Tag Archives: Iran

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.

Uncategorized

U.S.-Iran breakthrough, or breakdown?

President Obama made a historic phone call today.

He telephoned Hasan Rouhani, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The two men chatted for about 15 minutes, after which President Obama informed the world that he believes a deal to derail any Iranian effort to build a nuclear weapon could be struck.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/27/20722870-obama-and-rouhani-make-history-with-phone-call-thawing-three-decade-freeze-between-us-and-iran?lite

Some folks are hailing the phone call as a thawing of a 34-year-old freeze between the two nations. The last phone call between U.S. and Iranian heads of state occurred in 1979 when Jimmy Carter was president of the United States. It all went to hell later that year when Iranian “students” stormed our embassy in Tehran and held Americans hostage for 444 days.

Rouhani is sounding as though he wants to normalize relations with the United States and rejoin the world community. He’s launched something of a charm offensive of late, talking to a U.S. news network and speaking calmly at the United Nations. I am not totally comfortable plunging ahead with such an effort. I hope Barack Obama retains a degree of skepticism and moves very carefully.

We need to remember that for decades Iran has declared virtual war against the “Great Satan,” meaning the United States. It has declared its intention to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. It has supplied arms and other know-how to international terrorist groups, such as al-Qaida. It arms the Syrian dictator in his war against rebels. It has cozied up to Hezbollah and Hamas, two sworn enemies of Israel. The incendiary statements of Rouhani’s immediate predecessor as president also should not be dismissed and tossed aside.

A single phone call shouldn’t signal a “thaw.” It well might mean that it’s time to turn the temperature up just a bit to begin the thawing of relations.

But just as the late President Ronald Reagan said of Soviet strongman Mikhail Gorbachev, “Trust, but verify,” it is good to seek multiple verifications of any statement that comes from an Iranian president that might signal a new era in relations between two longtime enemies.

Here’s hoping today’s phone call has opened the door to that new era.

Uncategorized

Obama is winning the Syria debate

With all due respect to the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, President Obama is emerging as a victor in the struggle to rid Syria of the chemical weapons it now says it possesses.

Mike McCaul, R-Texas, said on Fox News Sunday that Russian President Vladimir Putin is the big winner here and that President Obama has been reduced to a bit player in this ongoing drama.

Well, that’s about what we’ve come to expect from a leading House Republican.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/322295-rep-mccaul-obama-no-victor-in-syria-deal

Living as I do in the heart of Anti-Obama Country, I am acutely aware of the negative views of the president’s handling of the Syria crisis. I am not happy with the way he’s handled some developments in this crisis. I wished initially he hadn’t backed off his threat to strike Syria in retaliation for that government’s gassing of civilians.

But consider what’s happened.

* Barack Obama issued the threat to hit Syrian military targets to dissuade Syria from using chemical weapons in the future.

* Russia, one of Syria’s main allies, steps in with a plan to get Syria to turn its chemical weapons over to international inspectors.

* The Syrians, who at first denied having the weapons, agreed.

* Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart agree to the deal and have given Syria a timetable to comply.

I agree the deal is fraught with danger. Syria might not comply, forcing the United States to follow through with its strike threat.

What was the catalyst for all this? The president’s initial threat to hit Syria.

Does that make Barack Obama look stronger or weaker? I believe it strengthens the president. Of course, those in the opposing party say he is weakened by all this. I would suggest that a strategy that results in Syria giving up its chemical weapons without having to bomb them into doing it takes us closer to an end to a serious crisis.

That view, of course, will be a non-starter for those who think the worst of the 44th president of the United States.

Uncategorized

Our nation is all ears, Mr. President

President Obama is going to speak to the nation on Tuesday in an effort to persuade his fellow Americans that a military strike against Syria is the right thing to do at precisely the right time.

I’m looking forward to this presidential speech.

20354377-obama-will-address-country-on-syria-calls-crisis-threat-to-global-peace

It’s not that I really need persuading that Syria needs to be punished. It used chemical weapons to kill civilians, including small children and women. That act needs a response. I do need persuading, though, that the president has signed off on a precise plan that includes an exit strategy. It needs a beginning, middle and an end.

What should the president say Tuesday night? Let’s start with these points:

* What precisely is the nature of this strike? Who and/or what will be the targets? No, the president need not be specific. He need not take a dive and surrender too much information to the Syrians.

* He’ll need to pledge, make a solemn vow, that the United States is not going to send troops into battle. Yes, we’ve done this kind of aerial campaign before, in Kosovo. It worked.

* The president will need to send a clear message as well to Syria’s allies in the region — namely Iran and the Hezbollah terrorists who run Lebanon — that they should think twice about committing reprisals against U.S. diplomatic personnel in the region.

* And the president will need to acknowledge Americans’ fear of yet another ground war. He needs to assure them in the strongest terms possible that a ground war is not in the cards. We have plenty of weapons capable of delivering much damage and misery to the Syrian military. They are the most sophisticated precision weapons on the world and we have a military force that knows how to use them.

The nation awaits your message, Mr. President.

Uncategorized

Iran awaits word on U.S. resolve

I’m beginning to think the fundamental question of whether the United States should attack Syria over its use of chemical weapons is this: If the United States pulls back on a direct challenge to make Syria pay for its actions, will it embolden Iran to commit even more mischief in the Middle East?

President Obama has pledged to strike Syria if it crossed a “red line” by using chemical weapons on civilians. The Syrians did the deed and the United States is now poised to launch air strikes. Obama has formally asked Congress for authorization and it appears that while the Senate might approve the request, the House of Representatives will pull back.

Without full approval by both houses of Congress, the president is left with two terrible options: walking away from his threat to strike the Syrians or acting on his own as commander in chief by issuing the order to strike.

If he goes it alone, he faces the wrath of a Republican-led House of Reps that detests virtually every policy he proposes. If the president walks away and gives Syria a pass on the hideous act of gassing civilians, he risks looking feckless in the face of imminent threats to a critical region.

Waiting in the wings is the Islamic Republic of Iran, one of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s primary allies, an exporter of terrorism and a known hater of the United States, aks “The Great Satan.”

The Iranians can bring a lot of misery to the region in a huge hurry if we fail to act.

The world awaits to learn how Congress will respond.