Peter C Glover's ... WIRES from the UK

The above title co-written by Professor Michael Economiades and myself has just been published over at the US' Human Events (one of my favourite US conservative periodicals and sites - Ann Coulter and Jed Babbin are columnists there).

European leaders are currently making a lot of noises about boosting sanctions against Iran. Read here then why Europe (which does hold the key to sanction succeeding) is entirely powerless in reality to turn the screw on Iran - and why an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities will, in fact, be popular among the majority of Muslim regimes in the Middle East!

I read a debate in the British edition of Prospect magazine in July in which the value of the Middle East given that the region's energy reserves are believed to be depleting. If anyone seriously thinks we can (as suggested in the debate) that the West can simply politically ignore the Middle East as energy reserves 'are depleting' then they need their heads examining - as my piece 'Does the Middle East Matter'  shows.

I don't believe for one moment that the Iranians are trying to do more than tweak the noses of us Brits over the stand-off with the 15 soldiers. They revel in this sort of thing. It looks as if the powers that be are now able to show conclusively that the Brits were indeed NOT in Iranian waters. When they think they've embarrassed us enough they will no doubt let them go, even though Cabinet Minister John Reid is speaking about it as a "difficult" and "dangerous" situation. In my experience unrepentant bullies only ever understand one thing: retribution. (D'ya think I'd make a good candidate for David Cameron's 'Love-a-hoodie' Policy Team?)

Once they are released however I do think it would be appropriate to let the Iranians know they cannot get away with this sort of thing - perhaps by destroying the facility in which the 15 were held (making sure no others prisoners were there)?

In any event, the Israelis will be teaching them a much more forceful lesson shortly, I think. I cannot see any sign of them giving up their nuclear ambitions. 

Con Coughlin, exec.editor at The Daily Telegraph here maintains that Israel is currently negotiating to enable their planes to over-fly Iraqi airspace to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. Coughlin's sources are usually quite solid. i suggested yesterday that such an attack may well now be imminent.

But before the Western liberals run around complaining bitterly that "all channels have not been exhausted" let me say this.  Iran has publicly stated its intention that, when it has the capability, it will "wipe Israel from the map!" There is no reason to disbelieve dictatorial tyrannies with an ideological agenda when they make such threats. That is, if we do not wish to resurrect the 'appeasement at any cost' spirit of Neville Chamberlain. 

Unlike for the rest of us armchair critics this is all too real a threat for the people of Israel.  Iran has resisted every attempt by the world community to stop its pursuit of nuclear abilities (a thoroughly nonsense proposition in a country with the world's second largest oil and gas reserves). These lunatic Ayatollahs cannot be allowed to threaten Israel or anyone else, by being allowed to have a nuclear option.

Personally I am for dropping all our Western liberals on them - let them suffer their idealistic fantasies for a change.  In the long run they are actually more of a threat to Western civilization than the mad Ayatollahs.

It is a great old diplomatic world we live in. North Korea is, economically speaking, dying on its feet. It pushes full speed ahead to produce nuclear weapons and the world community steps in to buy them off by offering, free gratis, unparalleled riches (of oil and gas) that they could never afford given their ridiculous centralized economy and isolationism.

No doubt Western liberal appeasers will be out  in force claiming the same can be done with Iran. The only trouble there is that Iran is far more wedded to its ideology than is North Korea. Iran is also has the world's second largest oil and gas reserves. There is nothing in their scheme of things that needs to be bought off with key energy resources. The EU yesterday admitted that nothing could now stop Iran's Ayatollahs achieving their dream of owning superpower leveling nukes. Well I can think of one thing: America supporting a proxy attack by Israel to take out whatever they can of Iran's nuclear facilities. And who, morally speaking, can deny them the right? 

Iran lost any moral case it may have had in this matter when it declared it's stated aim to "wipe Israel of the map". As I have said many times, words have consequences - especially those spoken by ideology-driven presidents of nations bent on obliterating other nations. Why should we not take them at their word? Just ask Poland's Prime Minister. Unless something changes in Iran - and soon - I foresee a pre-emptive Israeli self-defence action in the weeks and months ahead.

Visitors here may be interested in reading my latest piece published today at World Politics Watch entitled as above.  In essence it makes out the moral case for israel to destroy, if it can, Iran's nuclear bunkers given that Iran has stated its case publicly: we intent to "wipe Israel of the map". Here is a taster from my conclusion:

"Hitler's ideological regime made every attempt to keep its final solution for the Jewish people a secret. Just 60 years on, this Iranian regime has had no such qualms.

If that is so then, along with President Bush, we should surely "understand" if Israeli chooses not to sit back and wait for a second Holocaust to be inflicted upon them while the world community again invokes "world peace" as its mantra for failure to act and pre-empt it. Israelis, unlike the rest of us, do not have the luxury of ongoing irenic discussion. And Iran needs to know that threatening words, particularly statements of national intent, have consequences."

Here's one 'clash' Mr Livingstone and Mr Pipes might care to include in their debate. At the same time that Islamofascists are calling for the destruction of Israel...Israel is considering giving Palestinian President Mr Abbas the Hamas-led government's annual free handout.  This juxtaposition of stories should indicate all we need to know about the respective values of the two "civilisations".

What it boils down to, according to the Iraq Study Group, is the need 1) to sit down with our worst enemies - global terrorist sponsoring Syria and Iran - which is about to get nukes and "wipe Israel off the map" of course. 2) 'Cut and run' from Iraq whether or not the Iraqi Government and army are in a position to govern properly.  As Robin would put it: "Good thinking Batman" - just before getting zapped unexpectedly by the  Joker (that would be the Iranian president by the way).

James Baker and co also seem to think that there is some sort of analogy between what ended the Cold War with the USSR and the Iraq situation. The reality is that we never 'sat down and discussed' (as this report suggests) the stabilization of global affairs and put an end to the Cold War. What actually happened was that President Reagan called it the "evil empire" and confronted it to such an extent it crumbled from within.  

On top of all this a key motivator for the authors of the report is the continuing myth of a two-state "solution for the Middle East. Just how long will this myth willprevail to 'settle'  the Israeli-Palestinian situation is anyones guess. The reality however is that both the democratically elected  Palestinian Authority and the Lebanese Government have become badly 'infected' with terrorists in their ranks - terrorists whose sole objective is not a "two-state solution" but to drive the Jews into the sea. Just how will two-states "solve" this goal?

Even General Sir Mike Jackson, retired head of the British army, has condemned any policy (and the report puts this forward) that wants to 'cut and run' from Iraq or Afghanistan.  He is right that not seeing Iraq through to a proper conclusion - which will take time - "would be a disaster" for the West. And here are two takes which support this view here and here.

There is a gigantic whiff of unreality at the heart of the Iraq Study Group proposals. If President Bush does choose to adopt them wholesale I wonder if the last person leaving the once great civilization that was The West please turn out the light.

As Arnold Toynbee (no relation to Polly) put it: "Civilizations die from suicide, not murder."  Whatever we have to fear from Islamofacism is as nothing compared to the Trojan-like tendencies of the Western liberals in our midst - as this reports long-considered (and wrong-headed) proposals bear out.

It seems that there is a little known law in Iraq which bars the execution of anyone 70 and above (not that it ever stopped Saddam).  That could well account for the defence team playing for time throughout proceedings and then lodging the appeal against his death sentence on the last possible day.  Saddam has now appealed against his death sentence which could well drag proceedings into the spring of 2007. Saddam turns 70 in April.

More coffee, Kofi?Well it is always good to hear openly what lies beneath the diplomatic mask that some people wear. Today Kofi Annan has finally come clean by admitting he would prefer that Iraq was still under the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein and his band of cut-throat relatives, that the 26 million Iraqi people lived in constant fear of arrest, imprisonment, beatings and murder at the hands of the government.  In addition that is neighbours 'welcome in' the Iraqi army every so often (with Western 'warmongering'  armies having to clear them out again), with Saddam threatening and bombing Israel whenever he chose and with Saddam pulling the UN around by the nose. And we haven't even mentioned his determined pursuit of WMD (whether they were there when the US-led invasion took place is hardly the issue - what he did with them - and the fact he was desperately seeking more, is)

Kofi's reading of the Iraq situation is that "its much worse than civil war " (what could be worse?)  and that the international community (for which he means the US not his self-serving terrorist-aiders at the UN) is largely responsible. Is that so?

For a start, the use of the expression 'civil war' here is entirely semantic.  The world, with UN compliance, thought nothing of entering the civil war of Korea and other international conflicts in any event. Iraqi violence is indeed sectarian, but so what? The only real question is try to help the Iraqis keep the country as a single entity (which most there seem to want - 12 million voted for it) or help them separate it into its sectarian parts (if that's what they really want).  Then there is the simple fact that the violence only affects four of the twenty-odd regions of Iraq. A civil war? Who can say?

Even so,  claiming that Iraq and the world would be better off under Saddam should tell us all we need to know about Kofi's judgment - and the worthless Gang of New York he leads. If Kofi 'prefers' Saddam how about this. Release Saddam, put him back in power and make Annan go and live in Iraq. Can't you just see Saddam and hislike-minded UN friend getting along just famously?

More coffee, Kofi? (But do watch out for the Polonium 210 old chap...)

I have just seen an extended report of what is really going on in Iraq - and its worth highlighting because it is no part of the mainstream medias agenda to provide the whole picture. American engineers have attained a level of electricity supply to homes in central Iraq of around 10-12 hours a day (in pre-war Iraq it was around 2 hours). The scale of construction is astonomic (as one guy said you can't call it reconsturction as that assumes you had something there in the way of infrastructure before you started). In other words, much of it has been built from nothing. And we haven't even mentioned the schools and hospitals re-building programes. What is clear is that 14 of the 18 provinces of Iraq are almost entirely trouble-free. The problem of violence is confined almost solely to the four areas of the central Sunni triangle.

The programme employs some 150,000 Iraqis and has around 4,000 projects either completed or under way.  The programme itself was likened to the 're-consturction of Europe' post WWII such is the extent of it. Next time you hear the BBC, The Guardian, The New York Times bleating about "a state of anarchy" you can know that the level of their verbosity is only matched by the cavernous-sized nature of their ignorance. 

Rick Warren with Syria's Assad - one of the world's leading sponsors of Islamic terrorismHere's one that just might begin to alert my fellow Christians who have fallen for the lunacy of "seeker-senstive" worship (mostly worship not authorized) and church life. Not least in its Rick Warren-styled 'Purposeless Drivel Church'.

Rick Warren met with Syria's President Baashar al-Assad a couple of days ago - one of the world's leading sponsor's of global terrorism (as we shall see in a moment). What followed could only be described as a "mutual love-in" between Warren and Assad. According to the Syrian Arab News Agency  reported that Warren  "hailed the religious coxistence, tolerance and stability that the Syrian society is enjoying due to the wise leadership of President al-Assad, and the Mufti asked Warren to "convey the true image about Syria to the American people." Warren also hailed Syrian efforts "exerted for mainting peace and harmony."

Now just a few of the facts.

• The International Counter Terrorism organization as awell as the US State Dept. has extensive information regarding Syria's history of using terrorism for politcial ends.

• The US State Dept. reports that th Syrian president desire sthe destruction of Israe and, with his closest ally, Iran, supplies "substantial amounts of finance, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplimatic and organizational aid to Hezbollah".

• Many experts beleive that Syria is a mjor source of the weapons  and insurgents that are taking the lives of Iraqis and US soldiers in Iraq.
  

Warren apparently believes he is a foreign policy expert and a prospective 'international man of peace'.  I have written elsewhere that he is not a good church leader or theologian.  Any idiot can build 'megachurches' by selling out the core Christian gospel that points to our personal sins (as the PD Church does) and panders instead to people's allged (and usually self-centred) 'felt-needs instead.  (I deal with the theology of all all this in chapter 2 of my book 'The Virtual Church' should anyone want to know 'chapter and verse' how squalidly anti-biblical the seeker-sensitive and PD movement is.)

But as the reporter at MichNews.com  (which tipped me off to the story - my grateful thanks to them) says "Warren owes an apology to Israel, to the Amercian people and to the victims of Syrian sponsored terorr whose blood continues to soak the earth's soil."  Sadly, Warren is exactly the kind of 'pharisee' who prefers to teach his own traditions to those God teaches - and empty God's word of its real meaning. Mobs of people in 'churches' proves nothing, Rick...faithful obedience to God and his Word is ALL.

Jihadists, Ku Klux Klan or Muslim veilists - just fascist victims? I see that Tony Blair has been telling the Americans that settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (the two-state "solution" theory) is the key to achieving peace in the Middle East. The Jihadist Daily's Peter Preston was peddling the same line at the weekend. I have just written a piece and passed it to World Politics Watch on this very subject in the light of the current Lebanese govenrment crisis which I hope to link here shortly.

Essentially, however, the two-state solution may or may not become a reality for Israelis and Palestinians (and the Palestinians have already walked away from the offer of it twice - cos they want Jerusalem back). But if anyone seriously thinks the Jihadist-minded (which includes Hezbollah and Hamas) really care about a state for the Palestinians - when what they are really fighting for is a non-state solution (incl. the the destruction of Israel and a supra-state Caliphate for Islam) then they are living in cloud UN-Land.

Here's a quiz question. Who said:

“What use is it to create a Palestinian state? If you create a Palestinian state, it will be like many other states. You should try to mobilize the umma, the Muslim community, for your cause, but not for creating a Palestinian state.”

I'll give you a clue. His initials are UBL.  

Anyone not aware of the major trouble currently brewing in Gaza may like to read my news feature piece Gaza: on the road to war with Israel - or civil war published yesterday at World Politics Watch. At time of writing it is their top story. As well as collecting the key strands that spell out a new war is coming I have been able to raise the important issue of Palestinian lawlessness - which news sites often do not wish to touch on.

WPW also published a piece by me over a week ago entitled: Muslim Apartheid in Britain: a veiled threat? in which I point to the issue of the veil as iconic for all Western nations  -  and to the nonsense of multicultural "equality".

Defence lawyers shot. A biased judge sacked. Saddam himself thrown out of court three times for being unruly. I mean really, how are the Iraqis expected to be able to get to the point where they can  administer the lethal dose if he carries on like this?

What next? Perhaps Travesty International making a courtroom protest on behalf of Saddam's human rights?