Mar 30, 2012

Ambassador John Bolton on Obama's Betrayal of Israel: "Merciless" "Unprecedented"

Pamela GellerBy Pamela Geller
Atlas Shrugs

Twitter Facebook RSS Contact YouTube Amazon

Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton weighs in on Obama's relentless campaign to betray and undermine Israel. This leak is part of an ongoing campaign to thwart Israeli defense strategy against the Iranian genocidal threat.

"The pressure the administration has put on Israel has been just merciless behind the scenes."

"But nonetheless every evidence is that the pressure is failing, that the Israeli government will do what they think is necessary so the Obama administration has torqued it up a notch. Now they are going to reveal very sensitive, very important information that will allow Iran to defeat an Israel attack."

It should have been Bolton going up against the Mansourian candidate.

UPDATE: More: Bolton accuses administration of leaking story on Israeli planning along Iran border:

(Fox News)—Former U.S. diplomat John Bolton alleged Thursday that the Obama administration leaked a story about covert Israeli activity in order to foil potential plans by the country to attack Iran's nuclear program.

John Bolton

Bolton, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in the George W. Bush administration, was responding to an article in Foreign Policy magazine that quoted government sources claiming Israel had been granted access to airfields in Azerbaijan—along Iran's northern border.

The article did not state exactly what the Israelis' intentions were, but it suggested it could point to a possible strike on Iran.

"I think this leak today is part of the administration's campaign against an Israeli attack," Bolton claimed on Fox News.

The White House did not respond to Bolton's claims Thursday.

Bolton, a Fox News contributor, noted that a strike launched from Azerbaijan would be much easier for the Israelis than a strike launched from their own country—jets could stay over their targets longer and worry less about refueling. But he said tipping the Israelis' hand by revealing "very sensitive, very important information" could frustrate such a plan.

Speaking afterward to, Bolton said he didn't have hard proof that this was an intentional administration leak to halt an Israeli attack.

But he noted widely reported comments from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in February that he thinks the Israelis could strike as early as April. If that's the case, Bolton said, then it would be "entirely consistent" for the administration to try to avoid that impending outcome.

The Foreign Policy article quoted what were identified as "high-level sources ... inside the U.S. government." It specifically mentioned "four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers."

One intelligence officer, who was unnamed, told the magazine that the U.S. was "watching" the activity and was "not happy about it."

The Foreign Policy article did not specify whether any of the information came from the White House, and there is no direct evidence that this was a coordinated leak.

"Clearly, this is an administration-orchestrated leak," Bolton told "This is not a rogue CIA guy saying I think I'll leak this out."

"It's just unprecedented to reveal this kind of information about one of your own allies," Bolton said.

Related Links
More signs Israel may strike Iran soon • Israel Today (Ryan Jones)
John Bolton is also advising Romney •
Israeli-Azerbaijan Deal Leaked, Bolton Blames Obama • National Review Online
Bolton Charges Obama Purposely Undermining Israel •
Et tu Obama? Was U.S. Government behind attempt to sabotage Israel? • Daily Mail

Mar 29, 2012

Obama Admin Refuses to Call Jerusalem Israel's Capital

Ryan JonesBy Ryan Jones
Israel Today

Facebook RSS Contact

A long-standing point of contention between Israel and the US (one of the few that exists) is the fact that while Congress and the vast majority of American citizens recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state, the White House refuses to do so.

The Obama Administration's position on Jerusalem took center stage this week when a State Department spokeswoman refused during a press briefing to accept that the city, even the non-contested and Jewish dominated western half, is the capital of Israel.

Early in the week, the Washington Free Beacon political blog discovered that a State Department communication posted online had identified "Jerusalem" and "Israel" as separate Middle East entities. Following that revelation, the State Department quickly altered the communique to list only cities and not countries.

Victoria Nuland

At Wednesday's weekly press briefing, a reporter asked State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland to comment on the issue, to which she replied, "Our policy with regard to Jerusalem is that it has to be solved through negotiations. We are not going to prejudge the outcome of those negotiations, including the final status of Jerusalem. ...That's all I have to say...”

But the reporter in question was not satisfied, and pressed Nuland, stating, "That seems to suggest that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel." Nuland still was not budging, so the reporter tried to "give her an out" by asking, "Is it your position that all of Jerusalem is a final-status issue, or do you think—or is it just East Jerusalem?"

Nuland still refused to acknowledge that even the western side of Jerusalem, which has been under Israeli sovereignty since 1948, is the legitimate seat of Israel's government. The Weekly Standard transcribed the entire exchange at the press briefing.

The United States continues to maintain its embassy in Tel Aviv, despite a 1995 act of Congress that stipulated the American mission was to be moved to Jerusalem no later than 1999. Successive American presidents have consistently invoked "national security" powers to avoid implementing the Jerusalem Embassy Act.

Israel is unfazed by the fresh commotion over the status of its capital, said an official [cited by the Times of Israel].

"Jerusalem is Israel’s capital by decision of the Knesset and nothing can change that,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor stated. “It’s our capital, no matter what anyone else is saying."

Related Links
State Department Refuses to Say Jerusalem is Israel's Capital • Arutz Sheva
Bad timing for another “Jerusalem denial” from the State Department • Hot Air
State Dept. Spokesman Refuses to Say Whether Jerusalem Is the Capital of Israel • The Weekly Standard
State Department Spin on Jerusalem Meltdown is Already Wrong • Commentary
Israel unfazed by Obama administration’s refusal to say Jerusalem is the capital • The Times of Israel

World Bank Shifting Gears?

Chris WoodwardBy Chris Woodward

RSS Contact

A former State Department official says the president's choice for World Bank director is a different kind of nominee, which signals that the bank is turning away from its primary mission.

Jim Yong Kim

James Roberts, research fellow for economic freedom and growth at The Heritage Foundation, says Dr. Jim Yong Kim is a Korean-born American who is well-respected in the field of international healthcare and epidemics. But his field of expertise does not seem to match his new position.

"Nothing personal against Dr. Kim—it's just a little bit odd you don't have a traditional nominee coming from a background of international banking, or economics or [a] high position in the U.S. government," Roberts notes. "It sort of sends a signal of turning the World Bank away from what was really its primary mission to stimulate economic growth, and instead turning it into more of an international development, foreign aid agency."

According to the economics expert, the risk is that people will be forced to be more dependent on government and foreign aid "and not the sorts of programs that are going to be the long-term answer for those countries, or of economic growth, of private sector-led investment, strong property rights—things that will allow those countries to develop stronger economies so that they can have the resources to fight disease, provide better healthcare [and] better education for their citizens."

According to Politico, other people considered for the position were Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs was also campaigning for the spot.

Related Links
World Bank nominee taking heat for criticizing corporate growth • Los Angeles Times
Top developing nations plan new world development bank • Herald Tribune
Obama’s Pick for World Bank Hates Capitalism • FrontPage Magazine (Jacob Laksin)
US Treasury Secretary: Funding IMF, World Bank Strengthens US Foreign Policy • Wall Street Journal
Three Nominees For World Bank Presidency Commence Race With Statements • Kaiser Family Foundation

Mar 28, 2012

Sudanese Christians Given Until April 8 to Leave

Ryan MauroBy Ryan Mauro

Twitter Facebook RSS Contact LinkedIn Amazon

The Sudanese regime is on its way to becoming the next Iran, regardless of whether President Omar Bashir remains in power or not. The country is moving towards becoming a full-blown Sharia state, comparable to Iran, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan under the Taliban. Towards that end, 500-700,000 Christians have been told to pack up and leave by April 8 or they’ll be treated as foreigners.

Omar Bashir

The Bashir regime has always been an enemy of the U.S. and those who value human rights but it is now doing everything it can to please its Islamist opposition. The regime knew it would raise the ire of the Islamists when it allowed the mostly-Christian region of South Sudan to become an independent country. In the hopes of staving off a rebellion, Bashir promised to remodel his country based on Sharia Law with Arabic as the only official language. He also promised not to seek another term in 2015.

Bashir’s most powerful opponent is a cleric named Hasan al-Turabi, the leader of the Sudanese branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is hard to overstate his impact on the growth of Islamic extremism and terrorism. He has been called "Sudan's Osama" and "The Pope of Terrorism." After helping Bashir come to power, Turabi used his base in Sudan to build close relationships with every virtually single Islamic terrorist group and government. He worked hard to bring together secularists like Saddam Hussein, Sunni radicals like Osama Bin Laden and Shiite radicals like Iran and Hezbollah into a common anti-Western front. Turabi became close with Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, though he today criticizes some of their tactics as being “counterproductive.”

After South Sudan seceded, the Islamists demanded that Bashir made good on his word. They formed the Islamic Constitution Front and drafted a Sharia-based constitution. The imam of Khartoum’s Grand Mosque endorsed it and said Bashir must “either rule by Islam or go.” Other members of the group explicitly said they’d revolt if their wishes aren’t granted.

Bashir declared that any person whose great-grandparents were born in the south or is part of a southern ethnic group will no longer be considered a citizen after April 8. That means that the country’s 500-700,000 Christians must get out now or have their rights reduced to that of a foreigner. This is nowhere in the news. Imagine if Israel had issued such an order to 100 Palestinians.

The Sudanese Christians are facing increasing persecution. In February, eight bombs were dropped on a Christian college built by Franklin Graham’s charity. Humanitarian aid is being blocked to those in the Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile Provinces, forcing the U.S. to consider an operation to rescue about 500,000 people from imminent famine. Any presence of foreign troops in this area would probably trigger a call to jihad by Islamist clerics and possibly the Bashir regime.

This isn’t to say that Bashir is a friend of the U.S. who was pushed into a corner. It is true that his regime has become much more cooperative on counter-terrorism since 2001. The State Department nearly delisted it as a State Sponsor of Terrorism last year as a reward for letting South Sudan vote on independence. The State Department’s eagerness to mend ties with Sudan led it to overlook its ongoing support for terrorism.

The State Department conceded that Hamas, Al-Qaeda and Palestinian Islamic Jihad operate in Sudan. It reassured us that the regime “does not openly support the presence” of the latter two, but doesn’t preclude the possibility of secret support. After all, Bashir’s rule is tyrannical and it’s hard to believe that high-profile terrorist groups could operate in Sudan without the regime knowing.

The State Department downplayed Sudan’s support for Hamas, saying it is limited to fundraising. This is demonstrably false. Israel has carried out airstrikes on convoys delivering Iranian arms to Hamas through Sudan since January 2009. There were two strikes in December 2011 alone. An opposition newspaper was shut down in 2010 after it disclosed the existence of an Iranian arms factory in Khartoum used to supply Hamas and Iranian-backed militants in Yemen and Somalia. This is made all the more serious when you consider the fact that when Ayatollah Khamenei visited Sudan in 2006, he declared that Iran would share its nuclear technology with Islamic allies.

Omar Bashir will either implement the Islamist agenda or they will remove him from power and do it themselves. Either way, Sudan is on the way to joining the ranks of Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Related Links
Sudan and South Sudan may slide back to war, world powers warn • CNN
South Sudan Pulls Back From Disputed Northern Town • Voice of America
700,000 Christians forced out of Sudan • PanARMENIAN
Sudan’s Bashir heads to Arab summit despite ICC warrant • Al-Arabiya
In Sudan, more ethnic cleansing of Christians is alleged • BP News

Iran Hoarding Grain

David DolanBy David Dolan

Contact Amazon

United States and other Western officials continue to warn Iran it could face military action if it does not halt its nuclear development program. This comes as increasingly tough international economic sanctions slapped on the Muslim country are having a greater and greater impact on daily life in Iran.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

In another sign that the sanctions are working, analysts say the Shiite Islamic regime has begun to buy large quantities of wheat and other grain products in apparent anticipation that such food stuffs might later be included in the list of sanctioned items and services. Media reports say Iranian grain importers bought the equivalent of a normal full year's supply of wheat and other grains in just the first two months of this year alone. Importers admit that a large portion of the wheat is coming from the United States. They say the Iranian importers are getting around US imposed sanctions by buying the grains in non US dollar currencies like the Euro, and are going through third party agents to make their discreet purchases. Analysts say the grain hoarding indicates Iran expects possible war this year.

Related Links
Iran Watch: What's with all the wheat? • Foreign Policy
Kazakh port starts loading wheat for Iran • Reuters
Iran War Watch: The Wheat Import Strategy • Mother Jones
Iran Buying Wheat, Fearing More Curbs • Wall Street Journal
Iran ramps up food imports via Turkish route • Business Recorder