Iran Deploys Missiles To Strait Of Hurmuz

Over half of the world’s supply of crude oil and about 40% of the natural gas supply travels through the Strait of Hurmuz on it’s way to worldwide destinations. Reports are saying that Iran has deployed mobile missile launchers into the Strait to be better prepared should an attack on that country occur from the West, namely Israel and the United States.

Threats made of an attack against Iran to stop its nuclear weapons ambitions are nothing new. Much of this has been going on since 2002 but so far it has been all talk and no action. Iran still claims its nuclear development is only for peaceful purposes and for the creation of nuclear powered electricity. This action by Iran only brings the notion closer to reality that an attack may be eminent.

Iran has supposedly notified many of its Arab neighbors that they have deployed the missiles but they are not targeted at them, however, Iran has many times threatened that if their state is attacked, they will shut down the Strait of Hurmuz, crippling the world’s supply of crude oil and natural gas. This would draw the ire of much of the world against such a move.

It is interesting and leaves many people wondering if this bold move by Iran is being done because it perceives the Obama administration weak in its resolve to protect Israel and stand firm against any aggression aimed at Israel and the Middle East. We know that President Obama has tried to upon up communications with Iran and Syria and some see this move without preconditions as weak and foolhardy.

Israel and the United States have repeatedly said they cannot allow Iran to obtain or build nuclear weapons. The question still remains, what are they prepared to do to stop them. Iran must consider the threat enough to now deploy its mobile missiles into the Strait of Hurmuz.

Tom Remington

Further Signs Of Deterioration Of U.S. – Israel Relations

Over the past few days I have been bringing you stories that have at a minimum made us all wonder just how strongly U.S. President Barack Obama supports Israel. With President Obama insistent that he can negotiate with Iran, many are left wondering what Obama is willing to give up in order to appease Iran.

Yesterday we learned that Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, told the world that Israel needed to begin serious negotiations directed at a two-state solution with the Palestinians. Only a day later, V.P. Joe Biden told a pro-Israel lobby at AIPAC meetings, that Israel had to work toward a two-state solution.

The idea of Israel and Palestine living side by side in two separate states isn’t a new idea. As a matter of fact, President George Bush conceded that that might be the solution to the years of war and needless killings. The problem often in these negotiations is how to divide the land.

So far Obama’s warmth toward Israel hasn’t come shining through in any fashion and today, we read in the Washington Times that some, as well as perhaps even the new Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, are wondering if Obama is going to place demands on Israel to give up its nuclear weapons along with Iran.

President Obama’s efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to shield Israel’s nuclear weapons from international scrutiny, former and current U.S. and Israeli officials and nuclear specialists say.

The issue will likely come to a head when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Mr. Obama on May 18 in Washington. Mr. Netanyahu is expected to seek assurances from Mr. Obama that he will uphold the U.S. commitment and will not trade Israeli nuclear concessions for Iranian ones.

Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller said at a meeting of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at the UN that Israel should join the treaty. The treaty states that only 5 nations will be allowed to have nuclear weapons – U.S., France, Britain, China and Russia.

For that to happen, it would mean that the U.S. would no longer avoid acknowledging that Israel has nuclear arms. If the U.S. were able to force Israel into giving up nukes, this would leave a tiny island of maybe 5 million people surrounded by hundreds of millions who vow to wipe her off the face of the earth.

History has shown us that Israel, should they agree to any treaty, will honor that treaty. Other nations have an abysmal record of upholding treaties with Israel.

Is President Obama radically changing the relationship the United States has had with Israel for many years? Ed Morrissey of Hot Air says that he believes the reason Obama hired on Rose Gottemoeller as Assistant Secretary of State was because of her stance on Israel and that Obama fully understood her comments made about Israel signing on to the NPT. This being their policy on Israel.

The Obama administration appointed Gottemoeller, fully cognizant of her thinking on this issue. One has to assume that her appointment to the senior position at State constitutes an endorsement of those positions. It wouldn’t be the most radical thinking about Israel from this administration; Samantha Powers, who works between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice, once called for a Western occupation of Israel and forced disarmament of their entire army.

From this perspective it becomes disturbingly frightening that Obama seems to have a position on Israel that is more like that of just another country. I can understand why Israelis are wondering if this new administration will support Israel in real time of need.

We have to once again ask the question, are we leaving Israel to fend for itself?

Tom Remington

Angry North Korea Vows Nuclear Missile Testing

A scary and angry North Korea is vowing to conduct nuclear missile testing unless the United Nations Security Council apologizes immediately for the denunciation of N. Korea’s April 5 missile test and recalls the sanctions levied against them.

North Korea, now seemingly just referred to as a nuclear power, test fired a ballistic missile in early April. The country faced mostly just rhetoric from the U.S. and U.N., condemning the testing. Some insisted the U.S. needed to shoot down any missiles that North Korea launched but the event came and went without incident.

What makes North Korea having nuclear weapons a difficult pill to swallow it that this country seems to be living in another world. The rulers are unpredictable and quick to anger. It appears the Obama administration has opted to deal with North Korea from a position very much unlike that of his predecessor.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of whacked out leaders cannot be a good thing.

Tom Remington

Russia Will Test Fire 5 New Ballistic Missiles

Russia announced that it will test fire at least 5 new ballistic missiles this years. A new intercontinental ballistic missile system has some issues with reliability. If this initial test firings prove productive, Russia will subsequently seek to do more testing.

The submarine-launched Bulava missile has a reported maximum range of about 6,200 miles and capacity for up to six individually targeted nuclear warheads. It has been hailed as a key future component of Russia’s nuclear forces, although mixed results in testing have tempered enthusiasm.

Tom Remington

N. Korea A Nuclear Power. Pakistani Taliban Within 60 Miles Of Nukes

The balance of power is shifting in the world causing some of us to wonder about the future. We should also begin to question whether our insistence on living in denial about the intent of radical Islamists’ goal of destroying the Big and Little Satans (United States and Israel) has left us unprepared to deal with the rise of world hatred toward the West.

It seems that no longer are we questioning whether North Korea has nuclear weapons. It is becoming common enough that it is now assumed that North Korea is armed and we aren’t questioning if they will use the weapons but when.

From Fox News today:

Now North Korea’s supreme leader, Kim Jong Il, has the potential to kill millions in Japan as well as the South, and to lay waste U.S. bases and airfields in both countries. It will force military strategists to rethink plans for war in Korea and significantly increase the potential costs of any intervention in a future Korean war. The shift from acknowledging North Korea’s nuclear weapons development program to recognizing it as a fully fledged nuclear power is highly controversial. South Korea, in particular, resists the reclassification because it could give the North greater leverage in negotiations.

While eyes seemed to be focused in the United States on matters at home, we seem to have forgotten much of what else is going on in the world. Yesterday Third Lens writer, Steve Remington, snapped us back to attention, if only briefly, that Russia had broken its peace agreement and had moved its military machine back into Georgia on a march to reclaim South Ossetia. This would give Russia power and control over the movement of oil and natural gas into the rest of Europe.

On another front, Taliban forces in Pakistan moved that much closer to the capital bringing radical forces, who many believe have the objective of capturing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, to within about 60 miles of those weapons.

Oddly enough though, after capturing nearby Buner, and setting up command headquarters, Taliban troops began pulling back today, apparently after brokering some kind of agreement with the Pakistan government or perhaps actually fearing the government’s claim that it would forcibly remove them from the area.

According to an AP report on Fox News, few think the Taliban is content to fall back and wait there.

The government agreed in February to impose Islamic law in Swat and surrounding areas of the northwest in return for a cease-fire that halted nearly two years of bloody fighting between militants and Pakistani security forces.

But hard-liners have seized on the concession to demand Islamic law, or Sharia, across the country, and the Swat Taliban have used it to justify a push into Buner, putting them within striking distance of the capital and key roads leading to the main northwestern city of Peshawar.

As the global balance of power shifts, the rest of the world is left wondering what can be done? Are we prepared to take action to stop this movement by radicals to gain power through nuclear weapons?

Tom Remington

Israel’s Peres Hints at Possible Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Program

How long has Israel been condemning Iran’s program to engineer their own nuclear weapons? How long before condemnation turns into action? Well, according to the current President of the state of Israel, it all depends on whether the United States can soften “the Iranian president’s approach”. Peres went on to say that if Obama’s talks with Iran fail to halt their nuclear program, then Israel will strike. These are some very bold words spoken this Easter Sunday.

Although Peres is adamant about military action, he concluded that Israel couldn’t carry out any strike against the Islamic Republic without America’s assistance.

“We certainly cannot go it alone, without the US, and we definitely can’t go against the US. This would be unnecessary,” stressed the president.

One thing is certain, and that is Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. The question is at one point do they intervene? And can they go it alone without the U.S. if the Obama Administration refuses to support such an attack?