JMJ

I favor the US sending 22,000 troops to take over Iran’s oil fields,
bombing their 30 nuke sites..and destroying the Republican Guards.
I favor Israel sending in 100,000 IDF troops to finally rid the Gaza Strip
of Hamas. I would send 100 F15s and F16s to fly over Damascus..as a
warning to Assad.

I favor Greater Israel. from the Med.to the Jordan River (let Jordan have
the so-called Palestinian Arabs in their land).

I would not give back one inch of the occupied territories ( in fact they
are disputed).

However, lets be realistic. The US gives Israel 2.2b dollars worth
of state of the art weaponry. Israel cannot make it’s own jet engines.
It can make drones..but cannot make “deals” with China or India,
w/o US permission (often times not given).

Israel has no clout at the UN, with it’s 60 plus Muslim nations..1.4
b Muslims and 300m Arabs. Israel is one half the size of San Bernadino
Country in California. It is the size of New Jersey. My county has twice
it’s population. (10m).

Israel’s survival is dependent upon the strengh of it’s Bar Lev line, (
it’s military). Had it lost one war..we would not now be talking.
Israel’s leaders have admitted that one Iranian nuke over Tel Aviv
and it’s all over.

What then?

The US wants Israel to stop building nursery schools..( this is a
slippery slope). Okay, then hows about using the B1 and B2 bombers
to bomb Iran’s nuke sites…and a few over Ahmad’s palaces.

Now that would be something for Obama to consider, while
he is involved with promoting socialized medicine (for illegals and their
children), at our expense….I mean at our children’s expense.

Folks, if you want to keep the US free and capitalistic…think next time
you pull that lever for a Democrat.

As I’ve said before, after nearly two hundred days in office Obama’s aims and strategy are both pretty clear. Obama came into office wanting to pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately and do nothing about Iran. However, pursuing this strategy directly would come with significant political costs and would be inconsistent with his rhetorical move to the centre after the election. Obama has therefore adopted a strategy that pays lip service to success in the Middle East but makes failure in these three areas inevitable. In Iraq he has reversed the “broken windows” strategy underpinning the surge and intimated that he won’t intervene if violence starts to increase (as is happening). In Afghanistan he continues to send mixed signals and has floated the idea of negotiating with the Taliban. In regards to Iran, Obama also continues to run out the clock with futile negotiations.

Regarding Iran, a lot has been written in the press about the parallels between what is happening in Iran and the popular uprisings in the late 1980s. While this is clearly true in terms of the street demonstations, the picture might be slightly different in terms of the turmoil amongst the clerical establishment. After reading several articles (including George Friedman’s latest article), I think there are are strong similarities between what is happening with Ahmadinejad, Mousavi, Khamenei and Rafasjani and what happened with Stalin, Beria and Khrushchev in 1953. Both Valdimir Naumov and Sergo Beria (Beria’s son) have argued that, on the eve of his death, Stalin was about to directly confront the US – a clearly suicidal policy – and one that might have paved the way for Beria’s (temporary) rise. Similarly, the sudden emergance of clerical opposition of Ahmadinejad may not to be do so much with the election (although it was certainly rigged) but with fears that Iran could move from indirect confrontation with the US and Israel though terrorist proxies – to a direct all-out nuclear attack which could kill millions on both sides. So it seems that, apart from Ahmadinejad and Khamenei, Obama is the only person who is still blase about Iran getting the bomb.