The Folly of Arrogance

Now two separate events occurred at about the same time. The response of our Administration as to the two betrays a bipolar approach to the Middle East.

Vice President Biden goes to Israel and was met with the untimely release of an Israeli government-approved program to construct housing in East Jerusalem. The fear of having Jews actually live in the housing caused a furor that Israel has committed an unpardonable sin against the United States, which called for the most serious of responses against Israel. After all, Israelis are our only true friend in the Middle East, so we can screw them at will unless they live on J Street.

At the same time as Biden was in Israel, our Secretary of State Clinton was in Russia, which issued its untimely release that Russia was going ahead with building a nuclear reactor in Iran - he response of our government was immediate - we said nothing, and then when we entered into our nuclear agreement with Russia - we said nothing. When we met in Washington with all other nations, we said nothing of Russia's actions.

We did discuss the possibility of a Russian and Chinese consent to some form of sanctions against Iran for its nuclear surge toward nuclear weaponry. To prove our intention to prevent Iran from their surge - we immediately withheld a pre-agreed shipment of bunker-busting bombs to prevent Israel from unilaterally attacking Iranian nuclear facilities, as they had done in Iraq and Syria, preventing the threat of American and Global security. Bipolarity has once again reared its ugly head.

Now we are advised that the Administration does nothing precipitously without analyzing background reports from advisors and experts. So, our President does this on the nuclear probability of Iran. In January he receives a memo from Secretary of Defense Gates which tells that the United States does not have any effective [that means implemental] long-term plans to stop Iran from obtaining or, when obtained, from meeting not only the threat but the actual use of such weaponry. Now that sort of a memo has got to give you a concern - actually it has to give you a stomach ache requiring immediate attention to stop the pain.

The non-Arab Islamic Iran - in spite of all of the pomposity of our President - stands as a threatened possible leader of the Arab Middle East. The political win on the medical care issue by the skin of his teeth seems to have instilled an arrogance of power as he now switches to foreign affairs. And, add to that, the possibility of a non-Arab Turkey, which was our ally when they were secular. Also add to that, that Iran has demonstrated a new air defense system, and it is very doubtful that the defense system is intended for domestic electric power. By the time they come up with a decision, if they ever do, how many dead will we endure?

After receiving the Gates memo and all others, he came out with his Nuclear Posture Review, which says that the United States would only use our nuclear arsenal against nations which also have nuclear capability and are part of the non-nuclear proliferation treaty and only against those nations which use biological or chemical weapons with devastating conventional military response. Whether there is compliance with the treaty provisions will be before the United Nations and the Nuclear Agency - so, we would be screwed again.

Based upon past experience, the world banned the use of poison gas - yet Iraq used it against its own people and in its war with Iran - the world response = nothing. So, what realistic choices do we have when any nuclear war will be unwinnable no matter who is left standing. Diplomacy is not a positive weapon when dealing with terrorists or the nations which support them while hiding in the background.

The Gates Memo must be considered as realistic and be responded to with a realistic answer untainted with nice guy language. There is a credit card advertisement which shows the articles which can be bought and the one which is priceless.

Mandatory Automatic Nuclear Detriment and Response is Priceless. Matter of fact, it is more important to our national security than where a Jew decides to live. It would seem that where Jews live in the Middle East may become an acceptable phase of American Foreign Policy in allowing Arab Palestinians to live in Israel while precluding Israeli Jews from living in Palestinian areas. We really didn't protest when Palestinians were driven out of Jordan in Black September - we didn't protest when the Kuwaitis drove the Palestinians out after the first Gulf War. So, why now?