America's Road To Energy Independence

On several past occasions, I have analyzed and discussed varied forms of alternative energy, from refining oil shale to producing synthetic petroleum created via thermal conversion to drilling homegrown oil under the assumption of it being a renewable resource.

All these techniques are excellent paths towards achieving independence from Middle East oil, but as I recently learned (hat tip to Israpundit), an even better method exists: alcohol-based fuel. That's right - a combination of ethanol (the stuff you drink) and methanol (wood alcohol that you should never ever drink) is an excellent subsitute for gasoline.

According to the above sentence's linked piece, written by aerospace researcher Dr. Robert Zubrin, America can already produce oil-less electricity through nuclear, wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. What we haven't done yet on a large scale, though, is achieve a petroleum-free gasoline substitute. Many alternative methods have been proposed, the most popular being hydrogen fuel cells, but until technology improves, these will largely remain inefficient. Alcohol-based fuel was rarely considered in the past, but with rising oil costs and the increasing dangers of depending on energy from the Middle East, the article claims that now is a perfect time to switch.

Is this truly realistic? Naturally I'd tend to be skeptical, the logic being that if it worked, we'd have attempted it already. And except for occasional users such as the Indycar Series, America obviously hasn't done so.

But another country has.

Though virtually unreported in the mainstream news media, Brazil in the past few years has transitioned almost entirely from gasoline to alcohol. Tired of rising oil prices, Brazil invested heavily in ethanol-based cars and fueling stations over, and today the country has become entirely energy independent. Most of the fuel comes from homegrown cane sugar, and Brazilians have benefited triply from lower prices at the pump, increased agricultural output, and lower pollution. Now, India, China, and other nations with soaring energy needs are carefully eyeing the Brazilian model and planning accordingly.

If Brazil can throw off the chokehold of Middle East oil, America certainly can too.

Jimmy Carter: Worst U.S. President Supports Hamas

Jimmy Carter has demonstrated, once again, why he is undoubtedly the worst ex-president America has ever had. Immediately on the heels of the US and EU cutting their financial support to the Hamas-led Palestinians based on the principle of not supporting terorrists, Carter has called for the funding anyway, because in his view, the Palestinian people are still economically suffering.

Does this man have any practical intelligence? Seriously - how can someone possibly be that naive? Carter says he hopes that Hamas will become more moderate now that it's in power, but there is zero evidence of such a trend. Just listen to Hamas leaders themselves; they all say that their goal remains the destruction of Israel through terror and violence. These are the people Jimmy Carter wants to support.

If this sounds overly critical of Carter, it's fully intentional. There are many American politicians with whom I disagree and yet still respect, but I can't hold an ounce of respect for someone who wants to financially support an evil terrorist group. No matter how nobly intentioned Carter may be in his own mind, sympathy for Hamas is entirely inexcusable.

Of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg of Carter's actions; in addition to his rainy day presidency in which America both suffered its worst economic downturn since World War II and failed to confront adversaries in the Middle East and Latin America, he has continually opposed American foreign policy and frequently apologized for numerous dictators such as Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and (what a surprise) Yasser Arafat.

Want to know, Mr. Carter, why the Palestinian people indeed are economically suffering? Because rather than building his people a nation, your man Arafat stole billions from them. If you truly want to help the Palestinians, try working instead towards ending the vile hatred against Israel that their leadership instilled in them over the past decade.

As Israeli prime minister Golda Meir once said, "peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us." Until Jimmy Carter recognizes that and quits apologizing for terrorists, he is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Palestinian Election Update

Shockingly, it appears Hamas has won the PA elections. Notwithstanding yesterday's post, I certainly didn't expect this to actually occur; as of last night, Fatah seemed to hold a clear lead in exit polls.

But once again, I believe this result helps Israel significantly. Terrorism should not increase, as Hamas already committed as much as it could muster under Fatah rule; indeed, now that Hamas must focus on governing, terrorism could even decline.

Furthermore, Israel now has no illusions over Palestinian desires - Hamas's victory is the most clear indication yet that the Palestinians don't care about the so-called occupation; they want Israel itself. This does not additionally hurt Israel, because the Palestinian leadership has always desired as such; the difference now is that Israel can no longer fool itself and must act accordingly with strength.

In addition, Hamas must now actually govern its people. Some people understandably have expressed alarm that the Palestinians have elected an Islamist party; here, they say, is a clear example of why democratizing the Middle East will not work. But I disagree - most Palestinians likely voted for Hamas simply because it was the only alternative to a corrupt Fatah that failed to improve their lives. And now Hamas too must properly govern (something I believe will not occur), or else it will be shown the door as well.

Hamas's victory has shown the true nature of the Palestinian side. Now Israel must succeed by demonstrating its own true nature as a strong, confident, Jewish nation that refuses to buckle to terror and is determined to exist on its own terms and not on those of any other nation or international group.

A Hamas Victory Would Be Good For Israel

Yes, you read the title correctly. A Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections would, in my opinion, benefit Israel in this situation. No, I don't suddenly believe elections have granted the Islamist party legitimacy; they are still a terrorist organization openly devoted to goals of pure evil such as Israel's destruction.

But Israel for years has been dealing and getting absolutely nowhere with the Palestinian Authority's ruling Fatah Party, which believes the exact same thing and hides it. Fatah, the party of Arafat and Abbas, has never truly wanted peace with Israel, never kept a peace-related agreement (such as disarming terrorists), and even sponsors its own terrorist group, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. But because Fatah tantalizingly keeps promising a wishful peace in exchange for Israeli concessions (land and otherwise), Israel continues to negotiate itself practically out of existence for the smallest glimmer of hope.

But as we have seen, this dynamic has utterly failed to achieve peace. Even after Israel withdrew from Gaza, the Palestinian Authority merely demanded more, and declared their intention to take Jerusalem. Such actions (not to mention the terrorism and their talks in Arabic to Arab-only audiences) communicate strikingly clearly that Fatah wants a state not beside Israel, but in place of it.

Hamas's intentions, of course, are no different. They too desire not peace, but to conquer Israel. But the difference once again is that Hamas openly admits it. No promises, no negotiations, no illusions - Hamas expresses its intentions loud and clear, front and center.

And for an Israel that certainly can't afford any more concessions without endangering its viability as a state, this would be a much needed reality shock; no more delusions of having a potential peace partner. And with the non-existent option of a political agreement hence finally removed, Israel will at last be free to pursue a realistic and sensible strategy: peace through strength.

A Hamas victory should change nothing on the ground between Israel and the PA, but now Israel can finally move ahead from its longtime policy of wishful but unsuccessful thinking.

Canada, Iran, Jonathan Pollard, and Spengler

Polls indicate a Conservative Party win in Canada. After 13 years of Liberal Party rule, it appears our northern neighbor's pendulum finally has swung in the other direction. President Bush certainly must be pleased, as Conservative Party leader (and prime minister front-runner) Stephen Harper has pledged to work more closely with the U.S. if elected.

Meanwhile, the pseudonymous "Spengler" of the Asia Times has written an insightful column on why Western nations are all but certain to attack Iran. Of course, the Islamic republic's pursuit of nuclear weapons is the main reason, but Spengler also explains it from an energy perspective. Thanks to shoddy refining infrastructure and rising internal energy demands, Iran is projected to run out of oil to export in less than 20 years. The Mullahs hence need access to their neighbors' reserves, and desire a nuclear arsenal to back themselves on the quest. The West can't let Iran control the surrounding nations (including Iraq and Saudi Arabia) and hold the world hostage to its oil output, so the only choice (barring the unlikely event that Ahmadinejad backs down) is to attack.

I don't think Spengler's analysis quite covers everything - his explanation makes plenty of sense and leans on solid facts, but he passes over Ahmadinejad's openly megalomaniacal tendencies. Not that I doubt nukes will help Iran control its neighbors' oil, but when the country's president denies the Holocaust and declares his desire to "wipe Israel off the map," you have to worry about much more sinister intentions. Nonetheless, my conclusion and Spengler's are the same: America and/or Israel will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Spengler, by the way, has quite a fascinating archive of essays primarily on geopolitics. Not sure why he writes anonymously given the Asia Times's large readership (the secret identity is plenty eye catching - perhaps it's a marketing hook), but he (or she) always seems to have a phenomenally unique take on his chosen issues, quite similar to Malcolm Gladwell on social and business topics. I seriously doubt Gladwell actually is Spengler, but one thing is for certain - whether you agree with his views or not, the fellow certainly writes some interesting columns.

In other news:

Larry Franklin, the former Pentagon analyst convicted of passing classified information to two AIPAC officials regarding Israel, was sentenced last week to 12 years in prison. And now it's time for the AIPAC staffers themselves, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, to stand trial.

Are they also guilty? Rosen and Weissman claim they did not know the information's classified status; if this is indeed the case, they should certainly be exonerated. We'll have to see what happens in court.

Franklin's sentence, meanwhile, also brings to mind the utter injustice of the Jonathan Pollard case. Pollard, as many know, was convicted in 1985 of spying for Israel, and has remained in prison on a life sentence. Yes, Pollard committed a crime (spying for an ally), but his sentence has been far disproportional to the offense. Offenders of the same act have received, on average, two- to four-year sentences, and Pollard is the only one to have received life imprisonment. He should have been released long ago. Visit http://www.jonathanpollard.org/ to see how you can help.

Deciphering Iran's Nuclear Strategy

Many of us in the West desperately have been trying to decipher Iran's military/nuclear strategy. Just what are Ahmedinajed and the Mullahs trying to accomplish by announcing their nuclear intentions to the world?

Are they trying to develop a nuclear blackmail option, a la North Korea, so to consolidate their hold on power? Are they attempting a brilliant diplomatic strategy aimed at expanding their influence in the Middle East? Or are they truly insane, trying to goad Israel or America into a nuclear face off?

All these scenarios sound plausible on paper, but I'm not sure I agree with any of them. The first two possibilities would clearly befit a rational decision maker, but Iran's leaders are far from rational. No, they're not crazy either, but like many power-hungry autocrats, they possess a reckless megalomania to the point of delusion. Just listen, for example, to the way Ahmadinejad speaks. Addressing the U.N. in September, he believed a light surrounded him as though he carried a divine message.

This leads me towards only one conclusion: Iran's leaders are so confident in their mission and abilities that they sincerely believe they can conquer the West. They don't care what we know or think of their plans (and if anything, they'll brag about it); they see the result as inevitable, and nothing else matters.

Yes, they are entirely deluded from reality, but that is exactly the danger. The Mullahs believe so strongly in their ultimate victory that, in all likelihood, they could care less about being counterattacked. If they develop nuclear weapons, they most certainly plan to use them because they sincerely believe they'll win through such an attack.

Iran's nuclear program must be stopped immediately, before it's too late. Visit the Iran Freedom Foundation for ways to help.

Daniel Pipes and the Pope: Can Islam Change?

In reponse to recent comments by Pope Benedict that Islamic tradition does not allow itself to change and modernize, Daniel Pipes has written an interesting article arguing the contrary. As Pipes sees it, Islam can indeed change via reinterpreting the Koran, and small efforts to do so are already in place, the implication being that Islamic radicalism can eventually be tamed through this method.

Needless to say, Pipes has taken a lot of heat for this view, as expressed in many comments on his website and elsewhere. But is he correct, or is Islam truly doomed to long-term stagnation?

Regarding Islam itself, I happen to agree with Pope Benedict and Pipes's detractors; as the religion's history has shown, its core tenets certainly have not proved very adaptable to change. But I think the question we must ask is actually a different one: Not whether Islam can change, but whether Muslims can change.

And the answer, in my opinion, is a resounding yes. It has happened, in fact, all throughout history.

Radical Islam in itself is merely a religious-based ideology; without its practitioners, it threatens no one. Only when large numbers of Muslims live their lives according to its fundamentalist sway does it become dangerous. But history has shown that, by and large, most Muslims do not enjoy living in this manner. Most of today's Muslim nations were originally conquered and settled by Arabs who practiced fundamentalist Islam, but over time the people living in these regions moved away from the orginal religion. Of course they still practiced Islam in general, but by no means did they live fundamentalist-style. Outside Arabia (and even within it to a degree), this occurred all around the Muslim world, from West Africa to Central Asia to Indonesia. Fundamentalist Islam itself may not have changed, but most of its practitioners certainly did.

Today we are seeing a resurgence of the old Islam, but that's only because certain nations (primarily Saudi Arabia and to a lesser degree Iran and Pakistan) are deliberately spreading it for their own gain. Most Muslims still don't like being governed by it (some in the West may notably advocate it, but ask those who have truly lived under it -- such as in Iran -- how they feel), and if groups like the Saudis would let up, I believe the number of practicing fundamentalists will rapidly shrink just as it did in the past.

On that note, then, the best way to curb radical Islam is not to change the religion itself (which probably won't work), but to stop the Saudi fundamentalist propaganda and to grant Muslims freedom so that they, rather than be controlled by oil-rich sheiks and autocratic dictators, can live the way they choose.

America has certainly made much headway on the freedom front, but on Saudi Arabia, much remains to be done. Daniel Pipes is certainly right about one thing - we need to get moving.