Gaza

You notice I have been silent on the entire Gaza thing - what is there to say really? Bush the Second thought the answer to all the problems in the world was to give everyone democracy - Hamas gained power thought the ballot box. Mob rule is strange like that.

Now the Israelis are pounding Gaza with US weapons, technology and munitions with the world-wide impression they they do not act without US approval.

Really I do not see how this might affect us at all...nah we are good, nobody will hold any ill will toward the US for this.

Joshua is tracking the actual intelligent commentary on this event...go there.

The Potential Geopolitical Crisis Nobody Wants or Needs

Pakistan Says Indian Planes Entered Airspace

The fall out from the Mumbai attacks have received some press but not enough analysis or thought of what this could ultimately mean. If Pakistan and India were not both nuclear armed I am certain that many would welcome a full-on Indian invasion of Pakistan. As a side note that very fact might not go unnoticed to other nations that wish to develop their own nuclear capability. Pakistan as a US ally is a nation that we are essentially ready to throw to the dogs - if only we knew how. Our military efforts have been successful at rooting out terrorist in Afghanistan and then Iraq and then Afghanistan again when they came back in force but really all we are doing is forcing their base of operations to shift.

Under our current ROE US troops and other ISAF forces routinely cross the Pakistan border in pursuit of insurgents, we also fire into Pakistan. We are of course limited to going just so many miles (a fact well known by all involved). And therein lies the problem. We cannot get to the operational bases - we have to wait from newly trained insurgents to leave the little insurgent factories. I am sure many would welcome an Indian invasion for this very reason.

Here is a Pakistani view of why war might be inevitable...

Ron Paul's Position

Ok, so you may (or may not) ask - why do I support Dr. Ron Paul for President.

Weyrich claims in a recent article that Paul has "strange ideas" but never really clarifies this.

It is too bad some of the ideas he advocates are strange because many of the things he says makes sense.

Strange enough some people confuse Weyrich with an actual paleoconservative. - I think not.

What of these strange ideas?

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

This is true and something found on a campaign site- a rare occurance. You do not need to listen to Paul's speeches or read his words to really know where he stands - look at the man's voting record in Congress over the last 20 years. You will know that he really means what he says - find another politician out there that really can say that.

I know, I have said it before, one man and one election cannot restore the republic. However, enough people fully supporting a man that stands on the right principles (whether he wins or loses) is the absolute right step.

Ron Paul has stood firm on a strict interpretation of the Constitution the entire time he has worked in Congress - that is the number one reason I support him.

Surely that is not the strange idea mentioned above. What of his stance on the other hot-button issues.

American Sovereignty - 100% right, no NAU, NAFTA, UN or other foreign entanglements

"We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America."


Border Security and Immigration - 100% spot on target

"Physically secure our borders and coastlines; Enforce visa rules; No welfare for illegal aliens; End birthright citizenship; Pass true immigration reform"


Taxes and Debt - Amen

"Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.... We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States."


Health Freedom - he is the doctor

"I oppose legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements

I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations."

Home Schooling - my children are home schooled thank you very much

"My commitment to ensuring home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any Presidential candidate.

I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for home school parents or students. I also believe that, as long as No Child Left Behind remains law, it must include the protections for home schoolers included in sec. 9506 (enshrining home schoolers’ rights) and 9527 (guaranteeing no national curriculum).

Federal monies must never be used to undermine the rights of homeschooling parents. I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to encourage a culture of educational freedom throughout the nation."

Privacy and Personal Liberty - who but a tyrant could disagree?

"The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters.

We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new driver’s licenses embedded with “standard identifier” data — a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we’re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005.

I have fought this fight for many years. I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives."


Property Rights - again only a tyrant could disagree

"Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property."


Social Security - fixing FDR's socialist nightmare

"It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.

We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.

Excessive government spending has created the insolvency crisis in Social Security. We must significantly reduce spending so that our nation can keep its promise to our seniors."

The Second Amendment - praise the lord and pass the ammunition

"I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.

You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment."


War and Foreign Policy - 100% correct

"Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America... We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution....Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations."

Homeschooling, Pluralism, and Germany

I have recently read a speech given to a German home educators group on pluralism and the homeschooling situation in Germany. In case you are unaware, Germany seems to be completely determined to eradicate homeschooling completely.

I want to critique a few points of this speech because I believe that many points made therein articulate beliefs or partial beliefs of some who belong to the HSLDA. The author of the essay/speech is attempting to demonstrate that homeschooling is consistent with democratic pluralism. The goal, I believe, is to mitigate the German state by arguing that homeschoolers really are not trying to create "parallel societies" and that homeschooling is consistent with the pluralism that German education ministers are so eager to bring up. I tend to disagree with both points.

The author essentially defines pluralism within the context of a democratic republic as a group of individuals co-existing in what he calls a common society. A common society, then, is nothing more than a society formed by common belief and implemented democratically through the apparatus of the state. The author believes that this is good and articulates that the benefits of a pluralistic society in abstract notions about working together for the "common good" to protect "human rights" under the auspice of "equality."

Geez, this guy almost sounds like a leftist (the sad part is that he probably considers himself conservative indicating that the conservative movement is impotent). The problem is that a common society can only be sustained democratically by mob rule. One group of people may have their beliefs seriously compromised if that said group is a small minority. The majority, then, has the ability to impose foreign cultural beliefs on a minority population by using the state to enforce it's edicts. This is precisely the same reason why empires, for example, extinguish culture - because they conquer and impose a foreign culture on the native population. Moreover, I surmise that even the notions of "common good" and "human rights" are to be determined by the majority.

Moving on, the author then contrasts this idea of "pluralism" with the idea of "parallel societies." He notes:

[P]arallel societ[ies] ... [consist of] a group of people who live inside or within another society but do not share in these minimum common characteristics [characteristics needed to sustain common society for pluralism to survive (this is the author's view)]. These societies within a society seek not to interact but to remain isolated. Such a "parallel society" limits its contact with the larger society and seeks to operate its own civic institutions, legal functions, and would likely reject learning a common language.

I agree that this is what the German officials desire to prevent but the author's use of language seems to imply that this is bad. Alas, I predicted this even before reading the next few paragraphs:

If we accept the idea that government exists to maintain order by establishing a rule of law that applies equally to all within its jurisdiction—then indeed parallel societies are dangerous.

In such parallel societies the rights that should be protected and enjoyed by all citizens of the society could be repressed in the name of some other philosophy, legal system or religion, perhaps. If this were true, it would mean that that not all citizens would be receiving equal protection under the law. Because it is the duty of the state to protect the rights and equal application of the law to all people living within its jurisdiction—this cannot be allowed.

The question here is dangerous to whom? More often than not, parallel societies are dangerous to the state itself. Many groups of people simply desire to be left alone to govern themselves but he speaks of this almost as if it is a heinous crime. Of course, the reasoning here is couched in protecting "human rights" but remember that in a democratic society, such things can be arbitrarily determined by a majority. And what of "repression?" Law itself might be unjust and immoral. In fact, this is the problem that homeschoolers in Germany face but he doesn't see it.

Ludwig von Mises believed that in order to prevent international wars, genocide, and physical oppression of one group against another, democracy had to be voluntary. It seems to me that the author glorifies what he calls "order." But even this idea itself can also be subjective in the context of democratic government.

He then inquires whether or not homeschoolers seek to create "parallel societies" and then unequivocally answers NO. Perhaps some homeschoolers are not trying to do this but the point I am trying to make is that this is not necessarily a bad thing. I am a believer in homeschooling not because I believe that the public schools simply do not teach what I desire them to teach. I am a believer in homeschooling because I find the mere existence of public schools repulsive and I believe that education is a lifelong process that begins at home, not in some impersonal institution. Indeed if one is honest, one will admit that homeschooling is a separate institution from public schools so this argument cannot even survive the most mild criticism from the German officials.

To give a more specific example, why do you think that Hedge Schools came about in colonial Ireland? The elders were trying to teach their children things which were inconsistent with the current ruling body because these cultural things were being extinguished. Would the author here oppose Hedge Schools? The author might argue that this is different because at the time, monarchical government was common. But would it really matter if the Irish were a minority in a democratic government? Of course not.

The author then notes

Parallel societies may indeed be the enemy of a democratic state. But dogmatic and coerced uniformity is the enemy of a pluralistic society.

The question is not whether a free society can or must be either democratic or pluralistic—it can and should be both. All civilized nations profess a commitment to both democracy and pluralism. I would suggest that no responsible homeschool leader or homeschooler would advocate for the creation of what I have defined as parallel societies.

He gets one thing right: parallel societies are the enemy of a democratic state but I believe that his argument about "dogmatic and coerced uniformity" is wrong. Why? Well, it might be true in theory but it cannot be true in practice because I don't believe that pluralistic societies can genuinely exist in nature. That is, they don't naturally exist without the presence of an artificial entity like the state to sustain them and force various groups to remain united to it. So, pluralistic societies do exist within the confines of compulsory democratic states but are unnatural because they are sustained by gunpoint and not by free association. Therein lies the hypocrisy of remaining committed to "democratic pluralism" while seeking to eradicate "parallel societies."

Moreover, the virtue of the modern democratic state is that is is ok to plunder and coerce your neighbor so long as one appeals to the democratic process. More often than not, the reason that one group oppresses another is because the latter group is forced to endure such oppression by the nature of the democratic process. Besides this, one must accept the proposition that forcing group A to remain united with group B when group A does not want to be united with group B does not ameliorate the situation. If group A ever becomes a majority, then they now have the ability to oppress group B.

Because all "civilized" nations profess commitment to democracy and pluralism, I would suggest that all "civilized" nations are actually barbaric. Has it occurred to the speaker that moral decay is rampant in all "civilized nations" (seethis)? The nature of the democratic state itself breeds and sustains the whole idea of what he calls "moral relativism." To the author's credit, he admits that "human rights must rest on an objective standard." Yet, this can never be guaranteed within a democratic state. And whose standard should be applied? I believe that a Christian standard should be applied but a Muslim or an atheist would beg to differ. Naturally, if the atheist standard was applied, there would exist conflict from the Christian and possibly some Muslim communities. Hence the situation in Germany.

The author continues:

[I]n seeking this goal or protecting the rights of all, Germany may not use this argument to justify repression of educational freedom and the right of parents to determine the best form of education for their children. The undisputed empirical reality is that homeschooling by itself does not create parallel societies—and if German authority structures and those who influence them (such as the media and academics) would care to look beyond its own borders, this would be obvious.

This argument is self-defeating and am forced to ask him "why not?" To the speaker, educational freedom is a human right but to Germany, the EU, and the U.N. forced compulsory education is a human right. Pragmatically, the latter is true simply because the state has all of the guns and the power of coercion at it's disposal.

I don't want to go through every point made by the author because he articulates similar ideas and thoughts. He does claim that "the democratic state should not exist to form or mold or shape society" but this is a statement that I believe is always fundamentally false. The problem with democracy is that it sounds good unless you fall within the minority.

Delarey Song

About This Video

The popular and controversial song about the An...

The popular and controversial song about the Anglo-Boer War, that has caused a public outcry in South Africa.

As the British tried to do a hundred years ago, the black majority government is now trying to suppress the Afrikaner nation's culture - and in fact all traces of their history.

Public funding is being withdrawn from Afrikaner monuments, even though Afrikaners contribute more than their share to tax income. Millions are being spent on changing the names of towns, streets etc. while little is done to maintain infrastructure.

The new generation of Afrikaners had nothing to do with Apartheid, yet they are faced with a bleak future, suffering under racial discrimination in the form of affirmative action.

Although this excludes them from jobs and promotion beyond a certain level, it also stimulates entrepreneurship and innovative thinking.

The Afrikaner nation will rise again to take its place in the country their forefathers helped to build and develop.

Amazing and inspiring - a testament to the work of Empires and the destruction they leave in their wake.

Sen. Schumer's Conflict of Interest

Sen. Schumer who's been the leading loudmouth on foreign governments investing or buying into US corporations is not surprisingly quite calm about the Red Chinese buying into Bear Stearns:

"Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who expressed concern last month over a minority stake of 19.9 percent in the Nasdaq Stock Market by a Dubai state-controlled investment firm, said yesterday that the Chinese investment "helps keep Bear Stearns independent," which he said was "good for New York and America."

When you see that he was given over $126,000 by Bear Stearns, Schumer can see even bigger $$ signs coming his way as greases the skids for subversion of our institutions, culture and currency. An "independent" Bear Stearns? Come'on Chuck, you're a crook and the public knows it. Clearly, you are a living example of how countries are betrayed from within before they fall to those from without.

Chinese Firm To Buy Big Stake In Bear Stearns

Thomas Fleming on Secession

What could be done, ideally, with the Kurds? Many of my Southern friends answer, almost automatically: Guarantee the Kurds the right of secession, and all will be well. As I recently explained, in a speech that antagonized a group of secessionists meeting in Chattanooga, there is no such thing as a universal political system or principle that applies to all peoples in all situations. . (Thomas Flemming, HT Daniel)

A lot of folks that support the notion of self-determination and ultimately secession are aghast at Dr. Fleming's remarks at the Second Annual Secession Convention. Fleming further articulated his view point in a recent Chronicles article that honestly, I believe, closes the loop on the issue and puts us all back at the same table - more of less, minus his errors regarding the Kurds.

He does, however in my observed opinion, get a few things wrong.

It is a terrible charge to make against any nation, but the Kurds are the Albanians of the Mideast

By this he is implying that the Kurds would commit atrocities greater than Persians, Sunnis, Shiites, Turks etc that variously occupy portions of Kurdistan. My experience with the Kurds taught me that these are probably some of the best people in the Middle-East. I lived with them and fought with them for the better part of a year. I have lived around Turks, Arabs, Zionist, and Sunnis at various points during my "travels"(not as extensively as my time with Kurds) but I cannot help but recall fondly my memories of each and every Kurd I befriended. Saladin was a Kurd for goodness sakes, he taught the West what it meant to fight honorably and nobly long before we developed a sense of chivalry and real nobility. Kurds are not religiously fanatical, they do not as a group subscribe to the extreme versions of Islam - that would be the Arabs, and Persians. I just have to disagree that because Kurdish independence would mean potential violence we should not support it - in a moral sense, not with boots on the ground. This is the largest ethnic population on Earth yet they do not have a country.

His arguments relating to Kurdish complicity in PPK activities are not particularly noteworthy. The activities of the Persians in Iran, the Turks in Turkey and Arabs in Iraq carried out against the Kurds are no less tyrannical than the 4GW tactics utilized by the PPK against their oppressors. I too might be a "insert whatever label you like" if I had no other options for freedom.

Laying the Kurdish question aside Dr. Fleming does get it right in terms of describing secession and self-determination in general. People everywhere, at anytime do not have "natural right" to abolish government at will. His is a very paleoconservative viewpoint in that regard. Important things are best guaranteed by an overarching order. As Flemming describes:

...there is no such thing as a universal political system or principle that applies to all peoples in all situations. For some peoples, monarchy or autocracy may be the best system; for others an oligarchy based on wealth; while for some small-scale societies something like popular government may work, though the history of such experiments is not encouraging.

I could not agree more - it is foolish to think that democracy or any other ideology is universally applicable to all people in all places at all times. However, Dr. Clyde Wilson disagrees with Flemings take on self-determination and I think the truth ultimately lies closer to Wilson's viewpoint.

In various conversations with folks about the subject of secession I often run into those of a libertarian bent that disregard the notion that secession should take place using existing governmental structures, i.e. states with pre-esisting sovereignty. I believe their view that people can simply form together to secede is flawed. What they are talking about is a revolution not secession. Revolutions are justified under certain circumstances but it is incorrect to confuse legitimate secession from revolutionary thoughts. Secession is not revolution. Of the various theories of secession, I myself really only believe that the State-Federal Contract and the Partial Right Variant of Remedial Right theories hold much water.

I don't think Dr. Fleming's remarks at The Chattanooga Convention nor his recent post marks him as a non-supporter of secession. He is correct, self-determination is not something we ought to support for everybody everywhere all the time. However, we should also not be too judgmental of those that want their own freedom lest others might also judge us and ultimately end up lending support to tyrants.

Whatever Happened to the Iranian Oil Bourse?

In September 2000 Saddam Hussein announced Iraq would no longer accept US dollars for Iraqi oil. Iraq was invaded by neo-con troops the next year to bring Iraq's oil reserves under control of the world's international oil companies, predominantly British and American. It was not an invasion to secure oil for Americans, but to secure the oil for the elitist oil companies. Oil, like all commodities, is sold on world bourses to the highest bidders. Remember the Soviet grain deal giveaway in the '70s & '80s because of which we all had to pay more for our bread? Same thing. This was an effort by our elected leaders to prop-up the Communist dictatorship in Russia. World oil production may have peaked as the 'peak oilers' contend, but the ultimate fate of fiat currencies and who controls the remaining oil will be determined long before the oil reserves run dry. And that is as I see it.

It was never in this nation's national interest that our troops steal the Iraqi oil, but in the interest of the CFR and the globalist banking and energy cabals. Attacking Iraq was fair warning to other rogue governments which may be planning similar decouplings from the world globalists. This is what terrorists do to intimidate, frighten, and convey a strong message what fate will befall others who resist those taking us on a journey to a new world order. This is what terrorists do. They terrorize.

From what we can determine the US invasion and concurrent devastation of Iraqi life has been successful in discouraging Iran from going ahead with their Iran Oil Bourse, originally scheduled to open in March 2006. While the neo-cons still have all their war "options on the table", there is no pressing need for Iran to open an oil bourse to compete with the London IPE, or the NYMEX. The drop in the US$ has been far more threatening to the US Government, and by extension the banking cartel, than any competing oil bourse could precipitate. Israel stands poised to become the spearhead of an attack on Iran should it be called upon by the Anglo-American establishment. What could have been the reason that the Israeli Prime Minister asked that the US taxpayer foreign aid be made in euros, and the usual US$ currency? Could it be to ensure that Israel would have the required oil for an attack? But, even still, Israel would have been more than able to covert any dollars into euros. Was it to put the currency risk back onto the US taxpayer, or something else?

If I were permitted to pose a question to Iranian President Ahmadinejad at his recent roasting at Columbia University, I would have asked: "Mr. President, what is the current plan for Iran's world oil bourse, and to what extent has your agreement to sell oil to China alleviated other threats to your sovereignty?". Not surprisingly, this whole thread of US$ divestiture from oil is ignored by our MSM (Mainstream Media). Understandable though, as they are under CFR guidance as well.

Whatever the end result shall be, Democrat and Republican foreign policies over decades has so destabilized the Middle East that we cannot envision a modicum of stability being restored even in the lifetimes of our grandchildren.

Ron Paul has it right. We should just march home as we just marched in. The whole world will be a safer place to raise our families. With commodity-pegged currencies such as gold and silver competing with dishonest paper banknotes, real free trade, not managed trade will flourish.

USS Ronald Reagan Headed Where?

Apparently the Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) slipped anchor in what the Navy calls a “surge” deployment. Not sure if this surge talk is just fashionable or part of common Naval lingo (I have never heard it used before, but then again I am not a swabbie).

Some say the carrier is headed to WESTPAC, others say the Persian Gulf. If it is the gulf it might find the waters pretty full there with the John C. Stennis and Dwight D. Eisenhower battle groups already on station. Three carrier battle groups in one little pond…wonder what that could be about?

Iran Installs Centrifuges at Atomic Site

(IOL) Vienna - Iran has installed two cascades of 164 centrifuges each in its underground nuclear plant, laying a basis for full-scale enrichment of uranium and upping the stakes in a standoff with the West, European diplomats said on Monday.

More Confirming Opinions

Joshua has a bit more about the coming attack on Iran:

In Bush Is About to Attack Iran, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts quotes General Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy on Geopolitical Affairs and former Joint Chief of Staff of the Russian Armies [...] The general says the attack will come by April.

Beware the Ides of March

Just Talk and Dreams

(Guardian) 'The reality is that they have got to the stage where they can run a small experimental centrifuge cascade intermittently,' said one Western source familiar with the Iranian programme. 'They simply have not got to the stage where they can run 3,000 centrifuges There is no evidence either that they have been stockpiling low-enriched uranium which could be highly enriched quickly and which would give an idea of a malevolent intent.'

Another source with familiarity with the Iranian programme said: 'Iran has put all this money into this huge hole in the ground at Natanz; it has put a huge amount of money in these P-1 centrifuges, the model rejected by Urenco. It is like the Model T Ford compared to a Prius. That is not to say they will not master the technology eventually, but they are trying to master very challenging technology without access to everything that they require.'

Looking For Clues

(Daily News Tribune) Years from now, will we refer to these early days of 2007 as "the run-up to the Iran War"? That's what it feels like in Washington as President George W. Bush prepares to deliver his seventh State of the Union address tonight at 9.

[...]

Four years ago, George W. Bush used his State of the Union speech to make the case for the invasion of Iraq. He talked about Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of chemical weapons - stockpiles that were never found. He talked about Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium in Africa - a fiction he officially retracted months later.

So listen closely to what Bush says about Iran. If he tries to hang a Saddam Hussein mask on Ahmadinejad; if he warns of the growing threat of Iran's WMD program; if he stresses Iran's connections to terrorists like those responsible for 9/11, we may be watching a frightening sequel to a movie we've already seen.

Watch as well for the reaction, from Congressional Democrats, presidential contenders and media pundits. If George W. Bush appears intent on launching what would be his third war against a Moslem country in six years, who'll stand in his way?

Look for clues I shall.

Where Does it End?

According to China's news agency (take it for what it is worth), Iran recently shot down a US drone (make and model not listed)

TEHRAN, Jan. 16 (Xinhua) -- Iranian troops have shot down a U.S. pilotless spy plane recently, an Iranian lawmaker announced on Tuesday as the Islamic Republic was facing increasing military pressure from its arch rival -- the United States.

I am really uncertain where the folks in Washington think this will all go. If they are foolishly planning a second or third generation attack they will certainly succeed in the short-term.

Iran's air defense structure is porous - in large part because doctrinally, Iran based their defensive posture on the US model prior to 1979. That model involves a primacy of fighters in a defensive role - rather than the soviet model that stressed defense in depth and an interlaced system of missile and gun batteries.

The fact is Iran's air fleet has significantly deteriorated over the years - even with the addition of Saddam's "gifts" in 1991 and subsequent purchases from China as well as an indigenous fighter production effort (resulting in something roughly equivalent to an F-5). All of this comes to naught.

Iran recently purchased the TOR M air defense system from Russia - probably the best system in the world in its class - but this is not enough to fill the holes in their air defense grid.

But really all of this is not the point - the US can destroy anything in Iran it desires. That is second and third generational thinking. The aftermath will not be second or third generational - Iran will be left with but one option - full scale fourth generational operations within Iraq. That sort of escalation will permanently spell defeat for any plan Washington may have for the region.

Double-Talk

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House said Sunday it is not planning military action against Iran, but refused to rule out the possibility, bucking pressure from several senators who said the administration is not authorized to do so.

Asked whether the United States is preparing for a potential military conflict with Iran, President Bush's national security adviser Stephen Hadley told NBC's "Meet the Press," "No, the president has said very clearly that the issues we have with Iran should be solved diplomatically."

But, on ABC's "This Week," Hadley would not rule out the possibility of such an attack and would not say whether he agrees with those senators who say that the Bush administration would need congressional backing for such a move.

Clearly the President did not mention anything about diplomacy in his speech last Wednesday when he referenced Iran. The Sunday talking head shows were filled with duplicitous double-talk from various Executive branch folks and others close to Bush - "we are not planning to attack", "we have not ruled out an attack", "we will deal with Iran", "crossing international borders is a difficult legal question" are but some of the statements that came out of the Sunday media blitz.

All in all it seems that the Bush administration attempted to put a different face on things, one of we are not pushing this conflict. However. through it all occasionally more bellicose words came through.

People's Daily Online (a CHICOM paper published in Kuwait- so take it for what it is worth) reports that the US will attack Iran before April 2007. I hate it when communist agree with me.

Wondering

On January 17 at 14:30 GMT the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists will make a major announcement.

A lot of folks are abuzz over this - we will see.

Little Drummer Girl

WASHINGTON -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refused yesterday to rule out cross-border US military action against Iran, a day after President Bush pledged in a major speech to "seek out and destroy" Iranian and Syrian networks providing weapons and training to anti-American forces in Iraq.

Speaking before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Rice said the United States plans to target the networks inside Iraq, but added, "obviously the president isn't going to rule anything out to protect our troops."

Yes Condi, we all clearly understood what Bush meant by "networks" - but thanks for the clarification.

And the Beat Goes On

During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on national security threats, National Intelligence Director John D. Negroponte and other officials expressed a new level of concern over Iran's capabilities and intentions, saying the Islamic regime's pursuit of nuclear weapons was only one element of its increasingly aggressive behavior.

"Iran's influence is rising in ways that go beyond the menace of its nuclear program," said Negroponte, ticking off several developments that had emboldened the country in the last year.

Among them, he said, was an increase in oil revenue that allowed greater funding of terrorist activities, and a belief in Iran and Lebanon that Hezbollah — the Tehran-sponsored militant group based in Lebanon — was the victor in heavy fighting with Israel last summer.

Iran "regards its ability to conduct terrorist operations abroad as a key element of its national security strategy," Negroponte said, adding that Hezbollah, which the United States classifies as a terrorist organization, "could decide to conduct attacks against U.S. interests if it feels its survival — or that of Iran — is threatened." (LA Times)

I suppose most of us have lost all confidence in the US intelligence community -at least the top-men - as anything other than political lackeys carrying the water for the "greater good".

Thus, this this multi-pronged approach by Negroponte, laying out multiple reasons why Iran is a threat is no surprise. He is just one more drummer in Bush's band beating war drums. We will see more and more of this.

It appears that Bush and company learned a little from their initial WMD failures in Iraq. Instead of focusing just on Iran's terrorist connections or their nuclear program they have decided to take the smorgasbord approach - listing many reasons early on. That way, after it all begins they have a fall back plan.

Half-Stepping Toward War

US troops raided Iran's consulate in northern Iraq yesterday, arresting five staff, hours after US President George W. Bush vowed to cut off Iranian and Syrian support to "terrorists" in Iraq. (The Australian)

Subtle But Clear Statement of Intent on Iran

I previously shared an essay with you written by Sam Gardiner, COL USAF (RET) in which he described the build up to a war with Iran as not being a CNN event. Instead he described the telling signs as increased rhetoric and mention of Iran as a destabilizing force in the Middle East.

Today, Bush subtly but certainly, made his intentions, insofar as Iran is concerned, clear.

"These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq," he said.

He then singled out Iran, adding that she "is providing material support for attacks on American troops."

Bush made an implied military threat against both nations: "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq." (NewsMax)

He continued this veiled threat and statement of intent with something else I told you 02 January:

"We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing — and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies.

We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region." (NewsMax)

Notice that diplomacy is now absent in Bush's words regarding Iran.

Who are these "others" - well we already have a pretty good idea, the same folks that are pressing Bush to take action. The Patriot missiles Bush mentioned will go to Israel and possibly Saudi Arabia - we will see very soon - probably already there or enroute (the US leaves a battery in Israel all the time - the additional missles are just to make them feel wam and fuzzy and keep their aircraft on the tarmac).

Israel can only interpret these words one way - "stand down little buddy, I have this one". Likewise, Iran can only interpret this one way "stand down or I will shock and awe you".

Complete LOSP take on the coming US-Iranian Conflict