Obama, Hezbollah, and the End of Israel

As I currently sit in my house South of Jerusalem, there is a storm rising on Israel’s Northern border.  The storm is the Iranian axis made up of the Syrian regime, Hezbollah, and Iranian special forces.  This grouping is now a mere 4km from the Israeli Golan, an unthinkable situation just a few months ago.

It has become increasingly clear that the most potent menace out of the three antagonists is the Lebanese Hezbollah.  What was once just an Iranian proxy, has become a battle heartened army over the last few years of fighting to save Assad’s regime in Syria.  The Hezbollah now boasts over 100 thousand rockets aimed at Israel.  Their armed forces are not only situated North of Israel, but now buttress the Hermon, a strategic mountain that overlooks Israel’s Hula valley and Northern coastal areas.

How did this happen?  How did Hezbollah become such a threat to Israel?  Now, before I write further, I want to make it clear that the Israeli government going back to former Prime Minister Ehud Barak who hastily pulled out of Southern Lebanon, thus ceding control to Hezbollah deserves some of the initial blame for Israel’s current strategic situation.

Yet, it is becoming apparent thanks to Josh Meyer at Politico that the Obama administration had willfully shut down and blocked key parts of Project Cassandra, a secret program started in 2008 under the auspices of the DEA to target Hezbollah’s billion-dollar criminal enterprise and in many cases block it.  Hezbollah’s financing has been critical in allowing what was once just a terrorist organization to grow into a political movement and formidable army.

Meyer’s piece, which has become the focus of a cross-section of politicians and pundits since its publication on the 18th of December, essentially blew the lid off the fallout of Obama’s Iranian appeasement policy.

“In its determination to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, the Obama administration derailed an ambitious law enforcement campaign targeting drug trafficking by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah, even as it was funneling cocaine into the United States, according to a POLITICO investigation,” Meyer starts his article.

“The Obama administration derailed an ambitious law enforcement campaign targeting drug trafficking by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah.”

Meyer’s article is thick with investigative research.  Despite push back by former Obama and Clinton officials, it is hard to dismiss his findings. There is no need to reproduce in this article what Meyer wove together over at Politico.

What is important to understand is that Israel’s most determined enemy was allowed to grow and build its army and weaponry with full knowledge and acceptance by former President Obama. This is not a small matter and the decision to allow this was clearly not taken without the understanding that doing so would essentially put Israel into mortal danger as it may very well be now.

The Iranian axis may still have captured Beit Jinn this past week, but its ability to inflict blow after blow against Israel would not be as potent if it were not for Obama’s reckless determination to reach a deal with the Iranian regime on the back of Israel’s safety.

The coming war between Israel and its mortal enemies is a direct consequence of the policy decisions in the Obama administration.  Without the chaos of the Arab spring, which Obama championed, nor the overtures to the Iranian regime, by the President himself, Iran would have never been able to reach to the Levant. Iran made the progress it did in large part due to the help of a well-financed Hezbollah.

The coming weeks are critical for Israel as war seems to be a foregone conclusion.  It is important that the truth be uncovered concerning the Obama administration’s role in railroading a program that was designed to weaken one of Israel’s and the USA’s most diehard enemies. It is also imortant that writer’s like Josh Meyer are championed instead of attacked as is happening now by public agents close to the Obama and Clinton teams.


Obama: Worse than Chamberlain?

“Iran will become a nuclear power. The only mystery over how that will happen is whether Obama was inept or whether he deliberately sought to make the theocracy…strategic power.”- Victor Davis Hanson

In its determination to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, the Obama administration derailed an ambitious law enforcement campaign targeting drug trafficking by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah, even as it was funneling cocaine into the United States…Meanwhile, Hezbollah — in league with Iran — continues to undermine U.S. interests in Iraq, Syria and throughout wide swaths of Latin America and Africa, including providing weapons and training to anti-American Shiite militiasJosh Meyer, The secret backstory of how Obama let Hezbollah off the hook, Politico, Dec. 18, 2017.

It is becoming clear that the liberal President Obama…in complete contradiction of his saintly statements, effectively gave a green light to an entire web of ongoing crimes, based on his perception – ridiculous in itself – that it was in America’s national interest to do soProf. Abraham Ben-Zvi,  No moral backbone Dec. 19, 2019,

The really chilling aspect of the Obama incumbency is that it is genuinely difficult to diagnose whether the abysmal results we see represent a crushing failure of his policies or a calculated success; whether they are the product of chronic ineptitude or purposeful foresight; whether they reflect myopic misunderstanding, moronic incompetence or malicious intent. – Into the Fray: Will the West Withstand The Obama Presidency?, Nov. 28, 2013.

Earlier this week, a scorching piece of investigative journalism in the widely-read political publication, Politico, catapulted the ill-conceived 2015 Iran nuclear deal, mendaciously railroaded through by the Obama administration, back into the center of media attention.

Well, sort of.

No record in “The paper of record”?

For although numerous media channels did swoop down on the report that, in order to secure some agreement with Tehran over its nuclear program, the Obama White House deliberately strove to obstruct an extensive Drug Enforcement Administration operation, codenamed “Project Cassandra”, targeting the Iran-backed terror group, Hezbollah–it appears to have been studiously ignored by several major Obamaphilic outlets.

Indeed, Google as I might, I could find nary a reference—even the most oblique or remote— in the New York Times to the almost 15,000 word investigation. Or in the LA Times. Or the Washington Post. Or on CNN. Or MSNBC…

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), on the other hand, did address the matter. In an editorial headlined “Obama’s Pass for Hezbollah”, it called for a Congressional investigation into the allegations that the Obama administration “had shut down, derailed or delayed numerous…Hezbollah-related cases with little or no explanation”—despite evidence that “Hezbollah had transformed itself…into an international crime syndicate that…was collecting $1 billion a year from drug and weapons trafficking, money laundering and other criminal activities”.

In fairness, it should be noted that the liberal-leaning National Public Radio (NPR) did air an interview with the exposé’s author, Josh Meyer. However, in a breathtaking example of politically partisan obfuscation, the host of NPR’s Morning Edition, Rachel Martin attempted to defend the indefensible.

Media mumbo-jumbo

Summing up Meyer’s deeply disturbing investigation, she concluded: “this was obviously a historic deal, the Iran nuclear deal.. It has become a central part of Barack Obama’s presidential legacy. [T]he premise was all about making the world safer.” Then transparently trying to minimize the gravity of Meyer’s revelations, Martin suggested: “The takeaway from your piece and your reporting seems to be that there were just more tradeoffs involved in this deal than the public knew about.

Just more tradeoffs involved than the public knew about???!!! Really?

Turning a blind-eye to tons of cocaine” smuggled into the U.S. by a Mexican cartel; rivers of dirty cash, traced to “the innermost circle of Hezbollah and its state sponsors in Iran”; procurement of deadly weapons used to “kill hundreds of U.S. soldiers” Just another trade-off???   Imagine if the American people had known!

In his closing comment, Meyer managed to dispense with Martin’s mumbo-jumbo of “making the world safer”: “It is somewhat ironic…that in their efforts to make the world a safer place they did allow a group that was a regionally focused militia-slash-political organization with a terrorist wing to become a much more wealthy global criminal organization that has a lot of money that can now be used to bankroll terrorist and military actions around the world.”

“Making the world safer…”?
Indeed, there could be little more ludicrous than the contention that Obama’s foreign policy made the world “a safer place”. For virtually in every corner of the globe, the opposite is clearly the case. Virtually, everywhere it was applied, the Obama-doctrine was dramatically and definitively disproven. Indeed, wherever the administration took action—or refrained from action—disaster followed debacle, leaving a gory trial of death, destruction and devastation. America’s traditional allies were alienated and abandoned; its traditional adversaries embraced and emboldened. Time and again, the US saw its prestige as a power degraded; its credibility as an ally drastically diminished.

Whether in Egypt, or Libya; in Yemen or Iraq; Syria or Turkey, Obama never failed in putting the wrong foot forward.

In Egypt, he embraced the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood but coldshouldered General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the man who managed to oust it, and save the county from plunging into an Islamist abyss. In Libya, Obama “led from behind” into ousting a chastened Kaddafi—and into the ongoing bloody turmoil that has engulfed the country ever since; In Syria, his reticence left the more moderate rebel forces without support, emboldened Russia and created a vacuum that Iran, with its capabilities greatly enhanced and its coffers greatly replenished by the 2015 nuclear deal, eagerly rushed to fill; In Iran, during the 2009 Green Revolution, he turned his back on the millions protesting against the incumbent tyranny, thus making the  prospects for any positive regime-change increasingly remote. In Iraq, his grave underestimation of the threat ISIS posed precipitated gruesome carnage of genocidal proportions…  

And so, under Obama, the world got safer and safer…

Puzzling, perturbing and perverse

It is against this backdrop of pervasive foreign policy failures that the fateful Iran deal should be scrutinized—together with the reasons for the exorbitant price the Obama administration was willing to pay for it, and the light this might shed on the motivations behind the US endorsement of it.

For as I pointed out in a previous INTO THE FRAY column (see introductory excerpts): “… it is genuinely difficult to diagnose whether the abysmal results we see represent a crushing failure of his policies or a calculated success; whether they are the product of chronic ineptitude or purposeful foresight… whether they reflect myopic misunderstanding, moronic incompetence or malicious intent.”

For, as more and more emerges as to what we know – and what we don’t– about the noxious deal brewed by Obama and his minions (e.g. the obstruction of Project Cassandra), it is becoming increasingly difficult to accept that negotiations with Iran were conducted in good faith.

Indeed, this very question is posed by Prof. Victor Davis Hanson of Stanford’s Hoover Institute. In in a scathing essay, Is Obamism Correctable?, he writes: “Iran will become a nuclear power. The only mystery over how that will happen is whether Obama was inept or whether he deliberately sought to make the theocracy some sort of strategic power.”

It is a question that cannot be skirted—for much that surrounds the actions of the previous administration regarding its policy towards Iran is puzzling and perturbing—even perverse.

From preventing to permitting proliferation

It would appear that, for Obama, there were good reasons to keep the US public in the dark as to the details of the nuclear deal. As I pointed out elsewhere (POTUS vs US),

not only was there significant—and increasing—opposition to the deal, but the more people knew about it, the more they opposed it- see here and here.

But beyond the question of duplicity and concealment, there lies the question of motivation.

After all, the deal with Tehran was in large measure, a dramatic point of inflection in US policy towards Iran. Rather than being a hard-won triumph, it was an unexplained, unnecessary capitulation, which not only departed from, but contradicted, long-held principles.


This is vividly illustrated in a WSJ article, The Iran Deal and Its Consequences, by two former Secretaries of State, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz. They point out that “For 20 years, three presidents of both major parties proclaimed that an Iranian nuclear weapon was contrary to American and global interests – and that they were prepared to use force to prevent it.”

However, under Obama, they warned: “…negotiations that began 12 years ago as an international effort to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability…”


In an earlier appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Kissinger reiterated the far-reaching weakening of US positions: “Nuclear talks with Iran began as an international effort, buttressed by six U.N. resolutions, to deny Iran the capability to develop a military nuclear option. They are now an essentially bilateral negotiation over the scope of that capability…The impact of this approach will be to move from preventing proliferation to managing it.”

Thus, under Obama, the US moved from a firm commitment to prevent proliferation to feebly consenting to permit it—hopefully somewhat delayed.

Untethered to America’s founding Judeo-Christian heritage

How is this radical sea-change to be accounted for?

As I have underscored in numerous previous INTO THE FRAY columns, Obama himself was in effect a point of inflection in the history if the US presidency.

Indeed, it is difficult for anyone—other than the willfully blind or the woefully biased—to deny that in the formative environment, in which Obama’s political credo coalesced, many of the influences, and many of the personalities/organizations that shaped his political consciousness, were, at least partially, sharply divergent from – even antithetical to – the ethos that made America, America.

Accordingly, only the overly naïve—or excessively partisan—could believe that these inputs would not color his political instincts and policy preferences. Consequently, under his administration, US national interests – and the manner in which they should be pursued – were perceived being fundamentally different from the way they were perceived by almost all his predecessors.

Indeed, Obama was the first US president who was explicitly and overtly untethered–cognitively and emotionally—from the moorings of America’s Judeo-Christian cultural heritage, and who genuinely conceived of Islam as not inherently opposed to American values or interests.

This –for anyone who understands that the US constitution is not a Sharia-compliant document—is likely to a problematic perspective

The Chamberlain analogy

The Chamberlain analogy has been applied to Obama; and the Munich analogy, to the Iran nuclear deal he was so eager conclude, as to reflecting a repetition of the kind of appeasement of tyranny that led to the horrors of World War II. Indeed, it has been invoked not only by his political adversaries, but concerned political supporters as well.

Thus, two-time Obama voter, Prof. Alan Dershowitz warned that, if as a result of the nuclear deal, Iran acquired nuclear weapons, Obama’s legacy would be similar to the disgraced British prime minister, whose capitulation to Nazi Germany precipitated arguably the greatest carnage in human history.

However, capitulation by Obama to Tehran is far more difficult to comprehend than Chamberlain’s to Hitler. For the disparity between the strength of the mighty US and the then economically emaciated and drought-ravaged Iran was vastly greater than the power differential between Britain and the resurgent Germany of the late 1930s.

After all, America’s  GDP outstrips Iran’s by a factor of more than 40, its per capita GDP is 10 times higher; it has over four times the population of Iran, and is six times its size.

But perhaps the most significant comparison concerns military prowess.

While the US defense budget is around $600 billion, most published estimates put Iranian defense expenditure at that time at around 2% -3% of that of the US.

Worse than Chamberlain?

Accordingly, with more than 40 times the resources devoted to military capabilities than Tehran, the claim, that some other more favorable deal could not be imposed on an impoverished Iran, rings decidedly hollow – if not manipulatively mendacious.

It certainly seems wildly implausible that the only other alternative was to allow Iran to pursue, with virtual impunity, all its other nefarious , non-nuclear malfeasance across the globe, while empowering it militarily, enriching it economically and entrenching it politically—thus  making any regime-change in the foreseeable future highly unlikely.

Clearly then, the question of whether Obama will be judged as worse than Chamberlain cannot be avoided.  But will America be able to muster the moral courage to contend with it honestly?


Obama partisans fret as Saudi Arabia, Israel and the US confront reality on Iran.

Friday, long-time US diplomats and Middle East experts Aaron David Miller and Richard Sokolsky published an article in Foreign Policy expressing “buyers’ remorse” over Saudi Arabia’s newfound willingness to take the lead in regional affairs.

Titled, “Donald Trump has unleashed the Saudi Arabia we always wanted – and feared,” Miller and Sokolsky note that for generations, US policymakers wanted the Saudis to take a lead in determining the future of the region.

In their words, “During decades of service at the State Department, we longed for the day when riskaverse Saudi leaders would take greater ownership in solving their domestic and regional security problems and reduce their dependence on the United States.”

But now, they argue, under the leadership of King Salman and his son, 32-year-old Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudis are going too far.

Domestically, Miller and Sokolsky accuse Salman and Mohammed of upsetting the traditional power sharing arrangements among the various princes in order to concentrate unprecedented power in Mohammed’s hands. This, they insist, harms the status of human rights in the kingdom, although they acknowledge that Mohammed has taken steps to liberalize the practice of Islam in the kingdom to the benefit of women and others.

While upset at the purge of princes, ministers and businessmen, Miller and Sokolsky are much more concerned about the foreign policy initiatives Mohammed and Salman have undertaken with everything related to countering Iran’s rise as a regional hegemon.

In their words, “Abroad, the Saudis are engaged in a cold war with an opportunistic Iran that’s exploiting their missteps in Yemen and Qatar.”

Miller and Sokolsky note that Mohammed’s campaign to defeat the Iranian-backed Houthi regime in Yemen has been bogged down. His effort – backed by US President Donald Trump – to force Qatar to abandon its policy of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran has similarly come up short.

They continue, “The latest Saudi gambit – pressuring the Sunni Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri to resign in an effort to expose an Iranian- and Hezbollah- dominated Lebanon – is perhaps too clever by half. What are the Saudis going to do, given their Shiite adversaries’ advantages in Syria and Lebanon, when the Lebanese find themselves plunged into domestic crisis or a conflict between Israel and Hezbollah?” The veteran diplomats conclude their missive by urging Trump to implement his predecessor Barack Obama’s Saudi policy. In their words, Trump needs to place heavy pressure “on the king and his son to de-escalate this conflict and restore equilibrium to America’s relations with Saudi Arabia and Iran.”

“Because make no mistake,” they warn, “Saudi independence is illusory. Riyadh desperately wants us to back them – and bail them out when they get in over their heads with Iran. If Washington is not careful, the Saudis will sandbag America into standing up to Tehran while the Saudis hide behind its skirt.”

As if synchronized, Robert Malley, Obama’s former Middle East adviser, makes a similar argument in an article in The Atlantic. Malley took a lead role in expanding the US’s ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Iran and Hezbollah during the Obama years.

There are several problems with these policymakers’ claims. The first is that in criticizing the Saudis they deliberately ignore the Obama administration’s central role in engendering the current situation in which the Saudi regime feels compelled to take the actions it is taking.

To be clear, noting the role of the previous administration in causing the rapidly escalating instability of the Middle East is not an exercise in deflecting criticism away from the current administration. The simple fact is that it is impossible for the US to chart a rational course for dealing with the present dangers and opportunities without understanding how they arose in the first place.

For eight years, the Obama administration deliberately alienated and willingly endangered Saudi Arabia and Israel by implementing a policy of appeasing Iran. Despite repeated warnings, the US refused to recognize that as far as Iran is concerned, it cannot have its cake and eat it too.

Iran is at war with Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies and with Israel.

Consequently, Miller and Sokolsky’s claim that there can be an “equilibrium to America’s relations with Saudi Arabia and Iran” which doesn’t involve the US siding with one side against the other is an illusion. On the ground in the Middle East, as events in Syria, Lebanon, Qatar, Yemen, Bahrain, Iraq, Gaza and Egypt have made clear, Obama’s strategy of appeasing Iran weakened America’s traditional regional allies and strengthened Iran and its proxies.

The change in the balance of forces that the Obama administration’s policy caused forced the US’s spurned allies to reassess their strategic dependence on the US. Contrary to Miller and Sokolsky’s claims, the Saudis didn’t abandon their past passivity because Mohammed is brash, young and inexperienced.

Mohammed was appointed because Salman needed a successor willing and able to fight for the survival of the kingdom after Obama placed it in jeopardy through his appeasement of Iran. Mohammed is the flipside of the nuclear deal.

Malley noted blandly that like the Saudis, Israel has also been sounding alarms at an ever escalating rate.

It isn’t hard to understand why. In 2009, Israel’s borders and territory were far more secure than they are today. Sunday night three former senior missile developers at Rafael Advanced Defense Systems – Israel’s premier missile and missile defense developer – went on television to warn that Haifa’s oil refineries and plans to use surrounding areas as a fuel depot will force the evacuation not only of the population of Haifa, but of all the surrounding satellite cities when war breaks out next with Hezbollah.

Hezbollah, they warned, now has the precision missile capability to destroy these vital national infrastructures and render the Gulf of Haifa uninhabitable.

Then there is Syria.

Israel has repeatedly insisted that Iran and its proxies must not be permitted to develop a permanent presence in Syria. Russia and the US ignored Israel’s warnings not only during the Obama years, but, in a sign of the continued power of Obama partisans in the US foreign policy community, during the past year of the Trump administration as well. Over the summer the US and Russia concluded a cease-fire deal for Syria that permitted Iran and its proxies to operate in Syria.

Last week, the BBC reported that Iran is now building a military base 50 kilometers from the border with Israel. On Saturday, the IDF shot down a Russian- made intelligence drone launched against it by forces controlled by Iran’s chief Syrian proxy, Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Sunday, following threats from Iranian-controlled Islamic Jihad terrorist forces in Gaza, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated that Israel will not accept assaults against it across any of its borders.

Netanyahu said that he holds the Iranian-supported Hamas regime in Gaza responsible for any attacks against Israel emanating from its territory.

Netanyahu’s statement was notable since just last week Hamas and Fatah began implementing their power sharing arrangement in Gaza. Fatah forces, controlled by Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, supposedly took responsibility for border crossings between Gaza and Israel.

By insisting that Hamas is responsible rather than Fatah, despite the agreement, Netanyahu signaled that as far as Israel is concerned, through its power- sharing deal with Fatah Hamas has succeeded in becoming the Palestinian version of Hezbollah. Just as Hezbollah pretends to be a faction in Lebanese politics, when in fact it controls all aspects of the Lebanese state, so Hamas remains in charge of all aspects of governance in Gaza while using the PA as a fig leaf.

This brings us back to Miller, Sokolsky and Malley and their pining for a reset button.

It is hard to view their positions as the basis for forging constructive US policies for the region, transformed by eight years of US appeasement of Iran at the expense of its allies and interests.

Insisting that Mohammed abandon the steps he has taken to expand the prospects of Saudi survival in favor of a policy of pretending that a stable equilibrium can be struck between Iran and Saudi Arabia (and Israel) is not a policy for restoring equilibrium.

Putting Hariri back in office in Beirut so he can continue to serve as a fig leaf for Hezbollah and Iran is not a policy for restoring equilibrium. They are both means for pretending reality away while enabling Iran to wage a continuous war against America’s allies with ever greater power and capacity.

It makes sense that Obama partisans are unhappy with King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed. It makes sense that they are unhappy with Netanyahu and with Trump. All four of these leaders are impudently insisting on basing their policies on recognizing the reality Obama spent his two terms ignoring: Iran is not appeasable.

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.

Obama and Kerry Paid Ransom Money to Iranian Regime to Free Hostages

It has been reported that the Obama administration sent up $400 million to Iran by way of unmarked cargo plane as payment to free the American hostages that Iran had been holding. Although the Administration at the time insisted it was not folding on paying to free the hostages, more and more proof comes out saying otherwise.

This should not come to a surprise as the administration from the beginning of P5 +1 negotiations engaged in a strategy of obfuscation and semantic gymnastics in trying to show the American people and the Israeli government that it was in fact not caving in on its core principles.

With the new information coming to light, there should be no doubt about Obama’s interest in a détente with Iran from the beginning.  The question is, why has Obama been so interested in rapprochement with the Iranian terrorist regime?

Obama believes that there really are no terrorists.  As a follower of historical Marxism, all conflicts are essentially due to class struggles and economic issues. This is why Obama and John Kerry felt from the beginning that Iran just needed enough incentive to first come to the table and then sign onto an agreement.  The problem is, what happens if the incentive Iran is looking for is the destruction of Israel?

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, False Flag Coup, and the Rise of the New Sultanate

There are times when rulers reach a zenith in their power.  Some of them fall away and others find a way to reverse course and rise again.  The failed coup in Turkey over the weekend marks the lowest point Recep Tayyip Erdogan. It also marks that moment that Erdogan shifts Turkey from a secular democracy to a neo-sultanate once and for all.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan has used the failed coup to do what he has always wanted to do.  He has wasted no time in purging the Turkish courts and military of secular members and tightening his grip on the country.

The real question though is why did this coup involve only junior members of the military? If it had such support how could it fail so miserably?

There are many answers, but one likely possibility is that Erdogan himself could have staged the coup in order to give credence to his wanton desire to take full control over Turkey. If this seems far fetched, Erdogan has been accused of false flag attacks before. One such incident was uncovered last year and reported at Shoebot.com: “Twitter whistleblower Fuat Avni claimed on Monday that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has ordered the intelligence agency head to stage a false assassination plot against his son Bilal Erdoğan in order to blame the Gülen movement.”

Others have reported that Erdogan himself has been quite open on the need to use a false flag operation to make an excuse for sending troops into Syria.

The coup attempt in the last 24 hours has been very weak, lending fuel that this was indeed a false flag attack.

Erdogan has always been quite clear in seeing his role as one of a reinstated sultan, presiding over an expansive rebuilt Ottoman Empire.  Since he has become president, Erdogan has increasingly solidified control, while expanding Islamic influence throughout the Republic of Turkey. No one should forget that it was Recep Tayyip Erdogan who made the following statement: “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers…”

Russia Will Not Wait

If it becomes clear that Erdogan is in fact strengthening his grip in a far more complete way than he already has, Russia will not hesitate to make moves to check Turkey in order to ensure Erdogan can do little harm to Putin’s influence in the region.

In the coming weeks the rapprochement moves that had been underway between the two countries may very well become frozen if Putin feels the need to put the Turkish ruler back in his place.

Israel will Stay Neutral

Despite reconciliation between Israel and Turkey, the last thing Israel wants is a newly emboldened Erdogan.  If Erdogan is really about to transform Turkey into a sultanate, Israel will think twice before restarting weapons sales to its military.  With Russia and Israel building a closer friendship the two will be in coordination. This means that Israel is quietly positioning itself in opposition to NATO’s strategy in regards to both Russia and Turkey.

The USA is Backed Into a Corner

Obama quickly mumbled support for Erdogan.  This, even as Erdogan is holding troops USA troops hostage until the United States extradites Muhammed Fethullah Gülen, the Turkish preacher Erdogan claims is behind the coup.



It is too early to see what Obama will do, but most probably nothing. Afterall, Turkey is a NATO ally and is needed as a forward base to bomb ISIS. Look for Gulen to be extradited or this to be settled quietly behind the scenes.

Erdogan has always been focused on spearheading political Islam at a regional level.  The question isn’t whether he wants to be a sort of neo-sultan, but how. I think we have just seen the first steps in Erdogan’s strategy.  

Iran and USA: Cornering Israel

Shortly before President Obama’s final State of the Union Address, Iranian Revolutionary Guards gunboats seized and detained 2 ships belonging to the United States military and the ten marines on board. Less than 24 hours later the marines were released. The typical chorus and rhapsody of neoconservative pundits seriously believed that this would be the “straw that broke the camel’s back” and Obama would have the guts to stand up to the Persians.

The assumption that the Obama administration works according to the same rule book that past Presidents have is a perception that just doesn’t fit.  The Obama administration won’t risk war with Iran, not because it believes war is bad.  Afterall they toppled Gaddafi. They won’t risk war with Iran, because Obama and team and their shrills in the media believe wholeheartedly that Iran should be seen as a future strategic partner.  After all, Obama didn’t even mention the captive soldiers in his State of the Union Address. Of course for Obama, this is more to do with his world outlook than strategic positioning.

Barack Obama is a transformational President. In that regard, bridging the divide with Persia, a country he believes deserves respect because of their ancient roots, fits in with his restructuring of geopolitical partnerships.

Furthermore, it is quite probable the action Iran took was undertaken from the beginning as a means to show that they are actually reasonable. Given Obama’s rapprochement with Iran, he is more than willing to let Iran play the part of a reasonable actor.

Israel In a Corner

Bibi Netanyahu’s entire mantra is that one should not negotiate with irrational actors as was done with North Korea. Bibi has from the beginning tried to prove that Iran and North Korea are very similar.  This has fed into Obama’s strategy of showing the opposite.  By inculcating in the American people that Bibi and Israel are saber rattling and preventing what should otherwise we be a rapprochement, then the bad guys backed by the neocons is really Israel.

Once again the the chess match between Bibi and Obama has entered another back and forth phase.  The challenge for Israel is realizing they are playing  at a chessboard alone as their challenger plays with very different rules and a far more sinister goal.


Obama and the Coming Global Security State

“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”

-1984, George Orwell

What does one do when the person they have elected views the office they hold as merely a means to gain even more power.  They can either dismiss the chorus of complaints as racist, conspiratorial, or downright mad, but the facts won’t change and the fleeing of self responsibility won’t reverse the course.

When Americans elected Barack Hussein Obama in 2008 and again in 2012, they made a choice between the sovereignty of the many  and sovereignty of the State.  For Obama it has never been about the Change he promised as that was a sugar coated pill for the masses.  The revolution Obama has wrought in the USA is the revolution of the State against its citizens. This is the bureaucratic dictatorship the founding fathers warned against.  It is the unseen hand that controls all, but cannot be found out for it is the state itself and not a single person.

Obama though is not satisfied with his revolution in the United States, because Obama has always aspired to more.  For Obama he is the revolution in and of itself.  For if he can so fundamentally transform America, why not be the great unifier of the world itself. Afterall, for Obama the USA has a flaw.  The Amendments the 13 original states agreed to ratify (after some wrangling between them) are too strong a component to the cultural ethos of the USA to disregard and complete the revolution Obama would like to see.

Breaking Israel News reports that Al –Jarida, an Arabic language Kuwaiti magazine, published an article on Friday claiming that US President Barack Obama has set his sights on becoming the next Secretary General of the United Nations when he leaves the Oval Office in one year.

For Obama the revolution will be complete, the global security state, the one that rights the wrongs of the past, equalizes the rich with the impoverished, and heralds peace at the expense of personal freedom will be his creation. Once again he is both the revolution and its goal.

Between the Rule of the Individual and the Rule of the State

The Torah teaches us that each individual is a Divine spark, a map of the universe in miniature.  We are in this world for a specific purpose only we can fulfill. It is true, the Kingdom Israel that is waiting to burst through the darkness will have a King, but the King and the Kingdom are not meant to rule over us.  They are meant as a means to give full freedom to the individual and at the same time provide the inspiration and motivation for each of us to attain our Divine goals.

Statists believe the State is the all powerful and it is the individual’s purpose and goal to pledge loyalty to the State. That allegiance and handing over of personal freedoms is the catalyst for global and societal transformation.

The coming conflagration is not really about Islam versus the West.  Rather, it is about the role of the individual in relation to the State.  Slavery comes in many ways.  Sometimes it is a Pharaoh and his task masters who rule relentlessly over a powerless Israelite people.  Other times it is the quiet rule of law administered, not for the sake of justice, but rather to uphold the power of the few and the system that serves them over the masses who have traded away their freedom for the short term injection of false happiness.

These are the times our sages spoke about.  Those of us who are G-d fearing must not give in to the false promises of politicians or the machinations of soon to be ex-Presidents who believe they are the Change everyone wants and needs. We in Israel and those of our supporters around the world who believe in the individual rights and freedom of thought must yearn and be prepared to defend the freedom of man and his divine mission against the totalitarianism of the State.

This war has no specific location, but rather it is a war over the hearts and minds of humanity itself.


The Last War

In today’s podcast we cover what I call the Last War.  Yesterday’s and today’s news headlines are rife with speculation that Turkey’s downing of a Russian fighter jet changed the nature of the Syrian conflict.  It brings the regional and factional struggle to a new phase and will begin to destabilize not only Syria to a far more dangerous situation, but has ramifications for Israel and the entire world. This war has the potential to clear the deck so to speak.

We also interview David Ha’Ivri about his take on the security situation and what he feels needs to be done with many of the violent Arab terrorists and their supporters.