Mr. President you have erred

The political background against which the 2008 US Elections took place was hardly a predictable one. (R)Senator John McCain of Arizona, a decorated war veteran and proven leader ran against the relatively unknown (D) Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

One major difference separated these two men: Barack Obama’s charisma and political savvy. Senator John McCain certainly fit the bill to be appointed to the highest office in the world, but he lacked the flair and flamboyance of Senator Barack Obama.

While Obama was able to rattle off the right words as effortlessly as greased lightning, McCain would fumble and stutter – not through his inability for structured thought and strategic leadership, but rather through his incompetence as a public speaker.

Obama wooed voters with his dynamic approach. He made use of the internet, public funds and a huge disillusioned base of Bush-era fatigued voters. The failed war in Iraq – often cited as the legacy of the Bush Presidency, was usurped by the Obama administration for all its worth.

Voters needed a scapegoat and all Bush-era doctrine and foreign policy bore the brunt. It was a case of old-school Republican failures vs. an era of Democratic liberalism and inflated government. Obama promised a rapid de-escalation of the Iraq war effort, a focus on education and clean energy, affordable health care, special attention on minority rights and a total break from the past.

McCain was blindsided by his own campaign. They painted him as the humble, decorated war hero of yesteryear. McCain has been toted as a self-made man, a leader of men and a qualified candidate for the world’s highest office. But McCain failed to offer what it was that the Obama campaign was so successfully promoting – Change.
Americans had long grown tired and distrustful of a war effort that was based on false assumptions. There were no WMD in Iraq. It appeared to the public as if Bush and Cheney were pursuing a personal agenda of the old-school Republican think tank: attack Iraq, destroy its infrastructure and seek to impose democratic governance through unilateral initiatives. Bush was a man of action, not scared to act alone when the world dragged its feet. This proved fatal at some points, especially when America’s actions were deemed illegal and expansionist by parties in the region.

Bush acted on his threats and he cautioned the world against the rising threat of Islamic militancy. The EU and other allies of the United States were war weary and they were reluctant to commit themselves to an unpopular military campaign with no end in sight. Britain, a longtime friend of the United States, withdrew its forces followed by other countries. Owing to global protests against the war efforts, rising costs in civilian and military casualties and the enormous financial burden entailed, the war rhetoric was losing support at a geometric rate.

Against this backdrop of declining support for President Bush – all-time low approval ratings ensued – Barack Obama ascended the ranks of the Democrat Party. He brushed passed Hillary Clinton who ultimately had nothing but praise for the new candidate. Obamania had gripped the world. Barack Obama was simply unstoppable. He spoke of change, of Main Street and not Wall Street, he championed the little man and not the corporate, he spoke effortlessly and plainly of the challenges that Americans face on a daily basis.

Then the Achilles Heel of the Republican campaign struck. The Global Crisis of late 2008. Within a short period of time the housing crisis, mortgages banks, sub-prime lending rates, credit crunch and international insurers and financial/investment houses hit the headlines. It wasn’t good news that was awaiting the world. Massive and widespread layoffs and unemployment ensued; corporate bankruptcies by the dozen, home foreclosures, credit drying up and a crisis of unimaginable proportions gripped the global market. Fear and panic swept like a raging wildfire through the hearts of Americans as first their jobs, then their homes and their families’ livelihoods were at stake.

Obama was elected to the highest office. McCain was relegated to the annals of history as the man who challenged, but was ultimately defeated by President Obama. This was the coup de grace of the Obama camp. McCain and his old school Republican friends were seen as the enemy by the American people. Bush and anyone associated with him was a symbol of failure, of unilateralism, of deceit. The Republicans were seen as pro-corporate and against the average working-class American. Obama promised tax-cuts to 95% of Americans, according to his perception of income brackets. McCain could only cling to Obama’s coattails and offer the American public that he would work alongside Obama in the new presidency.

Obama seized on this crisis and presented what appeared like a workable plan to the American people. This came in the form of a massive and unprecedented bailout. Hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds would be used to prop up banks, insurers, automobile manufacturers and investor confidence. The so-called ‘Toxic Assets’ would be bought up by the massive government expenditure and confidence would slowly begin to return to the global market.

Where were all these funds coming from? How did the Obama administration plan to deliver on such promises? With the fear of the Americans and the grand-plan of the Obama administration Congress soon passed a series of stimulus bills that were unheard of in the history of American legislation. A bailout was proposed, which was in excess of $800 billion with well over a trillion dollars ultimately being spent to kick start the American economy.

President Obama knew that by inflating government bureaucracy, awarding contracts and huge budgets to multiple offices across the nation, jobs would be created. What Obama perhaps failed to take into account was the impact that failure of such unprecedented action might have on future generations of Americans. The money had to come from the coffers of the state – from corporates and small businesses. In Obama's defense, the cost of inaction outweighed the potential pitfalls of a failed stimulus package. The tax-payer dollars were being channeled according to the whims of Congressmen and the President. Obama would scold CEOs for being greedy and chastise them for taking profits while the American people were eating humble pie.

But what Obama’s myopia failed to understand was that it was this reality of corporate America that had put America in such a position of dominance in the first place. It was the American capitalism coupled with minimal government involvement in daily life that made the American free market system as successful as it was. The housing bubble had burst and suddenly a quick-fix solution to the unprecedented crisis was being sought. In economics, quick-fix solutions are merely stopgap measures with no strategic timeline. The crisis was fueled by buoyant confidence, which is essentially the perception of people that otherwise drives any stock exchange system.

The Obama camp lay blame squarely on Wall Street and the Bush-era policies that failed to check the activities of these corporations and their accounting practices. Where Bush had failed was in making transparency and accountability more of a priority. But such a series of events could well have occurred under any administration’s watch. Nonetheless Obama seized on this opportunity and promised to clean up house so that Main Street could benefit.

Many Americans feel that President Obama is doing a fine job. They feel that in his first 100 days in office he has achieved the unprecedented. The stimulus package has been passed, moves are afoot to liberalize policies on multiple fronts, the economy is said to be bottoming out. But what President Obama has done is far more than expand the size of the American bureaucracy. He has set in motion a series of foreign policy changes that are likely to change the global political landscape forever.

This is perhaps Obama’s most injudicious political blunder. His desire to be liked and to become a listening partner, not a dictating world power is what has caused the collapse of American dominance. It is crucial to the world at large that America as the beacon of democratic governance, freedom of speech, religion and association maintains its leadership. Exceptionally liberal ideas in Washington are clouding the global waters. This is a dangerous move by the Obama administration and one which is likely to be perceived by America’s enemies as a sign of weakness.

President Obama in his anxiety to break from the Bush administration has allowed the symbolism of America to dramatically weaken. He has personally allowed the image of America to be weakened by his subservience to those he seeks to court. Barring his dubious bowing in front of the Saudi King, his promises to listen and not to dictate terms and his embracing of Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Castro regime, things are looking ominous from a foreign policy perspective.

Obama who was fiery-hot in favour of Israel’s right to stand against terrorism and Islamic extremism is now trying an even-handed approach which is anything but pro-Israel. His advances towards Iran and its tyrannical leadership are perhaps the most incorrigible foreign policy approaches of all. A known anti-Semite in President Ahmedinejad who is also a sworn enemy of democratic systems of western governance, yet Obama is seeking the friendship and compassion of such a villain.

Instead of using the strength of the international community to apply significant pressure on Iran, the Obama administration is seeking to legitimize the fundamentalist Islamist Iranian leadership by airing conciliatory speeches on Iranian television and inviting the Iranians to participate in all matters of global significance. That the Iranians are seeking the annihilation of the State of Israel and to destabilize Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia is of little significance to President Obama. It is his firm belief that negotiation with a terror-sponsoring nation is the way to achieve peace and bolster America’s global image.

At what cost will America sell her soul to be liked by the radical Islamic world? At the cost of American pride, dominance, freedoms, support of Israel and all democratic governance? At the right of Iran to pursue a cataclysmic nuclear weapons program? At the expense of an arms race in the Middle East? The Mid-East envoy George Mitchell has been dispatched to the region and his calls for a 2 state solution to the Israel/Palestinian issue have been voiced.

What Obama fails to recognize is that the Israeli/Palestinian issue is nothing like the issue in Ireland. The Jews will never surrender the State of Israel to anyone, let alone radical Islamists in Hamas and Hezbollah. That Lebanon is a power cell for the Iranian-backed Hezbollah and that Gaza is their proxy being ruled by Hamas, is not lost on Israel. A viable Palestinian state must not possess any entities that are backed by Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran. Besides if President Obama is willing to overlook Hamas's prestated intent not to recognize Israel under any conditions whatsoever, then the US is making a grave mistake. Israel will never accede to such suicidal concessions. The Obama administration in its anxiety to effect change is forcing an issue which cannot be forced.

Unfortunately those who don’t feel the heat in the kitchen will have to learn through painful experience that there are some issues that require a hard hand in order for change to be effected. As long as Hamas controls Gaza, as long as Iranian radical Islamists fund Hezbollah and Hamas, there will not be a Palestinian sovereign state. There will not be, not because Obama’s liberalism is willing to turn a blind eye to the realities of fanatical Islamism, but because Israel will not allow it.

President Obama is keen to embrace all of America’s longstanding enemies in Hugo Chavez and his ilk. Chavez, the leftist freedom fighter is a virtual dictator in Venezuela. Coupled with him is the communist enterprise of Cuba under Raul Castro. Add the ever growing list of dictators and human rights abusers across Latin America and one seriously has to ponder what it is that President Obama really stands for. What are the values he espouses, besides flashing a wide-eyed grin at leaders across the table. If it is for freedom, democracy and civil liberties then that message has gone horribly awry in the actions he has personally undertaken and the alliances he is trying to forge.

There can be no negotiations with terrorist-supporting entities or the states which harbor them. And there can certainly be no dialogue with states intent on fast-tracking a deadly nuclear weapons program with the intent of annihilating other states in the region. Furthermore in the America's, there can be no courtship of countries seeking to undermine and destabilize American influence in their region of the world. Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Cuba have been doing this by seeking to threaten America with the formation of anti-American powerblocs in the region.

The economic policies of Barack Obama seem to make sense by and large, but his world-perspective is severely myopic and is going to cost America and the entire free world dearly. The only hope is that his policy of widespread appeasement and weakness will not bring forth a terrifying Armageddon scenario.

Gaza Violence

As world condemnation of Israel's assault on Gaza grows, Iran starts making some noise

The citizens of southern Israel have been under threat of rocket fire from neighboring Gaza for several years already. While most of the projectiles have failed to cause fatalities, they are succeeding as a preferred terrorist weapon.

The aim of the rocket barrages that continue to pummel southern Israel is this: to show Israel that Hamas is determined to sew the seeds of destruction in Israel. The terrorist organization is unperturbed by Israeli firepower. Their strength sprouts from their misguided perception of freedom fighting. The more of their own they bury the greater their support base grows.

Any international observer who believes that Hamas is a fad or not a serious threat to Israel is sorely mistaken. Hamas is a well-structured outfit, funded, trained and supplied by radical Islamists in Syria and Iran. Hamas does not care for the Palestinians - they are merely their cannon fodder to serve the greater agenda - Israel's destruction. As a proxy territory of Iran, Gaza will do Tehran's bidding, much like Hizballah in southern Lebanon.

That Israel has been called to task regarding their targeted bombardment of Hamas terror cells, infrastructures, weapons caches and institutions is a sham. Israel has attempted to target specific entities in Gaza. Contrast this with Hamas' indiscriminate bombing of Israeli towns, cities and other random locations. There is no legitimacy for the Hamas operation. They claim to be fighting for the Palestinians when in fact they are placing them in harm's way by dragging Israel into a war.

Hamas broke the 6 month truce. They shelled Israel and continue to do so. It appears as if Ahmedinejad is itching for a fight and Hamas is just the tonic the doctor ordered. With Hassan Nasrallah in the north readying his fighters and the Muslim Brotherhood stirring up protest rallies in Egypt and elsewhere, the world is teetering on the brink of mayhem.

Israel - at least in the eyes of Arabs and their sympathizers - has no right to react to rocket fire. They should take it on the chin and allow Hamas to continue their pyrotechnics extravaganza. Such thinking is unheard of in any country. The Israeli government has been entrusted with the unenviable task of protecting its citizens from terrorist assaults.

With such an unfriendly neighborhood this task is exceptionally difficult. To date there have been over 400 Palestinians killed and over 2000 wounded. International pressure is mounting against Israel to halt its bombardment of the densely populated Gaza. Rocket launch sites, terror cells and Hamas homes have all been hit hard by a ruthless Israeli air assault into the coastal territory.

The next move appears to be the decision as to whether to invade Gaza or to stay out. With just 3 weeks to go before President-Elect Obama gets sworn in, it's anybody's guess what Israel will do. A land assault will have serious ramifications, what with threats of anti-tank missiles and growing Muslim protests the world over.

Israel has a job on its hands and again it's not on the battlefield but in the media. Is Israel's quest a legitimate one? Can Israel expect sympathy when it has exponentially greater firepower and ability?

These are some hard issues that the Jewish state has to contend with.

The Republican Ticket

McCain and Palin swing the momentum back in the Republican's corner!

There was doubt; there was criticism. Under the microscope of the Democrats's scrutiny, Sarah Palin came out of nowhere and delivered a knockout blow to the raucous cheers of a full-house of Republican supporters.

To her detractors - they're all biting their tongues after they've finished licking their wounds. Palin knows one thing: how to engage her audience on a personal level. She started her speech cautiously but finished strongly. Her commentary was peppered with scathing attacks on the credibility of Obama - given his lack of leadership and hands-on experience. For her part she pressed the mayoral issue and her governorship of Alaska.

One thing's for certain: Sarah Palin is the pitbull to be feared. She's a family woman; a reformer and a determined individual. She's more than able to hold her own on center stage - an issue that'll prove telling come the unscripted debates between her and Democrat rivals.

The Republicans have fought back hard in their efforts to narrow the 6 percentage point gap between them and the Obama camp. With an estimated 8 percent of voters uncertain and many of them leaning towards Obama, it is going to be a rollicking contest in the next 8 weeks to decide on the next US President.

McCain is certainly the maverick they've tagged him as: this is one strategic decision that seems to be reaping a bountiful harvest for his camp. While the Democrats huddle closely and issue a rebuttal, it's going to be interesting how the major issues are played out between the parties.

For now it's even-Stevens. McCain certainly has more bite with Palin
on his ticket; Obama too is strengthened by Joe Biden, but it's the appeal of Sarah Palin which has stolen their thunder. For now it's all systems go for a Republican surge in popular rankings.

If the speech - which was televised to an estimated 37 million households can sway opinion and cut into Obama's lead, the 'gamble' will have paid off.

It's now a question of less government vs. more government; conservatism vs. liberalism and experience vs. on-the-job training.

President Obama!

He has done it in grand style - the next US President!!!

There's no more problems with US Party Politics. President Obama has swept to an astonishing election victory in the 2008 race. It's simply phenomenal that he won by such an overwhelming majority.

There were problems in the Barack Obama camp early on - but they were coming from insinuations against them by Republicans. The Democrat Presidential hopeful has the media in a buzz; the world spotlight engulfing his campaign.

Time will tell how Mr. Obama will be tested - especially on his policy towards Israel and the Mid-East.

What is clear is that there is a slither of uncertainty about the Barack Obama persona. Some have claimed that he can't seem to give a straight answer that he doesn't retract or modify at some later point. Some say that he is feverishly trying to defend his faith - while avoiding wanting to be associated in any way with the Islamic faith - although his family has a strong connection to it. Some questioned why would he so vehemently reject linkage to Islam?

It must be known that he is now the vessel of change; of peace between the various religious persuasions.

What is the problem anyway? The problem is not that he has allegiance to any religion - covertly or otherwise, it's perhaps that some felt he was trying to secure the vote by any means necessary. That's politics people are saying, but it is more than that - it borders on chicanery. But they all do it - others say.

Regardless the man has triumphed - kudos to him and to the Democrats.

A job well done, well run and well won!!!

Media Bias

The picture to the right shows angry Palestinian paramedics hurrying to get wounded people to a hospital. This picture was plastered over the front page of www.iol.co.za - South Africa's premiere news website.

The image is indicative of the type of media bias running rampant in the world in reporting that is blatantly pro-Palestinian. The image not only generates massive viewer sympathy for an apparent aggressive Israeli strike, it allows for the seeds of hatred to germinate.

Before the picture is explained in more detail, it is important to understand what happened on this very day in the south of Israel. Dozens of mortars and rockets pounded Israel (Some 50 or more). In fact the area that militants were targeting was the coastline, knowing full well that thousands of Israelis are enjoying their summer vacation along the coastal strip.


This picture is the result of the deadly shrapnel from a mortar that landed in the south of Israel. A woman was moderately wounded in this terrorist attack. This is the picture that IOL never showed. This is the picture of fear that is in the mind of every Israeli living in the south of Israel. Militant accuracy aside, if these explosives hit their targets - as they did at the Ashkelon mall recently - the damage is catastrophic.

Palestinian terrorists target civilians indiscriminately; Israeli forces target militants precisely. Collateral damage is an unavoidable factor, but the IDF hit/miss ratio is as low as it can be.

The terrorist group Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack, blaming Israel for the death of a bomb-maker and his family in Gaza. The truth is the bomb-maker inadvertently detonated his own explosives - killing his family; wounding countless others and leveling his apartment.

And here is the proof

'Gaza blast caused as gunmen prepared for martyrdom op'

By YAAKOV KATZ AND JPOST.COM STAFF

"Hamas's military wing, Izzadin Kassam, said Friday that the previous day's deadly blast in the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahiya was caused by an accident as operatives were "preparing for a special martyrdom operation."

Western Negev comes under heavy rocket barrage

Eight people, including an infant girl, were killed in the powerful explosion, which flattened the home of a Hamas operative.

After Hamas initially blamed Israel for the blast, the IDF immediately said that that was not caused by an Israeli attack but was rather a "work accident," most likely caused by terrorists' faulty handling of explosives.

Rockets began to fly shortly after the blast, with more than 50 mortar shells, Kassam and Katyusha rockets fired into Israel.

An Israeli woman was moderately wounded by shrapnel in an attack on Kibbutz Yad Mordechai shortly after noon and evacuated to Barzilai Hospital in Ashkelon. A number of fires broke out following the attack..."

Food for thought...

Can Obama be trusted?

The words roll off his tongue but the true colors of this Presidential hopeful remain hidden.

Barack Obama - the Democrat Presidential nominee may be a lot of things, but credible he most certainly isn't.

His campaign is peppered with smart talking rhetoric and big ideas, but the bottom line is his true motivation on US Foreign Policy remains unclear.

Recently Obama was seen embracing members of AIPAC in what the Democrats know is a key vote-clincher in their chances of securing the bid for the White House in 2008.

Barack Hussein Obama is constantly defending himself - taking rearguard action - against the vast majority of people who question his past; his affiliations and his religious persuasion.

A key issue is his stance on Israel's security - something the one-time Senator of Illinois and four-time Arizona Senator John McCain are looking to exploit.

Barack Obama has not only cleverly phrased his stance on diplomacy with rogue states; he has made sweeping promises and later had his campaign public spokesmen repudiate such statements soon after.

For example: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," was what Obama said to a crowd of 7000 people at an AIPAC conference. His team later altered that statement which now reads: "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties as part of an agreement that they both can live with..."

This apparent about-turn is what Obama is constantly doing in his election bid - especially regarding the War on Terror; Iran and other sponsors of terrorism. Obama is big on words and even bigger on exploiting American fatigue over an Iraq war effort that is actually a deterrent to a potentially nuclear-armed Iran.

Barack Obama is shrouded in mystery and for that to be the case with the most powerful man on the planet, is totally unacceptable. Senator McCain brings real experience to the table while trying to distance himself from the perceived failures of the Bush administration.

While voters busy themselves with the process of electing a candidate, this campaign is about more than change, it is about a better America with improved security. This is not a gamble; this is a challenge best left to experienced hands.

This is what they say...

By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent

The standard assumption is that a military attack by the United States or Israel to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons would be disastrous for the attackers, and would threaten the stability of the entire Middle East.

Various experts outline doomsday scenarios for such an occurrence, and warn especially of Iran's harsh reaction. Fearing the reaction of the ayatollahs has a paralyzing effect. Even before the first shot has been fired, Iran can credit itself with a success. It created an image of an omnipotent country that will not hesitate to use its power to respond and avenge a military operation against it. This is an impressive psychological achievement.

But a new paper, to be published this month in the U.S. by two well-known experts on the subject, sketches a different and more complex picture. The paper is "The Last Resort," written by Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The main point, notes Dr. Clawson in an interview with Haaretz, is that the success or failure of a military attack depends on many variables, and not just the degree of damage the attack would cause.
Advertisement
What are these variables?

The type of weapons chosen for the attack - will nuclear or conventional weapons be used? Who attacks - the U.S. or Israel? Will the attack cause serious collateral damage to the surroundings, that is causing a lot of civilian casualties? Will only the nuclear sites be attacked, or other regime targets? After the attack, will President Ahmadinejad announce Iran's departure from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty? If the attack completely destroys Iran's nuclear program that is one thing, but if it does not, that is a different story. Then Iran will be able to continue to develop its nuclear program, and the world will no longer care about that. In short, this is subject that is dependent on many variables.

Nevertheless, what would be deemed a success?

If the attack does destroy the nuclear facilities, and it leads to a broad consensus in Iran that nuclear weapons are dangerous for the future of the regime or the nation. In other words, success or failure is determined by the political result of the military attack. The primary objective of the military option has to be to convince Iran to cease its nuclear program, that it's not worthwhile to continue. Destroying the nuclear facilities is not an end in and of itself; it is merely a means to an end. And therefore it is necessary to create the political conditions that will increase the chances for the success of the attack.

And what will be a possible result of an Israeli attack?

Again, my answer is that it depends. Israel has to create the circumstances in which world public opinion will understand Israel and its motives, even if it regrets the attack.

That's more or less what happened with the attack against the nuclear facility in Syria?

Yes, it is quite similar. Israel benefited from President Assad's hostile attitude to the world, and therefore the international community showed understanding of the Israeli air force's attack. Israel did not have to do much because Assad did the job for it. In this respect, Israel also benefits from Ahmadinejad and his statements. They help Israel present its position to the world and explain the threat it faces.

Do you share the sweeping assessment of most experts that Iran's reaction if attacked will be harsh and painful?

No. Iran's record when it comes to its reactions in the past to attacks against it, or its important interests, is mixed. When the Taliban assumed power in Afghanistan and persecuted the Shi'ite minority there, Iran mobilized military forces on the border and threatened to respond, but in the end it did nothing. The same occurred when the U.S. shot down an Iranian passenger airline in 1988: Iran threatened to avenge the incident, but in the end the exact opposite happened. Not only did Iran not respond, but also the incident hastened its decision to agree to a cease-fire in the war with Iraq for fear that the U.S. was about to join the war on Saddam Hussein's side.

In another incident during the war, Iranian boats attacked an American naval force that set out to mine the Gulf. The U.S. did not expect Iran to react, and was surprised. This did not stop it from sinking half of the Iranian fleet in response.

Iran has lately been threatening that if it is attacked it will close the Straits of Hormuz and block the flow of oil, and thereby damage the world economy. But this is a problematic threat, since it would also affect Iran's friends and supporters, such as China and India. I have no doubt that in such a case, they would be angry at Iran.

But most experts estimate that in the event of an Israeli attack, the Iranians will respond with force and launch Shihab missiles at Israel.

It is possible, but first, the Shihab missiles are not considered particularly reliable. Iran deploys them without having done hardly any significant tests. Second, the Shihab's guidance system is not very accurate. The missile's range of accuracy is up to a kilometer. And finally, Israel's aerial defense system - the Arrow missiles would certainly intercept quite a few Shihab missiles. Moreover, Iran's firing missiles at Israel would enable Israel to respond in a decisive manner.

And what about Hezbollah? They will certainly mobilize to help Iran and respond against Israel.

There is no guarantee that Hezbollah will react automatically. They will make their considerations on the basis of their interests, as they understand them. In Hezbollah, they are very aware of Israel's strength, and of the harsh reaction that may result if Hezbollah attacks.

In other words, you're basically saying that things are not as they seem? That Iran is like a dog whose bark is worse than his bite?

There's something to that. My assessment is that contrary to the impression that has been formed, Iran's options for responding are limited and weak.

And this is what I say...

First off it's interesting to read the theoretical hypotheses of those working in the strategic military institutes.

There are several factors to consider that have not been pointed out in this argument:

Never before has President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Iranian leadership been less concerned about world opinion vis-a-vis his nuclear proliferation strategy

Never before has Iran been the most powerful military force in the Middle East

Never before has Iran been in a more favorable military position - given American and world fatigue for Middle East wars (following from several years of bloodshed and thousands of casualties in Iraq)

Never before has Iran faced the prospect of an ultra-liberal American President - the likes of which (assuming Barack Obama wins) is more likely to favor appeasement than military action

Never before has Iran commanded so much power in the Middle East in its aggression and rhetoric against Israel. This can be seen with continuing support and training for Hamas operatives and other militants in Gaza; financial support for families of suicide bombers and weapons and financing for Hizballah in Lebanon.

Never before has Iran had access to Nuclear weapons-grade material

Now, things are a little different.

Iran has been estimated to have nuclear-ready bomb material within 1-3 years.

Iranian leadership has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the face of the map.

Iranian leadership flatly denies or at best questions the accuracy of Holocaust reports.

Iranian leadership likened Israel to a rotting corpse (on the eve of Israel's 60th birthday) and promised that it would die.

Iran has been conducting large-scale military operations across it's vast expanses. Huge displays of its military might were made public.

Iran purchased the latest anti-aircraft defense systems from Russia to guard its Nuclear Facility from an enemy attack.

Iran is working feverishly - against UN & IAEA recommendations in fast-tracking its nuclear program.

Iran is looking to purchase ICBMs that are capable of avoiding detection by radar and satellites. Add this fact to the likelihood of potential nuclear warheads and it becomes clear that Iran is intent on striking first and wreaking absolute havoc - so much so that its enemies would be unable to respond.

Iran has defied every single UN resolution requesting it to halt its uranium enrichment program.

Iran does not need nuclear power - it has one of the world's largest supplies of petroleum.

Iran recently apprehended British sailors in international waters and held the world to ransom with their demands that Britain apologize for the supposed incursion.

Given the facts, and we must take history into account, the situation is indeed grave.

President George W. Bush is fast coming to the end of his term. A likely successor in Barack Obama will initially prove too soft to Iran - given Obama's severe short-sightedness in foreign affairs. Barack Obama has one slogan - Change - but that counts for precious little if the change is going to tilt the balance of power in the world in favour of radical Islamic states.

As potential leader of the free world, it is not only Obama's world duty to protect and to preserve the principles of justice and democracy - it is his duty to enforce them. Diplomacy with terrorist states is appeasement. Barack Obama is too self-absorbed in fancy ego-aggrandizement to take criticism of his ill-informed; misguided world politics. What the world demands of America is RealPolitik.

If however John McCain assumes the Presidency then President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Iran's military dictatorship will face severe recriminations from a powerful Western democracy and its allies.

Either way a US congress of Republicans and Democrats - regardless of who the President is - will not allow a rogue Iran - armed with Nuclear warheads - to threaten the security of the world.

The European Union is exerting tremendous political and economic pressure on Iran to end its enrichment objectives. This has had a minimal effect. Iran has been ratcheting up its anti-Israel slander with increasing alacrity.

This poses the question: will military action incur severe reprisals by Iran?

The short answer - yes.

Whether it is Israel that surprises Iran or a western coalition, Israel will in all likelihood suffer a barrage of missile strikes - the likes of which will make the 2006 2nd Lebanon War look like a walk in the park.

This means that it is necessary to exert maximum diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran. The country needs to be completely isolated from other nations. It needs to feel the isolation. This can be done through a strong multilateral initiative comprising Russia; China; EU; USA; Canada and Australasia. In the face of such sanctions, Iran may consider - being rational - halting enrichment.

If however international pressure is unable to end enrichment in Iran within a short time, then military action must come to pass. There simply is no alternative. The world cannot allow a nuclear armed Iran to threaten another state with extinction. The world cannot allow the leading sponsor of terror to be armed with nuclear weapons.

The world must act and sacrifices will have to be made - it is inevitable that sacrifices will have to be made - but the alternative of inaction will yield grave consequences.