Beyond the Cusp

April 19, 2014

The Latest Iranian Taqiyya

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani claimed during military parade on Friday marking the country’s National Army Day celebrations where he stated, “We are not after war, we are after logic, we are after talks. (Iran) will not invade any country but will resist any invasion.” Such statements will very likely be taken by President Obama and his administration as further proof that the talks to prevent, or at least delay, Iran becoming a nuclear armed nation and that their leadership of the P5+1 has produced results. There will be claims and commentary describing President Rouhani and his calming words as further proof of his being a moderate force and to be leading Iran back from the brink and doing what was required to return Iran from the wild and threatening positions taken under the leadership of former Iranian President Ahmadinejad to a its rightful place amongst the peace-loving nations of the world. Needless to point out that President Rouhani has in the past bragged about how he had completely hoodwinked the Western nations during his stint as the chief Iranian nuclear negotiator referring to his tactics of smiling and making small talk and making jokes thus disarming the United States and European negotiators. President Rouhani went on to point to the massive increase in the Iranian nuclear program from a mere ten centrifuges to over seventeen-thousand centrifuges and major construction on the heavy water reactor at Arak all while he was misleading the Western nations with so little effort. He was very proud of his mastery of the art of diplomatic negotiating and hiding the real activities of the Iranian nuclear program behind his affability and a smile.

 

The lauding of President Rouhani and his pleasant sounding words ignores the greater evidence of the intent of Iran to pursue nuclear weapons using basically the same method of using deception and false guarantees all the while developing their nuclear program. Their initial push under former President Ahmadinejad used a tactic of simply bull-headed driving forward despite any opposition or sanctions from the world at large. The Iranians did not alter their drive for nuclear weapons with the election of President Rouhani; they simply altered their camouflage hiding everything behind a handshake, a broad smile, and friendly familial small talk, the exact same ruse utilized by the very same Rouhani back in earlier days of the nuclear negotiations with Iran. In order to keep ahold of this illusion of Iranian cooperation and passivity the Western leadership must simultaneously take President Rouhani and his calming words of cooperation and peacefulness at face value while ignoring numerous comments, claims and even threats from other high ranking Iranians including many from the military and even from within the nuclear program itself. One such statement came in a television interview Sunday with Iran’s nuclear program chief Ali Akhbar Salehi who insisted that Iran has the right to enrich uranium to ninety percent purity. This claim would be complete evidence necessary that Iran was working towards nuclear weapons and not simply completing the fuel cycle. There does not exist a nuclear reactor that requires highly enriched uranium at ninety percent purity, such enrichment is only required to make weapons. The obvious unsuitability of uranium enriched to ninety percent is evidenced that there does not exist any way to contain a reaction once begun at such concentrations of uranium to utilize it in a reactor; thus it can only be utilized to produce an explosion in a weapon. Nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi has also commented recently that Iran will require thirty-thousands of its new generation centrifuges to meet domestic fuel demands. This comment came amid the latest talks being held in Vienna. This statement came subsequent to his recent claiming, “We unveiled a new generation of centrifuges that surprised the Westerners … This new machine is 15 times more powerful than the previous generation.”

 

In recent speeches, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei explained how the Iranians were using the nuclear talks to stall for time while they continued their drive in developing nuclear weapons. He stated quite plainly that, “We had announced previously that on certain issues, if we feel it is expedient, we would negotiate with the Satan (the United States) to deter its evil.” Ayatollah Khamenei further claimed that, “the nuclear talks showed the enmity of America against Iran, Iranians, Islam and Muslims.” Al Arabiya reports that Ayatollah Khamenei’s statements are tantamount to a confession of employing the Islamic deception tactic of “taqiyya,” the utilization of deception and outright lies in order to conceal and advance efforts to advance a situation which would serve the interests and future spread of Islam. The tactic is used to great advantage throughout Islamic history in negotiations and during states of war, two main elements being applied to their military readiness and nuclear program very effectively by Iran today. So, while the centrifuges in Iran continue to spin and leaders of all stripe, political, military and even those directly involved with their nuclear program make threats and promises of coming destructions, President Obama and the negotiating team from the Western powers continue to laud praise on President Rouhani as those among us who are of a more suspicious nature simply wait for Rouhani to slowly melt from vies leaving his Cheshire Cat ominously evil smile as the only proof he was ever there.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

April 18, 2014

The Foreign Policy Conundrum in America

The apparently few Americans who truly worry over world affairs, along with those who live in that world, realize and try to explain that a world in which the benevolent power of the United States is in remission will necessarily facilitate the spread of evil and oppression in the world as the despots and oligarchs extend their malicious iron grip on their neighbors or even further afield taking advantage of the American absence. The last six years has been an in-depth lesson on how a world without a strong American foreign presence makes the world a far more dangerous place. Looking around the examples are everywhere with the return of al-Qaeda into Iraq with the country reverting to a Sunni-Shiite Civil War; the ongoing strife in the Syrian Civil War where chemical agents have been deployed, where torture and summary executions have become a common occurrence, civilians are subjected to barrel bombs designed to maximize horrific injuries as well as snipers shooting to injure children aiming for their spines not to kill them but to render them permanently paralyzed and a life of agony; Russia making military moves on the Ukraine and potentially implementing as policy the reinstitution of Russian hegemony equal to that enjoyed during the reign of the Soviet Union over the Warsaw Pact nations; the loss of central authoritative leadership in Libya instituting a condition of tribal warfare engulfing the entirety of the nation outside of the Capital of Tripoli; a resurgence throughout the Arabian Peninsula and Northern and Central Africa of Islamist extremists from al-Qaeda in Yemen to Boko Haram victimization of Christians in Nigeria to Muslim Brotherhood targeting Coptic Christians in Egypt; to Angola placing bans on Islam shuttering most of the nation’s mosques. Many have commented that under the lacking foreign policies of President Obama guiding the United States presence in the world that the world has been consumed by the flames of wars, violence and persecutions. Who is to blame is not as important as is the reality gripping the world while the United States is in the grip of an overwhelming introspection blinding her to the needs in the world for her strength and fulfilment of premises she had made to many nations, promising protection and guarding against their adversaries in order to allow, or demand depending on who you ask, their demilitarizing freeing them from the onerous demands retaining an ample military always ready to defend against outside threats. Now some of these nations are feeling it was folly to believe the American promises and believing they have been betrayed and left vulnerable before their traditional enemies. This is the direct result of an America in remission on the world stage.

 

This problem poses the question of who is there who is evident on the political stage of the United States offering leadership which includes the acknowledgement that the United States obligation to the rest of the world, especially the free world of nations with representative governance, to provide them with the assurance of her strength against any threat which they may face from those wishing to impose unrepresentative governance forcing their will against the desires of the majority of the people. There will be Americans who will immediately protest such an idea that the United States must be the savior, the policeman of the world and that the world needs to take care of itself. The problem with that view is it ignores the many treaties and conventions to which the United States is the principle signatory and the guarantor of the terms and promises these agreements represent. Many nations made deep sacrifices directly related to the guarantees and even demands of these treaties and agreements. An example was the Ukrainian surrender of the entirety of the nuclear arsenal within their borders after the fall of the Soviet Union. Does anybody really believe that instantly turning the Ukraine into the world’s third largest nuclear power overnight would have been prudent or that Russia would be threatening the Ukrainian borders and have annexed the Crimean Peninsula if the Ukraine retained those nuclear weapons? Of course the absence of those nuclear warheads are making the current threats to the Ukraine possible and the treaty did obligate the United States, and also Russia and much of NATO, to come to the aid and rescue of the Ukraine in any situation where she was threatened by any outside force, especially if that force was applied by the Russians. In lieu of the Ukraine possessing the nuclear weapons left within her borders by the Soviet Union they were promised the full might and abilities of the United States military to protect their borders but apparently that promise was contingent upon the mood of the President of the United States and President Obama is feeling timorous and refusing to extend America’s military might even when such is called for in treaties. How does that leave the numerous other nations who rely upon American promises and commitments, often in treaty or other agreements, for their continued safety? They likely feel much as do South Korea and Japan who both have expressed feeling naked before the threats and saber rattling emanating from North Korea as Kim Jung Un bares his military prowess with missile and nuclear tests combined with military exercises and launching of artillery and missiles into the maritime waters of his neighbors. With the United States slumbering over threats from everywhere on the globe, both these nations are seriously considering remilitarizing and developing their own nuclear arsenals as a response and safety against the machinations of the threats from the madman in North Korea. This possible further proliferation of nuclear weapons is a direct result of the United States passivity on the world’s stage and would never have been even considered, especially by Japan whose peoples are extremely sensitive and disdainful of nuclear weapons after World War II, developing and producing their own nuclear arsenals.

 

The real problem of a world without the American presence is not so much the development of nuclear weapons by generally peaceful nations who pose little to no threat to their neighbors and are not financiers or propagators of terrorism. The real problem is when nations who are guilty of both propagating terrorism and posing threats to their neighbors and beyond also developing nuclear weapons exemplified by Iran. The deliberations and negotiations between the P5+1 which consists of Germany, Russia, China, France, Britain and, of course, the currently in remission United States, with Iran presumably having their announced intention of reaching an agreement which will deny Iran developing and possessing nuclear weapons while respecting their rights to nuclear power generation have also evidenced the lack of resolve of the United States. This was made obviously evident when it took France imposing their veto and France and Britain informing Israel and Saudi Arabia respectively of the threat posed by the United States proposal being so weak and lacking resolve that it was a virtual invitation for Iran to proceed and develop nuclear weapons with the blessings of the United States. This was in contraposition of events from when the United States was fully engaged in the world and had hunted and brought Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to trial and Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi voluntarily disassembled and turned over his previously unknown nuclear weapons program which definitely turned a few heads both by the unexpected capitulation by Gadhafi and the fact that Libya possessed an advanced nuclear program.

 

The final question is where is the world’s Winston Churchill who will address and take the principled stand and lead the world’s response to the ever growing menacing threats which have blossomed and grown exponentially during the Presidency of Barack Obama. Even if such a person is to be found anywhere, the rest of the question is will the United States gain leadership in the near future that would be receptive to retaking the mantle of the world benevolent superpower and protector of freedoms and liberties and the nations who treasure individual human rights. Is there somebody who in 2016 will be the candidate standing for an attentive and ever present American force behind the promises in treaties and agreements which America signed promising to be the preeminent guarantor of international peace and integrity of international relations between nations. The people who have either been profiled as potential Presidential candidates or who have expressed their own desires to vie for the position appear to fall into two categories. The first category are those who propose using the power, strength and treasures of the United States in expanding the Federal Government’s footprint in the daily lives of the average American citizens and taking over more of the economic interests such as healthcare, education and other daily concerns in the name of fairness and equality, that is equality of outcome guaranteed and provided free of the onerous obligation of individual efforts. The other group are libertarian and propose slimming the government and removing as much of its interference in the lives of the American people. They stress the limitations placed on the government by the United States Constitution and the trespass of the plethora of government agencies and officials against those restrictions. Their view when it comes to foreign affairs they mostly appear to support the ideal expressed by George Washington of trade with all and ally with none. Where that was an exemplary policy at that time, the current world is far smaller and the United States has a far greater importance as a superpower and has made agreements and promises with other nations which even according to the Constitution are obligations which she is demanded to fulfill. Where, pray tell, is the American candidate for President who will loudly state that the United States has obligations as a signatory to numerous treaties, accords, organizations, alliances and various other legally binding agreements where American military might was the principle enforcer promised to the world and the many nations within and until the United States becomes incapable of providing her support, she is obliged Constitutionally of honoring those commitments. Please, for the continued benefit of the free world, America must seek a leader and then support that leader in all efforts of returning the steadying influence of the American presence and active participation on the world stage. Even if such is done solely because eventually any evil allowed to blossom in the world will eventually, if not sooner, come to the shores of America so she might as well confront these threats when they are in their diminutive infancy as that is better than allowing them to fester, grow and metastasize into a monstrous threat that even rivals the power of the United States. The world should never again come as close to falling before totalitarian threats as it had during World War II, never again!

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

April 17, 2014

An Alternate Path to Palestinian Arab Israeli Peace

By now one would think that the world would have realized that the traditional method of forcing negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel were a dead-end making peace unattainable and another route would have been sought. Despite all the claims and blaming of Israel for the failure of these efforts, the truth indicates that it is largely due to Palestinian intransigence and refusals to compromise on even a single item that has doomed all previous efforts. The old tried and failed method of applying pressure on Israel to make ever more grand compromises and concessions only to have the Palestinians to wave all offers aside and claim that there are just a few more concessions they require from Israel before they can make peace will have the same result as have all past attempts of this method. The Palestinians rarely itemize and list their additional demands and they change them making for the appearance of change which is inevitably perceived to imply advancing towards a real and final agreement. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just because the Palestinians choose some different main point to base their rejection upon at each turn does not mean that they have had previous demands satisfied nor does it mean they have moved any closer to reaching a point of agreement. All it is a measurement of is Palestinian refusal to negotiate in good faith and instead to be implementing the standard Arab response to making peace with Israel formed at the Khartoum Conference and known as the “three no’s” which are; no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. The Palestinians have amended the third point to no successful negotiations with Israel which they view as in keeping with the spirit and underlying themes of the Khartoum Conference.

 

So, what might produce a way around this impasse? Since it should have become evident that there does not exist any combination of concessions or offers that the Israelis could ever propose that would be acceptable to the Palestinians, why not try to approach the whole peace process from the other side, request that the Palestinians provide terms that they would accept and would be willing to offer Israel and work from that end. Of course this approach would require something that had only been in evidence by its absence up to now, honesty and a rational means of judging and endorsing any offers, expectations and efforts concerning all parties involved. It is not helpful in reaching a peace agreement to always blame Israel for every impasse or collapse of the talks and if any blame is aimed at the Palestinians side, always equivocating and adding reasons that Israeli actions were most likely the real cause simply allows the Palestinian intransigence to become set in stone and unmovable. The honesty would be applied upon receiving the conditions and concessions proposed by the Palestinians of the Israelis, and then having the mediating nation’s representatives review and consider whether or not such terms would be even remotely acceptable if demanded of their country in similar negotiations. This could easily be accomplished by simply asking themselves one question and, the difficult part by all appearances, answer if they would even deem to consider, let alone actually accept, the proposed offer if an adversary were to offer them in a theoretical peace negotiation with their country.

 

Follows is a partial list of some of the poison pills which the Palestinians might include in their peace proposals, assuming they would even deign to offer anything and not simply demand that Israel be tasked with making the offers as it is far easier to just say no than it is to draw up an agreement at the risk that the other side might accept them and then be stuck with a resolution by their own hand. The most obvious is one they use repeatedly to end negotiations in the past is the “right of return” for over five-million Arab refugees and their descendants some of which three generations removed from the original refugee. One might recognize the term right of return as the exact phrase and system by which Israel by which Jews to return to their native lands of Israel in what is referred to as making Aliyah. This is one of many terms and historical facts about the Jewish heritage and claims to these lands which the Palestinians have woven their own version out of whole cloth and which much of the world accepts blindly knowing full well they are fabrications and a totally false narrative. Another demand which would be difficult to accept would be the redividing of Jerusalem and retuning all of the Old City including all of the Jewish Holy Sites to Palestinian control which would mean that the Temple Mount and the Western Wall would once again be denied visitation for Jews just as was the case when these areas were under Jordanian control. The Jordanians also guaranteed universal religious rights to visit the Holy Sites for Jews and Christians causing the long years of thirst and hunger for visitation rights where people of both faiths suffered with only a few sparse and individual moments where visitation by non-Muslims was ever permitted by Jordan. The Palestinian promises would be equally empty of any true intent to allow non-Muslims rights to visit their holy areas within the lands they control. The surrender of half of Jerusalem with the high probability of losing the capability for visitation to the Temple Mount and other Holy Sites having actually been offered by the Israelis under the deal proffered by Prime Minister Olmert should be a solid indication that Israel is willing to make very serious and even damaging concessions in order to attain a lasting and real peace.

 

The same was evidenced by the releasing of over seventy-five terrorist murderers and terror planning masters as demanded by the Palestinians during these past negotiations and the sole reason Israel withheld the final release was due to additional demands made by the Palestinians concurrent with threats to blow-up the talks as soon as the final group was released. Almost all of the terrorists released by Israel were serving life sentences or multiple life sentences for their horrific and horrendous acts of murderous terrorism against innocent civilians including women, children, seniors and even in some cases infants. Another demand recently added by the Palestinians about a year ago, which has not received general circulation or even notice, was the rights to hold military exercises with any nation or nations and the hosting of such exercises without any limit on the forces participating as well as unlimited rights to raise and arm a military force to any potential deemed necessary. This demand was expressed as a reaction to the Israeli request that any Palestinian state be demilitarized with their security from any outside attack provided by the Israelis upon any request from the Palestinians. The Palestinians claimed that the sole reason they would require a military and such protection would be from belligerence coming from Israel. Another item which Israel has demanded and been informed by the Palestinians and is completely out of the question is that any agreement be the final and complete end of any disagreements and be considered to end all demands from wither party on the other. The Palestinians demand that they be permitted further grievances and the continued right to continue their resistance to the occupation of the remainder of Palestine. They claim it is their right to continue terror attacks for as long as the state of Israel exists and that they will only end their resistance when all of Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea has been liberated and cleansed of its Jews. This is not a complete list of the grievances perceived and claimed by the Palestinians but should get the point across that the main argument and complaint the Palestinian demand must be addressed is the fact that Israel exists. Placing the onerous responsibility of producing a final and lasting peace agreement on the Palestinians would reveal their complete intransigence, belief in blood libels, and their litany of unappeasable demands which can only be satisfied with the complete eradication of the Jewish State and the casting of Israeli Jews to the corners of the world back into the Diaspora, just as was inflicted by the Romans almost two-thousand years ago and with the identical intent as today’s Palestinians, the annihilation of Judaism as a faith, peoples, and nation from the face of the earth. When this tack also fails and proves absolutely that the Palestinians do not desire peace but the destruction of Israel, then the world must be prepared to accept the One State Solution with the leadership of the Palestinians made to return to their exile as they returned under false pretenses and thus should not be permitted to remain to continue to sew unrest and hatreds.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Next Page »

The Rubric Theme Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: