A Tale of Two Potential Conflicts

Of all the potential flashpoints existing in the world, we would like to compare and contrast two separate potential conflicts; the possible intervention in the political unrest in the Ukraine by Russia and the possibility that Israel might intervene to attempt to address and mute the several threats across numerous fronts including Hezballah, Hamas and their sponsor Iran. Where any Israeli action against the growing threats made out of Iran would also require that Israel to take into consideration how they would address the additional arms that Iran has direct influence and could turn loose to attack Israel utilizing the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of rockets and missiles ranging through the gamut from Katyusha and Grad rockets to Scud, Fajr and Zelzal-2s. The questions in each case run the full range from what would be the reactions of the United Nations to reactions from the major powers and other significant groups and entities.

 

Starting with the possibility of a Russian intervention in the Ukraine, what are the various scenarios and resultant ramifications. It is very possible that the Russians will be able to claim that their intervention is in response to requests from the people of the Ukraine who saw the overthrow of the government as a direct threat to their interests and safety. Such a request could easily be made by the majority Russian citizens living in the eastern and southern provinces of the Ukraine who have made clear their preference for the Ukraine to align with Russia over aligning with the European Union. There are reports that the Russians have placed a large force on their border with the Ukraine including fighter and other aircraft wings which would be necessary to assist with any military intervention. United States President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry and Secretary of Defense Hagel have all made statements warning the Russians that the United States Administration is opposed and demands that they not enter or otherwise interfere with the political process currently occurring in the Ukraine. The odds that Russian President Putin will heed such a warning and have it influence his decisions are basically nil. Much of this has to do with the complete lack of the United States to back earlier warnings given to Syria when American President Obama announced his red-line and serious consequences on Syrian President al-Assad against his deploying chemical weapons. The complete ineffectiveness of the American threat of serious consequences resulting in dithering and equivocation by President Obama leading to inaction and a stalemate which was almost painful to witness and was thankfully brought to a definitive end when President Putin intervened proposing the confiscation and destruction of al-Assad’s chemical weapons arsenal granting President Obama a way to climb down from the embarrassment of being caught on his own petard.

 

Should the Russians intervene in the Ukraine the world is most likely to sit on their hands and not offer even the mildest rebuke. The truth is that the Russians, especially under President Putin’s leadership, are sufficiently feared and retain sufficient threat to cause any sane and reasoned person or nation to carefully consider if the Ukraine is really worth their potentially confronting the Russians and challenging President Putin. Furthermore, as the Russians are one of the permanent nations on the Security Council and possess a full right of vetoing any actions or proposals presented for consideration by that body, there is absolutely no possibility to condemn any Russian actions in the Security Council. The possibility of Russia being rebuked by the General Assembly is one of the most laughable proposals anybody could ever make. The General Assembly often appears like it exists for denouncing the United States, Israel and even the European nations while forgiving any transgressions by the entirety of the non-free and third world nations. The end result of a Russian intervention in the Ukraine would likely be very similar to the results decades ago when the Soviet Union rolled tanks and troops into the rebellious republic of Czechoslovakia on August 21, 1968, bringing the reforms and attempt to move out from under the Soviet thumb by Czechoslovakia with nary a significantly effective complaint from the entire world. Putting it succinctly, Russia could walk into the Ukraine and annex the entire nation reestablishing Russian control of the entirety of the Ukraine and outside of any demonstrations by Ukrainians there would be little effective protest. The resistance by any Ukrainians would be short lived and ended with whatever brutality was deemed necessary as that is the Putin way.

 

In the other situation, the cacophony of denunciations and demands for the world to completely condemn Israel would be deafening and seemingly universal. There would be a race between the different nations to bring condemnations of Israel before the General Assembly and the Security Council would be in emergency session before the sun set and possibly before the jets returned from a strike on Iran. There would be claims upon claims quoting International Law as requiring the condemnation of Israel for their wanton assault on another United Nations member nation. The justification which Israel could offer would never be given the slightest consideration in the rush to condemnation. But is such condemnation appropriate or would Israel have a right and justifiable reasoning behind such an attack that would be backed by International Law? Surprisingly to most, the answer is a definitive yes. The Iranian leadership including Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini, numerous Imams, many of the Ministers from the Iranian Parliament and numerous other members of the leadership both political and religious have publically called repeatedly for the annihilation of Israel. There have been large assemblies of Iranians, often weekly on Friday after services where the Imam likely gave a sermon demonizing Israel and calling for Jihad to reclaim Islamic lands, who chanted in unison repeating the chant often spoken from the podium by a high government or religious official calling out, “Death to Israel” as well as religious chants proclaiming the supremacy of Allah and their dedication to serve Allah often by actions to destroy the Jewish State. Speeches given by leading government leaders at parades and other events which almost always include martial demonstrations such as parading missiles on launchers in parades these leaders claim that the military strength displayed will soon be loosed on Israel destroying the Zionist Entity. These provocations, if they can be believed as actual statements of intent and the probability of their being a true forecast of actions exists, then Israel would have sufficient cause to attack Iran to destroy the Iranian ability to make war upon Israel under International Law. That is the crux of the argument behind the threats to strike the Iranian nuclear sites and the same arguments would also hold for an Israeli strike on Iranian military targets.

 

Where Israel would face a series of severe threats would be from the terror forces which are available to carry out any Iranian calls for attacks on Israel. These include minimally Hezballah and Hamas and could also include terror forces in the areas under the control of the Palestinian Authority, Judea and Samaria, also called the West Bank. This very likely was one of the subjects which was discussed when Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas visited Tehran, Iran recently. Such would most definitely have come up if Chairman Abbas was requesting any funding or other assistance from the Iranians, something which is very likely as Abbas appears to be incapable of visiting anywhere and not begging for funding. Where Israel would be hard-pressed in making an argument for attacking the Palestinian Authority areas, they would easily be able to make a convincing argument concerning both Hezballah and Hamas as both have left no doubt that their intent is the destruction of Israel and the genocidal slaughter of every Jew, often referred to as Zionists, residing in Israel no matter their political persuasions. The reality of any Israeli attack is that you would be able to count the number of nations that would actively support the Israelis would likely be countable on your two hands. Bless United States, the Czech Republic, Panama, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and especially Canada (with a salute to Prime Minister Harper). These were the only nations which found the nerve and good conscience to vote against recognition of the Palestinian Authority as a non-member state. Israel would face a boycott from the European Union and the Arab League would be red-faced in angry denouncements. Israel might not even be able to count on having the United States defend them with their veto in the Security Council. It might even be prudent for Israel to resign their membership in the United Nations which for the vast majority of its recent history has been the place Israel could go to be denigrated and denounced for her audacity to exist. The differences between a Russian military intervention in the Ukraine and Israel acting in her own self-interest and defense would be diametrically opposite in act and reasoning. Some things are only remarkable in their obvious predictability as in their lack of moral conscience and convictions.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

New Leaders of the Free World as Obama Bows Out

The negotiation of the terms for President Obama to surrender the credibility and honor of the United States on the world stage while giving control over the Middle East over to Iran hit a few snags that likely nobody from the White House expected thus never saw coming. President Obama knew he had legitimacy problems concerning his supposed Iran policy, so he had delegated misleading Saudi Arabian and Israeli leadership to John Kerry who did his master’s bidding in grand style. He informed the Saudis that the American deal with Iran would only release some minor funds frozen by the sanctions. That was a mild rebuke compared to what Secretary of State Kerry unloaded on Prime Minister Netanyahu and the entirety of the Israeli people when Secretary Kerry not only gave the same song and dance about the deal with Iran as he told the Saudis but there was far more damage to be done. Kerry publically instructed, schooled one might say, Prime Minister Netanyahu that Israel had, for its own good, find and do whatever was required to make a peace and establish the Palestinian State. He further told all that much of what Jews and Israelis believe is their ancestral homelands does not belong to them and if the Israeli government failed at this task they and the Israeli people should expect a third intifada and for the whole of the world to turn their backs on Israel. The reason for this was that Israelis have become too wealthy to know what is good for them and that if his instructions went unheeded then the Europeans would take their wealth from them. Where the choice of words used by the erudite secretary Kerry may have been different, this was the gist of his threats.

 

On a different slant but in the same arena, the leader who saved the world from surrendering to Iran and giving them their blessings through the P5+1 negotiations to continue their nuclear pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and an inevitable war using those same said nuclear weapons was French President Francois Hollande who vetoed the entire agreement which had been crafted mostly by Iran and agreed upon by Secretary Kerry and European Union Foreign Policy Chief the Lady Catherine Ashton. For all intents and purposes and as far as we here at BTC are concerned, the new leadership of the free world now rests with French President Hollande with strong backing and voice of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. It remains to be seen whether any other leaders will take a principled stand against the treachery and perfidy of the Obama-Kerry foreign policy which appears to be in the final stages of dismantling every single agreement, friendship, obligation or honorable stand which the United States had proudly stood for until President Obama came and has made and will continue to make good on his promise to fundamentally transform the United States. He has taken a once proud, dependable and honorable nation and dragged it through the mud of disgrace kicking it into the gutter among the other nations who are known for their contempt of truth, decency, respect of allies, actions in the interest of justice and keeping one’s word as a treasured and delicate promise. Whether the United States will be able to pull herself back up and onto the path she had trod since her birth will remain to be seen. The deficit she will trudge on carrying as a ball and chain is the now known truth that any election for President of the United States is capable of placing another disgrace in the White House who will treat the honor of the nation they have been elected to lead as a casual and trivial matter to be discarded and shredded at one’s own whim and without regard for the aftereffects such will have on the nation and her people. 

 

We had predicted that even knowing of the disaster that Obamacare could become that the real subject of the last Presidential election was foreign policy. No matter the ramifications and fallout from Obamacare, that can be rectified and does not poison the name of the United States. No matter the economic upheaval which awaits the dollar as soon as interest rates rise even the slightest, that too can be overcome though doing so will cause pain and distress. The damage to the United States’ good name and the trust gained through years of honorable relations and promises and treaties kept will not be regained anywhere near as quickly as any of the other difficulties that will face the United States when the full ramifications of having a President Obama will have caused. The truly sad truth is that with Obamacare and the economic damage done by President Obama the United States bears the brunt of the pain but the disastrous destruction of the United States reputation and trustworthiness on the world stage will allow for damages which will reach far beyond the borders of the United States and may lead to catastrophes which could result in millions of people outside of the United States paying the ultimate price in a world with no United States as a trusted friend and feared enemy. Thanks to the treachery in Geneva and future treachery which is about to reconvene in the near future, the United States has dishonored her commitments and thrown her friends under the ever growing bus where President Obama tosses anything for which he has no use or liking. It is a shame that the United States is included on that list. The question sitting now before the Congress is whether they see the need to take over the controls in determining foreign policy by passing legislation rectifying the treacheries committed by President Obama and then overriding his veto stating to the world that even the President of the United States is not all-powerful and even his extravagances can be restrained by a responsible Congress. Will Congress act or will they shrink before such a daunting but necessary challenge?

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Iran Using Same Old Ploy with a New Face

We just had another week of a new round of negotiations with Iran concerning their nuclear program and concerns whether it is designed to simply produce energy, as Iran claims, or working towards nuclear weapons, as Israel fears. The P5+1 (United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany) had varied claims concerning the results of these initial talks, with President Obama’s spokesman James Carney was quoted claiming these talks showed a “level of seriousness and substance that we have not seen before.” The European Union spokesman Michael Mann said, “We have come here with a sense of cautious optimism and a great sense of determination because we believe it’s really time now for tangible results.” Both of these statements indicate the optimism and hopefulness by the Western leaders to find something, anything positive on which to pin their hopes and desires to avoid any situation which might necessitate their need to take actions to prevent the Iranians from reaching the goal of nuclear weapons production. Meanwhile, the intent of the Iranians was probably best represented by their new President, Hassan Rouhani, who said Saturday that his country is pursuing “a win-win game” in its talks with the West. Additionally, President Rouhani said meeting with Giulio Haas, the new Swiss ambassador to Tehran, “I believe that during the Geneva talks, the political will of the Islamic Republic of Iran became evident to both sides.” The duplicitous meanings of his statements is as apparent as they were when similar position statements and intents were couched in diplo-double-talk where each listener is able to take from the statements either assurances or suspicions while the speaker has actually not made a definitive statement defining anything.

 

The truth of these meetings is that the main agreement they actually were able to reach was to agree to meet again in Geneva on November 7th and 8th. If anyone is able to remember, a feat that appears to be beyond many Western politicians and negotiators, back to the previous initial meetings before President Rouhani was elected and the face of Iran was President Ahmadinejad, then you will recall that at those initial meetings also ended with the Western leaders finding great hope, promise, and a “new honesty” coming from the Iranian negotiators, especially when the Iranians had appointed a new lead negotiator, and these meetings too only honestly resulted in the sides agreeing to meet again sometime in the ensuing six to eight weeks. So, we once again find ourselves at the stage of the Iranian nuclear negotiations where hope springs eternal, Iran has just outlined a new honest approach showing a real sense of sincerity and willingness to make real progress towards allying the fears that they are seeking to make nuclear weapons. They have intimated their willingness to allowing inspections at all of their nuclear sites, the end to enrichment to or above 20%, conversion of current enriched Uranium into fuel rods (a technology that many believe may be beyond Tehran’s abilities to produce), snap surprise inspections by the IAEA, and a slew of other goodies all of which were stated with the design of whetting the appetites and spurring on the hopes of the Western leaders that a new dawn was at hand. All of this has such a “Peace in our time” feeling to it that is just downright scary. I am almost expecting one of the Western lead negotiators to deplane holding a piece of paper above his head as he walks up to the waiting press and a cluster of microphones to announce the great breakthrough and the end of all suspicions over the obviously innocence of the Iranian nuclear program and the mechanisms which will assure all but the most cynical disbeliever. Whether or not they add Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s name as that disbeliever or not, we here can add Beyond the Cusp as that disbeliever.

 

These new promises and revelations of the Iranians desire for openness and an honest deal which will ally all fears is nothing new. At the November meetings the Iranians will begin backpedalling from those positions as they start to define them back away from the optimistic interpretations currently all over the press coverage and new sticking points will soon begin to appear as those same optimistic Western leaders are faced with the reality that Iran was playing chess while they were engaging in tiddlywinks. It is the same old pattern but this time instead of the contorted screaming madman face of Ahmadinejad the Iranians have the new, improved, smiling face of President Hassan Rouhani to reassure that Iran is sincere and this time is truly different. When it comes to believing such all we can say is, not so much. Let’s see what you say down the road as we have seen this song and dance before. We have all taken the pony ride of the new Iranian negotiator and this new Iranian President has very much the same old feel of that previous game. The only sane approach to this new level of excitement and expectations of a great new beginning is to honestly admit that we have all seen this before and we will judge by what the Iranians are not only willing to sign on to in an agreement but furthermore, how well they abide by those same terms when the surprise inspections begin and the enforcements of the other stipulations. But first things first, we still have a long road to traverse before we even get to the first stages of writing the actual agreements, let alone signing and implementing them. We must do as was promised by President Reagan in his arms treaty with the Soviets, “Trust but verify!” That has to be our minimal demand before we can celebrate the new Iranian attitude.

 

Beyond the Cusp