"Mr. Cool" Takes a Rest in Paris on the Public Steps

Supporters will call it "refreshing", critics will call it "undignified" for a President. I'm not sure what to think, although I have never seen a picture of a US President quite like this. Then we have the President giving us the soles of his shoes while conversing with international leaders. He is putting his shoes on the Resolute Desk, a truly historic piece of furniture that would be sitting at the Smithsonian if it was not in the Oval office underneath Obama's shoes.
Anyway, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is convinced that the Obama administration is seeking a public confrontation with Israel to gain street-cred in the Arab world. This, as Israel's Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon belittles Obama's Iran policy. Amazingly, Obama opposes nuclear power in the United States, but supports Iran's "right" to nuclear power. WOW!

Obama: We Can't Ask Iran or North Korea to Disarm Without Taking Steps to Disarm Ourselves

The things that come out of this mans mouth continue to astonish me. it is simply amazing to me how blind people are to stupidity and are such slaves to style over substance. Sarkozy is clearly thinking to himself, what an empty suit; I guess I'll have to play along:

Netanyahu: Only Israel Will Remove the Iranian Nuclear Threat. Obama Will Not.

Speaking before Likud party loyalists:

"Israel is not like other countries... We are faced with security challenges that no other country faces, and our need to provide a response to these is critical, and we are answering the call.... These are not regular times. The danger is hurtling toward us. The real danger is underestimating the threat... My job is first and foremost to ensure the future of the state of Israel ... the leadership's job is to eliminate the danger. Who will eliminate it? It is us or no one".

Of course, when Netanyahu says "no one", he means immoral people who have a tendency to bow and grovel before the worst sort of despots:
Here is how the politician Obama will play it: He will not deal with Iran's nuclear program and will by default force Israel to do the job. If things go well, he will weasel in on the credit, hinting at behind the scenes maneuvers, winks and nods and "green lights" and such. If things go badly, he will of course express "disappointment" in Israel and point to his administrations earlier "warnings" about the consequences. That's what passes for "leadership" in the US these days.

Meanwhile, it looks like the American President's new friends are selling uranium to Iran. Maybe he can charm them into behaving nicely, like he charmed a hopelessly gullible Jewish community into voting for him.

Adm. Mike Mullen Gets It?

"I'm one who believes that Iran getting a nuclear weapon is calamitous for the region and for the world... the downside is absolutely disastrous."

Wow, finally someone at least close to the Obama administration gets it. While Obama is busy sucking up to the Mullahs of Iran (and anything Islamic) and his CIA chief claiming two days ago that destroying Iran's nukes would mean "big trouble", at least one sober person in the entire Obama administration seems to understand the deal. Hopefully he will have at least some influence on this pack of starry-eyed lefties.

Here's how Israel would destroy Iran's nuclear program

Here you will find an excellent analysis of how Israel might destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and what the aftermath might be. The authors are against a strike on Iran but offer very interesting scenarios. A thoughtful and carefully considered piece. I strongly disagree with the conclusion but I cannot dismiss it. Clearly doing something in Iran is a very bad option, doing nothing may be far worse. Here below are the authors conclusions, make your own judgement; I find it very naive

"Only a clear and credible signal to the Iranians, indicating the terrible price they will pay for attempting a nuclear strike against Israel, will prevent them from using their missiles. The Iranians have no logical reason to bring about the total destruction of their big cities, as could happen if Israel uses the means of deterrence at its disposal. Neither the satisfaction of killing Zionist infidels, nor, certainly, the promotion of Palestinian interests would justify that price. Israeli deterrence in the face of an Iranian nuclear threat has a good chance of succeeding precisely because the Iranians have no incentive to deal a mortal blow to Israel."

So Israel should place its entire existence in the hope for rational thought and action from a person like Ahmedinejad? Hmmmm. I think I'll go with the other option as unappealing as it may be.

Obama Set to Violate US-Israel Nuclear Agreement

The Washington Times is reporting today that the Obama Administration is on the verge of violating a longstanding secret agreement between the United States and Israel with regard to Israel's nuclear weapons stockpile.

For the past 40 years, Israel and the U.S. have kept quiet about an Israeli nuclear arsenal that is now estimated at 80 to 200 weapons. Israel has promised not to test nuclear weapons while the U.S. has not pressed Israel to sign the nuclear NPT.

That changed yesterday when Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, speaking Tuesday at a U.N. meeting on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), said Israel should join the treaty, which would require Israel to declare and relinquish its nuclear arsenal.

There are simply no words for how stunning this development is. Of course Israel would never agree to it, but the fact that the Obama administration would put something like that on the table is stark evidence of just how far and how quickly US-Israeli relations have plummeted since Obama has become President.

Instead of confronting the Iranian nuclear threat, Obama looked around and decided that he should confront Israel instead.

UPDAT: Sultan Knish knows what he is talking about.
Update:Obama rushes to host "Arab American Leaders" at the White House.

Book Review: The Nuclear Express

I have just finished reading a new book co-authored by Thomas C. Reed and Danny B Stillman called The Nuclear Express, published by Zenith Press. The authors are clearly, extremely knowledgeable on the subject and have put together what is in my view one of the most comprehensive essays on the subject of nuclear proliferation that has ever been published.

Thomas C. Reed is a former nuclear weapons designer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, political manager for Ronald Reagan’s gubernatorial contests, Secretary of the Air force under presidents Ford and Carter, Special Assistant to President Reagan for National Security Policy, and a successful businessman.

Danny B. Stillman is a Los Alamos physicist with decades of experience in nuclear design, diagnostics, and testing. For thirteen years Stillman directed the Los Alamos Technical Intelligence Division; at the end of that tour he was awarded the Intelligence Community Seal Medallion.

It is hard to take issue with the accuracy of this book in which any reader who has even the slightest interest in the subject will find packed with fascinating facts and dates that shed a bright light on our dangerous road to nuclear hell. Stillman and Reed crisscross the globe connecting the dots, turning what could easily be a horribly boring subject for policy nerds into a suspenseful, entertaining, and most importantly, enlightening read. The first thing the reader is struck by is that, clearly, the United States would never have become the first nuclear power in the world had it not been for a small group of Jewish scientist who escaped Hitler, moved to the US and were eager to strike back at the Nazi's by helping the allied war effort.

But where I do take issue with Stillman and Reed is not on their impeccable facts, but on their rather weak conclusions, especially on the matter of Iran. With the possible exceptions of North Korea or a Taliban takeover of Pakistan, Iran represents the single greatest threat of nuclear proliferation this world has ever confronted. What are Stillman and Reed’s answers to that threat? That we should “stay in touch” with Iran, seek “UN Sanctions” and should they acquire a nuclear arsenal... to contain the crazy mullah’s like it's 1985... and they are the Soviets. Wow! In this case the authors are showing their age. Perhaps the radical Islamic concept of martyrdom and 72 virgins hasn't sunk in with them yet.

For two experts that’s quite a passive, Jimmy Carter-like state-of-mind. Clearly, an Iranian nuclear arsenal will spark the kind of regional arms race this world has never seen. Every single Sunni Arab state will rush to acquire nuclear programs and most have the ability to pay for it in cash. Certainly Russia and France will rush to fill such contracts without batting an eye. An Iranian bomb will very likely end up in the hands of their Shiite terror-proxies like Hezbollah, and an Iranian ballistic missile delivery system will threaten the European continent in a way that would make the Soviet threat seem like child’s-play. Not because it will be as large (it won’t), but because it will be far less predictable, or susceptible to old-school rational discussions about mutually assured destruction and all the rest. As the old saying goes, just one nuclear explosion can ruin your entire day.

Any person who is really concerned about nuclear proliferation would shutter at the very thought that Iran might acquire the bomb yet Reed and Stillman seem remarkably casual about it. That is one scenario that I would think any expert might find a way to overcome their personal inclinations towards appeasement and weakness.

Having said all of that, The Nuclear Express is a great read and will be a real eye-opener for those naively going about their day without the slightest thought of the real-world dangers of nuclear proliferation.