trusted President Obama for quite some time,but especially since the two of them first started to attempt to work out a diplomatic solution on Syria and Putin found out that President Obama sent 1,200 Marines to the Jordanian border via the USS Kearsage without telling him.

The article quotes Putin as saying, "During the Geneva I Conference, we agreed with the Americans on a package of understandings, and they agreed that the Syrian regime will be part of any settlement. Later on, they decided to renege on Geneva I."

It further quotes Putin as saying “Our stance on Assad will never change. We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters."

I doubt Putin said that, but I wouldn't be surprised if Bandar and Putin discussed the outlines of a diplomatic arrangement between them that would leave Assad in power in exchange, perhaps, for arms deals with the Saudis and Russian help with the Iranians, since the Saudis know by now President Obama will do nothing to stop Iran from going nuclear.

However, if President Obama hits Syria, any tentative arrangement Bandar and Putin might have come to might well be history,or at least postponed.

As-Safir says that when Bandar mentioned Iran's nuclear program as a problem, Putin replied, “We support the Iranian quest to obtain nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And we helped them develop their facilities in this direction. Of course, we will resume negotiations with them as part of the 5P+1 group. I will meet with President Hassan Rouhani on the sidelines of the Central Asia summit and we will discuss a lot of bilateral, regional and international issues. We will inform him that Russia is completely opposed to the UN Security Council imposing new sanctions on Iran. We believe that the sanctions imposed against Iran and Iranians are unfair and that we will not repeat the experience again.”

The dialog on Iran and Syria are almost certainly fabricated to a large extent.

Putin has been violating the sanctions since day one, and Russia has a veto on the UN Security Council even if our Dear Leader decided to actually impose real sanctions. He could care less about them except as a talking point at the UN. The conversation with Putin over Iran probably dealt more with what safeguards the Russians could put in place to stop the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons and threatening the GCE countries...if Russia in fact became the Saudi's new sponsors.

Bottom line, the Russians and Saudis are now considering serious cooperation on energy and perhaps even on arms sales, and studying the mechanics of what concrete proposals were advanced.

Syria and Iran likely still remain issues that are problematic but are still under discussion. Could Russia and Putin finesse this by working as a mediator to end the Sunni-Shi'ite war in the Middle East and provide certain guarantees to the Saudis? With the leverage Putin has on Iran and Assad's Syria, anything's possible. And the idea of collaborating with the Saudis on the energy trade would be a powerful incentive for Putin.

Of course, if that happens, America's influence in the region will be over.

State Of The Union?

 

Last night was the first night of Mardi Gras in New Orleans. For those of you who've been there, it's  a serious street party and a night when people put on masks and costumes and pretend to be something they're not - to deceive people.

It was a perfect choice for the night of this president's State of the Union.

For the masochists among you, the entire text is here, but I can tell you everything you need to know about it with a lot less pain.

First, the president's delivery was astounding for a man who just won re-election. It was halting, stumbling and for the most part gave the impression that President Obama would rather have been anywhere else.There was even a faint air of resentment. Can it be that even he realizes deep inside that the act is wearing thin, but still was obliged to put on the performance?

Rather than an energetic war cry to the progressive Übermenschen we were told to expect, it was, well, small. Just a tired restatement of the same old failed agenda and false claims. It was even even petulant at times.

The content itself is what you'd call a target rich environment, to the point where it's difficult to know where to start to deconstruct this lame gibberish, although I though Senator Rand Paul did a decent job:


Marco Rubio wasn't bad either, and probably a bit more charismatic:

Interesting how both of them trod pretty much the same ground...

For my part, and especially since I don't have to be correct in the least, here are just a few specific nuggets neither one mentioned per se. I won't even bother going after President Obama's fairy tales about deficit reduction or job creation:

 "My message is simple. It is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America. Send me these tax reforms, and I will sign them right away."

 Please,my sides. Shipping jobs overseas? You mean like the UAW that owns GM courtesy of your rewarding them for campaign donations and political support, let alone taxpayer dollars to seal the deal and a $450 billion tax break so they needn't pay taxes and can build cars in China? And after all, Mr. President...with ObamaCare,a poisonous regulatory environment, high energy costs and the highest corporate taxes in the developed world, why would they create jobs here?

 "I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We’ve subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough."

 First of all, almost all of the president's pet green energy projects ala' Solyndra have been total failures, except when it comes to fattening the personal wallets of the well connected Obama donors running them. They haven't created jobs, and they haven't provided cheaper or more reliable energy unless you count political hot air.

Oh, and by the way..the Germans are more than willing for you to take as much of the solar action as you can handle.You must of missed that briefing too.

 And that bit about 'subsidizing' the oil companies.. The average profit for one the Evil Oil Companies for locating the oil, drilling it out of the ground, shipping it, refining it into gasoline, marketing it and shipping it to your local gas station is around 9% per gallon. Government's cut, just for being there? Depending on your state and local taxes, between 22-28%!

So guess what...Big Government loves high gas prices,because the higher they go, the more of your money they get to grab.Any wonder that President Obama's policies have been grooved to encourage price hikes, by handcuffing domestic production, vetoing the Keystone Pipeline and encouraging monetary policies like quantitative easing that weaken the dollar? And that affects not just the price at the pump, but the price of food at the market and goods people buy that get shipped by trucks and trains that gulf fuel to run. And might we mention all the jobs this has eliminated?

Way to champion the middle class, Mr. President!

The president mentioned in passing in last night's remarks that Americans are using less oil. At $4.00+ per gallon, we sure are, Mr. President. As little as we can, because we can't all  manage to be driven around in pimped out black Cadillac Escalades or on Air Force One at someone else's expense.

 The president also thumped his chest about how he ended the Iraq War, even though the entire agreement on withdrawing our forces was set up by President Bush and all Obama had to do was keep hitting the golf course for that to occur. Howdy Doody could have been elected president and the war would have ended. Not only that, but let's not forget how the Iraq war ended...the surge strategy, which President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry and yes Chuck Hagel all opposed and did their very best to sabotage. How hypocritical and self-deluding to you have to be to take credit for something not only did nothing to bring about but did your best to prevent in the name of partisan politics?

 Oh, and I loved this one: "And while it’s ultimately up to the people of the region to decide their fate, we will advocate for those values that have served our own country so well. We will stand against violence and intimidation. We will stand for the rights and dignity of all human beings, men and women, Christians, Muslims, and Jews. We will support policies that lead to strong and stable democracies and open markets, because tyranny is no match for liberty."

So that's why this president has enabled and supported the Islamist takeover of Egypt, because they're oh-so-democratic and into human rights and all that.That's why we're shipping F-16's and Abrams tanks to Mohammed Morsi who considers Jews the descendants of apes and pigs, has his paid gangs rape women protestors in Cairo and supports sharia law that will take away the rights of women and Christians! That's why we're funding Hamas and the unelected dictator of the Palestinian Authority.That's why we've been arming the Syrian rebels even though we know that they're dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood and even al-Qaeda affiliates.Who knew?

And I won't even get into the numerous people with strong Muslim Brotherhood connections or people whom can only be considered their dupes who work in the administration..

President Obama may be advocating for something,but it isn't liberty or American values.

I often wonder how future generations will view these times. We've had three Boomer presidents, and all three have been self-involved, narcissistic, and self-serving, with President Obama by far being the worst of the lot.Former President Bush, with all his failings at least had the grace to appear embarrassed some of the time and at least to demonstrate some humility from time to time.

In an e-mail thread today, it was mentioned that Fidel Castro came from the middle class, and that his father owned a banana plantation. My response was that Castor was a typical Marxist - just like Lenin, someone whom came out of the comfortable well-off, middle class bourgeoisie and grew up to somehow learn to hate his own class so much that he made it his life's mission to destroy it.

It occurs to me that this is President Obama's story as well.

It's embarrassing that this president considers us fools, expects us to swallow this kind of swill and say 'thank you sir! May I have another?' But that's the situation we find ourselves in.It's like living in Rome during the period of the Bad Emperors that started once Commodus became emperor in 180 AD and continued for about a century - no term limits back then except the ones you get with a sword in the ribs or a poisoned wine cup.

The country is crying for leadership, whether those in the DC and media bubbles realize it or not.And politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum.

As the Chinese say, we live in interesting times.

Will Saudi Arabia Be The Next to Fall In The Arab Spring?

Commentary's Michael Rubin examines the question:

After the Tunisian protesters sent Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, dictator for almost a quarter century, packing, the Central Intelligence Agency famously predicted the Arab revolt would not spread. Almost two years later, dictators have fallen in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and a fifth appears on the ropes in Syria. Despite what regional experts and Arab autocrats hoped, the desire for freedom and liberty is contagious. So when Bashar al-Assad’s tenure ends with a bullet in his head or a broomstick in his bottom, what will be the next domino to fall?

There is no shortage of dissatisfaction across the Arab world. Just ask the Bahrainis. Tension is also high in Kuwait. Most Jordanians are seething at King Abdullah II and especially at the high-spending Queen Rania. But the next dynasty to fall may very well be the Saudi monarchy.

Saudi Arabia is an artificial state, cobbled together in the 1920s and 1930s by military force. Oil wealth has both helped paper over differences and promote a radical and intolerant reinterpretation of Islam. Still, regional identities remain, sectarianism is increasing, and the gap between rich and poor has bred resentment toward the ruling family whose grip on power will slip as octogenarians succeed octogenarians and factional rivalries percolate.

Human rights groups and journalists tend to focus on Bahrain. There certainly are myriad problems in that Arab island nation, but the focus is disproportionate, determined more by access than by degree of repression. While the Bahraini government uses rubber bullets, the Saudis prefer live ammunition, especially when the protesters are Shi’ites in the oil-rich Eastern Province.

While I have no love for the House of Saud, there are a few things that bear mentioning, in my opinion.And they're crucial.

First, all of the states cited above, with the exception of Libya had no oil wealth. And that's a crucial element. Because the key word in understanding the Arab Spring is not 'democracy' but food.

World food prices and the cost of basic staples have skyrocketed, and as I've mentioned before, whereas it used to be Indians and Chinese who bore the brunt of the suffering in these situations, those economies have developed. Now it is the Arabs and their dysfunctional kleptocracies who are the low man on the food chain, so to speak.

Countries with oil wealth and relatively small populations can curb this by keeping prices artificially low with subsidies, and the Saudis, among other countries have done so.Those without oil wealth,like Egypt, Syria and Tunisia were unable to do so.

Libya was different because of two important elements Michael doesn't mention..tribalism and overt western intervention.

The Libyan rebellion against Khaddaffi was very much a product of tribalism, with the rebels being concentrated in the east, Benghazi and Cyrenaica. And there's no doubt Khaddaffi would have defeated the rebels if not for western interference.

The EU nations got involved for one reason. Initially, when the rebellion began, the rebels made a great deal of progress, and the Europeans, particularly Britain and France whom had multibillion oil contracts to protect promptly dumped Khaddaffi and signed new oil deals with the rebels. When Khaddaffi recovered and sent the rebels fleeing towards Benghazi, those all important oil contract were going to be worthless unless something was done. So the Europeans went to rescue the rebels and those oil contracts and later turned it into a NATO mission.

President Obama, of course, joined in for his own reasons. Yes, ironically, this really was a War for Oil.

Tribalism figures in most of the other potential flashpoints he mentioned. Syria is essentially a conflict between Muslim Brotherhood Sunni rebels backed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and the Alawite Assad regime backed by Iran and Hezbollah. If Assad falls, ( and it's by no means certain) it will be because of overt intervention by the Obama Administration in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The tensions in Bahrain features a Sunni monarchy and upper class versus a Shi'ite majority, with tensions sparked by Shi'ite Iran. But it's worth noting that when Iran fomented unrest last year among Bahrain's Shi'ites, the Saudis and the GCC countries reacted promptly and forcefully to back the ruling Al-Khalifa royal family with troops and armor, and used their navies to block Iranian ships from aiding the rebels. Iran backed down, and while a certain amount of unrest still exists, it's largely contained. Bahrain's oil wealth will keep prices down, and because of a huge American base there, western intervention isn't going to happen.

In Saudi Arabia, the situation is reversed. The Shi'ite underclass is a minority largely situated in the eastern part of the Kingdom, and not only do I doubt they  have the numbers to really wage a revolt, but based on how Iran backed down on Bahrain last year I doubt the mullahs are going to make much of a fight of it in Saudi Arabia...unless they openly invade, which would likely bring America into it. Plus the Saudis also have the oil wealth to keep food prices down and the possibility of western intervention on the side of the Shi'ite rebels is nil.

Which brings me to my own favorite candidate for the next Arab Spring revolt - Jordan.

Everything's in place there...tribalism, no oil wealth, a stagnant economy, and historical grievance.

Unlike the other conflicts, this tribal divide isn't between Sunni and Shi'ite, but between Bedouin and Palestinian.

In 1924, when the British created Jordan, the original idea was to partition the Palestine Mandate so that the Arabs would get the 80 per cent of the Mandate east of the Jordan River and the Jews would get the 20 per cent west of the Jordan. That arrangement was codified by the League of Nations in the 1924 San Remo Agreement. But the Brits pulled something at the last minute that pretty much changed things. They put one of the Bedouin Hashemite Sherif Hussein bin Ali's sons Abdullah ( the present King's grandfather) in as King, along with a minority faction of his fellow Hashemite Bedouins that proceeded to rule the country as an upper class over the non-Bedouin Arabs, the Palestinians, if you want to refer to them by that term.

Foisting what was essentially a foreign monarchy on the Palestinian Arabs didn't sit well with them, and Abdullah was later murdered by the Palestinians in 1951 on the orders of the pro Nazi Palestinian leader Haj Amin al-Husseini.

Later, in 1970, Yasser Arafat and the PLO attempted and failed to overthrow Abdullah's son, King Hussein, resulting in the killing and expulsion of thousands of Palestinian Arabs in 1970, an event Palestinians refer to as Black September.

At present, Jordan is composed of a large majority of Palestinian Arabs and a minority of Bedouin, including King Abdullah II. He's personally unpopular because of economic unrest, for being an American ally, for preserving a peace treaty with Israel, and for arbitrarily taking Jordanian citizenship away from Palestinians residing in Jordan who have held it for years.

The opposition to King Hussein is largely composed of the Muslim Brotherhood, and with the Brotherhood now established in Egypt and Gaza and increasing its influence right next door in the Arab occupied areas of Judea and Samaria (AKA The West Bank), my personal bet would be that the next victim of the Arab Spring wouldn't be Saudi Arabia, but Jordan.

In fact,I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Jordan eventually become the actual Palestinian Arab state - which after all , was what it was supposed to be all along.

How The White House And Senator Harry Reid Are Working To Weaken Iran Sanctions

As I mentioned previously, the media touting of the Obama Administration's foreign policy record is supremely unwarranted.

One of the president's worst foreign policy failures has been on Iran's illegal nuclear program.

The administration has repeatedly tried to 'engage' the Iranians, and the only thing it's resulted in is more time for the centrifuges to spin as Iran marches toward acquiring nuclear weapons.

The recent plethora of 'sanctions' are a joke.

If you'll remember, the same president who is now touting them as part of his foreign policy achievements fought against them tooth and nail when they were proposed, and they have done nothing to impede the Iranian nuclear weapons project.

Aside from the fact Russia and Turkey are openly flouting them, waivers and exceptions have been given out by the Obama Administration to foreign countries by the truck load.

The obvious conclusion, and one the Iranians have almost certainly come to as well is that this president is too weak to issue the only real sanctions that would work - stopping American Banks from dealing with anyone processing oil payments via Iran's Central bank. Either that, or he simply doesn't have a problem with Iran going nuclear, campaign rhetoric to the contrary.

The latest example of this kind of behavior involves legislation currently making its way through the Senate that would also be quite effective if enforced, a bill that would penalize any company that underwrites Iranian affiliates and any insurance company that underwrites activities that bolster the Iranian oil industry.

As you can imagine, this could cut into the mullah's cash flow quite effectively. Shipping companies, cargo carriers, oil exploration, even foreign employees working the oil fields for Iran all require insurance in order to do business.

So of course, it's being watered down to nothingness on instructions from the White House, with the able assistance of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Tim Johnston (D-SD):

The insurance industry and prominent Democratic lawmakers are attempting to water down a new Iran sanctions bill that would penalize any company that underwrites Iranian affiliates, according to insiders on Capitol Hill.

Sens. Harry Reid (D., Nev.), Tim Johnson (D., S.D.), and others have quietly lobbied to weaken the revamped sanctions language, which has been circulating on Capitol Hill for several months.{...}

Johnson and Reid have each received nearly half-a-million dollars from individuals and political action committees affiliated with the insurance industry, leading some to wonder whether these lawmakers are doing their corporate donors’ bidding.

Neither lawmaker responded to a request for comment.

“There is significant pressure being brought to bear by the Obama Administration in coordination with the insurance lobby to stop any far-reaching insurance sanctions against Iran,” said a congressional source. “Whether money plays a role, who knows, but the pressure is intense and Democrats—and even some House Republicans—appear to be carrying the water.”

The Senate in March considered language targeting the insurance sector, but Reid and the Obama administration lobbied at the time to thwart the amendment aimed at targeting those insurance companies dealing with Iran.

The language is missing from Johnson’s Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Human Rights Act of 2012, which still awaits final passage in the Senate.{...}

The Obama administration remains on the side of the insurance industry, insiders said.

“It’s more about the administration’s reluctance to go along with” the sanctions, one of the insiders explained. “The administration’s perspective as they explained it to me … is that [it doesn’t want to tell] our allies, ‘You have to stop doing business with Iran tomorrow.’

”Team Obama has repeatedly urged its Congressional allies to weaken multiple Iran sanctions despite widespread support for the measures.

The Iranian experience with America since the Islamic Revolution in 1978 has primarily been one of weakness and vacillation.

The Iranian regime has performed actions that would have resulted in a declaration of war from a previous generation of Americans, yet they continue doing so with impunity and without suffering any major retaliation whatsoever.

The cost for this kind of craven appeasement never goes away...it merely accrues and gathers interest. If this continues, the cost when the bill comes due to us in the future is going to make us wish we'd dealt with it far sooner.

The Iran Sanctions That Aren't - State Department Give Waivers to 11 Countries

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced today that the State Department is exempting 10 European countries and Japan from penalties for doing business with Iran's central bank:

"I am pleased to announce that an initial group of eleven countries has significantly reduced their volume of crude oil purchases from Iran -- Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom. As a result, I will report to the Congress that sanctions pursuant to Section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 (NDAA) will not apply to the financial institutions based in these countries, for a renewable period of 180 days," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a Tuesday statement. "The actions taken by these countries were not easy. They had to rethink their energy needs at a critical time for the world economy and quickly begin to find alternatives to Iranian oil, which many had been reliant on for their energy needs."

Of course, Mrs. Clinton didn't mention that Iran has already announced it would no longer sell crude to France and the United Kingdom, so they're getting a waiver based on Iran's actions,not theirs. And the other EU countries have already announced they will phase out all purchases of Iranian oil by July 1st. However, at this point it really doesn't matter. Without barring countries from dealing with Iran's Central Bank the oil sanctions are almost meaningless.

Let me explain to you why. Oil is fungible, and as we saw with the UN's Oil for Food scandal involving Saddam Hussein and Iraq, it's easily transferable, can easily be moved through other hands to disguise its origin and can be swapped via third parties for other items. The US could even end up buying Iranian oil if it was shipped to say, Venezuela and reflagged. But take away the ability of buyers to pay Iran for it directly by isolating Iran's central bank and it becomes a much more difficult and costly matter.

One of the few effective things President George W. Bush did in the period after 9/11 to fight Islamist terrorism was to identify the banks used to bankroll it and a number of questionable individuals and organizations who held accounts in otherwise legitimate institutions. Aside from freezing all suspect assets here in America and blocking US financial institutions from having any dealings with the suspect accounts and organizations, President Bush successfully got foreign financial institutions to cooperate by ordering US financial institutions not to deal with banks overseas handling accounts for places like the Islamic Cultural Center in Milan, Italy, Al Taqwa Construction in Dubai and the Revival of Islamic Heritage Society(RIHS) in Kuwait, all al-Qaeda and Hamas fronts. Since the world's banking system is wired through New York, most countries complied, which led to something like $79.9 million in terrorist assets being seized.

If President Obama was actually serious about stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program and ending Iran's financing of terrorism, he'd do something similar and make all of Iran's banks including Iran's central bank persona non grata in the world's financial systems using the same tools. Even countries like China and India might decide that forgoing Iranian oil was better than having their ability to perform financial transactions here in America compromised or curtailed.

But then, that was never going to happen with this president. I've become fairly convinced that President Obama isn't particularly exercised about whether Iran goes nuclear or not. He might just take a wag the dog option to pull off a strike on Iran if he's lagging in the polls come October, but failing that, he appears to be fine with it.

Either he's simply clueless and doesn't see the danger, is too preoccupied with his domestic agenda and his re-election bid,or feels that America needs to be taken down a peg. Or perhaps a combination of all three.

Just One More Question, Mr. President..

Cheerfully swiped from the one and only Hugh Hewitt.

And placed on a number of gas pumps in my little corner of the world...where prices are climbing towards $4.50 per gallon including Big Government's 17-22% profit for just being there (AKA Federal, State and local taxes).

Obama's Energy Speech - Lie After Lie After Lie

Someone obviously whispered in our Dear Leader's ear that gas prices have skyrocketed, and it wasn't polling well. So he decided to address the peons in front of a friendly crowd at th eUniversity of Miami, Florida, telling them in effect 'hey, it's not my fault, it's the greedy oil companies so stop whining and go buy a Volt or something.'

The speech was so ruthlessly cynical and lacking in truth that it would take more space than it's worth to fully debunk it, but there are several points worth underlining:


Now, some politicians they see this as a political opportunity. I know you’re shocked by that. (Laughter.) Last week, the lead story in one newspaper said, “Gasoline prices are on the rise and Republicans are licking their chops.” That’s a quote. That was the lead. "Licking their chops." Only in politics do people root for bad news, do they greet bad news so enthusiastically. You pay more; they’re licking their chops. You can bet that since it’s an election year, they’re already dusting off their 3-point plan for $2 gas. And I’ll save you the suspense. Step one is to drill and step two is to drill. And then step three is to keep drilling.

You know there are no quick fixes to this problem. You know we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices.

That seems to be a key phrase for this president 'we can't drill our way to lower gas prices.'

An honest response would be, 'how the hell would you know, sir'?

One of the first things President Obama did when he became president was to cancel leases for oil and gas drilling in Utah, and he followed up with cancellation in in Virginia, in the Gulf and suspended them in Colorado and Montana. In 2010, he doubled down with new, stringent regulations to make future leasing on federal land for energy exploration and drilling far more difficult.

He issued not one but two executive orders halting drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, one of which defied a court order. And his administration has been refusing to issue any new permits ever since. The Department of Energy's own figures says that Gulf oil output will be down 17% by the end of 2013, compared with the start of 2011.

This president is also blocking access to an estimated 19 billion barrels of oil on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico, another 10 billion barrels estimated in the Chukchi Sea off the Alaskan coast, and another 10 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. This is th esame president who later on inhis speech said 'we're focused on production'!

The amount of oil that we drill at home doesn’t set the price of gas by itself. The oil market is global; oil is bought and sold in a world market. And just like last year, the single biggest thing that’s causing the price of oil to spike right now is instability in the Middle East -– this time around Iran. When uncertainty increases, speculative trading on Wall Street increases, and that drives prices up even more.

If we’re going to take control of our energy future and can start avoiding these annual gas price spikes that happen every year — when the economy starts getting better, world demand starts increasing, turmoil in the Middle East or some other parts of the world — if we’re going to avoid being at the mercy of these world events, we’ve got to have a sustained, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy.

The president blamed high prices several times on turmoil in the Middle East rather than his own mismanagement and incompetence. And mentioned global demand as a factor,particularly in China.


Just a little while ago, there was a bill in Congress to approve the Keystone Pipeline, a project that would have not only provided thousands of badly needed construction jobs but lowered the cost of transporting oil to American refineries - and not from some hot spot in the Middle East, but from Canada. That project was killed by the president with the assistance of his fellow Democrats in the Senate....and the fed up Canadians are routing that oil to Vancouver via an already existing Canadian pipeline and have sold those oil contracts to China.

President Obama blamed this fiasco on - wait for it - Republicans, simply because they wanted to end the dithering and give the Canadians some indication we were serious about buying their oil. hey, not only did President Obama see to it that we lost out on 900,000 barrels a day of badly needed oil to China, he insulted one of our closest allies in the bargain at the same time. Focused on production!

Another interesting factoid - remember the President gifting over a billion of your tax dollars to Brazil to finance their oil exploration because, as he told them 'we want to be your best customers' ? Instead oil financing oil exploration here?

The United States consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil. But we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves. That means we can’t just rely on fossil fuels from the last century. We can’t just allow ourselves to be held hostage by the ups and downs of the world oil market. We have to keep developing new sources of energy. We have to keep developing new technology that helps us use less energy. We have to keep relying on the American know-how and ingenuity that comes from places like the University of Miami. That’s our future. And that’s exactly the path we’ve been taking these last three years.

That 2% figure is demonstrably false on the face of it, since believe it or not, America is one of top five oil exporters. But even without going there, this president,who claims we're running out of oil and that he's focused on an all-of-the above strategy curiously leaves out two major oil sources here at home.

The first is shale oil, which the administration has fought tooth and nail but is providing quite a few jobs in the Dakotas and other Rocky Mountain states. The process of fracking, which the president has also tried to restrict as much as possible on faux environmental grounds is making headlines in a great many places, but getting hardly any support...certainly nothing like the bogus 'green energy' companies like Solyndra run by well-connected insiders and Obama campaign donors that have sucked up billions of taxpayer dollars and been an abysmal failure.

Another energy resource that has been totally ignored because of the Obama Administration's focus on cap n' tax, subsidizing the UAW friendly bailout of GM and similar pursuits is the gasification of coal, which I've mentioned a few times of these pages.

Gasification is a proven, clean technology that takes coal and reprocesses it into refinable oil and petroleum products. It's how Hitler kept the Panzers running after the British fleet cut off much of Germany's access to Middle East and Asian oil.

The United States is justifiably called the Saudi Arabia of goal, and we have ample supplies of it. Back in the 1970's, when our Arab friends put an embargo on oil shipments to America and oil was flirting with $100 per barrel, President Carter performed one of the few intelligent acts of his administration and authorized the development of American synthetic fuel made by this process, which could be done then for about half of what the Arabs were asking for their crude.

The project worked quite well for a few tears, but was scrapped when crude prices from the Middle East crashed in response and made it less economical.

Gasification is still a cheap source of oil, the technology has improved considerably since the 1970's, we have massive coal deposits and it could still produce oil for about half what Brent crude is going for on the spot markets. So why isn't Mr. 'all-of-the above strategy' jumping on this?

Here's why. First of all, President Obama, quite frankly, knows very little about energy but he does know that a lot of his base hates the coal and oil industry, because that's what Democrats have told them for years without letting them in on how ample energy affects things like food prices, the cost of goods and services and yes,what they pay at the pump. They've even got these well-trained lemmings buying electric and hybrid cars because they're not thinking about what the electric power plants run on that generate that 'non-fossil fuels' energy for that spiffy new Prius or not so spiffy GM Volt.

The oil companies make a convenient target, as the president demonstrates here:

Right now, four billion of your tax dollars subsidize the oil industry every year. Four billion dollars. These are the same oil companies that have been making record profits off the money you spend at the pump. And now they deserve another four billion dollars from us?

It’s outrageous. It’s inexcusable. And every politician who’s been fighting to keep these subsidies in place should explain to the American people why the oil industry needs more of their money. Especially at a time like this.

What the president is talking about is what the oil companies write off as R&D for exploration and for depreciation and depleting of existing equipment and resources, just like every other corporation. Make special rules that apply just to those 'greedy oil companies' and watch how research and development and the exploration for new resources dries up.

Which, by the way, is exactly what the president and other Big Government apparatchniks want.

They absolutely loves the high taxes generated by super-sized prices at the pump, which gives them huge sums to spend on pet projects and rewarding loyal constituencies. Those greedy, profiteering oil companies make, on average, about a 9% profit on a gallon of gas in exchange for finding, pumping, shipping, refining and retailing it. In California, the government's cut on a gallon of gasoline at today's prices simply for being there ranges from a 17% 'profit' per gallon in outlying areas to 22% in cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco, depending on sales taxes and the actual retail price involved.

President Obama is hoping that retailing the Big Lie on energy is going to spin the issue to make high gas prices the fault of the Republicans in Congress, who won't OK fresh giveaways of taxpayer dollars to his green energy cronies.

It shows exactly how much this president really cares about the 'little people', doesn't it?

Iran Ends Crude Oil Sales To UK And French Companies

The Iranian regime has formally announced that it is cutting off all oil sales to French and British companies.

The ban is in retaliation for EU sanctions on buying Iranian oil, set to go into effect on July 1st of this year.

"Exporting crude to British and French companies has been stopped ... we will sell our oil to new customers," spokesman Alireza Nikzad was quoted as saying by the Ministry of Petroleum website. For 'new customers', read India and China.

The European countries had already cut back their purchases of Iran oil in anticipation of the sanctions, with major players like French company Total, Royal Dutch Shell and Spain's Cepsa and Repsol either cutting back sharply on Iranian crude or ceasing to buy it altogether.The EU accounted for close to 18% of Iran's imports.

The Europeans say they have reserves for about 120 days, and there are additional sources available like Russia, South America,Libya, the U.S.and European North Sea Oil. In addition, the Saudis and Gulf States have already pledged to make up any shortfall. That could lead to fireworks if the Iranians decide to try close off the Strait of Hormuz to stop the Persian Gulf Oil from reaching Europe.

The idea behind the sanctions is to force Tehran into giving up its illegal nuclear weapons program. I see the Iranian regime as trying something much more dramatic rather than giving up their nukes.

India Opts Out Of Participating In Iran Oil Embargo

India, the world's fourth largest oil consumer has informed the US and Europe that it will not participate in the embargo on Iranian oil scheduled to start - if it starts - this summer.

"It is not possible for India to take any decision to reduce the imports from Iran drastically, because among the countries which can provide the requirement of the emerging economies, Iran is an important country amongst them," Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee told reporters on a visit to the Unites States.

Yeah, sanctions'll work. Sure they will.

In a related item, India and Iran have agreed to drop the use of the dollar as a reserve currency for oil trading between the two countries. They're using gold.

Khaddaffi Dead : The Fall Of The Brother Leader

Libyan leader Moamad Khaddaffi was killed this morning, fighting to the last as his final stronghold in Sirte was taken by the rebels.He'd been in power for 44 years.

National Transitional Council (NTC) Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril announced the death at a news conference this morning in Tripoli.

Jibril said NTC forces were now pursuing Saif al-Islam, Col Khaddaffi's most prominent son, who fled Sirte in a convoy before Sirte fell. He's probably the last major Khaddaffi loyalist still at large.

Jibril also called for neighboring Algeria to turn over the members of KHaddaffi's family who fled there in August to revolutionary justice. Two of KHaddaffi's younger sons, his daughter and his wife are in the country.

"A new Libya is born today," Mahmoud Shammam, the chief spokesman of the Transitional National Council, said today in a statement. "This is the day of real liberation. We were serious about giving him a fair trial. It seems Allah has some other wish."

Apparently so.

British and French leaders hailed the of Khaddaffi's death and the preservation of those lucrative oil contracts they signed with the rebel forces.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy called the death a major step forward for the people of Libya and urged the pursuit of democratic reforms.

"The disappearance of Moamer Kadhaffi is a major step forward in the battle fought for more than eight months by the Libyan people to liberate themselves from the dictatorial and violent regime imposed on them for more than 40 years."

William Hague, Britain's Foreign Secretary said: "When the uprising began, we didn't know how long this would take. I think we feel vindicated all along as the country is now free to become a free and fair democracy. We are very pleased that with Khaddaffi has been removed. There is work to be now to stabilise Libya and bring together separate militias under the control of one governemnt. Once the liberation is declared then there's 30 days to form a transitional government. We should be on the optimistic side, but should not rule out further problems.

It could be a long job for the UK and our allies, but not so much a military job now. Tripoli is not Baghdad."

In other words, count on a lot more of your tax dollars going for nation building before the nature of Libya's new government is actually known.Actually, the odds on an Arab state being established in Libya that's actually free and democratic are incredibly long ones, but the oil will start flowing,which is all the British and French ever were concerned about in the first place.

After all, they didn't care a fig about 'democracy' when they were actively dealing with the Khaddaffi for the oil during his reign, and they were even able to happily ignore the Brother Leader's involvement in the Lockerbie Bombing. What they cared about was that black gold underneath Libya's sands.



The British and French only dumped Khaddaffi during the initial surge of the rebellion, when it looked like he was finished, and their response was to abandon Khaddaffi and rush to sign new oil deals with the rebels. When Khaddaffi rallied and pushed the rebels back to their final stronghold in Benghazi, the Brits and the French realized that they were going to be left out in the cold. And that's when NATO suddenly became involved and western military action against Khaddaffi's forces was launched to turn the tide.

I remind you of this not to defend Khaddaffi, but to give you a little realistic perspective on the matter, so no one's disappointed when the West pours billions into a Libyan rathole only to have it turn out as something different than 'free and democratic'. If the West's leaders were really all that fired up about freedom of democracy, they would have put Khaddaffi in the jar a long time ago.

All the pious nonsense about 'establishing freedom and democracy' or 'protecting the rights of the Libyan people' needs to be seen as exactly that. This was nineteenth century imperialism writ large, and it was always about the oil.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

The 'Arab Spring' Reaches Saudi Arabia - Courtesy Of Iran

Saudi Arabia announced that an unnamed foreign country - normally code for Iran - was responsible for unrest in its Eastern Province, after armed men opened fire on police during a protest near the city of al-Qatif on Monday.Eleven Saudi security personnel and three protesters were wounded when security forces clashed with protesters and a group of armed men opened up onthe Saudi forces with automatic weapons and Molotov cocktails.

“A group of instigators inspired by a foreign country gathered in al-Awwamiya village near Qatif at 9pm on Monday and tried to undermine security,” an interior ministry official was quoted as saying in a statement to the Saudi press agency.

While the majority of Saudis are Sunni and live in the western part of the country near the Red Sea where Riyadh and Mecca are located, the Eastern part of the country near the Persian Gulf is home to Saudi Arabia's largely Shi'ite underclass. Just coincidentally, the East is also where the oil is.

The Saudis, aided by the British( who wanted that oil and saw Ibn-Saud as a reliable ally) conquered the Eastern Province in 1925, and its Shi'ites, about 10% of the Saudi population have been subjugated ever since.

Iran sees this as an opportunity to joust with the Saudis, just as it attempted to do using the Shi'ites in Bahrain. The tactic of using an armed militia enveloped in sectarian protests is a time-honored tactic the mullahs used in Lebanon and in Iraq.

This is not the first protest by Shi'ites in the Qatif area. One demand has been the withdrawal of Saudi forces from Bahrain, a goal that means little to Saudi Shi'ites compared with other issues but one that means a lot to Iran. Who's pulling the strings is fairly obvious.

Nor is Qatif a random location. It's close to some major installations in the Saudi oil infrastructure like the Abqaiq processing center, which handles about 70 per cent of the Kingdom’s production.

Expect further protests and unrest in this area...courtesy of Iran.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Israel..The New Oil Super Producer?

Apparently, Israel isn't only rich in natural gas.

The above map shows huge deposits of shale oil located in Israel...at least 250 billion barrels of oil in Israel’s Shfela basin, comparable to Saudi Arabia’s entire reserves of 260 billion barrels of oil. And some experts believe there may be double that amount available.



( h/t Joshua's Army member Louie Louie for the vid)

An American consortium named IDT owns the Shfela concession through its subsidiary, Israel Energy Initiatives and now has a team in place that includes Lord Jacob Rothschild, hedge fund investor Michael Steinhardt, Rupert Murdoch, former president of Mobil Oil Eugene Renna, former president of Occidental Oil Shale Allan Sass, and the former president of Halliburton Dick Cheney, all of whom are not only savvy investors knowledgeable when it comes to oil but long time Zionists and friends of Israel. Legendary oil man Harold Vinegar is also part of the team, Shell Oil’s former chief scientist with some 240 patents to his name who revolutionized the shale oil industry.

Vinegar was a key player in making the extraction of shale oil environmentally friendly and far more profitable. The heat needed to extract the shale from the rock is provided by natural gas, which Israel, just by coincidence, also has in abundance. The new technology provides oil at about $35-$40 a barrel, produces greenhouse gas emissions less than half that from conventional oil wells and does not use water.

The geopolitical impact is also not without interest.

Right now, Russia has an iron grip on all of the natural gas pipelines coming from Central Asia into Europe, and both China and the EU are deferential to OPEC regimes like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela and the Sudan because they desperately need the oil.

The ability of Israel to export natural gas in large quantities to the EU in the next year or so is going to break the gas stranglehold and change the political climate in Europe towards Israel significantly. And as Israel's shale oil comes online, expect China and India, both of whom Israel already has significant commercial ties with to want a share of the action as well.

Unlike the gentleman in the above video, I don't expect the 'Palestinians' to peacefully enjoy a little piece of the action from increased trade, especially since the 'Palestinians' now have a de facto boycott on Israeli-made goods. In fact, I expect one cost of doing business is going to be protecting the shale oil and the offshore gas facilities from terrorist attacks. But then, the Israelis are used to that and should be able to cope.

Imagine a world in which OPEC no longer has a stranglehold on the world's economy, and where low cost energy promotes prosperity globally.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

OPEC Meeting Ends In Disagreement; Saudis Unable To Get Production Increased

For the first time in it's history, the Saudis were unable to get the other members of the OPEC oil cartel to agree to increase production to lower prices.

The meeting reportedly ended in considerable turmoil and acrimony, and Ali al-Naimi, the oil minister for Saudi Arabia was quoted as saying, "We were unable to reach an agreement—this is one of the worst meetings we have ever had."

The Saudis are OPEC's biggest producer, and normally have enough clout to sway the others to go along with them. But the meeting degenerated into a stand off between the Gulf Arab countries, who had undoubtedly trying to fulfill a request from the White House to get prices lowered before the oncoming election and anti-US forces in the coalition led by Iran and Venezuela.

In addition, Qatar has given support to the Libyan rebels fighting Mummar Khaddaffi's government, while the Saudis have angered Shi'ite Iran and Shi'te dominated Iraq by sending troops to support the Sunni Bahraini government against a Shi'ite rebellion.

Opposing production increases were Libya, Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Venezuela, Iraq ( such gratitude) and Iran, and they had enough clout to oppose the Gulf states and prevent an agreement. The Saudis and the UAE are reportedly going to try unilaterally increase production.

Crude prices immediately spiked to $118 per barrel.

What this means in the political realm here in the US is that prices at the pump aren't coming down anytime soon,which definitely has an effect on President Obama's chances for re-election next November, since the Obama Administration still effectively has a de facto ban on offshore drilling.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Saudis Slash Oil Output

The Saudi Oil Minister said yesterday that the Kingdom had slashed oil output by 800,000 barrels per day in March due to oversupply. Oil Ministers from Kuwait and the UAE likewise announced their concerns about an oversupply, and this is a signal that OPEC will not be talking about increasing supplies until it meets again in June.

Crude is currently at $127 per barrel.

The Saudis and the other Arab oil producing members of OPEC are rightly concerned about oversupply since increasing prices have led to decreased demand, and they have a number of other practical reasons for keeping supplies down and preserving prices.

The Arab world has been inundated with protests and unrest, which has involved the Sunni autocracies in the Persian Gulf spending money on subsidies to keep things quiet. The Saudis, for instance, have promised nearly $93 billion in handouts to their citizens.

Another factor is increased spending on armaments, particularly by the Saudis, as Iran becomes increasingly more militant and domineering and the Saudis and others in the region realize that the Obama Administration is essentially unserious about curbing the Iranian Shi'ite threat. The Saudis are already spending money to defeat Iranian-backed insurgencies in Bahrein and Yemen, and the last thing they can afford right now is a sharp fall in oil prices.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Operation Mullah Stomp: The military option on Iran

Now that the President has unveiled his strategy on Iraq,it appears that even he, four years down the road has finally realized that the key to success in Iraq - and victory in this war- lies in dealing successfully with Iran.

The conventional wisdom voiced by a number of people, including the infamous Iraq Study Group, is that it's necessary to `negotiate' with the genocidal regime in Iran in order to extricate ourselves from Iraq...and as part of a comprehensive `Middle East peace settlement'.

Negotiations between nations only work when two factors are present: first, both nations must be convinced that they have something to gain by negotiating that they can't obtain any other way, and second, both nations must be convinced of the other party's trustworthiness and willingness to keep agreements.

I think we can safely say, based on that, that negotiations with Iran are pretty much a non-starter.

We're also told ad nauseum by the usual suspects that a military option is out of the question, even though Iran is actively involved with what a previous generation of Americans would have considered acts of war. And that we should concentrate on diplomacy and on isolating Iran.

I can sympathize with such feelings, given how well the Bush Administration has handled the occupation and the `nation building' adventure in Iraq. But the fact remains that Iran regards itself in a war with the Great Satan, and as is typical with such regimes, things will only escalate.

This bears repeating: Iran regards itself as being at war with us, and has been conducting itself accordingly. And the only question that remains is whether we fight at a time of our choosing, or theirs.

Iran, frankly, has no choice but war or expansion, rather like Hitler's Germany or Tojo's Japan. It's oil exports are dropping by 13% per year because of obsolete equipment, corruption and a paucity of foreign investment. Inflation is in double digits, and nobody wants the rial - anything Iran buys is reckoned in dollars or euros. Iran admits to 15% unemployment ..in the `cannon fodder bracket' ages 18-39, it's more like 30%. It would even be higher if the mullahs hadn't resorted to the classic technique of despots and picked up part of the slack with government hiring in the army, baseji militia and security services.

Likewise, any thoughts about the international community, sanctions and `isolation' ignores the fact that the mullahs have something to sell that the world wants very badly, and that Russia and China and perhaps some of the European nations will not cooperate with any `isolation'. It's worth their while not to.


I had my own ideas about what a proper strategy for Iran would involve, and with that in mind I consulted some professional military who have long been members and contributers in Joshua's Army.

We came up with similar conclusions...the Iranian regime is extremely vulnerable to defeat and humiliation if we properly utilize a military option.

Here are some points to consider:

• Just taking out Iran's nuclear facilities, even if completely successful is a desirable end in itself, but does nothing by itself to eliminate Iran as a threat or as a focal point of terrorism and jihad against the west.It merely delays the game a few years. So any military option that's pursued needs to consider how to eliminate both a potential nuclear threat and conventional military and terrorism attacks, to the degree it's possible.

• In the event of things escalating, Iran has three main points of attack to pursue against us: conventional attacks against our forces in Iraq, (probably aided by the Iraqi Shiite militias we so stupidly allowed Iran to arm and train), a naval shut down of the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, and terrorist attacks here in the US through its network of Hezbollah cells. A proper line of attack should minimize if not totally eliminate those threats.

• The US should be willing to do this unilaterally, since most of our allies have pretty much said they're disinclined to get involved, and be prepared to accept significant political fallout both domestically and internationally, seeing as how the US unfortunately signed on to a bunch of toothless UN sanctions last week.

Crazy as it sounds, Iran's threat to the US, at this point in time, is mostly conventional. Let's start there.

About 40% or so of the world’s crude oil passes through the Persian Gulf via the Straits of Hormuz, a narrow channel that's only about 21 miles wide at its narrowest point.

The Straits border on Iran and the Sultanate of Oman, with the oil tankers protected by international agreement and patrolled by a multinational naval force, including US vessels.

Iran has made it very clear that it wants to gain control of the Straits, so that it can control the oil and gas flow for the region. It's already been threatening a cut-off of oil traffic if the UN imposes any further sanctions in connection with Iran's nuclear program. The mullahs claim they have the power to totally halt the oil supply from the Gulf and blackmail the world economy.

In April of this year, Iranian armed forces staged what they called the “Holy Prophet war games” in the Gulf, launching new types of anti-ship missiles and demonstrating what it could look like if Iran decided to get nasty and cut off traffic in the Straits. In addition, the Iranian navy reportedly has contingency plans to close the Straits of Hormuz in the event of war using anti-ship missiles, coastal artillery, mines, submarine attacks and even explosive-packed suicide motor boats. Meanwhile, Iran’s land based missile launchers would target strategic oil facilities around the Gulf rim, including in Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait.

Even an Iranian threat to shut down the Straits would cause tanker traffic to decrease, oil prices to spiral upwards, and cause major havoc with the world economy.

Sounds scary, right? But here's the good part: Iran can't shut down the Persian Gulf without shutting down its own oil cash flow. The mullahs are in a trap of their own making.

Almost 90 percent of the mullahs’ oil facilities are located either in or near the Gulf. So is the nuclear reactor that Russia is building for Iran at Bushehr. And almost all Iranian oil production needs free access to the Gulf if Iran’s oil is to reach the market.

So the same threat Iran is using to blackmail the world into acquiescing to Iran as an aggressive nuclear armed world power and leader of the global jihad is a double edged sword that provides the key to defeating them, reducing the Iranian threat and isolating them until the regime (and their economy) collapses or Iran evolves to the point that they learn to conduct themselves in a civilized and peaceful manner.

So here's how a forceful and successful operation against Iran it might look:

The first step would involve the US deploying a fleet in or near the Gulf of Oman, including minesweepers, at least two carrier strike groups, guided missile destroyers, submarines and anti-submarine ships , with another fleet on standby in the Indian Ocean. The U.S. Navy could also deploy drones and subs to keep watch above and below against any Iranian missile threat to our fleet. This would make it clear that we would not allow any interruption of tanker traffic in either the Gulf of Oman or the Straits. We could then be in a position to protect non-Iranian shipments while blockading all shipments of Iranian oil.

To back this up, we would need to launch a comprehensive air/ naval strike aimed at Iran's ports, navy ships, air-defense systems, air-force bases and communications systems, and especially its missile launching sites along the Gulf coast. The attack could also target Iran’s nuclear facilities—not only the known sites but the infrastructure- the bridges, tunnels and roads - to stop Iran from simply moving materials and/or production from one site to another.

But the main objective of the attack would would be Iran's weakest link....it's gasoline refineries and oil production.

Believe it or not, Iran actually rations gasoline and imports almost forty percent of what it consumes domestically. With its refineries out of production and its storage tanks destroyed, Iran’s cars, trucks, buses, planes, tanks, and other military and domestic vehicles would be running on empty in a matter of weeks or maybe even days. The Russians might supply them with some gasoline, but just getting it to Iran in the quantities necessary with be far too expensive and time consuming to do the mullahs any real good, and would eat up Iran's foreign exchange reserves in double quick time. Without sufficient fuel, Iran's army would pretty much be at a standstill, and the only major way Iran could retaliate is through proxies like the Shiite Militias against out troops in Iraq. And facing US firepower without fresh supplies from Iran, the orphaned militias would be at a distinct disadvantage, especially if we coordinated a military assault against them on the ground in Iraq with our strike against Iran.

With Iran's navy and army neutralized, the next step could be to use a force of Marines and special-operations forces from one of our amphibious attack ships - say, the USS Boxer which is already in the area - to seize key Iranian oil facilities in the Gulf. That includes roughly 100 offshore wells and platforms built on Iran’s continental shelf. We could also seize or incapacitate the North and South Pars offshore fields, as well as Kargh Island, whose terminal facilities pump the oil from Iran’s best oil fields like Ahwaz, Marun, and Gachsaran. Controlling Kharg Island would make them almost useless. Instead of the Mullahs controlling the Persian Gulf, we would be in a position to choke off the major part of their oil exports almost at will.

Seem too simple and far fetched? It isn't. As a matter of fact, as M reminded me, the US actually did something like this once before, during the Iran-Iraq War in the mid to late 1980's.

During that war, Iran began attacking tankers and we sent the US navy in to protect the oil flow. When the Iranians got aggressive and nasty, our navy sank one Iranian frigate, severely damaged another and sank several Iranian patrol boats. Teams of Navy SEALS also temporarily seized Iranian oil platforms in the Gulf.

As was pointed out to me, this would be much more humiliating for the mullahs than my original suggestion, which was to target the oil fields and destroy them. Having something and not being able to use it is much worse than having it utterly destroyed...and the oil fields would then be usable for the benefit of the Iranian people after the mullahs are overthrown.

No plan is perfect, and there are always risks, but Iran's strategic threat is something that needs to be dealt with decisively, whether we like it or not. We are simply paying the bill for almost thirty years of wrongheaded policy, starting with the Carter Administration. The way things stand now, the strategic benefits to this approach far outweigh the risks any way you look at it.

One of those major risks, of course,would be Iran's activating of its Hezbollah cells here in America. The FBI and Homeland Security would have to minimize this risk by being on the ball and performing the same way the FBI and Secret Service performed during WWII: by arresting, interning or deporting anyone who looks, talks or smells like a possible security risk.

Other than terrorism, there's not much Iran could do to retaliate. Iran's navy is antiquated and easily dealt with and the same is true of the Iranian army and the Revolutionary Guards - who would be stranded for lack of transport.And since this would be primarily a naval and air campaign, rather than a land war, there would be no need to reduce our troop presence in Iraq or engage Iran's army directly, for the most part. Estimates of the forces needed to pull this off vary depending on who's doing the talking, utilizing one or two carrier strike groups, one to three Marine brigades and possibly an airborne brigade.

Even the specter of oil price spikes in the event of a military action against Iran might be overstated. Right now, the mullahs crank out about 2.5 million barrels of oil a day...and dropping, by about 12% each year. But according to Merrill Lynch's analysis of the oil industry, new production is estimated to boost worldwide production by million barrels per year. And Iran itself couldn't afford to hold out for long. Pumping crude oil is its only industry, about 85 percent of its exports and providing 65 percent Iran's total budget. All that's left are pistachio nuts and a few carpets. With Iran's oil production cut off and the country's ports blockaded, Iran's economy would quickly go bankrupt, with no money to spare for Hezbollah, the Iraqi militias, Hamas, further nuke programs or the global jihad.

The West could simply sit and watch the regime implode.

There are some hopeful signs that the Bush Administration may be leaning in this direction, with the appointment of Admiral William Fallon as supreme commander of CENTCOM in Iraq and the deployment of carrier strike groups and amphibious attack ships in the Persian Gulf.

Political fallout? Yes indeed. President Bush has done very little to get the American public or congress to trust him in the least, and with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, the outcry would be tremendous. Europe and especially the Russians would undoubtedly scream bloody murder. But, like the deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe during the Cold War and the Israeli raid on Osirak, sometimes the strategic benefits are worth the flak..much of which would hide a great deal of private relief.

Most importantly, the American people would overwhelmingly support our taking the fight to the enemy in this decisive fashion for a change.

If we plan on victory in this war, neutralizing Iran is a major, if not decisive and imperative step along the way.

Carthago delenda est.

Many thanks to The Old General, M, Ze'ev, and Mad Max for their kind assistance.

Time to do the mullah dance

We have a problem with Iran. What exactly should we do about it?

Here's a dose of reality: there are few options available, and none of them is pretty..simply because the West has let this fester far too long. We now have to pay the price for a number of years of kick-the-can neglect.

One stream of thought out in the ozone opts for diplomacy, or if not actual diplomacy, just a simple acknowledgement that Iran is now part of the `nuclear club' and we will simply have to live with it.

Except we can't afford to.

`Living with it' would be akin to learning to live with a live rattler in the house...except Iran would be more dangerous. For one thing, there's the distinct possibility- I'd say it's almost a certainty - that Iran would provide nukes down line, to the terrorist groups it sponsors and is closely allied with for use against the West. It has said so, as recently as today. Such attacks could be very hard to trace back to Iran. By then, it might be too late anyway..and if the fingerprints were the least bit uncertain, would a future US president have the will to do so in the face of massive political opposition and street theater from the Angry Left?

Even worse, in some ways, is the idea that Iran might not use the bomb...but instead would use it as a threat to coerce `respect' from the West, pump up the price of oil and gas and beef up its leadership of the Islamist bloc while fomenting conventional terrorism and Iran based Islamist takeovers. Think the Cartoon Jihad was bad? Wait.

And don't believe the nonsense that Iran is `years away from the bomb'. I give it three years max..provided Iran doesn't already have nukes to play with.

The Manhattan Project,using much less sophisticated technology only took 4 years.

What lots of people who think a simple diplomatic solution is possible don't consider is that Iran may actually be seeking a confrontation with the West as a 'divine mission'. Notice I said Iran, not Ahmadinejad...important to remember that he's merely a hired hand of the Supreme Council of Guardians and Khameini.

To fully understand what we’re dealing with here, we need to throw out the notion that we’re dealing with a Western mindset, and examine Iran’s theological and psychological makeup.

All streams of Islam believe in a divine saviour, known as the Mahdi, who will appear at the End of Days. Several Islamic demagogues have raised vast armies and taken territory by utilizing this belief through history.

Iran's dominant Shia "Twelver" sect believes this will be Mohammed ibn Hasan, regarded as the 12th Imam, or righteous descendant of the Prophet Mohammad.

He is said to have gone into "seclusion" in the ninth century, at the age of five. His return will be preceded by chaos, war and bloodshed. After a cataclysmic battle with evil and darkness, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal Dar Islam..domination of the world by Islam and Sharia law.

By all accounts Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Council are consumed with devotion to this Hidden Imam, and the belief that Iran's government must prepare the way for his return. Ahmadinejad and the Council appear to be acting on the throes of a religious fervor, a sense of divine mission.

Just take a look at Ahmadinejad's international debut, a speech to the United Nations.

The UN delegates were expecting Ahmadinejad to make nice and take a step towards defusing the nuclear crisis after Teheran restarted its nuclear program in August.

Hoo, were they surprised!

Instead, they heard Ahmadinejad speaking in apocalyptic terms of Iran and Islam struggling against an evil West and ending with the messianic appeal to Allah to "hasten the emergence of your last repository, the Promised One, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace".

And bring on that wonderful period of Dar-Islam, submission to Islam.Batta bang, batta-bing!

In a video released all over Iran last November, Ahmadinejad is shown telling one of Iran's clerical rulers that he had `felt the hand of God entrancing world leaders' when he spoke to the UN General Assembly. He talked about how the other members of the Iranian delegation had seen an aura of light around him while he spoke to the UN.

"I felt it myself too," Ahmadinejad says in the movie. "I felt that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed there. And for 27-28 minutes all the leaders did not blink…it's not an exaggeration, because I was looking."

"They were astonished, as if a hand held them there and made them sit. It had opened their eyes and ears for the message of the Islamic Republic."

Maybe, after a few minutes of Ahmadinejad, the UN delegates might have been using a skill of mine that never failed to amaze my friends in high school... the art of sleeping with their eyes open. Or perhaps they were shocked into rapt attention...kind of like people watching an approaching train wreck or one of those slo-mo violence scenes Hollywood loves to serve up.

Ahamdinejad followed this performance up with a stream of statements like the ones about Israel being wiped off the map that startled Westerners but are perfectly in tune with the Qu'rannic vision of the return of the Mahdi and the Last Days. In the Qu'ran, on the Day of Judgement the very rocks and trees will call out to Muslims to kill the Jews hiding behind them.

These were not casual references.

Are Ahmadinejad and the Supreme council now pushing for a clash with the West because they feel safe in the belief of the imminent return of the Hidden Imam?

And are they trying to speed up things in the hope of hastening his reappearance?

Let’s look at Iran's recent history and Ahmadinejad’s to get a few more clues, shall we?

During the Iran-Iraq War, the Ayatollah Khomeini imported 500,000 small plastic keys from Taiwan. After Iraq invaded Iran in September 1980 and the Iranians initially suffered military reverses, Khomeini recruited Iranian children, some as young as twelve years old, and sent them to the front. There, they marched across minefields toward the enemy lines in human waves, clearing a path with their bodies. Every one of them had one of those Taiwanese keys hung around his neck…and the children were told that these were their Keys to open Paradise.

No joke.

These children who ran to their deaths in suicide attacks were part of the Basiji, a mass movement created by Khomeini after the Revolution in 1979 and put on the front lines after the war began. The Basij Mostazafan--or "mobilization of the oppressed"--was a volunteer militia, most of whose members hadn't even turned 18 yet. They went by the thousands, willing martyrs for Khomeini and the regime.

Today the slaughter of the Basiji is a source of Iranian legend and national pride...believe it or not. Since the end of the Iraq war in 1988, the Basiji have vastly increased both in numbers and influence, as a cadre of loyal heroes of the Islamic Republic. They’ve been used mostly as religious police to enforce Sharia in Iran, and as Allah's own storm troopers against dissidents. And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president, served as a Basij instructor during the Iran-Iraq War…and is now the poster boy for the movement. Recruited from the more conservative and impoverished parts of the population (the exact social class Hitler used for the SA), the Basiji swear absolute loyalty to the Supreme Leader Ali Khameini, Khomeini's successor. During Ahmadinejad's run for the presidency in 2005, the millions of Basiji all over Iran got solidly behind Ahmadinejad in every Iranian town, neighborhood, and mosque and pushed his presidency. He was their guy..and the regime's.

Re-examine that little bit of information for a second…the man who trained children to blow themselves up for Allah at the Mullah’s behest is now the country’s president.

Turn it over in your mind.

The inmates have definitely taken over the Persian asylum. And this suicide martyr complex is deeply engraved in the Iranian/Shia psyche.

After all, why be afraid when the Hidden Imam is on his way?

Something else to turn over in your mind is Iran’s perception of how America and the West has reacted to any confrontation or provocation.

In 1979, the Iranians got away with something no other country has ever done, even in wartime. They seized a US embassy and held diplomats hostage for over a year...and the Carter Administration did nothing about it.

This perception has been reinforced since then by our retreats from Beirut after a Hezbollah suicide attack, our failure to deal decisively with Saddam after defeating him in the first Gulf War and continuing through our retreat from Somalia...not to mention our `nuanced' and indecisive response to having 3,000 of our fellow citizens slaughtered while a significant portion of the adherants of the Religion of peace celebrated it as one happening victory for the Great Jihad. And why wouldn't the mullahs feel that way? Until very recently our leaders couldn't even bring themselves to call the enemy by its right name.

Iran sees us a power in retreat…eager to recoil after any forceful response by the Islamic world. And Iran considers itself the rightful standard bearer of a resurgent Caliphate Islam.

As Amir Taheri has written, the mullahs see Bush as an aberration to the usual Western pattern – a president who can be waited out, while Iran consolidates and upgrades its military, its alliances and its nuclear weaponry.

Diplomacy only works when you are dealing with people that perceive they have something to lose. Although, as I wrote a few months back I wouldn't be surprised to see the Mullahs toy with the diplomacy game for as long as they can, even anounce some sort of token `joint enrichment' scam with Russia as part of that effort to wait Bush out.

Sanctions and multilateral diplomacy has been and will remain a waste of time.

Aside from the fact that Russia, China and certain members of the EU are unlikely to abide by them, the black market is alive and well, especially when you have oil and gas to sell.

So where's that leave us?

The key to solving this little dilemma is to remember that we're not only dealing with Iran's nukes. We are dealing with Iran as the leader of jihad and the Islamist movement - which is exactly how Iran sees itself.

President Bush touched on this when he compared `Militant Islam' with the communist menace of the Cold War. Except that the mullahs and their pals have a very different mindset in some ways. The communists actually cared about staying alive.

Are we prepared to be half as ruthless and thorough as the mullahs are towards us to preserve our lives and freedom?

`A quick surgical air strike' on Iran's nuclear facilities is possible, but only solves half the problem at best and just postpones things, even if we do manage to destroy most of the hidden, protected and dispersed sites our Russian `friends' have so thoughtfully built for Iran.

And anyone who seriously talks about a land invasion and occupation of Iran is likewise not exactly living in reality. While the US military, perhaps with assists from the Ozzies, the Brits(I haven't totally counted them out just yet, Blair's remarks notwithstanding) and others are more than capable of handling the job, the casualties, money and effort involved would be horrendous...not to mention the political fallout from certain quarters. Remember, we are talking about people that consider `martyrdom' a virtue. And why bother, when we don't need to?

While going after Iran's nukes is definitely important, even more important is attacking the means of their obtaining nukes and financing terrorism in the future, as well as sending a message that jihad against the West is no longer a painless option. Aside from military targets, the most effective strike would be at Iran's ports, navy, pipelines, infrastructure and especially at its oil and gas fields. And we will need to do this in an absolutely thorough and even ruthless fashion.

In short, we need to deal with Iran the way we once dealt with Qadaffi and Libya...but on a larger and much more complete scale.

Once that happens, once the regime is effectively decapitated and its fangs drawn, we can isolate the mullahs and their regime until the whole rotten structure collapses and more moderate forces take control. Or not. That's up to the Iranians.

Not only will we have actually eliminated the nuclear threat by eliminating Iran's cash flow, but we will have struck perhaps a fatal blow at the Great Jihad and Islamic terrorism...and shown its proponents that there is a huge price to pay for attacking the West.

Will it be costly? You bet. We can count on the mullahs seeking revenge and retaliation using whatever's left of Iran's surrogates in Iraq, Europe and throughout the Middle East and Central Asia, so we will have to deploy our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan accordingly and allocate the necessary firepower available to deal with that problem. And we might experience a domestic rise in oil prices, or even rationing until our domestic production ramps up.

But an unchecked Iran results in those scenarios or worse anyway, sooner or later. And less ability to change the situation than we have now. No pain, no gain.

Thanks to our neglect and failure to act decisively for the last 27 odd years, we face a choice between bad and worse options, and the cost of dealing with Iran will increase every year it's postponed. How we deal with Iran and jihad is the challenge we face, just as the west has had to face it before. This is a threshhold moment.

Time to do the mullah dance.