|
Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is scheduled to deliver his venomous speech to the UN General Assembly on Wednesday, September 26, 2012—Yom Kippur. While in New York City, he is being sought by the American media whose thirst for headline-grabbing and favorable TV ratings exceed journalists’ contempt for the man.
There have been calls by various organizations and numerous individuals to limit Mr. Ahmadinejad’s exposure, to impose bounds on the time allowed for his UN speech and to have him temper his rhetoric pertaining to the US and Israel. There were even appeals for banning him from coming to the US. Boycotting Ahmadinejad, restricting his access to the American media, imposing constraints on his UN speech may be emotionally satisfying to all those disgusted with this man. At the same time, it would be a commonsensical mistake. There is absolute value in letting this evil soul, cynical anti-Semite, speak as much as he feels like. One minor reason is—Intelligence. Another—of even greater consequence— is Public Opinion. Let me explain: The more we encourage Ahmadinejad to deliberate, the more information we gather concerning the Iranian regime’s attitude, reactions and intentions resulting from the world’s pressure concerning Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Although Ahmadinejad is a professional facts-denier and a persistent liar, there is, nonetheless, a decent chance that if he talks a great deal, some of what he reveals might open a window into a new Iranian landscape not contemplated until now. It may make us more aware of Iranians plans and intentions; it could prepare us better for our next step. Still, more importantly is the fact that Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric maintains the capacity for turning a peaceful, civilized discussion into a rage-filled ambiance. The bare hypocrisy, the hatred, the insults, the outright lies, the unmasked chutzpah this person spills out on his audience, in the name of his regime, surly makes many people’s blood run cold. War-fatigued Americans are trying to avoid another costly military conflict in the Middle East. President Obama has effected strong economic sanctions on Iran, believing that a growing economic hardship would convince any rational regime that the cost of pursuing nuclear weapons while disregarding the world’s disapproval is simply too high. It has not worked. The Iranian regime has not followed this course of rational behavior. They have not abandoned their destructive path; they have challenged western way of thinking; they have made it clear that the only way to stop their quest for nukes is the military way. The Iranian regime is suffering from a macho syndrome—a product of Middle Eastern Islamic culture. This syndrome clouds their rational reasoning; it prevents the Mullahs from ending their quest for nuclear weapons even in the face of severe sanctions and possible military action. Ahmadinejad’s bold rhetoric must have convinced himself and his followers that Iran can defeat America, can wipe Israel off the map, that the Holocaust is a Zionist plot, and that he is the smartest man next to Muhammad, “the great prophet”. Problem is—most Americans are unaware of the upcoming danger Iran is posing to the world. Many Americans oppose any military action against the Iranian regime and its nuclear factories. Many Americans do not understand that Iran presents a great threat to the US economy and to US security. Some view Iran as merely an Israeli problem, not an American problem. Luckily, Mr. Ahmadinejad, will clarify this issue. He will make good where Israeli Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, has seen only a limited success—convincing many Americans that the Iranian regime is dangerously irrational, that the US could become a victim of its hate-driven, insane Islamic objectives—that it’s time for preventive action. In addition to raising awareness of the upcoming Iranian threat to the US, Mr. Ahmadinejad may be successful in stirring up emotions. His flaming rhetoric, lies, hypocrisy, denial of facts and history, his genocidal threats, and his annoying demeanor would serve to convince the American public that the Iranian regime and its leaders are evil. And if there is a need for military action designed to end this regime’s quest for nuclear weapons, than watching this man’s speeches and interviews during his latest visit to our free-speech country might hit the nail on its head and convince the peace lovers that time is running out. Go watch this evil creature. Go watch him and get mad!!! BIO Avi Perry is currently a talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN). He served as an intelligence expert for the Israeli government and was a professor at Northwestern University. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories distinguished staff member and manager, and a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to UN International Standards body. He is the author of Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks, and more recently--72 Virgins--a thriller. For more information, visit www.aviperry.org.
1 Comment
Perhaps the words of Joint Chief of Staff, Martin Dempsey, claiming to “not being complicit with an Israeli attack on Iran,” reflect a recent vein by various Americans—not to be dragged by Israel into what they believe to be a “premature” military conflict with Iran.
The US administration does not see the same level of urgency—concerning Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons—as does Israel. “There is still time,” says US secretary of defense Leon Panetta. ”Action can be taken once we know that Iran has made the decision to build a nuclear weapon.” Apparently, Mr. Panetta has high confidence in the ability of American intelligence to see, hear and decipher Iran’s intentions, plans and actions. "We know generally what they're up to. And so we keep a close track on them," he asserted. Following Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s recent call for setting a "clear red line" that would justify using military force should Iran try to defy it, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview with Bloomberg Radio that the US administration is not prepared to commit to “drawing red lines. We’re not setting deadlines." Clearly, there is an open disagreement between the US Administration and Israeli Prime Minister concerning urgency of military action against Iran. At the same time, The Associated Press has reported that the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has received new and significant intelligence from Israel, the US and at least two other western countries, that Iran has been working ceaselessly for the past three years, advancing their ability to fabricate nuclear weapons by way of calculating the destructive power of an atomic warhead through a series of computer models. Time and again, throughout history, it has been shown that in spite of solid evidence pointing to an enemy’s preparation for military aggression, the object of that aggression failed to properly decipher the raw intelligence because the people in charge of national security refused to accept the proper, obvious conclusion. They were optimists rather than realists; they stuck religiously to their concepts; they wanted to believe that their enemy/adversary would not dare resorting to force against them either because this adversary would not be willing to risk a potentially devastating counter attack, or the adversary would not violate an assumed or a formal indenture. Josef Stalin fell into this mode before Barbarossa—Hitler’s campaign against the Soviet Union; the US failed to ready itself before Pearl Harbor; Israeli leadership and its intelligence chief perceived very low probability of a coordinated attack by Egypt and Syria before the 1973 Yom Kippur war, notwithstanding a mountain of solid intelligence pointing at unmistakable preparations for the most devastating attack ever on the Jewish state; and the US failed to take seriously al-Qaeda’s warnings, threats and even intelligence pointing to an imminent attack before 9/11. It is understandable why US President Barack Obama does not want to escalate tensions with Iran less than two months before elections. His red lines do not coincide with Israeli prime minister's. While Netanyahu sits atop a boiling pot, Obama’s loveseat is better insulated; the heat underneath has not yet passed through and burn the concept that there is no urgency, that there is still plenty of time before D-Day. However, once the insulation below the love seat has been depleted, the fire underneath will burst through the lining in an explosion. Nonetheless, the misguided concept is not the only issue. The real problem facing the American administration is the fact that the Israeli government has lost trust in Obama’s willingness to employ his military for the purpose of stopping Iran’s drive toward nuclear status. This loss of trust may set off an independent Israeli military action against Iran. Israel’s military options are much more limited in comparison to the US. Consequently, an Israeli attack on Iran may not be as thorough, and as devastating as if the Americans had taken the leading role. Iran’s retaliation capabilities following a solo Israeli attack may, in all likelihood, still be effective, and the Revolutionary Guards will retaliate by attacking American interests around the Persian Gulf, dragging the US into a war that Obama does not want to fight now. As a rule, at times of war, the side initiating the hostilities has a tremendous advantage. And so, if the US is dragged into a war with Iran—a war it did not initiate or was not ready for—chances are that the cost to the US and to the rest of the world’s economy would be significantly higher and longer-lasting than if the US had attacked first. Avoiding a scenario where the US would be absorbing a Pearl Harbor-type blow before launching a retaliatory response, the Obama Administration must gain the Israeli government’s trust that the US will definitely use force once Iran crosses a US-Israeli agreed upon red line. Public statements such as the ones by Martin Dempsy, Leon Panetta, or Hillary Clinton can only undermine Israeli trust in the US president’s intentions vis-à-vis curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions, and bring about an independent Israeli initiative. President Obama must demonstrate and prove his resolve to the Israeli government. He must reassure Israel that he is committed to drawing red lines. He must convince Netanyahu that the US is determined to ending Iran’s race toward nuclear status even after the US elections in November. President Obama must restrain his minions, his cabinet secretaries and his military chiefs, instructing them to refrain from issuing public statements making Israeli leaders lose faith in his determination’s intent to prevent a nuclear Iran while boosting Iran’s self-confidence at the same time. Words (or lack of words) alone will not do the convincing. President Obama must demonstrate his resolve by coordinating and sharing attack plans with the Israeli government; he must build up a military machine in position to strike Iran at the critical moment; he must supplement Israel with any possible means for repelling political and military attempts to retaliate against the Jewish state in the event of an American pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear weapon factories. President Obama should make clear to the American people that a nuclear Iran poses a mortal danger to the US and not just to Israel or to its Arab neighbors. He must convince the American public and the people in his own administration that his aggressive approach to Iran’s nuclear ambitions is not driven by his love (or lack of it) for Israel, but rather by his concern to the security of his own country. Avi Perry is currently a talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN). He served as an intelligence expert for the Israeli government and was a professor at Northwestern University. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories distinguished staff member and manager, and a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to UN International Standards body. He is the author of Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks, and more recently--72 Virgins--a thriller. For more information, visit www.aviperry.org. As a Jew, I am especially sensitive to inflammatory lies designed to energize a supporting base, ignorant of the truth, and thirsty for arguments demonizing another group of people.
Anti-Semitism is jam-packed with lies of this sort. Blood libels that brought about pogroms and killing of innocent Jewish men, women and children, peaked with the Dreyfus affair in France. The false-hearted, fabricated story about the “Elders of Zion” that keeps on circulating in the anti-Semitic Muslim world and beyond, still serves as the basis for the Iranian regime’s key reason for aspiring to wipe Israel off the map; it even tops the contemptible lie concerning the denial of the Holocaust. The Nazis perfected the art of lying. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda Minister, has been credited with formalizing the effectiveness of deceit. “If you repeat a lie a thousand times, you start believing it yourself,” he proclaimed. And, “The grander the lie, the more people will believe it,” he concluded. Palestinians and most Arabs and other Muslims have been spreading blatant lies about Israel, which the world’s left-minded public has been buying, digesting and acting upon. The various flotillas trying to break the “Israeli siege” over Gaza, while refusing to recognize the true facts, are examples. The Muhammad al-Dura fake incident where Palestinians staged a “killing” of a young boy by the Israeli military—proved to be a theatrical performance enacted for the world’s naïve audience on TV screens all over. There are plenty more examples of how lies about a specific group or particular individuals, spread by people of influence, engulf the unapprised masses and spawn false movements, sweeping millions in its gush. And this is why the latest lies—broadcasted by Republicans in prime time on the podium in Tampa during their convention and in their recent commercials—make me puke. To start off, I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I voted for both, red and blue candidates in the past. I judged them by their opinions, intelligence, actions and my expectations of their potential contribution—not their party affiliation. In this election cycle I have been inclined to vote for Romney, mostly because I believed in his stronger and more aggressive approach to preventing Iran from going nuclear. I do not support the Republicans’ economic agenda—modeled after president Herbert Hoover, whose policies ignited and poured more gasoline on the Great Depression—or their extreme “pro-life” position, equivalent to a Christian version of Sharia law. Republicans’ dismissal of Nobel price economist, Paul Krugman; their misunderstanding of Macro Economics and the function of the Federal Reserve and its chairman, Ben Bernanke, who saved the world from the greatest economic depression known to mankind; their calls for a reestablishment of the Gold Standard; their scorn of one of the greatest economic minds the world has ever known, Maynard Keynes—is discouraging in the least. Republicans’ dismissal of facts such as global warming, evolution, and their general war on science—is terrifying. Regardless of all these turnoffs, the simple fact is that the president of the United States is unable to shape much of the economy on his own. The American president is unable to initiate a great deal of domestic-type legislation without congressional or judicial approval. Most legislation affecting the economy, the pro-choice/pro-life issue, heath care, and education require bi-partisan support. Romney, should he become the next American president, will find out that his powers are severely constrained when it comes to implementing his domestic Republicans’ agenda. Nevertheless, it is a different ball game when it comes to foreign relations and initiation of a military campaign. The president assumes far greater independence in this case. And this is why I have favored Romney. Still, the lies spread and promoted by Ryan, and Romney as well, are a great turn-off when it comes to my future decision regarding who would benefit from my vote. I have become undecided. Paul Ryan is a demagogue of the uppermost intensity. His acceptance speech during the Republican convention was nauseating. I was even more upset watching the Republican delegates bathing in the deceitfulness that filled the air, clapping and cheering at every falsification dropped from the podium by their newly-crowned Pinocchio prince. Here are some of the most glaring lies from Ryan’s speech and other GOP false claims: Claim: “$716 billion, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama.” Fact: This is probably the most blatant lie and the most outrageous. Not only Ryan’s own plan includes the same provisions, but the $716 billion are savings that eliminate inefficiencies, and in fact they intend to prolong the life of Medicare as we know it. Claim: Obama should be faulted for the nation’s credit downgrade in August 2011. Fact: As has been well documented by the rating agencies who clearly blamed the GOP for the downgrade, it was the Republicans who promoted a government default on its debt for the first time in history by refusing to accept any tax increases as part of a larger deal. Claim: Romney (repeated during his acceptance speech) and his campaign have been claiming that the Obama administration has waived work requirements included in the 1996 welfare reform law. Fact: Everyone from independent fact-checkers to major newspapers to President Bill Clinton (who signed the law) have said that the campaign’s attack is simply untrue. It’s one more lie! Claim: Obama promised to keep a GM plant that closed down in Ryan’s hometown, Janesville, Wisconsin, open for the next hundred years… It was closed down less than a year later. Fact: Obama never made that promise. What’s more, the plant shut down in December 2008, before Obama even took office. But the part that makes this claim even more despicable is the fact that Obama actually saved GM and the rest of the auto industry (that makes him a socialist according to the GOP); he and successfully revived the ailing “Made in the USA” manufacturing industry, while Republicans insisted on letting it meet God in Heaven… Claim: Obama “did exactly nothing on Bowles-Simpson. He created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report. He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing.” Fact: This is like pouring water on a bald person’s head, then asking why he is sweating. Ryan was the one sabotaging the commission, convincing House Republicans to vote against the plan. Claim: “More debt than any other president before him, and more than all the troubled governments of Europe combined.” Fact: This is merely a spin. Obama increased the debt from $10 Trillion to $15 Trillion (50% only compared to Bush’s increase of over 100%). It was necessary due to the two wars Obama inherited, and the depressed economy (unemployed people and poorly performing businesses do not pay taxes. Also, Republican-legislated tax loopholes for the rich is not helping the deficit. Making the super-rich pay less than 15% of their income in income tax, and insisting on having this wealthy group pay even less is the wrong path to a healthy economy. There is sufficient evidence that may support a GOP claim to power. Lies are effective only because most people are ignorant; they are neither aware of the truth, nor are they sophisticated enough to understand it. Still, the media must do a better job exposing the liars for who they are, and discourage this mode of campaigning. I can only hope… Avi Perry Short Bio The writer is currently a talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN). He served as an intelligence expert for the Israeli government and was a professor at Northwestern University. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories distinguished staff member and manager, and a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to UN International Standards body. He is the author of Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks, and more recently, 72 Virgins. For more information, visit www.aviperry.org. _ |
Categories
All
|
