This is from local California TV station. I guess even his Mosque doesnt want him back
Yeah I know is an Arab paper so take with grain of salt
Israeli Attack on Iran Timed Between November and January?
While some pundits and analysts classify this kind of statement in the psychological warfare/bluff game, the truth is quite different. Interestingly Iran dismissed Sarkozy’s statement and a deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Nour Ali Shoushtari boasted that “the enemy does not dare attack Iran, as it knows that it will receive fatal blows from Iran if it ventures into such a stupid act.”
But in reality, Iran should not take these warnings lightly because time and again Israel has proven in its short history that it will not tolerate a deadly threat.
In a recent appearance at the Washington Institute for Near East policy, deputy Israeli Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz‘s speech and body language could not be clearer especially when he repeated several times, talking about Iran’s threat: “Israel will not allow a second Holocaust.”
At this point in time it seems like Israel is left with the least desired option: the military one.
The main reason for this is the total failure of the international community to pressure Iran to give up its quest for a nuclear weapon. In fact after five years of official non-stop negotiations and three U.N. sanctions, Iran has advanced unopposed its military nuclear program.
While some view that Iran has fooled the international community, it is rather the West that has accepted to be fooled. Indeed by not succeeding in applying real tough sanctions on Iran, the world has come to the point where Iran is ever so close to have access to a nuclear bomb.
It is no secret as to what could force Iran to give in: crippling its oil-based economy. In fact, 85 percent of Iran’s revenue comes from exporting oil and at the same time Iran imports 40 percent of its gasoline. Sanctions that would include banning import of Iranian oil and exporting of gasoline to Iran will never pass because of a Russian and/or Chinese veto. Also the passing of a fourth round of U.N. sanctions against Iran is very unlikely especially since the recent Georgian crisis, Russia will block anything the West will suggest and even more so when it is a condemnation of its Iranian ally.
The solution around this would be for Western navies to block the Strait of Hormuz and not allow any oil to flow in and out of Iran. While this would have very negative impact on the oil market in the short run if the blockade just lasts a few days and Iran caves in, then the world could have averted a new war.
A small price to pay, isn’t it? But since this suggestion seems unlikely to be followed anytime soon, Israel is going to be left with the only choice, that of a military strike against Iran.
Now as to the timing? First, the timing of a new incoming Israeli prime minister is going to have a clear impact on when the strike will occur. But what is sure is that like in all military operations, the element of surprise is crucial so the longer Israel waits, the more prepared Iran will be. Interestingly, experts are placing the risks of an Israeli attack on Iran by January 2009 at anywhere between 0 and 30 percent.
That clearly leaves Israel with a potential opportunity to surprise everyone including most importantly the mullahs’ regime in Tehran. Taking a contrarian view, the ideal time for a strike would be in the transition period in the United States between Nov. 4 (the election of a new president) and Jan. 20 (his entering office).
But depending on who is elected, the odds are not the same. In fact, if Dem. Sen. Barack Obama wins, the likelihood of an Israeli strike during the transition is significantly higher, maybe up to 70 percent, than if Rep. Sen. John Mc Cain becomes president because of Obama’s and Joe Biden‘s appeasing views on Iran and less favorable to Israel.
In this eventuality, it would make more sense for Israel to strike while the more favorable President George W. Bush is still in office.
Olivier Guitta, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a foreign affairs and counterterrorism consultant, is the founder of the newsletter The Croissant (www.thecroissant.com).
From the people in the know
Schumer’s seen as both ‘show horse’ and ‘workhorse’
WASHINGTON — Sen. Chuck Schumer has the dubious distinction of being seen as both one of the Senate’s biggest “show horses” and “workhorses” by congressional staff, according to a survey in the September edition of Washingtonian magazine.
The magazine says it surveyed 1,700 members of congressional staff and donated $1 to charity for every response.
Schumer, D-N.Y., ranked No.1 among the Senate’s show horses, ahead of Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois, who finished No. 2, and Joe Biden of Delaware, ranked No. 3.
Among the workhorses, Schumer tied for third place with Republican Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Dick Lugar of Indiana. Topping the list were Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
New York’s junior senator received the No. 1 ranking among Senate falling stars. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton finished ahead of Sen. Larry Craig, the Idaho Republican who continues in his job despite his arrest by an undercover policeman in a Minneapolis, Minn., airport bathroom. No. 3 was Sen. Ted Stevens, the indicted Alaska Republican.
However, Clinton continues to be respected for her intelligence. She tied with Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., for “brainiest” member of the Senate.
Clinton also ranked No. 3 among senators seen as “kings or queens” adept at obtaining earmarked funding for special projects in their home states behind Alaska’s Stevens and Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.
Among senators congressional staffers would like to be seen as president, Clinton ranked No. 3.
Who finished ahead of her?
Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain.
Only one member of New York’s House delegation made the lists.
Rep. Vito Fossella, R-Staten Island, ranked No. 2 among House members most likely to star in a scandal behind Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.
PUBLIC POLICY POLL (PDF FILE)
Democratic ticket makes them more likely to vote for Barack Obama.
trouble for Barack Obama.”