Tag Archives: Iran

International news, military news

Air power aid from Iran? Watch out!

U.S. intelligence officials believe Iranian air force jets launched air strikes against Islamic State terrorist targets about 10 days ago, using U.S.-made F-4 Phantom jets, sent to Iran presumably before the Islamic revolution of 1979.

This is a curious twist in a story full of intrigue and complexity.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-believes-iran-launched-air-raids-on-islamic-state-in-iraq/ar-BBghelW

Do we accept the Iranian help in bombing the daylights out of ISIL? Do we welcome the Iranians as “partners” in this fight against the Sunni extremist terror cult? Yes to the first part, no to the second.

Let’s remember that the Iranians still are our enemy. The Tehran government hates the Great Satan. It has vowed to destroy Israel, our most valuable ally in the Middle East.

However, the Iranian government is run by Shiite Muslims, the hated adversary of the ISIL Sunnis. Therefore, the Iranians have some skin in this game as well.

I don’t have a particular problem with the Iranians joining the fight against ISIL — as long as they understand that the United States won’t reopen diplomatic ties with their government as a thank you gift for helping us out.

There remain many barriers between the United States and Iran. Our government recognizes it and is making it clear that clearing away those barriers will require the Iranians to do many things, chief among them being dismantling their nuclear program.

If the Iranian air force can fly sorties against ISIL, let them have at it.

 

International news

The enemy of my enemy …

To the president of the United States, I offer this cautionary word.

Be very careful, Mr. President, in your attempt to enlist the aid of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/06/politics/obama-iran-isis-letter/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Yes, I know the saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Mr. President, do not consider Iran our “friend” by any definition of the word, no matter how loosely one might apply it.

The president recently sent a letter through back channels to the Iranian leadership seeking some advice and help in fighting ISIL. Indeed, Iran has some skin in this game. ISIL is a Sunni Muslim cult bent on restoring the Sunnis to power in Iraq and in toppling the dictatorial government of Bashar al Assad in Syria.

What’s the Iranian stake here? The Iranian government is run by Shiite Muslims, the arch-enemy of the Sunnis; what’s more, the Iranians have been propping up Assad’s regime with weapons and intelligence to use against the rebels seeking to overthrow the Syrian government.

Predictably, Republicans in the United States have been blasting the daylights out of President Obama for even talking to the Iranians. Their government hates the Great Satan and, yes, we detest their intentions as well, particularly their reported desire to acquire nuclear weapons.

Iran, though, can play a role in helping the United States rid the world of ISIL. It has substantial intelligence capabilities; it certainly has the motive to destroy ISIL.

However, does it have the will to make peace with the United States and, even more critically, with Israel if it means the end of ISIL?

Therein lies the multibillion-dollar question.

I don’t have a particular problem with an outreach such as what has taken place — but only if it is devoid of language that promises peace with a nation that first and foremost must renounce virtually its entire foreign-policy doctrine.

Tread carefully, Mr. President.

Uncategorized

Words of wisdom from the Holy Land

Periodically, I check in with my friends in Israel, who I met in 2009 while traveling through the country on a Rotary International vocational exchange.

I asked two friends, who live in Tel Aviv, about the state of things in his country. I’m concerned for my friends, as the country has been bombarded by rocket fire from Gaza, where the infamous terrorist organization Hamas is calling all the shots.

My friends’ response is as follows:

“We are all safe. Looks like the horrors of the recent operation are behind us now – but every day brings new news.

“Unfortunately the region is changing so fast, where previous enemies collaborate to fight new enemies.

“Take ISIS as an example. “This terror organization is about to change the balance of power in the entire Middle East and I hope they will be defeated soon.

“Israel may find itself cooperating with other Arab countries (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar and many others) against a new common enemy.”

It’s not simple over there, folks.

I continue to lay the blame for the violence squarely on Hamas, which today shattered the shaky truce with more rocket fire into Israel from Gaza. The Israelis responded with air strikes, reportedly killing two Palestinians.

My friend, though, has laid out what he thinks is a complicated scenario. Israel is having to make deals with recent enemies to combat a terrorist onslaught. Every one of the nations he mentioned regarding Israel’s cooperating with Arab states at one time or another has gone to war with Israel, only to be defeated on the battlefield.

Jordan and Egypt have forged formal peace treaties with Israel. Saudi Arabia is known to despise the Islamic Republic of Iran and the mullahs who run that country. Will these new friendships hold up under pressure from the terrorists?

I hope so for my friends’ sake, and for the world’s sake as well.

Uncategorized

Iraq crisis produces huge scramble

It’s becoming harder to keep up with all the competing interests in the burgeoning crisis in Iraq.

Consider the complexity of it:

* The Sunnis want to take the government back from the Shiites. Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Muslim. The current Iraqi prime minister is a Shiite.

* The insurgents fighting the government, led by ISIS, are deemed to be more violent than al-Qaeda, which has disavowed any association with ISIS.

* Iran is an Islamic republic governed next door to Iraq by Shiites also, but the Iranians detest the United States, which is involved up to its eyeballs in trying to broker a political solution.

* U.S. officials now are considering asking Iran for help in negotiating a deal.

* ISIS also is involved in the Syrian civil war, with rebels seeking to overthrow the dictatorship run by Bashar al-Assad.

* President Obama has ruled out “ground troops” returning to Iraq, but is sending in about 300 “advisers” to assist the Iraqi military in its fight against ISIS.

* The Kurds in northern Iraq also want a say in a “unity government,” which could include Sunnis and Shiites.

I need to keep sitting down. My head is spinning.

How in the world does a regular human being navigate his or her way through this mess?

http://time.com/2916436/kerry-back-in-iraq-meets-kurdish-leader/

Uncategorized

Working with an enemy … or a friend?

Good grief. My head is spinning over this bit of news out of the Middle East.

Iraq’s crisis — with Sunni Muslims seeking to overthrow the Shiite government in Baghdad — has prompted the possibility of the United States working (get ready for this one!) the Islamic Republic of Iran to find a possible diplomatic solution.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/209560-should-us-work-with-iran

How does that saying go, the one about “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”?

The Sunnis want their country back. They ran Iraq for decades under the ham-handed rule of Saddam Hussein. The United States invaded in March 2003, overthrew Saddam, who then was hanged.

Iraq then elected a Shiite government, friendlier to next-door neighbor Iran.

The Sunnis now have erupted, vowing to retake Iraq. Iran doesn’t want that, of course. It fought a bloody war to a stalemate against Saddam Hussein’s forces in the 1980s. The Shiites in Tehran oppose vigorously any idea that the Sunnis would take control in Baghdad.

Oh, and then there’s little issue of Iran despising the “Great Satan,” which in Tehran is also known as the United States of America. We’ve had no bilateral relations with Iran since those “students” overran our embassy in November 1979 and held those Americans captive for 444 days.

But in this instance, there might be some mutual advantage in seeking to stop the Sunni advance in Iraq. The Iranians want the Sunnis to fail, as does the United States, which has a serious stake in preserving the government it helped form in Iraq.

Should the United States reach out to its current enemy, Iran, in trying to broker a deal that ends the crisis in Iraq?

Yes, but only if the Iranians can be held to the tightest terms possible to ensure that they deal in good faith. Is that possible? Give it a try to make that call.

Uncategorized

No visa for Iranian U.N. envoy

Hamid Aboutalebi is Iran’s latest pariah in the eyes of the U.S. State Department.

He is the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations and the United States has denied him a visa to enter this country, which is headquarters for the U.N. The reason for his banishment? He was part of the gang of thugs that took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and began a 444-day hostage crisis 35 years ago.

Iran says it will appeal the ban.

Let the Iranians complain all they want.

The State Department is acting within its rights.

That crisis, which erupted in November 1979, still sticks in the craw of many Americans. Aboutalebi supposedly was one of the “students” who stormed the embassy and took 53 Americans captive. The crisis ended U.S.-Iranian diplomatic relations, although likely not forever.

The hostage-taking was part of the Islamic revolution that overthrew the shah of Iran earlier that year and reportedly was in response to this country’s long-standing support of the shah’s regime.

Civilized countries, though, do not allow for the takeover of another nation’s sovereign territory, which is what describes embassy compounds.

This visa denial, of course, does complicate the on-going negotiations between Iran and six industrialized nations that are seeking to persuade the Iranians to abandon its nuclear program – which many governments around the world believe is intended to develop an atomic bomb. Iran insists its nuke program is meant for “peaceful” means.

Sure thing, Tehran.

One diplomatic action need not relate to another.

The Iranians ought to propose someone else to represent their country at the United Nations. Surely they can find someone whose hands aren’t stained by that disgraceful deed at the U.S. Embassy in Iran.

Uncategorized

Kerry cannot possibly be an anti-Semite

An interesting development has emerged in Secretary of State John Kerry’s difficult struggle to find peace in the Middle East.

It turns out that the angry charges leveled at him by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet members — that Kerry’s promoting “anti-Semitic” notions — cannot possibly be true. Kerry’s family name originally was Kohn and that Kerry’s family has Jewish origins.

Grandpa Kerry/Kohn changed his name and his religion, from Jewish to Catholic, which John Kerry learned shortly before announcing his presidential candidacy in 2003.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/kerrys-brother-johns-not-anti-semitic-were-jewish-n30576

In fact, Cameron Kerry — the secretary of state’s brother — is a practicing Jew to this day, having married a Jewish woman.

Israeli foreign ministry officials, of course, are quite sensitive to any comments they construe to be against their interests. John Kerry said recently that “The risks are very high for Israel” after meeting with Iranian officials about plans to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program. Israeli officials took that to mean Israel needed to watch its step if it continued to threaten Iran with military action.

Naftali Bennett, an industry minister, said, “We expect of our friends in the world to stand by our side against the attempts to impose an anti-Semitic boycott on Israel, and not to be their mouthpiece.”

I understand fully the Israelis’ angst over negotiating with a country that has declared its intention to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. Let us take care, though, to avoid throwing around pejorative terms like “anti-Semitic” where it regards someone whose family roots run deep in the Holy Land.

Uncategorized

How should POTUS describe SOTU?

The state of our Union is … getting stronger.

There. I’m seeking to put words into President Obama’s mouth in advance of his State of the Union speech Tuesday night.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/196416-obama-to-travel-to-four-states-after-state-of-the-union

It’s not back all the way just yet, but it’s surely getting there.

That’s how the president ought to frame his speech, in my ever-so-humble view. Yes, even out here in Flyover Country things are looking up — no matter how much gloom and doom the Republicans who run everything around here try to make it.

Joblessness is down, employment is up. The deficit is down. Americans are signing on daily with affordable health insurance. Energy production is up, as is development of alternative energy resources. The stock market is up — the recent huge selloff at the end of the week notwithstanding.

The outlook at home is getting better. I hope the president doesn’t seek to continue the blame game regarding what he inherited on Jan. 20, 2009. That’s history. He owns this economy now, but the progress we’ve seen in the past five years is unmistakable and it needs to be hailed.

No, we haven’t reached the state of perfection. It’s always a never-to-be-achieved goal.

Huge challenges remain overseas. We’re still fighting that war against terrorists. I’m guessing that conflict never will end completely. As long as terrorists plot against nations such as ours, we’ll need to remain vigilant and ready to strike. My sense is that we’re remaining on high alert.

Yes, trouble spots remain: Syria, Egypt, North Korea and Iran come to mind. When have those places not given presidents heartburn for the past three or four decades? I’d say, well, never. Is there work to be done? Certainly. We need an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord; we need progress on ending Iran’s potential nuclear weapons development program; we need to find paths to peace all over the globe. It never ends. It won’t end when Barack Obama leaves office, nor will it end when his successor leaves at the end of his — or her — time in the White House.

I was one of those who felt a sense of unease about the future of our country. I’m feeling better about it today than I was, say, a half-dozen years ago.

Does the 44th president deserve all the credit for our recovery? No. He can claim some of it, pass around some kudos to others in government who’ve worked with him, while extending an olive branch to the folks on the other side.

Our Union is regaining its health, Mr. President. Say it like you mean it.

Uncategorized

Falling gas prices a boon or a bust?

A Bloomberg News Service columnist is issuing a warning about the falling gasoline prices.

They aren’t necessarily good for the nation’s economy or its long-term energy policy.

Pump prices in Amarillo now stand at about $2.92 per gallon for regular unleaded gas. That’s “cheap,” yes? And who would have thought $2.92 would be considered a bargain for gas?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-11/beware-of-falling-gas-prices-ritholtz-chart.html

Barry L. Ritholtz, writing for Bloomberg.com, thinks the price reduction is going to produce a spike in driving. We’re going to forget that we have a limited supply of fossil fuels used to produce gasoline. It happens every time we see these dramatic dips in gasoline prices, as Ritholtz has noted.

Then comes the sticker shock when the next overseas crisis erups in an oil-producing region — Syria, Iran, Egypt, Libya, Yemen … they all come to mind.

I don’t want to sound like a know-it-all, but my wife and I have recently invested in a hybrid automobile. It runs on electricity and gasoline. Our Toyota Prius is our No. 1 in-town vehicle, and so far the investment is paying tremendous returns for us. We’re averaging about 47 miles per gallon and filling it up about every two weeks for a mere pittance of what we normally have paid for fuel.

Our 3/4-ton diesel-fueled Dodge Ram pickup, the one we use to haul our fifth-wheel travel vehicle? That’s another story. Won’t go there. Suffice to say it stays parked most of the time.

We’re all enjoying the relatively cheap fuel at the moment. However, I intend to take Ritholtz’s warning to heart.

Uncategorized

Israeli PM takes dimmer view of Iran

I totally understand Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s mistrust of Iran.

He is bringing that message this week to the United Nations General Assembly and warns the United States not to trust Iran’s new president, who says he wants to make peace with the rest of the world.

http://news.msn.com/world/israels-netanyahu-warns-white-house-about-iran

President Obama placed a historic phone call last week to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, the first president-to-president contact between the nations in 34 years. Obama said a comprehensive agreement to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is possible. I hope he’s right, quite obviously.

Netanyahu isn’t so sure. And why should he trust a thing that comes out of the Iranian president’s mouth?

Rouhani succeeded a man who vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. Indeed, that’s been the stated goal of the Islamic Republic of Iran since its founding in 1979.

I’ve had the pleasure of touring Israel. I spent five weeks there in the spring of 2009 and witnessed up close the proximity between Israel and nations with which it has gone to war several times since Israel’s founding in 1948. The Israelis live in a constant state of heightened vigilance.

Iran doesn’t border Israel, but it is close enough to launch missiles westward and into Israeli cities. That is the concern Israel maintains to this very moment and it is the concern that Netanyahu intends to relay to the world community when he speaks to the U.N. General Assembly.

No, he doesn’t trust Iran’s newfound conciliatory posture. The task at hand is for the world to extract from Iran’s president ironclad assurances that he means what he says.