U.S. Denies Israel’s Weapons Request

The U.S. has denied a request by Israel for weapons or military equipment because the U.S. believes it would be used for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, reported the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz.

The story is highly suspect however, because the Haaretz does not offer a source for the alleged request, but other media have reported that Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak does not deny the Haaretz story. So that seems to authenticate what the Haaretz reported.

But what can be gained from such an attack? As history has shown the world, it would prolong Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons development by years. In 1981, Israel attacked Iraq’s nuclear reactor and as recently as 2007, Israel attacked Syria’s clandestine nuclear reactor.

But according to an Institute for Science and International Security report, an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities might not work.

And recently, Iran has stated it would continue its nuclear program despite more sanctions from the U.N. The U.S. and other nations believe that Iran’s nuclear program is not for peaceful energy for its people, as Iran has stated, but for nuclear-grade weapons.

And with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying that Israel is dying and has called for its destruction, it would be foolish to assume that Iran does not have sinister intentions for its nuclear facilities. After all, Ahmadinejad claims that Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and yet he has stated that Israel should be wiped off the map.

Let’s suppose that Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, what would happen? Besides pushing development of any nuclear weapons back a good number of years, Israel would undoubtedly suffer deadly retaliation from Iran, Syria, Hamas, and other terrorists groups who would like to see the Jewish state die in a smoldering hole.

There are ramifications that Israel would have to face, however it is a country that has a long history of being nearly constantly attacked by its neighbors. A preemptive strike by Israel is not an act of aggression, as some would say, but an act of self-preservation.

Israel has the right to exist regardless of threats and dissociations from Iran and terrorists groups. However, Israel should continue seeking non-combative solutions with Iran until they are exhausted.

But while a preemptive strike to ensure Israel’s existence should not be the first option, it should be an option nonetheless.

Ahmadinejad Hangs Himself In Columbia Speech

I truly believe in the old saying, “Give a man enough rope and he’ll hang himself with it.” And that’s what Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did today at Columbia University.

When I first heard of Ahmadinejad’s visit to America, I was outraged, as were many Americans. However, after reading about his rants to audience members at Columbia University, he showed the world what an uninformed, hypocritical and dangerous dictator he really is.

In fact, he made so many outrageous statements it’s hard to decide where to start. How about the 9/11 attacks?

“If the root causes of 9/11 are examined properly -- why it happened, what caused it, what were the conditions that led to it, who truly was involved, who was really involved …” Ahmadinejad said, as reported by CNN.

“Who was really involved.” Interesting choice of words. Ahmadinejad, who in the past claimed that Iran has plenty of freedoms, needs to give more of these elusive freedoms to his country’s state-controlled media.

If he did, Ahmadinejad would know that two weeks ago Osama bin Laden again claimed responsibility for the 9/11 terror attacks and presented a video will made by one of the terrorists on that fateful day. And that’s not even including al-Qaeda members, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who have confessed to planning the attacks.

Then Ahmadinejad made a statement that Iran has no gays. Considering that the punishment for either consenting man or woman homosexuality is either whippings or death, it’s a safe bet no one is going to come out of the closet any time soon.

Next, Ahmadinejad came to his favorite subject, Israel. In the past, he said that the Jewish State should be wiped off the map. Today, he wouldn’t give a “yes” or “no” answer when asked if he wanted to see the destruction of Israel. Although, it doesn’t take a genius to know what he would like to see.

But instead, the Iranian President said that “people of Palestine” should be the ones to vote on Israel’s status. Besides the fact that this flies in the face of nearly 60 years of established history that Israel is a country, many Palestinians have been “voting” on the Jewish State’s status by use of suicide bombs as ballots.

So in the end, Ahmadinejad hanged himself by saying he is misunderstood but did show that he is a dangerous man that needs to be taken seriously.

Handling The Hot Potato That’s Iraq

After everyone has had a chance to allow President Bush’s new Iraq plan to sink in, there are a few things that need to be reflected on and considered.

One of the highest criticisms from politicians, military experts and just about everyone else is that the more than 20,000 additional troops are not enough to carry this plan to victory. More troops are needed. I certainly agree and I have yet to find any countries in the “coalition of the willing” who have volunteered more of their men and women. Maybe these news articles have escaped my noticed.

Before our troops fired the first shot in this war, President Bush said it would not be like the Vietnam War, meaning our troops would not have restrictions placed on them when going after the enemy. For whatever reason, this faulty policy, most likely to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi citizens, was implemented. They would not want to see American or Iraq troops on holy land or places of worship. The president addressed this in his speech.

“In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods — and Prime Minister (Nouri al- )Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated,” the president said on Wednesday evening.

And this has been addressed countless times during the operation of the war. Hopefully now that the “green light” is on, will we see the results needed to stabilize Baghdad and the rest of the country.

The president also stressed what would happen if the plan failed or what would happen if Iraq’s leaders did not follow through with it. The insurgents and terrorists would have a strong foothold in Iraq and will threaten not only the region and the surrounding countries but America as well. The president should have thrown Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad into the mix as well, because of his undisclosed deal with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. (See Dec. 1, 2006, Times Observer blog, “Iraq Is Sleeping With The Enemy,” for more.)

But will this plan be allowed in Iraq? With Iraq’s president making a shady deal with Ahmadinejad and the deadly Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr having a follower in al-Maliki, it seems unlikely. Even though President Bush quoted al-Maliki as saying, “The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation,” it should not give us a false sense of security.

And with Talabani and al-Maliki making deals or supporting deadly men, is it worth being in Iraq if its leaders are willing to throw everything that has been fought with blood, sweat and tears away?

In addition, it has been reported that our troops are having a hard time training Iraqis to take over security detail. American soldiers have said that a good number of Sunnis troops being trained do not want to help the Shiites and do not trust them. And the reverse is also true, with Shiite troops do not want to aid the Sunnis. Our troops have also said that both groups of soldiers refuse to follow orders, sometimes saying “if Allah wills it.”

With these two black eyes on Iraq’s defiance to unify and become a country for all the people, America could use this as a graceful bow to exit the war with some dignity. Not too many people would blame the U.S. for doing that.

But a U.S. withdraw of Iraq would collapse it and provide insurgents and terrorists a huge base of operations, giving them oil fields to either black mail other countries or use the profits to fund their jihad on all non-radical Muslims. And we cannot allow to give them, especially al-Qaeda, that kind of victory.

Iraq Is Sleeping With The Enemy

For a long time now, I have always said that the insurgents are the real cause of the mess in Iraq. But with recent events in the news and who the new Iraqi government has decided to allied themselves with, the finger of blame should be pointed to Iraq’s leadership.

It should have sent shivers down most people’s backs when Iraqi President Jalal Talabani met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier this week to discuss Iran’s possible help in dealing with the onslaught of violence created by the insurgents. The question is what type of help could Ahmadinejad offer? Maybe he could stop Iran from sponsoring terrorists in Iraq.

And likely, that’s why Talabani called his meeting with Ahmadinejad a “visit was 100 percent successful,” according to Nasser Karimi, an Associated Press Writer. Sadly, neither of the presidents gave any details of the security agreement but as Karimi reported, Talabani said, “"We discussed in the fields of security, economy, oil and industry. Our agreement was complete.”

All Ahmadinejad said in a joint press conference with reporters that the U.S. should pull out of Iraq and not naming any countries, told nations to stop sponsoring Iraq insurgents because "supporting terrorists is the ugliest act that they can do." Apparently, Ahmadinejad did not want to incriminate himself or Iran. After all, he would not want to hurt Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s feelings. The United States has said that Iran has been sponsoring Shiite militants and al-Sadr has a powerful Shiite militia force called Mahdi Army. He also has no great love for America.

And let’s not forget the fact that al-Sadr has loyalists and supporters in high places in Iraq’s government but more on that in a bit. But for more information about al-Sadr, one would only have to go to the Web archives of USA Today’s Nov. 13 issue, and they would see that the people that al-Sadr “helps” into power makes life for Sunnis deadly. It’s a great article by Rick Jervis and I highly recommend it.

What does this deal mean for Iraq and America, besides the fact that Talabani made it with a devil? Well, Bill O’Reilly, FOX News commentator, made some pretty important points last night on his program. It is most likely that part of this deal worked out between the two presidents is about oil and let’s face facts, that’s probably a big part of this deal. O’Reilly believes this will increase Iran’s power by allowing the country to charge any amount of money on an oil barrel. If they do not, Iran will threaten them with terrorist attacks, he theorizes. He continues that Saudi Arabia would be the number one target and Americans will suffer greatly.

Another important point O’Reilly makes is that there would be no stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons because of the oil threat.

Like him or hate him, O’Reilly makes important points that should not be ignored or dismissed by the general public or politicians. Adding Iran into the equation does not bold well for the Iraqi people or Americans. It would be nice to know what happened behind closed doors on that meeting and Bush’s reactions.

If making a deal with Ahmadinejad was not enough, a leaked White House memo questions if Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ability to deal with the crisis that the country is currently facing. A meeting between President Bush and the prime minister was postponed (or canceled, depending on the news source) by al-Maliki himself, as the White House was quickly trying to clean up the mess on Wednesday.

Depending on who you listen to, an alleged royal source claims that talks between Bush and Jordan’s King Abdullah II went longer than expected and the meeting with al-Maliki in Jordan was canceled, reports Peter Wallsten and Solomon Moore, reporters for the Los Angeles Times. The White House also claims this. However, the same source in the LA Times story says that al-Maliki himself cancelled the meeting, in hopes of appeasing al-Sadr’s supporters, who boycotted the government on that same day. And this is when the fun really begins.

And this does cast doubt on al-Maliki’s ability to handle al-Sadr and his supporters. Because al-Maliki supported the group, it helped him win the election of prime minister. The participants of the boycott were 30 lawmakers and six Cabinet ministers, who are loyal to al-Sadr, the LA Times reported.

The cause of the boycott was al-Maliki’s meeting with Bush and it made “provocation to the feelings of the Iraqi people and a violation of their constitutional rights,” the LA Times reports, quoting a statement. How a meeting actually caused these feelings is an interesting question and it would make one laugh out loud if the situation was not so serious.

So, with leaders of Iraq keeping strange bedfellows with known supporters of terrorists, or terrorists themselves, the real question is not how America should be leaving Iraq but how can Iraq fight insurgents when they are welcoming them with open arms? If these are the types of people that the new Iraq government wants to deal with and refuses to control, then Talabani and al-Maliki better be prepared to sleep in the bloody beds they are making for themselves.