I have found a great deal of truth in the (rephrased) words of Senator John McCain—“Should the US fail to act on Assad’s chemical attack, it will be a catastrophe”. He is right. In many cases—and this is surely one of those—the long term cost associated with holding back in the face of a ruthless, unrestrained international criminal dictator on the loose, is considerably higher than any short term relief, gain or disregard to mass killings and genocide, even when these atrocities take part outside the homeland.
In today’s world, where distances have become progressively shorter, economies are interdependent; news are communicated and twitted globally in real time and in full colors, troubles outside the borders of the US could quickly reach the American shores and discharge a tidal wave, high enough to cover the Rocky Mountains peaks. Here is one scenario of how it might transpire. Should American response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons on his own people turn impotent, The Israeli government would lose faith in Obama’s vows to use any means, including the use of force, to break off an emboldened Iran, whose nuclear ambitions would be bolstered by Obama’s retreat on Syria. The Ayatollah, they’d suppose, would venture crossing the red line; he would gamble calling Obama on his seeming bluff. Consequently, the Israeli government may come closer to taking preventive military action against Iran without US backing. The outcome may not be as comprehensive or as damaging to Iran as if the US had initiated the encounter. Consequently, Iran may be able to retaliate; they would try to mine the Strait of Hormuz; they would attempt sinking container ships in the Persian Gulf; they would shoot rockets at Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE, Bahrain, trying to stop and impair the flow of oil to the world. The next Middle East war may force the US to intervene, but without the advantage of instigating the opening move. It will cost more; there will be further hardship and more casualties on both sides of the red line, and it will last longer in consequence. On the other hand, should the US take the initiative now and punish Assad, the Iranian regime (as well as other evil dictatorships) will find Obama’s warning concerning their nuclear red line much more credible. The Ayatollah will slow down or even halt his dash toward nuclear weapons, and even if he does not, the scenario above would play quite differently, provided that the initiative and the opening move in the following Persian Gulf War will be entrusted by the American military. There is also one imperative, compelling humanitarian (rather than strategic) argument, for weakening Assad’s militarily and degrading his ability to deploy chemical weapons in the future. In sectarian Syria where religious fanaticism is peaking, a decisive win in the civil war by either side will bring about genocidal bloodbaths on the losing side. Assad is a ruthless killer, but so are his Islamist enemies, they would have used chemical weapons on Assad’s supporters had they been able to do so. It may sound like an oxymoron, but as long as the rebels are able to hold their ground, short of winning; as long as the two sides are weak; as long as no side is capable of hammering a decisive victory, chances of a titanic genocide are diminished, while the odds of a political settlement are intensifying. It’s not enough to even out the fire power between the opposing sides of the Syrian civil war. Balancing fire power is better effected by damaging the stronger side rather than strengthening the weaker one. The US Congress should support their president in his attempt to do the right thing with regard to Syria. Failing to punish Assad at this time will only reproduce the shameful Munich Agreement of September 30th, 1938, where the former British prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, announced "peace for our time" on the steps of 10 Downing Street, straight after returning from Munich, where he and government leaders from France, and Italy had signed an agreement with Hitler letting him divide and occupy part of Czechoslovakia in the “hope of averting war”. That specific agreement and its appeasing essence was the main reason Hitler felt that the Western powers were weak, naïve, shunning confrontation at all cost, and easily overpowered. That ”Munich Moment” served as hors d'oeuvre to the main course—Hitler’s disastrous blastoff of World War II. And the rest is history. If Congress declares: “Let Assad use chemical weapons with impunity. Let him do it in the “hope of averting war”, then that particular sad chapter in recent history will, without doubt, repeat itself.
0 Comments
Many in the world consider the American president’s latest delay maneuver, as weakness and lack of resolve. The “victorious” Assad’s criminal regime, his Hezbollah allies and even the Iranian Mullahs are among the most vocal appraisers of the American president; they bathe in their own jubilation—“America is a barking dog, scared of biting our mighty, brave army,” they postulate.
The Israeli public is frustrated. Increasingly, the Jewish nation has been losing faith in this US president. Should American response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons on his own people turn impotent, Israelis are worried that the US President would not resort to using force to break off an emboldened Iran, whose nuclear ambitions would be bolstered by Obama’s retreat on Syria. The Ayatollah, they suppose, would dare crossing the red line; he would gamble calling Obama on his seeming bluff. Consequently, the Israeli government may come closer to taking preventive military action against Iran without US backing. The outcome may not be as comprehensive or as damaging to Iran as if the US had initiated the encounter. Consequently, Iran may be able to retaliate, and the next Middle East war may force the US to intervene, but without the advantage of instigating the opening move. The American public is war-fatigued; it is reluctant to venture into a new military conflict while the muddle in Afghanistan is still brewing. Some even view Obama’s burden-shifting to Congress as a way out, an excuse for not following up on his red-line stipulation. Obama may excuse himself by claiming: “Well, I meant what I had said, but Congress…” But wait a minute. Aren’t all these postulations a bit premature? What if by the end of September, the US and the world will be looking at a humiliated Assad, with his head between his knees; what if Assad will be weakened enough so that his recent winning streak in his civil war will come to an abrupt halt; what if Syria or its sympathizers fail or find themselves unable to retaliate to a mid-September US assault that shrinks Assad’s military potency to a the one assumed by a wounded raccoon; what if President Obama’s strategy—provided that Congress support and back his plan for Syria—provides the American president with added boldness and determination, effecting a more resourceful military campaign? Of course, if Congress denies Obama’s request for support, then the skeptics’ early glee, the faultfinders, the Assads, the Iranians, the Russians, will be wholly justified. But there is little chance of that given the enormous stakes at the gate. At the end of the day, Congress would find it downright irresponsible to have the US eminence and super power status sink down to its grave, emulating a “Munich Moment”. Obama has taken a gamble. I believe he will prevail. I believe he will come away stronger and more determined. I believe he will follow up on his red line warning to Syria. I believe Assad and Iran will be taught a great lesson. His gambit will pay off at the end. Sacrificing a short term glory for a long term evident victory is what the great chess champions have been putting into practice all along. Regardless of who wins Iran’s elections, he will not be as beneficial for Israel and for the rest of the civilized world as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The departing Iranian president has been the best PR Israel could have hoped for. He made an incredibly compelling case for not letting Iran acquire nuclear capability. He was the ugly façade that made all intelligent people pay attention to Iran’s bullying, conspiring and directing global terror activities, rewriting history, and telling all of us how much he wanted to wipe Israel off the map.
He alerted us; he was letting us in on Iran’s intentions. His denials of Iran’s quest for nukes were not believable. His demeanor and his personality invited suspicion, hostility and antipathy. Most Americans have been unaware of the upcoming danger Iran has been posing to the world. But Mr. Ahmadinejad has made good where Israeli Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, has had seen only a limited success—convincing many Americans that the Iranian regime was dangerously militant, 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 has been successful in stirring up emotions. His flaming rhetoric, lies, hypocrisy, denial of facts and history, his genocidal threats, and his exasperating demeanor served to convince the American public of the ugly truth—that the Iranian regime and its leaders are evil. The president of Iran serves at the pleasure of the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—a write-wing extremist, a religious nut and the true leader of the Iranian dictatorship. When it comes to foreign policy, to military-related decisions such as “nukes or no-nukes”, Khamenei is the only decision maker. The president is merely a façade, a puppet placed in front of the world as the key messenger, delivering the Supreme Leader’s edicts. To sum up, Ahmadinejad has been a wake-up call, the horn of an incoming train, the canary in the coal mine—I will greatly miss him. The Iranian election is a travesty. It bears the same stench as elections in the former Soviet Union, Mubarak’s Egypt, and other dictatorships where it does not matter who votes for what candidate. The only thing that matters is who does the counting, or who picks the candidates. Imagine an election in the US where the only candidates allowed to compete for the top job are members of the Tea Party, or picture an Israeli election where no party other than United Torah Judaism is on ballot. This is what elections in Iran are like. The change in leadership at the Iranian presidency level contains a great deal of peril since whoever wins the phony election may be perceived as a moderate by the west, only because he does not come out of his leech-filled closet. A win by a perceived soft-spoken or a perceived moderate could have enabled Iran to break the isolation, avoid western sanctions, grant legitimacy to the Ayatollah’s regime, then move it more rapidly toward the nuclear bomb. Anyone who can put down that crack pipe and get a grip on reality could see the teeth of that jaw trap. Replacing one loud-mouth Iranian president with a soft-spoken lipstick-wearing pig can only contribute to a faster-growing, untreated cancer. Masking a problem does not make it go away; it only wards off treatment; it only speeds up the emergence of its ugly end. During a well-publicized interview in 2002, Samantha Power reflected on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. She advocated a diversion of funds committed by the US Administration to Israel—for its defense needs—to the Palestinian Authority. She called for a US military intervention aimed at imposing a solution on the Palestinian question. She appeared to portray the Palestinians as victims of Israeli oppression.
In a radio interview in 2008, she doubled down on her extreme leftist’s views, responding to a question by complaining that "So much of it is about: 'Is he going to be good for the Jews?" In a 2011 interview with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, she seemed to have changed course. Boteach reported that “Samantha Power seemed genuinely and deeply pained by the perception that she was not a friend of Israel.” She rationalized her 2002 comments by explaining that she was asked to respond to a “thought experiment”, a trick question— “what she would advise an American president if it seemed that either party in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict were moving toward genocide”—and that she stumbled, nose-diving into that trap. Had she had more media experience, she should not have responded. She alluded to the fact that her words were taken out of full context. Given the multi-colored picture painted above, the question of whether or not Ms. Power’s new appointment is “good for the Jews” is not a trivial one. Still, the answer, in my opinion, is fairly obvious. Samantha Power’s earlier views concerning Israel will not be pertinent to her job in the UN. Here is why. The UN ambassador is merely a messenger. He or she serves at the pleasure of the president of the US. Although ambassadors write their own speeches, they follow talking points consistent with US policy determined by the president. Regardless of their brilliance or points-made, speeches in the UN do not sway opinions. All ambassadors follow voting choices inspired and determined by their bosses, the top leaders, the true policy makers in their country. Ethics and justice are as dead as Latin. Politics and venal national interests rule the roost in the UN. Samantha Power will follow directions, passed on to her by President Obama when it comes to voting choices and dealings with other diplomats, regardless of her personal preferences or emotional brainwaves. And when it comes to the president, we have witnessed a dramatic evolution in his attitude toward the Jewish state in general, and concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular. When President Obama took office in 2009 he believed that Israel was at fault for the unending stalemate in the “Peace Process”; he believed that the Arab countries and Iran could be won over by his show of respect and admiration to the Muslim world. By 2013, he appears to have learned a lesson. He understands the reality of the situation. He does not merely say that he is a true supporter of the Jewish state; he delivers, and he does so with unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation, significant financial support, perseverance before an extensive anti-Israel lobbying consensus in the UN Security Council, while employing the US Veto power time and again to stop bullying the Jewish State. But above all, we must remind ourselves that leaders go through a life changing reality check once they assume power. On their campaign trail, or while in the political Opposition Party, they stick to popular ideals; they advocate solutions that make their supporters and potential voters feel good. They do so with no consideration or understanding of political, economic and national security constraints. It’s easy and trendy when the buck stops somewhere else. Samantha Power was not representing her country when she was making her unfortunate remarks. She could afford articulating “shoot from the hip” ideals as advocated repeatedly by the extreme left; she represented no one else but herself. When, all at once, her words and actions might stand for her country, her boss rather than her own naive ideologies, she would become increasingly more responsible, more self-scrutinizing, more educated about the actual realities of the Middle East. I would not lose sleep, not even for a moment, as a consequence of Samantha Power’s elevation to the job of the next US ambassador to the UN. Biography Avi Perry is the author of “72 Virgins”—a popular thriller about a countdown to a terror attack on US soil. He 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 also the author of “Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks.” For more information, visit www.aviperry.org. The year was 2009. I was a guest at a talk show, discussing my newly released book: 72 Virgins. People in the audience called in, referring to me as an Islamophobe. It was the first time I was accused of prejudice against, hatred towards, or irrational fear of Muslims. Those who tried to characterize me as such had no idea what the book was about, but they quickly jumped to conclusions basing their judgment on the evocative title. Some even claimed dishonestly to have read the book, but turned nonverbal or entirely wide of the mark when asked to reflect on the book’s theme.
Throughout the years that followed, I discussed the phenomenon of Islamic terror on my own talk show, whenever the subject came to the fore due to topical events covered by the major news media at the time. I always tried to emphasize, right from the outset, that I did not regard all Muslims as terrorists, and that I did recognize the fact that not all terrorists were Muslims. My approach to characterizing Islamic terror has always been based on the fact that all reasonable people attributed it to “Radical Islam”—a global movement comprising al-Qaeda, its self-regulating extensions, and even some hot-headed, radicalized individuals with no direct ties to any of the larger Jihadi organizations. I have also noted that Islam comprises 50% of the term “Radical Islam”, and that Radical Islamists commit their crimes in the name of their religion; they find proof, justification and reinforcement for their acts of terror in their sacred texts. I do not have to become a Qur’an or a Hadith expert to prove that point. I don’t even care if indeed the Qur’an calls for violence (which I believe to be a true characterization). It does not matter as long as the Jihadists claim that it does; they claim to abide by their prophet’s edicts. They keep justifying their acts of terror and violence by telling us that they follow their religious beliefs. What else is the root cause for their acts of terror? Now, in the minds of many left-minded individuals, this is where I have been crossing the red line. I have been linking Islam with terror, they claim. The principal line of attack other than calling me an Islamophobe, where the term is sandwiched between some unprintable X-rated junk words, has always been consistent with my own approach. Their attack has always been packaged by: “And what about crimes and terror acts committed by Christians in the name of their religion?” and also: “I have a Muslim friend, yada, yada, yada…” Right; I guess I need to say it one more time. Not all Muslims are terrorists, and not all terrorists are Muslims. Nevertheless, there is a significant segment among the Muslim population who commit terror acts in the name of their religion, a larger segment who do not resort to violence, but do support it wholeheartedly, and even a larger silent segment who neither support it nor condemn it, and thus, let it continue unchallenged. Fortunately, these three segments do not take account of all Muslims—there are also Muslims who view Radical Islam as alien to their interpretation of the Qur’an and to what they see as their peaceful religion. And then, the fact that Christians—mostly in the distant past and to a lesser degree in the present—committed crimes in the name of their religion, should not be used to cover up the fact that in today’s world, a significant number of terror acts are committed in the name of Islam. If admitting to the cold reality, while steering clear of expressing hatred towards, or irrational fear of all Muslims, (simply because they happened to be born Muslim) makes me an Islamophobe, so be it. Trying to cover up facts with the aim of protecting a criminal, ruthless underdog (merely because that particular group is perceived as the underdog) is not only corrupt. It is an ideology in need of being condemned. It’s no secret that the anti-Israel propaganda, spilled-out by the Palestinians and their Arab brethren, has been successful in brainwashing the majority of the general public worldwide. It has contributed greatly to the lack of symmetry in the world’s stance towards the Middle East conflict; it has become the new normal. Palestinian war crimes and their lie-filled, anti-Semitic, venomous rhetoric are met with meek silence by the rest of the world while Israel’s self-defense responses are deemed war crimes by the same “justices of the peace.”
Without a doubt, the Palestinians’ and the Arabs’ propaganda war is winning the battle for the world’s public opinion. When Palestinians have annulled the Oslo Peace Agreement by going to the UN, having that slanted organization recognize the non-existent state of Palestine—which according to the Oslo Accord could only be formalized via face-to-face negotiations with Israel—the world applauded. When, at the same time, Israel approved building of Jewish homes beyond the 1949 ceasefire (green) line in Jerusalem—its ancient capital—the world has rushed to censure the Jewish State. When Hamas, the other Palestinian government, and the most popular movement in the West Bank, have declared that Jew-killing is a sacred edict decreed by Allah, that their (Hamas’s) uncompromised goal is and has always been the destruction of the Jewish state and its Jewish population, the same sensible world leaders have played dumb, blind and deaf. Winning the war for a more favorable world public opinion is just as crucial as being able to deter Muslim countries and Islamic terror organizations through military means. It can be done. And this is where Haim Saban should play a lead role. In an era where the English-speaking al Jazeera, the BBC, and several other prevalent 24/7 news networks poison the air with their venomous, anti-Israel propaganda, there is an urgent need to counter their misrepresentations with evidence, facts and truth. A pro-Israel, pointed perspective should have trouble-free access to the worldwide English-speaking audience; a pro-Israel ambiance should attain its habitat, its amplified voice; it should water the thirsty minds, delight the truth seekers. Haim Saban, I am calling on you to establish a television network similar to CNN, al Jazeera, Fox News, MSNBC, etc. Programs could include soft news like sports and entertainment, talk shows, political comedy shows like “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” “The Colbert Report,” or even a program featuring SNL type sketches. Occasionally, the network may feature a message-carrying movie or a documentary, etc. All that fun stuff could complement the key role of the network, the role it’s designed for—hard news—news that tell the truth about the world we live in. I have many more ideas, but please, Mr. Saban. Please use your resources, your connections and your vast experience, and launch this endeavor for your own sake and for the sake of the country that you love. I (and millions of others as well) will always be grateful if you do, and we will always be willing to lend our hand should you decide to call upon our service for the great cause. Biography Avi Perry is the author of “72 Virgins”—a popular thriller about a countdown to a terror attack on US soil. He 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 also the author of “Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks.” For more information, visit www.aviperry.org. It is no secret that the media is one of the most important tools shaping public opinion. Most people tend to believe the printed word, the TV talk show host, or the various internet videos and blogs. In fact, the majority of people prefer reading or watching those with whom they agree. People prefer having their beliefs and opinions reinforced; they like to know that they are “right”, that “truth” is on their side.
This is why journalists should be scrutinized by fact-checkers, even more so than politicians, who are disposed to dispensing with their righteousness in return for money and votes. CNN has done an excellent job covering the week-long war of attrition between Israel and Hamas. Most of the coverage seemed fair and objective except for one prime-time daily talk show, hosted by British journalist, Piers Morgan. Piers Morgan, the host of the popular 9 PM talk-show hour at CNN, has generally done a fair job at trying to project objectivity. I lay emphasis on the word “trying” because when it comes to Israel, his attempts have failed. Mr. Morgan is not alone in his uneducated bias; I have decided to focus on him since he enjoys top ratings, and his opinions shape the thinking of a large segment of the population. Mr. Morgan is not an anti-Semite; he is not an anti-Netanyahu; he is simply a left-leaning journalist who cares for the underdog. And in his opinion, the underdog in the fight between Israel and Hamas is the terrorist entity ruling the Gaza strip. In his latest interviews on the subject of Israel’s “Pillar of Defense” campaign, Mr. Morgan offered his point of view by avoiding criticism of Israel’s right to self-defense; still, he kept arguing that the Palestinian Gazans were a desperate people under (“an Israeli-imposed”) siege. “No wonder,” he concluded (I rephrase here), “Hamas’s natural reaction had been expressed through violent outbursts.” These rocket attacks, according to Piers Morgan, were well understood (by him). He did not go as far as saying that he approved of or empathized with them, but the implication was unambiguous—he certainly did. Instead of drawing conclusions by analyzing cause and effect, Mr. Morgan resorted to casualty statistics, using it as proof as to who the aggressor was. Since the number of casualties on the Palestinian side amounted to one hundred sixty seven fatalities vis-à-vis six on the Israeli side, Piers’s conclusion was inevitable. This one-dimensional, inept analysis failed to take into account several key elements that he should have considered before drawing his conclusions. 1. Hamas has always had a choice between war and peace, whereas Israel has never had that choice. Had Hamas chosen peace, its economy would have prospered with Israel’s cooperation and support. Gaza’s residents would neither be desperate, nor under siege as Mr. Morgan depicted them. Gaza’s leadership had chosen their own fate. It’s been no one else’s fault or responsibility; it’s been no one else’s choice. Hamas’s agenda entailing the elimination of the Jewish state and its Jewish citizens has been the only objective that mattered to these terrorists. Cost has never been an issue. The resulted misery has been inspiring the sacred agenda; it has even garnered support by left-leaning, easy-to-fool people like Piers Morgan— predominantly since it could have been blamed on the Jews. 2. Had Hamas chosen peace, there would have been no restrictions on people’s and goods’ movement; there would have been no restrictions on the fishing limit for Gazan fishermen. The sea blockade that Israel had been putting in place had served only to prevent weapons smuggling. Had there been no weapons smuggling for the sole purpose of Jew-killing there would have been no sea blockade. 3. Had Hamas chosen peace, there would have been no no-man’s land of about three hundred yards along the testy frontier. Had the frontier not been testy (testiness is a Hamas’s choice), there would have been no buffer zone; Palestinians would have been able to tend to that land without a question. 4. The so-called “siege” of Gaza is a myth. Israel has continued to provide electricity and water to the strip even during “Pillar of Defense”. Israel had been admitting sick Palestinians (from Gaza and from the West Bank) to Israeli hospitals throughout Israel, providing them with advanced health care not available in Gaza or in the West Bank. Israel had been shipping goods to and from the strip through official border crossings even when Hamas and Islamic Jihad were shooting rockets into Israeli towns. And to all intents and purposes, Gaza has a border with Egypt. Hamastan is not surrounded by the Israelis on all sides. There is no siege if there is an open door allowing Gazans in and out of their unoccupied land sans Israeli control. Most importantly, Hamas had chosen their own isolation—a homemade cordon sanitaire—which they (and Piers Morgan) have been referring to as “siege”. Once again it has been their specific choice. 5. Israel ended its occupation of Gaza in August 2005 when Israel withdrew its military and settlements from that territory. But instead of “land for peace” Israel took delivery of “land for terror.” The same scenario had transpired following the Oslo Peace accord between Israel and the Palestinian Authority after Israel withdrew from the West Bank cities, and again in May, 2000 following Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon. Hamas refers to Israel as “the Occupation.” But Israel does not occupy Gaza and Hamas has not been talking about Gaza. “The Occupation,” according to Hamas, is the Zionist entity, which occupies Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jerusalem and the rest of Israel. Had Hamas accepted Israel’s existence, a two-state solution living peacefully side by side could have become a reality. Reversing cause and effect has always been an art practiced by the Palestinians. Unfortunately Piers Morgan and his leftist comrades have fallen into the same logical trap. During the week-long “Pillar of Defense” campaign Mr. Morgan was talking and interviewing prominent guests representing the two sides to the conflict. Unfortunately he was not listening to his pro-Israel guests, some of whom (Shimon Peres and Mark Regev in particular) made some strong, enlightening arguments, explaining and rationalizing the Israeli action. Mr. Morgan kept singing the same song without changing its tune, even though he should have learned something during a previous interview. He had his mind fixed on false “fairness”. Anytime a guest was talking about the endless rocket attacks and suffering endured by Israeli citizens throughout the years since Israel withdrew its military and settlements from Gaza, Mr. Morgan countered with: “And what about the Palestinian sufferings?” Piers Morgan ignored the simple fact that Hamas had chosen the suffering path, that Israel would have been more than happy to have a friendly, peaceful and prosperous neighbor, that Hamas had been raining rockets on the Israeli civilian population devoid of any Israeli provocation, and that Hamas doubled down on that war crime by shooting their rockets from behind human shields. Had the Israeli military employed similar rules of engagement, Palestinian women, children and innocent men would not have been providing protection for terrorists, and the civilian casualties among Gazans would have mounted to a four digit number. I only hope that Piers Morgan reads this article; I hope he begins to ask the right questions and come to the right conclusions. He should understand the difference between bellicosity and self-defense, between those who have choices and those who do not. He should realize that it’s not the fatality statistics that counts; it is only about the definition of aggression and about the ones choosing to use it to bring about their own grief and misery. Biography Avi Perry is the author of "72 Virgins"—a popular thriller about a countdown to a terror attack on US soil. He 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 also the author of "Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks." For more information, visit www.aviperry.org. It is a fact. The present Iranian regime poses a great threat to Israel’s and to the world’s security. Its Islamic agenda calls for a holy war resulting in the annihilation of the Jewish state. Its rhetoric is not an empty talk. This evil leadership has been hammering its way tirelessly on the road to a nuclear status, and some of its high officials, including former president, speaker of parliament and commander in chief, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, have mused loudly about the icy arithmetic of a nuclear war with Israel: “The use of an atomic bomb against Israel would totally destroy Israel, while (the same) against the Islamic world would only cause damage. Such a scenario is not inconceivable,” said the former president.
When contrasted with Ahmadinejad, Rafsanjani is perceived as a moderate and as a supporter of human rights. Following the latest fake presidential elections in Iran, he became a backer of the “Green Movement,” his daughter was arrested by the existing regime and he was told to “behave” lest his fate would resemble hers. Rafsanjani is not alone in this group of “reformists” look-alikes. An even more conspicuous actor is Mir-Hossein Mousavi Khameneh. Mousavi was the Iranian candidate for president whose victory in the recent (2009) Iranian elections was stolen by the incumbent president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mousavi, a former Iranian prime minister, headed the Green movement in Iran—a movement that attempted to introduce reforms while protesting the 2009 elections fraud. In recent US elections debates, leaders and supporters of the Republican Party accused President Obama for standing by the sidelines in 2009 rather than actively supporting the Iranian Green Movement’s protesters headed by Mousavi, who demanded the removal of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from office. This criticism aimed at the American administration may be an appealing elections tactics, but it fails to recognize a fundamental flaw in a strategy calling for replacing Ahmadinejad with a wolf dressed in a lamb’s coat. Had Mousavi become president of Iran in 2009, he would have continued Iran’s clandestine quest for a nuclear bomb, which he had initiated and managed in 1980, while serving as prime minister. He even confirmed his intent to pursue that objective during his own presidential debates. Had Mousavi become president of Iran in 2009, he would have supported Palestinian terrorism against the state of Israel or against any other state as long as it was serving the revolution’s purpose. After all, he said so, while also referring to British diplomats as spies, and defending the taking and holding of American hostages by Iranian militants in 1979. But there is a more imperative argument against rooting for an Iranian president who may be perceived as a moderate by the west, only because he does not come out of his leech-filled closet. In a state where the top-job is carried by a right wing extremist, Ayatollah Khamenei , the president can only serve by implementing policies outlined by that Supreme Leader. In other words, a Mousavi win could have enabled Iran to break the isolation, avoid western sanctions, grant legitimacy to the Ayatollah’s regime, then move it more rapidly toward the nuclear bomb. If you are smarter than a chess player who could conceive only one single move ahead, you could see the teeth of that jaw trap. Ahmadinejad is a much preferred Iranian president than any other make-believe moderate because he is merely telling the truth of what the Iranian regime is all about, devoid of any camouflage makeup to cover its ugly imperfections. His 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. 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. Ahmadinejad makes good where Israeli Prime Minister BenJamin Netanyahu, has had 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, Ahmadinejad is successful in stirring up emotions. His flaming rhetoric, lies, hypocrisy, denial of facts and history, his genocidal threats, and his annoying demeanor serves to convince the American public of the ugly truth — that the Iranian regime and its leaders are evil. The only effective regime change in Iran is a replacement of the whole system of government. This includes the Supreme Leader (and the way he is elected) as well as the leadership of the Revolutionary Guards, with a democratic secular system. Removing the religious minority of the mullahs and the ayatollahs from their unpopular powers is a major requirement wished for by the majority of Iranians. Replacing one loud-mouth Iranian president with a soft-spoken lipstick-wearing pig can only contribute to a faster growing untreated cancer. Masking a problem does not make it go away; it only wards off treatment; it only speeds up the emergence of its ugly end. Avi Perry is the author of 72 Virgins—a popular thriller about a countdown to a terror attack on US soil. He 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 also the author of Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks. For more information, visit www.aviperry.org. 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. 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. |
Categories
All
|