Obama's Duplicity: With Iran a Mouse, With Honduras a Lion

The "Wimp in Chief", Obama, squirmed and weaseled his words with the Iranian Mullahs and their puppet-tyrant, Ahmadinejad. He did not publicly lend support to all those Iranians taking to the streets, risking life and limb for more liberty, supposedly, not wanting to be seen as “meddling in Iran’s internal affairs”. If there is anyone on this planet that is not familiar with the Iranian regime, we’re talking about a tyrannical theocracy, known throughout the world as beneath -contempt oppressors of every human right under the sun. He did use the words, "appalled" and "outraged" once pictures went round the world of Iranians demonstrators beaten and killed in the streets of Tehran.

This week, the Honduran socialist president, seeking to gut his country's constitution in a shameless power-grab, reminiscent of his friend, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela was rightly deposed by the country’s military.
Obama's response to the Honduran military removing a dictator-wannabe from office (at the behest of the country’s Supreme Court and the Honduran Congress), and escorting him to the border, was sure and fast. He declared the military action an "illegal coup", in tone with the region's socialist gang: the Castro brothers, Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega.

The OAS has given its full backing to the exiled socialist, especially not now, when has paved the way for Castro's readmission into the organization.

Internally, Obama has the backing of the Communist Party USA which is in full agreement with him and even has some of the same demands of the Honduran people:
•Demands that president Zelaya and other members of his government be returned to power immediately, and that the troops return to their barracks.
•Refusing diplomatic recognition and any military aid to Honduras until President Zelaya is restored to power.
•Calls upon unions and other people's organizations in the United States to actively support “our brothers and sisters in Honduras in resisting this brutal military coup d'etat”.

On this background, it should be reminded of the Iran-Venezuela Axis.

Chavez is a vocal supporter of Iran's nuclear program, which is under United Nations sanctions because of fear among the U.S. and its allies that it may be used to build atomic weapons.
Iran and Venezuela are to sign some 20 agreements in various fields during Chavez's visit to Iran, according to the official news agency IRNA. Chavez's visit to the Islamic republic is the third since Ahmadinejad won the presidency in 2005, Iran's local media reported.

Chavez, the socialist, and Ahmadinejad, the Islamo-Fascist, have become quite friendly. Chavez has threatened military action against the Hondurans to restore his pal, Zelaya, to power. Ahmadinejad has called for Israel’s destructions on numerous occasions.

An unholy alliance is being formed by two disparate forces – Islamo-Fascism and Socialism -- united on a tyrannical bent against freedom, against democracy and human rights, against America. Despite their theoretical differences, these regimes share one glaring, common belief: America is responsible for all the suffering and injustice throughout the world. This overriding disgust with America holds together these disparate, radical regimes.

Whose side does Obama take?

Obama - A Mistake the Israelis Cannot Afford to Make

In baseball terms, it's called "taking one for the team". In other words, Obama would like to demand that Israel sacrifices its security to test Iran's willingness to make peace.

Neither Obama nor his minions will put it in those terms but they allude to the "linkage" between the urgent need for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians and Iran's willingness to give up their quest for nuclear weapons.

The "linkage" idea was thrown around by Rahm Emanuel, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton and it is a foolish idea, real only in the minds of those who refuse to see three fundamental realities of the Mideast.

The first is that Palestinian culture is dominated by a culture of death and bloody "martyrdom", with children programs, music videos and mosque sermons all glorifying death and war against the Jews.

The second reality is that Iran has repeatedly demonstrated that it will not give up its nuclear aspirations voluntarily. Even its so-called "moderate" leaders see the bomb as a ticket to regional dominance and the final victory over Israel. One such "moderate" called Israel "a one bomb country," meaning one would be enough.

The third reality is that there is simply no linkage between the creation of a Palestinian state and Iran's ambition for nukes. To believe otherwise is to believe Iran embarked on the nuclear quest because the Palestinians lacked a state. Nobody in their right mind believes that.

Yet Obama is charging full speed ahead with its vision of a deal, conforming to the liberal Democrats' view that Netanyahu and Israeli conservatives are the problem.

If Israel were to agree to Obama's demand, it likely would get the worst of both worlds: more violence from the Palestinians while Iran merrily moves toward the bomb.

It would be suicidal for Israel to entertain the idea of a nuclear Iran. Even if they assume Iran would not 'nuke' Israel (out of fear that a counterstrike), the Iranian possession of a nuke would wreak havoc do to the morale of its society. The Israelis would be living under threat of a Holocaust every day.

Just because the American people has been fooled into trusting Obama does not mean that the Israelis should make the same mistake.

To Bomb or Not to Bomb

This seems to be the key question as Iran has rejected yet another overture from the West, Russia and China. It is obvious by now to all fair minded people that the Islamo-Nazi regime in Tehran is playing games and stall tactics in order to gain time. Deluded lefties prefer to close their eyes (and minds) and call this "Iran's efforts to resolve the crisis by diplomatic means".

As the perception that Washington now prefers diplomacy over confrontation with Tehran sinks in, Israel's options are shrinking. Israel has purchased 90 F-16I fighter jets and will receive 11 more by the end of 2009. These jets are capable to operate in Iran. Israel has also bought 2 more Dolphin submarines - in addition to the 3 it already has - capable of firing nuclear-armed warheads.

The foreign media also likes to speculate that Israel already has intelligence cells actively operating inside Iran (no such reports have been confirmed).

Israel estimates that the mad regime in Tehran can have enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb by next year, which prompted Shaul Mofaz (Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and possibly next Prime Minister) to say last week that "if Israeli, U.S., or European intelligence gets proof that Iran has succeeded in developing nuclear weapons technology, then Israel will respond in a manner reflecting the existential threat posed by such a weapon".

A nuclear armed Iran is a threat for the entire civilized world, whether this world realizes it or not. However, for Israel, it would be an existential threat. Israel does not have the "luxury" to ignore such a threat, live with it or dismiss it (like Obama, who said that Iran does not pose a danger because it is a "small country").

Iran, of course, maintains that its uranium enrichment plan is meant for "electricity generation" only, but apart from the "anti-war" lunatics and those who'd actually like to see a terrorist nation posses the Dooms Day Weapon, no one in his right mind can believe that.

Since Fuhrer Ahmadinejad is not going to stop, the question is what to do: To Bomb or Not to Bomb?

After destroing the Iraqi reactor and more recently, the Syrian one, Israel has sent a clear message that it will not tolerate its sworn enemies getting nuclear capabilities and is willing to use force preemptively against any target.

"For Israel, Iran is not a target that cannot be achieved," said Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi-Farkash,
former head of Israel's army intelligence. However, Israel will most likely seek and need the US approval for such a move.

Bush administration officials last week assured visiting Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak that the U.S. has not ruled out the possibility of a military strike on Iran.
And the U.S., aware of Israel's high anxiety over Iran's nukes, is also hooking Israel up to an advanced missile detection system known as X-Band to guard against any future attack by Iran.

If Israel attacks, it will face the Russian-made Tor-M1 surface-to-air missiles purchased by Iran only last year.

Military experts say an Israeli strike would require manned aircraft to bombard multiple
targets and heavy precision bombs that can blast through underground bunkers. It is widely assumed that Israel posses bunker buster bombs.

Elite ground troops could also be necessary to penetrate the most difficult sites, though Israeli military planners say they see that option as perhaps too risky.

US has far more superior capabilities to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities. The United States has cruise missiles that can deliver high-explosive bombs to precise locations and B-2 bombers capable of dropping 85 500-pound bombs in a single run.

Besides the "how" and "when", the aftermath of such an attack is also a big question mark.

Iran could halt oil production and shut down tanker traffic in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which could send the price of crude skyrocketing and wreck Western economies.

It could stir up trouble for the U.S. in Iraq and activate its militant proxies in both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, from where Israel could come under heavy rocket attack. It could also strike Israel with its arsenal of Shahab-3 long-range missiles — something Israel is hoping to guard against through its Arrow missile defense system.

Whether an attack on Iran would be worth its cost would depend on how long the nuclear program could be delayed, said Chuck Freilich, a former Israeli deputy national security
adviser and now a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School.

"For a five to 10-year delay I would say yes," he said.