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. _
0 Comments
Once upon a time, not too long ago, American presidents were able to impact the direction of the economy with a strike of their pen. They could deal with Congress when “compromise” was not considered a dirty word. In the past, the president and congress could come to an understanding on the initiation of full-size programs requiring either massive spending or substantial budget cuts. They could implement programs affecting particular segments of the economy, general employment and unemployment levels, inflation levels and more.
Not any longer. In the past two years of the Obama administration, following the Republican takeover of Congress, the president was unable to implement any fiscal policy that included significant programs to help improve the ailing US economy. President Obama’s chief blunder, subsequent to his swearing in, was not his inability to turn the economy around in the second half of his first term; it was not making the most of the opportunity to further stimulate the economy when the Democrats were in command of Congress during his first two years in office. Following the Republican congressional victory in 2010, and their avowal to unseat the president at all costs, Republicans were able to stop any economic program that had a chance to pull the economy out of the deep ditch it had fallen into in 2008. The GOP's number one objective has been – and still is – unseating Obama. The Republicans knew that a damaged economy would turn the public against an incumbent; therefore, they have made sure the US economy stays in the gutter. Consequently, President Obama had no muscle to prop up the moribund economic conditions. Obama may have had the right ideas, but was unable to execute under the hostile atmosphere in Washington; his hands were tied behind his back. This is why we should not hold Obama responsible for the slow recovery; likewise, we should not bid him too much credit if unemployment takes a sudden dive. It is simple: for the past two years the president has NOT been in control of the economy. The only governmental agency able to shape economic conditions in the US has been the non-political Federal Reserve (the Fed). Unfortunately, the Fed has run out of its heavy artillery shells. The few bullets still in its possession may not be sufficient for winning the war. In the present environment, regardless of who the next president is, it seems unlikely that he will be able to reshape the economy. If Romney wins and the Democrats gain control of Congress or retain over 40 senators in the upper house, they are certain to take revenge and block Republican legislation proposals affecting the economy. If Obama is reelected and Congress continues to dwell under a Republican control, the president’s economic initiatives will continue to be dead on arrival. The only areas where the next president may be able to effectively put his agenda into practice are foreign policy and homeland security. Independent voters should consider foreign policy philosophy the chief factor in determining who the best candidate is. The next US president will not have an impact on the economy. He will, however, be able to reshape foreign policy; it’s the war on terror; it’s whether or not Iran will become a nuclear power; it’s whether or not the US will promote an Egypt ruled by Sharia hungry Islamists seeking to modify the peace treaty with Israel; it’s about whether or not the US will be able to convince Russia and China to cease their support of evil regimes. This time, it’s NOT about the economy. It’s only about the future of the rest of world. From the Jerusalem Post: 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. With the evident breakdown of negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran over its nuclear program and the onset of the EU embargo on Iranian oil export, the Ayatollah’s regime has been pushed into a very narrow corner. Consequently, like a cornered predator, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has desperately tried to salvage its vanity by flaunting its razor-sharp teeth.
Iranian Chief of Staff Gen. Seyed Hassan Firouzabadi has said that Tehran has plans for closing the Strait of Hormuz – where more than a third of the world's seaborne oil exports pass. He added that these plans include other military designs for various situations. Beginning on July 2, Iran has conducted three days of military exercises aimed at highlighting its strength in the face of increasing western pressure to halt its nuclear program. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard said that the maneuvers would demonstrate Iran’s ability to launch a "crushing" response to any potential foreign attacks. To reinforce that point, the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force declared that the IRGC has prepared comprehensive contingency plans to strike 35 US military bases in the region “within minutes” of an American military strike on his country. In a recent twist, Iran's spy chief has accused German and French intelligence agencies of involvement in the killings of its nuclear scientists. Iran has previously accused Israel, the US, and Britain of the slayings in order to hold up its nuclear program. Apparently, this finger-pointing is designed to signify Iranian opposition to any nuclear deal with the EU. Nevertheless, there has been a quiet buildup of US military forces in the Persian Gulf. According to the New York Times, the US Navy “has doubled the number of minesweepers assigned to the region to eight vessels,” while the Air Force has, since late spring, deployed “stealthy F-22 and older F-15C warplanes” at US bases in the region. These warplanes are in addition to “combat jets already in the region and the carrier strike groups that are on constant tours of the area.” It has also been reported that the USS Ponce, an amphibious transport and docking ship that has been converted into an “Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB),” has entered the Persian Gulf. This ship supports a helicopter landing deck and could be used as a floating staging area for attacks on Iran. Although, according to the Times, |America's official message to Iran is “Don’t even think about retaliating by either closing the Strait of Hormuz or harassing commercial shipping in the Gulf,” the unofficial intent is ‘Go ahead, make my day...’ Unfortunately, the breakdown in negotiations with Iran over their quest for nuclear weapons leaves only a military option on the table. At the same time, with the American public in no mood for another war and the Obama administration’s reluctance to initiate one just months before the November elections, voters are unlikely to approve of a US preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. On the other hand, should Iran initiate such an attack, the American public may view it as an incident equivalent to 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. An Iranian attack on an American military vessel will serve as justification for a retaliatory move by the US military with the full support of the American public. But retaliation may not be confined to the vicinity of the Iranian attack. The US military must counter the IRGC’s widespread threat. The US will have to retaliate by attacking Iran’s navy, military installations, missile silos and airfields. The US has no choice but to target Iran’s ability to retaliate against its bases. The US must scrap Iran’s designs for closing down the Strait of Hormuz as well. However, the IRGC’s threat raises an important question: why would Iran initiate a confrontation leading to its own destruction? The answer is a product of Middle Eastern Islamic culture. The Iranian regime is suffering from macho syndrome. 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. The Mullah’s bold rhetoric must have convinced some Iranian military officers that they can defeat America. The recurring Iranian threats and frequent boasting of their military might have persuaded some hot-headed Iranian officers that US President Barack Obama will never commit to an all-out war out of fear for Iranian retaliation. It will not take much for one trigger-happy Iranian to light the match in that combustible, oil-filled theatre. One little Iranian match — that’s all it would take to spark a raging fire. With the narrow election victory of Mohammed Mursy, Egypt is entering a new era of civil unrest.
When Mursy and his Muslim Brotherhood supporters signed up for the race for President of Egypt they presumed that victory would assume Mubarak-like presidential powers. Yet victory bore a beautiful trophy, save for little clout. The military generals, the top dog behind the scene, behind the glory, would linger on and would keep on controlling the unfolding events. Mursy will have no control over the budget and no decisive role in foreign policy, defense or national-security matters. Nor will he have the symbolic status of Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The military generals would keep all those functions for themselves, as well as claiming de facto control over the constitution-writing process. Mursy’s authority will be largely restricted to domestic matters, such as economic, education and social policies. Mursy’s conciliatory language during his inauguration, calling for unity among all Egyptians, defining himself as an inclusionary—he would be president of ALL Egyptians, even those who voted against him—have been preached from a point of weakness. As long as the Egyptian president maintains no real power, his heart-to-heart about foreign policy, foreign relations and treaties, Israel and the Palestinians, is merely empty rhetoric designed to gain popular support. I do not trust him! If Mursy ever gains a Mubarak-like presidential power he would strive to emulate a Khomeini-like ascent to absolute theocracy while benefiting from the popular support of the naïve masses. These include the sizeable secular segment of the Egyptian society, the ones buying into his present conciliatory, deceptive words, spoken from a point of weakness. Bit by bit, Just like Khomeini in post-revolution Iran, he would amputate power and authority from secular executives in his government and transfer influence and clout to the religious leaders until absolute theocracy is in place. But at the present, Mursy has little authority, yet it is embedded in a full-size ambition. His rhetoric, focusing on foreign relations where he has no say at the moment, clearly points to where he sees himself operating. He does not accept the status-quo, and he would, without doubt, put out a fight to arrest power and divert it away from the military. Accomplishing this feat would require popular support greater than the 26% he acquired on elections day (He gained 25% of the vote in round 1 and 52% of (only) 50% of eligible voters in round 2—that makes it south of 26% altogether). In devising a strategy for arresting power Mursy would instigate a gradual escalating crescendo of civil unrest. He would be conciliatory at first; His words would be calming; he would speak in the name of true democracy; he would motivate the masses into demonstrating, into protesting against the military’s undemocratic excess of power. He would enlist the powerful, naive democratic leaders of the west including President Obama to his “democratic” cause. And Obama—like Jimmy Carter during the initial days of the Iranian revolution—would be on the side of democracy; he would assist Mursy in his quest for absolute power. Mursy has a tough journey ahead of him. Most of the Egyptian public does not support him. Although he has won the elections, many of those voting for him, did so unenthusiastically. Their vote was a protest vote against the old regime rather than an expression of undivided backing for the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate. Chances are that many of those Egyptians who have casted their votes for Mursy would become disillusioned with him over time, as domestic matters continue to deteriorate. Millions of Egyptians would still endure living conditions well below any civilized norms of poverty levels. Tourism—one of the major sources of foreign income—would keep on contracting due to the Islamic sway sweeping the country and its continuous, unrelenting assault on secular institutions including the military rule. There is no question. Egyptians will look to blame the failed leadership for their misfortunes. Some will blame the military while others will blame the president. Chances are high for the blame game to become increasingly passionate, intense, and even violent. The country is divided in the middle, between the seculars who brought about the fall of the dictator, and the religious opportunists who enjoyed a free ride on the back of the illiterates and those who wanted to see Mubarak and his cronies ousted without considering the alternative. Egypt is divided between the ones looking for a transformation, taking the country from a dictatorship to a Jeffersonian democracy and the ones seeking an Islamic theocracy. Consequently, Egypt is facing an outlook of mounting civil unrest—a quest for power by two dichotomously opposing sides—the ultra-religious and the secular camps. Despite of their symbolic victory, the ultra-religious are the current underdog in this struggle, yet they are the more aggressive; they are the ones raising the flag of true democracy, the mantra of the revolution. They claim to have justice on their side. The seculars are happy to see the military in charge, but, in general, they are less vocal and less aggressive. This point has been proven in the week following the elections and preceding the publication of the outcome. The Muslim Brotherhood and their secular supporters were gearing up for violent protest had the winner been Ahmed Shafik. The seculars accepted the results with heartbreak devoid of any noteworthy protest. The Israeli-Egyptian border may not see a serious escalation of violence in the near future. The Egyptian military will try to maintain the peace in the Sinai while Mursy will try to blame Israel for any violent incident involving Palestinian terrorists. But rhetoric cannot match actions, and the Egyptian military will keep on calling the shots on that front for the time being. Still, the current status-quo may not last forever. We can only hope that the looming civil unrest would not bring about an absolute victory to the Islamists. We can only hope that most Egyptians, after realizing the consequences of their recent actions, will wake up and substitute euphoria with reality when they go inside the booth during their next presidential elections. We can only hope… Recent events in southern Israel have reinforced the notion that the Israeli government has been, for some time, putting a policy of retaliation into practice.
Retaliation is an emotionally satisfying act that under nearly all circumstances serves as grounds for a counter act that fuels a vicious revenge cycle. It is analogous to inflicting a minor injury, a superficial gash on an adversary without causing a permanent disabling devastation that would put the bad guys out of business for good. As long as the enemy is able to stand up back on their feet and rebound retaliation would only fire up their emotions, energize them, enhance their popularity among their peers and transform their criminal acts to heroic martyrdom. The recent escalation on the Hamastan border and the Israeli response has not quite eliminated Hamas and its partners’ ability to rebuild and repeat their acts of violence. Evidently, their leaders are already talking revenge. Palestinian terrorist organizations continue to launch rockets and the Israeli government continues to retaliate. It is evident that Hamas’s rocket technology has been improving as they are able to hit farther and more accurately. Is Israel going to wait for a terrorist big bang before eradicating this cancer or treat it with aspirin to make the temporary pain go away? There is no question. Iron Dome may not be able to stop 100% of incoming rockets. A war of attrition is advantageous to the enemy since the cost of a single Katyusha or Qassam rocket is miniscule in comparison to a single Iron Dome smart missile. And one day, one of those rockets would hit a sensitive target. This is only a matter of chance and the odds against such an event are getting thin. Time has come for abolishing retaliation and trading it for eradication of Palestinian terrorism. Israel must put a stop once and for all to the constant challenge that the Palestinian terror organizations put it through. Settling on eradication of terrorism may yield a transitory resentment by those around the world who label themselves as ‘’civilized.” They may complain that such actions are too harsh, that innocent lives get caught in the cross-fire and that this is not a measured response. But the outcome and its associated benefits would be more permanent and would last long after the memory of the global fury has been faded away. History has shown that a lasting peace following a bitter war has a better chance of success when the enemy is forced into an unconditional surrender. World War II, is the most recent example of this point. When wars do not end with the absolute defeat and surrender of the enemy, the peace, or the cease-fire that follows is unstable at best. The Arab-Israeli wars are the best example of that point. I do hope that the Israeli government does not wait for a disaster before ceasing the retaliation policy and substituting it for a policy that affects eradication. It must be a difficult decision for those who believe in measured responses. But if safety and security of Israeli citizens precedes the safety and security of its enemies, then the way for taking the vicious revenge cycle to an end is by opting for a policy that would make it happen. Dr. Avi Perry, a talk show host at Paltalk News Network, is the author of “Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks,” and more recently, “72 Virgins,” a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories distinguished staff member and manager, a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to UN International Standards body, a professor at Northwestern University and Intelligence expert for the Israeli Government. More information is available at www.aviperry.org. Roger Clemens was acquitted Monday 5/18/2012 on all charges that he obstructed and lied to Congress in denying he had used performance-enhancing drugs to extend his long career as one of the greatest and most-decorated pitchers in baseball history. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency is bringing doping charges against seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong, threatening to strip his victories in the storied cycling race. And who can forget Marion Jones, track and field champion and Olympic gold medalist who was stripped of her Olympic medals by the International Olympic Committee, then sentenced to six months in prison on Jan. 11, 2008 for lying to a court and deceiving federal investigators. There are countless other sports champions who were stripped of their Olympic gold medals, sent to prison, banned from their favorite sports, suspended for long periods, only because they tested positive to banned substances, not even limited to performance enhancement.
The focus on sports is intended to fashion fair competition where human physical abilities are tested to their limits devoid of what viewed as deceptive, unnatural utility intended to boost performance beyond natural, biological bounds. Nevertheless, there are two issues needing further scrutiny. The first one has to do with the focus on drugs and sports. There are many other contests where nature has been dismissed in favor of unnatural, man-made enhancements. Take the Miss Universe or Miss USA beauty contests for example. Many of the contestants had gone through a boob job, a nose job, a liposuction job, even a sex change job. Should those be disallowed? Should those operations disqualify a beautiful girl from participating only because her beauty had been intensified by unnatural means like plastic surgery? And what about thoroughbred horseracing jockeys? They subject themselves to sweatboxes, diuretics suppositories, and intentional eating disorders before one more derby—Kentucky, Shmetacky or any other high stakes horserace. Should these jockeys be subject to medical screening before being allowed to ride the winning horse? Take the presidential elections in the US. It’s clear that the winner in many contests is not the person with the best ideas but rather the person with the most money. If you have rich friends you enhance your chances of winning a political race. I am convinced that this is not what the Greeks of the sixth century BC had in mind when they invented the “rule of the people.” And how about insider trading by member of legislative, governmental or judicial bodies and their staff? Yes! They have finally passed a law restricting members of Congress from using insider information to their own personal advantage— to which they are exposed on a daily basis through their role. Except the new law applies to future trades only. But in sports, athletes were stripped of medals, even sent to prison years after it was proven that they had been using performance-enhancing drugs when they had won. Applying this logic to members of Congress, they should return the money (plus interest) they had acquired by utilizing insider information, not available to the general public. And this one is really interesting. An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education suggested that university professors were taking stimulants like Adderall to increase their academic productivity. According to the article, several professors considered this "cheating" at academics. The implication is obvious. The quest for knowledge and any knowledge acquired through performance-enhancing stimulants should be disallowed or even ignored if the advances in science or medicine were obtained under the influence. The second issue has to do with competition fairness. It is my opinion that as long as any contestant has access to enhancements, then using these performance-enhancing means is not unfair. The only case where fairness has been critically challenged, in the examples above, is the case where members of Congress were allowed to trade securities on information not available to the general public. Although it was legal, it was a crime by any logical reasoning. It is my conviction that performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed if athletes believe that they actually work. Otherwise, Insisting on drug-free sports should carry over to disallowing plastic surgery for contestants in beauty pageants, disallowing vomiting for horseracing jockeys, disallowing spending over a maximum amount for presidential candidates and their friends combined, insisting on money back for all capital gains achieved through insider information obtained by members of congress. And to top it off, the ruling should include cancellation of all scientific and medical breakthroughs if there is any suspicion that they have been obtained under the effect of caffeine:). Have you ever wondered how the US and Israel have such a detailed knowledge of the progress, the direction and the objectives of the Iranian nuclear project?
Have you ever wondered why former Mossad (Israel’s CIA) boss, Meir Dagan, and former Shabak (Israel’s FBI) head do not foresee the inevitability for an Israeli military attack on Iran with the aim of stopping the Ayatollah’s nuke development? Have you ever wondered how the Israeli air force was able to penetrate Turkey’s and Syria’s air spaces, devoid of stealthy aircraft, then bomb Assad’s secret nuclear plant without being detected by the most sophisticated Russian radar systems deployed in Syria? Isn’t it amazing that Israel can pinpoint and employ surgical strikes on stationary and moving enemy targets in Gaza and in the West Bank, anytime, anywhere? We heard about the computer virus, Stuxnet; it had inflicted great damage to Ahmadinejad’s centrifuges, slowing down his uranium enrichment program. We now know that President Obama has ordered, or in the least, was an active partner to this cyber-attack on Iran. And with the revelation of the Flame virus and the insinuation, or virtual testimony by leading computer security firms such as Kaspersky and Symantec, that Israel, and possibly the US as well, were behind it, a new awareness has been inspired--war and espionage have leaped forward into the bloodless cyber space. Eugene Kaspersky, chief executive of Moscow-based Kaspersky Lab, which uncovered Flame last month, said that his researchers have since found that part of the Flame program code is nearly identical to code found in a 2009 version of Stuxnet. “There were two different teams working in collaboration,” he revealed. Several computer experts, including Kaspersky, alleged that both Stuxnet and Flame must have been engineered by a state rather than an individual or a small group of hackers. The cyber weapon (Stuxnet) and the super spyware worm (Flame) are simply too big, too sophisticated and too complex to be a product of anyone other than a state, they insisted. And given the fact that these programs targeted Iran’s nuclear project, Iran’s infrastructure and government officials as well as other Muslim states in the Middle East with little or no side-infections, is nothing less than circumstantial substantiation that Israel and the US have been cooperating in the making of these cyber weapons. Consequently, the answer to my rhetorical questions above is—the US and Israel know and control some of the details of Iran’s nuke program, thanks to Stuxnet, Flame and their still undetected cousins. The detailed intelligence and the ability to control and remotely manipulate key installations inside Iran and other Middle Eastern countries has removed a great deal of anxiety about Iran’s ability to surprise and bully the rest of the world; it has possibly prevented a premature military action against the mullahs’ corrupted regime. Also, it explains why former Israeli intelligent chiefs have expressed a passionate aversion to an Israeli military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities; they must have believed that Israel could accomplish its goals through a well-executed cyber-war. Additionally, it explains Israel’s military chief of staff’s confidence in the success of a military campaign against Iran shall it be called for. Nevertheless, Kaspersky does not want to join forces in the effort to stop Iran’s nuke program. On the contrary, he publicizes details of the Flame worm; he is working on detection and vaccination aimed at disabling it, preventing it from spreading. Directly or even indirectly, he lends a hand to Iran, helps the Ayatollah overcome and prevent further infections of his electronic infrastructure. Kaspersky is on the Iranian side of this cyber war. Kaspersky’s intentions are marketed as an effort designed to prevent a dangerous metastasis into unintended targets worldwide. Except, the Flame worm and the Stuxnet virus have been specifically designed as a weapon of targeted killing, as a laser stiletto intended to minimize collateral damage. It does not spread like a standard virus; it works like the latest "smart bomb" used to treat breast cancer by using a drug to deliver a toxic payload to tumor cells while leaving healthy ones alone. Kaspersky’s efforts must have contributed to an intelligence setback in the US and in Israel, as the handlers of the Flame virus instructed it to self-destruct, leave no traces and vanish into a cyber-black hole. And since proper intelligence is key to either avoiding unnecessary wars like the Iraq war, or quickly and successfully disabling a terrorist enemy’s ability to carry out aggressive acts, then the only conclusion derived from Kaspersky’s actions are that his firm has elevated the risk of a military campaign against Iran; it has also increased the risk that a military campaign will be more costly. It did not contribute to a more peaceful world. The important lesson that we all must learn from Kaspersky’s efforts to publicize his analysis of the Flame worm is that his company and other security firms should join forces and cooperate with those governments trying to prevent Armageddon, rather than defending those who try to bring it about. A Turkish court, on Monday May 28, 2012, formally pressed criminal charges against Israeli generals. The charges were pressed for the generals’ alleged involvement in the deaths of nine Turkish nationals. These deaths occurred when these people tried to lynch Israeli Defense Force’s (IDF) personnel who boarded the Turkish ship, Mavi Marmara, during its attempt to break Israel's blockade of Gaza in 2010.
Consequently, Israel is facing the following choices: A. Send officers to Turkey to stand trial B. Retaliate by indicting those Turkish officials responsible for blessing the Turkish failed incursion attempt C. Send defense lawyers to Turkey when the trial begins with the aim of countering the charges D. Ignore it E. Go on a public Relations blitz, trying to have the trial backfire on Turkey like a boomerang Only two of the above fall within the set of feasible potential responses, and there is only one option that should be applied. The idea of sending the IDF officers to Turkey to face trial is downright absurd. Since the IDF Cast Lead campaign Turkey has been turning more hostile by the day toward Israel and warmer by the hour towards Israel’s arch enemies. Turkey president, Mr. Erdogan has become the loudest animated voice within the chorus comprising those who try to delegitimize Israel’s right to self-defense. Sending the Mavi Marmara to Israel’s coast, in an attempt to breach the legal barrier against the Gaza-bound arms-smuggling activity, was an aggressive, malicious act designed to inflict harm on the state of Israel. The nine Turkish nationals, who died during the Mavi Marmara incident, were the ones who declared war on the Jewish state by attempting to lynch the Israeli soldiers who boarded their ship. The Israeli soldiers had no choice but to defend themselves against their Turkish attackers. The soldiers were only guilty of protecting their own lives in self-defense under the brutal ambush aimed at lynching them—not a crime. Sending defense lawyers to Turkey to counter the charges will undoubtedly become a futile attempt at countering a political plot, not a legal, legitimate attempt at realizing justice. Furthermore, any Israeli attorney trying to defend Israeli actions (on Turkish soil) concerning the Mavi Marmara, will, in all probability, be subject to intimidation, harassment and even life-threatening assaults. Once again, this option is infeasible. Although retaliating by indicting those Turkish big shots responsible for blessing the failed incursion attempt will be emotionally satisfying to Israelis, it will be viewed by the rest of the world as extravagant rather than a legitimate legal move. And since Israel takes pride in and is respected by its allies for its fair, objective and balanced legal system, a move to politicize it may jeopardize Israel’s reputation in this venue. Ignoring the Turkish move has its merits. The subject will fade away from the headlines and will not be the subject of the talk around the water cooler. Still, the Turkish move may attempt to bring Interpol into the picture. This could develop into a dangerous precedent as emphasized by former ambassador to the US, Dr. Meir Rosen, who claimed that "If Turkey gets an international arrest warrant, it may demand that all Interpol member states issue arrest warrants for Israeli officers, at least in the short term”. This kind of a development in light of the fact that Interpol is known for its politically motivated role in arrests and deportations is a dangerous precedent. If it sticks, then not only the indicted Israeli commander swill be unable to travel to most countries outside Israel for fear of being arrested, but future commanders may be less willing to take risks in protecting the state of Israel as a result. The only logical option left for an Israeli response is to fight the indictment by going on a public relations blitz, trying to have the trial backfire on Turkey like a boomerang. Turkey is vulnerable. Every accusation the Turks have ever laid on Israel can rub on them directly in as significantly more pronounced way, as if the accusations were injected with steroids before reversing course and biting the Turks in the face. The Turks accused Israel of genocide during the Cast Lead campaign without having any proof, without looking at the evidence, without taking into account the defensive nature of the war, which attempted to end Hamas’s rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. The Turks never considered how hard Israel had worked to protect the civilian enemy population in Gaza by avoiding shooting at enemy combatants when they surrounded themselves with human shields—has an enemy of any nation ever halted hostilities during a two-hour-lunch to allow the civil population (including the opposite fighting forces) to go out, shop for food, maintain their normal business, so life would not turn to complete hell? No one has ever fought that kind of humane battle other than Israel. Nevertheless, Erdogan continues to deny Turkey’s role in committing genocide on its own Armenian citizens. He continues to ignore Turkey’s aggression in Cyprus where the Turks cleansed half of the island from its Greek population, creating a refugee problem that they have been failing to admit to, while continuing to occupy the cleansed land, building and expanding settlements. It should also be noted that while the Palestinian refugee problem was self-inflicted and should be blamed on the Arabs, the Greek Cypriot refugees were not trying to throw all Turks to the sea when they were forced out of their homes by the invading Turkish army. And now Turkey is trying to deny Israel’s right to self-defense. Erdogan makes a mockery of international law, claiming that the sea blockade of Gaza is illegal, where in fact; all law-abiding nations including the UN have clearly recognized the legality of that blockade, just like they had done when JFK blockaded Cuba during the missile crisis in the 60s. Israel must make the case in front of the law-abiding nations of the world that the Turks are the only guilty party in the Mavi Marmara incident, that Erdogan’s refusal to take responsibility for his country’s crimes and reckless actions has made Turkey’s judicial system a joke. Israel should make the case that the aggressive part of the Mavi Marmara incident was not the IDF soldiers’ act of self-defense, but rather the violent attempt to breach the blockade by the Turkish government. It was the Turkish government, who knowingly and willingly sent armed IHH members – a known terrorist group – to break Israel’s counter-terrorism blockade. It is the Turkish government whom the world should condemn. It is the Turkish legal system whom the world should ridicule. And it is Israel’s duty to push for that condemnation of Turkey and its legal system. My weekly talk show, Politically Incorrect Straight Talk on the PALTALK NEWS NETWORK (PNN) focuses on analysis of US politics and on global news-worthy events. Since this talk show runs live on the internet (every Tuesday at 6pm ET), my audience includes people from various corners of the world. Some of these people appreciate my opinions while a number of others—mostly left-minded, habitual anti-Semites and some brain-washed Muslims—hate me and my views, yet they seldom miss the show. I am aware because I take calls from the audience, and I also watch some of the circumstantial texting that transpires by dint of what I impart.
In my latest show I discussed Iran’s quest for becoming a nuclear power. I predicted that the Islamic fundamentalist regime will not yield to the world’s demands, that Iran will keep its macho talk loud and condescending. I claimed that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will not cave in to pressure no matter what sanctions the Americans or the EU impose on the Islamic Republic. I asserted that although macho talk in the Islamic Middle East was a standard adopted by all militant Islamic leaders, the Iranian government would be flexing its muscles, flaunting its sharp teeth. It believes that economic sanctions will hurt, but not as much as caving in to American demands. I explained that in a culture where false honor precedes anything that moves under the sun, where life without “honor” is far worse than death, where honor killing is a religious diktat, caving in to economic sanctions is equivalent to an unconditional surrender. And surrendering to the “Great Satan” merely because life is a little tough is inexcusable, dishonorable behavior; it is treason that merits the death sentence. My conclusion—war is inevitable; either the US or Israel will have to undertake military action to stop Iran before the mullahs reach a nuclear status because sanctions and negotiations will not come up to scratch—was met by emotional left-minded objections. “The US should not go to war on behalf of Israel,” one caller claimed. “No American soldier should die as a result of the Jewish lobby’s control of US foreign policy,” another complained. “We can’t afford another war; Iran is not a threat to America. Let the Israelis take care of themselves.” Really? ”Iran does not pose any threat to America? President Obama is a Jew puppet?” This left-minded ignorance and naiveté blended with Jew-hatred is the guts of the problem and the fuel sprouting the anti-Semitic embers into a fully-blown hellhole inferno. Unfortunately, some prominent, well-meaning Israeli leaders, like former Mossad boss, Meir Dagan, and former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, inspire this logic by condemning (through the international media) present Israeli Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, for hinting at an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. “Israel should let the US take care of Iran,” they exclaim. “An Israeli strike on Iran should be a very last resort, if at all.” And the rest of the world listens… They are right. An Israeli strike on Iran should be a very last resort. There is no doubt in my mind that Netanyahu agrees as well. Letting someone else do the dirty work for you is a great plan, especially when the Americans are in a much better position to get it done. But there is no need to make it look like Israel is pressuring the US to attack Iran for the sake of Israel. There is no need to create the appearance that Iran is merely an Israeli problem. Yes. Let the western powers, Russia and China try their best in convincing Iran to cease their nuclear ambitions; let the economic sanctions take their course. No doubt, they will all prove insufficient. But what will the consequences be if in the face of that failure Obama does not fall back on military action? Does Meir Dagan have the answer? Is he willing to go beyond “let the US take care of business,” and tell us what should be done if the US does not follow his advice? Iran is not an Israeli problem. It is an international one. The mullahs have already advertised their aspirations for world domination under an Islamic Caliphate based in Tehran. If this sounds like an empty talk, an infeasible overreach, then one may want to consider Iran’s ambitions for control of the Persian Gulf and the rest of the Middle East oil resources and delivery systems. In an effort to accomplish this mission Iran is developing missiles capable of reaching Europe today and the US in a few years. A nuclear Iran equipped with long range ballistic missiles will pose a devastating threat to all western countries. A nuclear Iran will undoubtedly set off a race by other Middle Eastern countries trying to meet the nuclear altitude and claim parity with the Iranian challenge. The risk of nuclear proliferation will grow to a certainty, and the chance of nuclear terrorism will become a reality. Iran must be stopped before it becomes a nuclear power. Netanyahu is doing the right thing by bringing the Iranian nuclear threat to the fore, by making clear that the Iranian threat is not confined to Israel, that it is a global threat. He is doing the right thing by threatening an Israeli military action even though that action may be his least preferred choice. Netanyahu’s political maneuverings have already borne fruits. He has alerted the rest of the world to the danger. The US has announced its readiness and availability for stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions. And since the Obama administration does not want Israel to preempt its planning and upset its control over developments in the Persian Gulf, it will have to initiate proper action before Israel finds itself with no other option. Voices inside Israel calling for Netanyahu to abandon his present “Iran strategy” and assume a stronger reliance on the US fail to decipher that this is exactly what the Prime Minister is doing. Nevertheless, public calls for “letting the US do the dirty job for Israel” carry an undesired message that is resented by many Americans who do not have a deep understanding of the Iranian threat to themselves. The incoming elections in the US and the flashy rhetoric by Republican presidential candidates have stirred the question of nuclear Iran into the front page. The Muslim Gulf states and Israel have added to the rumbling; they have sustained their pressure on the US administration, urging it to act, to stop Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. The Obama Administration has warned Iran: “pursuit of nuclear weapons is unacceptable; the US would use all means in its disposal, including force if necessary, to neutralize Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.” But to no avail.
Still, Iran keeps its macho talk loud and condescending. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has just issued a warning—Iran will not cave in to pressure; progress toward a nuclear bomb (he did not say “nuclear bomb”, but he definitely implied it) will not be brought to an end, no matter what sanctions the Americans or the EU impose on the Islamic Republic. The Ayatollah is serious. Although macho talk in the Islamic Middle East is a standard adopted by all militant Islamic leaders, the Iranian government is flexing its muscles, flaunting its sharp teeth. It believes that economic sanctions will hurt, but not as much as caving in to American demands. In a culture where false honor precedes anything that moves under the sun, where life without “honor” is far worse than death, where honor killing is a religious diktat, caving in to economic sanctions is equivalent to an unconditional surrender. And surrendering to the “Great Satan” merely because life is a little tough is inexcusable, dishonorable behavior; it is treason that merits the death sentence. The loud rhetoric from all sides has been underlined by considerable measures on the ground. The US has been and is about to keep on amassing a war machine in the Persian Gulf and on several islands within reach of Iran. American, British and French warships and aircraft have been acting around the Persian Gulf and around Saudi air bases respectively, while the Saudis have reinforced their anti-missile defense gear and their delivery facilities around Saudi oil fields and along the Persian Gulf respectively. Israel has been readying itself for war on all fronts. It has recently conducted large-scale military exercises, both defensive and offensive in nature, including the drafting of reservists under projected heavy missile bombardment of every town, road and base, as well as a large scale parachuting by over a thousand paratroopers, signaling a willingness to engage ground-troops on foreign soil in addition to relying on its air force and its rockets. Iran has not been sitting idle either. They have announced the start of a three-week exercise in southern Iran and the Strait of Hormuz under war settings. They seem to brace for a noteworthy retaliation with the objective of blocking the flow of oil out of the Gulf. In addition, they have been concocting terror attacks on soft Jewish and possibly other civilian targets throughout the world. The American Administration is working hard at softening its seeming aim by masking its military buildup with wishful talking points. US Defense Secretary Panetta’s recent implications concerning Israel’s imminent attack plans are part of a grand-scale deception strategy. They have been designed to refocus the Iranians on the most suspicious front rather than the one that would deliver the ultimate blow—the US military. It is obvious that if Israel embarks on a preemptive strike on the Iranian nuclear project, Iran will try to retaliate. Retaliation will not be limited to hitting Israel. The Revolutionary Guards will attempt to attack American interests throughout the Middle East, thus provide a pretext for an American involvement in a large scale “defensive” war against Iran—a war that would be supported by the American public due to its defensive nature, a war that would boost Obama’s standing in the eyes of the American people, shortly ahead of the elections. The scenario above may not necessitate an Israeli opening (of hostilities) since the Iranian regime is stuck in a macho syndrome, which blinds their rational reasoning. They will miscalculate. They may initiate hostilities against US interests in the Persian Gulf in order to lay bare the risk associated with any American attempt to force them into submission by aggressive economic means. They do not believe that the US would retaliate by initiating an all-out-war in response. They view the US and President Obama as paper tigers. The Ayatollah will repeat the same mistake that Hezbollah had committed in 2006 when they kidnapped dead Israeli soldiers before Israel responded with an all-out-war they had not anticipated and had not wished for. There is little doubt that a war with Iran can be avoided. There is high likelihood that the US will lead the effort even if Israel initiates the campaign. There is little doubt that the US is hard at work preparing for war in the Persian Gulf. There is high likelihood that Iran will provide the American people with a sizzling justification by provoking the US and invite a massive retaliation. There is no doubt. 2012 will see to a new Gulf war. This time, the Ayatollah will be the one to pay the price. |
Categories
All
|