The first article represents yet another timely review by Joel Rosenberg; this is a lengthy article but worth posting in full:
Putin Positioning Himself As New Power Player In Mideast, But To What End? Will This Ally Of Iran And Syria Become Hostile To Israel?
And we see this from Caroline Glick:
[If it wasn't obvious before, it should be obvious now: Just as the bible states - Israel stands alone]
Did US President Barack Obama score a great victory for the United States by concluding a deal with Russia on Syria's chemical weapons or has he caused irreparable harm to the US's reputation and international position? By what standard can we judge his actions when the results will only be known next year? To summarize where things now stand, last Saturday US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov concluded an agreement regarding Syria's chemical weapons arsenal. The agreement requires Syria to provide full details on the size and locations of all of its chemical weapons by this Saturday. It requires international inspectors to go to Syria beginning in November, and to destroy or remove Syria's chemical weapons from the country by June 2014.
Obama and Kerry have trumpeted the agreement as a great accomplishment. They say it could never have been concluded had the US not threatened to carry out "unbelievably small" punitive military strikes against the Syrian regime in response to its use of Sarin gas to massacre 1,400 civilians in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21.
According to Der Spiegel, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani may consider closing down Iran's illicit uranium enrichment facility at Fordo under IAEA supervision in exchange for the removal or weakening of economic sanctions against Iran's oil exports and its central bank.
The White House has not ruled out the possibility that Obama and Rouhani may meet at the UN General Assembly meeting later this month. These moves could pave the way for a reinstatement of full diplomatic relations between the US and Iran. Those relations were cut off after the regime-supported takeover of the US embassy in Teheran in 1979.
For their part, critics have lined up to condemn Obama's decision to cut a deal with Russia regarding Syria.
They warn that his actions in that regard have destroyed the credibility of his threat to use force to prevent Iran from developing or deploying nuclear weapons.
To determine which side is right in this debate, we need to look no further than North Korea.
Just as importantly, once the US accepted the notion of talks with North Korea, it necessarily accepted the regime's legitimacy. And as a consequence, both the Clinton and Bush administrations abandoned any thought of toppling the regime. Once Washington ensnared itself in negotiations that strengthened its enemy at America's expense, it became the effective guarantor of the regime's survival. After all, if the regime is credible enough to be trusted to keep its word, then it is legitimate no matter how many innocents it has enslaved and slaughtered.
With the US's experience with North Korea clearly in mind, it is possible to assess US actions with regards to Syria and Iran. The first thing that becomes clear is that the Obama administration is implementing the North Korean model in its dealings with Syria and Iran.
With regards to Syria, there is no conceivable way to peacefully enforce the US Russian agreement on the ground. Technically it is almost impossible to safely dispose of chemical weapons under the best of circumstances.
Given that Syria is in the midst of a brutal civil war, the notion that it is possible for UN inspectors to remove or destroy the regime's chemical weapons is patently absurd.
As for Iran, Rouhani's talk of closing Fordo needs to be viewed against the precedents set at Yongbyon by the North Koreans. In other words, even if the installation is shuttered, there is every reason to believe that the shutdown will be temporary. On the other hand, just as North Korea remains off the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism despite the fact that since its removal it carried out two more nuclear tests, it is hard to imagine that sanctions on Iran's oil exports and central bank removed in exchange for an Iranian pledge to close Fordo, would be restored after Fordo is reopened.
Like North Korea, Iran will negotiate until it is ready to vacate its signature on the NPT and test its first nuclear weapon.
Nestled deep in the maze of an Israel Air Force base, secretive units form an essential component in any Israeli air strike in enemy territory with air defenses.
Indeed, they would have been an inseparable part of recent air force strikes in Syria, attributed to Israel by foreign media reports, to stop the transfer of sophisticated missiles and air defenses to Hezbollah.
No potential future air campaign in Iran, against the Islamic Republic’s nuclear sites, would be possible without the units.
This is the Electronic Warfare (EW) Section, which is made up of two units.
One operates from the air in specially fitted planes, and the second is ground based.
The two units work in synergy, viewing themselves as part of a greater whole.
They disrupt the enemy’s radar systems, blinding and dazing those being targeted for strikes. They can paralyze enemy communications systems needed to coordinated defenses.
The units also keep fighter jets safe from enemy EW attacks.
“We’re not firing kinetic weapons, but rather, electrons, so that the other side will find it very, very, very difficult to discover our jets,” the commander, a lieutenant-colonel, said.
The world of Electronic Warfare is like an eternal cat and mouse game, he added. “We must stay one step ahead,” he stressed. He warned against underestimating Israel’s enemies, and said that keeping a modest attitude is vital.
“EW is an intrinsic part of achieving aerial supremacy. If a plane penetrates Israeli air space, we have the ability to disrupt its communications,” he said.
“We’re a full partner in maintaining Israeli air security, and in missions of supreme national security,” he stated.
The son of Holocaust survivors, the commander has put up a poster in his office depicting the historic flight of Israel fighter jets over the Auschwitz death camp in Poland in 2003.
“My focus is on the resurrection of the Jewish people. I don’t live in the shadow of the idea that all was lost.
Revival is my home, a sense of mission and Zionism. We have no other land,” he said. “We are prepared to sacrifice our lives.”
It’s hard to explain to those on the outside what the unit does, the commander said.
“This is part of the challenge. We can’t talk about it at home. The people who make up this unit are the cream of the crop.”
“But they can say very little,” he added.
The air force’s EW Section has its own school that trains future generations of personnel.
Within hours of the Obama administration’s tentative indication on Friday that President Barack Obama might be willing to meet with new Iranian President Hasan Rouhani, an influential Republican member of Congress cautioned that the administration should not put much faith in Tehran’s recent diplomatic overtures.
The White House intimated on Friday that a summit meeting between Obama and Rouhani might take place when both leaders are in New York for the annual UN General Assembly meeting next week
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, White House deputy spokesman Josh Earnest said the US would be ready to engage in talks “on the basis of mutual respect” with Iran over its disputed nuclear program. Earnest said the White House wants Tehran to prove that its program is only for civilian purposes.
David Asman: What do you think about the Fed’s decision to continue money printing?
Dr Paul: I think it’s a very bad sign I think it means the Fed is really worried.
David Asman: Worried about what?
Dr Paul: About the economy. They are always bragging that things are really well, employment is up.
The seed of deception that they put out there is that things are really good. So now they are saying no, now it isn’t good and we have to keep inflating. So I think it's a bad sign but the markets liked it.
David Asman: The markets are doing well but the average American’s income is flat, plus add in even the little bit of inflation that the Fed is willing to admit to and frankly it is more than that because they are not including food and gas. Even then they lose value as a result of their income being stagnant.
Dr Paul: Think about it in a moral sense even if he gets his 2%? What right does the Fed have to take away 2% of their purchasing power automatically? What right does they have to punish the elderly who save money? I asked Bernanke and Greenspan the question and they throw their hands up and say that they feel some people will benefit by this.
David Asman: What happens now? If it’s Yellin she'll be like Bernanke on steroids. What does that mean for our economy?
Dr Paul: Prepare for the destruction of the dollar and the crash of the bond market one day. The bond bubble is weakening although the interest rates have doubled in the last year.
The Hoax Of Global Warming, AKA Climate Change (Previously 'The Weather') And The Death Of Coal Mining
[Ok, I added the parenthetical statement, but I can't resist pointing out the absurdity of this situation]