And Now the Shoe is on the Other Foot

"And now the shoe is on the other foot" goes the old saying, and Democrats now learn that the shoe is tight.

Throughout President Bush's administration - an administration that had to deal with a terror attack the likes of which the world has never seen - Democrats were constantly jibing at the Bush Administration. "Fear Instigators" they called whenever Bush spoke of Al Qaeda or the Axis of Evil.

And now the shoe is on the other foot.

When former Vice President Dick Cheney criticized the Obama administration this week for pretending the country was not at war after last week's 2 attempted terror attacks, White House spokesperson carelessly chose his words.

He criticized Cheney and his likes for attacking the administration and not the attackers; adding that eight years of Bush era public intimidation produced no results. Funny. Is that not what he is doing right now, fear instigating? How are Cheney's remarks different than those of Democrats throughout the Bush era who attacked Bush rather than the 9/11 terrorists?

And now the shoe is on the other foot and it's tight. The Obama Administration must deal with threats not dissimilar to those faced by the Bush Administration with one hand tied behind its back. A hand Democrats' themselves tied in the recent elections.

So getting out of Iraq will take 4 years instead of 10 months (as McCain stated in his campaign), more troops are heading into Afghanistan instead of out (anybody remembers Democrats' criticisms of Bush for getting into Afghanistan?), Guantanamo will be shut down but transfered to Illinois (no more secret prisons, no more gross Human Rights violations rings a bell?) and who knows what's next? Indeed the Obama administration is slowly untying its hands. But ut has to be careful, for the American public remembers that when it comes to terror, Republicans' hands were free all along...

Saudis to boost production: Too little too late?

The Saudi royal house has anounced today it will be boosting production by 500 thousand barrels a day next month in order to fight rising oil prices. The official reason is the Saudi fear that rising oil prices will bring to a decline in demand and to discontent. Well demand is not likely to drop any time soon (we all need to get to work with our car and China is just developing a thirst); and while many assume that by discontent, the Saudis mean the discrantled mobs of Europe, the truth of the matter is that they fear the beast they might awaken further to the west, the U.S.

Americans are sick and tired of serving as a sort of world police. Gone are the days of the White Man's Burdon (not surprising, there is an African American candidate at the top). With rising oil prices Americans care less and less about democracy in the Middle East and other "nonsense" like genocide or hunger. The next American president will not be the one that says "I will bring peace in my time" or "a palestinian state". It will be the president that will say: "America, my baby, has an addiction to oil and it needs to quanch its thirst. Now we have the most powerful army in the world and by god I am going to get my precious America the oil it needs, whatever it takes". The whatever it takes part is the one the Saudis fear most. They know that if the American president is going to be hard pressed for oil, it will stop at nothing to get that oil including force and that frightens them.

Now I know what you may all be saying: well how is the U.S. going to do that without a multilateral UN consent? Let me remind you folks that George Bush waited for UN consent on Iraq, and when he did not get it, he went on it alone. Now maybe some Security Council members will object but it is unlikely. Europe is in pretty much the same boat as the US as the riots in Spain show, and along with the fear from Islam they are unlikely to say 'no' provided they get a piece of the pie.

Given this state of affairs it is understandable why Saudis want to boost production. Question is will they be able to get the others in OPEC to go along with it because analysts predict that Saudi Arabia is near top capacity and might not be able to bring the price down much as it once could.

SNAFU!!!... or is it?

It has been quite a while since my last post. Again, it is not that there are no news, it is simply that there are very few news worth reporting that constitute a significant change. In Israel corruption is on the rise, in Syria elections are forthcoming (I will let you guess the name of the next president) and in Egypt Gamal Mubarak is getting married while reforms are on hold (thank you left wing Iraq war opposition for explaining to the Bush administration Mubark Sr. position on the futility of fighting for democracy in the Middle East). And Iran? IAEA's Muhammad Al-Baredai predicts a new Shia bomb within 3 to 8 years to threaten Israel; but more importantly some Sunni governments...

But not all is bleak, for in Lebanon things show some improvment, with the new Al-Qaeda branch called Fatah -al-Islam being targeted by the Lebanese army. This is good. Good because for the first time the Lebanese government is doing something against armed militias in its territory. It is a further symbol of Hezbollah losing grip after the July war. Fatah Al-Islam has been operating from within Palestinian camps supported by Hezbollah due to its support for Palestinians vis-a-vis Israel. But now with Hezbollah weakened, both it and the Palestinians are pulling away from it altogether. Because with legitimacy in the balance and intl. control things are harder for the Shia militia. Hopefully the world will support Lebanon's attempt to re-assert its sovereignty and not fail it in the name of some misguided principles or information.

The N. Korea Nuclear Deal: Kim Jong Il - 3, GOP - 0, HR - 0

The truth of the matter is, that the reality of the recent deal struck between N. Korea and the West is not as terrible as the headline for this post describes; after all, the IAEA and the West do get some glimpse into the N Korean program. But the unfortunate part is that reality is not that far from it. This becomes especially clear if one considers N Korea's compliance history with regards to the Clinton agreement; and the Bush administration's Human Rights record filled with good intentions and abyssmal preformance. Could there have been a better agreement? One that would be better for everyone? This post argues that given the Iranian situation, the players at the talks, and N Korea's dreadful situation, then yes. However before one continues straight to the answer, it is important that we analyze the above "score" to see the problem.

It is not hard to see why the recent deal spells victory for Kim Jong Il. After all he got what he wanted - Nuclear power, Financial Help and a "get ou of jail" card - and is not that the definition of victory?

Kim Jong Il, and N Korea for that matter, are not Iran. For one thing they do not hold this messianic desire for the nukes for anything other than a bargaining chip; and for the other they do not have the vast natural resources. And so the energy pack is like mana from then for Jong Il just before the world is on a verge of losing patience with him because of Iran, and before the people lose patience with him due to food shortages. So we can see how the financial pack helps. But the people's plight brings us to his second victory, the "get out of jail" card.

Alongside his fear from his people, Kim Jong Il is truly afraid of mounting pressure from Human Rights activists affecting their governments during elections. Bush and other countries' refusal for diplomatic relations (he currently has relations with 27) deprives him of his much needed legitimacy in power in order to continue abusing his people for his dellusions of granditure. And so his ability to get relations with the US opens a whole new world for him of immunity from further criticism. After all, if the US agrees to have diplomatic relations with him, so would everybody else. However the third victory, Nuclear weapons, is the biggest of them all.

Kim Jong Il is not the man to rely on promises and pieces of paper as guarantee. He knows better than everyone what they are worth as he himself broke the accords with Clinton and kicked the IAEA out. He needed a final guarentee and that guarenttee is the prosponement of disarmament of weapons already produced to "later discussions". "Later discussion" is diplomatic lingo for "whenever I feel like it". 3-0 for Kim Jong Il so far.

All of N Korea's victories of course came at somebody's expanse. First and foremost of course, the starving people of N Korea. Amnesty International can yell as much as it wants but when those ambassies open up they will be in a whole new ball game, one in which they cannot win much to the dismay of said N Koreans. This of course is a huge loss for Human Rights. Another loss in Human Rights is not something the GOP can easily afford right now.

Following Abu Gharaib and Guantanamo Bay, the GOP has been under Democratic fire for Human Rights. At the same breath,following Iran and Iraq they have been under fire for exessive use of force rather than diplomacy. And here too is a place where they cannot win: Attack N Korea and you are a bully; Let Kim Jong Il get away with abusing his people through diplomatic relations and it adds to your abbyssmal Human Rights record. So what could they have done actually? Not much more but a little bit.

Though Kim Jong Il put on a pretty smug show, deep inside he was not. The situation from within and especially the situation with Iran was casting a huge shadow. Just the other day the EU, competing with the US for dominance by presenting a diplomatic way due to lack of power, addmitted that perhaps treating Iran with diplomacy was not the right thing. When the EU says that while the US is iching is pretty frightening. Fear that could have been used to demand full disarmament now and Human Rights transperancy in return for energy and relations. But could Republicans do it without being portrayed as bullies? No, but it is not like they had a choice.

When a politician runs out of lies and spins and whatever other trick up his sleeve, he is left with the one doom's day weapon he fears more than all: showing some principals. Let us face it: the GOP can do very little other than that in order to save its deteriorating image and not doing it is a final nail in their coughin. Just consider the following Democratic rhetoric v. Republican conclusion just prior to elections:

Democrats"We have seen the GOP's HR record when they left the people of N Korea out in the cold after Iraq while failing to deal with a mad man's weapons"

v.

Republicans: "We have done what was needed with N Korea and have been portrayed as bullies. The price to avoid that, Human Rights, was just too great a price for our principals to let it slide..."

Convinced?

An so in conclusion we have seen that the GOP could have taken a better road than the one it took with regards to N Korea at a small price to an already deteriorating image. A road that would have been better for all but ruthless tyrant. It has chosen unwisely, and it will cost it come election time.

At these moments President Katsav addresses the nation. He notifies that he will suspend himself and fight for his innocense. Katsav also says he will resign if found guilty. This is an appropriate step for now because as mentioned before, a man is innocent till proven otherwise.

In addition to this notification, President Katsav issues a harsh accusation of the Media, the Police and the the government's legal adviser (who will determine whether to prosecute) for conspiring against him in this. With the way fortune and government have tied a knot in recent years in Israel, this would not be surprising even if the President is guilty...

Meanwhile in Israel...

Israel's hottest issue at the moment is the alleged rape by Israel's President Moshe Katsav of several women. Alleged because in Israel, the same as in many Western countries, a man is innocent till proven otherwise. In that sense Israel is more Western despite its Middle Eastern location as indicated by commentator Keith Graves, in that that it at least investigates the allegation without letting the title interrupt the investigation. However Israel is truly becoming like America in other ways as well: it too has an alleged womenizer for a president, just like former President Bill Clinton.

Tags:
Katsav, israel, politics

The Nerve of Some People!

And once again we are back in Lebanon witnessing the damage being done to the country by some of its inhabitants. Said Hassan Nassrallah accuses PM Seniora of ruining the Lebanese Economy. This is the start of a coup.

Before Nasserallah's reckless adventure this past summer, which has claimed the lives of a 1000 Lebanese and 180 Israelis, Lebanon was on the road to prosperity. The eonomy showed a growth rate of 4.5%, which has dropped to -10% after it. This was the clear result of Nasserallah's preference for the bidding of his Iranian masters over the welfare of Lebanon's people. And now he dares to blame Seniora for the situation??? Really, Said Nassrallah should know better. He should know that an important element of the Arab culture is honor. And honor requires that one takes responsibility for his actions. A dishonoroble man would throw the blame at someone else at the first sign of trouble like your average politician. But in the end, perhaps this is all that Nassrallah is: An average reckless politician from the worst kind. The kind whose mistakes cost not just money, but lives as well.

Tags:
Nasrallah, hezbollah, lebanon, middle east, israel, iran

On the same day of my last post, but totally unrelated, Fouad Ajami published this op-ed in the New York Times

Lebanon and the Baker Hamilton Report

It has been quite some time since my last update. It seems to me that nothing has changed sufficiently enough to write about. Iran still holds to its right for nukes while the West waits, Iraqis sadly enough, are still slaughtering each other and so on and so on. However two recent events have occurred which require a special attention: Lebanon, and the Baker-Hamilton report on the Middle East. I will begin with the latter.

The Baker-Hamilton report, as commented by many Middle East experts, is dangerously naive from many angles; however it is particularly naive when it comes to Israel and the solution to the Middle East. There are many risks concerning following this line of thinking when it comes to the West.

Israel is the US (and the West's) manna from heaven and has been for years when it came to protecting it from radical elements in the Middle East. It has also been Arab rulers' favorite destraction for the people from their crewl regimes. Therefore whoever advocates any solution to the Middle East that will go too far in attempting to please Arab crowds (or think he does), better be damn certain that Israel is the cause. Because once Arab despots manage to weaken Israel enough to the point of pleasing their crowds, they run the risk of weakening it too much to allow radical Islamic elements to overtake it and use this new victory to overrun the despots themselves. It does not take a genious to understand what would Israel's collapse mean to the rule of Arab despots in the Middle and to the safety of the Western world. Once the buffer is gone there will be no turning back. So, again, one must be absolutly sure in Washington that they do not need the buffer zone before getting rid of it. It takes a special kind of naivette to think that Falahs (farmers) in Iraq and Egypt know anything about Israel to hate it. Israel's bif with the Palestinians have no bearing on civil strife in Iraq. At most it has a bearing on the international feud between Sunni and Shia countries in their control over the region. And it is here that Lebanon comes in.

Allowing Hezbollah as the radical Shia organization it is to take over Lebanon, would mean a shift in the balance of power in the Middle East that will send the entire region into a war of proportions unheard of. As mentioned here before, Israel is only a prestige prize between these two fighting camps. In fact, allowing Hezbollah to control will boost Shia popularity to such a degree that will allow Iran to pursue its nuclear program undisturbed. This prospect is one that not only the West and Israel fear, but also the entire Sunni Islamic world.

I guess the conclusions I want everybody to understand are as follows: First that I fear collapsing Israel to please angry Middle Eastern mobs (who probably do not bring Israel into consideration in their Islamic civil war) might turn out to be a mistake of collosal proportions to Israel the West and the Islamic world. A mistake none would be able to recooperate from. Second, that abandoning the progressive Lebanese democracy (who unlike many others in the Middle East actually works) in its hour of need simply to cut Western immediate losses and run, might turn out to be the tip of the balance that will bring this entire house of cards called the Middle East down.