WarSclerotic

9/11 reflections: 2001, 2012, and 2013 – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

( Novelist Noah Beck sums up the catastrophe that Obama has brought to US democracy better than anything else I have read.  – JW )

Op-ed: Recent scandals undermined public’s trust that US government conducts itself fairly, transparently and constitutionally

Noah Beck

In the 16-month period following Osama bin Laden’s assassination (on 5/1/2011), national confidence increased in a way that was almost reminiscent of the pre-9/11 days. The economy was gradually coming back from the Great Recession (much as the pre-9/11 economy was recovering from the “Dot-Com Crash”) and — more importantly — there was a sense that the worst national security fears of the US were behind us.

The brave US special forces who killed bin Laden brought a much needed sense of justice and closure regarding the mastermind behind the worst terrorist attack in US history, and for many months President Obama was able to spin the symbolic victory into far more than what it was.

But on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, the attacks on the US embassy in Benghazi claimed four American lives and shattered the false sense of security that had begun to creep back into the American psyche. Within a year of that attack, the Boston Marathon bombings killed three people and injured an estimated 264 people (last April), and the US was forced to close over 20 embassies around the world because of terrorist threats (last month).

Making matters worse, the Obama administration misled the American public about 9/11/12 to preserve a presidential national security narrative that was critical to Obama’s reelection about two months later. As the Washington Times recently reported, “As President Obama ran to election victory last fall with claims that al-Qaeda was ‘decimated’ and ‘on the run,’ his intelligence team was privately offering a different assessment that the terrorist movement was shifting resources and capabilities to emerging spinoff groups in Africa that posed fresh threats to American security.”

Obama’s renewed lease on power was promptly followed by a series of scandals that have yet to be fully understood or addressed: Benghazi-gate, Associated Press-gate, IRS-gate, and most recently NSA-gate. All of these have undermined the public’s trust that the US government conducts itself fairly, transparently, and constitutionally.

Rather than address these issues honestly, Obama initially stonewalled and then dismissed everything with the label “phony scandals” — as if that could persuade anyone that nothing improper ever happened. As bad as each of the various scandals might have been in isolation, they are collectively far more ruinous because each one independently suggests the same thing: an administration that has breached the public trust, violated constitutional values, and abused its power – particularly when that power might have been checked by the will of the people at elections. And instead of reassuring the public, when each scandal broke, that his top priority was to investigate and address each issue, Obama looked like any other politician clinging to power however he can, volunteering nothing until compelled to do so.

And so the public was left to draw the inevitable conclusions: that the Obama administration was so determined to win reelection that it whitewashed the September 11 attacks in Benghazi, used the IRS to weaken political opponents, and penalized the Associated Press for issuing a May 7, 2012 report that undermined Obama’s we-beat-terrorism election campaign narrative.

Much is still unknown about the latest breach of trust with the American public — the National Security Agency’s domestic spying program. But the Guardian recently reported that the NSA worked with US tech giants to defeat whatever privacy and encryption technologies Americans thought were in place to ensure that “their communications, online banking and medical records would be indecipherable to criminals or governments.” As if to grant the NSA’s greatest wish, Apple’s new iPhones feature a biometric fingerprint scan that replaces password-based security (and Apple competitors will undoubtedly start offering the same feature), so potentially hundreds of millions of people will soon be giving their fingerprints to the US government.

Still not bothered? The New York Times just reported that the US government also “uses border crossings to seize and examine travelers’ electronic devices instead of obtaining a search warrant to gain access to the data.”

The biggest loser from so much abuse of power and deception is the American electorate. Voters wanted to believe that Obama was somehow different: more grounded, more ethical, more committed to some lofty ideal that had eluded prior politicians. The audacity of disappointment involves cultivating a cult of personality with soaring oratory and then letting down all of those faithful voters with politics as usual.

And now, the alarming reality of post-9/11/13 is arguably more unsettling than that of post-9/11/1. Twelve years ago, the main concern was al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now that threat has metastasized and — partly thanks to Obama’s feckless Mideast and Africa strategy — has proliferated to many more places, including Yemen, Libya, Lebanon, Iraq, the Egyptian Sinai, and Syria. More importantly, Obama’s policies have eroded US deterrence and emboldened some of the world’s most dangerous regimes — which can cause far more harm than non-state actors can.

Twelve years after 9/11, the US president has misled the public about its security, abused power in ways that are still not fully understood, and failed to provide strategic leadership in a world that gets more dangerous by the day. Iranian nukes are around the corner, Syria could explode in countless different ways, and Obama seems ill-prepared to handle any of this. But Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are watching opportunistically for the next US misstep, and the consequences could extend well beyond Obama’s second term.

How many more 9/11 anniversaries are needed before Americans can once again trust their government and feel truly safe from security threats?

Noah Beck is the author of The Last Israelis, an apocalyptic novel about Iranian nukes and other geopolitical issues in the Middle East.

Russia says no plans to transfer S-300 missiles to Iran – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Putin spokesman denies report saying president decided to supply Tehran with five advanced air defense batteries for $800M

Polina Garaev

The spokesperson for Russian President Vladimir Putin said ‘no’ when asked by reporters if Putin had instructed to go ahead with a deal to transfer S-300 missiles to Iran, Russian news agency RIA Novosti reported Wednesday.

Russian newspaper Kommersant reported earlier in the day that Russia will offer Iran a new supply of S-300 missiles and assistance in the construction of an additional nuclear reactor in Bushehr.

The alleged proposal was made three years after a previous agreement under which Russia was expected to transfer five S-300 batteries to Iran was canceled.

According to a source within the Kremlin, Putin decided to grant an Iranian request to supply the Islamic Republic with the high-end S-300 air defense system with a deal estimated at $800 million which will also include coordinating the construction of an additional nuclear reactor in Bushehr.

S-300 air defense system (Photo: AFP)

According to the report, Putin has instructed his staff to prepare the agreements so as to discuss them with Iranian President Hassan Rohani during the two leaders’ scheduled meeting on Friday during the Shanghai Cooperation Organization held in Kyrgyzstan.

In 2007, an S-300 deal was signed between the two countries. Three years later the UN Security Council sanctioned Iran, and as a result the deal’s completion was halted. In the past, Israel and Western powers had expressed concern over the deal, partly fearing it would pose a threat to any aerial attack on Iran’s disputed nuclear facilities.

According to Wednesday’s report, the arms deal is conditioned on Iran’s withdrawal of a $4 billion damages suit filed against Russia with the International Court of Arbitration in Geneva after Moscow backed out of the 2007 deal. At the time, Russia offered the Islamic Republic an alternative system instead of the S-300, but the Iranians refused.

Netanyahu: Iran ‘watching closely’ to see if world dismantles Syrian chemical weapons | JPost | Israel News.

Speaking at a naval ceremony in the north, prime minister affirms comments made by US President Obama regarding Israel’s ability to “defend itself with overwhelming force” against any threat.

________________________________________________________________________________

Magnified and sanctified be G-d’s great name in the world which He created according to His will. May he establish His kingdom during our lifetime and during the lifetime of Israel. Let us say, Amen.May G-d’s great name be blessed forever and ever.

Blessed, glorified, honored and extolled, adored and acclaimed be the name of the Holy One, though G-d is beyond all praises and songs of adoration which can be uttered. Let us say, Amen.

May there be peace and life for all of us and for all Israel. Let us say, Amen.

Let He who makes peace in the heavens, grant peace to all of us and to all Israel. Let us say, Amen.

Paul Simon at Ground Zero- Sounds of Silence – Hebrew Subtitles

Peres says he trusts Obama, Putin to reach Syria deal | The Times of Israel.

President believes that if Assad shows any dishonesty in chemical weapons agreement, US will strike his regime

Shimon Peres at the graduation ceremony Wednesday. (photo credit: President’s Residence)

Two days after casting doubt on a Russian-brokered deal that would see Damascus give up its chemical weapons, President Shimon Peres threw his weight behind the proposal, saying any agreement reached by the US and Russia would ensure the safe disposal of Syria’s WMDs.

“I know both [US] President [Barack] Obama and [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin, and I am convinced that if an agreement is reached it will be reliable, explicit and significant,” the president said at an Israeli Navy graduation ceremony.

Responding to Obama’s speech on Syria the night before in which the president said Washington was pursuing a diplomatic agreement which would ensure the destruction of Assad’s chemical weapons stockpiles, Peres said the US “is showing its moral and democratic weight and the strength of its military by attempting to bring an immediate end to the use of chemical weapons and to its ultimate destruction.”

“The murder of innocents, including women and children, is a crime which cannot be ignored,” Peres said, but noted that “it wasn’t the anger over the images of dead children that affected Assad but the military threat which forced him to respond to the initiative to remove and disarm his chemical weapons.”

On Monday, shortly after Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov pitched the proposal to have Assad hand his chemical weapons over to international actors for eradication, Peres cautioned against putting too much stock in the deal, saying “the Syrians are not trustworthy,” and that their acceptance of the Russian proposal meant very little.

Peres Wednesday again voiced skepticism of Assad’s trustworthiness, but assured the audience that he had faith in Putin and Obama’s ability to reach a suitable agreement which “must ensure that Assad has no chemical weapons.”

Earlier in the day the elder statesman said that if Assad proved to be honest, he would avoid American military action, but “if there’ll be a crack in Syria’s integrity I have no doubt that the US will act militarily.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also weighed in Wednesday on the issue of Syria’s alleged chemical weapons use, reiterating Obama’s remark the night before that Assad’s act was a “crime against humanity.”

“The world needs to ensure that whosoever uses WMDs pays a price for it,” Netanyahu said in a statement. “The message received in Syria will be well understood in Iran.”

Netanyahu added that Obama’s statement that Israel can defend itself “with overwhelming force” is correct, and is “the basis of our security.”

On Tuesday evening, Obama asked Congress to delay voting on using force against Syria in order to try and pursue a diplomatic solution to the crisis. The American president added Tuesday that should diplomacy fail the US military would “be ready to respond” against the Syrian government.

The Russian proposal, which Damascus agreed to on Tuesday, would put the country’s chemical weapons under international supervision. The regime is accused of using sarin gas to kill over a thousand people outside Damascus on August 21.

The Syrian civil war, which has raged for over two years, has claimed over 100,000 lives, according to the United Nations.

Syrian rebels: Russian initiative ‘dirty deal’, only good for Israel – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Opposition laments positive attitude toward Russian compromise, urges US to revert back to attack plans. ‘Neutralizing Assad’s chemical weapons serves Israel, not the Syrian people,’ rebel commander says

Roi Kais

Syria’s opposition and rebel forces are fuming over US President Barack Obama and the West’s handling of the Syrian crisis, specifically the latest developments regarding the US attack on Syria.

Qassim Saad al-Din, a spokesman for the Syrian opposition military command, told the London-based paper Asharq Al-Awsat that the Russian compromise with the US regarding Syria’s chemical arms was reached “at the expense of the blood of the Syrian people.”

According to al-Din, “the only thing the West is interested in is protecting Israel and disarming the arms threatening it. The 100,000 killed in Syria do not top their priorities.”

Syrian rebels in Aleppo (Photo: Reuters)

Head of the Military Revolutionary Command in Aleppo, Abed al Jabar al Akhidi, said that “the international ploy to cancel the attack on Syria in return for the neutralization of chemical weapons is a dirty deal between Russia, Assad’s regime and the West.”

In an interview with Al Arabiya, al Akhidi said that “what is happening here is an attempt to help Obama save face after he climbed up onto a tree and the Russians pulled out his ladder.

“Neutralizing Assad’s chemical weapons serves Israel, not the Syrian people, because the international community’s attempt to disarm Assad from his chemical arms stems from the public outcry and not from the killing.”

Immediately following the publication of the Russian proposal, General Salim Idris, head of the Free Syrian Army, dismissively responded to the initiative, saying: “The (Syrian) regime has a massive arsenal, the size and location of which is unknown.” According to him, Assad should not be trusted and Syria responded positively only in a bid to postpone the American strike and “buy time.” He further urged the Americans not fall for the regime’s “deceit” and return to their attack plans.

‘Western promises are a joke’. Salim Idris (Photo: AFP)

After the British parliament decided against an attack, Idris said the decision would “leave us alone to be killed” by President Bashar Assad, and pave the way for al-Qaeda to dominate the rebel ranks. “What are our friends in the West waiting for?” Idris asked. “For Iran and Hezbollah to kill all the Syrian people?” “The West promises and promises. This is a joke now,” he concluded.

Unarmed Syrian opposition forces also expressed discontent from the favorable light in which the Russian compromise was greeted.

Ahmed Ramdan, a Syrian opposition member, expressed apprehension regarding the initiative, claiming he feared that it might be mistakenly understood by Assad as a green light to continue to conduct massacres against the Syrian people after he disarms from chemical weapons.

Nonetheless, he noted that he hoped the Syrian regime’s positive response to the initiative could signal the first step towards Assad’s unconditional surrender of power.

Israel Hayom | Between the sublime and the ridiculous.

Boaz Bismuth

Report: Russia to supply S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran | JPost | Israel News.

According to Russian daily Kommersant, Moscow has also agreed to build another nuclear reactor in Bushehr; Iran to pay $800 million for missile batteries.

Obama-Putin deal didn’t stop at chemical Syria: US eases sanctions on nuclear Iran.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani

Iran, and not just Russia and Syria, is taking advantage of President Barack Obama’s decision to refrain from military force against Syria to collect a shower of diplomatic and political dividends.

The new Iranian president Hassan Rouhani announced Tuesday that the coming meeting of the General Assembly opening in New York later this month “may prove the perfect setting to reignite talks about the nation’s nuclear program.“ The US Treasury Department accordingly lifted a string of sanctions restricting humanitarian and athletic exchanges between US and Iranian NGOs and environmental projects, as a counter-gesture of good will.
Washington was not put off when that comment proved to be an exercise in image-burnishing for the benefit of the West. That same day, the Iranian president declared his country would not give up “one iota of its nuclear capabilities.”

debkafile’s Iranian sources disclose that the posturing on all sides provided the façade for the secret exchange of messages between Washington, Tehran, Moscow and Damascus. They focused first on a Russian pledge to bring Assad’s chemical arsenal under international control and destroyed. This was followed by Tehran consenting to engage in direct dialogue with Washington when the next UN General Assembly session opens in New York on September 23.
Rouhani, who has consistently refused to enter into direct talks with Washington on his government’s nuclear program, said Friday, Sept. 6: “Initial steps in the future of nuclear talks may be taken in New York and then these talks will be pursued by the Group 5 + 1.”

debkafile: For President Obama, the two issues – the disposal of Syria’s chemical weapons and resolution of the nuclear controversy with Iran – were closely interwoven in his quiet exchanges with Vladimir Putin, which emphasized the diplomatic, non-military route.
The Russian leader appears to have assured Obama that an agreed formula for defusing the Syrian chemical weapons issue without military force would provide the key to progress in nuclear talks with Iran.
Our Iranian sources report that Tehran was in on all stages of the discreet Obama-Putin discussions on Syria: High-ranking Iranian officials were present in Damascus and Moscow throughout, and points of agreement were brought to Tehran for approval.
Full details of how this four-handed game was conducted and details of the deals struck between the US, Russia and Iran, will be revealed for the first time in the next issue of DEBKA Weekly out Friday, Sept. 13.

Terror States.

Dr. Shmuel L. Gordon. Col. (Ret) IAF

11/9/2013

EMERGENCY services are responding to a simulated terrorist attack – flicker/West Midlands Police

The History of the last three Centuries has defined only one type of actors in the international environment – sovereign states with identified and recognized borders, compliant with international law and covenants, and responsible to their deeds. During the last 50 years was developed another type of actors, i.e. Guerilla and terror organizations that lack basic attributes of state and comprised some amorphous characteristics that enable them to strengthen in the modern world order, and at the same time they try to abolish it.

At the beginning of the 21st Century, a new entity in the international environment has been evolving. That entity encompasses terror groups or organizations that govern a state. Consequently, the aggressive and cruel characteristics of terror organizations unite with the qualities of sovereign state enjoy protection of the international law and at the same time ignore it in seeking their goals, regarding internal struggles and outside conflicts. Afghanistan under the Taliban control had been the first model of Terror State.

Its temporary success enabled other terror organizations to adapt that concept to other regions. But dealing with theoretical issues has little to contribute to cope with a most dangerous challenge of the Free World; i.e., Terror States. The Middle East encounters clouds of threats of a revolution that may evolve several terror nations which will be able to conquer most of the Arab nations. Some of them hold the keys for a considerable share of the world’s energy reserves.

Syria, after a plausible fall of President Assad’s regime, assumed to be the first candidate for a terror states’ alliance. Egypt, if free election will be occurred, supported by illogical and mistaken US pressure, and victory of the Muslim Brothers, will be the second one. The fragile regime Kingdome of Jordan will plausibly fall soon after. Yemen and the Emirates will not sustain the pressure of terrorism; and it is redundant to mention other candidate nations.

A few years from now an evil nation as Iran will be considered as a relatively moderate one comparing to the terror states. The new entity of the international environment – Terror states are believed to be the worst threat against the values and freedom of the free world, which protects itself by international law and international covenants` While terror states will try to harm and even destroy democracies ignoring any law and moral principles.

In order to prevent that reinforcement of the international terrorism, this process must be cut off at its first stage. The US president, despite his admirable moral concept, has to realize the consequences of initiation of a campaign against Assad’s regime – the first falling block of the shaken wall of Middle Eastern South-Eastern states, The US ability to prevent the fall of other countries to the evil hands of the international terrorism will be degraded significantly.

The United States of America should determine its next step for the long run rather than attack Syria as a result of short-run mistaken considerations.