Friday, April 28, 2006

Iran + Al Qaeda = Nuclear Attack on America?

According to Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin (a premium intelligence newsletter that's part of WorldNetDaily), Iran plans to respond to any American attack on its nuclear facilities by deploying Al Qaeda sleeper agents to detonate Soviet-era suitcase-size nuclear devices (purchased on the black market) in American cities. This information, as reported by G2 contributor Paul Williams (himself the author of a book on the same topic), comes from Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir, who heard it directly from an Egyptian engineer who worked on nuclear tests for Osama Bin Laden.

Is this credible? If so, it's mighty scary stuff, especially since Mir claims that the sleeper agents and nukes are already in America, with the agents simply waiting for orders.

I'm not quite sure, though, that I buy the theory. Certainly the intention exists - Iran and Al Qaeda would nuke America in a heartbeat if they had the capability. But this also pokes a great hole in Mir's claims, because if the weapons have already been smuggled into our cities, then why wait? If Iran wants to defeat the U.S. (and no question, it does), then it would make full sense to attack first, before America could strike back, rather than responding only after absorbing a hit.

Williams has responded to this in the past by claiming that Al Qaeda is simply patient, as Bin Laden prefers to wait so he can attack on meaningful dates. But even if that's true, every new day increases the possibility of any plot being discovered, which strongly points against waiting. Indeed, Williams has been advocating his theory for several years, which is more than enough time for Bin Laden's favored dates to occur, and yet nothing happened.

So no, I don't believe that suitcase nukes have already been deployed to America. Admittedly I can't declare this with full certainty, but the evidence certainly seems to point against it. Nevertheless, we absolutely shouldn't get comfortable, as the terrorists are no doubt trying, and if Iran succeeds in creating nuclear weapons themselves, the risk will increase dramatically. (I think, in fact, that Iran could be spreading the sleeper agent rumors as misinformation, to try and deter the U.S. from attacking while the Mullahs are still pre-nuclear and vulnerable.)

Our best course of action, then, remains as it has been: pursue and defeat all terrorists, and stop Iran's nuclear program ASAP. They're moving full speed ahead, and we're the ones who can't afford to be patient.

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Rabbi Shea Hecht on Iran and the Inept United Nations

I'd like to welcome a new guest contributor to TheSolidSurfer.com, Rabbi Shea Hecht. Rabbi Hecht, a New York community activist and the Chairman of the Board at the National Committee for the Furtherance of Jewish Education (click here for a full bio), writes regular columns at his own site (which I've also added to the "My Heroes" section in the left column), and occasionally we will feature them here as well.

Rabbi Hecht's latest piece covers Iran and the continuing ineptitude of the United Nations:

A UN Folly

I was recently reminded of the folly and the lack of common sense of the UN by my friend U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.

Senator Santorum said: "I am extremely disappointed that member nations of the United Nations have elected the Islamic Republic of Iran to serve as the Vice-Chair of the U.N. Disarmament Commission. Electing Iran, a country that has demonstrated no sign of abandoning its pursuit of enriching uranium, is ludicrous. Iran is a threat to the United States and the rest of the world, and this vote by a group of U.N. member states is simply non-sensical."

Senator Santorum's comments refer to a recent UN development. Iran won a seat on the United Nations' Disarmament Commission which is charged with promoting the disarmament of nuclear weapons and reviewing treaties that deal with nuclear energy. Iran on the UN Disarmament Commission? How ludicrous!

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently announced that he has successfully enriched uranium in order to produce nuclear fuel, in violation of a call by the UN Security Council to end the project. He has also publicly stated his repeated threat to wipe Israel off the map. This is who is sitting on the UN Disarmament Commission?

Over the years, many have spoken about the outright, inane absurdity of the UN and its appointments, but this is totally outrageous. Iran does not even hide their nuclear plans and plans of destruction! Will this help people see the blatant insanity of the UN? Maybe now US citizens will wake up from their complacency and pressure US to leave the UN. There is nothing in the global rule book that says the United States must be part of the United Nations.

The US actually tried recently to force some changes at the UN. For a while, there was hope that US Representative Henry Hyde's (R-IL) ultimatum calling on the United Nations to reform would be successful. Yet, even when the UN was given the choice to make some reforms or lose funding from the USA - its host nation and largest financial and physical benefactor - it allowed sadistic, autocratic regimes onto commissions designed to battle their negative and dangerous conduct.

Senator Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) has also spoken out against the appointment of Iran to the UN Disarmament Commission. He wants the Bush administration to withhold dues for the United Nations Disarmament Commission now that Iran was elected to a leadership position on that commission.

"The election of Iran as a vice-chair of the UN Disarmament Commission at the same time as Iran clandestinely pursues its own nuclear ambitions provides yet another example of the UN's inability to establish credible institutions to deal with global issues," Senator Coleman said in a statement Wednesday. "Having the Iranians serve on this commission is like asking the fox to guard the hens, and will only ensure its ineffectiveness. Iran says its program is peaceful, but the United States and dozens of other countries fear it wants the technology to make the core of nuclear warheads."

Some of our politicians in Washington are also to blame as they have watered down the reform legislation and the United Nations is once again back to its old games; it seems that the subject of UN reform is not only out of sight it's also out of mind. We need more leadership like that of Senators Santorum and Coleman.

Let us use our own common sense and heed the words of our Senators. The fox should not guard the hen house, the inmates shouldn't be holding the keys to the asylum, nor the bank robbers the key to the vault. The US has enough clout to force a change in the UN or leave the UN altogether. We, as citizens of this country, should demand that the USA bring the UN issue to the forefront and force some change.


Rabbi, thank you for the piece, and I look forward to featuring more of your work in the future. I fully agree that the UN desperately needs to be reformed, and now that John Bolton is America's representative, perhaps it finally has a chance. Of course, as evidenced by the subject matter of your essay, it has a long way to go. But as you also say, American pressure can accomplish much - we just need to keep it up.

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Holocaust Remembrance Day

This past day was Yom Hashoah, or Holocaust Remembrance Day. In it, we remember the 6 million Jews and 5 million others who were brutally murdered by the evil Nazi regime.

More than just a memorial, however, Yom Hashoah also stands to perpetuate the notion of "Never Again". It serves as a continual reminder to always ensure that the Holocaust's horrors are never repeated.

To this end, we must stand strong on the side of freedom and morality, and forcefully oppose those who wish to create genocidal horrors of their own. Tragically, regimes with Nazi-like goals still exist (Al Qaeda, Hamas, Iran's Mullahcracy, the Sudanese Arab militias), and we must dedicate the full resources necessary to stop them immediately.

The great Irish philosopher Edmund Burke once famously observed that "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Let's heed his advice, and work to end these genocidal regimes.

Here are some ways to do it:

1) Help save Darfur
2) Support the Iran Freedom Foundation
3) Support the Palestine Solidarity Movement (hint: it's not what you think)
4) Buy Israeli products

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update: Fellow blogger Madzionist has written an excellent piece on Yom Hashoah. Read it, and know how Israel can strengthen itself only through its Jewish essence.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Roger Waters: Comfortably Numb (to Terrorism)

Roger Waters once wrote a song for Pink Floyd called "Brain Damage". Apparently it was autobiographical.

That's about the only way to explain the former Floyd bassist's lunkheaded decision to move a scheduled Israel concert from Tel Aviv to a joint Jewish-Arab village in response to Palestinian protests. Waters' comments regarding the incident are even worse; on the day an evil and horrific suicide bombing occurred in the very city he rejected, Waters was quoted as having recently said: "Being an Israeli does not disbar from being a human being."

Yeah, as if Israel's actions are really to blame for the whole situation. What Waters really should have said is "Being a radical leftist indeed disbars one from thinking logically." Because any way you look at it, Waters is an ultra-leftwinger and probably a socialist as well. Not only has he publicly supported a pro-Palestinian movement to remove Israel's life-saving security barrier, but he has often railed against against President Bush and the war in Iraq, and once even recorded an entire album protesting the British government's wartime policies. The other members of Pink Floyd didn't exactly agree with him either, jettisoning Waters from the band shortly after he released his politicized music.

I probably wouldn't go quite so far, as the Atlas Shrugs Blog has done, to call Waters a Jew-hater, as he sounds like he does indeed want peace in the region and did after all support his Israeli fanbase. But like most naive leftists, he's completely oblivious to the fact that Palestinian terrorism, and not Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria, is the root cause of the unrest. This moral blindness places Waters square in the camp of senile terrorist apologists like Jimmy Carter, and unless he changes, Waters too is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

If I were in Israel, I'd tell Waters and his leftist cohort just one thing: "We don't need no education!"

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Will the U.S. Really Attack Iran?

Will the U.S. really attack Iran? That's the word from investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who reports that President Bush has drawn up plans to destroy the Islamic Republic's nuclear program through tactical nukes of America's own. Bush administration officials, however, deny the plans and insist that they will continue to pursue a diplomatic approach.

So what's actually going on?

Now that Iran has successfully enriched uranium, U.S. war planners certainly must have considered numerous scenarios, including, yes, a nuclear strike on their weapons facilities. This doesn't mean, however, that a nuclear attack is the most likely option, no matter what "proof" Hersh claims to have. This same man, after all, has carved a career out of delivering sensational reports on the U.S. government and military, and he often relies on anonymous and unsubstantiated evidence.

At the same time, though, we shouldn't rule a nuke strike out. Many prominent analysts (including the pseudonymous Spengler of the Asia Times) do believe that Iran threatens only its immediate neighborhood in pursuit of regional hegemony, and does not necessarily aim to attack America. But I wholeheartedly disagree. Not that Iran doesn't want regional hegemony (something the U.S. would need to address in any case), but based on certain statements by their president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, they seem cocky enough to believe that they truly can defeat America as well.

Sure, Ahmadinejad may be nuts, but when evil rulers say such things, we should absolutely believe them. No one took Hitler seriously when he announced plans to conquer the globe and kill Jews, and the world suffered through World War II as a result. No one took the Soviets seriously when they vowed to crush the West, and America endured a lengthy cold war. Ahmadinejad has made his intentions to destroy Israel and take down America no less clear, and we would be fools to ignore him. Allowing this madman to possess nuclear weapons would be the height of folly.

Given this, it is imperative that the U.S. and/or Israel destroys Iran's nuclear program before it's too late. No matter how it's done -- whether through diplomacy (which becomes unlikelier by the day), an internal Iranian revolution, targeted airstrikes, or full-scale war -- stopping their entrance to the nuclear club is America's, and the world's, most vital security concern.

Monday, April 10, 2006

Illegal Immigrants and the U.S. Economy

Dennis Prager has written an insightful article explaining why, contrary to popular perception, illegal immigrants have not actually taken jobs away from most Americans. America's economy, Prager demonstrates, has been so strong that regardless of immigration numbers, virtually anyone searching for a job will eventually find one. This essay is not a blanket support of illegal immigration (Prager worries about properly assimilating them and recommends building a fence between the U.S. and Mexico), but it raises some excellent points that should allay certain economic fears.

On a similar note, I'd like to refute another common misperception - the belief that illegals are necessary to perform certain jobs that Americans refuse to do. Quite simply, it's not true. Illegals indeed comprise a large percentage of workers in relatively menial fields such as housecleaning, construction, farmwork, and (NY mayor Michael Bloomberg's favorite) golf course maintenance. But they occupy these jobs not because Americans flat-out refuse such positons, but because Americans refuse such positions at current wage rates.

This is a highly important distinction. The problem with housekeeping is not that we Americans consider the work beneath us; it's that the work generally pays less than $10/hour. If cleaning homes paid, say, $50/hour, we'd be lining up to do it by the thousands.

For many illegals, however, $10/hour is a large sum compared to salaries back home. These people hence certainly don't mind (and are often quite thrilled at the prospect of) working such jobs. The presence of so many illegals in these low-wage positions is not evidence that Americans have lost their work ethic, but rather a function of basic economics.

So what would happen if the illegals weren't here? Americans would, of course, perform these jobs, but the wage rate would rise to meet their higher salary demands. This in turn would drive employers to compensate at first through cost-cutting measures (primarily layoffs and outsourcing), but later through innovation and increased productivity. Reducing illegal immigration, then, will likely hurt our economy in the short run, but greatly help it long term.

Thursday, April 6, 2006

The Key to Israel's Success: Judaism & Jewish Identity

British journalist Melanie Phillips, in commenting on Emanuele Ottolenghi's analysis of the Israeli elections, concludes pessimistically that the Jewish state seemingly has no way to achieve peace. Whatever Israel tries (strong defense, counterterorrism, negotiations, dialogue, goodwill, etc.), the Palestinians and the Arab world rebuff, and whenever a breakthrough seems set to appear, the "international community" somehow flutters it.

Ms. Phillips laments:

A more insanely optimistic people cannot also be imagined: seizing upon every hope of peace, every scrap of evidence, however slender, that the Arabs may not really want to kill them or destroy the Jewish state. But it is in fact the optimism born of the deepest possible despair, clutching at any straw in order not to face the possibility that is simply too terrible to be even contemplated -- that there really is no end to this Arab hatred, and that there is no end to the state of siege that Israel has been forced to endure since its inception.

...The election result is irrelevant to the issue of peace in the Middle East. That is because what the Israelis do cannot affect whether peace comes to the Middle East, because what the Israelis do is not the cause of war in the Middle East. The cause of that war is the fact that Israel exists at all and the drive by the Arab world to eradicate it – and the fact that the free world has refused to acknowledge that simple fact for the past half century is the most important reason why this murderous impasse still continues.

Sadly, these statements convey some pretty dire hopelessness. But with all due respect to Ms. Phillips, I strongly beg to differ. Her global analysis is certainly on target; the surrounding Arab nations continue their neverending attempts to destroy it, while the world always turns a blind eye. But Israel itself is not nearly so powerless.

Israel can indeed achieve peace in its greater region, but not through negotiatons, summits, or most of the possibilities Phillips discusses. Rather, Israel can achieve peace through strength, and as Daniel Pipes writes, this will come when the country overwhelmingly defeats the Palestinians and destroys the surrounding Arabs' war morale.

How so? Pipes doesn't definitively say. But Israel can start by fully asserting its Jewish identity. Many of the country's troubles have come precisely from not doing so, and in order to impose its will on enemies, Israel must regain that will itself. Once this occurs the path to victory becomes much more straightforward.

Without Judaism, Israel seems doomed to struggle mercilessly against the Arabs. With it, the country can achieve anything. Let's ensure that Israel retains and strengthens this vital part of its being.