There is a real dilemma facing sane, rational Americans who do not want delusional people who have imaginary friends with their finger on the nuclear button being President. We know that the thug-in-chief who rules Iran believes in the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. He believes that when Iran finally brings about Armageddon, the Mahdi, who, they claim,  has been hiding at the bottom of a well in Qom for over 1100 years, will come out of that well to lead Shia Muslims to take over the world and to bring about a paradise where the whole population of the world will be Shia  Muslims living in peace and harmony. He really believes this ridiculous nonsense. In fact, every time there is a major government decision, he, or one of his personal assistants, takes a letter that explains the situation to the well in Qom and drops it into the well so that the Mahdi can be kept informed. You may think this is crazy (unless you are a 12ther Shia Muslim) but how is this any different from another man believing that God talked to him, or her, and told them to do whatever? (Charles Manson said similar things, as did many people who murdered their children.) How is this any different from a grown person believing that a virgin gave birth or that a person arose from the dead after 3 days? How is this any different from a grown adult believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny? (Especially since the whole half-man-half-god, virgin or strange birth at Christmas and resurrection from death at Easter, was an essential part of ancient Greek, Egyptian, and Indian mythology, encompassing such “gods” as Hercules, Osiris, Krishna, Mithras, Odysseus, and others? For a great overview on the mythology that Christianity is based upon, read “The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors”).

The idea that someone who believes such incredibly stupid, idiotic and childish myths, lies, and legends could have his finger on the nuclear button is terrifying. Already we have had two religiously moronic Presidents by the name of George Bush (I and II). One said that an atheist should not be allowed to be a citizen of the United States and two put into law the stem cell research ban. This idiocy will eventually mean that not only will George Bush II be responsible for more deaths than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Zedong combined, but he will also be responsible for the loss of an entire generation of stem cell researchers, since any American who might have wanted to go into that field had to either give up their dream and do something else or they had to learn a new language and move to South Korea or some other country with a more scientifically literate leadership. As for George Bush I, he would not have allowed people like Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Abraham Lincoln and others to have participated in government, let alone the founding of this nation, since they were all atheists by their own admission or by any reasonable standard. In fact, many of the very founders of this country beyond those mentioned above were, in fact, atheists, contrary to what the morons who keep talking about a “Christian nation” would have you believe. In fact, the Senate unanimously ratified the 1797 Treat of Tripoli that explicitly stated that the United States is not  a Christian nation.  “As the government of the United States of America is NOT IN ANY SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, …as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen…”

While Romney may not be a Christian in the mind of the Religious Right, he belongs to the Mormon religion. This is a religion that was clearly invented by a man much like Mohammad – a corrupt, conniving, womanizing, lier-and it has been thoroughly debunked by modern science. How anyone who belongs to it can be given any credibility is hard to believe. But then very few Americans actually know what is in the Book of Mormon. (Or, as Mark Twain, another well known atheist quipped, “If you took out all the ‘and it came to passes,’ they could call it the Pamphlet of Mormon.”) And this brings to mind another ludicrous “religion”; Scientology. The only real difference between the nonsense in the Book of Mormon and the beliefs of the Scientologists is that L. Ron Hubbard, who invented Scientology, was very forthcoming when he said, about inventing a religion: “You don’t get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.” (1) The differences between Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, and Scientology consist in the fact that while there almost certainly never was a Jesus Christ (and certainly not a person who was half-God, half-man, who arose from the dead), there almost certainly was the insane, epileptic, barbarian, misogynist, megalomaniac, pedophile named Mohammad who invented Islam and the conniving, con-man, womanizer named Joseph Smith who invented the Mormon religion, and the author L. Ron Hubbard who invented Scientology to improve his personal wealth.

Gingrich may be the smartest person in the room, but his religiosity is obnoxious and abhorrent. In a recent debate he kept harping on how an illegal alien should be accepted into the country if he belonged to a church! And, this from a guy whose personal life is so far from that of the teachings of the Bible that he served divorce papers on his first wife while she was dying in the hospital and cheated on his second wife with the woman who would become his third wife. I guess he converted to Catholicism because he figured if it was good enough for pedophile priests and mafia gangsters, who only had to say a few “Hail Mary’s” or whatever to be forgiven for whatever horrendous crimes they had committed, it was good enough for him.

I used to like Ron Paul because he gets it as far as the Fed is concerned and the general corruption of politicians by big business and lobbyists and he was the Libertarian candidate for a couple of elections. But, the Libertarians believe that abortion is between a woman and her doctor and it is not the business of government. In recent debates, I have heard him state that he believed that states, at least, could outlaw abortion. While he used to say that you could not codify abortion to be illegal, his new stand is obviously a change, and I hope that the Libertarian party does not consider him to be their candidate after he gets washed out from the Republican candidacy. Beyond this problem, while I agree that the United States should terminate its endless policy of interfering in the business of other countries and mind our own business, he clearly does not understand the problems posed by Islam. They don’t hate us because we are buying their oil, or have troops on their lands; they hate us because we are not Muslims. Period. Unless we come to worship Mohammad and his sock puppet Allah, they will hate us and do all that they can to destroy us.

Other problems abound. Romney forced all citizens in Massachusetts to purchase health insurance. This is clearly illegal. But, Obamacare is clearly based on Romneycare. Also, many of the candidates are in favor of “cap and tax”, a policy that would further bankrupt an already bankrupt Western world for a total non-problem called man-made “Global Warming.” This has been proven time and again to be nothing but a fraud and an attempt by the global elite, through the United Nations, to tax developed nations into third world status while doing nothing but enriching the global elite, the banksters and certain individuals.

So, the problem remains. Who can a sane and rational person vote for in 2012?

(1) ^ Sam Moskowitz affidavit, 14 April 1993 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies

So, there you have it from a Muslim head of state, and, unfortunately, a person who heads a nation that we stupidly allowed into NATO. Just think about it. Turkey is a nation that has been armed by the West with the latest weapons (like Pakistan), and it is a nation that will soon be going nuclear and yet it prefers to side with barbaric states like Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan rather than the United States and Western Europe!

And, talking about 7th century Hell holes, lets talk about Pakistan. They are now blocking the supply routes for our troops in Afghanistan. And, to make matters worse, we allowed them to get nuclear weapons, just as we allowed North Korea and Iran to get nuclear weapons. It is time to simply read them the riot act and to explain that we can do whatever we want in their country to defend our country because we have given them billions and billions of dollars and billions and billions of dollars worth of military equipment such as modern F-16 aircraft, etc. If they don’t want to accept our right to do what we want in their country to defend ourselves against Islam, then they have to accept the alternative, which we should impose on all nations. If you don’t clean up your act and join the 21st century, you will receive no more money, no more aid, and no more military equipment from us. Furthermore,  you will pay a devastation price if anyone from your country attacks our country.

If there is a major Muslim attack in the United States, within 12 hours the suspected country, or countries, whose people originated the attacks, or the countries who did, or probably did, aid the attackers, will be reduced to a radioactive glass parking lot. End of story. No discussion, no mercy. If a person from your country attacks the United States, your country and your people will simply cease to exist. So, you had better clean up your act! We’re tired of trying to do it for you and getting nothing but treachery, deceit, and obstructions related to everything we try to do, not to mention pissing away billions of dollars on your country which we can no longer afford to do.

If we had done this, as we proposed doing after 911, Pakistan and Afghanistan would already be gone, as would Iran (which has been the biggest danger to us since 1979). While that would only have eliminated a few hundred million Muslims, it would have dampened their insane expansionary and destructive spirits and much of the problem would now be gone.

The Western world must wake up to the existential threat Islam represents. They declared war on us in the 8th Century when they started their expansionist, supremacist agenda to take over the Middle East and most of Europe. Now they admittedly want to take over the world. It is time that we finally finished the Crusades that their barbaric actions necessitated about 1000 years ago and wipe them out. It is them or us. They tell us that all the time. We need to listen to what they say and take it seriously and do something about it to defend ourselves.

It really is them or us, and it must be Western Civilization that survives.

How could this have been allowed to happen in plain sight and under the noses of Western democracies? If I, a private citizen with very limited resources and no access to classified documents, memos, e-mails, or embassy documents, and no access to the power brokers of the world, could so clearly see what was going to happen months ahead of time, how come the people in power could not see what was going to happen and do something about it? I don’t know the answer, for sure, but I suspect it is political correctness and the inability of anyone in government, whether those at top or their minions in the CIA, FBI, and other agencies to speak out on the evils of Islam. After all, if an extensive report on the murder spree of Nidal Hasan could not even be allowed to mention Islam once, and Islam was clearly the cause of his murder spree, our government has been reduced to the three little monkeys: see no evil, speak no evil, and hear no evil. And Islam is evil.

But, now the damage has been done. And, while allowing these nations to become Islamic theocracies, like Iran, we have done nothing about the 800 pound gorilla in the room; Iran. Iran was behind much, if not all, of the problems related to Palestine and Israel through its control of terrorist groups like Hezbollah. There is strong evidence that 911 was planned in Iran. (1) Iran was clearly in on the deal as it assisted in the transit of many of the terrorists. Also, the same sources who told us that 911 was largely planned in Iran also told us that Iran already has nuclear weapons, and has had them for quite a long time. Additionally, they told us that one of the reasons we had such a hard time finding bin Laden and al-Zawahiri was because they were sometimes being sheltered and hosted in Iran after 911. That bit of information was initially officially scoffed at by US authorities, but now they admit that this information was true. How much of the other information was true? Judging by the fact that we have not done a thing about the biggest terrorist sponsor in the world, and the country at the heart of most of the problems in the Middle East and, especially, Iraq, our government must have known that Iran had nuclear weapons and that is why we were afraid to attack them. (Of course, that fear of attacking nuclear armed thugocracies like Iran and North Korea does nothing but justify and prove their rhetoric that they need nuclear weapons for their own safety against attack.) But, we are going to have to go to war with them, sooner or later. If we don’t start it, they will, on their terms and timetable. The sooner it happens, the fewer nuclear weapons Iran will have to use and, ultimately, the less deadly and destructive the eventual outcome will be.

And, the very fact that we allowed most of the Middle East to go Islamist (including Turkey) means that Israel will probably be forced to use nuclear weapons because that is probably the only way that they could win a war and defend themselves if the entire Middle East, including Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran attack them at the same time, which is looking more and more likely every day. If they are threatened with extinction, which is Iran’s  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s wet dream, or even if they are threatened with substantial destruction, I would fully support their right–their necessity–of going nuclear. At some point, if enough forces are aligned against them because of the insanity of Islam, they must do what they must to survive.

So, how many nuclear weapons does Iran already have? My best estimate, for the last few years, has been 6 to 20. I came to this conclusion based on various information gleaned from various sources. Yossef Bodansky in his excellent book The High Cost of Peace   stated on page 77  that Iran bought two 40 kiloton nuclear warheads for their SCUD missiles in 1991. In 2005 it was reported in the Financial Times that China and Iran purchased 18 KH-55 nuclear tipped cruise missiles from Ukraine, with 12 going to Iran and 6 going to China. This was confirmed by Svyatoslav Piskun, Ukraine’s prosecutor-general. Although some people claimed that the warheads were not shipped with the missiles, what good is a missile without a warhead? Furthermore, later in 2005, Porter Goss,the director of the CIA at the time, told Turkish officials that Iran already had nuclear weapons, apparently referring to the 12 KH-55′s that they had purchased.  By the way, this warhead is a 200 kiloton warhead; not the little, bably warheads that we presume Iran and North Korea are producing, which are similar to the warheads that we used against Japan to end World War II. (10 to 20 kiloton warheads.)

Lt Col. Tony Shaffer, as part of “Able Danger” uncovered the 911 plot in early 2001. But, he was not listened to, and the inconvenient truth of Able Danger was covered up by the government. But, he also stated that Iran had two workable nuclear warheads according to an article in the Washington Times. That article also reports that Matthew Nasuti, during s State Department briefing in 2008, that it was “common knowledge” that Iran had nuclear weapons acquired from former Soviet republics. Other reports state that Iran purchased four 152 mm nuclear mortar shells.

Iran opened its heavy water nuclear reactor in the middle of 2006. This reactor, all by itself, can produce enough plutonium for 2 to 3 nuclear weapons per year. 2 to 3 per year times 5 years is 10 to 15 nuclear weapons, ignoring any that were bought, stolen, or produced from their highly enriched uranium centrifuge cascades. This is a fact that is very seldom reported. Combine this fact with the fact that North Korea’s nuclear program is based, primarily, on Plutonium based weapons, rather than highly enriched Uranium weapons, and the fact that Iran’s nuclear program is intimately entwined with North Korea’s nuclear program, and you see how their often forgotten heavy water research reactor, alone, could have produced over a dozen nuclear weapons.

Finally, you have the simple fact that Iran has been working on a nuclear weapon since the early 1980′s. Yes, they are Muslims, but they are also Persians, unlike most Muslims. Thus, they tend to be more intelligent and better educated. In fact, much of what I have read indicates that the vast majority of Iranians, unlike the vast majority of Arabs, do not want to be bound by Sharia law, and they often embrace the secularism of the West. We missed a huge opportunity in 2009 when the Iranian people rose up to protest the forged election victory of Madman Ahmadimwit, my preferred name for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If we had stepped in and given massive support to the protesters, perhaps Iran would now be a productive member of the world community, instead of being an international pariah, slated for annihilation when they finally unleash their nuclear arsenal.

I would not go so far as to say that the United States is a paper tiger. But, the United States is extremely vulnerable. It is vulnerable because of its dependence on electricity. And, all of our enemies, from China to Russia to North Korea to Iran understand that vulnerability. As I pointed our in an earlier article, all that an enemy has to do to completely destroy the United States is to destroy its power grid. This could be done through an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) attack, or a cyber attack that destroyed the power grid. Both techniques are totally feasible. We saw in the last few weeks how a hacker took over control of the water system in Illinois. That hacker could have shut down water to that area if he wanted to. In the same way, hackers could take control of the power grid and destroy transformers that are both essential to the grid and for which we have no replacements due to the stupidity of our “leaders”. The simple fact that our “leaders” have not made provisions to stock a supply of the essential transformers that could prevent a natural (ie solar storm) or unnatural (ie EMP attack) from taking out our power grid for 12 to 24 months (or more) is a crime. The citizens of the United States need to demand an explanation! Why, when the cost is only a few hundred millions of dollars, do we not stock the necessary transformers to replace essential transformers that could be taken out by mother nature or terrorists?

It is sad to see what has happened to the United States. Our enemies are now well equipped to destroy us through a cyber or EMP attack. While we might know who attaked us, I doubt if we would be willing to retaliate. And, even if we did retaliate, the country that we retaliated against would not be harmed, much, since they don’t rely on electricity as much as we do. While we could certainly kill most of their citizens, we would be condemned in the United Nations for “over reacting!”, as if killing everyone associated with a government that wiped out your civilization would be an over-reaction.

It is a crime that we did not take out Iran years ago. This is a crime that lays at Jimmy Carter’s feet, just like the crime of loosing the Viet Nam war lays at the feet of traitors such as Henry Kissenger (who knowingly started the war on the false premise of an attack by North Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin incident.) One can only hope that someone takes out the nuclear facilities of both North Korea and Iran before it is too late.

1) “Countdown To Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown With Iran” by Kenneth  Timmerman pp 9-10

I have written many times about how global warming, later re-branded climate change when the warming stopped in 1998, was a fraud and a scam. (See the bibliography at the end of this article.) The actual measurements simply did not fit the predictions of the computer models. And, the whole scam was based on the computer models and the reported warming since the 1800′s. But, since the mid 1800′s, we have been coming out of the “Little Ice Age“, so warming should have been expected. Furthermore, it has been warmer in the past. Nobody, today, would give Greenland its name. But, 1000 or so years ago, it was green. And this is not speculation; there are plenty of archeological sites, as well as ice-core and other proxy data, to support the fact that Greenland was much warmer, even in the geologically recent past, let alone what it might have been tens of thousands, millions, or billions of years ago. One of the most often cited explanations for climate change (by skeptics) is the influence of the sun. Of course, the global warmingistas say that is impossible. The sun, they claim, has nothing to do with climate change. (That claim, alone, should start one wondering about their “science”.) I reported in early 2010 how an experiment at CERN was designed to shed light on the theory that the sun, by varying its output slightly and thus modulating the amount of cosmic rays that reached the earth, could explain much of climate change. The global warmingistas did everything they could to stop the funding for the project, but they failed, and the preliminary results were announced a few months ago. The results supported the theory, as reported in Nature Magazine. (More on the online supplement to the Nature article.)

The theory, in its simplest form, was that clouds are formed by nucleation of water droplets on small chemical particles that are formed when cosmic rays strike the earth’s atmosphere. The more cosmic rays, the more water droplet nuclei you have and thus the more clouds you get. The more clouds you get, the more sunlight is reflected back into space and the less sunlight reaches the earth. Both of these processes tend to cool the earth. (Just think about how much cooler you are when a cloud passes overhead and cools your skin. This same effect works on the whole earth.) Although actual levels of solar radiation do not vary greatly from year to year, decade to decade, or century to century (which is the reason the warmists state that the sun could not be the cause of climate change), these small differences in solar radiation do make enough change in the electromagnetic field surrounding the earth that the cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere are changed. And these changes are thought to increase or decrease clouds, thus modulating the temperature of the earth. Much more needs to be done on this theory, but, as I showed in an earlier article, there is tremendous correlation between cosmic rays and temperature, while there is no correlation between temperature and CO2, other than the fact that CO2 goes up after temperature goes up, and it goes down after temperature goes down. (Contrary to the central point of Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” farce.)

But now, Climategate 2.0 has been released. Obviously timed to derail the Durban conference, which was doomed to failure before it started, this new e-mail release goes way beyond the tasty morsels revealed in Climategate 1.0. Personally, I never expected Climategate 2.0. I thought the initial release was all there was. And, I suspect the various guilty parties hoped that it was the end of the story. But, apparently, it was just the shot across the bow. The new e-mails show further collusion and scientific misbehavior (at best) or scientific fraud (more likely). They put to bed the argument that the released e-mails were just “taken out of context”, or misinterpreted, as in “hide the decline”, or “using a trick”. But, what is even more tantalizing, to me, and probably terrifying to the guilty parties, is the fact that there are many, many more e-mails involved in the release than can currently be read. The FOIA 2001 file that was released contains not only thousands of full-text e-mails beyond what was released in Climategate 1.0, but many thousands of additional e-mails that can only be opened with the proper decryption pass phrase.  As described in an excellent post by thepointman, it looks like “Climategate 2 is a bomb with a dead man’s hand detonator attached to it and it may very well be cluster munition as well.” That is, if anyone tries to kill, discredit, or imprison the leaker, all he or she has to do is have the necessary pass phrase released and all of the Climategate e-mails will become public, including those that almost certainly go to the highest levels of government, politics and industry. It is not unlike the file that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange released with an unknown pass phrase that he would release if harm came to him. That tactic kept harm from coming to him, so far. I suspect it will keep the leaker in the Climategate case safe, too. And, since Climategate involves the conspiracy to extort trillions of dollars from the people of the world, and the continuation of the fraud is necessary to support hundreds of billions of dollars in worthless “research” by corporations and universities, and WikiLeaks only involved the release of mostly embarrassing government screw-ups and intrigue, which all but the most naive people expect, I suspect the stakes are much higher for the leaker of the Climategate e-mails than they are for Julian Assange. It will be interesting  to see what happens next. I suspect many “climate scientists” will be deservedly added to the unemployment rolls.

Bibliography:

“Those Who Say Temps and CO2 Have Never Been Higher Have Some ‘Splainin To Do”

“American Physical Society Fellow Resigns Over APS Refusal To Look Into The Science Of Global Warming”

“Where Are Global Warmingistas & Main Stream Media On Reporting That Cosmic Rays May Control Earth’s Temperature?”

“Al Gore Follows Disgraceful Lead of Clive Hamilton And Tells Children They Know More Than Their Parents”

“Time Magazine Shows Its Lunacy Again”

“Disgraced Head of Climategate Scandalized CRU Essentially Admits Man-made Global Warming Not Real”

“Fantastic New Resource: 500 Peer Reviewed Articles That Support Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming”

“2 Part Article In National Post Gives Excellent Layman’s Explanation Of Climategate”

“Important New Article On Greenland Climate In Journal of Climate”

“A Simple Primer On Anthropogenic Global Warming Skepticism”

“Not Only Is AGW Fraud, But Global Warming Itself Might Be A Lie”

“Russia Today: Debate On Climate Change”

“More Damning Climategate Revelations: Apparently CRU Selectively Used Russian Temperature Data”

“Global Governance Is Real Goal Of Global Warmingistas: Don’t Expect Free Speech Or A Free Press In Their Utopia”

“Global Warmingistas Now Resort To Armed Guards To “Hide The Decline””

“The Climate Science Isn’t Settled”

“Why Total Scientific Transparency Is Vital In Climate Studies”

“Global Warmingistas Hit Another Low With Letter To Children “About Your Father””

“Third World Nation Representatives Get Their Panties In A Knot In Copenhagen”

“Global Warmingistas Now Dis NY Times Reporter Who Had Been One Of Their Best Mouthpieces”

“Climategate Professor To Global Warming Skeptic “Shut Up…..Asshole””

“Why Climategate Is So Important”

“I Hate To Say “I Told You So”….Never Mind”

““Hide The Decline” Animated Audio About Climategate”

“Two Incredibly Stupid Commercials Brought To You By The Global Warmingistas”

“All You Really Need To Know About “Global Warming””

“More Global Warmingista Fraud: Gore’s New Book Cover”

“The Skeptics Handbook II: Global Bullies want your money”

“Some “Inconvenient Truths” About “Man-made Global Warming””

“More Evidence That Global Warming Belief Is A Religion”

“What Do Global Warmingistas Do When They Realize People Are Starting To See Through Their Fraud? Loose The Data!”

“Government Running Full Speed Ahead Into Expensive Policies Based On Politics, Not Science”

“More Evidence That Global Warming Is Political, Not Scientific”

But, of course, we think that by giving them billions of dollars and trying to build their infrastructure and improve education we can somehow bring these 7th century hell holes into the 21st century. WRONG! They are Muslims and worship an insane, epileptic, barbarian, misogynist, megalomaniac, pedophile named Mohammed and his sock puppet Allah. The only law they will ever respect or obey is Sharia. And Sharia is barbaric. And, to prove just how barbaric and misogynistic Sharia is, a recent story by CNN explains the all-to-typical plight of a Muslim rape victim. In this particular case, the rape victim was in Afghanistan, but such situations happen everywhere that Sharia rules the land.

Kabul (CNN) — The ordeal of Gulnaz did not simply begin and end with the physical attack of her rape. The rape began a years-long nightmare of further pain, culminating in an awful choice she must now make.

Even two years later, Gulnaz remembers the smell and state of her rapist’s clothes when he came into the house when her mother left for a brief visit to the hospital.

“He had filthy clothes on as he does metal and construction work. When my mother went out, he came into my house and he closed doors and windows. I started screaming, but he shut me up by putting his hands on my mouth,” she said.

The rapist was her cousin’s husband.

After the attack, she hid what happened as long as she could. But soon she began vomiting in the mornings and showing signs of pregnancy. It was her attacker’s child.

In Afghanistan, this brought her not sympathy, but prosecution. Aged just 19, she was found guilty by the courts of sex outside of marriage — adultery — and sentenced to twelve years in jail.

Yes, you read that correctly. The rape victim was accused of adultery and sentenced to 12 years in jail. (She was lucky she was not stoned to death, since that is often the penalty for adultery in Muslim countries.) Now, you ask, how could a rape victim be accused of adultery? Well, that is simple. She got pregnant. To get pregnant, she obviously had sex. If she had sex and is not married, she obviously committed adultery. Case closed. Start gathering the stones. That is the way Sharia works.

But, what about the rape? She knew who raped her and eventually reported the crime. How could she be accused of adultery? The answer, under Sharia, is simple, again. Under Sharia, in order to prove rape, a victim must produce 4 male witnesses to the rape. If she can’t produce 4 male witnesses, then reporting a rape is nothing more than confessing to adultery. Case closed. Start gathering the stones. That is the way Sharia works.

But, the situation gets even worse for Gulnaz, the rape victim. If she wants to get out of jail early, and restore her honor (and that of her family), all she has to do is marry the rapist! Yes, you read that correctly. And, that is ok under Sharia, because the rapist only has one wife, and is allowed to have four, so they can be married. And, it is important that she do something to restore her honor (and marrying the rapist is the only option for her) because otherwise the male members of her family would generally be expected to kill her upon her release from prison because she defiled the family’s honor by being raped. Again, from the CNN article:

The only way around the dishonor of rape, or adultery in the eyes of Afghans, is to marry her attacker. This will, in the eyes of some, give her child a family and restore her honor.

Incredibly, this is something that Gulnaz is willing to do.

“I was asked if I wanted to start a new life by getting released, by marrying this man”, she told CNN in an exclusive interview. “My answer was that one man dishonored me, and I want to stay with that man.”

Tending to her daughter in the jail’s cold, she added: “My daughter is a little innocent child. Who knew I would have a child in this way. A lot of people told me that after your daughter’s born give it to someone else, but my aunt told me to keep her as proof of my innocence.”

Gulnaz’s choice is stark. Women in her situation are often killed for the shame their ordeal has brought the community. She is at risk, some say, from her attacker’s family.

We found Gulnaz’s convicted rapist in a jail across town. While he denied raping her, he agreed that she would likely be killed if she gets out of jail. But he insists that it will be her family, not his, that will kill her, “out of shame.”

Whether threatened by his family or hers, for now, jail may be the safest place for her.

Shockingly, Gulnaz’s case is common in Afghanistan.

CNN asked a spokesman for the prosecutor to comment on the case. The reply was that there were hundreds such cases and the office would need time to look into it.

At least in this case, the rapist was jailed, although the article does not state that he was jailed for this rape. Rape is a serious crime under Sharia, but virtually impossible to prove because of the requirement to bring forth 4 male witnesses.

The specific Koranic reference that requires 4 male witnesses to prove rape is 2:223: (Shakir) “Why did they not bring four witnesses of it? But as they have not brought witnesses they are liars before Allah.” The history behind this verse is very interesting, and serves as an excellent example of how Allah served as Mohammad’s sock puppet.

The story behind the verse is that Aisha, Mohammad’s favorite bride, who he married when she was 6 and consummated the marriage with when she was 9, was accused of infidelity by 3 men. (“The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death.” — Bukhari 7.62.88) Mohammad did not want to believe that she had been unfaithful. Of course, Mohammad had many wives; more in fact than the 4 allowed to all other Muslims, because his sock puppet Allah gave him special dispensation in Koran 33:50. Yusuf Ali translation:

“O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

But, while Muslim men can have 4 wives, and all of the concubines that they want, Muslim women must be strictly faithful. The story is described in the Hadith (Traditions of the Prophet), Bukhari (5.59:462):

Narrated ‘Aisha:

Whenever Allah’s Apostle intended to go on a journey, he used to draw lots amongst his wives, and Allah’s Apostle used to take with him the one on whom lot fell. He drew lots amongst us during one of the Ghazwat which he fought. The lot fell on me and so I proceeded with Allah’s Apostle after Allah’s order of veiling (the women) had been revealed. I was carried (on the back of a camel) in my howdah and carried down while still in it (when we came to a halt). So we went on till Allah’s Apostle had finished from that Ghazwa of his and returned.

When we approached the city of Medina he announced at night that it was time for departure. So when they announced the news of departure, I got up and went away from the army camps, and after finishing from the call of nature, I came back to my riding animal. I touched my chest to find that my necklace which was made of Zifar beads (i.e. Yemenite beads partly black and partly white) was missing. So I returned to look for my necklace and my search for it detained me. (In the meanwhile) the people who used to carry me on my camel, came and took my howdah and put it on the back of my camel on which I used to ride, as they considered that I was in it. In those days women were light in weight for they did not get fat, and flesh did not cover their bodies in abundance as they used to eat only a little food. Those people therefore, disregarded the lightness of the howdah while lifting and carrying it; and at that time I was still a young girl. They made the camel rise and all of them left (along with it). I found my necklace after the army had gone.

Then I came to their camping place to find no call maker of them, nor one who would respond to the call. So I intended to go to the place where I used to stay, thinking that they would miss me and come back to me (in my search). While I was sitting in my resting place, I was overwhelmed by sleep and slept. Safwan bin Al-Muattal As-Sulami Adh-Dhakwani was behind the army. When he reached my place in the morning, he saw the figure of a sleeping person and he recognized me on seeing me as he had seen me before the order of compulsory veiling (was prescribed). So I woke up when he recited Istirja’ (i.e. “Inna lillahi wa inna llaihi raji’un”) as soon as he recognized me. I veiled my face with my head cover at once, and by Allah, we did not speak a single word, and I did not hear him saying any word besides his Istirja’. He dismounted from his camel and made it kneel down, putting his leg on its front legs and then I got up and rode on it. Then he set out leading the camel that was carrying me till we overtook the army in the extreme heat of midday while they were at a halt (taking a rest). (Because of the event) some people brought destruction upon themselves and the one who spread the Ifk (i.e. slander) more, was ‘Abdullah bin Ubai Ibn Salul.”

(Urwa said, “The people propagated the slander and talked about it in his (i.e. ‘Abdullah’s) presence and he confirmed it and listened to it and asked about it to let it prevail.” Urwa also added, “None was mentioned as members of the slanderous group besides (‘Abdullah) except Hassan bin Thabit and Mistah bin Uthatha and Hamna bint Jahsh along with others about whom I have no knowledge, but they were a group as Allah said. It is said that the one who carried most of the slander was ‘Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul.” Urwa added, “‘Aisha disliked to have Hassan abused in her presence and she used to say, ‘It was he who said: My father and his (i.e. my father’s) father and my honor are all for the protection of Muhammad’s honor from you.”).

‘Aisha added, “After we returned to Medina, I became ill for a month. The people were propagating the forged statements of the slanderers while I was unaware of anything of all that, but I felt that in my present ailment, I was not receiving the same kindness from Allah’s Apostle as I used to receive when I got sick. (But now) Allah’s Apostle would only come, greet me and say,’ How is that (lady)?’ and leave. That roused my doubts, but I did not discover the evil (i.e. slander) till I went out after my convalescence, I went out with Um Mistah to Al-Manasi’ where we used to answer the call of nature and we used not to go out (to answer the call of nature) except at night, and that was before we had latrines near our houses. And this habit of our concerning evacuating the bowels, was similar to the habits of the old ‘Arabs living in the deserts, for it would be troublesome for us to take latrines near our houses. So I and Um Mistah who was the daughter of Abu Ruhm bin Al-Muttalib bin Abd Manaf, whose mother was the daughter of Sakhr bin ‘Amir and the aunt of Abu Bakr As-Siddiq and whose son was Mistah bin Uthatha bin ‘Abbas bin Al-Muttalib, went out. I and Um Mistah returned to my house after we finished answering the call of nature. Um Mistah stumbled by getting her foot entangled in her covering sheet and on that she said, ‘Let Mistah be ruined!’ I said, ‘What a hard word you have said. Do you abuse a man who took part in the battle of Badr?’ On that she said, ‘O you Hantah! Didn’t you hear what he (i.e. Mistah) said? ‘I said, ‘What did he say?’

Then she told me the slander of the people of Ifk. So my ailment was aggravated, and when I reached my home, Allah’s Apostle came to me, and after greeting me, said, ‘How is that (lady)?’ I said, ‘Will you allow me to go to my parents?’ as I wanted to be sure about the news through them. Allah’s Apostle allowed me (and I went to my parents) and asked my mother, ‘O mother! What are the people talking about?’ She said, ‘O my daughter! Don’t worry, for scarcely is there a charming woman who is loved by her husband and whose husband has other wives besides herself that they (i.e. women) would find faults with her.’ I said, ‘Subhan-Allah! (I testify the uniqueness of Allah). Are the people really talking in this way?’ I kept on weeping that night till dawn I could neither stop weeping nor sleep then in the morning again, I kept on weeping. When the Divine Inspiration was delayed.

Allah’s Apostle called ‘Ali bin Abi Talib and Usama bin Zaid to ask and consult them about divorcing me. Usama bin Zaid said what he knew of my innocence, and the respect he preserved in himself for me. Usama said, ‘(O Allah’s Apostle!) She is your wife and we do not know anything except good about her.’ ‘Ali bin Abi Talib said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Allah does not put you in difficulty and there are plenty of women other than she, yet, ask the maid-servant who will tell you the truth.’ On that Allah’s Apostle called Barira (i.e. the maid-servant) and said, ‘O Barira! Did you ever see anything which aroused your suspicion?’ Barira said to him, ‘By Him Who has sent you with the Truth. I have never seen anything in her (i.e. Aisha) which I would conceal, except that she is a young girl who sleeps leaving the dough of her family exposed so that the domestic goats come and eat it.’

So, on that day, Allah’s Apostle got up on the pulpit and complained about ‘Abdullah bin Ubai (bin Salul) before his companions, saying, ‘O you Muslims! Who will relieve me from that man who has hurt me with his evil statement about my family? By Allah, I know nothing except good about my family and they have blamed a man about whom I know nothing except good and he used never to enter my home except with me.’ Sad bin Mu’adh the brother of Banu ‘Abd Al-Ashhal got up and said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! I will relieve you from him; if he is from the tribe of Al-Aus, then I will chop his head off, and if he is from our brothers, i.e. Al-Khazraj, then order us, and we will fulfill your order.’ On that, a man from Al-Khazraj got up. Um Hassan, his cousin, was from his branch tribe, and he was Sad bin Ubada, chief of Al-Khazraj. Before this incident, he was a pious man, but his love for his tribe goaded him into saying to Sad (bin Mu’adh). ‘By Allah, you have told a lie; you shall not and cannot kill him. If he belonged to your people, you would not wish him to be killed.’

On that, Usaid bin Hudair who was the cousin of Sad (bin Mu’adh) got up and said to Sad bin ‘Ubada, ‘By Allah! You are a liar! We will surely kill him, and you are a hypocrite arguing on the behalf of hypocrites.’ On this, the two tribes of Al-Aus and Al Khazraj got so much excited that they were about to fight while Allah’s Apostle was standing on the pulpit. Allah’s Apostle kept on quietening them till they became silent and so did he. All that day I kept on weeping with my tears never ceasing, and I could never sleep.

In the morning my parents were with me and I wept for two nights and a day with my tears never ceasing and I could never sleep till I thought that my liver would burst from weeping. So, while my parents were sitting with me and I was weeping, an Ansari woman asked me to grant her admittance. I allowed her to come in, and when she came in, she sat down and started weeping with me. While we were in this state, Allah’s Apostle came, greeted us and sat down. He had never sat with me since that day of the slander. A month had elapsed and no Divine Inspiration came to him about my case. Allah’s Apostle then recited Tashah-hud and then said, ‘Amma Badu, O ‘Aisha! I have been informed so-and-so about you; if you are innocent, then soon Allah will reveal your innocence, and if you have committed a sin, then repent to Allah and ask Him for forgiveness for when a slave confesses his sins and asks Allah for forgiveness, Allah accepts his repentance.’

When Allah’s Apostle finished his speech, my tears ceased flowing completely that I no longer felt a single drop of tear flowing. I said to my father, ‘Reply to Allah’s Apostle on my behalf concerning what he has said.’ My father said, ‘By Allah, I do not know what to say to Allah’s Apostle .’ Then I said to my mother, ‘Reply to Allah’s Apostle on my behalf concerning what he has said.’ She said, ‘By Allah, I do not know what to say to Allah’s Apostle.’ In spite of the fact that I was a young girl and had a little knowledge of Quran, I said, ‘By Allah, no doubt I know that you heard this (slanderous) speech so that it has been planted in your hearts (i.e. minds) and you have taken it as a truth. Now if I tell you that I am innocent, you will not believe me, and if confess to you about it, and Allah knows that I am innocent, you will surely believe me. By Allah, I find no similitude for me and you except that of Joseph’s father when he said, ‘(For me) patience in the most fitting against that which you assert; it is Allah (Alone) Whose Help can be sought.’ Then I turned to the other side and lay on my bed; and Allah knew then that I was innocent and hoped that Allah would reveal my innocence. But, by Allah, I never thought that Allah would reveal about my case, Divine Inspiration, that would be recited (forever) as I considered myself too unworthy to be talked of by Allah with something of my concern, but I hoped that Allah’s Apostle might have a dream in which Allah would prove my innocence. But, by Allah, before Allah’s Apostle left his seat and before any of the household left, the Divine inspiration came to Allah’s Apostle.

So there overtook him the same hard condition which used to overtake him, (when he used to be inspired Divinely). The sweat was dropping from his body like pearls though it was a wintry day and that was because of the weighty statement which was being revealed to him. When that state of Allah’s Apostle was over, he got up smiling, and the first word he said was, ‘O ‘Aisha! Allah has declared your innocence!’ Then my Mother said to me, ‘Get up and go to him (i.e. Allah’s Apostle). I replied, ‘By Allah, I will not go to him, and I praise none but Allah. So Allah revealed the ten Verses:– “Verily! They who spread the slander Are a gang, among you………….” (24.11-20)

Allah revealed those Quranic Verses to declare my innocence. Abu Bakr As-Siddiq who used to disburse money for Mistah bin Uthatha because of his relationship to him and his poverty, said, ‘By Allah, I will never give to Mistah bin Uthatha anything after what he has said about Aisha.’ Then Allah revealed:–

“And let not those among you who are good and wealthy swear not to give (any sort of help) to their kinsmen, those in need, and those who have left their homes for Allah’s cause, let them pardon and forgive. Do you not love that Allah should forgive you? And Allah is oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.” (24.22)

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq said, ‘Yes, by Allah, I would like that Allah forgive me.’ and went on giving Mistah the money he used to give him before. He also added, ‘By Allah, I will never deprive him of it at all.’

Aisha further said:.” Allah’s Apostle also asked Zainab bint Jahsh (i.e. his wife) about my case. He said to Zainab, ‘What do you know and what did you see?” She replied, “O Allah’s Apostle! I refrain from claiming falsely that I have heard or seen anything. By Allah, I know nothing except good (about ‘Aisha).’ From amongst the wives of the Prophet Zainab was my peer (in beauty and in the love she received from the Prophet) but Allah saved her from that evil because of her piety. Her sister Hamna, started struggling on her behalf and she was destroyed along with those who were destroyed. The man who was blamed said, ‘Subhan-Allah! By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, I have never uncovered the cover (i.e. veil) of any female.’ Later on the man was martyred in Allah’s Cause.”

It should also be noted that Mohammad’s pedophilia is an approved and common practice in Muslim countries. (1)

That is the attitude of the Islamic world. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reports that more than half the girls in Afghanistan and Bangladesh are married before they reach the age of eighteen. In early 2002, researchers in refugee camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan found half the girls married by age thirteen. In an Afghani refugee camp, more than two out of three second-grade girls were either married or engaged, and virtually all the girls who were beyond second grade were already married. One ten-year-old was engaged to a man of sixty. In early 2005 a Saudi man in his sixties drew international attention for marrying fifty-eight times; his most recent bride was a fourteen-year-old he married in the spring of 2004.

The Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, and Iranian leader until his death, married a 10 year old girl when he was 28.  He considered it a “divine blessing” to marry a prepubescent girl, and he advised the faithful: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.”  (2)

It is time to abandon all countries that enshrine Sharia. It is time to cut off their financing. It is time to cut off visas. It is time to restrict trade and travel with them. Eventually, if they are strangled, economically, they may seek to join the 21st century, or at least the 19th century. Until then, we should have nothing to do with them. If other countries want to trade with them, let them deal with the problems. We don’t need anything they produce, including their oil. We can, and do, get most of our oil from other sources, and if we used a little common sense and tapped our abundant oil resources, and started making more use of our huge reserves of coal and natural gas, we would be just fine. Let them live in their 7th century nirvana by themselves.

(1) “Religion of Peace? Why Christianity is and Islam Isn’t” by Robert Spencer, P. 188

(2) http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/tarek-fatah-call-your-office-muslim-leaders-in-yemen-say-those-who-support-ban-on-child-marriage-are.html

And, how could Americans be so stupid? There has never been a successful Communist, Marxist, or Socialist  state. Communism and Marxism do not work, because, in the end, most people want to better their own circumstances, and they do not want to be told by the state what their lot in life will be, or how much they can earn, or how successful they can become. (And, China cannot be considered a successful example of Communism because it is actually easier to go into business and make money in China than it is in the United States. There may be a central Communist Party that ostensibly controls the country (and certainly controls the people), but capitalism is alive and well in China. The primary actions of the Communist Party is to crush dissent and control the personal lives of the citizens, not to control business and how much a person can achieve or not achieve.

Some of the “Occupy” lunatics want to impose a minimum wage of $20/hr. Well, how moronic would that be? At present, the “official” unemployment rate in the United States is about 9%. But, that is a fraud. The real unemployment rate, when you take into account people who are not employed as much as they would like to be, and people who have given up and gone on social security or welfare, or dropped off the rolls of the “officially unemployed” because they have been unemployed for too long, it  is more like 20%. Also, the unofficial number does not include the self-employed who, if they find themselves out of work, cannot be counted since they are not eligible for unemployment. Now, that means that about 80% of Americans ARE employed. But, the median salary is less than $20/hr. That means that  less than 1/2 of the employed Americans make more than $20/hr. Since 1/2 of 80% is 40%, and more than that percentage of people currently make less than $20 per hour, we can approximate and say that about 45 to 50 percent of Americans who are currently working make less than $20 per hour.  Lets be conservative and say 45%.

So, what would result from the moronic demand of the “Occupy” crowd that the minimum wage be raised to $20/hr? All of those people making less than $20/hr would have to be fired because the value of their work would not be equal to the minimum wage! Thus, the unemployment rate of 20% would go to 20%+45%=65%! Imagine that: 65% unemployment. Way to go, Occupy!

This is also why the minimum wage is both stupid and harmful to people who are either new to the labor market or without salable skills. As the minimum wage is forced upward by stupid politicians, there are fewer and fewer jobs available for the unskilled. Furthermore, since there are still some necessary jobs for the unskilled, but American companies cannot afford to pay the minimum wage to Americans to fill those jobs, those jobs are exported to foreign countries that do not have such extravagant minimum wages.

Does the “Occupy” have some legitimate beefs? Yes. We all do. The idea that banksters and large financial firms could create absurdly risky derivatives and then get bailed out by the government with tax payer dollars is a crime. No company should be allowed to be too big to fail. And, those that did fail (which was many of them) should have been allowed to fail. And allowing the executives and traders at those banks to continue to get obscene “bonus checks” is also a crime that must be stopped. You don’t reward failure, and they failed.

The “Occupy” protesters are targeting the wrong group of people. (Of course, since they are sponsored by the Democratic Party and various socialists, they could not be expected to target the correct people, since that would mean biting the hand that feeds them.) But, the real cause of the current problems in this country (and the rest of the Western world) are the politicians who are totally controlled by corporate interests and directed by the lobbyists. It is the stupid rules that they impose, like forcing banks to make loans to people who cannot afford them. It is bowing to the interests of the banksters and repealing the Glass-Steagall Act which forced a separation between investment banks and commercial banks. (In many ways, this act, alone, could have prevented much of the financial carnage created by derivatives since the investment banks that held them would have been separate from the commercial banks and would have gone bankrupt, as they should have, instead of being bailed out by the politicians.) Stupid rules like repealing the uptick rule for shorting stocks which at least lent some drag to the downward direction of stocks when they do drop. Stupid rules like raising the minimum wage. Stupid rules like most of the rules imposed by the EPA and so many other government agencies. Stupid rules like forming and keeping useless and harmful agencies like the Department of Education that has been dumbing down Americans since its inception in 1981. While we spend more money on education than any other country in the world, we produce some of the stupidest students in the world. And, of course, that means that we need to bring in foreign students to fill the scientific and engineering jobs that we do have, but they cannot often be filled by Americans because they are too stupid and uneducated. As someone who has spent many years in graduate school in the field of engineering and physics, I can tell you that there are very few “American” students studying at that level. And, those that are American are almost always of Indian, Chinese, or Japanese ancestry, because those cultures still respect and value learning and education. Of course, they will probably be “Americanized” soon, after which they will value nothing but their favorite sports team, reality tv show, and Hollywood gossip.

Another pet peeve of the Occupy crowd is the claim that they went to college and now have this huge college loan but they can’t get a job. So, they feel that their student loan should be forgiven and they should be given a high paying job! The very fact that they could make such a claim shows that they obviously wasted their money on college tuition, since they obviously learned very little “of value”. And, that is the key: “of value”. What did they get their college degree in? Engineering, mathematics, physics, computer science, nursing, medicine, chemistry or pharmacy (not including the chemistry or pharmacopoeia of  Cannabis)? If so, they would probably have a job, because there are plenty of American jobs in those areas. In fact, employers are complaining that they cannot find enough qualified people in those fields, especially those with advanced degrees. The sorry fact of the matter is that many American students simply cannot handle those fields because of the failure of the American educational system since the founding of the Department of Education and the adherence in the United States to Agenda 21, which is a UN program designed to deliberately dumb down people and teach them to be good little socialists and worker bees in the New World Order. Many of the Occupy crowd undoubtedly wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars on college degrees in such majors as social work, psychology, business administration, social studies, government, political science, world history, ancient history, etc. Well, guess what? Those “skill sets” have very little value in the real world. In fact, some have virtually no commercial value unless you get a Ph.D. and go out on your own as a psychologist or become a professor in those subjects. Do you really need a college degree in social work to help people to fraudulently fill out paperwork for welfare and food stamps? What do you intend to do with a degree in “government” or “political science”? Of course, again, the education system is to blame for steering students into such economically worthless college majors.

It is time for the Occupy crowd to get over it and find a job.

U.S. troops are in the process of completing their withdrawal from Iraq by the end-of-2011 deadline. We are now moving toward a reckoning with the consequences. The reckoning concerns the potential for a massive shift in the balance of power in the region, with Iran moving from a fairly marginal power to potentially a dominant power. As the process unfolds, the United States and Israel are making countermoves. We have discussed all of this extensively. Questions remain whether these countermoves will stabilize the region and whether or how far Iran will go in its response.

Iran has been preparing for the U.S. withdrawal. While it is unreasonable simply to say that Iran will dominate Iraq, it is fair to say Tehran will have tremendous influence in Baghdad to the point of being able to block Iraqi initiatives Iran opposes. This influence will increase as the U.S. withdrawal concludes and it becomes clear there will be no sudden reversal in the withdrawal policy. Iraqi politicians’ calculus must account for the nearness of Iranian power and the increasing distance and irrelevance of American power.

Resisting Iran under these conditions likely would prove ineffective and dangerous. Some, like the Kurds, believe they have guarantees from the Americans and that substantial investment in Kurdish oil by American companies means those commitments will be honored. A look at the map, however, shows how difficult it would be for the United States to do so. The Baghdad regime has arrested Sunni leaders while the Shia, not all of whom are pro-Iranian by any means, know the price of overenthusiastic resistance.

Syria and Iran

The situation in Syria complicates all of this. The minority Alawite sect has dominated the Syrian government since 1970, when the current president’s father — who headed the Syrian air force — staged a coup. The Alawites are a heterodox Muslim sect related to a Shiite offshoot and make up about 7 percent of the country’s population, which is mostly Sunni. The new Alawite government was Nasserite in nature, meaning it was secular, socialist and built around the military. When Islam rose as a political force in the Arab world, the Syrians — alienated from the Sadat regime in Egypt — saw Iran as a bulwark. The Iranian Islamist regime gave the Syrian secular regime immunity against Shiite fundamentalists in Lebanon. The Iranians also gave Syria support in its external adventures in Lebanon, and more important, in its suppression of Syria’s Sunni majority.

Syria and Iran were particularly aligned in Lebanon. In the early 1980s, after the Khomeini revolution, the Iranians sought to increase their influence in the Islamic world by supporting radical Shiite forces. Hezbollah was one of these. Syria had invaded Lebanon in 1975 on behalf of the Christians and opposed the Palestine Liberation Organization, to give you a sense of the complexity. Syria regarded Lebanon as historically part of Syria, and sought to assert its influence over it. Via Iran, Hezbollah became an instrument of Syrian power in Lebanon.

Iran and Syria, therefore, entered a long-term if not altogether stable alliance that has lasted to this day. In the current unrest in Syria, the Saudis and Turks in addition to the Americans all have been hostile to the regime of President Bashar al Assad. Iran is the one country that on the whole has remained supportive of the current Syrian government.

There is good reason for this. Prior to the uprising, the precise relationship between Syria and Iran was variable. Syria was able to act autonomously in its dealings with Iran and Iran’s proxies in Lebanon. While an important backer of groups like Hezbollah, the al Assad regime in many ways checked Hezbollah’s power in Lebanon, with the Syrians playing the dominant role there. The Syrian uprising has put the al Assad regime on the defensive, however, making it more interested in a firm, stable relationship with Iran. Damascus finds itself isolated in the Sunni world, with Turkey and the Arab League against it. Iran — and intriguingly, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — have constituted al Assad’s exterior support.

Thus far al Assad has resisted his enemies. Though some mid- to low-ranking Sunnis have defected, his military remains largely intact; this is because the Alawites control key units. Events in Libya drove home to an embattled Syrian leadership — and even to some of its adversaries within the military — the consequences of losing. The military has held together, and an unarmed or poorly armed populace, no matter how large, cannot defeat an intact military force. The key for those who would see al Assad fall is to divide the military.

If al Assad survives — and at the moment, wishful thinking by outsiders aside, he is surviving — Iran will be the big winner. If Iraq falls under substantial Iranian influence, and the al Assad regime — isolated from most countries but supported by Tehran — survives in Syria, then Iran could emerge with a sphere of influence stretching from western Afghanistan to the Mediterranean (the latter via Hezbollah). Achieving this would not require deploying Iranian conventional forces — al Assad’s survival alone would suffice. However, the prospect of a Syrian regime beholden to Iran would open up the possibility of the westward deployment of Iranian forces, and that possibility alone would have significant repercussions.

(click here to enlarge image)

Consider the map were this sphere of influence to exist. The northern borders of Saudi Arabia and Jordan would abut this sphere, as would Turkey’s southern border. It remains unclear, of course, just how well Iran could manage this sphere, e.g., what type of force it could project into it. Maps alone will not provide an understanding of the problem. But they do point to the problem. And the problem is the potential — not certain — creation of a block under Iranian influence that would cut through a huge swath of strategic territory.

It should be remembered that in addition to Iran’s covert network of militant proxies, Iran’s conventional forces are substantial. While they could not confront U.S. armored divisions and survive, there are no U.S. armored divisions on the ground between Iran and Lebanon. Iran’s ability to bring sufficient force to bear in such a sphere increases the risks to the Saudis in particular. Iran’s goal is to increase the risk such that Saudi Arabia would calculate that accommodation is more prudent than resistance. Changing the map can help achieve this.

It follows that those frightened by this prospect — the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey — would seek to stymie it. At present, the place to block it no longer is Iraq, where Iran already has the upper hand. Instead, it is Syria. And the key move in Syria is to do everything possible to bring about al Assad’s overthrow.

In the last week, the Syrian unrest appeared to take on a new dimension. Until recently, the most significant opposition activity appeared to be outside of Syria, with much of the resistance reported in the media coming from externally based opposition groups. The degree of effective opposition was never clear. Certainly, the Sunni majority opposes and hates the al Assad regime. But opposition and emotion do not bring down a regime consisting of men fighting for their lives. And it wasn’t clear that the resistance was as strong as the outside propaganda claimed.

Last week, however, the Free Syrian Army — a group of Sunni defectors operating out of Turkey and Lebanon — claimed defectors carried out organized attacks on government facilities, ranging from an air force intelligence facility (a particularly sensitive point given the history of the regime) to Baath Party buildings in the greater Damascus area. These were not the first attacks claimed by the FSA, but they were heavily propagandized in the past week. Most significant about the attacks is that, while small-scale and likely exaggerated, they revealed that at least some defectors were willing to fight instead of defecting and staying in Turkey or Lebanon.

It is interesting that an apparent increase in activity from armed activists — or the introduction of new forces — occurred at the same time relations between Iran on one side and the United States and Israel on the other were deteriorating. The deterioration began with charges that an Iranian covert operation to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States had been uncovered, followed by allegations by the Bahraini government of Iranian operatives organizing attacks in Bahrain. It proceeded to an International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran’s progress toward a nuclear device, followed by the Nov. 19 explosion at an Iranian missile facility that the Israelis have not-so-quietly hinted was their work. Whether any of these are true, the psychological pressure on Iran is building and appears to be orchestrated.

Of all the players in this game, Israel’s position is the most complex. Israel has had a decent, albeit covert, working relationship with the Syrians going back to their mutual hostility toward Yasser Arafat. For Israel, Syria has been the devil they know. The idea of a Sunni government controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood on their northeastern frontier was frightening; they preferred al Assad. But given the shift in the regional balance of power, the Israeli view is also changing. The Sunni Islamist threat has weakened in the past decade relative to the Iranian Shiite threat. Playing things forward, the threat of a hostile Sunni force in Syria is less worrisome than an emboldened Iranian presence on Israel’s northern frontier. This explains why the architects of Israel’s foreign policy, such as Defense Minister Ehud Barak, have been saying that we are seeing an “acceleration toward the end of the regime.” Regardless of its preferred outcome, Israel cannot influence events inside Syria. Instead, Israel is adjusting to a reality where the threat of Iran reshaping the politics of the region has become paramount.

Iran is, of course, used to psychological campaigns. We continue to believe that while Iran might be close to a nuclear device that could explode underground under carefully controlled conditions, its ability to create a stable, robust nuclear weapon that could function outside a laboratory setting (which is what an underground test is) is a ways off. This includes being able to load a fragile experimental system on a delivery vehicle and expecting it to explode. It might. It might not. It might even be intercepted and create a casus belli for a counterstrike.

The main Iranian threat is not nuclear. It might become so, but even without nuclear weapons, Iran remains a threat. The current escalation originated in the American decision to withdraw from Iraq and was intensified by events in Syria. If Iran abandoned its nuclear program tomorrow, the situation would remain as complex. Iran has the upper hand, and the United States, Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia all are looking at how to turn the tables.

At this point, they appear to be following a two-pronged strategy: Increase pressure on Iran to make it recalculate its vulnerability, and bring down the Syrian government to limit the consequences of Iranian influence in Iraq. Whether the Syrian regime can be brought down is problematic. Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi would have survived if NATO hadn’t intervened. NATO could intervene in Syria, but Syria is more complex than Libya. Moreover, a second NATO attack on an Arab state designed to change its government would have unintended consequences, no matter how much the Arabs fear the Iranians at the moment. Wars are unpredictable; they are not the first option.

Therefore the likely solution is covert support for the Sunni opposition funneled through Lebanon and possibly Turkey and Jordan. It will be interesting to see if the Turks participate. Far more interesting will be seeing whether this works. Syrian intelligence has penetrated its Sunni opposition effectively for decades. Mounting a secret campaign against the regime would be difficult, and its success by no means assured. Still, that is the next move.

But it is not the last move. To put Iran back into its box, something must be done about the Iraqi political situation. Given the U.S. withdrawal, Washington has little influence there. All of the relationships the United States built were predicated on American power protecting the relationships. With the Americans gone, the foundation of those relationships dissolves. And even with Syria, the balance of power is shifting.

The United States has three choices. Accept the evolution and try to live with what emerges. Attempt to make a deal with Iran — a very painful and costly one. Or go to war. The first assumes Washington can live with what emerges. The second depends on whether Iran is interested in dealing with the United States. The third depends on having enough power to wage a war and to absorb Iran’s retaliatory strikes, particularly in the Strait of Hormuz. All are dubious, so toppling al Assad is critical. It changes the game and the momentum. But even that is enormously difficult and laden with risks.

We are now in the final act of Iraq, and it is even more painful than imagined. Laying this alongside the European crisis makes the idea of a systemic crisis in the global system very real.

Syria, Iran and the Balance of Power in the Middle East is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

Everyone is wondering about the next disaster to befall Europe. Italy is one focus; Spain is also a possibility. But these crises are already under way. Instead, the next crisis will be political, not in the sense of what conventional politician is going to become prime minister, but in the deeper sense of whether Europe’s political elite can retain power, or whether new political forces are going to emerge that will completely reshape the European political landscape. If this happens, it will be by far the most important consequence of the European financial crisis.

Thus far we have seen some changes in personalities in the countries at the center of the crisis. In Greece, Prime Minister George Papandreou stepped aside, while in Italy Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi now has resigned. Though these resignations have represented a formal change of government, they have not represented a formal policy change. In fact, Papandreou and Berlusconi both stepped down on the condition that their respective governments adopt the austerity policies proposed during their respective tenures.

Europeanists dominate the coalitions that have replaced them. They come from the generation and class that are deeply intellectually and emotionally committed to the idea of Europe. For them, the European Union is not merely a useful tool for achieving national goals. Rather, it is an alternative to nationalism and the horrors that nationalism has brought to Europe. It is a vision of a single Continent drawn together in a common enterprise — prosperity — that abolishes the dangers of a European war, creates a cooperative economic project and, least discussed but not trivial, returns Europe to its rightful place at the heart of the international political system.

For the generation of leadership born just after World War II that came to political maturity in the last 20 years, the European project was an ideological given and an institutional reality. These leaders formed an international web of European leaders who for the most part all shared this vision. This leadership extended beyond the political sphere: Most European elites were committed to Europe (there were, of course, exceptions).

Greece and the Struggle of the European Elite

Now we are seeing this elite struggle to preserve its vision. When Papandreou called for a referendum on austerity, the European elite put tremendous pressure on him to abandon his initiative. Given the importance of the austerity agreements to the future of Greece, the idea of a referendum made perfect sense. A referendum would allow the Greek government to claim its actions enjoyed the support of the majority of the Greek people. Obviously, it is not clear that the Greeks would have approved the agreement.

Led by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the European elite did everything possible to prevent such an outcome. This included blocking the next tranche of bailout money and suspending all further bailout money until Greek politicians could commit to all previously negotiated austerity measures. European outrage at the idea of a Greek referendum makes perfect sense.

Coming under pressure from Greece and the European elite, Papandreou resigned and was replaced by a former vice president of the European Central Bank. Already abandoned by Papandreou, the idea of a referendum disappeared.

Two dimensions explain this outcome. The first was national. The common perception in the financial press is that Greece irresponsibly borrowed money to support extravagant social programs and then could not pay off the loans. But there also is validity to the Greek point of view. From this perspective, under financial pressure, the European Union was revealed as a mechanism for Germany to surge exports into developing EU countries via the union’s free trade system. Germany also used Brussels’ regulations and managed the euro such that Greece found itself in an impossible situation. Germany then called on Athens to impose austerity on the Greek people to save irresponsible financiers who, knowing perfectly well what Greece’s economic position was, were eager to lend money to the Greeks. Each version of events has some truth to it, but the debate ultimately was between the European and Greek elites. It was an internal dispute, and whether for Greece’s benefit or for the European financial system’s benefit, both sides were committed to finding a solution.

The second dimension had to do with the Greek public and the Greek and European elites. The Greek elite clearly benefited financially from the European Union. The Greek public, by contrast, had a mixed experience. Certainly, the 20 years of prosperity since the 1990s benefited many — but not all. Economic integration left the Greek economy wide open for other Europeans to enter, putting segments of the Greek economy at a terrific disadvantage. European competitors overwhelmed workers in many industries along with small-business owners in particular. So there always was an argument in Greece for opposing the European Union. The stark choice posed by the current situation strengthened this argument, namely, who would bear the burden of the European system’s dysfunction in Greece? In other words, assuming the European Union was to be saved, who would absorb the cost? The bailouts promised by Germany on behalf of Europe would allow the Greeks to stabilize their financial system and repay at least some of their loans to Europe. This would leave the Greek elite generally intact. The price to Greece would be austerity, but the Greek elite would not pay that price. Members of the broader public — who would lose jobs, pensions, salaries and careers — would.

Essentially, the first question was whether Greece as a nation would deliberately default on its debts — as many corporations do — and force a restructuring on its terms regardless of what the European financial system needed, or whether it would seek to accommodate the European system. The second was whether it would structure an accommodation in Europe such that the burden would not fall on the public but on the Greek elite.

The Greek government chose to seek accommodation with European needs and to allow the major impact of austerity to fall on the public as a consequence of the elite’s interests in Europe — now deep and abiding — and the ideology of Europeanism. Since by its very nature the burden of austerity would fall on the public, it was vital a referendum not be held. Even so, the Greeks undoubtedly would seek to evade the harshest dimensions of austerity. That is the social contract in Greece: The Greeks would promise the Europeans what they wanted, but they would protect the public via duplicity. While that approach might work in Greece, it cannot work in a country like Italy, whose exposure is too large to hide via duplicity. Similarly, duplicity cannot be the ultimate solution to the European crisis.

The Real European Crisis

And here we come to the real European crisis. Given the nature of the crisis, which we have seen play out in Greece, the European elite can save the European concept and their own interests only by transferring the cost to the broader public, and not simply among debtors. Creditors like Germany, too, must absorb the cost and distribute it to the public. German banks simply cannot manage to absorb the losses. Like the French, they will have to be recapitalized, meaning the cost will fall to the public.

Europe was not supposed to work this way. Like Immanuel Kant’s notion of a “Perpetual Peace,” the European Union promised eternal prosperity. That plus preventing war were Europe’s great promises; there was no moral project beyond these. Failure to deliver on either promise undermines the European project’s legitimacy. If the price of retaining Europe is a massive decline in Europeans’ standard of living, then the argument for retaining the European Union is weakened.

As important, if Europe is perceived as failing because the European elite failed, and the European elite is perceived as defending the European idea as a means of preserving its own interests and position, then the public’s commitment to the European idea — never as robust as the elite’s commitment — is put in doubt. The belief in Europe that the crisis can be managed within current EU structures has been widespread. The Germans, however, have floated a proposal that would give creditors in Europe — i.e., the Germans — the power to oversee debtors’ economic decisions. This would undermine sovereignty dramatically. Losing sovereignty for greater prosperity would work in Europe. Losing it to pay back the debts of Europe’s banks is a much harder sell.

The Immigrant Factor and Upcoming Elections

All of this comes at a time of anti-immigrant, particularly anti-Muslim, feeling among the European public. In some countries, anger increasingly has been directed at the European Union and its borders policies — and at European countries’ respective national and international elites, who have used immigration to fuel the economy while creating both economic and cultural tensions in the native population. Thus, immigration has become linked to general perceptions of the European Union, opening both a fundamental economic and cultural divide between European elites and the public.

Racial and ethnic tensions combined with economic austerity and a sense of betrayal toward the elite creates an explosive mixture. Europe experienced this during the inter-war period, though this is not a purely European phenomenon. Disappointment in one’s personal life combined with a feeling of cultural disenfranchisement by outsiders and the sense that the elite is neither honest, nor competent nor committed to the well-being of its own public tends to generate major political reactions anywhere in the world.

Europe has avoided an explosion thus far. But the warning signs are there. Anti-European and anti-immigrant factions existed even during the period when the European Union was functioning, with far-right parties polling up to 16 percent in France. It is not clear that the current crisis has strengthened these elements, but how much this crisis will cost the European public and the absence of miraculous solutions also have not yet become clear. As Italy confronts its crisis, the cost — and the inevitably of the cost — will become clearer.

A large number of elections are scheduled or expected in Europe in 2012 and 2013, including a French presidential election in 2012 and German parliamentary elections in 2013. At the moment, these appear set to be contests between the conventional parties that have dominated Europe since World War II in the West and since 1989 in the East. In general, these are the parties of the elite, all more or less buying into Europe. But anti-European factions have emerged within some of these parties, and as sentiment builds, new parties may form and anti-European factions within existing parties may grow. A crisis of this magnitude cannot happen without Tea Party- and Occupy Wall Street-type factions emerging. In Europe, however — where in addition to economics the crisis is about race, sovereignty, national self-determination and the moral foundations of the European Union — these elements will be broader and more intense.

Populist sentiment coupled with racial and cultural concerns is the classic foundation for right-wing nationalist parties. The European left in general is part of the pro-European elite. Apart from small fragments, very little of the left hasn’t bought into Europe. It is the right that has earned a meaningful following by warning about Europe over the past 20 years. It thus would seem reasonable to expect that these factions will become much stronger as the price of the crisis — and who is going to bear it — becomes apparent.

The real question, therefore, is not how the financial crisis works out. It is whether the European project will survive. And that depends on whether the European elite can retain its legitimacy. That legitimacy is not gone by any means, but it is in the process of being tested like never before, and it is difficult to see how the elite retains it. The polls don’t show the trend yet because the magnitude of the impact on individual lives has not manifested itself in most of Europe. When it does show itself, there will be a massive recalculation regarding the worth and standing of the European elite. There will be calls for revenge, and vows of never allowing such a thing to recur.

Regardless of whether the next immediate European crisis is focused on Spain or Italy, it follows that by mid-decade, Europe’s political landscape will have shifted dramatically, with new parties, personalities and values emerging. The United States shares much of this trend, but its institutions are not newly invented. Old and not working creates problems; new and not working is dangerous. Why the United States will take a different path is a subject for another time. Suffice it to say that the magnitude of Europe’s problems goes well beyond finance.

The European crisis is one of sovereignty, cultural identity and the legitimacy of the elite. The financial crisis has several outcomes, all bad. Regardless of which is chosen, the impact on the political system will be dramatic.

Europe’s Crisis: Beyond Finance is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

Public discussion of potential attacks on Iran’s nuclear development sites is surging again. This has happened before. On several occasions, leaks about potential airstrikes have created an atmosphere of impending war. These leaks normally coincided with diplomatic initiatives and were designed to intimidate the Iranians and facilitate a settlement favorable to the United States and Israel. These initiatives have failed in the past. It is therefore reasonable to associate the current avalanche of reports with the imposition of sanctions and view it as an attempt to increase the pressure on Iran and either force a policy shift or take advantage of divisions within the regime.

My first instinct is to dismiss the war talk as simply another round of psychological warfare against Iran, this time originating with Israel. Most of the reports indicate that Israel is on the verge of attacking Iran. From a psychological-warfare standpoint, this sets up the good-cop/bad-cop routine. The Israelis play the mad dog barely restrained by the more sober Americans, who urge the Iranians through intermediaries to make concessions and head off a war. As I said, we have been here before several times, and this hasn’t worked.

The worst sin of intelligence is complacency, the belief that simply because something has happened (or has not happened) several times before it is not going to happen this time. But each episode must be considered carefully in its own light and preconceptions from previous episodes must be banished. Indeed, the previous episodes might well have been intended to lull the Iranians into complacency themselves. Paradoxically, the very existence of another round of war talk could be intended to convince the Iranians that war is distant while covert war preparations take place. An attack may be in the offing, but the public displays neither confirm nor deny that possibility.

The Evolving Iranian Assessment

STRATFOR has gone through three phases in its evaluation of the possibility of war. The first, which was in place until July 2009, held that while Iran was working toward a nuclear weapon, its progress could not be judged by its accumulation of enriched uranium. While that would give you an underground explosion, the creation of a weapon required sophisticated technologies for ruggedizing and miniaturizing the device, along with a very reliable delivery system. In our view, Iran might be nearing a testable device but it was far from a deliverable weapon. Therefore, we dismissed war talk and argued that there was no meaningful pressure for an attack on Iran.

We modified this view somewhat in July 2009, after the Iranian elections and the demonstrations. While we dismissed the significance of the demonstrations, we noted close collaboration developing between Russia and Iran. That meant there could be no effective sanctions against Iran, so stalling for time in order for sanctions to work had no value. Therefore, the possibility of a strike increased.

But then Russian support stalled as well, and we turned back to our analysis, adding to it an evaluation of potential Iranian responses to any air attack. We noted three potential counters: activating Shiite militant groups (most notably Hezbollah), creating chaos in Iraq and blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which 45 percent of global oil exports travel. Of the three Iranian counters, the last was the real “nuclear option.” Interfering with the supply of oil from the Persian Gulf would raise oil prices stunningly and would certainly abort the tepid global economic recovery. Iran would have the option of plunging the world into a global recession or worse.

There has been debate over whether Iran would choose to do the latter or whether the U.S. Navy could rapidly clear mines. It is hard to imagine how an Iranian government could survive air attacks without countering them in some way. It is also a painful lesson of history that the confidence of any military force cannot be a guide to its performance. At the very least, there is a possibility that the Iranians could block the Strait of Hormuz, and that means the possibility of devastating global economic consequences. That is a massive risk for the United States to take, against an unknown probability of successful Iranian action. In our mind, it was not a risk that the United States could take, especially when added to the other Iranian counters. Therefore, we did not think the United States would strike.

Certainly, we did not believe that the Israelis would strike Iran alone. First, the Israelis are much less likely to succeed than the Americans would be, given the size of their force and their distance from Iran (not to mention the fact that they would have to traverse either Turkish, Iraqi or Saudi airspace). More important, Israel lacks the ability to mitigate any consequences. Any Israeli attack would have to be coordinated with the United States so that the United States could alert and deploy its counter-mine, anti-submarine and missile-suppression assets. For Israel to act without giving the United States time to mitigate the Hormuz option would put Israel in the position of triggering a global economic crisis. The political consequences of that would not be manageable by Israel. Therefore, we found an Israeli strike against Iran without U.S. involvement difficult to imagine.

The Current Evaluation

Our current view is that the accumulation of enough enriched uranium to build a weapon does not mean that the Iranians are anywhere close to having a weapon. Moreover, the risks inherent in an airstrike on its nuclear facilities outstrip the benefits (and even that assumes that the entire nuclear industry is destroyed in one fell swoop — an unsure outcome at best). It also assumes the absence of other necessary technologies. Assumptions of U.S. prowess against mines might be faulty, and so, too, could my assumption about weapon development. The calculus becomes murky, and one would expect all governments involved to be waffling.

There is, of course, a massive additional issue. Apart from the direct actions that Iran might make, there is the fact that the destruction of its nuclear capability would not solve the underlying strategic challenge that Iran poses. It has the largest military force in the Persian Gulf, absent the United States. The United States is in the process of withdrawing from Iraq, which would further diminish the ability of the United States to contain Iran. Therefore, a surgical strike on Iran’s nuclear capability combined with the continuing withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq would create a profound strategic crisis in the Persian Gulf.

The country most concerned about Iran is not Israel, but Saudi Arabia. The Saudis recall the result of the last strategic imbalance in the region, when Iraq, following its armistice with Iran, proceeded to invade Kuwait, opening the possibility that its next intention was to seize the northeastern oil fields of Saudi Arabia. In that case, the United States intervened. Given that the United States is now withdrawing from Iraq, intervention following withdrawal would be politically difficult unless the threat to the United States was clear. More important, the Iranians might not give the Saudis the present Saddam Hussein gave them by seizing Kuwait and then halting. They might continue. They certainly have the military capacity to try.

In a real sense, the Iranians would not have to execute such a military operation in order to gain the benefits. The simple imbalance of forces would compel the Saudis and others in the Persian Gulf to seek a political accommodation with the Iranians. Strategic domination of the Persian Gulf does not necessarily require military occupation — as the Americans have abundantly demonstrated over the past 40 years. It merely requires the ability to carry out those operations.

The Saudis, therefore, have been far quieter — and far more urgent — than the Israelis in asking the United States to do something about the Iranians. The Saudis certainly do not want the United States to leave Iraq. They want the Americans there as a blocking force protecting Saudi Arabia but not positioned on Saudi soil. They obviously are not happy about Iran’s nuclear efforts, but the Saudis see the conventional and nuclear threat as a single entity. The collapse of the Iran-Iraq balance of power has left the Arabian Peninsula in a precarious position.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia did an interesting thing a few weeks ago. He visited Lebanon personally and in the company of the president of Syria. The Syrian and Saudi regimes are not normally friendly, given different ideologies, Syria’s close relationship with Iran and their divergent interests in Lebanon. But there they were together, meeting with the Lebanese government and giving not very subtle warnings to Hezbollah. Saudi influence and money and the threat of Iran jeopardizing the Saudi regime by excessive adventurism seems to have created an anti-Hezbollah dynamic in Lebanon. Hezbollah is suddenly finding many of its supposed allies cooperating with some of its certain enemies. The threat of a Hezbollah response to an airstrike on Iran seems to be mitigated somewhat.

Eliminating Iranian Leverage In Hormuz

I said that there were three counters. One was Hezbollah, which is the least potent of the three from the American perspective. The other two are Iraq and Hormuz. If the Iraqis were able to form a government that boxed in pro-Iranian factions in a manner similar to how Hezbollah is being tentatively contained, then the second Iranian counter would be weakened. That would “just” leave the major issue — Hormuz.

The problem with Hormuz is that the United States cannot tolerate any risk there. The only way to control that risk is to destroy Iranian naval capability before airstrikes on nuclear targets take place. Since many of the Iranian mine layers would be small boats, this would mean an extensive air campaign and special operations forces raids against Iranian ports designed to destroy anything that could lay mines, along with any and all potential mine-storage facilities, anti-ship missile emplacements, submarines and aircraft. Put simply, any piece of infrastructure within a few miles of any port would need to be eliminated. The risk to Hormuz cannot be eliminated after the attack on nuclear sites. It must be eliminated before an attack on the nuclear sites. And the damage must be overwhelming.

There are two benefits to this strategy. First, the nuclear facilities aren’t going anywhere. It is the facilities that are producing the enriched uranium and other parts of the weapon that must be destroyed more than any uranium that has already been enriched. And the vast bulk of those facilities will remain where they are even if there is an attack on Iran’s maritime capabilities. Key personnel would undoubtedly escape, but considering that within minutes of the first American strike anywhere in Iran a mass evacuation of key scientists would be under way anyway, there is little appreciable difference between a first strike against nuclear sites and a first strike against maritime targets. (U.S. air assets are good, but even the United States cannot strike 100-plus targets simultaneously.)

Second, the counter-nuclear strategy wouldn’t deal with the more fundamental problem of Iran’s conventional military power. This opening gambit would necessarily attack Iran’s command-and-control, air-defense and offensive air capabilities as well as maritime capabilities. This would sequence with an attack on the nuclear capabilities and could be extended into a prolonged air campaign targeting Iran’s ground forces.

The United States is very good at gaining command of the air and attacking conventional military capabilities (see Yugoslavia in 1999). Its strategic air capability is massive and, unlike most of the U.S. military, underutilized. The United States also has substantial air forces deployed around Iran, along with special operations forces teams trained in penetration, evasion and targeting, and satellite surveillance. Far from the less-than-rewarding task of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, going after Iran would be the kind of war the United States excels at fighting. No conventional land invasion, no boots-on-the-ground occupation, just a very thorough bombing campaign. If regime change happens as a consequence, great, but that is not the primary goal. Defanging the Iranian state is.

It is also the only type of operation that could destroy the nuclear capabilities (and then some) while preventing an Iranian response. It would devastate Iran’s conventional military forces, eliminating the near-term threat to the Arabian Peninsula. Such an attack, properly executed, would be the worst-case scenario for Iran and, in my view, the only way an extended air campaign against nuclear facilities could be safely executed.

Just as Iran’s domination of the Persian Gulf rests on its ability to conduct military operations, not on its actually conducting the operations, the reverse is also true. It is the capacity and apparent will to conduct broadened military operations against Iran that can shape Iranian calculations and decision-making. So long as the only threat is to Iran’s nuclear facilities, its conventional forces remain intact and its counter options remain viable, Iran will not shift its strategy. Once its counter options are shut down and its conventional forces are put at risk, Iran must draw up another calculus.

In this scenario, Israel is a marginal player. The United States is the only significant actor, and it might not strike Iran simply over the nuclear issue. That’s not a major U.S. problem. But the continuing withdrawal from Iraq and Iran’s conventional forces are very much an American problem. Destroying Iran’s nuclear capability is merely an added benefit.

Given the Saudi intervention in Lebanese politics, this scenario now requires a radical change in Iraq, one in which a government would be quickly formed and Iranian influence quickly curtailed. Interestingly, we have heard recent comments by administration officials asserting that Iranian influence has, in fact, been dramatically reduced. At present, such a reduction is not obvious to us, but the first step of shifting perceptions tends to be propaganda. If such a reduction became real, then the two lesser Iranian counter moves would be blocked and the U.S. offensive option would become more viable.

Internal Tension in Tehran

At this point, we would expect to see the Iranians recalculating their position, with some of the clerical leadership using the shifting sands of Lebanon against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Indeed, there have been many indications of internal stress, not between the mythical democratic masses and the elite, but within the elite itself. This past weekend the Iranian speaker of the house attacked Ahmadinejad’s handling of special emissaries. For what purpose we don’t yet know, but the internal tension is growing.

The Iranians are not concerned about the sanctions. The destruction of their nuclear capacity would, from their point of view, be a pity. But the destruction of large amounts of their conventional forces would threaten not only their goals in the wider Islamic world but also their stability at home. That would be unacceptable and would require a shift in their general strategy.

From the Iranian point of view — and from ours — Washington’s intentions are opaque. But when we consider the Obama administration’s stated need to withdraw from Iraq, Saudi pressure on the United States not to withdraw while Iran remains a threat, Saudi moves against Hezbollah to split Syria from Iran and Israeli pressure on the United States to deal with nuclear weapons, the pieces for a new American strategy are emerging from the mist. Certainly the Iranians appear to be nervous. And the threat of a new strategy might just be enough to move the Iranians off dead center. If they don’t, logic would dictate the consideration of a broader treatment of the military problem posed by Iran.

Rethinking American Options on Iran is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

And, as rebuttal to comments critical of his above posting, he posted the following.

America was founded on the basis of rugged individualism and free enterprise. It was founded on the principal that taxation without representation was abhorrent and to be rejected. Today, America is more indebted than almost any nation in the world. It is also a nation blighted by official unemployment at a level of slightly over 9%, while real unemployment is closer to 20%. America has almost 50 million people on food stamps! America has millions of people collecting unemployment benefits, and now, they are collecting it for up to 99 weeks. (And Obama will be extending those entitlements for an even longer period of time.) In some states, like Rhode Island, an unemployed person can collect up to $682  per week, and up to $996 per week if they have dependents, based on a salary when they were working of only $909 per week. Any guess how long these people will be unemployed? (In case you are extremely naive, or math  challenged, the answer is 99 weeks–or more if Obama extends unemployment benefits.) Why accept a job when you can make almost as much, or more, while staying home and watching TV, golfing, fishing, or whatever?

America has tens of millions on welfare. Most of them also get food stamps. Many of them also get subsidized housing, often complete with stainless steel appliances and granite counter tops. And, most of them have things like flat screen televisions, cable or satellite tv, microwave ovens, cars, and even cellular telephones, complete with text messaging and data plans. Something is wrong with this picture. If you are so irresponsible and lazy that you can’t even feed yourself, how can you afford (or be allowed to afford) luxuries like cell phones, high definition televisions, and cable or satellite television? The only “luxury” that they should be  allowed  is basic high speed internet. With that, they can learn and educate themselves, and keep up with world events. (But, of course, most of them probably use their high speed internet to play interactive video games and download videos, audios, and porn.) Also, they can get something like Skype or Magic Jack to get essentially free telephone service, which is important to have. Cell phones, however, are a luxury that they clearly cannot afford if they can’t even afford to put food in their mouths or a roof over their heads. (Of course, since many of these people are dealing drugs and making other money “under the table” to supplement their welfare and other entitlements, they might claim that they need the cell phone to set up their “deals”.)

I realize that millions of people are unemployed, or underemployed. But, the fact of the matter is that if you cannot find a new job in a couple of months, you are either not trying, or your expectations are way too high. Yes, I realize that you may not be able to get your old job back. But, in many cases that is because you worked in an industry like the auto industry where unions strong-armed the car companies  to pay outrageous salaries and fund ridiculous benefits packages. Now, because of those unnatural union policies, your company became totally uncompetitive and you are now out of work. It is now being reported that the United States Postal Service is going bankrupt, and will have to lay off over 100,000 employees and severely cut back, or even eliminate, service. Why? Primarily because of union imposed contracts that prohibit layoffs and force the postal service to pay unreasonably high wages and benefits. Thus, it, like many other industries that are dominated by unions, is uncompetitive and must cut back or go completely out of business. Thank your union, suck it up, and get a job! Yes, you will have to live on less, but at least you won’t be sucking off the government’s tit, which lives off the blood of successful, educated people who have jobs and who (unlike most, or almost most, Americans) pay taxes.

If Obama does further extend the unemployment entitlement, it will not create jobs. It will just ensure that the unemployment rate remains high while those on unemployment refuse to get new jobs as long as the unemployment check does not bounce. And, remember, unemployment benefits are based on the salary that you used to have; it has no relationship to what your skill-set (or lack thereof) is worth in today’s economy. Thus, while most receive less in unemployment than they used to receive, in many cases they receive more than they could receive, today. Eventually they are going to have to get the best paying job they can. The sooner they realize that, the sooner the country will get back to work. The longer the government enables them to put off that decision, the more bankrupt the United States will become, and the longer it will take to get America back to work.

Of course, another major problem in the United States is that the quality of the educational system has gone steadily down hill since the founding of the Department of Education in 1981. The first item in the budget cutting process should be to totally disband the Department of Education. It, the democratic party and the teacher’s union, have done more damage to the future of America than any other organizations. While America pays more for education than any other country, it produces some of the least educated students in the world. Sure, they have been brainwashed to believe that it is great that Suzy has two mommies and Billy has two daddies, and that evil corporations, and even their evil parents, are destroying the world  by using energy and heating their homes and driving their cars, thanks to the UN contrived rubric of Global Warming, but they can’t read, write, and do arithmetic at a level that is even basically competent, let alone well enough to get good jobs in today’s world. And, competence in the fields of math and science is going to be even  more vital in the coming decades. Of course, it is hard to blame the students who are incompetent in science when we have “leaders” who believe the earth is only 6000 years old, that someone was born of a virgin, and that evolution is “just a theory” and that nonsense like “intelligent design” should be taught in schools. In Texas, 45% of high school biology teachers believe the following statement to be definitely true or probably true: “Adam and Eve were the first human beings and were created by God.” In that same 1988 survey of Texas high school biology teachers (1), 19% believed that the following statement was definitely true or probably true: “Dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time.”  (The “yabba dabba do” theory.) I think it is safe to say that many of the Presidential candidates, especially on the republican side, believe in the “yabba dabba do” theory. That is scary!

Another thing that must be done to get America back on track is to scale back taxes (or even eliminate the income tax completely), and greatly reduce regulations. Corporate income taxes should be completely eliminated, since corporations do not pay income taxes. A tax, to them, is just another cost of production, like the plastic or metal parts or labor that goes into whatever they manufacture and  sell. To stay in business, they must simply add up all those costs, including taxes, add a profit margin, and that is the minimum price that they can sell the item for and stay in business. If another company, in another country (or state), pays a lower tax, or no tax, their cost will be lower, and thus their item will be priced more competitively, thus putting the highly taxed company at a disadvantage. In many cases, that higher cost basis puts the American company out of business. Or, as we see more and more in recent times, the American company is forced to relocate its factories to other countries so as to avoid the US taxes. That, of course, further reduces US jobs. But, it is a choice that they are forced to make if they are to stay in business because of the corporate income tax. Eliminate that tax, and companies can come back into the United States and bring their money back to the United States to be put to good use. As it stands right now, some companies have tens of billions of dollars in offshore accounts that they cannot bring back into the United States because the government will steal 35% of that money in income taxes!

If these  things are done, as well as simplifying regulations from bodies such as the EPA, companies will start putting their frozen capital back to work, jobs will be created, and we will again be able to compete in the world marketplace. Government spending of trillions of dollars does not work. Keynesian economics was a failure when FDR used it, it was a failure when Obama repeated FDR’s mistakes, and Keynesian economics will always fail. (Of course, Communism and Socialism always fail, too, but that does not make countries and people keep thinking that “this time it will be different”.) To see where the United States is going with its massive and totally irresponsible social welfare programs, all you have to do is look at Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, and Italy. They have run out of the other person’s money, and the result is chaos and severe economic displacement. If they had not instituted unsustainable social welfare programs ranging from “free health care” to early retirement and others, they would be solvent today.

Of course, the primary cause of the economic turmoil over the last few years in the United States can be placed squarely at the feet of irresponsible social programs such as the Community Reinvestment Act. In the end, this program essentially forced banks to make loans to people who could not possibly afford the homes that they were encouraged to buy. (And the buyers were too stupid to be able to read and understand the mortgage applications that they were signing and understand what would happen when (not if) interest rates increased after the initial “teaser” period.) This glut of unqualified buyers eventually lead to a steep rise in housing prices and the eventual collapse of the housing market which precipitated the market meltdown.

And, what does the government do about these facts that should be absolutely embarrassing to it? It extends unemployment benefits and calls for higher taxes! It is no wonder that America is doomed! First of all, it has been proven, repeatedly, that raising taxes results in reduced tax revenues; if you raise taxes, the rich will find loopholes, and the “greedy” companies that are actually making money will simply move their taxable operations offshore, thus eliminating confiscatory income taxes and reducing US employment. The democrats can jump up and down and shout all they want, but the bottom line is that people and companies will seek out environments where they can maximize their profitability. Staying in the United States, today, is clearly a step toward corporate suicide. And, by extension, remaining in high tax states (or even the United States) spells individual financial suicide for successful people. Successful people are leaving high tax states like New York, Illinois, and California like rats jumping from a sinking ship, and well they should. Why live in a state that bleeds you to death, financially, if you are successful?

The nanny state started with Franklin  Roosevelt. He was a failure at everything that he tried, until he became President of the United States. He attempted many businesses, but failed at each. He would have divorced his wife, Elanor, but his mommy told him that she would cut off his allowance if he did that; thus, he stayed “married”, while screwing his lover (and the United States).

Now, we come to modern-day America. We have a nation that is nothing more than a bankrupt banana republic. (The only real difference between the United States and Greece is that the United States can print money; Greece cannot.) But we are not looking seriously at what needs to be done to save the nation. We need to cut taxes, cut regulations, re-instate Glass Stiegal to re-impose the separation of investment banks from commercial banks, re-institute the uptick rule to temper market drops, eliminate personal and corporate welfare, reduce the long term capital gains tax to zero to encourage investment, reduce corporate income taxes to zero, repeal Dodd-Frank, and repeal Sarbanes-Oxley. We need to make it clear that public funds will not be used to “bail out” banks and other businesses that make stupid bets and loose. We need to drop all consideration of “cap and trade”, since the portion of “global warming” that can be attributed to man is negligible and if there is any further long term warming, we can learn to adapt. (Recent developments strongly point to the sun, and cosmic rays, as the primary drivers of climate.) And, higher CO2 levels will increase plant production. We need to open up new areas for oil and gas exploration and encourage the use of alternative energy (but not force it on people and nations.) While alternative energy is a good thing for many reasons, it is not yet cost effective, and it simply cannot provide base load capacity. That can only be done with coal, oil, gas, and, preferably, nuclear, hydro, and geothermal power. We need to be realistic about entitlements, and face the fact that they must be cut back, drastically. Social Security must be privatized so that there really is a “trust fund” that really does earn interest so that benefits can be paid out in the future. (Currently Social Security receipts simply go into the treasury with all of the other tax revenues; it is not segregated and invested in some sort of “trust fund”, contrary to what some may believe.) Other entitlement programs must similarly be restructured or simply eliminated. The size of government must be scaled back by at least 50%, and more would be better. (And that would only take us back to the level that government was a decade or two ago.) Finally, Obamacare must be repealed and federal regulations drastically reduced to allow states and associations to come up with varied, innovative, and affordable insurance plans that fit the very diverse needs of Americans.

It is not going to be easy, but the sooner we recognize that we are on an unsustainable course and take massive action to reverse that course, the better. Global warming is not an imminent disaster; the complete collapse of the United States into insolvency is.

(1) “High School Biology Teachers and Pseudoscientific Belief: Passing It On?” by Raymond Eve and Dana Dunn, “The Skeptical Inquirer”, vol 13, Spring 1989, pp 260-263.

Then, at a critical time, the climate gate scandal became news. The released e-mails showed a very clear collusion among the global warmingistas to suppress any real science that did not follow the party line. Al Gore famously stated that the “science is settled.” That statement, alone, told you that it was a fraud, since science is never settled. And, of course, the global warmingistas famously stated that there was a “scientific consensus” that man was responsible for catastrophic global warming. This ignores the fact that science is not about “consensus”; politics is about “consensus”. Science is about the truth. Global warming is a religion, based on faith in models that are consistently proven wrong!

Some people were claiming that the sun was responsible, in large measure, for the temperature variability on the earth. Imagine that; what a concept! Of course, the AGW faithful derided this idea. They said that the sun does not vary enough in energy output to control the changes in temperature that we are seeing. And, of course, they kept falsely claiming that global temperatures had never been higher, in spite of the “Medieval Warm Period”, and the “Climate Optimum” which were well known to have been times when the temperature was at, or higher than, current levels. And, just like they ignored warm periods, they took maximum advantage of cool periods. For example, the earth experienced the “little ice age” between 1550 and 1850. Of course, after the “little ice age”, it got warmer! DUH! But, that is where they concentrated their tirade, by saying how much warmer it has gotten since the “little ice age”. (Except they did not say it that way. They just said “look how much warmer it has gotten since the middle of the 1800′s.”) They also conveniently ignored that much of that warming occurred in the early 1900′s, clearly before man could have been causing global warming. Also, of course, their arguments totally ignored the fact that climate has always changed. If climate has always changed, and it is not significantly warmer (or not even as warm) as it has been in the past, why should we believe that today’s climate is extraordinary?

But then, scientists at CERN, led by Jasper Kirkby, proposed that galactic cosmic rays may be responsible, in large part, for climate change. They proposed, specifically, that the formation of cloud droplets could be influenced by GCRs, which would, in turn, mean that climate change was strongly influenced by the sun. While this may sound strange to some people, when you get into the physics, and also realize that most, if not all, of the climate computer models used by the global warmingistas do not take account of cloud cover, it begins to sound like a reasonable theory. If they don’t include the effects of cloud cover, and cloud cover is influenced by the activity of the sun, it could help to explain why the computer models fail so miserably. And, of course, it would explain how the sun influences climate change with its relatively small, but known, changes in energy output.

The way it works, while complicated, is simple in principle. We know that the sun goes though a sun spot cycle every 11 years. There are also other longer solar cycles. The actual energy output of the sun also varies over time. (Eventually, in a few billion years, the sun will actually expand to the size where it its outer limits almost reach the orbit of the earth. Obviously, long before that happens the earth will be burned into nothingness. But, we’re not talking about that level of change at this time.) Anyway, the earth is constantly bombarded by cosmic rays.  The background level of cosmic rays is quite low, but it does vary as the solar system moves around among the arms of the milky way galaxy over a period of millions and billions of years, as shown in the figure below. (1)

While correlation is not causation, you can see several things very clearly from this graph. First of all, there is an obvious correlation between GCRs and temperature. Specifically, after GCRs increase, temperature decreases. (The temperature graph is a bit confusing, in that higher temperature is down, while lower temperature is up.) Also, it is clear that contrary to what you have heard spouted by Al Gore and others, CO2 is almost zero, today, compared to what it has been in the past.  Furthermore, there is obviously no meaningful correlation between temperature and CO2. If temperature was controlled by CO2, then temperature would have been astronomical in the past, when CO2 levels were as high as 4000 parts per million, compared to the present level of about 392 ppm. No matter what CO2 has done, temperature has ranged from about 12 to 22 degrees Centigrade.

As I pointed out in an earlier article, Al Gore proudly touted the Vostok ice core data, falsely stating that the data shows that as CO2 goes up, so goes the temperature. But, if you actually look at the data honestly, with the two graphs overlapping so that you can see the fine details, it clearly shows that CO2 level increase AFTER temperature goes up. And, even more obviously, CO2 decreases long after temperature goes down. So, contrary to what the global warmingistas want you to believe, CO2 levels follow temperature, not the other way around.

As pointed out here, it was not easy to get funding and approval for the CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets) project. It was fought tooth and nail by the global warmingistas, probably because they knew that the CO2 argument was a fraud, and GCRs might actually hold the key to climate change. But, of course, there is no way that the globalists and the UN could tax GCRs. Everyone would know that the whole “cap and trade” (better called “cap and tax”) and other similar frauds were nothing more than a wealth transfer. In reality, it was the UN saying, you will pay us this money because we want it. Just shut up and pay us! But, of course, they could not come and and put it that way, so they created the global warming scam.

I wrote an article over a year ago that showed the promise of the GCR theory. Now, the initial results are in and they have been reported in the journal Nature. (Another article went into some of the supplementary material published only in the online version of Nature, and it shows how the CLOUD experiment is even more convincing in showing the relationship between GCRs and cloud droplet nucleation.) You knew they had a bombshell when the head of CERN requested that the scientists not “interpret” their results, and the simple fact that the mainstream media, that is in collusion with the global warmingistas, has been very silent about this story. But, the story is out, and the results confirm the hypotheses. The results show that levels of galactic cosmic rays do influence the formation of cloud site nucleation, or water dropletss. Thus, if you have more GCRs, you will tend to get more and larger water droplets, and thus more clouds. If you have reduced levels of GCRs, you will get fewer and smaller nucleation sites, and thus less cloudiness.

Why is this important? Well, even the village idiot knows that if it is cloudy, it will be cooler compared to when the sun is out, all other things being equal. Thus, more clouds lead to cooler temperatures. Also, clouds tend to reflect sunlight back into space. Thus, again, more clouds tends to equal cooler temperatures. Thus, now we have a theory that GCRs can impact cloud formation, and thus can impact temperature. This lends further credence to the data presented in the first figure. That is the way science works. You make a hypothesis, and then you test it. If your data confirms your hypothesis, you have an indication that your hypothesis may have some validity. If your experiments do not confirm your hypothesis, then you know that either your hypothesis is wrong or your data is bad. So far, the hypotheses of the warmists are often not confirmed by experiment, and they always blame the data, even though in many cases they have multiple data sets that are consistent, which should lead them to re-evaluate their hypotheses.

Now, if GCRs do influence cloud formation, and thus could be a significant contributor to global climate, how does the sun fit in? We saw in figure 1 how there is a definite correlation (although not necessarily causation) between GCRs and global temperature, but the level of the GCRs is modulated by the position of the solar system in the milky way galaxy, not solar output. The way it is believed that the solar output comes into play is that as solar activity increases, the electromagnetic field around the earth is strengthened. As that happens, fewer GCRs reach the earth. If fewer GCRs reach the earth, and they have a strong effect on cloud formation, then as solar activity goes up, cloud formation goes down, and global temperatures go up. As solar activity goes down, cloud formation goes up, and temperature goes down. We know that we have had periods where the solar activity has been very low, such as the Maunder minimum, between about 1625 and 1725, which corresponded to the middle, and coldest portion, of the little ice age.

The war in Libya is over. More precisely, governments and media have decided that the war is over, despite the fact that fighting continues. The unfulfilled expectation of this war has consistently been that Moammar Gadhafi would capitulate when faced with the forces arrayed against him, and that his own forces would abandon him as soon as they saw that the war was lost. What was being celebrated last week, with presidents, prime ministers and the media proclaiming the defeat of Gadhafi, will likely be true in due course. The fact that it is not yet true does not detract from the self-congratulations.

For example, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini reported that only 5 percent of Libya is still under Gadhafi’s control. That seems like a trivial amount, save for this news from Italian newspaper La Stampa, which reported that “Tripoli is being cleaned up” neighborhood by neighborhood, street by street and home by home. Meanwhile, bombs from above are pounding Sirte, where, according to the French, Gadhafi has managed to arrive, although it is not known how. The strategically important town of Bali Walid — another possible hiding place and one of only two remaining exit routes to another Gadhafi stronghold in Sabha — is being encircled.

To put it differently, Gadhafi’s forces still retain military control of substantial areas. There is house-to-house fighting going on in Tripoli. There are multiple strongholds with sufficient defensive strength that forces cannot enter them without significant military preparation. Although Gadhafi’s actual location is unknown, his capture is the object of substantial military preparations, including NATO airstrikes, around Bali Walid, Sirte and Sabha. When Saddam Hussein was captured, he was hiding in a hole in the ground, alone and without an army. Gadhafi is still fighting and posing challenges. The war is not over.

It could be argued that while Gadhafi retains a coherent military force and significant territory, he no longer governs Libya. That is certainly true and significant, but it will become more significant when his enemies do take control of the levers of power. It is unreasonable to expect that they should be in a position to do so a few days after entering Tripoli and while fighting continues. But it does raise a critical question: whether the rebels have sufficient coherence to form an effective government or whether new rounds of fighting among Libyans can be expected even after Gadhafi’s forces cease functioning. To put it simply, Gadhafi appears to be on his way to defeat but he is not there yet, and the ability of his enemies to govern Libya is doubtful.

Immaculate Intervention

Given that the dying is far from over, it is interesting to consider why Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron, the major players in this war, all declared last week that Gadhafi had fallen, implying an end to war, and why the media proclaimed the war’s end. To understand this, it is important to understand how surprising the course of the war was to these leaders. From the beginning, there was an expectation that NATO intervention, first with a no-fly zone, then with direct airstrikes on Gadhafi’s position, would lead to a rapid collapse of his government and its replacement with a democratic coalition in the east.

Two forces combined to lead to this conclusion. The first consisted of human-rights groups outside governments and factions in foreign ministries and the State Department who felt an intervention was necessary to stop the pending slaughter in Benghazi. This faction had a serious problem. The most effective way to quickly end a brutal regime was military intervention. However, having condemned the American invasion of Iraq, which was designed, at least in part, to get rid of a brutal regime, this faction found it difficult to justify rapid military intervention on the ground in Libya. Moral arguments require a degree of consistency.

In Europe, the doctrine of “soft power” has become a central doctrine. In the case of Libya, finding a path to soft power was difficult. Sanctions and lectures would probably not stop Gadhafi, but military action ran counter to soft power. What emerged was a doctrine of soft military power. Instituting a no-fly zone was a way to engage in military action without actually hurting anyone, except those Libyan pilots who took off. It satisfied the need to distinguish Libya from Iraq by not invading and occupying Libya but still putting crushing pressure on Gadhafi.

Of course, a no-fly zone proved ineffective and irrelevant, and the French began bombing Gadhafi’s forces the same day. Libyans on the ground were dying, but not British, French or American soldiers. While the no-fly zone was officially announced, this segue to an air campaign sort of emerged over time without a clear decision point. For human-rights activists, this kept them from addressing the concern that airstrikes always cause unintended deaths because they are never as accurate as one might like. For the governments, it allowed them to be seen as embarking upon what I have called an “immaculate intervention.”

The second force that liked this strategy was the various air forces involved. There is no question of the importance of air power in modern war, but there is a constant argument over whether the application of air power by itself can achieve desired political ends without the commitment of ground forces. For the air community, Libya was going to be the place where it could demonstrate its effectiveness in achieving such ends.

So the human-rights advocates could focus on the ends — protecting Libyan civilians in Benghazi — and pretend that they had not just advocated the commencement of a war that would itself leave many people dead. Political leaders could feel that they were not getting into a quagmire but simply undertaking a clean intervention. The air forces could demonstrate their utility in delivering desired political outcomes.

Why and How

The question of the underlying reason for the war should be addressed because stories are circulating that oil companies are competing for vast sums of money in Libya. These stories are all reasonable, in the sense that the real story remains difficult to fathom, and I sympathize with those who are trying to find a deep conspiracy to explain all of this. I would like to find one, too. The problem is that going to war for oil in Libya was unnecessary. Gadhafi loved selling oil, and if the governments involved told him quietly that they were going to blow him up if he didn’t make different arrangements on who got the oil revenues and what royalties he got to keep, Gadhafi would have made those arrangements. He was as cynical as they come, and he understood the subtle idea that shifting oil partners and giving up a lot of revenue was better than being blown up.

Indeed, there is no theory out there that explains this war by way of oil, simply because it was not necessary to actually to go war to get whatever concessions were wanted. So the story — protecting people in Benghazi from slaughter — is the only rational explanation for what followed, however hard it is to believe.

It must also be understood that given the nature of modern air warfare, NATO forces in small numbers had to be inserted on the ground from the beginning — actually, at least a few days before the beginning of the air campaign. Accurately identifying targets and taking them out with sufficient precision involves highly skilled special-operations teams guiding munitions to those targets. The fact that there have been relatively few friendly-fire accidents indicates that standard operational procedures have been in place.

These teams were probably joined by other special operators who trained — and in most cases informally led — indigenous forces in battle. There were ample reports in the early days of the war that special operations teams were on the ground conducting weapons training and organizing the fighters who opposed Gadhafi.

But there proved to be two problems with this approach. First, Gadhafi did not fold his tent and capitulate. He seemed singularly unimpressed by the force he was facing. Second, his troops turned out to be highly motivated and capable, at least compared to their opponents. Proof of this can be found in the fact that they did not surrender en masse, they did maintain a sufficient degree of unit coherence and — the final proof — they held out for six months and are still holding out. The view of human-rights groups that an isolated tyrant would break in the face of the international community, the view of political leaders that an isolated tyrant facing the might of NATO’s air forces would collapse in days and the view of the air forces that air strikes would shatter resistance, all turned out to be false.

A War Prolonged

Part of this was due to a misunderstanding of the nature of Libyan politics. Gadhafi was a tyrant, but he was not completely isolated. He had enemies but he also had many supporters who benefitted from him or at least believed in his doctrines. There was also a general belief among ordinary government soldiers (some of whom are mercenaries from the south) that capitulation would lead to their slaughter, and the belief among government leaders that surrender meant trials in The Hague and terms in prison. The belief of the human-rights community in an International Criminal Court (ICC) trying Gadhafi and the men around him gives them no room for retreat, and men without room for retreat fight hard and to the end. There was no way to negotiate capitulation unless the U.N. Security Council itself publicly approved the deal. The winks and nods that got dictators to leave in the old days aren’t enough anymore. All countries that are party to the Rome Statute are required to turn a leader like Gadhafi over to the ICC for trial.

Therefore, unless the U.N. Security Council publicly strikes a deal with Gadhafi, which would be opposed by the human-rights community and would become ugly, Gadhafi will not give up — and neither will his troops. There were reports last week that some government soldiers had been executed. True or not, fair or not, that would not be a great motivator for surrender.

The war began with the public mission of protecting the people of Benghazi. This quickly morphed into a war to unseat Gadhafi. The problem was that between the ideological and the military aims, the forces dedicated to the war were insufficient to execute the mission. We do not know how many people were killed in the fighting in the past six months, but pursuing the war using soft military power in this way certainly prolonged the war and likely caused many deaths, both military and civilian.

After six months, NATO got tired, and we wound up with the assault on Tripoli. The assault appears to have consisted of three parts. The first was the insertion of NATO special operations troops (in the low hundreds, not thousands) who, guided by intelligence operatives in Tripoli, attacked and destabilized the government forces in the city. The second part was an information operation in which NATO made it appear that the battle was over. The bizarre incident in which Gadhafi’s son, Seif al-Islam, announced as being captured only to show up in an SUV looking very un-captured, was part of this game. NATO wanted it to appear that the leadership had been reduced and Gadhafi’s forces broken to convince those same forces to capitulate. Seif al-Islam’s appearance was designed to signal his troops that the war was still on.

Following the special operations strikes and the information operations, western rebels entered the city to great fanfare, including celebratory gunfire into the air. The world’s media chronicled the end of the war as the special operations teams melted away and the victorious rebels took the bows. It had taken six months, but it was over.

And then it became obvious that it wasn’t over. Five percent of Libya — an interesting calculation — was not liberated. Street fighting in Tripoli continued. Areas of the country were still under Gadhafi’s control. And Gadhafi himself was not where his enemies wanted him to be. The war went on.

A number of lessons emerge from all this. First, it is important to remember that Libya in itself may not be important to the world, but it matters to Libyans a great deal. Second, do not assume that tyrants lack support. Gadhafi didn’t govern Libya for 42 years without support. Third, do not assume that the amount of force you are prepared to provide is the amount of force needed. Fourth, eliminating the option of a negotiated end to the war by the means of international courts may be morally satisfying, but it causes wars to go on and casualties to mount. It is important to decide what is more important — to alleviate the suffering of people or to punish the guilty. Sometimes it is one or the other. Fifth, and most important, do not kid the world about wars being over. After George W. Bush flew onto an aircraft carrier that was emblazoned with a “mission accomplished” banner, the Iraq war became even more violent, and the damage to him was massive. Information operations may be useful in persuading opposing troops to surrender, but political credibility bleeds away when the war is declared over and the fighting goes on.

Gadhafi will likely fall in the end. NATO is more powerful then he is, and enough force will be brought to bear to bring him down. The question, of course, is whether there was another way to accomplish that with less cost and more yield. Leaving aside the war-for-oil theory, if the goal was to protect Benghazi and bring down Gadhafi, greater force or a negotiated exit with guarantees against trials in The Hague would likely have worked faster with less loss of life than the application of soft military power.

As the world contemplates the situation in Syria, this should be borne in mind.

Libya: A Premature Victory Celebration is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

Fortunately for me, I don’t live in an area that will be inundated by storm surge waters, but I may have damage from falling trees, especially since the ground is saturated from recent heavy rain storms. But, what should the millions of people who are in the path of hurricane Irene do? If you think that the “government” will protect you, think again. Think about how “well” the government protected the citizens of New Orleans; NOT! You are on your own; the only person who can protect you is YOU!

So, what can you do to protect yourself? You need to think about your basic needs. The most important of them is water. If you don’t have enough water bottles to last at least a week, you need to go and buy them in the next couple of hours. If you have some empty booze, soda, or milk containers, you could simply fill them with tap water, although you need to be really careful about washing out any bottles that were used for items that can spoil like milk. If you don’t have such bottles, buy a few gallons of bottled water for each member of your family. Then, you need water for personal hygiene. This would be water to use to flush the toilet. To fill this need, fill all of your bathtubs with water and buy a bucket. Depending on how large your bathtub is, you may get up to 20 or even 40 flushes from a bathtub full of water In the same way, fill any laundry-room sinks that you may have with water. (If you have a swimming pool, you don’t need to do any of this; just use water from the pool.)

Another major concern is food spoilage. Before the hurricane hits, set your refrigerators and freezers to their lowest temperature settings. In this way, you will get the maximum “life” out of them before food starts to spoil. Also, if you have a grocery store in the area that sells dry ice, you may want to buy some and put it into your refrigerator and freezers.

Next, you need to worry about actual food. Obviously, canned food is best. If you don’t have at least a few weeks worth of canned food, buy it! If you don’t need it now, you can always use it later.

Another essential item is toilet paper. Buy enough to last a couple of months, and use it as needed. Since there is no “use by” date, your excess is always good, and in an extreme emergency, you can always barter it for other items. (Just think how valuable your toilet paper might be to an unprepared neighbor when they run out of toilet paper!)

While this storm is rapidly approaching, and it may be too late for many people to prepare, there is still time and opportunity for some people to prepare so that they can ride it out in relative comfort.

Fill your bathtubs with water for toilet flushing.

Fill your available bottles with water for cooking and drinking.

Fill your gas cans if you have a generator.

Buy some Clorox and research it’s use for sterilization of water, if needed.

Fill your propane tanks for use for cooking, if needed.

It turns out that the bulk of the “Libyan resistance” is based in the northeastern area of Libya. This is an area that includes Benghazi and Darnah. As pointed out in “Al-Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighters In Iraq“, over 60 percent of the terrorists in Iraq whose records were captured in 2007 who came from Libya came from Darnah, while almost 24% came from Benghazi. Also, as shown in the graph below, Libya  was where the greatest number of terrorists in Iraq came from, in terms of terrorists per capita. It turns out that this northeastern portion of Libya is the home of the Harabi tribe. This tribe tends to be dominated by Islamists. Some of the known members of the National Transitional Council, including Mustafa Abdel Jalil, are members of this tribe. A very interesting and detailed article was written back in March shortly after the fighting started in Libya called “The CIA’s Libya Rebels: The Same Terrorists who Killed US, NATA Troops in Iraq“. The article subtitle was “2007 West Point Study Shows Benghazi-Darnah-Tobruk Area was a World Leader in Al Qaeda Suicide Bomber Recruitment.”  This article points out:

The most striking finding which emerges from the West Point study is that the corridor which goes from Benghazi to Tobruk, passing through the city of Darnah (also transliterated as Derna) them (sic) represents one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists to be found anywhere in the world, and by some measures can be regarded as the leading source of suicide bombers anywhere on the planet. Darnah, with one terrorist fighter sent into Iraq to kill Americans for every 1,000 to 1,500 persons of population, emerges as suicide bomber heaven, easily surpassing the closest competitor, which was Riyad, Saudi Arabia.

Of course, we are supposed to believe that they have seen the evil of their way and are now all for democracy, but i don’t buy it. There is a well known principle of taqiyya in Islam, which amounts to deliberate deception. Lie, cheat, murder; it is all allowed, and in fact encouraged, in Islam as long as it advances the spread and power of Islam. (And, lets not forget the mysterious murder of Abdul Fatah Younis after he was summoned to Benghazi by the National Transitional Council. He was in competition with Jalil for leadership of the NTC. He was also a member of the Harabi tribe. Perhaps he knew something damaging about Jalil or other members of the NTC. Perhaps it is just the usual “Muslims behaving badly.” The people in the West are just too naive and ignorant of the ways of Islam to recognize the truth, even when it is right in front of them.

The identity of some of the  members of the National Transitional Council has not been released. Why is that? We are told it is for the safety of those people. But, the question is, safety from who? Are they afraid that if their identities become known they might be met with a hellfire missile suppository from the drones that we operate over Libya? It is well known that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group were based in the northeaster portion of Libya. This group officially merged with al Qaeda in 2007. And, it was just announced that the new military leader in Tripoli is Abdel Hakim Belhadj, who was a member of the LIFG. Are we really so stupid that we are going to give billions of dollars to an unknown bunch of Muslims, many of whom are obviously Islamists, and some of whom almost certainly were, and maybe still are, jihadists? And lets not forget that Libya is a nation, with a military and military weapons. Are we now prepared to give al Qaeda its own nation with a huge armory that can be turned against us?

We discovered, thanks to al Qaeda documents captured in 2007, that a huge percentage of the suicide bomber fodder in Iraq came from one location; northeastern Libya. Is it a coincidence that the heart of the rebel force comes from the Benghazi area, which is in northeast Libya? I don’t believe in coincidences.

Those documents were analyzed by West Point to try to determine common beliefs and ideologies and backgrounds of al Qaeda suicide bombers. They found:

According to West Point authors Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, Saudi Arabia took first place as regards absolute numbers of jihadis sent to combat the United States and other coalition members in Iraq during the time frame in question. Libya, a country less than one fourth as populous, took second place. Saudi Arabia sent 41% of the fighters. According to Felter and Fishman, “Libya was the next most common country of origin, with 18.8% (112) of the fighters listing their nationality stating they hailed from Libya.” Other much larger countries were far behind: “Syria, Yemen, and Algeria were the next most common origin countries with 8.2% (49), 8.1% (48), and 7.2% (43), respectively. Moroccans accounted for 6.1% (36) of the records and Jordanians 1.9% (11).”²

This means that almost one fifth of the foreign fighters entering Iraq across the Syrian border came from Libya, a country of just over 6 million people. A higher proportion of Libyans were interested in fighting in Iraq than any other country contributing mujahedin. Felter and Fishman point out: “Almost 19 percent of the fighters in the Sinjar Records came from Libya alone. Furthermore, Libya contributed far more fighters per capita than any other nationality in the Sinjar Records, including Saudi Arabia.” (See the chart from the West Point report, page 9)²

But since the Al Qaeda personnel files contain the residence or hometown of the foreign fighters in question, we can determine that the desire to travel to Iraq to kill Americans was not evenly distributed across Libya, but was highly concentrated precisely in those areas around Benghazi which are today the epicenters of the revolt against Colonel Gaddafi which the US, Britain, France, and others are so eagerly supporting.

As Daya Gamage of the Asia Tribune comments in a recent article on the West Point study, “…alarmingly for Western policymakers, most of the fighters came from eastern Libya, the center of the current uprising against Muammar el-Qaddafi. The eastern Libyan city of Darnah sent more fighters to Iraq than any other single city or town, according to the West Point report. It noted that 52 militants came to Iraq from Darnah, a city of just 80,000 people (the second-largest source of fighters was Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which has a population of more than 4 million). Benghazi, the capital of Libya’s provisional government declared by the anti-Qaddafi rebels, sent in 21 fighters, again a disproportionate number of the whole.”³ Obscure Darnah edged out metropolitan Riyadh by 52 fighters to 51. Qaddafi’s stronghold of Tripoli, by contrast, barely shows up in the statistics at all. (See chart from West Point report, page 12)

The chart is reproduced next:

What explains this extraordinary concentration of anti-American fighters in Benghazi and Darnah? The answer seems related to extremist schools of theology and politics which flourished in these areas. As the West Point report notes: “Both Darnah and Benghazi have long been associated with Islamic militancy in Libya.” These areas are in theological and tribal conflict with the central government of Colonel Gaddafi, in addition to being politically opposed to him. Whether such a theological conflict is worth the deaths of still more American and European soldiers is a question which needs urgently to be answered.

We also know that this same group has been telling us bald-faced lies. A few days ago, they announced that they had captured most of Gaddafi’s sons. The next day, Saif al Islam made a triumphant appearance at a Tripoli hotel. Oops! And, it was later admitted that they did not have any of the other sons. “Oh, we had them, but they escaped.” Sure. And “I used to be a jihadist, but trust me, I’m all for secular, pluralistic democracy today!” Oh, and like the socialists that they have announced they will be in the (possibly fake) draft constitution that was leaked a few days ago, they are telling Italy and France and anyone who will listen that they must be given a couple of billion dollars. Now! Or else! .

Meanwhile, Gaddafi’s weapons, including mustard gas and tens of thousands of shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles are up for grabs. In fact, it was reported that rebels had grabbed at least 2500 SA-7 missiles, which I suspect are out of the country and on their way to various jihadists in the United States and Europe. And, there are tons of yellow cake uranium that could be used for dirty bombs. (Or, in the hands of Iran or North Korea, made into nuclear weapons.)

It has been reported that the Libyan war has cost the United States, alone, almost $1 billion dollars. How about reimbursing us, first? And, how about extraditing the Pan Am bomber? (That won’t happen, unless we wisely snatch him in the confusion), since the new, draft constitution specifically says that Libya will not extradite anyone. Of course, if they intended to make Libya  into a jihad state, you would expect them to not allow any extradition of terrorists. And, today, the NTC officially announced that they will not allow the extradition of ANY Libyan citizens, thus confirming my suspicion, and lending further credibility to the validity of the released supposed constitution.

We need to insist on complete transparency, and the identities and background of all members of any proposed government before we give them billions of dollars and control over a massive arsenal, since if my suspicions are correct, they will simply use those assets against us.

Be afraid; be very afraid.

1) http://tarpley.net/docs/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf page 9

2) http://tarpley.net/docs/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf

3)Daya Gamage, “Libyan rebellion has radical Islamist fervor: Benghazi link to Islamic militancy, U.S. Military Document Reveals,” Asian Tribune, March 17, 2011, at http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/03/17/libyan-rebellion-has-radical-islamist-fervor-benghazi-link-islamic-militancyus-milit

In September, the U.N. General Assembly will vote on whether to recognize Palestine as an independent and sovereign state with full rights in the United Nations. In many ways, this would appear to be a reasonable and logical step. Whatever the Palestinians once were, they are clearly a nation in the simplest and most important sense — namely, they think of themselves as a nation. Nations are created by historical circumstances, and those circumstances have given rise to a Palestinian nation. Under the principle of the United Nations and the theory of the right to national self-determination, which is the moral foundation of the modern theory of nationalism, a nation has a right to a state, and that state has a place in the family of nations. In this sense, the U.N. vote will be unexceptional.

However, when the United Nations votes on Palestinian statehood, it will intersect with other realities and other historical processes. First, it is one thing to declare a Palestinian state; it is quite another thing to create one. The Palestinians are deeply divided between two views of what the Palestinian nation ought to be, a division not easily overcome. Second, this vote will come at a time when two of Israel’s neighbors are coping with their own internal issues. Syria is in chaos, with an extended and significant resistance against the regime having emerged. Meanwhile, Egypt is struggling with internal tension over the fall of President Hosni Mubarak and the future of the military junta that replaced him. Add to this the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and the potential rise of Iranian power, and the potential recognition of a Palestinian state — while perfectly logical in an abstract sense — becomes an event that can force a regional crisis in the midst of ongoing regional crises. It thus is a vote that could have significant consequences.

The Palestinian Divide

Let’s begin with the issue not of the right of a nation to have a state but of the nature of a Palestinian state under current circumstances. The Palestinians are split into two major factions. The first, Fatah, dominates the West Bank. Fatah derives its ideology from the older, secular Pan-Arab movement. Historically, Fatah saw the Palestinians as a state within the Arab nation. The second, Hamas, dominates Gaza. Unlike Fatah, it sees the Palestinians as forming part of a broader Islamist uprising, one in which Hamas is the dominant Islamist force of the Palestinian people.

The Pan-Arab rising is moribund. Where it once threatened the existence of Muslim states, like the Arab monarchies, it is now itself threatened. Mubarak, Syrian President Bashar al Assad and Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi all represented the old Pan-Arab vision. A much better way to understand the “Arab Spring” is that it represented the decay of such regimes that were vibrant when they came to power in the late 1960s and early 1970s but have fallen into ideological meaninglessness. Fatah is part of this grouping, and while it still speaks for Palestinian nationalism as a secular movement, beyond that it is isolated from broader trends in the region. It is both at odds with rising religiosity and simultaneously mistrusted by the monarchies it tried to overthrow. Yet it controls the Palestinian proto-state, the Palestinian National Authority, and thus will be claiming a U.N. vote on Palestinian statehood. Hamas, on the other hand, is very much representative of current trends in the Islamic world and holds significant popular support, yet it is not clear that it holds a majority position in the Palestinian nation.

All nations have ideological divisions, but the Palestinians are divided over the fundamental question of the Palestinian nation’s identity. Fatah sees itself as part of a secular Arab world that is on the defensive. Hamas envisions the Palestinian nation as an Islamic state forming in the context of a region-wide Islamist rising. Neither is in a position to speak authoritatively for the Palestinian people, and the things that divide them cut to the heart of the nation. As important, each has a different view of its future relations with Israel. Fatah has accepted, in practice, the idea of Israel’s permanence as a state and the need of the Palestinians to accommodate themselves to the reality. Hamas has rejected it.

The U.N. decision raises the stakes in this debate within the Palestinian nation that could lead to intense conflict. As vicious as the battle between Hamas and Fatah has been, an uneasy truce has existed over recent years. Now, there could emerge an internationally legitimized state, and control of that state will matter more than ever before. Whoever controls the state defines what the Palestinians are, and it becomes increasingly difficult to suspend the argument for a temporary truce. Rather than settling anything, or putting Israel on the defensive, the vote will compel a Palestinian crisis.

Fatah has an advantage in any vote on Palestinian statehood: It enjoys far more international support than Hamas does. Europeans and Americans see it as friendly to their interests and less hostile to Israel. The Saudis and others may distrust Fatah from past conflicts, but in the end they fear radical Islamists and Iran and so require American support at a time when the Americans have tired of playing in what some Americans call the “sandbox.” However reluctantly, while aiding Hamas, the Saudis are more comfortable with Fatah. And of course, the embattled Arabist regimes, whatever tactical shifts there may have been, spring from the same soil as Fatah. While Fatah is the preferred Palestinian partner for many, Hamas can also use that reality to portray Fatah as colluding with Israel against the Palestinian people during a confrontation.

For its part, Hamas has the support of Islamists in the region, including Shiite Iranians, but that is an explosive mix to base a strategy on. Hamas must break its isolation if it is to counter the tired but real power of Fatah. Symbolic flotillas from Turkey are comforting, but Hamas needs an end to Egyptian hostility to Hamas more than anything.

Egypt’s Role and Fatah on the Defensive

Egypt is the power that geographically isolates Hamas through its treaty with Israel and with its still-functional blockade on Gaza. More than anyone, Hamas needs genuine regime change in Egypt. The new regime it needs is not a liberal democracy but one in which Islamist forces supportive of Hamas, namely the Muslim Brotherhood, come to power.

At the moment, that is not likely. Egypt’s military has retained a remarkable degree of control, its opposition groups are divided between secular and religious elements, and the religious elements are further divided among themselves — as well as penetrated by an Egyptian security apparatus that has made war on them for years. As it stands, Egypt is not likely to evolve in a direction favorable to Hamas. Therefore, Hamas needs to redefine the political situation in Egypt to convert a powerful enemy into a powerful friend.

Though it is not easy for a small movement to redefine a large nation, in this case, it could perhaps happen. There is a broad sense of unhappiness in Egypt over Egypt’s treaty with Israel, an issue that comes to the fore when Israel and the Palestinians are fighting. As in other Arab countries, passions surge in Egypt when the Palestinians are fighting the Israelis.

Under Mubarak, these passions were readily contained in Egypt. Now the Egyptian regime unquestionably is vulnerable, and pro-Palestinian feelings cut across most, if not all, opposition groups. It is a singular, unifying force that might suffice to break the military’s power, or at least to force the military to shift its Israeli policy.

Hamas in conflict with Israel as the United Nations votes for a Palestinian state also places Fatah on the political defensive among the Palestinians. Fatah cooperation with Israel while Gaza is at war would undermine Fatah, possibly pushing Fatah to align with Hamas. Having the U.N. vote take place while Gaza is at war, a vote possibly accompanied by General Assembly condemnation of Israel, could redefine the region.

Last week’s attack on the Eilat road should be understood in this context. Some are hypothesizing that new Islamist groups forming in the Sinai or Palestinian groups in Gaza operating outside Hamas’ control carried out the attack. But while such organizations might formally be separate from Hamas, I find it difficult to believe that Hamas, with an excellent intelligence service inside Gaza and among the Islamist groups in the Sinai, would not at least have known these groups’ broad intentions and would not have been in a position to stop them. Just as Fatah created Black September in the 1970s, a group that appeared separate from Fatah but was in fact covertly part of it, the strategy of creating new organizations to take the blame for conflicts is an old tactic both for the Palestinians and throughout the world.

Hamas’ ideal attack would offer it plausible deniability — allowing it to argue it did not even know an attack was imminent, much less carry it out — and trigger an Israeli attack on Gaza. Such a scenario casts Israel as the aggressor and Hamas as the victim, permitting Hamas to frame the war to maximum effect in Egypt and among the Palestinians, as well as in the wider Islamic world and in Europe.

Regional Implications and Israel’s Dilemma

The matter goes beyond Hamas. The Syrian regime is currently fighting for its life against its majority Sunni population. It has survived thus far, but it needs to redefine the conflict. The Iranians and Hezbollah are among those most concerned with the fall of the Syrian regime. Syria has been Iran’s one significant ally, one strategically positioned to enhance Iranian influence in the Levant. Its fall would be a strategic setback for Iran at a time when Tehran is looking to enhance its position with the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Iran, which sees the uprising as engineered by its enemies — the United States, Saudi Arabia and Turkey — understandably wants al Assad to survive.

Meanwhile, the fall of Syria would leave Hezbollah — which is highly dependent on the current Syrian regime and is in large part an extension of Syrian policy in Lebanon — wholly dependent on Iran. And Iran without its Syrian ally is very far away from Hezbollah. Like Tehran, Hezbollah thus also wants al Assad to survive. Hezbollah joining Hamas in a confrontation with Israel would take the focus off the al Assad regime and portray his opponents as undermining resistance to Israel. Joining a war with Israel also would make it easier for Hezbollah to weather the fall of al Assad should his opponents prevail. It would help Hezbollah create a moral foundation for itself independent of Syria. Hezbollah’s ability to force a draw with Israel in 2006 constituted a victory for the radical Islamist group that increased its credibility dramatically.

The 2006 military confrontation was also a victory for Damascus, as it showed the Islamic world that Syria was the only nation-state supporting effective resistance to Israel. It also showed Israel and the United States that Syria alone could control Hezbollah and that forcing Syria out of Lebanon was a strategic error on the part of Israel and the United States.

Faced with this dynamic, it will be difficult for Fatah to maintain its relationship with Israel. Indeed, Fatah could be forced to initiate an intifada, something it would greatly prefer to avoid, as this would undermine what economic development the West Bank has experienced.

Israel therefore conceivably could face conflict in Gaza, a conflict along the Lebanese border and a rising in the West Bank, something it clearly knows. In a rare move, Israel announced plans to call up reserves in September. Though preannouncements of such things are not common, Israel wants to signal resolution.

Israel has two strategies in the face of the potential storm. One is a devastating attack on Gaza followed by rotating forces to the north to deal with Hezbollah and intense suppression of an intifada. Dealing with Gaza fast and hard is the key if the intention is to abort the evolution I laid out. But the problem here is that the three-front scenario I laid out is simply a possibility; there is no certainty here. If Israel initiates conflict in Gaza and fails, it risks making a possibility into a certainty — and Israel has not had many stunning victories for several decades. It could also create a crisis for Egypt’s military rulers, not something the Israelis want.

Israel also simply could absorb the attacks from Hamas to make Israel appear the victim. But seeking sympathy is not likely to work given how Palestinians have managed to shape global opinion. Moreover, we would expect Hamas to repeat its attacks to the point that Israel no longer could decline combat.

War thus benefits Hamas (even if Hamas maintains plausible deniability by having others commit the attacks), a war Hezbollah has good reason to enter at such a stage and that Fatah does not want but could be forced into. Such a war could shift the Egyptian dynamic significantly to Hamas’ advantage, while Iran would certainly want al-Assad to be able to say to Syrians that a war with Israel is no time for a civil war in Syria. Israel would thus find itself fighting three battles simultaneously. The only way to do that is to be intensely aggressive, making moderation strategically difficult.

Israel responded modestly compared to the past after the Eilat incident, mounting only limited attacks on Gaza against mostly members of the Palestinian Resistance Committees, an umbrella group known to have links with Hamas. Nevertheless, Hamas has made clear that its de facto truce with Israel was no longer assured. The issue now is what Hamas is prepared to do and whether Hamas supporters, Saudi Arabia in particular, can force them to control anti-Israeli activities in the region. The Saudis want al Assad to fall, and they do not want a radical regime in Egypt. Above all, they do not want Iran’s hand strengthened. But it is never clear how much influence the Saudis or Egyptians have over Hamas. For Hamas, this is emerging as the perfect moment, and it is hard to believe that even the Saudis can restrain them. As for the Israelis, what will happen depends on what others decide — which is the fundamental strategic problem that Israel has.

Israeli-Arab Crisis Approaching is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

Today, a document titled “Draft Constitutional Charter for the Transitional Stage” was leaked. Of course, I don’t know if this document is genuine. It might be a fake. But, it does not look like a fake, and I see no reason to doubt its validity. The important part is that if it is genuine, then it clearly shows that Libya will become both another Islamist state, ruled by Sharia, as well as a safe haven for terrorists.

The document starts out innocently enough, with a discussion of how Libya will achieve democracy and will be a land with justice, science, culture, welfare, health, etc. (Never mind the simple fact that Islam is anathema to all of those subjects and objectives.) But, then, in Article (1), it states:

Libya is an independent Democratic State wherein the people are the source of authorities. The city of Tripoli shall be the capital of the State. Islam is the Religion of the State and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia). Arabic is its official language while preserving the linguistic and cultural rights of all components of the Libyan society. The State shall guarantee for non-Moslems (sic) the freedom of practising (sic) religious rights and shall guarantee respect for their systems of personal status.

There you have it. The law of the land will be based on Sharia. With the fact that Sharia mandates third class status to all non-Muslims, and second class status to women, and also mandates that all laws come from Allah, they can put all the warm and cuddly boilerplate in their constitution to appease the credulous infidels, but since Sharia is going to be the law of the land, it will be another oppressive theocracy. Plus, with Islam the official religion of the state, you can be sure that all other religions will be oppressed, as specifically stipulated by Sharia.

Later in the document there is another interesting statement. Article (10) states:

The extradition of political refugees shall be prohibited. The State shall guarantee the right of asylum.

At first, I did not think too much of this, although it seemed a little strange. But then, while reading The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, I noticed a particular paragraph that was referring to how Barack Obama had tried to help fellow Marxist Raila Odinga win the presidency of Kenya a few years ago. (Odinga actually named his son Fidel!) Odinga was an Islamist, and wanted to turn Kenya into an Islamist state. He lost the election, but then went on the war path in Kenya causing massive loss of life and property. But, the specific paragraph in the book (p69) that got my attention was related to how Odinga was opposed to his opponent’s (and presidential winner) policy of cooperation with the United States in its war on terror.

Odinga campaigned against the Kibaki government’s cooperation with the U.S. war on terror, making an issue out of the extradition of a group of accused Al-Qaeda operative, some of whom the Odinga camp maintained were innocent. “Our government will not be held at ransom to extradite Muslims to foreign lands,” thundered Odinga at a campaign rally. And with Muslim kenyans, the message resonated: “Islamic outrage,” observed Joshua Hammer of The New York Times, “had placed the incumbent, Kibaki, on the defensive and provided Raila Odinga with a tool to rally the support of Kenya’s Muslims”

Thus, the new constitution of Libya (if genuine) will institutionalize and legalize the protection of terrorists. Not too surprising if many of the “rebels” are members of Al Qaeda and other Islamist and jihadist groups.

What does all of this mean? Well, for starters, it means that Libya will now become another Islamist emirate, run by Islamists and al Qaeda. Think another Iran. As bad as Gaddafi was, he was better than Islamists and al Qaeda. Plus, we now have at least 2500 SA-7 anti-aircraft missiles that are now being shipped to the United States and other Western nations to bring down aircraft. While these weapons are old and not very sophisticated, Western airlines, with the exception of Israeli airlines, are not equipped to detect and evade anti-aircraft missiles like the SA-7. I’m glad I don’t have to fly commercial airlines.

So, expect to see airliners falling from the skies in the near future. All the Muslims need to do is to bring a few hundred of these 2500 SA-7′s into the United States. Since no recent president has chosen to seal the borders, importing these small, shoulder-fired missiles will be trivial. Sure, maybe a few will miss their targets, but with 2500 to import, you can be sure that at least a few hundred will make it into Western nations, each of which is capable of bringing down a commercial airliner. At a cost of 200 deaths per aircraft, even only 10% of those 2500 SA-7 missiles could result in the deaths of 50,000 innocent people. That would be almost 20 times worse than 9/11, and the patience of Americans for Muslim barbarians would run out.

Even more concerning, we have a nation that was once going nuclear, and which has thousands of advanced weapons, being openly taken over by Islamists. Gaddafi gave up his nuclear weapons when he saw what we did in Iraq. While a brutal thug, and a person that I have no sympathy for, as Islamists take over Libya, and its extensive weapons cache, we are in a far more dangerous world.

On Dec. 17, 2010, Mohammed Bouazizi, a Tunisian street vendor, set himself on fire in a show of public protest. The self-immolation triggered unrest in Tunisia and ultimately the resignation of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. This was followed by unrest in a number of Arab countries that the global press dubbed the “Arab Spring.” The standard analysis of the situation was that oppressive regimes had been sitting on a volcano of liberal democratic discontent. The belief was that the Arab Spring was a political uprising by masses demanding liberal democratic reform and that this uprising, supported by Western democracies, would generate sweeping political change across the Arab world.

It is now more than six months since the beginning of the Arab Spring, and it is important to take stock of what has happened and what has not happened. The reasons for the widespread unrest go beyond the Arab world, although, obviously, the dynamics within that world are important in and of themselves. However, the belief in an Arab Spring helped shape European and American policies in the region and the world. If the assumptions of this past January and February prove insufficient or even wrong, then there will be regional and global consequences.

It is important to begin with the fact that, to this point, no regime has fallen in the Arab world. Individuals such as Tunisia’s Ben Ali and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak have been replaced, but the regimes themselves, which represent the manner of governing, have not changed. Some regimes have come under massive attack but have not fallen, as in Libya, Syria and Yemen. And in many countries, such as Jordan, the unrest never amounted to a real threat to the regime. The kind of rapid and complete collapse that we saw in Eastern Europe in 1989 with the fall of communism has not happened in the Arab world. More important, what regime changes that might come of the civil wars in Libya and Syria are not going to be clearly victorious, those that are victorious are not going to be clearly democratic and those that are democratic are obviously not going to be liberal. The myth that beneath every Libyan is a French republican yearning to breathe free is dubious in the extreme.

Consider the case of Mubarak, who was forced from office and put on trial, although the regime — a mode of governing in which the military remains the main arbiter of the state — remains intact. Egypt is now governed by a committee of military commanders, all of whom had been part of Mubarak’s regime. Elections are coming, but the opposition is deeply divided between Islamists and secularists, and personalities and ideological divisions in turn divide these factions. The probability of a powerful democratic president emerging who controls the sprawling ministries in Cairo and the country’s security and military apparatus is slim, and the Egyptian military junta is already acting to suppress elements that are too radical and too unpredictable.

The important question is why these regimes have been able to survive. In a genuine revolution, the regime loses power. The anti-communist forces overwhelmed the Polish Communist government in 1989 regardless of the divisions within the opposition. The sitting regimes were not in a position to determine their own futures, let alone the futures of their countries. There was a transition, but they were not in control of it. Similarly, in 1979, when the Shah of Iran was overthrown, his military and security people were not the ones managing the transition after the shah left the country. They were the ones on trial. There was unrest in Egypt in January and February 2011, but the idea that it amounted to a revolution flew in the face of the reality of Egypt and of what revolutions actually look like.

Shaping the Western Narrative

There were three principles shaping the Western narrative on the Arab Spring. The first was that these regimes were overwhelmingly unpopular. The second was that the opposition represented the overwhelming will of the people. The third was that once the unrest began it was unstoppable. Add to all that the notion that social media facilitated the organization of the revolution and the belief that the region was in the midst of a radical transformation can be easily understood.

It was in Libya that these propositions created the most serious problems. Tunisia and Egypt were not subject to very much outside influence. Libya became the focus of a significant Western intervention. Moammar Gadhafi had ruled Libya for nearly 42 years. He could not have ruled for that long without substantial support. That didn’t mean he had majority support (or that he didn’t). It simply meant that the survival of his regime did not interest only a handful of people, but that a large network of Libyans benefitted from Gadhafi’s rule and stood to lose a great deal if he fell. They were prepared to fight for his regime.

The opposition to him was real, but its claim to represent the overwhelming majority of Libyan people was dubious. Many of the leaders had been part of the Gadhafi regime, and it is doubtful they were selected for their government posts because of their personal popularity. Others were members of tribes that were opposed to the regime but not particularly friendly to each other. Under the mythology of the Arab Spring, the eastern coalition represented the united rage of the Libyan people against Gadhafi’s oppression. Gadhafi was weak and isolated, wielding an army that was still loyal and could inflict terrible vengeance on the Libyan people. But if the West would demonstrate its ability to prevent slaughter in Benghazi, the military would realize its own isolation and defect to the rebels.

It didn’t happen that way. First, Gadhafi’s regime was more than simply a handful of people terrorizing the population. It was certainly a brutal regime, but it hadn’t survived for 42 years on that alone. It had substantial support in the military and among key tribes. Whether this was a majority is as unclear as whether the eastern coalition was a majority. But it was certainly a substantial group with much to fight for and a great deal to lose if the regime fell. So, contrary to expectations in the West, the regime has continued to fight and to retain the loyalty of a substantial number of people. Meanwhile, the eastern alliance has continued to survive under the protection of NATO but has been unable to form a united government or topple Gadhafi. Most important, it has always been a dubious assertion that what would emerge if the rebels did defeat Gadhafi would be a democratic regime, let alone a liberal democracy, and this has become increasingly obvious as the war has worn on. Whoever would replace Gadhafi would not clearly be superior to him, which is saying quite a lot.

A very similar process is taking place in Syria. There, the minority Alawite government of the al Assad family, which has ruled Syria for 41 years, is facing an uprising led by the majority Sunnis, or at least some segment of them. Again, the assumption was that the regime was illegitimate and therefore weak and would crumble in the face of concerted resistance. That assumption proved wrong. The al Assad regime may be running a minority government, but it has substantial support from a military of mostly Alawite officers leading a largely Sunni conscript force. The military has benefited tremendously from the Assad regime — indeed, it brought it to power. The one thing the al Assads were careful to do was to make it beneficial to the military and security services to remain loyal to the regime. So far, they largely have. The danger for the regime looking forward is if the growing strain on the Alawite-dominated army divisions leads to fissures within the Alawite community and in the army itself, raising the potential for a military coup.

In part, these Arab leaders have nowhere to go. The senior leadership of the military could be tried in The Hague, and the lower ranks are subject to rebel retribution. There is a rule in war, which is that you should always give your enemy room to retreat. The al Assad supporters, like the Gadhafi supporters and the supporters of Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh, have no room to retreat. So they have fought on for months, and it is not clear they will capitulate anytime soon.

Foreign governments, from the United States to Turkey, have expressed their exasperation with the Syrians, but none has seriously contemplated an intervention. There are two reasons for this: First, following the Libya intervention, everyone became more wary of assuming the weakness of Arab regimes, and no one wants a showdown on the ground with a desperate Syrian military. Second, observers have become cautious in asserting that widespread unrest constitutes a popular revolution or that the revolutionaries necessarily want to create a liberal democracy. The Sunnis in Syria might well want a democracy, but they might well be interested in creating a Sunni “Islamic” state. Knowing that it is important to be careful what you wish for, everyone seems to be issuing stern warnings to Damascus without doing very much.

Syria is an interesting case because it is, perhaps, the only current issue that Iran and Israel agree on. Iran is deeply invested in the al Assad regime and wary of increased Sunni power in Syria. Israel is just as deeply concerned that the al Assad regime — a known and manageable devil from the Israeli point of view — could collapse and be replaced by a Sunni Islamist regime with close ties to Hamas and what is left of al Qaeda in the Levant. These are fears, not certainties, but the fears make for interesting bedfellows.

Geopolitical Significance

Since late 2010, we have seen three kinds of uprisings in the Arab world. The first are those that merely brushed by the regime. The second are those that created a change in leaders but not in the way the country was run. The third are those that turned into civil wars, such as Libya and Yemen. There is also the interesting case of Bahrain, where the regime was saved by the intervention of Saudi Arabia, but while the rising there conformed to the basic model of the Arab Spring — failed hopes — it lies in a different class, caught between Saudi and Iranian power.

The three examples do not mean that there is not discontent in the Arab world or a desire for change. They do not mean that change will not happen, or that discontent will not assume sufficient force to overthrow regimes. They also do not mean that whatever emerges will be liberal democratic states pleasing to Americans and Europeans.

This becomes the geopolitically significant part of the story. Among Europeans and within the U.S. State Department and the Obama administration is an ideology of human rights — the idea that one of the major commitments of Western countries should be supporting the creation of regimes resembling their own. This assumes all the things that we have discussed: that there is powerful discontent in oppressive states, that the discontent is powerful enough to overthrow regimes, and that what follows would be the sort of regime that the West would be able to work with.

The issue isn’t whether human rights are important but whether supporting unrest in repressive states automatically strengthens human rights. An important example was Iran in 1979, when opposition to the oppression of the shah’s government was perceived as a movement toward liberal democracy. What followed might have been democratic but it was hardly liberal. Indeed, many of the myths of the Arab Spring had their roots both in the 1979 Iranian Revolution and later in Iran’s 2009 Green Movement, when a narrow uprising readily crushed by the regime was widely viewed as massive opposition and widespread support for liberalization.

The world is more complicated and more varied than that. As we saw in the Arab Spring, oppressive regimes are not always faced with massed risings, and unrest does not necessarily mean mass support. Nor are the alternatives necessarily more palatable than what went before or the displeasure of the West nearly as fearsome as Westerners like to think. Libya is a case study on the consequences of starting a war with insufficient force. Syria makes a strong case on the limits of soft power. Egypt and Tunisia represent a textbook lesson on the importance of not deluding yourself.

The pursuit of human rights requires ruthless clarity as to whom you are supporting and what their chances are. It is important to remember that it is not Western supporters of human rights who suffer the consequences of failed risings, civil wars or revolutionary regimes that are committed to causes other than liberal democracy.

The misreading of the situation can also create unnecessary geopolitical problems. The fall of the Egyptian regime, unlikely as it is at this point, would be just as likely to generate an Islamist regime as a liberal democracy. The survival of the al Assad regime could lead to more slaughter than we have seen and a much firmer base for Iran. No regimes have fallen since the Arab Spring, but when they do it will be important to remember 1979 and the conviction that nothing could be worse than the shah’s Iran, morally or geopolitically. Neither was quite the case.

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t people in the Arab world who want liberal democracy. It simply means that they are not powerful enough to topple regimes or maintain control of new regimes even if they did succeed. The Arab Spring is, above all, a primer on wishful thinking in the face of the real world.

“Re-Examining the Arab Spring is republished with permission of STRATFOR.”

In an article from Fox News, Oliver Darcy, the college student proposing the transfer of excess GPA that a student may have earned to a student with a lesser GPA found his proposal to be generally rejected by the high GPA students, although many thought that wealthy people should be forced to have their wealth transferred to less wealthy people.

“They all earn their GPA,” said Darcy in an interview with “Fox and Friends.” “So we asked them if they’d be interested in redistributing the GPA points that they earned to students who may be having trouble getting a high GPA.”

“If I do give GPA points to students that don’t deserve it, it isn’t fair, I work for what I have.”

As a libertarian, my tendency is to root for Ron Paul, although I disagree with his stand on abortion. But, at least he knows that you cannot legislate abortion away from what I have heard him say. While I  am certainly not in favor of late-term abortions, I don’t have a problem with a woman getting an abortion shortly after she misses her period if she is in a situation where she does not want to be pregnant or cannot afford a child.  The libertarian party view on abortion is that it is between the woman and her doctor; it is not the business of the State. And, I don’t believe that Paul would try to criminalize abortion, which cannot be said of candidates like Bachmann, Pawlenty, Santorum, Palin, and others. Such lunacy would only force poor women to have children they can’t afford, while the wealthier women would simply take a trip to a state or country where they could get an abortion.

The big problem that I had with Ron Paul’s position was that he clearly does not understand the danger posed by Islam, and Iran in particular. Yes, we should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We should have abandoned those Muslim Hell-holes years ago, and simply isolated them and put them, along with Pakistan, under a travel ban, so that nobody could travel to or from them and the United States until they abandoned Islam and came into the 21st century. We did it with South Africa, and it eventually eliminated their system of Apartheid. We should have dropped the travel ban with Cuba once they returned their nuclear missiles to Russia. (Although I understand that Florida would have been flooded with Cubans wanting to get out of one of the remaining Communist Hell-holes left in the world, along with North Korea, and, soon, Venezuela.) In the case of Muslim countries, we are stupidly trying to bring democracy to a people that are too stupid and too brainwashed with Mohammad’s insane rantings, and those of his sock-puppet Allah,  to have democracy; thus, we are wasting our time, money,  and the lives of our brave and dedicated servicemen and servicewomen. But, to state that Iran is not a danger is like saying that North Korea is not a danger. They are both dedicated to a common goal; the destruction of the United States. Iran is also dedicated to the destruction of Israel, along with dominating the Muslim world.

Education was mentioned in the debate, but it was not stressed as it should have been. One of the fundamental reasons why the United States is failing in the world economy is that its people are no longer sufficiently educated to create, innovate, and compete in the world marketplace. Mitt Romney hit the nail on the head when he stated that he would like to staple a green card to the diploma of anyone who received a PhD in physics. As someone who has spent over 14 years taking various graduate level (mostly solid state physics) courses at a top US university, I saw first hand that most of the graduate level science students were foreign students. Yes, I also took some graduate level business courses, and there were plenty of US students there seeking their MBAs. But, in graduate school courses related to electrical engineering and/or physics, there were virtually NO US students. They were either too stupid to get into the program, or the smart ones felt that they could make more money on Wall Street, and so went for the MBA. (And, unfortunately, they were correct in the thought that they could make more money on Wall Street. While a person who graduates with a master’s degree or PhD in electrical engineering or physics can certainly make a lot more money than someone with just a BS degree in those fields, or even advanced degrees in other fields, they are far behind what many make on Wall Street with an MBA.) And, we all saw what the “best and brightest” did to the economy due to their extremely speculative derivatives trading a couple of years ago. While many of those people deservedly lost their jobs, many not only maintained their “jobs” to strike again, but got obscene bonuses thanks to TARP that engineers and physicists could not even dream about. I’ll get to free market capitalism later, in case some want to point their fingers at the massive failure and financial damage caused by derivatives trading as an example of why capitalism must be curtailed. In a truly free market, those individuals who were responsible for those gross errors of judgment would have been severely punished, perhaps even criminally, and the and their employer banks and hedge funds would certainly not have been bailed out. They would have gone the way of the dinosaurs, and you could be sure that people in similar positions in the future would think twice about committing such absurd practices. And, of course, some regulation is necessary. If S&P and other ratings agencies had been doing their jobs, alarm bells would have gone off and been heard. As for the mortgage meltdown, that was caused by the government, starting with the Community Reinvestment Act, and morons like Barny Frank and Barack Obama pressuring banks to make irresponsible loans that no sane, prudent banker would ever have made. In a sense, the derivatives were a response by the banks to try to protect themselves from government imposed irresponsibility in that they wanted to get these toxic assets off their balance sheets. If the government had not enforced artificially low interest rates (as they are still doing) and forced banks to make loans to people who any sane person with any concept of how the mortgages worked and who could do a little basic math, would have known were doomed to default, the whole mess would never have happened. But, we don’t have educated Americans who can understand the basic mortgage contract that they were signing, let alone do the math to determine what was going to happen to their mortgage payments in a year or two. I will get to that major education problems later.

Personally, I thought that the winner of the debate was Herman Cain. I don’t know enough about him to know if I would ever vote for him, but at least he did not say anything that would cause me to exclude him from the race. While I’ll probably vote for the libertarian candidate, I would love to vote for a republican unless he or she disqualifies themselves, since I know that the libertarian candidate will not win. (Ron Paul was the libertarian candidate for a number of years. If he could start to recognize the Islamic threat in the same way that Herman Cain so obviously recognizes it, I could see voting for him.)

Cain made a big mistake, however, when questioned about his former comments about Mitt Romney’s Mormon religion. Instead of confronting Romney on this important issue, he danced around it like any true politician. He should have asked if Mitt believed in his magic underwear. (Was he wearing his magic underwear during the debate?) He should have asked how he could believe in a religion that was, like Islam, invented by a womanizing con-man. He should have asked how Mitt could believe such absurd things as the Mormon belief that the North American Indians were descended from the Israelites, and how he could believe the Book of Mormon, since it was definitively proven that the book was a complete fabrication by Joseph Smith (the inventor of the Mormon religion.)

Other ways that some republican candidates have disqualified themselves involve voting for cap and trade legislation, which is nothing than a wealth transfer program that will needlessly cripple the economy. I have recognized for years that global warming is a total scam.  I was among a fairly small, but very vocal group, a few years ago, who tried to get the American Physical Society to change their official stance on “global warming”. While our group included many scientists, and at least one Nobel Prize winner, we were mostly ignored, or, at best, accommodated as oddities. The fix was in on “global warming”. Far too many scientists and university and government laboratories depended on “global warming” research grants to keep them thriving. But now, more and more people are recognizing the scam for what it is, as more evidence against man-made global warming becomes public, and good science relating to the real cause of climate change is becoming available. (Think cosmic rays.) But, republicans have a major problem with science; they are, for the most part, scientifically illiterate. And this illiteracy matters, and it costs lives; millions of lives. George Bush is, or will be, directly responsible for the deaths of tens, or even hundreds, of millions of people, because of his stupid ban on stem cell research in the United States. Because of his ignorance of science,  a whole generation (and counting) of American scientists has been prevented from going into the field of stem cell research, unless they want to learn a new language and move to South Korea or some other country  to earn their PhDs and perform their research. Eventually, lives will be saved by stem cell research, but every person who dies do to the delay in the research caused by his illiterate decision is his responsibility.  A person has a constitutional right to have an imaginary friend, but that right has to be curtailed when it causes the death of innocents, or controls the actions of others. And, don’t give me the argument that destroying a blastocyst  (group of a few cells) that is used in stem cell research is killing a human being. Even if it was, those cells were going to just get thrown out, anyway, so it is better to have put them to good use in stem cell research.

We need to get America back to work. We need to revive the middle class in the United States. But, the destruction of the country that started with the social programs that were  instituted by FDR, expanded by LBJ, and that have culminated in the lunacy and spending orgasm of BHO is going to take years to repair. And, the only hope is to do things to restore the educational system of the United States, starting with the elimination of the Department of Education. Since they took over, along with the democrats, and concentrated on teaching how great it was that Suzy has two mommies and Billy has two daddies, rather than teaching the subjects that matter in the modern world, like math and science, American students have become a laughing stock. They are some of the stupidest students in today’s world in the areas of math and science, even though we spend far more money on education than any other nation. We need to stop the social welfare programs that pay people to sit home and have babies or wait for “a better job”. If you have been out of work for more than a few months, your expectations are way too high or you enjoy living off someone else’s money. It seems as if most Americans don’t realize the simple fact that for the government to give someone something–anything–it must first steal it from someone else in the form of taxes. If we did not continue to pay unemployment benefits for years, rather than a couple of months, people would simply take the best jobs they could get. Eventually, they could get better jobs. But, many of the former high paying jobs are gone, thanks to unions that forced ridiculous and non-competitive wages and benefits on companies, thus forcing those companies to move their operations to countries that had more realistic wages and benefits. We also need to hold parents accountable for their children. It is time to stop drugging a huge percentage of students whose only real disease is incompetent parents and lazy school administrators who are both afraid of disciplining and controlling the students. In today’s school system, almost 1/3 of high school students don’t even graduate How can such students expect more than a job where all they have to do is pick vegetables or ask “Do you want fries with that?” The idea that Obama is going to give waivers to schools that are so bad, and whose teachers and administrators are so incompetent, that too many students cannot meet the basic standards is just one example of how this administration, and the whole educational system, is on the wrong path. You don’t improve the education of the students by giving waivers for incompetence; you fire the incompetents and bring in people who can do the job. This is partially another problem caused by strong unions. The teachers unions have made firing incompetent teachers almost impossible, while preventing people who don’t have “the right credentials” from becoming teachers. By that, I mean that there are many highly competent scientists and engineers in the United States who would be fantastic teachers in the area of math and science, because they actually have rigorous training in math and science, often at the graduate level. While some of them could get jobs in Universities, and most could get jobs at community colleges or technical trade schools, most cannot get jobs as high school teachers, because they don’t have the “right credentials”, which would be things like extensive training in child psychology and other soft sciences that are really not needed to teach math, physics, biology, and other hard sciences. It is these subjects that American students need be be proficient in, and the candidates need to address these kinds of problems and present fixes for these problems. I don’t hear any candidates talking about such issues, however. But, in a state that some like to tout as a machine of job growth, a 1988 University of Texas survey of 400 Texas high school biology teachers found that 19% of those teachers believed that man walked among the dinosaurs! That is the so-called “yabba dabba do” fantasy of creationists. (As reported in an article on page E2 of the Waco Tribune-Herald on September 11, 1988.) I feel sorry for the students of such scientifically illiterate teachers because if they are ever able to even get into college,  they are going to have to go through serious remedial training in the field of science (especially biology) after being subjected to that mind-boggling degree of incompetence. And, newer surveys show that things are not getting significantly better, and Texas is not the only state where people, including science teachers, are scientifically illiterate. We cannot expect to flourish in the 21st century if education is not dedicated to teaching the facts about science and leaving out the myths, lies, and legends.

Perhaps the fact that Americans are so scientifically illiterate that they don’t understand evolution in even the most rudimentary form helps to explain the almost complete lack of economic knowledge displayed by so many Americans (including politicians). Anyone who believes that capitalism does not work, and that socialism or communism is better, simply does not understand the “invisible hand” of capitalism, as described by Adam Smith hundreds of years ago. It also explains why so many people think that raising taxes is a way to solve the economic problems. Raising taxes decreases tax revenues, as has been shown time and time again, and it accomplishes nothing but punishing achievers and rewarding the lazy and the losers. Just look at the economic mess in most of the European Union; that problem, caused by economic stupidity and the widespread incorporation of socialism, is finally coming home to roost; the other person has run out of money, and it is all going to come crashing down, as it will soon do in the United States. Free market capitalism is much like evolution in that it is self-regulating and seemingly undirected. Yet, because of incremental change and adaptation, it results in the optimal system. Most of the problems we have seen with “capitalism” in the United States has been caused by government attempting to control and direct capitalism, with the inevitable disastrous unforeseen consequences.

Why is this important? So what if a guy named Mohammed becomes a Superior Court judge?

Passaic County has the second largest Muslim population in the country. And the Islamic Center of Passaic County is the state’s largest mosque, and it’s the only one run by an an Imam who was a member of the Hamas terrorist organization. But when the United States government attempted to deport Mohammed Qatanani, New Jersey’s pols and wannabe pols like Christie, quickly came to his aid. Despite the fact that Mohammed Qatanani was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization that is behind both Al Qaeda and Hamas, despite his own guilty plea to being a member of Hamas, and despite the fact that even in the United States, he had defended a charity that provided funds to children of suicide bombers (this is done as an incentive to reassure terrorists that if they die their families will be taken care of), Qatanani was not deported.

This is less a sign of his innocence, than of the power and influence wielded by Qatanani and the American Muslim Union. There was hardly a top New Jersey public official who did not come out for Qatanani. And that included both of the major candidates in the governor’s race, Governor Jon Corzine and Chris Christie. Christie called Qatanani, “a man of great goodwill” and “a constructive force” and allowed Charles McKenna, one of his associate attorneys to testify on behalf of Qatanani. Afterward Christie tapped McKenna to head New Jersey’s Department of Homeland Security. McKenna had spent a good deal of time on Muslim “outreach” and made numerous statements echoing their talking points.

The pioneering terrorism researcher, Steve Emerson called it, “a disgrace and an act of pure political corruption”. He stated, “I know for certain that Christie and the FBI SAC had access to information about Qatanani’s background, involvement with and support of Hamas.” Defending Qatanani required Christie to pit himself against the Department of Homeland Security, which wanted him deported. But the Department of Homeland Security wasn’t running for office in New Jersey. Christie was.

The first Imam of the Islamic Center of Passaic County, Mohammad El-Mezain, was convicted of funneling money to Hamas. El-Mezain had actually boasted of raising almost 2 million dollars for Hamas. And his replacement, Qatanani, actually was a member of Hamas. An ordinary politician might have been forgiven for not knowing this, but Christie was the US Attorney for New Jersey. It’s absolutely impossible that he would not have known the background of the Islamic Center of Passaic County. Yet Christie attended a Ramadan dinner, in the same place where terrorists had fundraised, and kissed Qatanani on the cheek.

The article goes on to detail Sohail Mohammed’s activities to defend suspected Muslim terrorists, and help to  harass Coptic Christians who objected to Muslims attending a funeral for a Coptic Christian family that had been massacred.

Governor Christie dismissed threats of Sharia law coming to the United States as “crap”. That is probably just what the people of  France and Great Britain thought a couple of years ago. But, now France has “no go” zones that are Muslim areas that police and non-Muslims cannot enter, and Londonistan now has “Sharia law zones” where Sharia law is strictly enforced, with the authorities standing-by afraid to do anything to enforce what used to be the law-of-the-land. The Sultan Knish article explains:

Some might compare the situation in Passaic County to France with its “no go zones” where the local authorities and non-Muslims cannot enter, but it’s actually a good deal worse. The government and the judiciary is being taken over, small pieces of Muslim ruled territory are being carved out and expanded with the support of the state’s leading politicians, who trade political support and campaign contributions for something dangerously close to treason. It’s not just New Jersey. America is being carved up this way, piece by piece. The areas with the highest Muslim population like Illinois, Michigan and New Jersey are ground zero for the Islamist hijacking of America, using front groups, media friendly spokesmen, lawyers, leadership training and the slow climb up the ladder.

An article in The Daily Mail explains how Anjem Choudary, who runs the banned Islamist militant group Islam4UK,  is setting up Sharia law zones in parts of Great Britain.

Communities have been bombarded with the posters, which read: ‘You are entering a Sharia-controlled zone – Islamic rules enforced.’

The bright yellow messages daubed on bus stops and street lamps have already been seen across certain boroughs in London and order that in the ‘zone’ there should be ‘no gambling’, ‘no music or concerts’, ‘no porn or prostitution’, ‘no drugs or smoking’ and ‘no alcohol’.

Hate preacher Anjem Choudary has claimed responsibility for the scheme, saying he plans to flood specific Muslim and non-Muslim communities around the UK and ‘put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term’.

In the past week, dozens of streets in the London boroughs of Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Newham have been targeted, raising fears that local residents may be intimidated or threatened for flouting ‘Islamic rules’.

Speaking of the 25 zones in the country that the British government has identified as zones where violent extremism is a problem, Choudary explains:

We are going to go to all these same areas and implement our own Sharia-controlled zones.‘This is the best way for dealing with drunkenness and loutishness, prostitution and the sort of thug life attitude you get in British cities.’

The former lawyer added: ‘This will mean this is an area where the Muslim community will not tolerate drugs, alcohol, pornography, gambling, usury, free mixing between the sexes – the fruits if you like of Western civilisation.

‘We want to run the area as a Sharia-controlled zone and really to put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term.’

At least Sohail Mohammed does not have a zebiba.

It has been reported by several sources that Abdel Fattah Younes was executed by “Islamists” in Libya. While Jalil claims that he was murdered by unknown assailants after being summoned to Benghazi for questioning by his self-proclaimed new Libyan government, Debkafile is reporting that it was Jalil, himself, who ordered the execution because he saw Younes as a moderate potential candidate for leadership in the new Libya, thus acting as competition to the Islamist side represented by Jalil. (Washington and Europe clearly do not seem to recognize him as an Islamist, despite the clearly visible zebiba on his forehead that  marks him as an Islamist. You don’t get that by being a “moderate” Muslim, as I explained in my earlier article about him.)

Clearly, he was executed by people he trusted while he was being taken to Benghazi under orders from the new government, which is headed by Jalil, as explained in an article from Reuters.

The assassination of Abdel Fattah Younes, apparently by his own side, has hurt the opposition just as it was winning broader international recognition and launching an offensive against Gaddafi’s forces in the west of the country.

After 24 hours of confusion, rebel minister Ali Tarhouni said Younes had been killed by fighters who went to fetch him from the front and that his bullet-riddled and partially burned body was found at ranch near the rebel capital of Benghazi.

Later, the article goes on.

Younes knew and trusted the men who came to fetch him and went without a struggle when they explained they had a judge’s order to take him to Benghazi for questioning, the rebels said.

No matter who killed Younes, it is clear that the West has no clue as to what it is doing in the Muslim world. We wasted trillions of dollars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq only to see them remain backward, 7th century Sharia states in the cases of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and as soon as we leave Iraq, we will see it regress from a relatively modern, generally secular state, to a Sharia state that is primarily a satellite of Iran.

Sudan needs the jizya because it is a financial basket case, like most Muslim nations, unless they happen to have oil that other people can take out of the ground and export for them. (Historically, Muslims have not been very industrious, to say the least. Even in Wealthy Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the unemployment rate among the actual citizens is extremely high. This is because their education consists, primarily, of useless exercises like memorizing the Koran. Also, they often feel superior to non-Muslims, and thus feel that work is beneath their destiny; better to hire others to work.)

Anyway, now that South Sudan is an independent country, and the north is faced with staggering budget deficits (for a country with their population and “economy”).  According to an article in Isria:

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has estimated that Sudan will have an annual budgetary gap of about USD 5.4 billion. The minister for Peace and CPA Implementation, Hon Pagan Amum, explained the Republic of South Sudan had proposed to help its neighbor to seal the gap by providing USD 1.6 billion (34 percent of the deficit) but the Sudan has rejected the offer.

He also reported that Sudan has claimed that it will incur an annual loss of USD 15 billion occasioned by cessation of wealth sharing arrangement with the South. He said that the variance between this figure and the one provided by the IMF can only be explained by the fact that the North used to take a lion’s share of the oil resources through underhand mechanisms.

So, what is the north to do, now that their dhimmis have done what they almost always do, which is to leave? (This is why there are so few non-Muslims living in predominantly Muslim nations. The rules imposed on them are so draconian that they eventually either convert to Islam, or leave.)

According to the above article, as well as Stratfor, Sudan has proposed a $22.8 US dollar per barrel fee for oil from South Sudan to be shipped through the pipeline that was constructed for the benefit of people in both the southern and northern portions of Sudan. As further reported in the article:

He said that this rate is outrageous and does not tally with the rates elsewhere in the world. He cited the case of Cameroon which charges Chad USD .41 (41 cents) for exporting oil through it. He said that even in Europe, the highest rates are still below USD 2 for the longest pipelines.

South Sudan does have options, like shipping through neighboring countries, but the infrastructure is not in place. (Plus, my understanding is that most of those neighboring countries are Muslim, or strongly Muslim leaning, so they may side with the Sudanese government and impose similarly ridiculous fees.)

Where is the outrage? Where is the main stream media on this story? Where is the United Nations? Of course, we know the answers. Since most of the Christians who are killed are killed by Muslims, members of the supposed “religion of peace”, nobody dares to talk about it. After all, if you say something that upsets these peaceful Muslims, we know from 1300 years of history that they may go on the war path and riot, burn, loot, murder, rape, and pillage. So, the main stream media won’t touch the story. The UN won’t, either, since it is largely dominated by the OIC, the 57 member Organization of the Islamic Conference, which is dedicated to guiding the world to domination by, and submission to, Islam. Christians around the world need to wake up to this unspoken atrocity.

And, you are being told to wake up by an atheist. Personally, I think of  religion as a silly waste of time, money, and effort, since they are all so plainly the result of the fears and ignorance of ancient men (and I mean men). Also, their myths, lies, and legends are often based on stories from ancient Greek mythology. How many Christians realize that virgin birth at Christmas and the murder and rising from the dead 3 days later at Easter are common themes in ancient Greek (and Hindu) mythology? Probably not many. But, people have a right to believe whatever they want to believe, as long as those beliefs don’t affect official public policy or the freedoms and beliefs of other people. While Christians generally keep their beliefs to themselves, excepting for a few annoying people who come to your door with close-cropped hair and dark suits, Muslims certainly do not. They believe it is their duty to spread Islam throughout the world, by force if necessary, until there are no people but Muslims.

We’ve all heard how the Middle East is awakening to democracy. Unfortunately, this too is a lie put forth by the main stream media, since they either are too clueless to really understand what is happening, or too politically correct to report on the truth. I wrote an article a few months ago pointing out that what was happening in the Middle East was not a drive to democracy, but a drive to the total Islamization of the Middle East. Of course, now my statements are becoming obvious to many, although most people are still under the misguided notion that the Middle East is moving towards modern, liberal democracy, as understood in the West. The only way the movement can be declared a democratic movement is if you consider the people as voting for what they think they want and getting it, because what they want is Islam and Sharia law, and that is what they are getting. Unfortunately for them and the rest of the world, Islam is a totalitarian, barbaric, misogynistic ideology, and it totally rejects democracy. After all, democracy is rule of the people by the people; Islam is total submission to the “rule” of Allah. People are nothing but insignificant cogs in the wheel of Islam. And, if you are not a Muslim, you are either dhimmis (third class citizens), or you must be executed. (Muslim women are second class citizens under Sharia.)

Now that some of the strong-men who tried to keep the people in Muslim nations under control (necessarily by force), like Mubarak, are gone, and other similar rulers like Gaddafi and  al-Assad will soon be gone, the Muslim Brotherhood is slowly, but surely, taking over. We see Islamists like Mustafa Abdel-Jalil taking control in Libya. We see Christian churches and homes being burned with abandon in Egypt, and Christians are being beaten and killed in Egypt and other Muslim nations where the Muslims are feeling liberated to do what they want without government interference.

It is time that people wake up to the existential threat posed by Islam. Think about how much better the world would be without Islam. How much better would our economy be if we had not pissed away almost $3 trillion dollars in useless, misguided wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Think about the fact that almost 75% of wars in the world, today, are because of Islam. Think about the fact that, on average, one Christian is being killed every 5 minutes because of their faith, and the killer is almost always a Muslim.