The leak from Obama's people was stupid. Some sort of gesture to the Israel hawks. But it's stupid because it doesn't need stating.

First the utter bullshit that is the Bush flunky statement -

"Who will convince the citizen in Kansas that the U.S. needs to get mixed up in a nuclear war because Haifa was bombed?"

Aren't we in a war of choice fiasco right now because the Bush group screamed to citizens of Kansas that a mushroom cloud was heading their way? This is just an attempt to undercut Obama's balloon.

But the reality is that if Iran, as it currently exists as an openly belligerent terror supporting state, did in fact, without doubt, destroy Israel with nuclear weapons, then the threat of a further strike against the U.S. and the danger that represented would be obvious. The U.S. would likely demand that Iran disarm, with full, unrestricted foreign access and control of any dangerous offensive weaponry. The "mushroom cloud" rhetoric wouldn't be just rhetoric. The U.S. would confront Iran if only for self preservation.

Of course Iran is years away from a nuclear strike against Israel that would not generate a comparable response from Israel. Israel has developed a submarine force for just such a situation. The more likely scenario would be a nuclear device supplied to a terror group, with resulting claims of innocence. At that point it would be interesting to see how the U.S. would respond. Could pockets of nuclear weaponed Bin Ladens in remote areas of Pakistan be allowed to exist? Could a nuclear armed state like Pakistan be allowed to keep its nuclear arsenal? Right now all this is speculation, but a nuclear terror strike, anywhere in the world (Israel is a distraction in that scenario) would require a much firmer response against terror. The sentiment would be as it was just after 9-11, but with a city or state destroyed with millions of dead instead of big buildings with thousands.

Unfortunately this would appear to be our future.

Incidentally, I know that Israel is the evil entity to many, but from my view the problem is oil and the wealth it puts in a region that is unstable and exploitive of its citizens. The support for that view is the first Gulf War, where Israel was bombed but not allowed to defend itself, even while its citizens were being killed by a foreign hostile state. The key in the situation was oil and under those circumstances Israel had to let its citizens die without response.

If alternatives to oil existed much of the problems in the Middle East would disappear, certainly in terms of concern from other parts of the world. The funding for terror groups would drop drastically. There wouldn't be money to develop nuclear weapons and there wouldn't be a need since no one would want to invade and control the area. The Israel situation would be much easier to resolve and likely would be done without outside manipulations.

Alternatives to oil can't come soon enough, both in terms of global warming and unstable nuclear states supported by oil wealth.

No one is going to give a nuke to terrorists. No one. They might just use it in the giver's country. And the repercussions are bad, for the "givers" state.

Terrorism is not about high tech, expensive weapons. Terrorism is done on a small budget. (Box cutters & airline tickets, shoot & run, cheap IEDs made from recycled explosives and scrap copper).

Bio warefare is just as stupid, unless one wants to heave rotting carcasses over city walls. Terrorists could be dramatically effective with small arms (from any gun show), matches, chainsaws and hijacks. Don't need a nuke.

And if it was a nuke, in a cargo ship, and it detonated anywhere in the world, there would be an instant halt to shipping.

It's the ecomonic effects of terrorism, the terror threats, that are its effectiveness, not its military effectivness.

Fears of Fascism as Israeli Extremists Prepare to Take Elections
ERUSALEM -- Israel's upcoming general elections early next year could see some of the country's most extreme right-wing elements, accused of being racist by some, winning the elections.

Right-wing poster boy Benjamin Netanyahu, a former Israeli prime minister, and chairman of the right-wing party Likud, is battling even more extreme elements in his own party in a bid to become Israel's next prime minister.

He will face off against Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, the chairman of the more centrist and ruling party Kadima, to lead the country. Current opinion polls indicate Netanyahu to be in the lead.

Likud held its primaries on Monday to prepare a list of candidates for the Knesset (Israeli parliament) with those from the far right making a strong showing.

Netanyahu had hoped that the more moderate elements he had brought into the party would help the party maintain a more moderate image. But during the primary hardliners captured and dominated the first 20 spots.

Chief extremist to make huge political gains and threaten Netanyahu's chairmanship was Moshe Feiglin, a fan of the early fascist and Zionist pioneer, Zeev Jabotinsky, who hailed from Russia.

His strong showing prompted incumbent premier Ehud Olmert to comment that Likud had turned from a party of peace to an extreme right faction.

(more...)

http://tinyurl.com/5wcny6

The extremist settler parties, ultra-Orthodox religious parties, and their devotees are pushing hard for a takeover of Israeli politics, which will force Obama's hand regarding "the peace process" and what remains of the "two-state solution" for Palestinian aspirations. The extreme right in Israel has no truck with no steenkin' two-state, and are dedicated to forced removal of Arabs from the West Bank, Jerusalem, wherever. Nasty business, especially that such sentiment has strong support amongst American neocons, the Christian right, and even amongst some "mainstream" pro-Israel groups. The Israel-Palestinian issue is going to grab centre-stage soon, and this is yet another fine mess that has landed on Obama's desk, along with the Aghanistan war travesty, all courtesy of his criminally inept predecessor.

If Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons (which is unlikely since they don't have any), the fallout from the radiation would kill millions of Muslims in the neighboring countries, either immediately or slowly over the following years. Radiation doesn't respect political boundaries, and these are very, very small countries. And the Iranians certainly know this. I really can't see the Iranians killing lots of Muslims. And the same goes for the Israelis. They know perfectly well that any use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East would poison the whole area, and that the radiation would eventually land in Israel as well. This whole idea of these countries using nukes is just a red herring, mostly generated by American and British Christians with financial stakes in the war industries. It ain't going to happen.

Andy Grotto.

Peter Juul.

Order page @ CFR.

Executive Summaries - one per chapter - pdf. Also available on the CFR page, Chapters 1 and 3.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass