Israel - Going It Alone

For several years we have isolated Iran as the number one threat to US security. We have not ignored Iraq nor Afghanistan, nor Syria nor N Korea but a mullah-run Iran carries the potential to do more harm to more innocents in less time than any other state-sponsored terror organization in the world. Her bellicosity can easily lead to another world war.

Some in the West feel isolated from this risk; others feel directly and immediately threatened. This week in an article in the Times of London we read that Western officials are reportedly offering Israel a deal to support a military strike on Iran, in exchange for Israeli concessions in Palestine - land. In our view, the West figures what the heck, it’s inevitable, so let’s get something out of the deal. Israel has witnessed Obama’s lame approach to this conflict. As most in diplomatic circles realize, she knows now she must go it alone.

There is nothing new under the sun. Most of us recall Hitler’s re-arming after the Treaty of Versailles. England and France held hands together in the dark. We all recall the English PM Chamberlain, his triumphant return on 9/30/38 and speech at the Heston Aerodrome for bringing "peace to Europe" by signing a non-aggression pact with Hitler. "My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour," he said. Hah! Too much.

Liberals have never learned these lessons and as a result all of us must suffer. A friend from the Marin fruitcake left, unburdened of any sense of history, said to me when supporting continued dialogue with Iran, "Hey, it’s worth a try." Now this is constructive, useful input.

So there is no way, at least Israel believes, other than a strike. We know of course there are indeed other ways; our solution - a sanction or blockade of gasoline - although popular in Congress on both sides of the aisle, is opposed by BO as too extreme. The very best solution is of course successful dissent from within - the birth of a genuine consensual government. We may have received a little assist in that direction this week as a big wig mullah by the name of AH Rafsanjani denounced the government crackdown on protests and called for the release the hundreds detained. He reprimanded the leadership for not listening to people's complaints over the election. Who knows; at the very least his tearful sermon highlighted a schism withing the mullah club. Certainly the protestors, emboldened, took once again to the streets.

But back to reality. Obama's policy is a lose/lose proposition that has pleased neither side in Iran and discouraged Israel. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, isn't going to suddenly embrace the U.S. because of Obama's kumbaya approach, much less stop subsidizing terrorists and developing a nuclear arsenal. And what about other pro-democracy dissidents abroad — whether in Cuba, the Arab world or Venezuela? How do these people feel now for goodness sake? Will they still trust that the U.S. supports their efforts to obtain a free society? For the answer, see our recent sketch - A Requiem For World Democracy.

Meanwhile, authoritarians in China, North Korea, Russia, the Middle East and South America have drawn two conclusions. One, the United States doesn't care what they do to their own people. Two, Obama will overlook almost anything in order just to get along.

And that is why Israel will go it alone.

Robert Craven

A Requiem For World Democracy

In our last sketch we stated that in reacting to the Iranian opportunity, rather than leading, Obama had in a few day’s time gone a long way in relinquishing the US role as leader of the free world. Now the thugs who rule Iran know that they can murder their own people, ignore UN resolutions and scoff at the US president, all without consequence. The mullahs have only contempt for Obama.

For years we have supported the advance of consensual rule, not just in the Mid East but in other parts of the world, where potentially vibrant populations live in cesspools. The more democracies the better. This is win win. Obama discarded the rare chance to help birth just such a consensual government in Iran. His timidity was disguised as reason, prudence. But that was two weeks ago. Obama has suddenly switched from passive to active mode. Now, no more timidity. Last week he flew out of the box, pouncing on the people of Honduras for trying to uphold their constitution, their rule of law. Along with Castro, Noriega and Chavez, Obama cried foul. Who is this guy? He has gone from ignoring to now trouncing democratic hopefuls.

In the news we heard of a coup in Honduras, an illegal coup according to BO. There was no coup. Instead, the military blocked an attempted civilian coup by leftist Manuel Zelaya as he defied Honduras’s Supreme Court, its Congress, and his own political party. But Obama’s statement that Zelaya "remains the president of Honduras" is moronic. Really. An embarrassment for all of us. Obama has made our position the same as that of Argentina, Cuba, Ecuador, and Venezuela. Is this a good thing?

Background: Zelava was Pres of Honduras. Chavez was/is his role model. So Zelava in the fashion of Chavez decided he wants to be president just as long as he darn well pleases. To do that he had to get rid of constitutionally-dictated term limits. But to change the constitution one needs a constituent assembly; the president can’t call that. Only the Honduran congress can approve a referendum calling for any change to the constitution. Zelava didn’t like that part. Hah!. So, he decided to call a national referendum on his own (and have Chavez print the ballots!), even though he had no power to do so. The Supreme Court said no way, and told the military not to help with the phony referendum. So after the supreme court's decision, General Romeo Velasquez tells Zelaya that he is subject to a proper order from the Supreme Court and will not be able to carry out Zelaya's referendum. So ... Zelaya fires him. The Supreme Court orders Zelaya to reinstate Velasquez, and Zelaya refuses to do so. Based on the Supreme Court's ruling the Honduran attorney general said that the proposed referendum was illegal and said that he would arrest anyone attempting to carry out the election. Zelaya was arrested by the military and escorted out of the country.

Why is this so tough? Does this sound like a military coup? The attorney general and the military were operating in accordance with the Honduran rule of law. They acted under a valid court order. The Honduran congress has convened and designated a successor president, all in accordance with the Honduran Constitution. Military coup? The presidential elections set for November .. the election that Zelaya was trying to get around ... will go on as scheduled.

Instead of calling for his reinstatement in office, BO should congratulate the Honduran government on removing the president peacefully, and in so doing he would encourage other infant democracies. But Obama? He has given away so much in so little time.

Robert Craven