Gulf War 2012——-(read more)

 Essays  Comments Off on Gulf War 2012——-(read more)
Feb 212012
 

Rumors are flying hot and heavy about little Israel attacking Iran. Sadly, the rumors supporting this are believable.

Iran has antagonized Israel for a long time now by saying “Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth” and their development of nuclear technology supports this. But will Israel attack first? Most likely they will, but not the way most people think they will.

Think about this. Iran is so far away from Israel, that its bombers will have to refuel in mid-air with aerial tankers over hostile territory with  lots of surface-to-air missiles everywhere. So,  mid air refueling is not likely to be successful.

It could be technically possible for a bombing raid to attack parts of Iran from an American aircraft carrier battle group from the Persian Gulf, something like the Jimmy Doolittle raid on Japan in World War II, but the dysfunctional government in Washington D.C. is not likely to allow this.

If you start thinking about a missile attack, this starts to make some sense, because Israel most likely has missiles with the range and a good load capacity. Also, a missile gains such speed that its something like an artillery shell that’s very heavy and travels at such high speeds that there’s very little that can be done to stop it. Think of it this way, if the missile is the type that separates from the booster rocket, the warhead  is about the size of a small suit case that travels at the speed of a bullet, then you can see why its so hard to defend against.

So, if you start thinking in terms of a missile attack, things start to look workable, but another problem pops up. Iran made the mistake of burying its nuclear research facilities deep under ground under rock mountains, the only type of bomb that may penetrate enough to do some real damage is the bunker-buster bomb that was developed by the American Army, but another problem pops up here. The bunker buster is so heavy that it requires a really big aircraft bomber to lift just one of them. To use a missile to lift it would require a Saturn 5 rocket of the type that was used on moon missions; these are no longer being made and Israel  does not have any of them.

But if Israel somehow overcomes all of the above difficulties and launches a successful attack on Iran; Iran will certainly not stand by, an attack on Israel is guaranteed. They will immediately attack Israel with the full force of its million man army with all of its modern weapons. Also, all of Iran’s allies will also attack Israel from all sides. Even if America defends Israel, its doubtful if America can defend Israel from the whole Mid East Muslim world. Israel will be wiped off the face of the Earth, just like Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad said would happen.

This is why Iran is being so arrogant about this, they are sure Israel can not attack their nuclear facilities.

This leads to the final conclusion, and I pray to God to make me wrong about this.

Israel does have the  option to launch a full scale nuclear missile attack on Iran and its entire army. In fact, if you consider all the problems involved in an attack on Iran; a nuclear attack may be the only way Israel can attack Iran.

Such an attack will cause so many nuclear explosions to occur that it will be the nuclear nightmare come true with radiation spreading over large sections of the world. Millions will be dead, millions more burned and smashed beyond belief. Hell on Earth will be a reality.

If anybody has any doubts that Israel would do this, remember that Israel has repeatedly said  :

“Next time, the Jews will not go quietly”.

Also, remember that Israel has a long history of doing what it thinks is necessary for its survival, and world opinion be dammed.

But as I keep hoping that I am wrong about this, there is the hope that Israel may just fire one or two nuclear warning shots, like America did to Japan during World War II with two bombs and maybe just take out only one or two cities. This did bring sense to Japan and World War II did come to an end because of this nuclear attack.

As for the worlds so called leaders, they are not talking about this, maybe they’re just not thinking right now, not that they ever think about anything. 

But if a nuclear attack does happen, will it have the same effect as the attack on Japan? It is sure that the entire Muslim world will be shocked into a chilling silence. Talk of killing the infidel will come to an end, because it will be realized that such talk has consequences that are the ultimate nightmare. Strangely, a sort of peace just may come over the world,  this may cause a stop to the mindless terrorist attacks launched by Muslim religious fanatics. Money diverted to war machines will be used once again for peaceful reasons. Will  good come out of mass slaughter?

This will be too horrible a way to achieve peace in the Mid East. But if Israel  realizes this at this time, it will only be another reason to attack. And remember diplomacy and sanctions did not work.

Peace could have come easily if Israel could just have realized that instead of throwing Palestinians out of their homes, they should have given them financial compensation for their loss; I do not recall the word “Compassion” or “Compensation” used in any of the so called  peace talks. And if only the Muslims could have realized that hatred is not the solution for anything, peace maybe achieved and war averted.

 But it may be too late for any talks now, unless the world can realize the position Israel is in now, then maybe peace can be achieved.

I pray to God to make this peace process begin now, before its too late. We are on the brink of a disaster the world has never seen.

Jose Lugo, editor DDTV.ORG

www.ddtv.org

lugo@ddtv.org

Ignorant Judges are Lethal to Liberty-read more

 Essays  Comments Off on Ignorant Judges are Lethal to Liberty-read more
Feb 172012
 

By KrisAnne Hall

It seems that every week there is some new attack on Liberty.  Recently, it was the US Navy trying to remove Religious Liberty in the name of “Separation of Church and State.”  Then it was our Congress, removing the right of trial and habeas corpus from US Citizens.  I attribute this to the dismal state of our education system.  We the people are so very ignorant of not only what our Liberties are, but of their source and value.  Ask someone to tell you the five specific protections that exist in the First Amendment and you might hear one or two, followed by a blank stare and silence.  Those that hate the fact that Liberty is an inherent possession of the people and want Liberty to be something the government gives to the “worthy” have really taken advantage of this gross negligence.  If we do not know, if we do not understand what our Liberties are, how do we recognize when they are under attack?

Our legal education system is not any better.  Rulings that fly in the face of our founders’ intent illustrate the shaky foundation given to our lawyers and judges.  In a recent example a US District Judge, Marco A. Hernandez has taken it upon himself to decide who has the right to freedom of the press and its protections and who does not.   This judge has done so by determining that a blogger, who has over 400 blogsites that publish her work, cannot possibly fall under the title of journalist.  After all, we all know that the only people that are journalists are those represented in the White House Press Corp or paid by top media corporations.  We definitely cannot accept someone who considers themselves a “blogger” and only prints on the internet as a REAL Journalist!

That is exactly what this federal judge has done.  Oregon statute reads:

“[n]o person connected with, employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the public shall be required by . . . a judicial officer . . . to disclose, by subpoena or otherwise . . . [t]he source of any published or unpublished information obtained by the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of communication to the public”

“Medium of communication” is broadly defined as including, but not limited to, “any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system.”

However, this judge has claimed that this woman is not a journalist because she:

“fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system”

I am amazed at the focus of this Judge.  He has taken the examples in the statute as the litmus test for determining media, completely ignoring the very plain statements “any medium of communication to the public” and “not limited to”.  Any other time, a judge would be using this language to bring in everything, including the kitchen sink.  This stinks of motive.  But the Judge is not finished with his definition of media.   He claims in order for Ms. Cox to be “media” she must show…

 “evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting “the other side” to get both sides of a story.”

This time, however, the Judge uses no statute, no legal source to develop this further definition.  This is apparently something he has come up with all on his own.  I wonder if many in mainstream media could hold up under this standard.  I know for fact that today’s “journalists” fail in at least 5 out of 7 of these benchmarks.  I mean really, when was the last time you heard this level of journalism from any US mainstream media?  Because Ms. Cox does not fit this Judge’s internal definition of media, she is therefore not afforded the same protections as a paid member of the mainstream media due her under Oregon statute.

 Would our founders, so vital to the very establishment of Liberty, have qualified as journalists under these standards?  What about the Committees of Correspondence founded by the likes of Richard Henry Lee, Sam Adams, and James Otis, Jr.?  These committees were dedicated to the purpose of providing the colonists with the truth about the activity of the British Government.  Many colonists were tired of the propaganda and false reports coming from the King, Parliament, and their dedicated media and wanted to know the truth.  The committees of correspondence provided this truth.  They also became the Sons of Liberty and sparked a revolution.

I’m sure Thomas Paine would’ve landed on this federal judge’s chopping block, as well.  After all, he was not paid by any media corporation and was definitely not approved by the crown for his Common Sense publications.  We cannot forget about Mercy Otis Warren, who through her prolific writings of articles and plays encouraged a nation to stand against tyranny.  Once again, I doubt if she would have been considered a “journalist” under this judge’s guidelines; she had no education in journalism, she was not employed by a major media outlet, and she certainly didn’t interview “the other side” to get both sides of the story.  She didn’t have to, she was living it. 

But how did our founders intend to handle this “congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the freedom of press”?  The best argument I can offer is that of Alexander Hamilton’s as he states in Federalist Papers 84.  

“…why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”

Hamilton argued with the likes of James Madison and Richard Henry Lee that an incorporation of the Bill of Rights would be a danger to the very liberty that they hoped to protect.  He believed to his core that if the Bill of Rights were incorporated in the Constitution, that it would provide to those who wanted to control Liberty the very excuse to do so through definition and regulation.

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted… I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”

Hamilton actually uses the illustration of the freedom of press.  He reasonably argues that there is no need to insert a protection of freedom of press, because the federal government had been given no power to interfere with this Liberty.  Hamilton knew, as Madison points out in Fed 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined.”  Madison continues to specifically list those powers as “principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.”  Hamilton pointed out that regulation of freedom of press, or any of the proposed rights, was not part of the powers given to the federal government so they would have no right to attempt to regulate it. 

Hamilton’s greatest fear was that by attaching a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, evil men who wanted to control Liberty would then claim a right to regulate Liberty.   Here we are, fulfilling Hamilton’s greatest fear, coincidentally using his very illustration. 

Our Constitution and our Liberty is in peril because our legal professionals have no idea the history behind our Constitution and the reasoning our founders put into its provisions.  Our lawyers and judges cannot honestly honor their oath to the Constitution, because they have no true understanding of its meaning.  They cannot do as John Adams commanded, “have an attachment to the Constitution and a conscientious determination to support it”, and ensure a “free republican government” when they are ignorant of the founder’s intent.  

We the people must fill this void.  We must become the ones educated enough to make that conscientious determination to support the Constitution.  Reading it is not enough.  Knowing case law is not enough.  Just as any legally binding contract, we must understand what the parties intended the obligations and limitations of government to be.  Otherwise we just end up pooling our ignorance.  In this case, ignorance is not bliss, it is the death of Liberty.

Jose Lugo, editor ddtv.org

Justice Ginsburg Violates Her Oath-read more

 Essays  Comments Off on Justice Ginsburg Violates Her Oath-read more
Feb 102012
 
 By KrisAnne Hall

If you are wondering what causes the destruction of America, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, may give part of the answer to this question.

Al Hayat TV in Egypt interviewed Justice Ginsburg asking her for the advice she would give Egypt in writing the Constitution for their newly formed government. Her reply to this question gives insight into this her thoughts and understanding of the very Constitution she has given an oath to support and defend.

“I can’t speak as to what the Egyptian experience should be” she said, “because I am operating under a rather old Constitution, the United States in comparison to Egypt is a very new nation, yet we have the oldest Constitution still in force in the world…”

Immediately, Ginsburg diminishes the value of our Constitution because it is the “oldest Constitution”. She is completely ignoring the fact that it is the oldest Constitution because of the very foundation and principles it espouses. Our founders, although wise and possibly geniuses, were not making up things as they went along, they built a nation upon 700 years of experience with human nature, tyranny, and Liberty in mind. Our Constitution is not over 200 years old, but in reality, its principles and practices are over 1,000 years old. And it IS its age that gives it its credibility. It IS the tried and tested principles and practices that make America the shining city on a hill and the envy of the world.

But Mrs. Ginsburg’s criticism of our Constitution doesn’t end there. When asked by the reporter if Egypt should look to the US Constitution as an example to form their own, her response is shocking.

“You should be aided by all the constitutional writings that have gone on since the end of World War II, I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”

Yes, you heard right, she is telling Egypt to disregard our Constitution when drafting theirs. She offers up, rather, the Constitutions of South Africa and Canada. She even strongly suggests the European Union’s Human Rights statement as a BETTER example of Constitutions.

“I might look at the Constitution of South Africa, that was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights; [they have] an independent judiciary, it really is, I think a great piece of work that was done, much more recently than the United States Constitution. Canada has a charter of rights and freedoms that dates from 1982. You would most certainly look at the European convention on human rights…”

Can we glean from these statements that Mrs. Ginsburg does not believe OUR Constitution was a “deliberate attempt to embrace basic human rights”? I am really beginning to wonder what Mrs. Ginsburg actually KNOWS about our Constitution. After all, how is a nation founded upon the principles that “All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” not deliberately attempting to embrace basic human rights? Maybe she missed Sam Adams’ explanation of the rights of the colonists when he said they were “First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.” I guess in Mrs. Ginsburg’s books, those are not principles of basic human rights. In this interview, Mrs. Ginsburg says she is “a very strong believer in learning and listening to others”, unfortunately she never took the time to learn and listen to the men and women who founded this nation.

Mrs. Ginsberg does acknowledge the wisdom of our founders but points out the absence of women at the Constitutional Convention:

“…we were just tremendously fortunate in the US that men who met in Philadelphia were very wise, it is true they were lacking one thing, that is there were no women as part of the Constitutional Conventions, but there were women around, who sparked the idea…”

It is interesting that even if it is just in passing, Mrs. Ginsberg does acknowledge that women were involved in the foundational “ideas” of this nation. Yet she does a great disservice to the women of that era by completely ignoring the magnitude of their input. Her perpetration of revisionist history even becomes part of her advice to the country of Egypt.

“John Adams who was one of our first presidents, and instrumental in the Constitutional Congress, his wife Abigail was very well known, intelligent, said “Now John when you write that Constitution, please remember the ladies.” And he wrote back something amusing, he said, “are you suggesting that women should be part of the political community, look if we do that everyone will be claiming the right to vote, 12 year old boys will be claiming the right”, he treated like a joke…”

The internet is an amazing thing. It was not difficult to find the letters between Abigail and John that she references and John Adams said NOTHING like what Mrs. Ginsburg claims. Most historians not in the business of rewriting history are quick to acknowledge that John Adams held his wife in very high regard and often relied on her wisdom. Additionally, most of our founders felt the same way about the strong women in their lives. To suggest as Mrs. Ginsburg does, that the men excluded women from this process because they were tyrants and oppressive husbands, is as ridiculous as her rendition of the letters she quotes. Liberty, as John Adams describes in this letter is contagious. Our founders knew that with patience and proper focus on Liberty, in time, all would enjoy as much or as little Liberty as they wished to obtain. This is a valuable point Mrs. Ginsburg would do well to point out to a newly forming nation.

The truly puzzling thing is that she admits that our founders were “wise” and calls them “genius” and even admits that women had a role in sparking the “idea” of Liberty. But she then immediately perpetuates the liberal lie that our founders were not interested in women’s rights and wanted slavery to remain a guiding principle in this nation. May I remind Mrs. Ginsberg that the Declaration of Independence states “ALL” men are created equal. Not all men of a particular race, color or creed, or not even just all AMERICANS, but all men. In my dictionary “all” means “all”. In “listening and learning” from our founders they made it clear that slavery was something that must be abolished. It is precisely why they set a “sunset” for the institution of slavery. Maybe Mrs. Ginsburg doesn’t understand that provision since our current government doesn’t respect “sunset” provisions and simply votes to perpetuate them.

To our founders, who were focused on Liberty, creating a union of states was the most important aspect to ensuring that Liberty would prosper. They knew they could not plow new fields overnight and if they tried to change the world in one move, the union would never have a chance, and Liberty would not have its way in all the states. They understood the fundamental aspect of Liberty, that if the focus of a society is on Liberty, that Liberty will be contagious. People who observe others enjoying Liberty will always want to enjoy it for themselves. Our government was established as a Republic so once that desire for Liberty began to spread, a minority group could have a society-changing voice. Our founders deliberately did not establish a democracy, because in that form of government, the majority would always choke to death the desire for Liberty of a minority. Yet another point that Mrs. Ginsberg might be wise to share with Egypt instead of encouraging them to strive “to achieve a general democracy…”

The dichotomy of her praise and criticism of our founders and our Constitution shows that she is greatly misinformed of both. The fact that she would lift up the European Union’s Human Rights statement should greatly concern us. But the finality of her statement to a newly forming nation, that they should NOT look to the wisdom of our founders and use our Constitution as a guide gives us the greatest insight into what she believes about the founding of our nation and the supreme law of the land.

I have begun to understand that those in our government repeatedly take oaths that they do not understand do not actually believe. Taking an oath and not understanding what that oath means, is the equivalent of taking no oath at all. Mrs. Ginsberg is a great example. Here is the oath every Supreme Court Justice takes:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

According to an online dictionary the word “support” means to keep from weakening or failing, to strengthen. Synonyms for this word are uphold, back, advocate, champion. According to the same online dictionary the word “defend” means to keep safe from danger, attack, or harm, to ward off an attack. It seems to me, that putting down our Constitution and lifting up others above it is a very strange way to keep it from weakening, to advocate for it, and to ward off attacks against it. This justice, whose entire job depends upon the definition of words, seems to have forgotten the meaning of these vital words. Mrs. Ginsburg might do well to pick up a dictionary and put down her distorted Constitutional law books.

Mrs. Ginsburg did make one statement that was right on. When asked her ideas on how to draft a constitution, her reply should cause every patriot to sit up and take notice.

“A Constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom if the people don’t care, then the best Constitution in the world won’t make any difference, so spirit of liberty must be in the population.”

Bravo, Mrs. Ginsburg, you have the fundamental foundation for being a patriot. Now, put down your law books, put down your revisionist history, set aside your agendas and REALLY “learn and listen” to the men you called genius. Learn WHY they were able to pledge their lives, their fortune, and their sacred honor so ages and millions yet unborn could live in the greatest nation on the planet protected by the greatest human rights statements ever drafted. You may just then begin to understand the pledge you took, and the principles embodied in the document you are supposed to support and defend. You will then be qualified to maintain that seat on the Supreme Court. May I be so bold as to suggest a really great book for you to get started? Not A Living Breathing Document, Reclaiming Our Constitution

 for information email: lugo@ddtv.org

Brewing Up a Fools War in the Gulf-(read more)

 Essays  Comments Off on Brewing Up a Fools War in the Gulf-(read more)
Feb 012012
 
by Eric Margolis
 The United States and Iran are playing an increasingly dangerous game of chicken in the Gulf. Threats and counter-threats are flying fast and furious. War could be only an accidental ship collision or aircraft intrusion away.
Nations often blunder into war due to miscalculation, arrogance, or wrong intelligence. One need only recall August, 1914, when joyous throngs of French or Germans cried out, “on to Berlin!” and “On to Paris!” and “Home for Christmas.”
The current confrontation between the US/Israel on one side and Iran on the other is about more than Tehran’s UN-inspected nuclear power program that some claim is a front for developing nuclear weapons.
With Iraq defanged and Syria in turmoil, Iran is the last major Mideast state that refuses to be part of the US sphere of influence – what I call the American Raj.
As Iran’s noisy defiance grows, Washington fears its influence and prestige will suffer unless it brings the annoying mullahs to heel. The so-called “Arab spring” has a confused Washington ready to lash out, as Libya showed. A crisis in the Gulf could derail US plans to reassert its influence over the Mideast.
Iran’s nuclear program has become the symbol of that nation’s fiery nationalism. Iranian leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, insists the West is determined to keep the Muslim world technologically backward. Iran’s nuclear program is a great technological leap forward for all Muslims, asserts the ayatollah.

Embarrassingly for Washington’s hawks, two recent US national intelligence estimates so far support the ayatollah’s assertions that Iran’s nuclear program is strictly for power generation.

However, US allies on the UN’s Atomic Energy Agency continue to raise questions as to the intent of the Iranian program, without producing any hard proof of warlike intent.

 Israel is straining every muscle to push the US into war against Iran, as it did in 2002-2003 with Iraq, thus sparing itself the difficult task. The recent string of murders of Iranian scientists appears designed to provoke Iran into a retaliation that would set in motion a full-scale war. So far, Iran has refrained from any retaliation.

The powerful US pro-Israel lobby and its Christian fundamentalist allies (now 44% of all Republican voters) have gotten Congress to impose new sanctions aimed at sharply curtailing Iran’s oil exports – in effect, economic all-out warfare that could spark a shooting war. A war, like Afghanistan and Iraq, that the US bankrupt government will finance through borrowed money, not taxes.

Israel’s rightwing Likud Party is using the non-existent threat of Iranian nuclear attack to divert attention from the burning issue of Palestine, and from Israel’s own internal economic problems and protests.

America’s media is baying for Iran’s blood. We just saw Republican presidential candidates – Ron Paul and John Huntsmen excepted – vying to sound the most bloodthirsty over Iran.

Candidate Newt Gingrich got $5 million of indirect support from an American casino mogul who is a major financial backer of Israel’s West Bank settlers and expansionist Likud Party.

My assessment is that America’s military does not want war with Iran. Muscle-flexing yes to back up muscular diplomacy, but not a full-scale conflict involving repeated air and naval strikes against a minimum of 3,200 Iranian military and civilian targets, according to US Navy senior sources.

America’s warplanes are aging or nearly worn out after Afghanistan and Iraq. Falling military budgets will make aircraft, missiles, bombs and ships harder and harder to replace.

The US has been at war about every five years or so since the 1950’s. With 1,000 bases around the globe and 11 aircraft carrier battle groups, the Pentagon can no longer afford to project global power just as it’s getting involved into East and West Africa, now America’s leading source of non-North American oil. US military spending already accounts for almost half the global total.

 All wars are unpredictable; all carefully laid plans break down after the first shot is fired. The Pentagon rightly fears it will get sucked into a wider war against Iran – including ground operations in which Iran could effectively fight back against US forces.

The vulnerability to attack by Iranian special forces of US bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and even Central Asia is of great concern to the Pentagon’s Central Command.

Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became a celebrated hero in the war against Iraq for leading deep penetration raids into enemy territory.

For its part, Iran seems to be foolishly going out of its way to goad and challenge the US and its allies. Last week, Tehran trumpeted that it was producing more 20% enriched uranium at a new underground plant at Fordow.

Few westerners understand anything about nuclear technology, never mind making weapons. To them, the Iranian announcement translated into “Iranian Nuclear Weapons!” Iran’s foes were delighted.

Iranian hardliners have told me they welcome war with the US. “The Americans will break their teeth on Iran!”

Brave words, but we heard similar foolhardy boasts from Iraqis in 2003.

Hot air, posturing and national egos can lead to disastrous real war – one that neither side wants, Israel excepted.

Fortunately, some wiser heads in Tehran – where figuring out who is really in charge is always a challenge – are letting in a new bunch of UN nuclear inspectors at month end and talking about more talks.

The Obama administration, showing more mettle than usual, has reportedly told Israel not to attack Iran without prior US approval.

A war over Iran is totally unnecessary and would be a major disaster for all concerned. But it could happen any day.

January 19, 2012

Eric Margolis is the author of War at the Top of the World and the new book, American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World.

Jose Lugo, editor ddtv.org

Copyright © 2012 Eric Margolis