Articles from Dr. Michael D. Evans http://216.147.74.32/articless4.php Unthinkable human tragedy is playing out on the streets of Jerusalem. Elderly Russian Jewsare scrounging through trash seeking sustenance for every day. With the threat of war looming,these Jews, who fled from persecution in their homeland in hopes of a better life in Israel, arenow facing a battle for survival. Some are Holocaust survivors who find bitter memories broughtback to life by hunger; some are young children whose parents cannot find work and are put tobed early at night because there is no food on the table. The good news is that professional chef Jim Nobel is partnering with the Jerusalem PrayerTeam's Mike Evans to open the King's Kitchen—a place where poor Jewish people inJerusalem can go and eat at no charge. King's Kitchen is a non-profit restaurant specificallycreated to feed the poor in Charlotte, North Carolina. When Evans heard about Nobel'sproject, he thought immediately about the poor struggling to find food in Jerusalem. "I asked Jim what it would take to establish a King's Kitchen in the Holy City," Evans explains."Jim has agreed to lend us his expertise to help us launch in Jerusalem." Evans is in the fund-raising stage of the project, anticipating a significant outlay of cash to make the kitchen happen.He's looking for an appropriate site, equipment, staff and more. "There is nothing like the King's Kitchen in Israel," Evans explains, expressing excitement aboutthe spiritual impact the project will have. "This will be a unique and wonderful witness to thelove of God." Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0800 Israel has just announced the successful final test of a new anti-missile system called IronDome that may offer hope to Jewish people, like those in Sderot, who live with the constantthreat of terrorist attacks. The Iron Dome uses a sophisticated radar system to track incomingrockets, which is linked to a control network allowing Israel to intercept and destroy them farfrom their targets. It is the only anti-rocket system of its kind in the world, according to experts. Iron Dome aims to protect Israel from homemade and imported rockets fired by Palestinianmilitants in Gaza, as well as the more sophisticated rockets in the hands of Hezbollah guerrillason Israel's border with Lebanon. The successful tests completed this week involved destroyingmultiple incoming targets in coordination with other air force systems, the Defense Ministry saidin a statement. The announcement also said the first two Iron Dome batteries would be deployed by Novembernear the town of Sderot, whose location near the Gaza border makes it a favorite target ofPalestinian rocket squads. This small town is the home of many elderly Russian Jews who livewith the constant threat of death. Missile and rocket fire are commonplace for the residents ofthese border communities. Additionally, a grave humanitarian crisis is brewing in Jerusalem as poor Jews, many of themRussian refugees or elderly Holocaust survivors, are struggling to find enough food to eat. Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0800 Jerusalem Prayer Team Founder Mike Evans says sources in Israel indicate that Iran isprepared to "go atomic" before next Passover. During the last two wars with Israel, Iran'sterrorist proxies fired more than 14,000 rockets at Israel. "I have watched the rockets flying over my head heading for the homes of innocent Jewishmen, women and children," Evans says. He anticipates a greater number of bombs this timeand says the ability of Israelis to protect themselves, particularly with bomb shelters, is sorelyinadequate. The United Nations has passed new sanctions on Iran because of that nation's defiant refusalto halt work on its nuclear weapons program. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in anunusually strong statement this week, declared that Iran was not serious about working with theInternational Atomic Energy Agency to resolve the issue. The official Iranian news agency announced that parliament was working on a "top prioritybill" which would limit the country's ties with the IAEA. According to the Islamic Republic NewsAgency, the move came as a direct response to the sanctions imposed on the Islamic republic. "The bill to revise Iran's relations with the IAEA is being drafted," the news agency quotedIranian foreign policy chief Alaeddin Borujerdi as saying. Iranian President MahmoudAhmadinejad dismissed the sanctions as "annoying flies" that were as useless as "usedtissues." Other officials said Iran would not halt its uranium enrichment. Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0800 This is a most critical time for the nation of Israel. Catherine Ashton, the EU's foreign policy chief, started her second Mideast tour in four months this past weekend, trying to restart the stalled peace talks and push Israel into making good on a promise to open border crossings with Gaza. On her three-day visit, Ashton planned to meet separately with the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority and also with Tony Blair, the former British prime minister who is now the international community's envoy to the Middle East. "The European Union has been calling for an urgent and fundamental change of policy regarding the closure of Gaza," Ashton said on the eve of her visit. One of the main focuses of her trip is the attempt to force Israel to relax the restrictions on what is allowed into and out of Gaza. This poses a great risk to Israel, because Iran has been using every means available to smuggle more powerful weapons to the Hamas terrorists. If the border crossings are opened missiles, rockets and guns will flood into Gaza. The irony of the situation is that world continues putting all of its pressure on Israel to make peace. But on Ashton's last visit in March of this year, a Kassam rocket was fired from Gaza that killed a Thai worker in Netiv Ha'asara in Israel. Clearly expecting the terrorists to make peace is a fool's errand because the only peace they want is the peace of the grave when every Jew is dead. Yet the world community continues to make demands on Israel to bring peace. We cannot turn our backs on Israel at this crisis moment. The threat it faces from Iran's attempts to provide more powerful weapons to Hamas and other terrorist groups is literally a matter of life and death for tens of thousands…and if America deserts Israel, the consequences to the world will be dire indeed. ********** Dr. Michael D. Evans is the #1 New York Times bestselling author, and author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos and Atomic Iran. Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0800 Not long after the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 a young member of the Revolutionary Guard, disgusted by what he saw from the mullahs who were running the country, contacted the CIA and offered to work as a double agent. For years "Wally" was one of the best sources of intelligence for America about what was happening in the radical Islamic regime. In a speech this month at the Institute for Near East Policy in Washington, "Wally" described an Iran that is very different from what is normally portrayed by our political and diplomatic elites. Protected by a bodyguard, wearing a disguise, and using a voice modulator to protect his identity, "Wally" described the dangerous reality in no uncertain terms. "Stop dreaming, please," he said. "You are not dealing with rational people. Every time you extend a hand, it is not seen as sincerity, but stupidity." He predicted that Iran will eventually attack Israel, Europe and the Gulf and advocated a preemptive military strike against the regime but not against the Iranian people or infrastructure. "Wally" accused the Obama administration of naiveté and betrayal for seeking to engage Iran. Not only does the regime see this as weakness on the part of the United States, he said, but the Iranian people view it as a betrayal of the highest order as they fight for freedom. There is no doubt listening to his inside information that Israel is in great and imminent danger. Above and beyond the threat from Iran, there is a grave humanitarian crisis brewing in Jerusalem. As you read this email today, poor Jews, many of them elderly men and women who survived the Holocaust or fled persecution in Russia are struggling to find enough food to eat. I have watched these precious people search through dumpsters for something to eat. We cannot turn our backs on Israel at this crisis moment. The threat they face from Iran's nuclear program is literally a matter of life or death for tens of thousands…and if America deserts Israel, the consequences to the world will be dire indeed. Please join me in praying urgently that God will confound the plans and schemes of those who hate the Chosen People and that He will bless His people with peace. ********** Dr. Michael D. Evans is the #1 New York Times bestselling author, and author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos and Atomic Iran. Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0800 During this month in which we celebrate America's independence, we must not forget that the samekind of sacrifices that bought and maintain our freedom are being made day after day by youngJewish men and women to defend the nation of Israel. The constant attacks Israel has enduredsince her rebirth in 1948 have soaked the land with the blood of courageous heroes who have beenkilled or wounded in battle. And every one of them is remembered by family and friends who are leftwith hurting hearts. On my recent trip to Israel I met with two people who have suffered more than most of us can evenimagine—the parents of Galid Shalit, the young Israeli soldier who was captured by Hamas terroristsmore than four years ago when he was just nineteen years old. The terrorists used a tunnel underthe Gaza border to launch a sneak attack inside Israel. They killed two other Israeli soldiers and tookShalit prisoner, badly wounding him in the process. Today Shalit is believed to be alive and being held in Gaza. His captors released a video of him latelast year that contained a message for his parents. Hamas is trying to blackmail Israel into releasinghundreds of convicted terrorists in exchange for his return. Israeli military intelligence continuesto search for Shalit, but the network of tunnels under Gaza that are used to smuggle in weaponsfrom Iran have so far proven to be a successful hiding place for the terrorists and their prisoner. And the Shalits are far from alone. A large number of brave young Israeli men and women havebeen wounded or killed defending their nation from the constant terrorist assault. I'm asking youtoday to join me in sending a special gift to help the Shalit family and so many other families whohave lost so much in Israel's fight for survival. Most of these families do not have the uncertainty that the Shalits must deal with. Instead theyhave cemeteries to visit, wheelchairs to push, and the burden of providing constant care andattention to their children who have been gravely wounded in the struggle for Israel's survival. The government of Israel does not have the resources to provide all of the specialized care,therapy and other help that families trying to cope with serious and life-altering injuries need. Frequently they feel abandoned and forgotten. At times they wonder whether the sacrifice is worth it.Many of them know that they will never again receive a hug or a kiss from their beloved child. Othersmake painful trips to cemeteries to remember the loved ones they have lost. So please remember these heroes of Israel in your prayers. ********** Dr. Michael D. Evans is the #1 New York Times bestselling author, and author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos and Atomic Iran. Sat, 3 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0800 Iranian ships set sail to Gaza this week. Supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is ready to provide an escort to cargo ships trying to break Israel's blockade of Gaza. Iran, the center of gravity for world terror, arms and funds its two proxies on Israel's borders, Hamas and Hezbollah. The two groups have fired more than 10,000 missiles into Israel, killing and terrorizing a multitude of innocent Israeli civilians. Both have been emboldened by President Barack Obama's appeasement policies. President Obama has an extremely small window in which to draw a line in the sand with Iran. If he does not, Iran's action could precipitate war in the Middle East. The Iranians have threatened to "wipe the stinking corpse [Israel] off the map" with a nuclear bomb. There is nothing more for Israel to do at this juncture. Terrorist organizations fueled and fed by Iran want nothing more than to kill Jews wherever they may be found. Jimmy Carter missed a golden opportunity to support America's strongest Muslim ally in the Middle East - the Shah of Iran. Instead he opened up back channels of communication with the godfather of world terror, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in Paris. It appears President Obama has chosen the same course. The terrorists that surround Israel have measured the current occupant of the White House and found him to be ineffective. Obama is just one more to join the queue of presidents wanting the award for having achieved peace in the Middle East. Now it seems that his determination to waffle on the issue of Iran's nuclear ambitions has brought us, not closer to peace, but to an all-out war in the region. The Obama administration betrayed Israel even before the flotilla reached its interception point. Several days before the incident on the Mavi Marmara, the U.S. participated in a conference which called upon Israel, not Iran, to relinquish its nuclear weapons. Such a move would leave the tiny nation defenseless against the likes of Iran. The signals are apparent to anyone watching: Obama is weak. He has no visible ties to the Jewish state. Opportunity knocks! The result is the launch of missiles from Gaza and Hezbollah's hunger for another war. Syria has thumbed its nose at overtures from the U.S. administration and Ahmadinejad is threatening another Holocaust. I can't help but wonder how he can threaten a second when he doesn't believe in the first. All but hard core Muslim fanatics acknowledge that the flotilla was not a "humanitarian aid" issue; it was a clear effort to force Israel to defend its nation. The PR intent was to make Israel the loser, even if only in the media war. Obama has been impotent to raise support worldwide against Iran's nuclear program. Now Israel may soon be faced with having to stop an Iranian vessel loaded with the Revolutionary Guard. It may be faced with meeting the challenge of armed Iranian patrol boats opening fire on the Israeli navy. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be foolish to allow a ship from Iran to slip through the blockade and deliver anything to Israel's sworn enemy, Hamas. It could be laden with anything from war materiel to rockets to the makings of an atomic device. Intercepting the Mavi Marmara was the intelligent thing to do. Halting any shipment launched from Iranian waters is crucial for Israel's continued existence. In response to the announcement by the Iranian Red Crescent, an Israeli diplomatic official responded, "If we didn't let an Irish ship reach Gaza, we are certainly not going to let Iranian ships pass." When Israel was attacked by surrounding Arab forces in 1973, Seymour Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, reported that Prime Minister Meir and her cabinet made the decision to arm nuclear strike aircraft in preparation for action against both Egypt and Syria. Prime Minister Netanyahu may be forced to take a page from Golda Meir's defense book in order to defend his country. ********** Dr. Michael D. Evans is the #1 New York Times bestselling author, and author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos and Atomic Iran. Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0800 President Barack Obama and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas met Wednesday at the White House for talks on Gaza. During the meeting Mr. Obama pledged $400 million in aid to Abbas, former CFO of the terror organization responsible for funding the Munich Massacre in 1972. Eleven Israeli Olympic athletes and coaches were murdered. This is quite a different approach from the president's last, strained meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He didn't even get a PB&J when Mr. Obama cavalierly exited the meetings with a backhanded, "I'm going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls." He challenged the prime minister to consider the error of his ways, and is quoted as having said, "Let me know if there is anything new." Now the president has welcomed the PA leader, and with the usual aplomb of the Liberal Left, President Obama simply tosses money at the problem of Gaza. No stand is taken against the terrorist regime that holds the people in that region by the throat. Abbas goes home with a decidedly fatter bank account. According to Mr. Obama the money will be used for housing, schools, health and infrastructure needs. In view of the fact that Hamas has control of Gaza and Abbas has no authority in the area, just how is he going to oversee the $400 million? Perhaps it will find its way into personal Swiss bank accounts as did money funded to Yasser Arafat. Given that terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah have no problem with using schools, synagogues, and even hospitals in which to hide their munitions and from which to launch their attacks against Israel, America could be aiding and abetting further terror attacks against Israel. Of course, Israel would be forced to retaliate. It's a lose/lose battle for the Jewish State. The president set the tone for the meeting with Abbas by labeling the tense face-off in the Middle East "unsustainable." He also predicted that "real progress" would come with US attempts to force the Israelis into more land for peace deals. I can find no mention in news from the White House about Egypt's blockade or why the building materials deemed necessary for Gaza's well-being have not been flooding into the area across the Egyptian border. One can but wonder how tightly the thumbscrews will be applied to Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli government in order to try to coerce them into reopening talks with Abbas and the PA. It seems that concessions are Israel's to make, not by the PA or Hamas in Gaza. While Obama called again on Israel to stop building settlements in what he calls "disputed territories", he asked Abbas to make progress in the area of security. The question remains: How can Israel sit down at the bargaining able with people who refuse to acknowledge the Jewish state's existence? The meeting between the two men came ten days after the attack on the flotilla that tried unsuccessfully to break Israel's blockade against Gaza. Israeli troops were lured into an untenable situation and found themselves fighting for their lives during what should have been a peaceful boarding and redirection of one of the ships. With its resolve being tested not only by terrorist organizations and countries such as Iran, Israel now finds itself being abandoned by the Obama administration. The shift is most noticeable in the UN where Israel no longer enjoys automatic support from the U.S. An Israeli official said, "It's difficult to decipher the intentions behind the changing U.S. policy at the United Nations." Fortunately, Israel still enjoys the backing of a large group of Senators and Representatives who have been very vocal with their support. Senator Joe Lieberman said, "We should be very clear about who is responsible for the unfortunate loss of life in the attempt to break the blockade in Gaza. Hamas and its allies are the responsible parties…Israel exercised her legitimate right of self defense." According to Senator John Kerry, "Israel has every right…to make certain that weapons are not being smuggled in after the thousands of rockets that have been fired on it from Gaza." Senator Harry Reid: "Israel has an obligation to protect its citizens and therefore has a clear right under international law to prevent weapons from getting in the hands of terrorists determined to target them." Newly elected Senator Scott Brown added, "Israel is at war. Each and every day thousands of its innocent men, women, and children face the threat of the lethal rocket attacks out of Gaza." Texas Representative Pete Sessions said, "This will likely not be the last time terrorist organizations - under the guise of humanitarian aid - seek to provoke Israel. As much of the world turns the other way, my support for Israel remains steadfast in its struggle for security…" It is ironic and ludicrous that countries such as Cuba and Saudi Arabia gather at the UN to chastise Israel about human rights. The Obama administration must rethink its policy toward Israel. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must defend the rights of our closest democratic ally in the Middle East to keep its populace safe from terrorist attacks. The United States must not give any credence to those who would deny Israel the right to self-defense. Gaza is governed by an organization whose charter denies Israel's very right to exist, and whose name is on the U.S. terrorist list because of its heinous activities. Israel has been soundly criticized because no weapons were seized from the flotilla stopped on May 31. It is critically important, however, that Israel maintain control over the entry points for any aid into Gaza. Should she relax her vigilance, Gaza will be flooded with war materiel and Israel will reap the whirlwind of Hamas' windfall. ********** Dr. Michael D. Evans is the #1 New York Times bestselling author, and author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos and Atomic Iran. Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0800 It seems the whole world is mad at Israel because of the flotilla incident. I am furious for a totally different reason, and that is, to see terrorist-harboring, aiding, and funding organizations and countries, and terrorists themselves contrive a slick, smoke-and-mirror campaign to break Israel's naval blockade. The blockade was established because arms and missiles were being sent into Gaza for only one purpose: to kill Jews. On the ship the activists/terrorists were chanting slogans such as, "Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews. The army of Mohammed will return." This was in reference to the slaughter of Jews by Mohammed in the seventh century. They were screaming, "Martyrdom or victory." Can you imagine any country arming its troops with paintball guns? That's precisely what Israel did. The boarders were carrying paintball guns solely for crowd control. Israeli officials didn't want anyone harmed. They wanted to avoid an incident such as the one that evolved on Memorial Day. The terrorists on the ship beat the IDF troops with pipes, stabbed them with knives and scissors, tossed stun grenades at them, and then disarmed the troops and shot them with their own pistols. One soldier was thrown over the railing to fall headfirst thirty feet to the deck below. The only way the Israelis could hope to survive was to defend themselves. In just two examples, in 2001, the Israeli navy intercepted the Karine-A, a ship laden with tons of weapons bound for Gaza from Iran. In November 2009, the Francop, a container ship dispatched from a German port carried hundreds of tons of war materiel to be off-loaded for Hezbollah. Containers aboard the ship were clearly stamped with Iranian markings. Would any country worldwide permit such a thing? The answer is an unequivocal No! Because of the arms that reached Hamas and Hezbollah in the past, more than 10,000 missiles have been fired at innocent Jewish refugees--mothers, fathers, and children. I was in Israel during both the Lebanese war and the Hamas/Gaza war. Missiles were flying over my head. I saw homes demolished and visited the wounded whose bodies were filled with shrapnel. I was heartbroken to see that playgrounds for small children contained bomb shelters. If you think for one moment that the events surrounding the Free Gaza campaign flotilla were just a coincidence, you are misinformed. It was timed for maximum effect. It was never a humanitarian campaign to help suffering people. This is why it was labeled "Free Gaza." The leaders of the flotilla rejected numerous Israeli offers to send the food and medical supplies through the Israeli port of Ashdod, the gate for all humanitarian supplies into Gaza. The terrorist organization behind the flotilla was the IHH (Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi) founded in 1992. It has been on the CIA's watchlist since 1996 because of its fanatical Islamist teachings. Under the guise of a "charity," it has a record of sending donations to Muslim disaster areas. The IHH is not the force for good it purports to be. It is backed by a Saudi-based group known to back terrorism. The chairman of the organization, Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, advocates suicide attacks against innocent Israeli civilians, and funnels millions to support Hamas. According to a Danish study, the IHH is also reported to have ties with al-Qaeda and other "global jihadist networks." French intelligence reports support the Danish study. Israel gave up Gaza as a land-for-peace offer hoping for peace. Instead it got a living hell. Hamas, an Iranian-backed terrorist organization, went into Gaza, unspeakably persecuting Christians and Palestinians alike. Christians have been executed in the streets and doused with acid, until they fled. They take their lives in their own hands if they dare carry a Bible or go to church. It is also a death sentence if a person is determined to be gay in Gaza. If a barber cuts the hair of a woman, he spends time in jail...or worse. It's no different than what is happening with the Taliban in Afghanistan. These are radical, Jew-hating, Muslim fanatics. The Hamas charter calls for the destruction of the entire State of Israel. The murder of every Jew is celebrated. The worldwide condemnation of Israel is racist and bigoted. It's the foulest lie perpetrated since the days of Hitler. Gaza is a Taliban-run area now. Despite the fact that Israel forfeited the area, the Palestinians in Gaza have suffered terribly at the hands of Hamas. None of the items on the ship were needed in Gaza; each day Israel sends hundreds of truckloads of food and medical supplies. The medical supplies aboard the ship were outdated. Iran has not received a modicum of the condemnation that has been heaped upon Israel. Iran was, in fact, behind the flotilla debacle. Egypt offered to transfer the supplies to Gaza. The Free Gaza martyrdom or victory organizers said No. It wasn't about humanitarian aid. It was about setting a trap for Israel. The UN, the EU, Russia, China, the Arab League, and virtually the entire world have condemned Israel. The silence of those who support Israel, including the U.S. is deafening. Nations around the world are calling on the U.S. to abandon a 63-year alliance with its only true Middle East ally. The Obama administration is pressing Israel to allow into the Gaza Strip new activist flotillas setting sail from Europe, according to what an official in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government told me just days ago. Separately, an Israeli government official said the White House asked Netanyahu for concessions in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. This was to be in exchange for U.S. opposition to the establishment of a United Nations commission to investigate Israel's commando raid of a flotilla. Iran is now on the northern and southern borders of Israel with its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. It wants to wipe Israel from the map. A war is coming. Iran wants to arm its proxies so they can murder tens of thousands of Jews if Israel should try to intervene in Iran's nuclear plans. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems intent on setting yet another trap for Israel. Iranian Red Crescent director for International Affairs, Abdolrauf Adibzadeh, has announced that two ships would sail from Iran to Gaza this week under Turkish supervision. A hospital ship would soon follow. He called for 20,000 relief workers to accompany the two ships. The scene is apparently being set for a confrontation. In Turkey for the Asian security summit, Ahmadinejad said of Israel, "The devilish sound of the uncultured Zionists was coming out from their deceit. ... They were holding up the flag of the devil itself…it has actually rung the final countdown for its existence. It shows that it has no room in the region and no one is ready to live alongside it. Actually, no country in the world recognizes it, and you know that the Zionist regime is the backbone of the dictatorial world order." Israel says it will not allow the Iranian ships into Gaza, and that its navy is prepared for any eventuality. The Israelis won't be so easy a target this time. ********** Michael D. Evans is a #1 New York Times bestselling author. His latest book is Atomic Iran. Thu, 10 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0800 Once again, Israel faces hypocrisy and a biased rush to judgment. I'm afraid this isn't the first time. Last year, Israel acted to stop Hamas from firing thousands of rockets into Israel's towns and cities. Hamas was firing on our civilians while hiding behind civilians. And Israel went to unprecedented lengths to avoid Palestinian civilian casualties. Yet it was Israel, and not Hamas, that was accused by the UN of war crimes. Now regrettably, the same thing appears to be happening now. But here are the facts. Hamas is smuggling thousands of Iranian rockets, missiles and other weaponry - smuggling it into Gaza in order to fire on Israel's cities. These missiles can reach Ashdod and Beer Sheva - these are major Israeli cities. And I regret to say that some of them can reach now Tel Aviv, and very soon, the outskirts of Jerusalem. From the information we have, the planned shipments include weapons that can reach farther, even farther and deeper into Israel. Under international law, and under common sense and common decency, Israel has every right to interdict this weaponry and to inspect the ships that might be transporting them. This is not a theoretical challenge or a theoretical threat. We have already interdicted vessels bound for Hizbullah, and for Hamas from Iran, containing hundreds of tons of weapons. In one ship, the Francop, we found hundreds of tons of war materiel and weapons destined for Hizbullah. In another celebrated case, the Karine A, dozens of tons of weapons were destined for Hamas by Iran via a shipment to Gaza. Israel simply cannot permit the free flow of weapons and war materials to Hamas from the sea. I will go further than that. Israel cannot permit Iran to establish a Mediterranean port a few dozen kilometers from Tel Aviv and from Jerusalem. And I would go beyond that too. I say to the responsible leaders of all the nations: The international community cannot afford an Iranian port in the Mediterranean. Fifteen years ago I cautioned about an Iranian development that has come to pass - people now recognize that danger. Today I warn of this impending willingness to enable Iran to establish a naval port right next to Israel, right next to Europe. The same countries that are criticizing us today should know that they will be targeted tomorrow. For this and for many other reasons, we have a right to inspect cargo heading into Gaza. And here's our policy. It's very simple: Humanitarian and other goods can go in and weapons and war materiel cannot. And we do let civilian goods into Gaza. There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Each week, an average of ten thousand tons of goods enter Gaza. There's no shortage of food. There's no shortage of medicine. There's no shortage of other goods. On this occasion too, we made several offers - offers to deliver the goods on board the flotilla to Gaza after a security inspection. Egypt made similar offers. And these offers were rejected time and again. So our naval personnel had no choice but to board these vessels. Now, on five of the vessels, our seamen were not met by any serious violence and as a result, there were no serious injuries aboard those ships. But on the largest ship, something very different happened. Our naval personnel, just as they landed on the ship - you can see this in the videos - the first soldier - they were met with a vicious mob. They were stabbed, they were clubbed, they were fired upon. I talked to some of these soldiers. One was shot in the stomach, one was shot in the knee. They were going to be killed and they had to act in self-defense. It is very clear to us that the attackers had prepared their violent action in advance. They were members of an extremist group that has supported international terrorist organizations and today support the terrorist organization called Hamas. They brought with them in advance knives, steel rods, other weapons. They chanted battle cries against the Jews. You can hear this on the tapes that have been released. This was not a love boat. This was a hate boat. These weren't pacifists. These weren't peace activists. These were violent supporters of terrorism. I think that the evidence that the lives of the Israeli seamen were in danger is crystal clear. If you're a fair-minded observer and you look at those videos, you know this simple truth. But I regret to say that for many in the international community, no evidence is needed. Israel is guilty until proven guilty. Once again, Israel is told that it has a right to defend itself but is condemned every time it exercises that right. Now you know that a right that you cannot exercise is meaningless. And you know that the way we exercise it - under these conditions of duress, under the rocketing of our cities, under the impending killing of our soldiers - you know that we exercise it in a way that is commensurate with any international standard. I have spoken to leading leaders of the world, and I say the same thing today to the international community: What would you do? How would you stop thousands of rockets that are destined to attack your cities, your civilians, your children? How would your soldiers behave under similar circumstances? I think in your hearts, you all know the truth. Israel regrets the loss of life. But we will never apologize for defending ourselves. Israel has every right to prevent deadly weapons from entering into hostile territory. And Israeli soldiers have every right to defend their lives and their country. This may sound like an impossible plea, or an impossible request, or an impossible demand, but I make it anyway: Israel should not be held to a double standard. The Jewish state has a right to defend itself just like any other state. Fri, 4 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0800 On May 31, Israel walked straight into a trap - a trap set by a group of so-called activists determined to break Israeli attempts to halt the flow of arms and war materiel into the Gaza strip. Having been warned in advance that the intent of the Free Gaza movement flotilla was to shatter the Israeli blockade, the IDF prepared to board the ships and divert them to Ashdod for inspection. A member of the Free Gaza organization credited with launching the flotilla, Greta Berlin, clarified the intent of the group: "We're not trying to be a humanitarian mission." Apparently, Israel was ill-informed that the ship carried 700 pro-Palestinian activists prepared to do whatever necessary to reach their goal. American-born pro-Palestinian activist Hawaida Arraf threw down the gauntlet with the assertion: "We fully intend to go to Gaza regardless of any intimidation or threats of violence against us. They are going to have to forcefully stop us." According to Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon "the armada of hate and violence in support of the Hamas terror organization was a premeditated and outrageous provocation. The organizers are well-known for their ties to Global Jihad, Al-Qaeda and Hamas. They have a history of arms smuggling and deadly terror. On board the ship we found weapons that were prepared in advance and used against our forces…" When confronted by the Israelis, five of the six ships' captains diverted to Ashdod; the sixth was decidedly on a mission of defiance. Obviously, the mistake made by the IDF was to assume that the voyagers on board the Mavi Marmara were a charitable group. Rather, it was loaded with pro-Palestinian terrorists, not with the specified humanitarian agenda, and determined to create an international media incident. The IDF deployed about a dozen soldiers with the intent of taking the bridge and diverting the flotilla to the Israeli port. Instead, the troops fell into the hands of an angry mob of rioters armed with clubs, knives, scissors, pepper spray, and with side arms after having disarmed several IDF soldiers. The Israelis boarded with non-lethal paintball guns, the kind used by teens on paintball courses, and pistols they never thought they would have to unholster. Video shows the unsuspecting IDF paratroopers being assaulted as they reached the deck. One IDF soldier was thrown over a railing to a deck 30 feet below. In a statement by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he reiterated that this was "a clear case of self-defense because as our soldiers were inspecting these ships, they were attacked - they were almost lynched. They were attacked…and they had to defend themselves - they were going to be killed. Israel will not allow its soldiers to be lynched and neither would any other self-respecting country." Israel has maintained the 4-year blockade to halt the flow of weapons from Iran to Hamas, its armed and funded proxy in Gaza. In November 2009, the Israeli navy intercepted a huge cache of weapons headed from Iran to Hezbollah and Hamas onboard Francop, a German container ship. The markings on the materiel discovered were clearly Iranian. It carried some 3,000 missiles including Katyusha rockets. The Israeli embargo against Gaza has become more powerful than rockets; it created the perfect storm, the Vietnam, for the State of Israel. The secular media, which has always been prone to call terrorists "activists", only encourages such actions. In 2008, Israeli President Shimon Peres held a "Facing Tomorrow' conference to which he invited some of the most noted thinkers in the world. One of the conclusions of that meeting was that the wars of the 21st Century would be fought first as a media war, secondly as an economic war, thirdly as a proxy war, and finally with boots on the ground. Israel has lost this media war and is well on its way to losing the economic war. Israel ceded Gaza in hopes of achieving peace in the region; its hopes were dashed. Hamas continued to lob some 1,200 missiles across the border at innocent Jewish civilians. Despite the ongoing provocation, Israel has allowed food and humanitarian supplies into Gaza through the Red Cross and UN. This skirmish came amid plans for a meeting between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Barack Obama. The aim of the summit was to keep Iran at the top of the agenda, not the Palestinian Authority. Iran found the perfect means to distract the liberal media - create a flag-waving, humanitarian crisis. The resulting propaganda-driven riots worldwide would certainly take attention from the IAEA announcement that Iran now possesses more than two tons of enriched uranium - enough for two nuclear warheads. If you were sitting in the seat of power in ancient Persia, what would you do when confronted with new sanctions against your nuclear program? You would sponsor a David-versus-Goliath flotilla - a media extravaganza - carrying a Nobel Peace Prize winner, an American activist, and a Holocaust survivor. Central casting could not have done it better. The question becomes: When is a humanitarian mission not a humanitarian mission? It fails the test when it is peopled with terrorists on a suicide mission. Dr. Michael D. Evans is the #1 New York Times bestselling author, and author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos and Atomic Iran. Wed, 2 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0800 When I flew Lt. General Moshe Ya'alon, former head of Israeli Defense Forces and currently deputy prime minister, to a Dallas for a special strategic briefing of the Iran crisis, he expressed to the group assembled his deep concerns about the terrorist state. General Ya'alon is the foremost expert on the situation. I believe beyond a doubt that Israel will attack Iran this year. The only thing that can stop this from happening is the power of prayer, and the U.S. quickly standing up to Iran. This is why I am asking you to please pray for the safety of the people of Israel. The top U.S. commander in the Middle East has directed an expansion of clandestine military activity in the region. The instructions allow "reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate." The command appears to specify Iran as the target for the operations. It would be a foray to identify dissident groups/individuals that might be a future ally. An unidentified Israeli source referred to the directive as "the first time that the public is getting word of practical preparations of military activity." There was some debate about whether or not the information was a deliberate leak in an attempt to intimidate Iranian officials. This comes after yet another veiled threat from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He warned President Barack Obama that he would miss a "historic opportunity" if the deal between Iran, Turkey, and Brazil were not sanctioned. Ahmadinejad extended his warning to a closer neighbor, Russia. Under the opinion that the Russian leader had acquiesced to the U.S. push for tougher sanctions, Ahmadinejad said, "Justifying the behavior of Mr. Dmitry Medvedev today has become very difficult…The Iranian nation doesn't know whether (Russians) ultimately are friends, whether they stand by us or are after other things." Ahmadinejad went on to say, "If they (U.S. and its allies) are truthful when they say they seek cooperation ... they should accept this offer. But if they seek excuses, they should know that the path to any interaction will be closed." He warned President Obama, that "this proposal [with Turkey and Brazil] is a historic opportunity ... (Obama should) know that if this opportunity is lost, I doubt the Iranian nation will give a new chance to this gentleman in the future." It sounds very much like an adult version of a childish ploy: "If you don't play this game exactly as I want, I'll pick up my marbles and go home." The Iranian offer to ship uranium to Turkey is hauntingly similar to a measure drafted by the UN last year. It was rejected. Iran's continued race to acquire nuclear weapons is a threat to every nation worldwide, not just to the ones that can be reached by a warhead-carrying missile. CLICK HERE TO SEE HIGHLIGHTS FROM ATOMIC IRAN In a speech to the Knesset, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu informed the members that Iran's deal with Turkey and Brazil was a "transparent Iranian ruse." According to Netanyahu and nuclear experts, Iran would still possess enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon. The prime minister pointed out that "This proposal also guarantees Iran the right to take back at any point the kilograms [of uranium] transferred to Turkey." Netanyahu reiterated that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his minions must "understand that the international community is determined to prevent it from acquiring nuclear arms." While Ahmadinejad is a rogue leader whose practice of deception is his trademark, he has been very forthright about his determination to destroy Israel and target the West. Recalling Khomeini's earlier rhetoric, in October 2005 Ahmadinejad declared, "This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history." He has threatened elsewhere to "wipe Israel from the map." Of America, he wrote in a letter to President Bush, "Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems." The ideology to which he refers is democracy. Dr. Michael D. Evans is the #1 New York Times bestselling author, and author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos and Atomic Iran. Tue, 1 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0800 While the Jews prepare to celebrate June 7—Yom Yerusalayim—the reunification of Jerusalem, the Obama administration seems determined to wrest control from the hands of the Israelis and turn it over, at least in part, to the PLO. What a terrible travesty that would be. In 1947, the UN General Assembly enacted Resolution 181—a partition plan, which outlined borders for a Jewish Palestine. It dictated a special government for Jerusalem and established political rights for the Palestinian Arabs. As has often been the case with succeeding treaties and resolutions, the Arabs took exception to the plan and obstructed its passage, while the Jews welcomed it. Between 1948 and 1967 Jerusalem was under Jordanian control. Jewish residents were expelled from the Jordanian-controlled area, and parts of Jordan became an armed camp, with guns, land mines, and snipers. Conditions in Jerusalem were bordering on barbaric. Three-fourths of the tombstones in the Mount of Olives Cemetery were ripped out and used to build a hotel and to pave a path leading to army latrines. The Jewish quarter in the old city was destroyed, and synagogues demolished. Some were used as cowsheds, stables, or public lavatories. Jews were barred from worshiping at the Western Wall; This was a basic deviation from the practice of liberty to freely worship in the Holy Land. It was also a rank violation of the Armistice Agreement established between Jordan and Israel in 1949. Why would the Jews want to risk such inequity at the hands of the PLO which would certainly control the Western Wall under the plan to divide Jerusalem? Jerusalem is not a pawn in the hands of the EU, US, and the Arab League. Since being founded by King David some 3,000+ years ago, it has been home to the Jewish people. They pray there, toil there, and reside there. The Jews have never relinquished their claim to the City of David. Yet, it appears that the battle over Jerusalem is fueled by politics and not by religion. To the Muslims, Mecca is the city to which they pray five times daily—not Jerusalem; Mecca is forbidden to non-Muslims upon threat of death—not so Jerusalem. Christians, Jews and Muslims are welcome to worship at their various holy places. To the Jews, Jerusalem is the navel of the world—to the Muslims, it is Mecca. Just as the Muslims rule their holy city—Mecca, so the Jews should have the right to rule Jerusalem. An interesting note: Jerusalem is not mentioned in the 1964 PLO covenant it was of so little import to its leaders. It was not until Israel reunified the city in 1967 was the word "Jerusalem" added. Now President Barack Obama seems hell-bent on forcing the Jews to the negotiating table yet again. Determined U.S. presidents should perhaps review the natural events that have happened following attempts to coerce Israel to relinquish control over Jerusalem. Was it only coincidence that as President George H. W. Bush was opening the conference at the Royal Palace in Madrid, the Perfect Storm (the one made famous in the movie) developed in the north Atlantic creating the largest waves ever recorded in that region? The storm traveled 1,000 miles "east to west" (as opposed to the normal west to east pattern) to crash into the eastern coast of the United States. Thirty-five foot waves smashed into the Kennebunkport, Maine, home of President Bush. This was one of the worst storms in American history and one of the top ten in insurance claims. When the Madrid conference was moved to Washington, DC, for a resumption of the land-for-peace talks, hurricane Andrew struck Florida. It wreaked havoc, causing an estimated $30 billion in damages, leaving 180,000 Americans homeless, and securing a spot on the top ten list for largest disasters in American history. Other unexplained and costly events have occurred on dates that correspond with the U.S. trying to force Israel to give up land-for-peace. The most devastating financially occurred the week of October 11, 1999. In Israel, Jewish settlers were being driven from the West Bank in order to satisfy world opinion. In the U.S. the Dow-Jones plummeted. On October 15, the Dow plunged 266 points. On October 16, a magnitude 7.1 earthquake was registered in the California desert. On the East Coast, Hurricane Irene produced torrential rains of 10-20 inches in Florida and 10 inches in North Carolina. It caused over $800 million in damages. Coincidence? Perhaps… Dividing Jerusalem would make Yasser Arafat's infamous intifada looks like child's play. Neighborhoods of predominately Jews would be fodder for snipers and machine-gun armed terrorists. Israel's Knesset would be well within range of Palestinians armed with rockets. The Jewish people would be under attack as never before. President Obama seems eager to acquire worldwide recognition with the creation of a Palestinian state by forcing his will on the Jewish people. Will he, as has been reported, instigate a "hostile takeover" of the derailed negotiations between the two sides? Dr. Michael D. Evans is the #1 New York Times bestselling author, and author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos and Atomic Iran. Tue, 18 May 2010 00:00:00 -0800 On June 7, 2010, Jerusalem will celebrate the 43rd anniversary of its reunification in 1967. On June 5, 1967 after months of saber-rattling from Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, Israel unfolded a brilliant defense plan. In the early morning hours, while the Egyptian Air Force pilots were still enjoying breakfast, almost the entire Israeli Air Force took off for Cairo. Less than two hours later, the planes returned to home base having destroyed 300 of Egypt's jets. After refueling and rearming, the same Israeli planes took to the air and attacked airfields in Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. At the end of the day, the air forces of Egypt and Jordan had been all but destroyed; Syria lost half its planes - all while still on the ground. In three days of ground fighting, Israeli Defense Forces overcame Jordanian and Egyptian forces, and the battle moved northward to the Golan Heights. On June 9 after a fierce and bloody battle, Israeli forces broke through Syrian lines and secured the area. In the meantime, on June 7 IDF forces moved into Jerusalem and recaptured the Old City, including the Western Wall. IDF Chaplain Rabbi Shlomo Goren blew a shofar to celebrate the reunification of the Holy City. Since that time the question of who owns Jerusalem - biblically, historically, and legally - has been asked repeatedly. Biblically, the city belongs to the Jewish people. In 1053 BCE King David defeated the Jebusites and established his kingdom in Jerusalem where he reigned for 33 years. After David's death, his son Solomon built the first great Temple in Jerusalem. When Solomon died the land was divided into two kingdoms - Israel to the north and Judah in the south. Jerusalem became the capital of Judah. Solomon's death was the beginning of a succession of twenty rulers of Jerusalem, until the day Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the city and carried many away to Babylon, leaving only a remnant. Since the time of King David, Jerusalem has been the capital city of the Jewish people. In the past 3,000 years, twenty-six empires have conquered and occupied Jerusalem. The city has been leveled numerous times by violent invaders. Each time the walls have been rebuilt and the city reoccupied. Yet, in the midst of the destruction and despite ongoing terror attacks, Jews have continued to cry out, "Next year in Jerusalem!" Historically, Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish homeland. Perhaps this was best summed up by Moshe Dayan in an address to the 34th General Assembly of the United Nations in September 1979: "Jerusalem has known many foreign rulers during the course of its long history, but none of them regarded it as their capital. Only the Jewish people have always maintained it as the sole center of its national and spiritual life. For thousands of years Jews have prayed daily for their return to Jerusalem, and for the past century and a half, Jerusalem has had a continuous and uninterrupted Jewish majority." Legally, Jerusalem is under the control of the Jewish people. The truth is, the current legality for Jerusalem and Israel being the homeland of the Jewish people goes even further back - before the British Mandate to the San Remo Resolution. After World War I Italy, France, Japan and Great Britain established a national homeland for the Jewish people - the Land of Israel. The resolution stated that those countries agreed "to entrust…the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory [authority that] will be responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration…in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." The treaty did not specifically address the political governance of the Arab people. When the Ottoman Empire collapsed following World War I, the British Mandate for Palestine set aside an area of 45,000 square miles for the purpose of "establishing in Palestine a national homeland for the Jewish people." The British in 1921 took 35,000 square miles of the land designated for the Jews and created Trans-Jordan (later Jordan) as an Arab protectorate. Jews were not allowed to live or own property in the area east of the Jordan River. Britain conceded the Golan Heights - another 454 square miles - to Syria. Settlers there were relocated to the remaining Jewish area - about 10,000 square miles. This included part of the Negev which was largely uninhabitable. Israel then occupied less than 6.7 percent of the original Mandate. Adolf Hitler's determination during World War II to destroy the Jewish people resulted in the murders of six million Jews - men, women, and children. European Jews pled with nations around the world to grant them asylum, but their pleas fell on deaf ears - even the ears of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Yet, their longing to return to their homeland was a candle in the dark. In the midst of incredible persecution and suffering, the promise of God offered a lifeline: "For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land." (Ezekiel 36:24) The words of the prophet were like a brilliant light slicing through the gloom of the ghettos and death camps that housed the Jews. Ezekiel's vision of the valley of dry bones (Ezekiel 37:1-10) is one of the most vivid and moving in the Bible. The prophet proclaimed the Lord showed him that the bones represented Israel. Their dry and disconnected condition represented the dispersed Jews around the globe and their despair at ever becoming a nation united again. Ezekiel's message from God infused a glimmer of hope into the hearts of the Jewish people across the centuries. In 1947, the UN General Assembly which followed in the footsteps of the failed League of Nations enacted Resolution 181 - a partition plan, which outlined borders for a Jewish Palestine. It dictated a special government for Jerusalem and established political rights for the Palestinian Arabs. As has often been the case with succeeding treaties and resolutions, the Arabs took exception to the plan and obstructed its passage, while the Jews welcomed it. The resolution never became operative. The war launched on May 15, 1948 to drive the Jewish people from the land ended with Jordan in control of East Jerusalem. Jordan failed to follow the mandates or Resolution 181. Between 1948 and 1967, conditions in Jerusalem were deplorable, even by medieval standards. Jewish residents were expelled from the Jordanian-controlled area, and parts of Jordan became an armed camp, with guns, land mines, and snipers. Jews were barred from worshiping at the Western Wall; the Jewish quarter in the old city was destroyed, and synagogues demolished. Some were used as cowsheds, stables, or public lavatories. Three-fourths of the tombstones in the Mount of Olives Cemetery were ripped out and used to build a hotel and to pave a path leading to army latrines. After defeating Egypt, Syria and Jordan in the 1967 Six Days War, control of all Jerusalem was restored to the Jewish people. At that time, the resolution-prolific UN Security Council adopted yet another - 242 - which authorized Israel to retain jurisdiction over the reclaimed lands until "secure and recognized boundaries" had been established. No mention was made of Jerusalem proper. During the late 1970s and early 1980s I was privileged to form a wonderful relationship with Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Our talks often centered on Jerusalem and the Bible. To him, it seemed unfair that, while every other country in the world was free to choose its own capital without foreign interference, Israel was denied this prerogative. He reflected on how hard Israel had fought to reunite Jerusalem and to make it a city whose holy sites were freely available to everyone. He related to me a particularly exasperating discussion he had with President Jimmy Carter. "He said," Begin told me, "that his government did not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel." Begin asked Carter to tell him just where Israel's capital lay, if not in Jerusalem. "I couldn't get a reply," Begin grunted. Begin pressed the issue: "Here in Jerusalem is the [government]. Whoever says we don't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, my reply is always, 'Excuse me, sir, but we don't recognize your non-recognition." Mr. Begin said he had made a list of all the cities in America with Bible names. He said to Mr. Carter, "If the governor of Pennsylvania told Black Americans they could live anywhere in Pennsylvania except in Bethlehem, would he not be considered a racist?" Over the years I have debated national security advisors, secretaries of state, and even Yasser Arafat on this issue. On December 11, 1988, at the UN General Assembly, I stood up in room 411 surrounded by members of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Yasser Arafat had just concluded his address to the group. Holding my Bible in my right hand, I made the case why Jerusalem was Israel's capital. Arafat screamed at me, demanding that I shut up. In 1991, I made the same case to Secretary of State James Baker at the Madrid Peace Conference. His response was, "The status of Jerusalem has to be determined by negotiations." My response to him was, "God doesn't negotiate." Many Arab leaders refuse to recognize the State of Israel though some may give lip service. Maps in Muslim countries show the area as simply unnamed, or as "Palestine." Israel is surrounded by hostile Muslim leaders with a land mass 640 times her size. Yet some 13 million Jews in the world are constantly charged with being accountable for the frustrations of the 300 million Arabs in the region. It seems the Jews are even responsible for the dissatisfaction of President Barack Obama. Apparently he will not be celebrating Jerusalem Day. It seems he is more obsessed with dividing Jerusalem. In a much-touted speech delivered from Cairo, Egypt on June 4, 2009, Barack Obama outlined what he saw as the first and second greatest sources of tension between the Muslim world and the United States. Al-Qaeda topped his list, but the Israeli/Palestinian conflict came in second. The president said, "Israel has been depriving the Palestinians of their homeland for sixty years." It did not go unnoticed that no mention was made of centuries-old Jewish claims to the land. Thu, 29 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0800 Almost daily, the leader of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fires verbal darts at both Israel and the United States. With his calls to "wipe Israel from the map," his continued denial of the Holocaust, his aim to arm Iran with nuclear weapons, and his disdain for the world in general, and the U.S. in particular combine to make Ahmadinajad one of the most dangerous leaders today. Even more dangerous than the rhetoric of Iran's president is his belief that the second coming of the Mahdi will be prompted by an apocalyptic event. It will usher in the Mahdi and a worldwide Islamic caliphate in which Christians and Jews alike would be forced to bow to Islam or die. This Apocalypse of death and destruction in the Islamic prophecies precedes the Mahdi's return. Ahmadinejad or anyone else seeking to fulfill the Islamic prophecies could decide that a nuclear attack on Israel is predestined. The resulting chaos might result in a nuclear retaliation by Israel, or by Israel's allies including the United States. In an exclusive interview with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he assessed the Iranian threat: "Iran is an outlaw state. It fans terrorism and militancy worldwide. It is now organizing the rocketing of civilians in Israel…And [Iran] is preparing to be able to launch atomic warheads into an enormous radius. It's not just targeting Israel. If [Iran] only wanted Israel, it would not build those long-range rockets that can now pretty much cover every European Capital and soon will cover the U.S. It is precisely this mad ideology that people underrate." Were an Apocalypse needed to set the stage for the return of the Mahdi, Ahmadinejad would have no reservations about instigating an all-out nuclear attack against Israel - and perhaps anyone else who might get in his way. With his penchant for saber-rattling and inflammatory diatribe, Israel, and yes the world, should be alarmed. I have met with Iranian diplomats twice, at the Durban II Conference in Switzerland, and in a sobering meeting with Iranian diplomats at the Intercontinental Hotel in New York City. There I was told by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's spiritual advisor that the Iranian president would, through an apocalyptic event, usher in the Mahdi within two years. How does this correlate to biblical end-time prophecies? Ezekiel 38:1-7 lists 10 names of nations that will one day participate in the invasion of Israel. One of the ten is Persia. The Persians conquered Babylon in 539 BC, and a map of the ancient empire reveals Persia centered in what is today the country of Iran. Until 1935 Iran was called Persia, and then was changed to Iran. After the Islamic revolution lead by the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, its name was again changed to the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is no secret that Iran, an enemy of Israel and the West, and a supporter of the Palestinians, is actively working to get other Arab countries to change camps in their cooperation with the U.S. and Israel. President Barack Obama may have made that easier in recent weeks by treating Israel and its prime minister with contempt. He is yoking Israel with the burdensome task of making peace while demanding nothing of the Palestinians. There is an eerie correspondence between Ahmadinejad's belief in the Second Coming of the Mahdi and the unfulfilled prophecies of Ezekiel which describe a massive invasion of Israel by a great confederation of nations. It will be led by Gog and Magog which refers to the leader (Gog) of what has been identified by Bible scholars as modern-day Russia. One of the countries identified in the attack is Persia - no surprise there. Many evangelical Christians see this as an alliance formed between Russia and Iran for the purpose of attacking the Jews in Israel. The war of Gog and Magog is predicted to hit Israel after the Jews come back to Israel. The prediction also speaks of a time when Israel is "brought back from the sword." In other words, the war will occur when Israel is at peace. (Ezekiel 38:8). There is a fundamental difference between the Islamic prophecies of the Second Coming of the Mahdi and the Christian prophecies of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. In Christian theology, the Apocalypse follows the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, "the blessed Hope" or "Rapture" for which Christians await. This is the opposite sequence from the apocalyptic event awaited by the Muslims who believe in the Twelfth Imam or Mahdi. The Rapture is a unique moment in history as Christ returns to Earth, when true believers rise from the dead, to join those living who truly believe in Christ. The true believers, living and dead, are taken up to Heaven together, to be with Jesus. In other words, if a war is coming where Russia and Iran are allied against Israel, as Christians believe is foretold in the Book of Ezekiel, the time sequences are different. For Muslims this war of the Apocalypse must take place before the Second Coming of the Mahdi. Many evangelical Christians expect that the Second Coming of Christ will have already happened when the apocalyptic event takes place. As the nuclear crisis with Iran deepens, millions of Christians worldwide are consulting the Bible and praying to sort out how current world events fit into "last days" prophecies. Ezekiel 38:21-22 predicts massive human carnage as a result of the war. That Israel will win this Great War is little consolation given the massive number of deaths Ezekiel predicts as a result of the conflict. Christians interested in Bible prophecy have been reading Ezekiel more intensely now than ever. When the president of Iran speaks from the podium of the United Nations General Assembly and references the Second Coming of the Mahdi, should we be surprised that Christians are searching the prophecies of Ezekiel? Iran is a non-Arab state. If it goes nuclear this year, the Muslim Gulf States countries will begin a nuclear arms race with Russia as the supplier. Within a decade, red-hot nuclear reactors will stretch the 200-mile length of the Persian Gulf. There is no question that if this happens, it will indeed launch an apocalypse of an unprecedented proportion because the almost 1 billion Sunnis despise the 100 million Shia almost as much as they do the Jews. Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0800 The revelation of a secret reactor bored into a mountain near Qom, one of Iran's holiest cities, was a severe blow to Barack Obama's ability to engage Iran in meaningful dialogue. But even more disturbing is the fact that the mosque dedicated to the Mahdi, Jamkaran Mosque, lies in Qom. The Mahdi was the Twelfth Imam, a descendant of Mohammad, who disappeared down a well at the age of four. Refusing to believe that al-Mahdi was dead, his followers imbued him with timelessness. They declared him to be merely "hidden," and that on some future date he would suddenly reappear to reestablish an Islamic caliphate worldwide. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes the return of the Mahdi will come through an apocalyptic event. What better place to create the means to achieve his end than in Qom? And what would more effectively create a cataclysmic confrontation than for Ahmadinejad to carry out his threat to "wipe Israel off the map." More recently, a top official in the Revolutionary Guard, Cleric Mojtaba Zolnour, threatened, "Should a single American or Zionist missile land in our country…Iranian missiles will blow up the heart of Israel." Within hours of the discovery of the secret site, Ahmadinejad was attempting damage control. Mohammed ElBaradei, the UN nuclear chief, was invited to inspect the site…but not until October 25th. The interim is more than enough time for the tiny terrorist of Tehran to sweep the not-so-secret installation clean of any traces of atomic weapons. Only the UN and the ultra-liberal U.S. State Department seem not to believe Iran's duplicity. Both embody the idiom, "There are none so blind as those who will not see." Iran is a serious threat; Israel recognizes it. Barack Obama seems not to understand the severity of it. It seems abundantly clear that he is willing to accept an atomic Iran and the danger it poses. The President has made it clear that one of his aims is a "world without nuclear weapons." When that happens, only those fanatical regimes with secret, underground reactors and centrifuges will possess the means to bring the world to its knees. Previous sitting presidents were unable to deter North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons or testing missiles capable of delivering them. One day, and it may not be that far away, Iran will announce that nuclear tests will be conducted. The response of the current administration will likely be total shock; especially to those in the government who believe Iran gave up on developing nuclear weapons way back in 2003. The threat of sanctions has been ineffective. In fact, Ahmadinejad believes that sanctions only serve to toughen his countrymen and make them more "self-sufficient." He has been totally dismissive to any such tactic. He knows that Russia and China, the two largest elephants in the room, are both in his corner. It seems obvious that the world is threatened by Iran's resolve to possess an atomic bomb. It would seem equally evident that global measures could and should be initiated to stop the radical Islamic Republic from achieving its purpose, now rather than later. The question remains, however: Will the Western world prove equal to the task, or will it rely on tiny Israel to do the job for it? It is Israel that deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for having shed the most blood for freedom in the Middle East. Imagine the region without Israel, if you dare. Prime Minister Menachem Begin saved the world from unspeakable horror by courageously confronting Saddam Hussein's evil. The prime minister authorized the bombing of Iraq's Osirak reactor on June 7, 1981. If a liberal, Nobel Peace Prize-winning Democratic president had been courageous enough to stand by America's strongest ally, the Shah of Iran, rather than weaken him, the Russians would not have invaded Afghanistan. Had the same president not supported the Ayatollah Khomeini, radical Islam would not have been born. Saddam Hussein would not have invaded Iran and millions of lives would not have been lost in the ensuing war. It appears the Nobel committee of liberal, leftists believe that the Mahdi is already here, by ushering in the millennium kingdom of Barack Obama. **** Michael D. Evans is a New York Times #1 bestselling author. His latest book, Atomic Iran, Countdown to Armageddon is being made into a U.S. television special. Mon, 26 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0800 The term "blowback" was apparently coined by the CIA to describe "the unintended consequences of covert operations." Ironically, its first usage has been traced back to the 1953 coup d'état in Iran. "Blowback" ideally describes the events that have transpired since Jimmy Carter and his administration first conspired to oust the Shah of Iran. During his tenure in office, James Earl Carter Jr. sowed to the wind; America and Israel are not the only nations worldwide that continue to reap the whirlwind. Carter's "liberation" of Iran from the Shah set in motion events that have resulted in untold death and destruction for the past twenty-eight years. Yet, valuable lessons remain unlearned. The U.S. continues to issue an entry visa for the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the posturing president of Iran who has, time and again, threatened both Israel and the U.S. with destruction. He has stated: "I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene. Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started." Ahmadinejad has declared that during his upcoming trip to the U.S. he plans to meet extensively with the media. Visits to the United Nations allow the pint-sized puppet of the ayatollah-in-charge a worldwide platform from which to declare his message of "peace and friendship for all nations." While that looks good in print, the real message from him and his puppet masters is much more threatening. Ahmadinejad's ideology prescribes one solution: a worldwide caliphate with all inhabitants bowing a knee to Allah. And he is apparently willing to do whatever necessary to meet that goal. Ahmadinejad continues to blatantly pursue the acquisition of nuclear arms capability - and may already have achieved that goal. In defiance of the U.N. and of world opinion, Iran has barred International Atomic Energy representatives from inspecting Iran's facilities to ascertain just what has been accomplished. And still, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been invited to speak to the United Nations on Wednesday. While some in attendance will give him a chilly reception, others will greet him with open arms and will treat this pretender to the presidency as an honored guest. As in years past, he will likely deliver a speech filled with curtained threats and innuendo. When asked if President Obama would take this opportunity to meet with Ahmadinejad, Ambassador Susan Rice replied, "I don't expect that they will have a direct engagement. I think he may find that there are many Americans who are outraged by not only his comments…which were hateful in again denying the Holocaust -- but also express their serious condemnation of what has transpired in Iran over the last several months in the wake of the elections." When Ahmadinejad addressed the Durban Review Conference earlier this year, the Muslim world cheered; delegates from twenty-four Western countries rose as one body and marched to the exit. Why? He chose the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day not only to zero in on the West and berate what he characterized as the evils of Zionism, but he had the audacity to minimize the horrors suffered by the Jewish people during World War II by labeling the Holocaust the "pretext of Jewish suffering." This is the man who will enter the United States this week and stand before the United Nations as an honored guest. He will gain the spotlight of the world's media for his platform of hatred. And once again, nothing will be done to stop him or to hold him accountable. ******** Michael D. Evans is a #1 New York Times bestselling author. His latest book, Atomic Iran, Countdown to Armageddon will be released shortly. www.TimeWorthybooks.com. Mon, 26 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0800 President Barack Obama spoke directly to the Iranian people recently in an endeavor to engage that country in direct talks. I believe he is making a terrible mistake. It appears he is attempting to appease the fanatical leaders in that rogue nation in the same way Jimmy Carter did. Radical Islamic terrorists worldwide will surely interpret this as a sign of fear and weakness on the part of our new commander-in-chief. It could embolden them to strike America yet again. Mr. Obama is following the pattern set by Jimmy Carter when the former president abandoned long-time ally Shah Reza Pahlavi and engaged Ayatollah Khomeini in covert talks while the leader of the Islamic revolution was ensconced in Paris in 1979. Carter opened a "disavowable" channel of communication through contacts in the U.S. in an effort to use diplomacy to build bridges with the Ayatollah's revolutionary movement in Iran. The only thing Carter created was a 444-day living hell for fifty-two American hostages held captive by Iranian terrorists, not to mention his loss of a second term as president. He was ultimately forced to distribute $7.9 billion to the Iranians from the Federal Reserve through a series of bank transactions on the day of Ronald Reagan's inauguration. He signed an Algiers Accord that prevented the U.S. from future intervention in Iranian affairs, and kept the hostages from suing for reparations. Our high-tech, twenty-first century president followed his nationwide appearance on late night television's Jay Leno Show to push his stimulus package to Americans with a YouTube and White House website broadcast offering a "new day" to the Iranian people. How many Iranians do you suppose were gathered around their flat-screen computer monitors waiting with bated breath to hear the forty-fourth president offer his message of appeasement? Just as Jimmy Carter attempted to look Rooseveltian by donning a cardigan for a fireside chat directed at the American people, so Mr. Obama has adopted the modern technical tools of the trade in order to get his message across to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his radical cohorts. His aim was to engage the Iranian people; only time will determine if he was successful, or if he, like Mr. Carter has only broadcast his weakness rather than strength. And, we must note that many sites such as YouTube are blocked from broadcast in Iran. It will likely not be as effective a tool as was Khomeini's use of old-fashioned cassette tapes to infuse the Iranians with revolution. The liberal Mr. Obama was joined in his pursuit by the liberal Israeli president, Shimon Peres. Each man appealed to the nobler of the Iranians, which most certainly does not include the likes of the fanatical Ahmadinejad and supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who continues to call Israel a "cancerous tumor" that is on the verge of collapse and has called for its destruction. Unfortunately for President Obama, the Iranians have a long history with the United States, and an even longer memory. Ahmadinejad is now engaged in making his list of injustices perpetrated by the United States on the poor, mistreated country of Iran. Said the diminutive Iranian president, "We cannot simply forget what the U.S. did to our nation. They need to perceive what wrong orientation they had and make serious efforts to make up for it." The real truth is that such slogans as "Death to America" can still be heard floating over those amassed for Friday prayers in Tehran. Iran turned a blind eye while many of the nineteen 9/11 perpetrators crossed its territory on their way to target Americans with death and destruction. It has provided IEDs by the truckload to be used against our troops in Iraq. But of course, no one bothered to mention those little facts. The sobering question is, "How far will President Obama go to appease the Iranians?" One can only hope he will not adopt the tactics used by Mr. Carter who ultimately uncorked the bottle which held the genii of terrorism, and unleashed it on an unsuspecting world. ******** Michael D. Evans, a #1 New York Times bestselling author, is the author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. A television special based on the book is currently being produced (www.carterbooktv.com). Mon, 26 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0800 On Monday, April 19, 2010, the State of Israel celebrated her 62nd birthday, a tiny nation reborn out of the ashes of the Holocaust. I could not help but recall that President Harry S. Truman was courageous enough to acknowledge the revival. He said, "I had faith in Israel even before it was established. I knew it was based on the love of freedom, which has been the guiding star of the Jewish people since the days of Moses." For 62 years, Israel has been America's one true friend and strategic ally in the Middle East. With recent developments, the actions of President Obama and his administration have clouded the relationship between the two nations. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was stiff-armed during his recent visit to Washington, DC. In the words of one reporter, Obama "treated [Netanyahu] like some third-world, tin-pot dictator" and even denied him the customary State Dinner. Obama's arrogant and cavalier treatment of the Prime Minister of Israel callously accelerated the housing dispute into a full-fledged tragedy. He has endangered the long-standing alliance between Israel and the United States one that dates back to the presidency of Harry S. Truman. It was Truman who courageously led the world in being the first country to recognize Israel on May 14, 1948. A year or so after the Jewish state came into being its Chief Rabbi paid an official call on Truman. The Israeli dignitary blessed the President with the words: "God put you in your mother's womb so you would be the instrument to bring about Israel's rebirth after two thousand years. " Tears began flowing down Harry Truman's face. Since Harry Truman, all US Presidents have considered the support of Israel a moral imperative, believing that a secure and strong Israel is in America's self interest. Now it appears America has a president who is not going to the party and even further disputes the birth certificate. Now, in his attempts to look like an Arab, Obama has joined the "kick-a-Jew" club. The President is linking housing projects to the safety of American soldiers by stating that America often gets involved in conflicts that cost "American blood and treasure." Surely Mr. Obama is not trying to cast blame on Israel for U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan? It sounds suspiciously like other U.S. politicians that have failed to take seriously Israel's repeated overtures to the Palestinians. Mr. Obama should also read the history of the rejection by Palestinian leaders of Israel's olive branches. In a much-touted speech delivered from Cairo, Egypt on June 4, 2009, Barack Obama outlined what he saw as the first and second greatest sources of tension between the Muslim world and the United States. Al-Qaeda topped his list, but the Israeli/Palestinian conflict came in as the second greatest source of tension. The president said, "Israel has been depriving the Palestinians of their homeland for sixty years." It did not go unnoticed that no mention was made of centuries-old Jewish claims to the land. Arab neighbors who stand threateningly on its borders have long singled out Israel for pariah status. Not only does the tiny nation live in the crosshairs of Hamas and Hezbollah, Iran, which funds and arms these enemies, blatantly and vocally calls for the decimation of Israel. The rhetoric has grown even stronger since Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "we are not planning anything other than going for sanctions." Working through leaders such as Hamas' Khalid Mashai, Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah, and Iraq's Muqtada al-Sadr, Iran continues to destabilize the Middle East. It provides funds and arms to Hezbollah and Hamas, and ships weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan. This is particularly disturbing to Israel because of Iran's threats to "wipe it off the map." The Jews are regularly demonized by the Arab media, and now seemingly, by the President of the country that has heretofore been a trusted ally. I am reminded of the old saw, "With friends like these, who needs enemies?" ********** Michael D. Evans is a #1 New York Times bestselling author, and the author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0800 In a New York Times article published on April 15, President Obama said that "conflicts like this in the Middle East end up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure," drawing an explicit link between Israeli/Palestinian strife and the safety of American soldiers as they battle Islamic extremism and terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Suddenly the President is linking housing projects to the safety of American soldiers. Is the President trying to cast blame on Israel for U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan? I believe terrorist leaders think little about who is building where and much about the total destruction of Israel. The problem for the terrorists is not with building flats in East Jerusalem or in the West Bank; the problem is that Israel exists…period. Jews are hated simply because they are Jews. One would think those who surround the President could at least clarify the problem. On September 23, 1980, over dinner at the home of Isser Harel, the head of Israeli intelligence from 1952 to 1963, I asked him if terrorism would ever come to America. He said, "America is developing a tolerance for terror. If that continues, the first strike will be New York City's tallest building." Has Barack Obama bought into the "blood libel" myth which feeds and fuels terror? The Islamic revolution was birthed thirty-one years ago this month aided enormously by the weak and insipid policies of a liberal Democratic president. Jimmy Carter was trying to appease radical Islam by offering carrots to the Ayatollah Khomeini. At the same time, that president was offering sticks to America's most supportive Muslim ally, the Shah of Iran. Is history about to repeat itself? Rogue Middle East leaders - Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hamas' Khalid Mashai, Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah, and Iraq's Muqtada al-Sadr - must be dancing with glee. The Obama administration is revising national security guidelines which strip away references to Islamic radicalism and other terms which is deemed inflammatory to Muslims. Officials have also reversed three-month-old guidelines which seek out passengers arriving from thirteen Muslim countries and Cuba from mandatory screening. Of course, Obama's statements follow what he perceived to be a personal affront by the Israelis - the announcement of construction in an established neighborhood in Jerusalem during the visit to Israel by Vice President Joe Biden. What had not been widely publicized was the dedication of a square in a municipality of Palestine to Dalai Mughrabi, a terrorist responsible for the murder of 37 innocent Israeli civilians - many of them children. Now, it seems Obama has joined the "Kick-a-Jew" club. It seems he is casting his lot with those who, down through the ages, have blamed the Jews for every problem, every catastrophe - natural and manmade, every economic upheaval, and even for the Black Death plague in Europe. Has a new round of propaganda begun - one designed to raise the level of anti-Semitism and elevate anti-Semitism to new heights? One of America's most beloved Black leaders said, "How easy it should be, for anyone who holds dear this inalienable right of all mankind, to understand and support the right of the Jewish People to live in their ancient Land of Israel." Martin Luther King, Jr. continued, "I know you feel, as I do, a deep love of truth and justice and revulsion for racism, prejudice, and discrimination. But I know you have been misled--as others have been..." Am I accusing President Obama of anti-Semitism? Certainly not! I do believe, however, that he needs to closely examine the motives of both his advisors and his own heart before he launches a campaign to blame Israel for the deaths of American soldiers in the Middle East. Why is it that the Obama administration pounces on every perceived misstep by Israel yet closes its eyes to attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists? Why is the administration not as vocal about rockets lobbed into Israel proper as it is a housing project that will house both Israeli Arabs and Jews? ********** Dr. Michael D. Evans is the #1 New York Times bestselling author, and author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos and Atomic Iran. Sat, 17 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0800 President Obama will host a forty-nation nuclear security summit in Washington on April 12-13. During the conference, he plans to visit one-on-one with leaders from China, India, and Pakistan. This summit comes on the heels of Obama having signed a new arms-reduction agreement with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The last democratic president with a similar ideological worldview and nuclear disarmament ambitions was aided in his SALT II talks to limit nuclear proliferation by a young Senator from Delaware, Joseph Biden. Little did President Jimmy Carter realize that instead of strengthening American security, it would be weakened. The Russians would invade Afghanistan and radical Islam would be birthed by a refugee from Iran who had been deported from Najaf, Iraq and was living in Paris. Carter covertly assisted the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in achieving his aspirations to overthrow the Shah of Iran. French President Valerie Giscard D'Estaing would ultimately meet with Carter over the American president's plan to assist Khomeini all in the name of human rights. After Carter met with D'Estaing, West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, and British Prime Minister James Callaghan on the island of Guadeloupe, Giscard described Carter to me as a "bastard of conscience" who betrayed America's strongest Muslim ally. As a result 53 American hostages endured 444 days of humiliation following the American Embassy takeover in Tehran. After signing a covert assistance plan to fund the Muslim Brotherhood in Afghanistan on July 3, 1979, Carter's foreign policy initiatives would create the perfect storm. It would place Osama bin Laden (and ultimately al Qaeda) on our payroll months before the Russians invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. Now it seems Obama is determined to repeat Carter's SALT II fiasco by introducing a new nuclear program. One of Khomeini's star-struck students, now president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has ridiculed the plan. "American materialist politicians, whenever they are beaten by logic, immediately put their finger on the trigger like cowboys. Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer (to politics). Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience. Be careful not to read just any paper put in front of you or repeat any statement recommended. [American officials] bigger than you, more bullying than you, couldn't do a damn thing, let alone you." Ahmadinejad's mentor, Khomeini, proclaimed April 1, 1979 as the first day of the government of God and taunted Jimmy Carter by saying America was helpless to do a "damn thing". One can only wonder what the other rogue neighborhoods are thinking or planning. Will this be simply another indication that Barack Obama is a weak and ineffective leader? Will it be a signal that history can in fact repeat itself and unlock Pandora's Box as it did during the Carter era? Obama's obsession with America's image and with not portraying terrorists as radical Islamic fundamentalists is reminiscent of Carter's ambassador calling the Ayatollah Khomeini a "holy man." Terrorist nations are circling like sharks that smell chum in the water. The question is not what terror regime will attack; it is when and how. By the time the elections roll around in 2012, what will Barack Obama's foreign and domestic policies have done to this nation, the "land of the free, and the home of the brave"? Will we be facing the same economic and foreign policy humiliation over which Jimmy Carter presided in his attempts to champion human rights? Or will there be another Ronald Reagan to step into the mess left by the Obama White House? ********** Michael D. Evans, a #1 New York Times bestselling author, is the author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. Thu, 8 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0800 Our support of Israel is critical since now Israel's enemies have more than 18,000 missiles and rocket supplied by Iran to their terrorist proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. In the past few days there has been a huge increase in terror attacks against Israel. The Palestinian terrorists are using the weapons given them by the radical Islamic mullahs of Teheran to launch their cowardly attacks on the Jewish people. Both military and civilian populations are being targeted and killed. Many observers think this latest round of violence is an attempt to capitalize on the Obama Administration's public humiliation of the Israeli government and Prime Minister Netanyahu. Many Jewish people suffer from lack of food and clothing and must seek temporary housing. The terrorist attacks are relentless in many areas and rockets rain death and death and destruction on innocent victims. Israel is under attack in the town of Sderot and all along the southern border where terrorists are making life a living hell for the poor Jewish refugees from Russia. Today the UN, the EU, Russia, China and now even the United States are pressuring Israel to give more land to the terrorists, even in east Jerusalem—the same terrorists who are killing Jews today. There is a twisted version of logic at play when building homes for your citizens in your capital city is called "provocative" but murdering innocent men, women and children is not. We cannot allow that to stand. We must speak out. We must raise our voices. As people of conscience we must also show the Jewish people that our support is more than words. They are being very clearly told by world leaders that their lives do not matter—that it doesn't matter if they live or die. As in Sderot and other towns and villages near Gaza rockets have flown killing and injuring many. Children were terrorized by the constant danger and families watched as their homes were destroyed.Children in towns like Sderot have only 15 seconds warning to flee to shelter before the missiles fall. Imagine having to constantly think about where you would hide if you heard the warning sirens blare. This is the reality of their daily lives. Imagine being the parent of one of these children, knowing every day when they leave for school that you may never see them again. The toll of living with this constant threat is overwhelming. The psychological damage alone is staggering and will last for years to come. The Gaza terrorists have renewed a tactic from the past. They time their missile attacks to hit just before Israel's prime time news in the evening to amplify the coverage and spread a spirit of terror throughout the country. They know that this will multiply the impact of their evil deeds. People working in the region have said, "We deal with constant stress and anxiety, knowing that a rocket might fall on us at any given moment. Daily routine is at a standstill. Yet, the hardest thing we face is the feeling we were abandoned. We know people around the world care about us and follow the events, but the thing we need most is a feeling of solidarity, the human touch." We cannot forget or forsake the Jewish people. As conscious and humanitarian people we must reach out. We cannot forget or forsake the Jewish people; we cannot let Israel stand alone through this suffering and terror. Wed, 7 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0800 Following two lengthy meetings at the White House on Tuesday between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama, including a second unscheduled meeting, relations between the two nations remained icy. The White House refused to release the normal photos or briefings that would accompany such an event, leading observers to wonder if the silence was intended to punish Israel for the "insult" to Vice President Biden of announcing the construction of homes for Jewish people on Jewish land during his visit. Observers had hoped that the high-level meetings would begin to repair the relationship, but that does not appear to be the case. The sticking point appears to be the Obama Administration's insistence that Jerusalem is an issue that must be negotiated rather than acknowledging the ancient City of David as the rightful and eternal capital of Israel. But despite the pressure, Benjamin Netanyahu is standing firm. "Jerusalem is not a settlement—it is our capital!" he proclaimed at a dinner prior to his meeting with President Obama. He further told Secretary of State Clinton that Israel's policy toward building homes in Jerusalem has remained unchanged for more than forty years and that it will not be changing, despite the protests of the United States. In a piece published in The New York Times, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren made it perfectly clear that Israel does desire peace with its neighbors and that the real obstacles to peace do not come from Jerusalem: "Indeed, while maintaining the longstanding Israeli position on Jerusalem, the Netanyahu government has unilaterally frozen new construction projects in the West Bank and has removed dozens of roadblocks to allow Palestinian transportation and commerce. The Israeli government acknowledges that the Palestinians have their own stance on Jerusalem, which they will surely raise at the negotiating table. Unfortunately, Palestinian leaders have balked at face-to-face negotiations, insisting on new preconditions, including the annulment of Israel's Jerusalem policy. Recently they have encouraged violent demonstrations in the Old City, and have named a square in the West Bank city of Ramallah in honor of Dalal Mughrabi, a terrorist who in 1978 killed 38 Israeli civilians, among them 13 children, and an American photographer, Gail Rubin. Israel expects the Palestinians to stop such incitement and to cease sponsoring attacks against Israel's legitimacy, like the deeply slanted Goldstone report on the Gaza war." Israel is America's ally and friend, and both politically and biblically we need to stand firm in support of Israel and acknowledge that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton does not speak for you. I applaud the encouraging words of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, "You have consistently demonstrated the moral clarity that is necessary to defend Israel from the lies and distortions of its enemies." The Bible declares that we are to be a witness unto the Lord in Jerusalem. It is the only city God claims as His own. It is called the "City of God" and the "Holy City." "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, for Jerusalem's sake I will not remain quiet, till her righteousness shines out like the dawn, her salvation like a blazing torch." (Isaiah 62:1) "In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever:" (2 Kings 21:7b) God has put His Name in Jerusalem. He promises a curse upon the nations that come against Jerusalem. "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem." (Zechariah 12:9) Yet today America is coming against Jerusalem! This is a tragedy and we must speak out! Secretary Clinton told Prime Minister Netanyahu that the United States considers Israel's attempt to build homes in East Jerusalem as extremely negative and demanded it be stopped. For over 2,000 years, the Jewish people have prayed, "Next year, Jerusalem." For many, it was the last words spoken before they were thrown into the ovens during the Holocaust. To tell 1,600 Jewish families they cannot live in Jerusalem is racism. If a political leader in America were to say that African-Americans could only live in half of Washington, DC, he or she would be out of office before sunset. Anti-Defamation League National Director Abe Foxman said the current US criticism of Israel was "especially troubling." "We cannot remember an instance when such harsh language was directed at a friend and ally of the United States," his statement continued. "One can only wonder how far the US is prepared to go in distancing itself from Israel in order to placate the Palestinians in the hope they see it is in their interest to return to the negotiating table." We must raise our voices in support of Israel and turn America from the path of cursing the Chosen People and coming against Jerusalem. Sat, 27 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0800 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has come to Washington to meet with President Obama and other top US officials and he plans to tell President Obama that Israel will not stop Jews from building homes in Jerusalem. Prime Minister Netanyahu is speaking to thousands at the The American Israel Public Affairs Committee Conference AIPAC about the importance to stand firm on this and other issues critical to Israel. A concerted effort by the State Department and much of the rest of the Washington, DC, establishment is being made to force Israel into another round of concessions to the terrorists who continue to launch attacks against innocent men, women and children solely for the "crime" of being Jewish and living in Israel. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "New construction in East Jerusalem or the West Bank undermines mutual trust and endangers the proximity talks that are the first step toward the full negotiations that both sides want and need. It exposes daylight between Israel and the United States that others in the region could hope to exploit." We have no right to tell Israel not to build homes for their citizens in their own land and in their capital city. Israel is America's ally and friend, and both politically and Biblically we need to stand firm in support of Israel. Yet today America is coming against Jerusalem! This is a tragedy and we must speak out! Secretary Clinton told Prime Minister Netanyahu that the United States considers Israel's attempt to build homes in East Jerusalem as extremely negative and demanded it be stopped. Over the years I have spoken boldly confronting U.S. Secretaries of State face-to-face regarding this issue. "Mike Evans has been a dear friend and supporter of Jerusalem for more than two decades," Teddy Kollek, former mayor of Jerusalem, has said. "International opinion is being swayed in favor of two capitals in one city. We know this is not the solution and that two capitals in Jerusalem will lead to a redivided city. It is more important than ever that we rally support for Jerusalem." Jerusalem has never been the capital of a Palestinian state. Our silence will be consent of support for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the UN, the EU, and Russia to boycott Israel and encourage them to instigate indescribable pain and suffering on Israel. For over 2,000 years, the Jewish people have prayed, "Next year, Jerusalem." For many, it was the last words spoken before they were thrown into the ovens during the Holocaust. To tell 1,600 Jewish families they cannot live in Jerusalem is racism. If a political leader in America were to say that African-Americans could only live in half of Washington, DC, he or she would be out of office before sunset. Anti-Defamation League National Director Abe Foxman said the current US criticism of Israel was especially troubling. "We cannot remember an instance when such harsh language was directed at a friend and ally of the United States," he said. "One can only wonder how far the US is prepared to go in distancing itself from Israel in order to placate the Palestinians in the hope they see it is in their interest to return to the negotiating table." As Prime Minister Netanyahu, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, President Obama and other top US officials meet this week, we must raise our voices in support of Israel and turn America from the path of cursing the Chosen People and coming against Jerusalem. Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0800 Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0800 US Vice President Joe Biden, speaking for the Obama administration at Tel Aviv University this week, decried Israel's announcement that 1,600 apartments would be built in Jerusalem, saying it "undermined the trust required for negotiations." Biden was speaking for President Barack Obama, but does the Obama administration speak for the American people? Fifteen years ago Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which stated that "Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999". A loophole in the act has allowed presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama to postpone implementing it for reasons of so-called national security, but the Jerusalem law remains the will of the American people. Washington D.C. has been the capital of the United States for about 200 years, and no Israeli politician would presume to question plans for housing in the District of Columbia. Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish people for about 3,000 years, since the time of King David—yet for 15 years no president has seen fit to move America's embassy there. The reactions to the Jerusalem housing plan were a spectacle of hypocrisy in the theater of the absurd, beginning with the condemnation by the Obama administration and followed by the expected hand-wringing of the European Community. They were exceeded only by the blatant hypocrisy of Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority. Besides their political agenda, all of these reactions reflected a basic ignorance of the actual geography and history of Jerusalem. It is no coincidence that this week's brouhaha over Jerusalem housing followed the exact same script as a similar housing alarm several months ago. The latest Israeli "threat to the peace process" involved municipal approval for 1,600 badly needed housing units in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood, located—surprise !—in northwest Jerusalem. It is a sign of the basic irrationality of the conflict that every point on the Jerusalem compass is referred to erroneously as "east Jerusalem." This loaded term is cynically used to designate anywhere that Arabs live in the city, despite the reality that more Jews than Arabs live in Jerusalem's geographically eastern neighborhoods. The eternal capital of the Jewish people was reunited in June 1967, after being divided under Jordanian occupation for 19 years. Its municipal boundaries were established on June 28, 1967 and included the bare hillside that became Ramat Shlomo, a neighborhood of devoutly religious Jews. As the crow flies, it is a couple of miles west of Jerusalem's Old City, the only part of the city that truly justifies the moniker of east Jerusalem. Ramat Shlomo is just as much a part of Jerusalem as Givat Ram, where the Knesset, the Supreme Court, and other government institutions are located. Questioning Israel's right to build apartments in Ramat Shlomo makes as much moral sense as questioning its right to locate its parliament or highest court in any part of the city. Virtually the same hypocritical castigating of Israel's sovereign right to build on its own land occurred last November regarding the southwest Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo. Although the uproar over Gilo might have stemmed from the State Department's ignorance of the difference between Har Gilo and Gilo, this is no excuse. The former, the hilltop adjacent to Gilo, was the site of a Jordanian Arab Legion artillery position that shelled civilian Jerusalem repeatedly over the years and was captured by Israel during the Six Day War. As it lies over the Green Line, this disputed territory—even though it was captured in a war of self-defense—is indeed not an appropriate place for building a planned 900 Israeli apartments. However, the land upon which Jerusalem's southernmost neighborhood of Gilo was built—of course referred to as east Jerusalem—was purchased from its Arab owners by the Jewish National Fund before 1948. Gilo was once indeed occupied territory: it was Jordanian-occupied Israeli territory from 1948 to 1967, after which its Israeli sovereignty was restored. It is as insulting for the Obama administration to object to construction in an area that has always been part of Israel's capital as it would be to object to similar construction in Tel Aviv. With all this loose talk about Israel undermining trust, what really deserves condemnation by the United States is the unceasing incitement against Israel by the Palestinian Authority. To cite just the latest example, why didn't Vice President Biden condemn the PA for scheduling a ceremony in Ramallah during his visit to name a public square there for Dalal Mughrabi, the terrorist who led a 1978 massacre in which 37 Israeli civilians were murdered, 12 of them children? Contrary to agreements it signed, the Palestinian Authority's textbooks continue to teach little children that murderers are heroes. The PA names schools, youth movements, sports teams, even streets to glorify terrorism—and breed a new generation of terrorists. And don't forget that Hamas still calls for Israel's destruction. So who is undermining whose trust? Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0800 Evans: How do you see the current Iranian nuclear situation? Netanyahu: Iran could inspire three hundred million Shia to a religious war-first against other Arabs, then against the West. They don't hate you because of us; they hate us because of you. They don't hide the fact that they intend to take on the West. We have to have our eyes on the two objectives: one, to take care of Iran, especially Iran's part in Lebanon and Gaza; and two, deal with Iran's nuclear missile program. Iran must not arm itself with weapons of mass destruction. Evans: We have proxies that are attacking your country, and no one is using the word "Iran" any longer. Is it possible that if America sleeps that America could be experiencing proxies coming across our borders? Netanyahu: Up until now, nuclear weapons have been in the hands of responsible regimes. You have one regime that apparently has them now in North Korea. There aren't a billion North Koreans that seek to inspire a religious war. That's what Iran could do. It could inspire the two hundred million Shiites. That's what they intend to do-inspire them into a religious war, first against other Muslims, then against the West. They say we are the "Small Satan" and that America is the "Great Satan." Europe is the "Middle-Sized Satan." It is important to understand that they could impose a direct threat to Europe and to the United States-and to Israel, obviously. They don't hide it. They don't even hide the fact that they intend to take on the West. Evans: On 9/11 you spoke to the nation and you described 9/11 as a "wake-up call from hell." What would America look like and what could happen to our nation if Iran goes nuclear? Netanyahu: Iran has said in unequivocal terms that first of all its target is Israel and they do it with a particular brand of malevolence because they deny that the Holocaust took place-the murder of six million Jews-while they're openly declaring their intention to create another holocaust to destroy the six million Jews of Israel. Number one, Israel could be in great jeopardy. Number two, so will everybody else. And number three, of course, is the ability of Iran to use its nuclear arsenal and its missile arsenal to threaten Europe and the U.S. directly. You can't count on the ayatollahs of the world, armed with nuclear weapons, to back off. They often prefer their zeal over their survival. This is a different ideology; it is a different threat. Iran must not be allowed to be armed. It is the new barbarians who are seeking the weapons of mass death, and we have all been forewarned. This is another wake-up call. That's all it is. Evans: Are saying there is an Islamic faction that would prefer a mushroom cloud in Israel and America, a world without Zionism and America, and that somehow they think we are all going to submit to Islam? Netanyahu: That's what they want; it's not a preference. It's like they are ordered to do it. This is the danger of this creed. It's not a choice; it is almost like an order from Allah. That's why these people are willing to commit suicide. This is probably the first time that such a mad militancy on a global scale would seek to acquire weapons of mass death. Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0800 Israel, US hold strategic talks on Iran Israel and the US were holding a one-day, high-level strategic dialogue on Thursday expected to focus on sanctions against Iran, a day after Russia announced it opposes "paralyzing" sanctions aimed at the Islamic Republic's energy sector. A week after Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu returned from Moscow, where he publicly called for "crippling sanctions" and "sanctions with teeth" against Iranian energy exports and imports, Oleg Rozhkov, the deputy head of the Russian Foreign Ministry's security and disarmament department, said that Moscow would not back "crippling or paralyzing" sanctions that could lead to the "political or economic or financial isolation" of Iran. According to Reuters, Rozhkov - when asked by a reporter what sanctions Russia might support - replied, "Those that are directed at resolving nonproliferation questions linked to Iran's nuclear program. "What relation to nonproliferation is there in forbidding banking activities with Iran?" he asked. "This is a financial blockade. And oil and gas. These sanctions are aimed only at paralyzing the country and paralyzing the regime. "Despite these comments, the Israeli and US teams on Thursday had been expected to concentrate on the issue of sanctions to halt Iran's nuclear program. A possible military strike is not expected to be discussed, since Washington has made clear that while it might need to be discussed in the future, the military option is not now on the agenda. There is currently no known discussion between Israel and the US, at any level, about military action, even though over the years both countries have said that it should not be taken off the table. In Washington, meanwhile, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that Iran's continuing refusal to provide more information on its nuclear program had left the international community "little choice" but to impose new, tough sanctions on Tehran. In congressional testimony on Wednesday, Clinton said Iran's failure to accept the Obama administration's offers of engagement and prove its nuclear intentions were peaceful had given the US and its partners new resolve in pressuring Teheran to comply with international demands through fresh penalties. "We have pursued a dual-track approach to Iran that has exposed its refusal to live up to its responsibilities and helped us achieve a new unity with our international partners," she told the Senate Appropriations Committee. "Iran has left the international community little choice but to impose greater costs and pressure in the face of its provocative steps. We are now working actively with our partners to prepare and implement new measures to pressure Iran to change its course," Clinton said, in comments that seemed at odds with Rozhkov's statement in Moscow. Netanyahu's office had no comment on Rozhkov's remarks, while one government official said Israel would likely seek clarification from the Kremlin. The position articulated by Rozhkov runs contrary to the impression Netanyahu gave reporters last week in Moscow when, after meeting with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, he said the feeling toward sanctions in Moscow today was dramatically different than it was 10 months ago. Clinton addressed the possibility that Congress might impose its own sanctions on Iran, besides those the US was seeking through the UN Security Council. Congressional sanctions might be tougher than any for which the United States could win international approval at the UN, but the US wants international backing for its tough stance against Iran and sees the UN penalties as a powerful symbol of world resolve against an Iranian bomb. The comments from Moscow came as a bit of a surprise, as top officials both in Washington and Jerusalem have expressed optimism in recent weeks that significant nonmilitary action, such as "crippling" sanctions, could have a real impact on Teheran.The Israeli delegation to Thursday's strategic dialogue in Jerusalem will be led by Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, while the US team will be headed by Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg. This is the first meeting of the strategic dialogue framework, which was set up in 1999, since Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama came into office. The meeting comes as both Jerusalem and Washington believe that Iran is making its international position more difficult by continuing to talk about enriching uranium to higher levels. While it is unclear exactly which way China - which holds a veto on the UN Security Council - will vote on sanctions, there is a growing sense that it would be unlikely to buck the will of most of the rest of the world - and the other permanent members of the Security Council - and scuttle sanctions. This assessment is largely based on previous Chinese behavior and Beijing's general reticence to defy international consensus. A high-level Israeli delegation, led by Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon and Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer, left for Beijing on Wednesday to lobby on behalf of sanctions.In the run-up to the Security Council sanctions vote, expected sometime in March, the US is doing its utmost to distance itself from any hint that sanctions were intended for regime change in Teheran, and not only to stop the nuclear program. The fear is that this could chase both Russia and China away from supporting a fourth round of sanctions. For instance, Rozhkov told reporters on Wednesday that "Russia isn't working or participating in actions which should lead to overthrowing the existing regime. We are working with the US and others... only to solve those concerns we have regarding Iranian nuclear efforts." Also on Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov suggested that a delay in delivering air-defense missiles to Iran was connected with concerns about regional tensions. Russia signed a contract in 2007 to sell S-300 missiles to Iran, a move that would substantially boost the country's defense capacities and make an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities more difficult.Lavrov, when asked about the delivery, said Russia never takes "any actions leading to the destabilization of this or that region. All deliveries of Russian weapons abroad follow from the need to strictly respect this principle. "It marks the first time Russia has publicly called into question the wisdom of honoring its contractual obligations to Iran. Various Russian defense officials had suggested in recent weeks, including the day before Netanyahu went to Moscow last week, that the commitment to supply the missiles would be fulfilled.When pressed on the specific reason for the missile holdup, Lavrov broadened the question by referring to arms sales by any country to South America, the Caucasus and the Middle East."There are certain principles we need to be guided by when selling arms," he said. "We cannot sell weapons if it will destabilize any of these regions." Netanyahu, asked after his meeting last week with President Dmitry Medvedev whether he had received assurances that Moscow would not supply the weapons systems, said, "I trust what I heard from the president of Russia. I trust him because I know that in this issue, Russia is guided by concerns about regional stability." To read this article on Jpost.com click here Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0800 Iran's leader urges Nasrallah to prepare for strong retaliation against Israel. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday said that if Israel launches a new war against Hizbullah, the terror group should retaliate strongly enough to "close their case once and for all." Ahmadinejad's comments, in a conversation with Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, were the latest in a heated exchange of rhetoric between Israel and Lebanon and Syria this month in which all sides have been warning the other not to start a war. Speaking by phone, Ahmadinejad urged Nasrallah to prepare his fighters to be able to retaliate strongly against any Israeli attack. "The preparations should be of the level that, if they (the Israelis) want to repeated the mistakes of the past (by attacking), then their case should be closed once and for all and the region delivered from their evil ways forever," the Iranian president said, according to the state news agency IRNA. "The people of Iran will stand by the peoples of Lebanon and the region in this," he said. Nasrallah dismissed any fears, saying Israeli "threats will lead to nothing. "Iran is a key supporter of Hizbullah, believed to funnel it weapons and millions of dollars in funding, though Teheran denies arming the Shi'ite group. Hizbullah, also closely allied to Syria, boasts a heavy arsenal of rockets capable of reaching deep inside Israel. The past month has seen increased sabre-rattling between Israel and Syria, Hizbullah and Lebanon — though there's been little apparent cause on the ground for the warnings of new war. In a speech aired nationally in Lebanon this week, Nasrallah vowed that if Israel attacks again, his fighters would retaliate in kind, striking Tel Aviv or Ben-Gurion Airport on the city's outskirts. Lebanon's prime minister also warned of "escalating" Israeli war threats and vowed Lebanon would support Hizbullah in any conflict. The prime minister, Saad Hariri, is a pro-US figure and longtime rival of Hizbullah, but the group is now a member of his national unity government. Earlier in the month, Syrian President Bashar Assad accused Israel of avoiding peace, and its prime minister warned that if war broke out, Israeli cities would be attacked. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman replied that if Damascus draws Israel into a war, its army would be defeated and the Syrian regime would collapse. To read this article on Jpost.com click here Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0800 Ahmadinejad tells Assad Jewish state must be "resisted with full force." Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Syrian President Bashar Assad that Israel "must be resisted" and finished off "once and for all" if it launches a military operation in the Middle East, Reuters cited an Iranian report as saying on Thursday. "We have reliable information ... that the Zionist regime is after finding a way to compensate for its ridiculous defeats by the people of Gaza and Lebanon's Hizbullah," Ahmadinejad told his Syrian counterpart in a phone conversation on Wednesday evening, according to IRIB, Iran's state broadcaster. "If the Zionist regime repeats its mistakes and initiate a military operation, then it must be resisted with full force to put an end to it once and for all," Ahmadinejad reportedly asserted. The Iranian president has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" multiple times and has voiced harsh criticism against Israeli policies. At the UN General Assembly in New York in September, Ahmadinejad gave a fiery speech that targeted Israel as a "Zionist regime" guilty of "inhumane policies in Palestine." Through a translator, the Iranian leader likened actions by Israel in Gaza to "genocide,"' and said the international community "is impatiently waiting for the punishment of the aggressors and the murderers of the defenseless people of Gaza." Ahmadinejad portrayed Israel and its allies, including the United States, as part of a vast conspiracy. E.B. Solomont contributed to this report. To read this article on Jpost.com click here Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0800 In remarks delivered to Iran's air force, Supreme Religious Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran declared that: "The Iranian nation, with its unity and God's grace, will punch the arrogance (Western powers) on the 22nd of Bahman (February 11) in a way that will leave them stunned." Khamenei also serves as Iran's commander-in-chief as well as head religious figure. This statement follows last week's declaration by President Ahmadinejad that Iran would strike a "telling blow" on the 31st anniversary of the Iranian Revolution. Intelligence analysts believe Iran is making these warlike statements as part of a campaign to shore up the increasingly unpopular government of Iran. History is filled with examples of nations starting wars to protect their leaders' hold on power. Given their radical Islamic beliefs, it is no stretch to say that the leaders of Iran would gladly welcome all out war against Israel. It is certain that Israel cannot allow a nation whose leader has announced his plan to see Israel "wiped off the map" to acquire nuclear weapons. The radical mullahs of Tehran view a violent and bloody war as a necessary step to establishing Muslim rule over the entire world. If China does try to protect Iran until it completes its work, what will Israel do? I spoke from ATOMIC IRAN, my new book, at the Knesset in Israel and at a major university in the last few months. This is a crucial moment in Israel's history. Her enemies gather like ravening wolves circling their prey. They constantly plot and work toward her destruction. Iran has provided Hezbollah and Hamas with thousands of missiles and rockets to use to attack Israel. Iran is nearing completion of its nuclear weapons program. The world community is either turning a blind eye to the threat or actively helping Iran acquire these weapons of mass destruction. This is more than a political or military struggle—this is a spiritual battle. The Enemy wants control of Jerusalem because the Holy City is central to God's prophetic plan for the future of our world. ### Mike Evans is an author and award-winning journalist who has served as a confidant to leaders in the Middle East for more than two decades. He has appeared on hundreds of network television and radio shows, including Good Morning America, Crossfire, and Nightline. He appears frequently on Fox News, CNN World News, NBC, ABC, and CBS. He has produced numerous television specials about the Middle East. Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0800 Iran’s Religious Leader Threatens “Stunning Punch” Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened to strike a "telling blow" against "global arrogance" on February 11, the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution that overthrew the Shah and installed the radical mullahs in Tehran. After interviewing 100 world leaders, I wrote a prophetic book, Jimmy Carter, the Liberal Left and World Chaos, that details the events leading up to that revolution and what defense analysts now believe is a threat revolving around Iran's nuclear program. In early February, Iran announced a successful test of the new Kavoshgar 3 rocket in defiance of global concerns with her nuclear weapons program. The rocket is capable of placing a satellite in orbit-or carrying a weapons payload. President Ahmadinejad said the results were "a miracle" and credited the nation's Islamic faith for the test's success. The announcement is seen as another attempt to distract attention from growing unrest and resentment of the government in Tehran. The anniversary of the Iranian revolution provides a rallying point by the opposition to continue attacks on Ahmadinejad's fraudulent and corrupt theft of the presidential election in Iran. This new threat-and the action that is likely to follow-is thought to be an attempt to divert popular unrest against the Iranian government by focusing anger outward against an enemy nation. Taking Ahmadinejad's threat seriously, the US government announced deployment of new troops, ships and Patriot anti-missile defense systems to the Gulf Region. The move may be an attempt to: Encourage the Arab Gulf nations to stand up to pressure from Iran Keep Israel from striking preemptively against Iran's nuclear program, since some experts believe the goal of the February 11 deadline was to provoke Israel into an attack, thus sparking the war that radical mullahs of Tehran view as a necessary step to establishing Muslim rule over the entire world. As Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in my new prophetic television special that I prepared for Jerusalem Prayer Team, Atomic Iran, nothing is more important than the support of Bible-believing Christians at this time in Israel's history. ### Mike Evans is an author and award-winning journalist who has served as a confidant to leaders in the Middle East for more than two decades. He has appeared on hundreds of network television and radio shows, including Good Morning America, Crossfire, and Nightline. He appears frequently on Fox News, CNN World News, NBC, ABC, and CBS. He has produced numerous television specials about the Middle East. Tue, 9 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0800 Will War Break Out Against Israel in 2010? // // // Iranian anger at scientist's funeral Terms | Copyright | Privacy Policy |Advertise with Us | Media Kit | RSS Feeds [ close window ] //"); var rand = Math.floor(Math.random()*99999999999); document.write(""); //]]> // // Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0800 Mike Evans Speaks at Ariel University Center of Samaria from Mike Evans on Vimeo. Wed, 6 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0800 Atomic Iran from Mike Evans Tue, 8 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0800 Mon, 7 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0800 On December 24, 1979, the Russians invaded Afghanistan. It became an imbroglio for the Superpower that was driven back within its own borders in ignominious defeat. The Russians were so determined not to acknowledge their defeat that they christened the plane carrying the coffins of their young soldiers back to mother Russia the Black Tulip. It was aptly named, as black signifies death, and the tulip is the flower of youth. President Obama's plan to increase the troop levels in Afghanistan to approximately 100,000 can only be compared to the old Soviet Union's dilemma when they faced defeat in that hostile region. Afghanistan is even more deadly with the incursion of the Taliban and al-Qaeda, both aggressively antagonistic to the United States. What will happen if President Obama abandons Afghanistan to the Taliban and al-Qaeda? How will it impact the region? One of the trades that greatly impact the region is the export of opium. For half a decade, more than 90 percent of the world's source of illegal opium and heroin has sprung from the fields of Afghanistan. Today, the war in Afghanistan has opened the floodgates for the production and distribution of heroin. Those who are flourishing in that war-torn country are the fanatical insurgents and the smugglers who traffic in heroin. It can be a lucrative business for those at the top of the pyramid. The going rate for a kilo of heroin in Afghanistan is approximately $2,500. When transported across the border to Tajikistan, the same shipment can bring $5,000, and in Moscow, $100,000. That's quite an incentive to continue to find ways to grow poppies and produce heroin for the marketplace. It has proven to be a boon for the Taliban whose leaders demand protection money for the drug shipments and the chemicals needed to refine the heroin for street sales. These "protectors" can earn upwards of $75 million yearly for their services. The question continues to resonate: "Why send additional troops into a situation where American soldiers become babysitters for drug lords?" Until the poppy fields are torched, it is suicide to send more American troops. Just who would they be defending? The poppy panderers? Can you imagine the U.S. government protecting drug dealers in America? Another boon in the drug trade is the ability to purchase weapons whose trade can net the trader as much as $5,000 each month, great riches in a country where the median income is approximately $800 per year or about $77 per month. The weapon of choice is the Russian Kalashnikov which sells for about $400 on the black market. The highly-prized new version of the famed weapon, the Kalakov sells for $1,100. It is most desirable because it is smaller, and its bullets will pierce body armor, a plus among the Taliban and al-Qaeda who are targeting American troops. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the conference on Afghanistan in The Hague earlier this year stated that over 50 percent of the Taliban were "moderates." I challenged her with a reminder that the Taliban were far from being moderate. During the conference, several Afghan diplomats met privately with me at the Intercontinental Hotel. They assured me that Ms. Clinton was 100 percent wrong; I was 100 percent correct. It was sad that they could not say that directly to the Secretary of State. How does one define a "moderate terrorist?" According to Clinton, those Taliban who abandoned the fanatical organization and became "moderate" Taliban would be granted permission to enter into any talks on the future of Afghanistan. President Obama should take a look back at Jimmy Carter's "negotiations" with the fanatical Ayatollah Khomeini. What could he learn from Carter's presidency regarding Afghanistan? Mr. Carter destabilized the Middle East by not supporting America's strongest Muslim ally in the region, the Shah of Iran. He approved the covert funding of Ayatollah Khomeini, making it possible for the Imam to birth radical Islam from his retreat outside Paris. Carter continued the destabilization of the region when he covertly funded the Muslim Brotherhood in their fight against the Soviets. I am a Texan and a conservative Republican, but I was disturbed when President George Bush sent U.S. troops into Iraq. I wrote a book, Beyond Iraq, The Next Move, because the solution seemed to me to be quite simple: Since we had controlled Iraqi airspace for ten years, I believed all we had to do was close the Syrian border to prevent Saddam Hussein from smuggling through Syria. Had we done that, we would have had him caged like a canary. It appears that President Obama is making an even bigger mistake by sending our brave young men and women into harm's way to fight an enemy he refuses to define as an enemy. He cannot say the words "radical Islam" or "terrorist." He prefers to call them militants and insurgents. This is the atmosphere into which we will send even more American troops; a no-win situation where men and women of the United States military are forced to protect the very people who by peddling their deadly opium and heroin across the ocean finance the war in Afghanistan. It is a war that cannot be won until the oxygen that fuels, feeds, and finances the fires of terrorism is shut off. ******** Michael D. Evans, a #1 New York Times bestselling author, is the author of Atomic Iran, Countdown to Armageddon. Wed, 2 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0800 The war in Afghanistan has opened the floodgates for the production and distribution of heroin. Those who are flourishing in that war-torn country are the fanatical insurgents and the smugglers who traffic in heroin. For half a decade, more than 90 percent of the world's source of illegal opium and heroin has sprung from the fields of Afghanistan. It can be a lucrative business for those at the top of the pyramid. The going rate for a kilo of heroin in Afghanistan is approximately $2,500. When transported across the border to Tajikistan, the same shipment can bring $5,000, and in Moscow, $100,000. That's quite an incentive to continue to find ways to grow poppies and produce heroin for the marketplace. It has proven to be a boon for the Taliban whose leaders demand protection money for the drug shipments and the chemicals needed to refine the heroin for street sales. These "protectors" can earn upwards of $75 million yearly for their services. President Obama has been bombarded with questions and complaints surrounding his indecisiveness in sending troops to Afghanistan. The question resonates, "Why send troops into a situation where American soldiers become baby sitters for drug lords?" Until the poppy fields are destroyed, it is insane to send more troops. Just who would they be defending? The dope dealers? Can you imagine the U.S. government protecting the drug dealers in America? Another boon in the drug trade is the ability to purchase weapons whose trade can net the trader as much as $5,000 each month, great riches in a country where the median income is approximately $800 per year or about $77 per month. The weapon of choice is the Russian Kalashnikov which sells for about $400 on the black market. The highly-prized new version of the famed weapon, the Kalakov sells for $1,100. It is most desirable because it is smaller, and its bullets will pierce body armor, a plus among the Taliban and al-Qaeda who are targeting American troops. A weapons trader confirmed that the war in the southern part of Afghanistan is very good for business. So good in fact that a multitude smugglers can make a very lucrative living off the profits. The Afghan police tend to be ineffective at halting the opium and heroin trade, and indulge in the activity themselves. They, too, act as "protectors" and charge exorbitant rates for their so-called security. Despite the fact that I am a Texan and a conservative Republican, I was outraged that President George Bush sent U.S. troops into Iraq. I wrote a book, Beyond Iraq, The Next Move, because the solution seemed to me to be quite simple: Since we had controlled Iraqi airspace for ten years, I believe all we had to do was close the Syrian border to prevent Saddam Hussein from smuggling through Syria. Had we done that, we would have had him caged like a canary. It appears that President Obama is making an even bigger mistake by sending our brave young men and women into harm's way to fight an enemy he refuses to define as an enemy. He cannot say the words "radical Islam" or "terrorist." He prefers to call them militants and insurgents. The war is being lost because of a lack of moral clarity. I discovered that when I confronted Hillary Clinton in The Hague at the Afghan summit. She declared that the administration would work with the 50 percent of the Taliban who are "moderates." These are the same "moderates" whose beliefs and actions were responsible for such heinous crimes as the beheading of Daniel Pearl, South Asia Bureau Chief of the Wall Street Journal. These are the same "moderates" responsible for beating women, burning schools, throwing acid in the faces of the women who dared defy their dictates. This is the atmosphere into which we have sent American troops; a no-win situation where men and women of the United States military are forced to protect the very people who peddle their deadly wares across the ocean and onto the streets in America. The war in Afghanistan cannot be won until the oxygen that fuels and feeds the fires of terrorism is shut off. Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800 The term "blowback was apparently coined by the CIA to describe "the unintended consequences of covert operations.Ironically, its first usage has been traced back to the 1953 coup d'état in Iran. "Blowback ideally describes the events that have transpired since Jimmy Carter and his administration first conspired to oust the Shah of Iran. During his tenure in office, James Earl Carter Jr. sowed to the wind; America and Israel are not the only nations worldwide that continue to reap the whirlwind. Carter's "liberation of Iran from the Shah set in motion events that have resulted in untold death and destruction for the past twenty-eight years. Yet, valuable lessons remain unlearned. The U.S. continues to issue an entry visa for the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the posturing president of Iran who has, time and again, threatened both Israel and the U.S. with destruction. He has stated: "I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene. Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started. Ahmadinejad has declared that during his upcoming trip to the U.S. he plans to meet extensively with the media. Visits to the United Nations allow the pint-sized puppet of the ayatollah-in-charge a worldwide platform from which to declare his message of "peace and friendship for all nations. While that looks good in print, the real message from him and his puppet masters is much more threatening. Ahmadinejad's ideology prescribes one solution: a worldwide caliphate with all inhabitants bowing a knee to Allah. And he is apparently willing to do whatever necessary to meet that goal. Ahmadinejad continues to blatantly pursue the acquisition of nuclear arms capability and may already have achieved that goal. In defiance of the U.N. and of world opinion, Iran has barred International Atomic Energy representatives from inspecting Iran's facilities to ascertain just what has been accomplished. And still, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been invited to speak to the United Nations on Wednesday. While some in attendance will give him a chilly reception, others will greet him with open arms and will treat this pretender to the presidency as an honored guest. As in years past, he will likely deliver a speech filled with curtained threats and innuendo. When asked if President Obama would take this opportunity to meet with Ahmadinejad, Ambassador Susan Rice replied, "I don't expect that they will have a direct engagement. I think he may find that there are many Americans who are outraged by not only his comments which were hateful in again denying the Holocaust -- but also express their serious condemnation of what has transpired in Iran over the last several months in the wake of the elections. When Ahmadinejad addressed the Durban Review Conference earlier this year, the Muslim world cheered; delegates from twenty-four Western countries rose as one body and marched to the exit. Why? He chose the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day not only to zero in on the West and berate what he characterized as the evils of Zionism, but he had the audacity to minimize the horrors suffered by the Jewish people during World War II by labeling the Holocaust the "pretext of Jewish suffering. This is the man who will enter the United States this week and stand before the United Nations as an honored guest. He will gain the spotlight of the world's media for his platform of hatred. And once again, nothing will be done to stop him or to hold him accountable. ******** Michael D. Evans is a #1 New York Times bestselling author. His latest book, Atomic Iran, Countdown to Armageddon will be released shortly. www.TimeWorthybooks.com. Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800 President Jimmy Carter, an expert on placating terrorist regimes, has appealed to President Obama not to threaten Iran. With a less than stellar track record with the Iranians, the former president offered unsolicited advice. In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Carter stated, "I hope and pray that Iran will be induced to permit international inspectors to come in and observe their entire nuclear program, because what they're doing so far is completely legal under the nonproliferation treaty. "They have a right to purify uranium and plutonium to use for nuclear power. If Iran is on the borderline, the constant threats that we or the Israelis are going to attack Iran is the best thing to force them to say, Let's defend ourselves. I don't think Iran has made up its mind what to do, and I think the best thing we can do is engage them and stop making these idle threats. The truth is the entire nightmare in Iran can be traced directly to the liberal democratic policies of Jimmy Carter. As president, he created the firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the Muslim world, the shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the Ayatollah Khomeini. Carter viewed Khomeini as a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution rather than a founding father of modern terrorism. It was a deadly mistake. Carter's misguided liberal policies have given us: the Islamic Revolution birthed in Iran; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; the birth of Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization; the Iran-Iraq War, which cost the lives of millions dead and wounded; the present war on terrorism; and the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. His tolerance for terror cost Egyptian President Anwar Sadat his life. Carter's insistence that Sadat and Begin reach an agreement at Camp David angered the Muslim Brotherhood. Sadat became the target for their hatred, and for what the Brotherhood labeled "sins against Islam. Under the Carter administration, fifty-two Americans were taken hostage and held in Iran for 444 days. They were freed only after Ronald Reagan was elected president and Mr. Carter reached a last-minute deal to transfer $7.977 billion to Iran from the Federal Reserve. He also signed an agreement to respect Iran's territorial integrity and to grant amnesty against lawsuits to Iran by the hostages or their families. Now, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has donned the mantle of Ayatollah Khomeini, taken up bin Laden's call, and is fostering an Islamic apocalyptic revolution in Iraq with the intent of taking over the Middle East and the world. He thinks he can achieve his goals once he has attained his dream of atomic weapons. What is going on in the Persian Gulf region is no mystery to those of us who have had our finger on the pulse of both Iran and Iraq for decades. In his comments on Thursday, Carter reiterated his belief that every crisis can be resolved with diplomacy - and nothing but diplomacy. It is a worldview which now permeates the Democratic Party and the halls of Congress. Unfortunately, Carter is wrong. There are times when evil must be openly confronted. This is one of those times. ******** Michael D. Evans is a New York Times #1 bestselling author. His latest book, Atomic Iran, Countdown to Armageddon is available on Amazon.com. Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800 Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800 The West is "disappointed" over Iran's failure to respond positively to a UN-brokered nuclear deal, diplomats said in a statement Friday following a meeting of the UN Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany. However, no new sanctions were discussed during the meeting, according to an EU source. "We urge Iran to reconsider the opportunity offered by this agreement ... and to engage seriously with us in dialogue and negotiations," the statement said, noting that Teheran had not responded positively to the proposal of the International Atomic Energy Agency. An EU official said there was no mention of imposing further sanctions against Iran at the meeting. "These things are a matter of timing, and this was not the right time for it," said the official who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter. The Western officials said they would hold a follow-up meeting around Christmas. The talks in Brussels involved political directors - foreign ministry officials below ministerial level. The United States was represented by Undersecretary of State William Burns, and Russia by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov. The talks came just a day after a day after President Barack Obama said the six nations will develop a package of serious new punitive measures in coming weeks. He did not give details. On Wednesday, Teheran indicated it would not export its enriched uranium for further processing, effectively rejecting the latest plan brokered by the IAEA and aimed at delaying Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. Under the IAEA plan, Iran would export its uranium for enrichment in Russia and France where it would be converted into fuel rods, which would be returned to Iran about a year later. The rods can power reactors but cannot be readily turned into weapons-grade material. A statement issued by the political directors expressed disappointment over Iran's failure to engage in intensified dialogue since a promising meeting on October 1 in Geneva. The West says Teheran agreed in principle to export that amount in one shipment during the Geneva talks - something Iranian officials have denied. In Berlin, Mohamed El-Baradei, the UN nuclear watchdog agency chief, pressed Iran to work with the international community. "I would hate to see that we are moving back to sanctions," El-Baradei said. "Because sanctions, at the end of the day ... really don't resolve issues." He said the IAEA had not yet received a formal reply from Teheran to its proposals, although Iranian officials had told him they would not send uranium for reprocessing abroad unless they first received promised fuel rods. "Well, that to me is an extreme case of distrust," El-Baradei said. "And what we are really trying to do is replace distrust by a degree of trust." Iranian Foreign Minister Manochehr Mottaki on Thursday played down the threat of sanctions saying embargoes had proved ineffective in the past and that he didn't believe they would be tried again. Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800 In twenty minutes at the Intercontinental Hotel in New York City where Iran's infamous president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stayed during the UN General Assembly, six Revolutionary Guard diplomats responded to my question, "How will you avoid an attack upon your nuclear reactors especially in view of President Ahmadinejad's belligerence at the UN?" In my conversation with the Iranian diplomats, the men made it quite clear Iran had nothing to fear. They said there would not be an attack. "Israel is bluffing," confidently averred one of the men. "There is absolutely nothing for us to concern ourselves with because neither Israel nor the United States tried to save its ally, the Shah. They could have with their military, but were too weak to do it. If you think either one will go to war with us, I can tell you, it will never happen." He went on to say that stringent sanctions, including an oil embargo imposed by the West or an attack by Israel or the U.S. would serve only to unite the people behind Ahmadinejad, who has been under attack since the mullahs in Iran confirmed his reelection earlier this year. These men consider President Obama just another Jimmy Carter who would never attack Iran. They believe he is already losing two wars on their borders - Iraq and Afghanistan - and would not dare instigate a third - especially a war that could mean a ten-year ground offensive with the probability of over one-quarter million body bags. Mr. Ahmadinejad's bravado suffered a major blow, however, when it was disclosed last Friday that Iran had constructed a secret uranium enrichment facility near its holiest city, Qom. Unfortunately, the powers-that-be had failed to inform the UN International Atomic Energy Agency. The disclosure prompted the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany to schedule a meeting Thursday in Geneva to discuss Iran's rogue nuclear program. With President Obama's efforts to promote sanctions against Iran, the round-the-clock security council meetings, and America's first official confrontation with the Persian Gulf country since the days of Jimmy Carter, it seems that Iran would do everything conceivable to placate the West. Instead, last Sunday Iran test-fired three short range missiles with a range of 90-100 miles as part of a military exercise. On Monday, it tested two-stage, long-range Sejil-2 missiles and Shahab-3 missiles capable of hitting Israel, most Arab states, Southern Europe, and any location from which an attack on Iran might be launched. The newest revelation of the secret reactor has destroyed Obama's ability to engage Iran in meaningful dialogue. The Iranians do not fear President Obama's sanctions. They do not believe that Russia and China will agree to more stringent restrictions. Russia, a country that has balked at imposing strong sanctions against its neighbor, is now expressing concern about the missile tests and might be persuaded to approve some additional moves. China, however, has much to lose if it joins the West in sanctioning Iran. This year alone, China National Petroleum inked a $5 billion contract to expand Iran's South Pars natural gas field; was asked to bid on a $42.8 billion project to construct seven new oil refineries, as well as a 1,000+-mile pipeline across Iran; and agreed to increase two other refineries to the tune of $3 billion. Ahmadinejad seems confident that the sanctions will not undermine his government; he is selling the country to the Revolutionary Guard. On Sunday, the day of the first missile tests, the Revolutionary Guard purchased more than 50 percent of Iran's tele-communications company, one of the nation's largest conglomerates, in a $7.8 billion deal. It has been awarded more than 750 oil and gas construction contracts and has its own port in Iran. Ahmadinejad believes that sanctions only serve to toughen his countrymen and make them more "self-sufficient." He could be proven wrong, however, as the loss of capital that would result from such a restrictive move could create havoc in Iran's banking system. It could possibly deliver the final blow to his still-tottering regime. The Revolutionary Guard diplomats reiterated that not even the candidates who ran against Ahmadinejad supported renewed unilateral restrictions on the nuclear program. It seems obvious that the world is threatened by Iran's resolve to possess an atomic bomb. It would seem equally evident that global measures could and should be initiated to stop the radical Islamic Republic from achieving its purpose, now rather than later. ******** Michael D. Evans is a New York Times #1 bestselling author who has written thirty-eight books on the Middle East and hundreds of articles published in USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Jerusalem Post and newspapers throughout the world. Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0800 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been given a privileged U.S. visa legitimizing his fraudulent election in spite of the fact that innocent Iranians who overtly opposed the outcome are languishing in prison. Their only sin against Ahmadinejad was the demand that their vote count. The only world stage for Ahmadinejad that would put him back in the game is New York City and the United Nations. It seems not to matter that Iran is but a screwdriver away from possessing a nuclear bomb as well as a nuclear umbrella that will precipitate a trillion-dollar nuclear arms race among the Gulf Sunni states. This does not address the fact that Ahmadinejad and his terrorist State are on a "mission from God" to wipe Israel off the map in hopes of ushering in the Mahdi and a worldwide Islamic caliphate. Ahmadinejad, who is scheduled to speak at the U.N. on Thursday, continues to blatantly deny the Holocaust and threaten Israel with extinction. A member of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission told me that even if Israel intercepted a nuclear warhead, a lead-lined trunk filled with centrifuge material could create as much human agony and devastation as did Hiroshima. An asymmetrical attack with a backpack full of radioactive material could literally kill thousands. Israeli leaders perceive Iran to be the center of gravity of world terror. They have begged President Obama to deal with Iran with moral clarity and draw a line in the sand. Instead, the president has allowed Ahmadinejad to break every deadline that has been set and thumb his nose at the International Atomic Energy Association and the UN. He has, rather, played off Obama's "let's just talk" approach. Iranian leaders are apparently convinced that President Obama is cut from the same cloth as Jimmy Carter, and has no backbone. This will be Ahmadinejad's best opportunity to utilize the American media and a 9/11 world stage before Israel is forced to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. This will drag the Persian Gulf and the world into a catastrophic nightmare from hell which could have been avoided. ******** Michael D. is a New York Times #1 bestselling author who has written thirty-eight books on the Middle East and hundreds of articles published in USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Jerusalem Post and newspapers throughout the world. Evans recommended Benjamin Netanyahu for his first political position under Menachem Begin and is one of his oldest friends. His latest book, Atomic Iran, Countdown to Armageddon will be released later this month. Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0800 When Barack Obama meets today at the Waldorf Astoria in New York City with PA leader Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu it will bring little of substance and will be merely an opportunity for the world press to snap photos of the three leaders. Why? There is little, if anything, on which the three men agree. President Obama believes a Palestinian state will defuse most of the Middle East hostility issues. He, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Mideast envoy George Mitchell have pressed for Israeli concessions since taking office earlier this year. Abbas is a hardliner when it comes to the subject of a settlement freeze in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. At home, Abbas faces censure from the Palestinians who believe in the old song-and-dance routine set to the tune of "You Stole our House, Now Give it Back." His constituents believe he should not even be in the same room with Netanyahu until the prime minister kowtows to demands from the Obama administration and halts settlement construction in the West Bank. Netanyahu believes Israel has the right to build on its own land without interference from anyone. He is also entrenched in his position that Israel will not sign a peace agreement which allows the PA to form an army, have airspace above Israel, and sign peace treaties with other nations. But, he knows, too, that he needs U.S. arms and support should an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities be necessary. Too, Netanyahu is walking a fine line in order to hold his governing coalition together back at the Knesset. Anything positive from the summit would likely benefit President Obama, whose approval ratings have been dropping rapidly. If Obama cannot get a commitment of some sort in order to get the peace process moving again, he will be faced with another failure. He needs to be able to present something in the way of a success at the end of today's "coffee and tea" summit. It is Abbas, however, who could be the real loser if Netanyahu continues to refuse the demands of Obama and the State Department to halt construction. Senior officials in the PA have issued a veiled warning to their leader that a meeting with Israel without a pre-arranged capitulation on Netanyahu's part would incite "a third intifada, this time against the PA." Both men are apparently well aware of two things: nothing substantial will come from the meeting; each is taking a significant chance in even being there. For Abbas, it's all about Palestinian pay-offs. He is hoping for the "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" win from President Obama. He would like the same kind of arrangement that made Yasser Arafat a billionaire, and incidentally, left the Palestinian people with nothing but poverty. The White House-scripted meeting between the two Middle East leaders is nothing more than the theater of the absurd. Neither Abbas nor Netanyahu will concede to whatever demands are made on them by President Obama. Each will smile politely for the cameras during the obligatory photo-op and then go their separate ways. Perhaps the coffee or tea alone will have been worth the trip. Nevertheless, the show must go on…and why not the biggest stage of all - New York City. Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0800 It would be absurd for Obama to think that Benjamin Netanyahu who went into politics inspired by the heroic death of his brother, Yonatan, in freeing terrorist hostages in the 1976 Entebbe rescue mission would ever reward an Iranian-funded terrorist regime by again dividing Jerusalem. He would never shrink Israel as a goodwill gesture to help restart the so-called peace process, not in the absence of a genuine goodwill gesture by the Palestinians and Muslim world of recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. I was so moved by the Netanyahu family and Benjamin Netanyahu's moral clarity at the anniversary of the death of his brother in 1981, that I asked then prime minister Menachem Begin to give him a government job. I said, "I believe this man will be prime minister some day. Begin hired him the following evening. What precisely is Obama doing? He has pressured Prime Minister Netanyahu to commit that Israel would not attack Iran, at least until the end of the year, so as not to disrupt Washington's plans to dialogue with Iran over its nuclear program. Additionally, he has played into Iran's hands by tying the Palestinian situation into the Iranian nuclear crisis. In essence, he is telling the State of Israel: If you want my support in dealing with Iran, you are going to have to give the Palestinians a state. Why does Netanyahu demand the Arab world recognize a Jewish state? Because they are bigots and they hate Jews. Barack Obama should read Dr. Martin Luther King's words: "You declare my friends, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely anti-Zionists. I say, let the truth ring forth from the highest mountain tops. Let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth. When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews. Zionism is nothing less than the dream and the ideals of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. Netanyahu wants the US to reaffirm its support for Israel's right to self-defense against the looming threat from Iran. During the last three years Israel fought two bitter campaigns to halt the bombardment of its civilian population by thousands of terrorist missiles fired by the Iranian terrorist proxies Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Meanwhile, Iran denies the Holocaust while threatening to wipe the Jewish state off the map, as it develops nuclear weapons and tests long-range ballistic missiles. Israel's prime minister takes Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at his apocalyptic word, as must the leader of a country that has suffered unrelenting Islamist terrorism for 61 years. In terms of Jewish history, Netanyahu considers Iran to be a threat similar to that posed by the Israelites Biblical scourge, the Amalekites, and more ominously by Hitler's Germany. President Obama, on the other hand, thinks Iran can be won over with patience and reason and is no real threat to America or world peace. Obama's advisers reportedly consider the sole obstacle to peace in the Middle East to be the lack of a Palestinian state. The problem with this Pollyannaish vision is that it lacks hindsight. On November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted to partition British Mandatory Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab. The Jews accepted the resolution and the Arab states did not and invaded Israel in the first of many unsuccessful attempts to destroy it. The Palestinians could have had their state 62 years ago, but preferred to deny the Jews their own state. The only state the Palestinians have been capable of living in since then is the state of denial. President Obama has said he does not support regime change. Will this apply to Netanyahu's government, if Washington spins it as an "obstacle to peace? A possible indication is that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's spouse, former president Bill Clinton, is advising the leader of Israel's opposition, Kadima Party head MK Tzipi Livni. Obama made his feelings about Netanyahu's Likud Party clear during the recent election when he said, "I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel." The president wants speedy action and hinted so at a recent press conference with Jordan's King Abdullah. "I agree that we can't talk forever, Obama said, "that at some point steps have to be taken so that people can see progress on the ground. He said he expects such progress to take place in the coming months. If that is going to happen, Obama must first change the Palestinian regime to recognize Israel. Dr. Michael David Evans is a New York Times bestselling author. His latest book is Jimmy Carter, the Liberal Left, and World Chaos. Wed, 9 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0800 A daily newspaper in Sweden, the Aftonbladet, created a firestorm of controversy when it published an article that charged Israeli soldiers with "harvesting organs from Palestinians wounded or killed by soldiers." The accusations made in an article by journalist David Bostrom was fueled by claims leveled by Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza in the 1990s. The writer published the egregious lies in a book he wrote in 2001. It initially bombed, and it appears that Mr. Bostrom is fishing for a scheme to revive his literary effort. That the media would bite on such a rotten, stinking dead fish is indicative that bigotry didn't die with Hitler; it is alive and well on planet Earth. As an author of several New York Times bestsellers and a publisher (TimeWorthy Books and Jerusalem World News), I am appalled that the media ran with this story. Unfortunately, anti-Semitism is not strictly a Muslim problem. Former President Jimmy Carter is in Israel this week with The Elders which include former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Bishop Desmond Tutu and others. For these leaders to think that they would be warmly welcomed when millions of Jews have been murdered because of conspiracy myths fueled by The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and its premise that the elders of Zion (Jews) are basically responsible for the world's evils, is ludicrous. Terrorism against Israel is simply Jew-hatred and bigotry fed and fueled by conspiracy theories. This should come as no surprise when The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is one of the biggest sellers in Muslim countries. The Palestinian conflict could have been resolved decades ago had it not been for this rampant Jew-hatred. Jews are not killed in Israel because of "land." They are killed simply and purely for being Jews. It is strange that Jews experience Islamist racism every day in the Middle East and the world sits silently by. It is no less remarkable that the Obama administration is boosting a peace plan with Arab governments whose schoolbooks teach their children that Jews are the descendents of monkeys and pigs. These so-called "moderate" Arab regimes still aren't prepared to accept Israel's right to exist. Sixty years after the Holocaust, millions of Arab bigots continue to propagate the vile Nazi racist doctrine of Hitler. Arab children are taught that all wars are caused by the Jews, that the Jews invented AIDS, that the Jews attacked America on September 11th and blamed it on the Arabs, and that America went to war against Iraq on the Jews' behalf. Make no mistake: Arab racism is killing Jews. These bigoted myths and conspiracy theories brainwash Palestinian children to commit suicide bombings against Jews. Innocent children play death games, such as collecting "martyr" cards with pictures of suicide bombers. Israeli officials have requested a condemnation of the Aftonbladet article. Carl Bildt, Swedish foreign minister, has rejected the call. He reiterated that freedom of the press is a constitutional guarantee in Sweden. The Muslim world erupted in fiery protests in 2007 when a Swedish newspaper published a cartoon depicting Muhammad. Lennart Holst, the Swedish charge d'affaires in Islamabad "did not apologize but regretted that the publication had hurt Muslims' feelings." Has even that much of an apology been offered Israel? Bostrom, who has said he doesn't know if the accusations are true, but warrant an investigation, reminds me of the story of The Wizard of Oz. It appears that he is auditioning for three of the main roles: the Cowardly Lion, The Tin Man, and the Scarecrow. He obviously lacks a brain or he would not publish unfounded accusations which could create a backlash resulting in the loss of life of Jewish civilians in Israel. The fact that he has stooped lower than the bigoted Don Imus in order to sell a languishing book shows a decided lack of heart. And, Mr. Bostrom obviously lacks the courage to admit his scheme. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu averred he was not asking for an apology from the Swedes, he simply asked them to condemn the absurd article. Israel's finance Minister, Yuval Steinitz said: "Whoever does not distance himself from a blood libel such as this may not be so welcome now in Israel. We have a crisis until the government of Sweden understands otherwise." Sixty years after the Holocaust, millions of Arab bigots continue to propagate the vile Nazi racist doctrine of Hitler. America. Now it seems they are aided by at least one Swedish newspaper. ********** Michael D. Evans, a #1 New York Times bestselling author, is the author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. His newest book, Atomic Iran, Countdown to Armageddon: How the West Can Be Saved will be released in late September Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:00:00 -0800 Former President Jimmy Carter has just released a new book, We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land: A Plan that Will Work in which he advocates a straightforward solution: Israel should embrace the Quartet [Russia, the UN, the EU and the US]. The plan is backed by a group known simply as The Elders, an NGO started by Nelson Mandela in 2007 to promote peace and assist in conflict resolution and funded partly by British entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson, who originally proposed the idea for the group, and musician Peter Gabriel. Jimmy Carter and the Carter Center are heavily involved with this endeavor; Carter is one of three appointed 'Elders' to the Middle East. The delegation currently in Israel accompanying Carter includes South African Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu and former Irish president Mary Robinson (who recenty received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from US President Barak Obama despite strong objections by Jewish groups over her leadership role in the 2001 UN Durban Review). The group's objectives were met with skepticism by Israelis, but according to Carter, were eagerly embraced by the "Palestinians, peace groups and human rights activists in the region." How could he ask the Jewish people to embrace a group known as The Elders? The controversial Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is the biggest best-selling book in a bigoted world, and is charged with fueling anti-Semitism. CARTER'S PLAN is to allow the Quartet to solve the Middle East conflict, plain and simple. He calls for peace-loving organizations such as Hizbullah and Hamas and states like Iran and Syria to be involved in the negotiating process in order to bring peace to the Holy Land. The Quartet, Hizbullah, Hamas, Syria, Iran - according to Carter, everybody but Israel can bring peace. For Israelis only, Carter reserves the word 'radicals' in his book. He also calls former prime minister Menachem Begin by the same abjective and then describes him as the "most notorious terrorist in the region." Of course, he said the British said that, not him. Carter goes on to describe Binyamin Netanyahu as a "key political associate and naysayer" who was strongly opposed to Israel relinquishing control over the Sinai. It appears that Jimmy Carter is revising history. The Binyamin Netanyahu I know was attending college during the Camp David meetings in the late 1970s. In fact, when I recommended him to Begin for a government job, the prime minister did not even know who Netanyahu was. I have no idea how Carter was so aware of Binyamin Netanyahu's political ideology; he was selling furniture at the time to help fund his schooling. The former president also writes that at the time, Begin agreed to divide Jerusalem. I found that to be astonishing, especially since Begin had given me a copy of the letter he penned to Jimmy Carter on September 17, 1978, in which he wrote, "Dear Mr. President, on the basis of this law, the government of Israel decreed in July 1967 that Jerusalem is one city indivisible, the capital of the State of Israel." According to Begin, Carter informed him that the US government did not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Begin told me he responded, "Excuse me sir, but the State of Israel does not recognize your non-recognition." Carter further charges that Begin agreed to a freeze on building Jewish settlements but Begin told me he had not agreed to a total freeze; he only agreed not to build new settlements for three months, during the negotiations. Carter also gives the impression that he and Begin were close friends by saying that Begin and then Egyptian president Anwar Sadat visited him in Plains to reaffirm the personal commitments each had made to the other, which I found quite humorous. Begin told me he had refused to meet with Carter when the president traveled to Jerusalem. At that time, he was no longer prime minister but was outraged that Carter had misrepresented the events during their meetings. COULD IT be that Jimmy Carter's ideals are formulated by the number of zeros before the decimal on the contributions to the Carter Center by oil-rich Gulf States? These same states do not now, nor will they ever, allow Jews to worship freely within their borders no matter how much land Israel relinquishes. It is then surprising and hypocritical to call Israel an "apartheid state" and to infer that the region's only democratic country is an obstacle to peace - thus the only solution to the Middle East conflict is through intervention. Carter's final plea is for President Barack Obama to "shape a comprehensive peace effort between Israel and the Palestinians…then use persuasion and enticements to reach these reasonable goals with the full backing of other members of the International Quartet and the Arab nations." It is likely he would call on The Elders for their expertise. The best thing President Obama could do is completely ignore Jimmy Carter and his plan. The writer is a New York Times bestselling author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. A television special based on the book is currently being produced (www.carterbooktv.com) Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:00:00 -0800 Former President Jimmy Carter has just released a new book, We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land: A Plan that Will Work in which he advocates a straightforward solution: Israel should embrace the Quartet [Russia, the UN, the EU and the US]. The plan is backed by a group known simply as The Elders, an NGO started by Nelson Mandela in 2007 to promote peace and assist in conflict resolution and funded partly by British entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson, who originally proposed the idea for the group, and musician Peter Gabriel. Jimmy Carter and the Carter Center are heavily involved with this endeavor; Carter is one of three appointed 'Elders' to the Middle East. The delegation currently in Israel accompanying Carter includes South African Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu and former Irish president Mary Robinson (who recenty received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from US President Barak Obama despite strong objections by Jewish groups over her leadership role in the 2001 UN Durban Review). The group's objectives were met with skepticism by Israelis, but according to Carter, were eagerly embraced by the "Palestinians, peace groups and human rights activists in the region." How could he ask the Jewish people to embrace a group known as The Elders? The controversial Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is the biggest best-selling book in a bigoted world, and is charged with fueling anti-Semitism. CARTER'S PLAN is to allow the Quartet to solve the Middle East conflict, plain and simple. He calls for peace-loving organizations such as Hizbullah and Hamas and states like Iran and Syria to be involved in the negotiating process in order to bring peace to the Holy Land. The Quartet, Hizbullah, Hamas, Syria, Iran - according to Carter, everybody but Israel can bring peace. For Israelis only, Carter reserves the word 'radicals' in his book. He also calls former prime minister Menachem Begin by the same abjective and then describes him as the "most notorious terrorist in the region." Of course, he said the British said that, not him. Carter goes on to describe Binyamin Netanyahu as a "key political associate and naysayer" who was strongly opposed to Israel relinquishing control over the Sinai. It appears that Jimmy Carter is revising history. The Binyamin Netanyahu I know was attending college during the Camp David meetings in the late 1970s. In fact, when I recommended him to Begin for a government job, the prime minister did not even know who Netanyahu was. I have no idea how Carter was so aware of Binyamin Netanyahu's political ideology; he was selling furniture at the time to help fund his schooling. The former president also writes that at the time, Begin agreed to divide Jerusalem. I found that to be astonishing, especially since Begin had given me a copy of the letter he penned to Jimmy Carter on September 17, 1978, in which he wrote, "Dear Mr. President, on the basis of this law, the government of Israel decreed in July 1967 that Jerusalem is one city indivisible, the capital of the State of Israel." According to Begin, Carter informed him that the US government did not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Begin told me he responded, "Excuse me sir, but the State of Israel does not recognize your non-recognition." Carter further charges that Begin agreed to a freeze on building Jewish settlements but Begin told me he had not agreed to a total freeze; he only agreed not to build new settlements for three months, during the negotiations. Carter also gives the impression that he and Begin were close friends by saying that Begin and then Egyptian president Anwar Sadat visited him in Plains to reaffirm the personal commitments each had made to the other, which I found quite humorous. Begin told me he had refused to meet with Carter when the president traveled to Jerusalem. At that time, he was no longer prime minister but was outraged that Carter had misrepresented the events during their meetings. COULD IT be that Jimmy Carter's ideals are formulated by the number of zeros before the decimal on the contributions to the Carter Center by oil-rich Gulf States? These same states do not now, nor will they ever, allow Jews to worship freely within their borders no matter how much land Israel relinquishes. It is then surprising and hypocritical to call Israel an "apartheid state" and to infer that the region's only democratic country is an obstacle to peace - thus the only solution to the Middle East conflict is through intervention. Carter's final plea is for President Barack Obama to "shape a comprehensive peace effort between Israel and the Palestinians…then use persuasion and enticements to reach these reasonable goals with the full backing of other members of the International Quartet and the Arab nations." It is likely he would call on The Elders for their expertise. The best thing President Obama could do is completely ignore Jimmy Carter and his plan. The writer is a New York Times bestselling author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. A television special based on the book is currently being produced (www.carterbooktv.com) Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:00:00 -0800 They marched, like Martin Luther King, crying out for freedom and democracy against a Holocaust-denying demented dictator who wants to wipe Israel off the map. They were beaten and killed while President Obama, in a Jimmy Carter-type stupor, looked on. It seems that President Obama is determined to remain aloof to the cries of the people of Iran in favor of doing nothing in order to preserve the possibility of negotiating with the very man who holds the Iranian people under his thumb…Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei is the man who has ordered a bloody crackdown on those who voted for Mir Hussein Moussavi; a man who is so paranoid he has the challenger's supporters arrested. The young men and women of Iran, who stood up to Ahmadinejad and had their votes stolen, waited eleven days for President Obama to issue a supportive statement. It came after the death of an innocent bystander from a gunshot wound. Neda, the twenty-six-year-old young woman killed during the protests, had not been part of the street demonstrations. In his belated statement, Obama offered no support of any kind for the protestors. The French government, on the other hand, responded immediately to the brutal reaction by the Iranian regime. Israel Deputy Prime Minister Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya'alon told me that if President Obama would sanction refined oil and enlist global support, the youth of Iran would eventually overthrow the tyrannical regime. To add insult to injury, an unidentified U.S. State Department employee confirmed that embassies abroad were encouraged to "invite representatives from the government of Iran" to attend Independence Day events. With his smoke-and-mirror show, Obama has made America an international laughingstock. The question now: Does President Obama understand that events in Iran today really have nothing to do with the fraudulent election and everything to do with freedom? Men and women aren't willing to die for a vote recount; they are willing to lay down their lives for the right to be heard. They are not protesting faux ballots; they are protesting the despotic limitations imposed on them by the tyrannical clerics who really run the country. What will President Obama's reaction be if the Revolutionary Guard and its rabid voluntary paramilitary force, the Basij, decide to mow the protestors down by the thousands in an attempt to halt the protests? Will he remain aloof? Will he take the side of those who are seeking a true democratic voice in the affairs of Iran? Will he imitate Jimmy Carter and support what he called "vigorous debate" over the "irregularities" of the election? Mr. Obama took office vowing to extend a hand to our adversaries. Jimmy Carter held a similar worldview of the Soviet Union, promising to "cure our inordinate fear of communism. Our enemies pushed back at what they perceived as weakness in Afghanistan, Iran, and etc. The Islamic Republic has been exposed as a fraud. Carter was forced to hand over $7.9 billion to Khomeini in an attempt to secure the release of the American Embassy hostages. If President Obama cannot use diplomacy to support democracy, his extended hand to Iran's ruling mullahs had better have a whole lot more money in it. Will Obama announce that the U.S. will not support those seeking régime change in Tehran? There is a reason their signs are in English; they love the freedom for which America stands. Should the U.S. abandon the "green movement" in Iran we would have the blood of countless men and women on our hands. Do not our basic principles as a nation dictate that we stand with those who oppose a system which is the exact opposite of what we as Americans believe? As president, Obama seems more intent on negotiating with the sworn enemies of the United States, i.e., Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his purveyors of terror, than with those who seek freedom in Iran. Has Obama learned all too well Carter's mating dance with terrorists, while ascribing to them altruistic acts, legitimizing terrorism and those who carry out such heinous attacks? President Obama now has a legitimate chance to support change for good. He has an opportunity to respond vigorously to those whom poet Emma Lazarus described on the Statue of Liberty as "…your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…" Will he stand with the freedom-seekers, or has President Obama truly become another Jimmy Carter? He seems to be following in Mr. Carter's footsteps; it was Carter who recognized the Islamic Republic of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini with catastrophic results. The mullahs who are in power seized that power by revolution in 1979. They know what a united Iranian people can do. This is what Khamenei fears and why he has avowed that a "street challenge is not acceptable." The mullahs have perfected the art of enmity over the past three decades. In spite of the hatred spewing from their mouths, the youth of Iran are as passionate about freedom as are the mullah's clenched fists. I support the Iranian people who want to be free from oppression; yet at the same time, I fear for them. The upheaval that will surely come if they are successful will change the complexion of the Middle East; how dramatically, no one really knows. The challenge is great. Where is Obama's support for those who fight for freedom? His silence is most telling. As the Iranian people risk their lives, he refuses to see the country that is "terror central" as an evil empire. President Obama has taken a neutral stance. Dante Alighieri said, "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crises, retained their neutrality." ********** Michael D. Evans, a #1 New York Times bestselling author, is the author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. A television special based on the book is currently being produced (www.carterbooktv.com). Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0800 Last Friday was Election Day in Iran. The turn-out was so great that voting had to be extended by three hours in order for the lines to be accommodated. From shop-lined streets in the northern part of Tehran to the most conservative of villages, Iranians exercised their right to vote. The two top-runners in the election were hardliner and current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and former prime minister during the 1980s Mir Hossein Mousavi. Mousavi, with the reputation of a reformer surprisingly seemed to appeal to the younger generation of Iranians. Iranian expatriates casting ballots in Dubai mostly favored Mousavi whom they labeled Iran's version of Obama. During the campaign, Mousavi indicated he was in favor of ending the attacks against the liberal media and bloggers. He also hinted that he might accept President Obama's offer to sit down for talks after a nearly thirty year silence between the two countries. Such a dialogue would mean opening talks regarding Iran's nuclear pursuits, which even Mousavi says is for peaceful purposes. His hopes were dashed, however, when supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini declared incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the leader by a 2 to 1 margin. Mousavi's supporters took to the streets in protest, but were literally beaten back by Iranian Revolutionary Guard whose leader supports Ahmadinejad. Although presenting himself as a "reform" candidate, Mousavi's past dictates show him to be much more the hardliner. In 1981, UPI reported, "Mousavi heralds a more vigorous propagation of the radical Islamic foreign policy of exporting Iran's revolution." While attending a demonstration in Tehran in 1987, Mousavi said, "Tomorrow will be the day we step on the Great Satan. Tomorrow is the time for America to see our iron fists." And a statement issued from Tehran in 1988 read that "Israel should be annihilated," and that the only means to "achieve Palestinian rights was to continue the popular struggles against Israel. Following the death of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989, Mousavi was portrayed as "a leading radical who in the past has competed with Khamenei for primacy in setting government policy pledged subservience, along with his entire cabinet, to the new leader." Given his past history, it seems the only thing that might have changed under Mousavi, the "reform" candidate was the name of Iran's president. With Mahmoud Ahmadinejad having been declared the overwhelming winner on Friday, the only thing that may change in Iran is that the newly-elected president is likely to ramp up his rhetoric against both Israel and the United States. He clearly has the backing of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini who is in favor of continuing Iran's nuclear program. As president, Ahmadinejad only has as much power as Khameini allows him to exert. Ahmadinejad relied heavily on the conservative bastions such as Qom, where many of the Islamic universities and revered shrines can be found. He appealed to what Americans would call blue-collar voters and traditionalists who supported him in the last election. Calls of tampering have been heard in some locales, but with the absence of international poll-watchers, such charges are hard to prove. The fiery president has been charged with mismanaging Iran's reaction to inflation which hovers at 25 percent. Yet during his campaign, he promised more government aid. One can only wonder if Ahmadinejad will face challenges from the people who want more freedom. Iranians have already been warned by the leader of the Revolutionary Guard that if they harbor visions of another "revolution" swift action would be taken to crush their dreams. No doubt, Ahmadinejad will, with Khamenei's blessing, continue his defiance against the Western world and forge ahead with a nuclear program. Former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. and president of the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs Dore Gold addressed the fact that Iran really has only one leader who determines its nuclear pursuits: 'The key decisions in the nuclear field are taken by the spiritual leader Khamenei, so it doesn't matter who is elected president. All of the candidates support continuing the nuclear program." The Jewish state has come to consider Iran's nuclear bid as a very real threat given that Ahmadinejad has spent four years in office calling for Israel's destruction. He has vowed to "wipe Israel off the map." According to Prime Minister Netanyahu, Iran is the greatest threat to Israel since the nation was founded in 1948. This is true not only regarding the Islamic republic's atomic aspirations, but also due to the fact that Iran funds, trains, and arms the fanatical groups that surround Israel - Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Both groups have drawn Israel into wars to defend its citizens. Netanyahu has not ruled out a military strike against Iran's nuclear sites. He said after a meeting with President Obama in May, "Israel reserves its right to defend itself." Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that even the Obama administration was becoming more wary of Iran's nuclear program. He indicated that the U.S. and Israel share the same concerns regarding Iran's reluctance to even discuss its nuclear pursuits. When I met Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's spiritual advisor in New York City two years ago, he declared to me that his leader would usher in the Mahdi - the twelfth descendant of Mohammad - through an apocalyptic event within three years. That was two years ago. Early Monday, in a stunning about-face from his initial position, Ayatollah Khameini ordered a probe of the election. Is Khameini, the self-styled "wizard of Oz" who hides behind smoke and mirrors and pulls the puppet president's strings going to pull the "reform candidate" out of his hat full of tricks in order to appease the Iranian people? Will anything really change in Iran if he does, or will it be the exportation of terrorism as usual? Michael D. Evans, is the founder of the Jerusalem Prayer Team and the Corrie ten Boom Holocaust Center in Haarlem, Holland. He is a #1 New York Times bestselling author, and is the author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0800 Jimmy Carter has been occupied during his visit to the Palestinian territory with trying to build a bridge with the leaders of Hamas who support the myths found in The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and who refuse to support a Jewish state. Carter believes that peace between Israel and the PA cannot be reached unless or until Hamas is directly engaged in the process. He also believes that Hamas and Fatah must reunite to engage in successful dialogue with Israel. The former president talked with the media after a meeting with President Bashar Assad of Syria and prior to a meeting with Khaled Mashaal, Hamas' exiled leader, in Damascus. Carter has met with Mashaal three times during the past year. His last meeting with Mashaal took place during the final days of the George W. Bush administration when Mr. Carter defied the State Department and met with the terrorist leader. His current trip is just days before George Mitchell, President Obama's special envoy, is scheduled to visit Damascus. The former president outlined in his most recent book, We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land: A Plan that Will Work, a solution he feels is very straightforward: Israel should embrace the plan put forth by the EU, UN, Arab League, the U.S. and Russia. The plan is also backed by a group known simply as The Elders, an idea formulated by British entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson and musician Peter Gabriel to create a world council of elders to tackle issues such as peace in the Middle East. Jimmy Carter and the Carter Center are heavily involved with this endeavor. Carter is one of three appointed as Elders to the Middle East. The delegation's objectives were met with skepticism by the Israelis, but according to Mr. Carter, were eagerly embraced by the "Palestinians, peace groups and human rights activists in the region." Carter's plan is to allow the Quartet to solve the Middle East problem. He calls for peace-loving organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas and states like Iran and Syria to be involved in the negotiating process in order to have peace in the Holy Land. He refers to Jews again and again as "radicals," another word for terrorists. He called Menachem Begin a "radical" and then went on to describe him as the "most notorious terrorist in the region." Of course, he said the British said that, not him. Carter describes Benjamin Netanyahu as a "key political associate and naysayer" who was strongly opposed to Israel relinquishing control over the Sinai. The former president wrote that Begin agreed to divide Jerusalem. I found that to be astonishing…especially since Mr. Begin had given me a copy of the letter he wrote to Jimmy Carter on September 17, 1978. In the letter he wrote, "Dear Mr. President…. On the basis of this law, the government of Israel decreed in July 1967 that Jerusalem is one city indivisible, the capital of the State of Israel." According to Begin, Jimmy Carter informed him that the U.S. government did not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Begin told me he responded, "Excuse me sir, but the State of Israel does not recognize your non-recognition." Carter also stated that Prime Minister Menachem Begin agreed to a freeze on building Jewish settlements. Begin told me he had not agreed to a total freeze; he only agreed not to build new settlements for three months, during the negotiations. Carter gives the impression that he and Begin were close friends by saying that Begin and Sadat visited him in Plains to reaffirm the personal commitments each had made to the other. I found that quite humorous; Mr. Begin told me he had refused to meet with Jimmy Carter when the president traveled to Jerusalem. At that time, he was no longer Prime Minister but was outraged that Carter had misrepresented the events during their meetings. Carter viewed Yasser Arafat as a Middle East George Washington. He penned, "We pursued the concept of non-violent resistance of Hamas leaders and gave them documentation and video presentations on the successful experiences of Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and others." Carter believes that peace in the Holy Land must include Palestinian militant leader, Marwan Barghouti, the serial killer/terrorist. Carter calls him the "most intriguing player in the Middle East." He wants Barghouti to run for the office of the presidency in the Palestinian National Authority. Apparently Mr. Carter's playing footsy with Palestinian terrorists has paid off. He recently added another "honor" to his list of achievements when he was awarded the Palestine International Award for Excellence and Creativity. The dubious honor was certainly well-deserved. Mr. Carter has been very creative in his support for the terrorists that surround Israel. In his acceptance speech, Carter promised to support the campaign for an independent Palestinian state to the death. He also implored the Palestinians to halt the internal strife. Was the implied intent that of uniting the warring factions into one cohesive unit in order to better attack their Jewish neighbors with rockets and suicide attacks? Said the former president in his speech, "I have been in love with the Palestinian people for many years." He indicated that his family shared his devotion: "I have two great-grandsons that are rapidly learning about the people here and the anguish and suffering and deprivation of human rights that you have experienced ever since 1948." Mr. Carter doesn't seem to share the same sympathy for the Jewish people whose history has been riddled with pogroms, hate crimes, and the Holocaust which claimed six million lives. It appears that Carter, long a vocal proponent of establishing an ongoing relationship with Hamas' terrorist leaders, has already made inroads in President Barack Obama's Middle East policy plans. He has petitioned President Obama to "shape a comprehensive peace effort between Israel and the Palestinians….then use persuasion and enticements to reach these reasonable goals with the full backing of other members of the International Quartet [Russia, the UN, the EU, and the United States] and the Arab nations." It is likely he would call on The Elders for their expertise. The best thing President Obama could do is completely ignore Jimmy Carter and his plan. Michael D. Evans, a #1 New York Times bestselling author, is the author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0800 The actions of James Wenneker Von Brunn, 88, a Holocaust denier, avowed white supremacist and rabid anti-Semite, expose the root of the entire war on terror - bigotry. Von Brunn calmly walked into the Washington Holocaust Memorial on Wednesday and opened fire with a .22 rifle. Although the memorial entrance is equipped with metal detectors, it is thought that Von Brunn started shooting just inside the door. He carried with him a copy of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. His intent was clearly to kill Jews but he was intercepted by guard Stephen Tyrone Johns. The guard was shot and later died from his wounds. Von Brunn was wounded by other guards who returned fire. He was taken to a local hospital handcuffed to a gurney. Washington police discovered a notebook in the vehicle believed to be Von Brunn's. It contained a list of sites in the area that included the White House, the Capitol, the Washington Post, and a Fox News location. An investigation was launched to determine if Von Brunn had been sighted at any of the places named. In 1983, Von Brunn was sent to prison for four years after he tried to kidnap several members of the Federal Reserve Board. He claimed that although he carried a bag containing a sawed-off shotgun, a revolver and a knife, he was only trying to make a "citizen's arrest." Von Brunn was released in 1989. I know, first hand, how deadly anti-Semitism can be. I was informed by the ATF that I had been targeted by a white supremacist, Richard Wayne Snell, on my birthday in 1984. Snell was a disciple of The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord (better known as the CSA) organized in Elijah, Arkansas in 1971 by polygamist James Ellison. The CSA was not simply one of the more quirky religious cults; its stated purpose was to start a war that would ultimately lead to the second coming of Christ. The members of the group believed they were literally God's chosen people, and as such, could dominate all others. A CSA conference in 1983 brought together Jim Ellison, the group's founder, and Snell. The two men discussed how they could bring down the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Snell's destiny, however, was not to be the one to accomplish that feat. His plans were sidetracked by his desire to kill Jews and Blacks. On November 3, 1983, Snell gunned down the owner of a small pawn shop in Texarkana, Arkansas. Snell thought he was a Jew; he was not. The case confounded the authorities for over eight months. Snell's rage would prove to be his downfall. On June 30, 1984, Snell was stopped on a lonely western Arkansas highway by State Trooper Louis Bryant. As Bryant approached the vehicle, Snell opened fire with a modified Colt .45, fatally wounding the trooper. A truck driver who saw the shooting followed Snell across the Oklahoma border and contacted the Broken Bow police. Snell ran headlong into a roadblock set up by the police. In the ensuing gun battle, Snell was captured after being wounded. Following his arrest, investigators combed through Snell's vehicle. On the front seat, they found a single piece of paper on which was written my name, address, and unlisted telephone number. I have no doubt that given the chance Snell would have taken me out, along with my family. Although Snell went to death row for the murders of Trooper Bryant and the pawn broker in Arkansas, the CSA continued to thrive. Two of its recruits were Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. On April 19, 1995, McVeigh and Nichols set off a devastating explosion that rocked the Murrah Building killing 168 and injuring more than 800. It was the worst domestic terror attack until that fateful day in September 2001. Snell was executed on the same day as the devastating attack on the Murrah Building. His last words were directed at Oklahoma Governor Jim Guy Tucker. Snell warned that the governor should "look over your shoulder; justice is coming." Whatever you wish to call it - bigotry, anti-Semitism, Jew-hatred - it is vile. It caused the pogroms in Russia, the Holocaust in Europe, and has stirred up Holocaust deniers such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran, among others. Bigotry is an equal opportunity employer. Jew-hating, Protocols of Zion-loving, Holocaust deniers must be taken seriously. The war on terror cannot be won unless America declares war on bigotry. ********** Michael D. Evans, is the founder of the Jerusalem Prayer Team and the Corrie ten Boom Holocaust Center in Haarlem, Holland. He is a #1 New York Times bestselling author, and is the author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0800 The United Nations is hosting the Durban Review Conference, April 20-24, 2009, with the sole objective of eliminating racial discrimination. What a noble experiment. Unless, of course, eliminating racial discrimination excludes everyone other than Christians and Jews.One would think the UN would invite President Barack Obama to be a keynote speaker rather than Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who denies the Holocaust, and considers Israel a "stinking corpse" that needs to be wiped off the map.In 2001, just days before the 9/11 attacks, the UN sponsored the first Durban Conference. Instead of fighting racial discrimination, Durban only fueled and fed it. The Crusaders (America) and the Zionists (Israel) were charged with racism, slavery, and colonialism.This despite the fact charges were being levied by Arab countries guilty of blatant discrimination. No mention was made during the conference of the genocide in Rwanda or Iraq or the gassing of the Kurds; no condemnation was levied against Iran's use of children as mine-sweepers during the Iran-Iraq War; nor was there a mention of the repressive regime in Saudi Arabia.Jews are banned from setting a foot on the soil in Saudi Arabia and throughout the Middle East. It is no wonder that Durban deteriorated into an anti-Semitic hate fest against Israel.The U.S. and Israel exited the proceedings in South Africa in protest while conference goers took to the streets to parade vile posters which portrayed the Jews as having fangs dripping with blood. Following 9/11, the world media refused to call the events of that infamous day what they were: bigotry against the Americans (Crusaders).Libya has chaired the planning committee, whose membership includes Iran and Cuba. "It is a conference on human rights that is being chaired by people who abuse these rights."Among the high-ranking officials who will address the conference at Monday's opening session which, coincidentally falls on the eve of Holocaust Memorial Day, is Iran's President Ahmadinejad.The non-governmental group, UN Watch, has noted that Saudi Arabia, also with a problematic record on human rights, has donated $150,000 to the event; China has donated $20,000 and Iran $40,000. Russia, committee chair on the draft text, had contributed $600,000.Although the US has left the door open for the possibility of a compromise, this week it issued a clear position statement in which it said it would not participate in the conference as long as the text contained problematic clauses relating to free speech. It also objected to the opening paragraph of the text, which reaffirms the 2001 document that singled out Israel.The war on terror is, in fact, not a war against terror or against an ideology; it is a war against bigotry and racism. This war has never really been fought.Even entertaining the willingness to debate the right of the Jewish people to exist is beyond comprehension. The Holy Grail of understanding is that racism and bigotry are the soil in which the virus of terror grows. This is a war that cannot be won unless the root of racism is exposed.The leaders of the countries which will participate in the Durban Review Conference are bigots and truly believe the diabolical lies quoted by Hitler from Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are true. This is the reason mosques, mullahs and madrassas are allowed to teach that Jews are descendants of monkeys and pigs; all wars are caused by the Jews; the Jews invented AIDS; and the Zionists attacked America on 9/11 and blamed the Arabs.It is believed there is a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world, and that the Jews control the media and banks. Some believe Jews drink the blood of non-Jews and also use their blood to make matzo - or the "blood-libel" myth.Ahmadinejad has become the poster boy for racial discrimination. He smiles, while watching his nuclear centrifuges on a fast-forward track, and says he likes Jews; he just hates Zionists and denies the Holocaust. His rhetoric did not appear to inspire the millions of Zionists living in Israel who are aware that one-third of the Jewish race was exterminated during the Holocaust - including five million adults and almost one million children.America thought she was exempt from terror until 9/11, and still resists today acknowledging that she was attacked for being a Christian nation (Crusaders.)When the UN hosted a specially-convened session of the 43rd General Assembly in December 1988 for PLO chief Yasser Arafat, I was the first journalist to challenge him to denounce the PLO racist covenant which calls for the destruction of the Jewish people.America's first black president has a golden opportunity, after having been wined and dined by European heads of state. He could be a twenty-first century Abraham Lincoln and mobilize the EU against participating in the Durban Review Conference by simply making a public appeal to them. If the EU agreed not to attend the event, it would be a major blow against racism and bigotry.**********Michael D. Evans, a #1 New York Times bestselling author, is the author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. A television special based on the book is currently airing (www.carterbooktv.com). Centuries of conflict have surrounded the Jews and Palestinians, both claiming ownership of the tiny parcel of land that is Israel. Learned men have devoted themselves to a resolution; politicians have haggled over the perfect peace treaty that would, ultimately, mean a star in their negotiations crown. Men and women have died to preserve the nation of Israel, and now comes President Barack Obama who has given himself just two years to resolve the Israel/Palestinian issue. Is he foolhardy, or will he abandon Israel in order to achieve his goal?The president will travel to Egypt later this week to deliver a speech that the White House says will "take on the tough issues." At the top of his list of concerns is a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.According to White House advisers, in his speech in the Egyptian capital this week, Obama will "take on the tough issues" including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and offer to help overcome disparities with the Muslims predicated on "mutual interests and mutual respect." Apparently, the president believes he must placate the Muslim nations by sacrificing Israel on the altar of appeasement. Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doesn't seem too eager to satisfy the president's desire to interfere in Israel's political future.President Obama's foray into the Middle East will begin with a visit to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and a meeting with King Abdullah. One can but wonder if he will again bow to the sovereign of a Muslim nation as he did on their first meeting. Obama and the king will review the Saudi peace initiative which calls for, among other things, Israel to return to her 1967 borders and give East Jerusalem to the Palestinians as a capital.Denis McDonough, Obama's foreign policy advisor said, "Some of the things that you will hear in the speech are returning to proven and effective policies and initiatives that have . . . served the national interest well in the past." Would someone care to translate that into understandable English? To what policies and initiatives does this statement refer? Many of the proposals proffered by past administrations place Israel in the vice of appeasement, demanding that it relinquish yet more land-for-peace - a plan that has never worked, and never will.Egypt has long been a U.S. ally, and is the largest Arab nation worldwide. Cairo, its largest city, is home to 18 million people and to Al Azhar University, the center of learning for Sunni Arabs.Egyptian historian Mahmoud Sabet applauded Obama's choice of Cairo to deliver his address to moderate Muslims: "If you are going to conceive of Iran as being a rival in the region, and Iran is a Shia country ... if you are going to tell the vast majority of Sunni Muslims that you are not their enemy, it makes sense." There is some concern, however, about the president's overtures to Iran, a Shia nation at odds with its Sunni Arab brethren. Arabs, moderate and fanatical, are clamoring for a Palestinian state for only one reason; it would mean the demise of the state of Israel. This is the aim today, as it has been since the miraculous founding of the Jewish state in 1948. It is the reason the PLO was founded in Cairo in 1964, and the explanation for Yasser Arafat's deadly intifada against the Jewish people. It is the reason Israel has been compelled to go to the bargaining table time and again and forced to accept agreements that were detrimental to the safety and security of the tiny nation. With the delivery of a speech in Cairo on Wednesday, President Barack Obama will join the long list of American presidents who have tried to back the Israelis into a corner. It will be interesting to see how the pugnacious prime minister of Israel reacts to the determined president. The relationship between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama could be the perfect storm.In a much-touted speech delivered from Cairo, Obama outlined what he sees as the first and second greatest sources of tension between the Muslim world and the United States. Al-Qaeda topped his list, but Israel came in as the second greatest source of tension. The president said, "Israel has been depriving the Palestinians of their homeland for sixty years."The president made another point in his speech: "And any nation - including Iran - should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty." Prime Minister Netanyahu does not believe that a state which is the center of gravity for world terrorism has the right to have any nuclear power, period.An assistant U.S. secretary of state has already called for Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In his speech in Cairo, Obama also said he preferred a world in which NO country possessed nuclear weapons.How the two leaders interact may well be defined by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the influence former President Bill Clinton may have on his wife. Clinton possessed a secular, humanistic world view. It was, after all, Bill Clinton who refused to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu during two pivotal visits to the United States - one in 1997 and the other in 1999. The refusal was interpreted as a blatant attempt to influence elections in Israel. Unfortunately for the prime minister, it worked; he was defeated by Ehud Barak with the help of Bill Clinton's political architect, James Carville.Obama indicated he might be prepared to link Israel's behavior during the peace process with the considerable aid the U.S. gives to Israel. He said, "...what the U.S. can do regarding the Palestinian/Israeli peacemaking effort is to create the conditions and atmosphere and provide the help and assistance that facilitates an agreement."In essence, Obama's worldview is similar to that of Jimmy Carter. It was Carter who forced the Shah of Iran into submission; the Shah feared that Carter would not supply much-needed parts for his air force if he failed to comply with the president's human rights demands. Israel could find itself in a similar dilemma with Obama.Netanyahu embraces Ronald Reagan's worldview. On his first trip to the White House as prime minister I covered the event. I noticed that when he spoke at the National Press Club and mentioned Ronald Reagan, the secular press hissed like snakes. Ronald Reagan believed that three liberal entities - what he called the Iron Triangle - were at work to hinder the progress of freedom: special interest groups, the liberal media, and the liberal Democrats.Barack Obama is liberal in his theology. This is due in part to the fact that he is the first U.S. president born in a Muslim home and raised by an atheist whose objective was for her children to understand worldviews. His mother wanted her children to learn of all religions - Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and of course, that of native Hawaiians. A young Obama practiced some form of Islam at the behest of his stepfather, a Muslim from Kenya who attended the mosque on Fridays.As a young adult, Obama finally found his niche at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago under the tutelage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright whose anti-Semitism has become legendary. Obama was instructed in Black Liberation theology which added a new dimension to his worldview. After his years of searching, he finally embraced a liberal, innovative theology. Taking into account all of his years under the ministry of Rev. Wright, the president revealed in his book The Audacity of Hope that he had no words to comfort his daughter regarding life after death.The president has also written regarding the scriptures: "When I read the Bible, I do so with the belief that it is not a static text but the Living Word and that I must be continually open to new revelations whether they come from a lesbian friend or a doctor opposed to abortion." He has also stated that "I am rooted in the Christian tradition, [but] I believe there are many paths to the same place and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people."The fundamental dissimilarities between Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama are greater than those between Bill Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu. It could very well be that America's 52 Million bible believing Christians may have the final word.Michael D. Evans, a #1 New York Times bestselling author, is the author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. A television special based on the book is currently airing (www.carterbooktv.com). Prime Minister Netanyahu's meeting with President Barack Obama on Tuesday, May 19 is simply the trade wind of a perfect storm; no matter how they smile for the cameras.The likelihood of Obama supporting an attack on Iran or Netanyahu's quid pro quo benchmarks for a Palestinian mythological state is less than zero.Obama's secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, does not like Netanyahu. The Clintons did everything possible to marginalize him, and more, during his last term as prime minister. President Bill Clinton made some very unflattering remarks about him in the presence of Aaron David Miller, a Middle East negotiator. The White House spokesman at the time was Joe Lockhart, who described Netanyahu in an interview as "one of the most obnoxious individuals you're going to come into - just a liar and a cheat. He could open his mouth and you could have no confidence that anything that came out of it was the truth."President Obama believes a Palestinian state will defuse most of the Middle East hostility issues. He has expressed support for speedy action since his first days in office.The fact that the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state makes it impossible for Jews in Israel to recognize a Palestinian state. A greater proportion of Palestinians consider the destruction of the Jewish state a far greater priority than creating a state of their own.Netanyahu supports a three-track peace process in which the Palestinians' willingness to support the rule of law would come before economic considerations or land for peace. A Palestinian state with airspace, an Army and one that can make treaties with other Arab, Jew-hating states such as Syria, Iran, and Libya will never happen. Netanyahu would never support the Palestinians having an army, airspace, or the right to establish treaties with Arab states hostile to Israel. Netanyahu considers a Palestinian state without preconditions a "Hail Mary" pass. He believes the Palestinians and the majority of the Arab world hold to a "you stole our house" belief system, and will never be satisfied with a few "rooms." He would prefer moving the ball down the field gradually.Obama's June 4th message of reconciliation to the Arab world is no coincidence. His Liberal Left and European allies are demanding a tough love policy which blames Israel for the region's problems, and the quicker the U.S. distances itself from Israel, the more rapidly bridges can be built in the Islamic world. This is similar to the appeasement policies of the 1930s in Europe.Obama made his feelings about the Likud Party, chaired by Netanyahu, quite plain during the election when he said, "I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel."The president has invited leaders of Egypt and the Palestinian Authority to Washington in May and June. He has already met with King Abdullah II at the White House where he signaled he may be ready to put pressure on Netanyahu: "I agree that we cannot talk forever; that at some point steps have to be taken so that people can see progress on the ground... and that will be something that we will expect to take place in the coming months." Obama indicated he might be prepared to link Israel's behavior during the peace process with the considerable aid the U.S. gives to Israel. He said that what the U.S. can do regarding the Palestinian/Israeli peacemaking efforts is to create the conditions and atmosphere and provide the help and assistance that facilitates an agreement.Obama, the most popular president since Franklin Roosevelt, does not fear American Jewry. Eighty percent supported him and also contributed more than 50 percent of the Democratic campaign funding.Netanyahu was not invited to meet during the AIPAC conference at which he wanted to speak. President Shimon Peres was welcomed with a media black-out when he met with Obama on May 5 while in Washington for the AIPAC meeting. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has clearly articulated the administration's belief that it must link American efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons to Israeli efforts toward establishing a Palestinian state. Netanyahu completely rejects this, and it will be a key issue during his talks with President Obama.Thirteen years ago in 1996, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that a nuclear Iran would be the greatest danger the world would face. He warned that nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran would have dire consequences.Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden hold similar views to Emanuel. National Security Advisor General James Jones recently assured a European foreign minister that, unlike Bush, Obama would be "forceful" with Israel. Even more shocking is the announcement from an assistant secretary of state, calling Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.When I recommended Benjamin Netanyahu to Prime Minister Menachem Begin for his first government appointment in 1982, I clearly saw a man with moral clarity. He had zero tolerance for terror after the death of his older brother, Yonathan, was killed in Uganda during Operation Entebbe on July 4, 1976.The chances of a love-fest on Tuesday are less than zero. It appears that the only diplomatic meal served will be barbecued Jew�no matter how sweet the appetizer. The presidential election was a public sounding-board for the much-touted failures of the Republican Party. He ran against a disgraced president and his policies; he ran in the aftermath of an unpopular war on a platform of "human rights;" and he won. His theme was "change," and that is what America and the world got. He kept his word, and change began. No, not Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter!In Jimmy Carter's first State of the Union address, he reassured the American people that "militarily, politically, and economically, in spirit, the state of the Union is sound...For the first time in a generation, we are not haunted by a major international crisis...I am happy to report that our nation is at peace with the world."Jimmy Carter and his Democrat-controlled Congress gave us double-digit inflation in excess of eighteen percent; double-digit unemployment over twelve percent; and double-digit interest rates over twenty-two percent.After Carter's election, Ebrahim, Yazdi, one of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's supporters urged the cleric to "begin to think of the 'new possibilities' that the expected rift between Tehran and Washington might offer." Yazdi, an Iranian-born American citizen representing the Ayatollah in the United States, wrote to him in exile in Najaf, Iraq that "the Shah's friends in Washington are out....It is time to act.'"[1]Carter apparently ignored CIA warning about Khomeini. A CIA memorandum states, "While in Iraq, Khomeini began working closely with the Islamic Terrorist Group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (the People's Strugglers). In late 1972 Khomeini issued a religious declaration, or Fatwa, that enjoined faithful Shia to support the Mujahedeen and called for the devout to provide funds for their use.Circumstances dictated that "having picked Khomeini to overthrow the Shah, Carter and the French had to get him out of Iraq, clothe him with respectability, and set him up in Paris."After trying to escape from Iraq, Khomeini was allowed to leave for Paris. In France, the Ayatollah's Iranian visitors totaled more than one thousand per day, all of which the French blessed or, at the very least, turned a blind eye. The Ayatollah became the "Guru of Hate" as he shared his vitriolic dislike for the Shah with all who would listen and learn. These disciples, including a number from various American universities, were not coming just to sit at the feet of the "Teacher" and learn; their pockets, lined with money collected through the Bazaar, the commercial system in Iran, were empty when they left Khomeini's presence. Some estimates place the contributions at approximately twenty million British pounds.The Ayatollah's compound was reportedly surrounded by representatives of covert agencies from the major powers: the CIA, Britain's MI-6, Russia's KGB, and the French intelligence organization, SDECE. One has to wonder why an unknown, uncultured, old cleric was the focus of such attention.CIA memoranda regarding Khomeini and the Shah seem to have either been deliberately ignored by the Carter administration or lost in the great governmental paperwork shuffle. One such memorandum flatly stated, "Khomeini is determined to overthrow the Shah and is unlikely to accept compromise....He has cooperated in the past with Islamic terrorist groups."[4]The chief of staff to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, William Miller, suggested that the U.S. openly support Khomeini and his Islamic revolution. Miller was convinced that Khomeini would progressively pursue human rights reformations in Iran.Carter perceived Khomeini more as a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution than the founding father of modern terrorism. Carter's ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, said, "Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint." Carter's Iranian ambassador, William Sullivan, said, "Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure." Carter adviser James Bill proclaimed in a Newsweek interview on February 12, 1979, that Khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of "impeccable integrity and honesty."In the fall of 1978, President Carter had appointed former diplomat and Johnson Administration Undersecretary of State George Ball to do an independent and classified study on the Shah and make recommendations to the Carter administration. While formulating his report Ball met with Israeli Ambassador to Iran Uri Lubrani. The two men and National Security Council member Gary Sick met at the Links Club in New York. Sick and Ball were most interested in Lubrani's sources for a report on the situation in Iran which he had forwarded to Moshe Dayan. Lubrani told me personally that Carter was to blame, not solely, but to some extent, for the current state of affairs in Iran.[6]Ball's assessment of the Shah's precarious position was underlined by such inclusions in his report as: ·We urgently need to open a disavowable channel of communication with him [Khomeini] or his entourage.[7] In the midst of the turmoil in Iran, or perhaps because of it, President Carter asked for a meeting on the FrenchRepublicisland of Guadeloupe in the Caribbean. The invitations were issued by French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing to West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and British Prime Minister James Callaghan.Giscard d'Estaing told me that "The President Jimmy Carter told us suddenly that the United States had decided not to support the rÊgime of the Shah anymore. Without that support, that rÊgime is now lost."Giscard d'Estaing expressed his shock at Carter's lack of regard for a country that had been a close ally for decades:We were humanly shocked by the way Carter spoke because we knew at the end it would lead to the torture or the killing of the Shah. And he [Carter] was not embarrassed at all; no, no, he spoke very lightly of a man that we supported very strongly.�He [Carter] was a bastard of conscience, a moralist, who treats with total lightness the fact of abandoning a man that we had supported together.With the Shah's departure Khomeini's Paris entourage made hurried preparations to get the Imam back to Tehran. Having decided against the use of an Iranian airliner for fear of being attacked by the Shah's Air Force, a jumbo jet was chartered from Air France for a mere pittance of $3 million dollars plus an undisclosed sum to cover the insurance premium for the aircraft. The crew that manned the jumbo jet was comprised totally of volunteers.[9]On the plane with Khomeini, a contingent of terrorists, and approximately one hundred twenty journalists, was a young ABC reporter, Peter Jennings. During the flight Jennings is said to have asked the Imam, "What do you feel [about returning to Iran]?" Khomeini replied, "Nothing." That was a strange answer from a man whose life had been consumed in recent years with the overthrow of the Shah and a triumphant return to Iran.Khomeini's real coup d'etat in the overthrow of the Shah turned out to be the capture and incarceration of fifty-two American hostages for the final 444 days of the Carter administration. During marathon negotiating sessions in the wee hours of January 20, 1981, Carter made a last-ditch effort to secure the release of the hostages on his watch. Finally, the Bank of England was approved as the repository of escrow funds, and shortly after 4:00 AM on Inauguration Day, the Carter administration relinquished $7.977 billion to the Iranians. According to one source, the transfer required fourteen banks and the participation of five nations acting concurrently.[10]In 1980 the Afghan rebels were aided by a $30 million infusion from the Carter administration. The ante was raised in Carter's 1981 budget to $50 million. It marked a rise in significant aid for the resistance from international sources.[11] It was generally thought that U.S. aid to the AfghanistanMujahedeen was initiated in 1980. Not so; according to a document declassified on March 4, 2004, President Jimmy Carter signed the directive on July 3, 1979, approving covert assistance to anti-Soviet rebels in Kabul.In the name of hope and change Liberal Democrat Jimmy Carter believed then, and still does, that evil really does not exist. Terrorist organizations are simply human rights movements, people are basically good, and America should embrace the perpetrators and castigate the victims.As president, Jimmy Carter loved to talk to America's enemies; he still does. Carter's mating dance with terrorists while ascribing to them altruistic acts legitimizes terrorism and those who carry out such heinous attacks.Jimmy Carter is among the number clamoring to change the worldview of these terrorists from that of mass murderers of the innocent to "insurgents" or "liberation movements." He is quick to indict the U.S. at every opportunity and equally quick to champion the downtrodden suicide bombers as - to be in sync with the Liberal Left - "martyrs."According to a UN assessment, Iran can have an atomic bomb within twelve months. The president of Iran has called Israel a stinking corpse that will soon be erased. President Obama has called for meetings with Iran's radical leaders.Now the trillion-dollar question becomes: Will President Obama be another Jimmy Carter? [1] Amir Taheri, Nest of Spies (New York: Pantheon Books, 1988), p.90 [6]Uri Lubrani interview, May 2008. [7] George Ball, The Ball Report. The revelation of a secret reactor bored into a mountain near Qom, one of Iran’s holiest cities, was a severe blow to Barack Obama’s ability to engage Iran in meaningful dialogue. But even more disturbing is the fact that the mosque dedicated to the Mahdi, Jamkaran Mosque, lies in Qom. The Mahdi was the Twelfth Imam, a descendant of Mohammad, who disappeared down a well at the age of four. Refusing to believe that al-Mahdi was dead, his followers imbued him with timelessness. They declared him to be merely "hidden,” and that on some future date he would suddenly reappear to reestablish an Islamic caliphate worldwide. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes the return of the Mahdi will come through an apocalyptic event. What better place to create the means to achieve his end than in Qom? And what would more effectively create a cataclysmic confrontation than for Ahmadinejad to carry out his threat to "wipe Israel off the map.” More recently, a top official in the Revolutionary Guard, Cleric Mojtaba Zolnour, threatened, "Should a single American or Zionist missile land in our country…Iranian missiles will blow up the heart of Israel.” Within hours of the discovery of the secret site, Ahmadinejad was attempting damage control. Mohammed ElBaradei, the UN nuclear chief, was invited to inspect the site…but not until October 25th. The interim is more than enough time for the tiny terrorist of Tehran to sweep the not-so-secret installation clean of any traces of atomic weapons. Only the UN and the ultra-liberal U.S. State Department seem not to believe Iran’s duplicity. Both embody the idiom, "There are none so blind as those who will not see.” Iran is a serious threat; Israel recognizes it. Barack Obama seems not to understand the severity of it. It seems abundantly clear that he is willing to accept an atomic Iran and the danger it poses. The President has made it clear that one of his aims is a "world without nuclear weapons.” When that happens, only those fanatical regimes with secret, underground reactors and centrifuges will possess the means to bring the world to its knees. Previous sitting presidents were unable to deter North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons or testing missiles capable of delivering them. One day, and it may not be that far away, Iran will announce that nuclear tests will be conducted. The response of the current administration will likely be total shock; especially to those in the government who believe Iran gave up on developing nuclear weapons way back in 2003. The threat of sanctions has been ineffective. In fact, Ahmadinejad believes that sanctions only serve to toughen his countrymen and make them more "self-sufficient.” He has been totally dismissive to any such tactic. He knows that Russia and China, the two largest elephants in the room, are both in his corner. It seems obvious that the world is threatened by Iran’s resolve to possess an atomic bomb. It would seem equally evident that global measures could and should be initiated to stop the radical Islamic Republic from achieving its purpose, now rather than later. The question remains, however: Will the Western world prove equal to the task, or will it rely on tiny Israel to do the job for it? It is Israel that deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for having shed the most blood for freedom in the Middle East. Imagine the region without Israel, if you dare. Prime Minister Menachem Begin saved the world from unspeakable horror by courageously confronting Saddam Hussein’s evil. The prime minister authorized the bombing of Iraq’s Osirak reactor on June 7, 1981. If a liberal, Nobel Peace Prize-winning Democratic president had been courageous enough to stand by America’s strongest ally, the Shah of Iran, rather than weaken him, the Russians would not have invaded Afghanistan. Had the same president not supported the Ayatollah Khomeini, radical Islam would not have been born. Saddam Hussein would not have invaded Iran and millions of lives would not have been lost in the ensuing war. It appears the Nobel committee of liberal, leftists believe that the Mahdi is already here, by ushering in the millennium kingdom of Barack Obama. **** Michael D. Evans is a New York Times #1 bestselling author. His latest book, Atomic Iran, Countdown to Armageddon is being made into a U.S. television special. Sun, 31 May 2009 00:00:00 -0800 WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 21, 2009) - Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has just had his first meeting with President Barack Obama. The two Obama issues, however, are non-issues for the Netanyahu government: talking to Iran and a fast-track toward a Palestinian state.The Obama government is trying to make things move in the Middle East and there are fears this will come at Israel's expense - even if it means bringing down Netanyahu's government.Obama has embarked on a peace crusade. He has invited Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to Washington. Next month Obama will speak from a podium in Cairo in an effort to restore America's image in the Muslim world. He apparently believes this cannot happen nor peace be achieved until Israel accepts a Palestinian state.Last week the United States voted for a UN Security Council resolution reaffirming support for a two-state solution. Ambassador Susan Rice said the US wants to integrate the Saudi-sponsored peace initiative into the process.Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Prime Minister Netanyahu over dinner that the Palestinians "deserve a viable state." President Obama said that Netanyahu "needed to stop expanding settlements and grasp the historic opportunity to make peace with the Palestinians." This is the theater of the absurd and a festival of hypocrisy. Would the U.S. government permit the Ku Klux Klan to fire more than 10,000 missiles into Harlem and then demand that the blacks in America make peace with the Ku Klux Klan by giving them New York City and not support any blacks living there? How dumb can you be and still breathe? What have the Palestinians done to deserve a state? Palestinian Christians are shot to death for simply believing that the Jewish people has been given a promised land. If an Israeli child goes hiking and ends up in a cave and Palestinian terrorists kill the teenager, smearing profanity with his blood on the walls of the cave, the world is silent. If a couple of Israeli reservists make a wrong turn on a road and end up having their bodies thrown from a police station window and ripped to pieces, the world is silent. But let Israel dig an archeological tunnel or start construction in a new neighborhood in Jerusalem, and the US will scream its head off. Do Palestinians deserve a state for supporting Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf War, or for sending a plague of suicide bombers into Israel? There have been close to 20,000 attempted suicide attacks in Israel. No city has been bombed more by Palestinian suicide terrorists than the city of Jerusalem. The truth is the U.S. government is following a double standard. It's okay to vilify Israel for any act that might appear to be an exercise of sovereignty, but when Palestinians violate peace agreements, they receive nothing more than a wink.It would be front page news around the world if blacks in Harlem were shot and killed for selling land to whites. Yet when the Palestinian Authority does this on a regular basis, the world is silent.The Arab world wants a Palestinian state for one simple reason: to destroy the State of Israel. The PLO was first organized in Cairo in 1964 (three years before the 1967 war) under Arab League auspices, to defeat the Jewish state through a war of attrition. Palestinians living in Israel were forced to accept the PLO or else. It would be absurd for Obama to think that Netanyahu - who went into politics inspired by the heroic death of his brother, Yonatan, in freeing terrorist hostages in the 1976 Entebbe rescue mission - would ever reward an Iranian-funded terrorist regime by redividing Jerusalem. He would never shrink Israel as a goodwill gesture to help restart the so-called peace process, not in the absence of a genuine goodwill gesture by the Palestinians and Muslim world of recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.I was so moved by the Netanyahu family and Binyamin Netanyahu's moral clarity at the anniversary of the death of his brother in 1981, that I asked then prime minister Menachem Begin to give him a government job. I said, "I believe this man will be prime minister some day." Begin hired him the following evening.What precisely is Obama doing? He has pressured Prime Minister Netanyahu to commit that Israel would not attack Iran, at least until the end of the year, so as not to disrupt Washington's plans to dialogue with Iran over its nuclear program.Additionally, he has played into Iran's hands by tying the Palestinian situation into the Iranian nuclear crisis. In essence, he is telling the State of Israel: If you want my support in dealing with Iran, you are going to have to give the Palestinians a state. Why does Netanyahu demand the Arab world recognize a Jewish state? Because they are bigots and they hate Jews.Barack Obama should read Dr. Martin Luther King's words: "You declare my friends, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely anti-Zionists. I say, let the truth ring forth from the highest mountain tops. Let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth. When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews. Zionism is nothing less than the dream and the ideals of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land."For Obama to think that Israel's support for a Palestinian state will help Iran is completely na���¯ve. It will do just the opposite. Iran - the center of gravity for world terrorism - has made the lives of Jews a living hell on Israel's northern and southern borders through its Hizbullah and Hamas proxies. To allow these terrorists to be a stone's throw from Israel's population center in a Palestinian state would just embolden Iran. Netanyahu wants the US to reaffirm its support for Israel's right to self-defense against the looming threat from Iran. During the last three years Israel fought two bitter campaigns to halt the bombardment of its civilian population by thousands of terrorist missiles - fired by the Iranian terrorist proxies Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Meanwhile, Iran denies the Holocaust while threatening to wipe the Jewish state off the map, as it develops nuclear weapons and tests long-range ballistic missiles.Israel's prime minister takes Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at his apocalyptic word, as must the leader of a country that has suffered unrelenting Islamist terrorism for 61 years. In terms of Jewish history, Netanyahu considers Iran to be a threat similar to that posed by the Israelites' Biblical scourge, the Amalekites, and more ominously by Hitler's Germany. President Obama, on the other hand, thinks Iran can be won over with patience and reason and is no real threat to America or world peace.Obama's advisers reportedly consider the sole obstacle to peace in the Middle East to be the lack of a Palestinian state. The problem with this Pollyannaish vision is that it lacks hindsight. On November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted to partition British Mandatory Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab. The Jews accepted the resolution and the Arab states did not and invaded Israel in the first of many unsuccessful attempts to destroy it. The Palestinians could have had their state 62 years ago, but preferred to deny the Jews their own state. The only state the Palestinians have been capable of living in since then is the state of denial.If a Palestinian state came into being tomorrow, this would not solve the conflict in the Middle East or the problem of Islamist terrorism, for the Hamas charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and for a jihad against Jews wherever they live.President Obama has said he does not support regime change. Will this apply to Netanyahu's government, if Washington spins it as an "obstacle to peace"? A possible indication is that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's spouse, former president Bill Clinton, is advising the leader of Israel's opposition, Kadima Party head MK Tzipi Livni.Obama made his feelings about Netanyahu's Likud Party clear during the recent election when he said, "I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel."The president wants speedy action and hinted so at a recent press conference with Jordan's King Abdullah. "I agree that we can't talk forever," Obama said, "that at some point steps have to be taken so that people can see progress on the ground." He said he expects such progress to take place in the coming months. If that is going to happen, Obama must first change the Palestinian regime to recognize Israel.By the way, what is a sovereign Palestinian state? It is a state that has an army, air space, and can form treaties with Israel's enemies. Israel's tiny state could never survive with Palestinians having control of air space, an army, and signing treaties with Arab states that deny the existence of the State of Israel. Netanyahu is right to reject a Palestinian state, and the U.S. is wrong to demand it. It would also mean an additional danger for America - by emboldening the terrorists to strike again by sending a signal that crime pays. On September 23, 1980 the founder of Israeli Intelligence, Isser Harel, told me over dinner at his home that America was developing a tolerance for terrorism. If that continued, he said, terrorists would strike America's largest symbol, New York, and its tallest building first. You can be sure that if America continues on this tolerance-for-terrorism policy the terrorist's will be coming to a theater near you.Dr. Michael David Evans is aNew York Timesbestselling author. His latest book isJimmy Carter, the Liberal Left, and World Chaos. WASHINGTON, D.C. (Monday, May 18, 2009) - Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has just had his first meeting with President Barack Obama. The two Obama issues are non-issues for the Netanyahu government, talking to Iran and a fast-track toward a Palestinian state. Curiously, Obama did not hold a full-dress press conference following their summit, which focused on Iran. Was this because he feared Netanyahu might use the opportunity to appeal to Israel's strongest base in America - some 52 million Bible-believing Evangelical Christian Zionists? The Obama government is trying to make things move in the Middle East and there are fears this will come at Israel's expense - even if it means bringing down Netanyahu's government.Obama has embarked on a peace crusade. He has invited Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to Washington. Next month Obama will speak from a podium in Cairo in an effort to restore America's image in the Muslim world. He apparently believes this cannot happen nor peace be achieved until Israel accepts a Palestinian state. Last week the United States voted for a UN Security Council resolution reaffirming support for a two-state solution. Ambassador Susan Rice said the US wants to integrate the Saudi-sponsored peace initiative into the process.It would be absurd for Obama to think that Netanyahu - who went into politics inspired by the heroic death of his brother, Yonatan, in freeing terrorist hostages in the 1976 Entebbe rescue mission - would ever reward an Iranian-funded terrorist regime by redividing Jerusalem. He would never shrink Israel as a goodwill gesture to help restart the so-called peace process, not in the absence of a genuine goodwill gesture by the Palestinians and Muslim world of recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.Netanyahu wants the US to reaffirm its support for Israel's right to self-defense against the looming threat from Iran. During the last three years Israel fought two bitter campaigns to halt the bombardment of its civilian population by thousands of terrorist missiles - fired by the Iranian terrorist proxies Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Meanwhile, Iran denies the Holocaust while threatening to wipe the Jewish state off the map, as it develops nuclear weapons and tests long-range ballistic missiles.Israel's prime minister takes Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at his apocalyptic word, as must the leader of a country that has suffered unrelenting Islamist terrorism for 61 years. In terms of Jewish history, Netanyahu considers Iran to be a threat similar to that posed by the Israelites' Biblical scourge, the Amalekites, and more ominously by Hitler's Germany. President Obama, on the other hand, thinks Iran can be won over with patience and reason and is no real threat to America or world peace.Obama's advisers reportedly consider the sole obstacle to peace in the Middle East to be the lack of a Palestinian state. The problem with this Pollyannaish vision is that it lacks hindsight. On November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted to partition British Mandatory Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab. The Jews accepted the resolution and the Arab states did not and invaded Israel in the first of many unsuccessful attempts to destroy it. The Palestinians could have had their state 62 years ago, but preferred to deny the Jews their own state. The only state the Palestinians have been capable of living in since then is the state of denial.If a Palestinian state came into being tomorrow, this would not solve the conflict in the Middle East or the problem of Islamist terrorism, for the Hamas charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and for a jihad against Jews wherever they live.I was so moved by the Netanyahu family and Benjamin's moral clarity at the anniversary of the death of his brother in 1981, that I asked Prime Minister Begin to give Benjamin a government job. I said "I believe this man will be prime minister some day". Begin did the following evening.President Obama has said he does not support regime change. Will this apply to Netanyahu's government, if Washington spins it as an "obstacle to peace"? A possible indication is that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's spouse, former president Bill Clinton, is advising the leader of Israel's opposition, Kadima Party head MK Tzipi Livni.Obama made his feelings about Netanyahu's Likud Party clear during the recent election when he said, "I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel."The president wants speedy action and hinted so at a recent press conference with Jordan's King Abdullah. "I agree that we can't talk forever," Obama said, "that at some point steps have to be taken so that people can see progress on the ground." He said he expects such progress to take place in the coming months. If that is going to happen, Obama must first change the Palestinian regime to recognize Israel.Dr. Michael David Evans is a New York Times bestselling author. His latest book is Jimmy Carter, the Liberal Left, and World Chaos. Former President Jimmy Carter has just released a new book, We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land: A Plan that Will Work. Carter's solution is straightforward; Israel should embrace the Quartet. The plan is backed by a group known simply as The Elders, an idea formulated by British entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson and musician Peter Gabriel to create a world council of elders to tackle issues such as peace in the Middle East. Jimmy Carter and the Carter Center are heavily involved with this endeavor. Carter is one of three appointed as Elders to the Middle East. The delegation's objectives were met with skepticism by the Israelis, but according to Mr. Carter, were eagerly embraced by the "Palestinians, peace groups and human rights activists in the region." How could he ask the Jewish people to embrace a group know as The Elders? The controversial Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is the biggest bestselling book in a bigoted world, and is charged with fueling anti-Semitism, from the Russian pogroms to the Holocaust. Carter's plan is to allow the Quartet to solve the Middle East problem. He calls for peace-loving organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas and states like Iran and Syria to be involved in the negotiating process in order to have peace in the Holy Land. Carter refers to Jews again and again as "radicals," another word for terrorists. He called Menachem Begin a "radical" and then goes on to describe him as the "most notorious terrorist in the region." Of course, he said the British said that, not him. Carter describes Benjamin Netanyahu as a " key political associate and naysayer" who was strongly opposed to Israel relinquishing control over the Sinai. It appears that Jimmy Carter is revising history. The Benjamin Netanyahu I know was attending college during the Camp David meetings. In fact, when I recommended him to Begin for a government job, the prime minister did not even know who Benjamin was. I have no idea how Carter was so aware of Benjamin Netanyahu's political ideology; he was selling furniture to help fund his schooling. The former president writes that Begin agreed to divide Jerusalem. I found that to be astonishing…especially since Mr. Begin had given me a copy of the letter he wrote to Jimmy Carter on September 17, 1978. In the letter he wrote, "Dear Mr. President….On the basis of this law, the government of Israel decreed in July 1967 that Jerusalem is one city indivisible, the capital of the State of Israel." According to Begin, Jimmy Carter informed him that the U.S. government did not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Begin told me he responded, "Excuse me sir, but the State of Israel does not recognize your non-recognition." The former president writes that Prime Minister Menachem Begin agreed to a freeze on building Jewish settlements. Begin told me he had not agreed to a total freeze; he only agreed not to build new settlements for three months, during the negotiations. Carter gives the impression that he and Begin were close friends by saying that Begin and Sadat visited him in Plains to reaffirm the personal commitments each had made to the other. I found that quite humorous; Mr. Begin told me he had refused to meet with Jimmy Carter when the president traveled to Jerusalem. At that time, he was no longer Prime Minister but was outraged that Carter had misrepresented the events during their meetings. Carter viewed Yasser Arafat as a "little George Washington." He pens, "We pursued the concept of non-violent resistance of Hamas leaders and gave them documentation and video presentations on the successful experiences of Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and others." Peace in the Holy Land must include Palestinian militant leader, Marwan Barghouti, the serial killer. Carter calls him the "most intriguing player in the Middle East." He has run for the office of the presidency in the Palestinian National Authority. Menachem Begin told me of a meeting with Carter during which he gave the president a list of cities in the United States with Bible names, i.e., Shiloh, Hebron and Bethel. He asked Carter, "Could you imagine the governor of Pennsylvania would proclaim that anyone could live in the city of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, except Jews?" President Carter agreed that such a man, if he did such a thing, would be guilty of racism. Begin replied that he was governor of the state in which the original Bethlehem, and the original Jericho, and the original Shiloh were located. He asked me, "Did Carter expect me to say that everybody could live in those cities except Jews?" Could it be that Jimmy Carter's ideals are formulated by the number of zeros before the decimal on the contributions to the Carter Center by oil-rich Gulf States? These same States do not now nor will they ever allow Jews to worship freely within their borders no matter how much land Israel relinquishes. Carter's final plea is for President Barack Obama to "shape a comprehensive peace effort between Israel and the Palestinians….then use persuasion and enticements to reach these reasonable goals with the full backing of other members of the International Quartet [Russia, the UN, the EU, and the United States] and the Arab nations." It is likely he would call on The Elders for their expertise. The best thing President Obama could do is completely ignore Jimmy Carter and his plan. ************ Michael D. Evans, a #1 New York Times bestselling author, is the author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. A television special based on the book is currently being produced (www.carterbooktv.com). Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0800 It was in 1982 that I first met Benjamin Netanyahu. He was a quiet, almost shy young man, unlike the articulate and hawkish Likud Party leader he is today. Our meeting was on the anniversary of the death of his brother, Jonathan, the elite IDF leader shot in the back during "Operation Thunderbolt," the raid on the Entebbe airport in Uganda. Jonathan and a contingent of highly trained Israeli soldiers had dropped into Entebbe to free 105 Jewish hostages taken captive when an Air France Airbus was commandeered by terrorists. Two hostages died in the crossfire during which all eight terrorists were killed. From that painful experience, Benjamin founded the Jonathan Institute on Terror and solidified his worldview on terror. In an interview, he defined the mindset of terrorists, "It's not what we do, but what we are that causes offense to these mad radicals …" Given that definition, how will Mr. Netanyahu, if elected prime minister, and President Barack Obama find common ground, especially since Mr. Obama and his presidential predecessors seem inclined to believe that it is only a matter of what we do? After our meeting I was so impressed with Benjamin that the following day, I asked Prime Minister Begin and his senior advisor Reuben Hecht to offer him a position in government. I said, "Someday this young man will be the prime minister of Israel." Begin smiled and asked the identity of this competing prime minister. I did not relate this to Benjamin until he asked me about the meeting some twenty years later. How the two leaders interact may well be defined by Hillary Clinton, the newly appointed secretary of state, and the influence former President Bill Clinton may have on his wife. It was, after all, Bill Clinton who refused to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu during two pivotal visits to the United States - one in 1997 and the other in 1999. The refusal was interpreted as a blatant attempt to influence elections in Israel. Unfortunately for Benjamin, it worked; he was defeated by Ehud Barak with the help of Bill Clinton's political architect, James Carville. Benjamin and I visited in Israel in 2003 where we were both speakers at an international conference on terror. He asked me if I was going to Tel Aviv to attend a birthday party for Shimon Peres where former President Bill Clinton was to make an appearance. Benjamin suggested that Mr. Clinton had best not stay too long in Israel; his nemesis, Monica Lewinsky, was due to arrive in Tel Aviv shortly. I later learned that Mr. Clinton's relativism and worldview was further revealed as he entertained the crowd at the gala. The former president picked up the microphone and crooned John Lennon's song "Imagine" to the enthralled crowd. Speaking of imagining things, can you imagine the President of the United States, who treated Yasser Arafat as a hero, visiting in the Bible Land (where more suicide bombers have blown up Jews than in any spot on earth) and singing a song that speaks of no heaven, no hell, and all the people living only for today…no countries, nothing to die for, and no possessions, and from this distorted New Age view comes the deduction that the world will live as one? Before the election, Mr. Obama made his feelings about the Likud party known when he said, "I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel". Both men are extremely intelligent and brilliant communicators. It will be interesting to see how these two articulate men interact with each other. It appears that President Obama does not have the chip on his shoulder regarding Benjamin Netanyahu that Bill Clinton had. ********** Michael D. Evans, a #1 New York Times bestselling author, is the author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. A television special based on the book is currently being produced (www.carterbooktv.com). Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0800 Judea Pearl is the father of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street journalist captured by Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan and subsequently beheaded on camera. Mr. Pearl's family said, "Danny's senseless murder lies beyond our comprehension." He was murdered predominately because he was Jewish. Now the secretary of state wants to sit down with the so-called moderate Taliban and Iran, the foxes from the center of gravity of world terror. Hillary Rodham Clinton wishes to invite these groups in the 9/11 chick incubator that is Afghanistan. Ron Silver died of cancer. He was an actor, a Tony Award-winning producer, and a loyal, rabid Democrat…until 9/11. After the al-Qaeda and Taliban-supported attack in the heart of New York City and at the Pentagon, Silver became an outspoken supporter of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder what he would have thought of Hillary Rodham Clinton's latest proposal to include Iran at the negotiating table in talks regarding Afghanistan. Iran was the nation that gave the nineteen hijackers a free pass through its territory on their way to wreak havoc and destruction in America. Where's the outrage? Didn't someone say if you harbor, aid, or fund terror, you are the enemy of the United States? Is this not the nuclear-obsessed Iran? The same Iran that calls Israel a "rotting corpse that will be wiped off the map?" Clinton suggested to President Obama that Iran, Pakistan, and "Taliban moderates" be included in a UN-sponsored, high-level meeting of world leaders. She tendered the recommendation to NATO participants, and suggested Kai Eide, a UN special representative from Norway, as the coordinator of the meeting. Clinton said, "We hope that this meeting could provide an opportunity to reach a common set of principles, perhaps embodied in a chairman's statement, on a common way forward." Later, Clinton added: "It is expected that Iran would be invited as a neighbor of Afghanistan." The U.S. Justice Department has also taken the step in district court in Washington to submit a new outline for detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The filing stated that no longer would it "employ the phrase 'enemy combatant.'" Only those persons who extensively backed "al-Qaeda, Taliban or 'associated forces' would be considered detainable." What kind of signal does this send to the radical fundamentalists we are no longer allowed to label "enemy combatants?" Have President Obama and Hillary Clinton torn a page from Jimmy Carter's book? Have these enemies of the United States suddenly become a "liberation movement?" Has the new administration adopted Liberal Democrat Jimmy Carter's belief that terrorist organizations are simply "human rights movements" and basically good; even the hell-bent 9/11 jihadists? As president, Carter loved to talk to America's enemies; he still does. His mating dance with terrorists, while ascribing to them altruistic acts, legitimizes terrorism and those who carry out such heinous attacks. It appears that Hillary Rodham Clinton is now learning the Carter mating dance. Now that Hillary Rodham Clinton is in a position to both define the terms and control the debate, it seems she is throwing open the door to radical, fanatical enemies of the State and offering them a welcome fit for royalty. America will have hell to pay if these moves are interpreted as fear and weakness in the eyes of radical Islam, thus exposing America's soft underbelly to radical Islamists. ********** Michael D. Evans, a #1 New York Times bestselling author, is the author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. A television special based on the book is currently being produced (www.carterbooktv.com). Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0800 I first met Benjamin Netanyahu in 1982. He was a quiet, almost shy young man, unlike the articulate and hawkish Likud Party leader he is today. Our meeting was on the anniversary of the death of his brother, Jonathan, the elite IDF leader shot in the back during "Operation Thunderbolt," the raid on the Entebbe airport in Uganda. Jonathan and a contingent of highly trained Israeli soldiers had dropped into Entebbe to free 105 Jewish hostages taken captive when an Air France Airbus was commandeered by terrorists. Two hostages died in the crossfire during which all eight terrorists were killed. From that painful experience, Benjamin founded the Jonathan Institute on Terror and solidified his worldview on terror. In an interview, he defined the mindset of terrorists, "It's not what we do, but what we are that causes offense to these mad radicals …" Given that definition, how will Mr. Netanyahu, if elected prime minister, and President Barack Obama find common ground, especially since Mr. Obama and his presidential predecessors seem inclined to believe that it is only a matter of what we do? After our meeting I was so impressed with Benjamin that the following day, I asked Prime Minister Begin and his senior advisor Reuben Hecht to offer him a position in government. I said, "Someday this young man will be the prime minister of Israel." Begin smiled and asked the identity of this competing prime minister. I did not relate this to Benjamin until he asked me about the meeting some twenty years later. How the two leaders interact may well be defined by Hillary Clinton, the newly appointed secretary of state, and the influence former President Bill Clinton may have on his wife. It was, after all, Bill Clinton who refused to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu during two pivotal visits to the United States - one in 1997 and the other in 1999. The refusal was interpreted as a blatant attempt to influence elections in Israel. Unfortunately for Benjamin, it worked; he was defeated by Ehud Barak with the help of Bill Clinton's political architect, James Carville. Benjamin and I visited in Israel in 2003 where we were both speakers at an international conference on terror. He asked me if I was going to Tel Aviv to attend a birthday party for Shimon Peres where former President Bill Clinton was to make an appearance. Benjamin suggested that Mr. Clinton had best not stay too long in Israel; his nemesis, Monica Lewinsky, was due to arrive in Tel Aviv shortly. I later learned that Mr. Clinton's relativism and worldview was further revealed as he entertained the crowd at the gala. The former president picked up the microphone and crooned John Lennon's song "Imagine" to the enthralled crowd. Speaking of imagining things, can you imagine the President of the United States, who treated Yasser Arafat as a hero, visiting in the Bible Land (where more suicide bombers have blown up Jews than in any spot on earth) and singing a song that speaks of no heaven, no hell, and all the people living only for today…no countries, nothing to die for, and no possessions, and from this distorted New Age view comes the deduction that the world will live as one? Before the election, Mr. Obama made his feelings about the Likud party known when he said, "I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel". Both men are extremely intelligent and brilliant communicators. It will be interesting to see how these two articulate men interact with each other. It appears that President Obama does not have the chip on his shoulder regarding Benjamin Netanyahu that Bill Clinton had. ********** Michael D. Evans, a #1 New York Times bestselling author, is the author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. A television special based on the book is currently being produced (www.carterbooktv.com). Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0800 U. N. members are screaming loudly, entreating anyone who will listen to save the terrorist regime, Hamas. The organization has not only murdered Jews, but Palestinians as well. The world should be outraged, yet the silence is deafening, especially after 9/11. "Give me your passport!" I smiled and said, "Little boys, you should be playing with toys, not guns." The two boys, about nine and ten years old, clicked off the safeties on their Russian AK-47s. I suddenly realized I was a dead man if I made one wrong move. It was on October 22, 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon. The following day two hundred forty-one U. S. Marines would be murdered in their barracks. The night before I had videoed the Marines' Christmas messages to their loved ones back in the States. What a shock to see children, or as the liberal media describe them, "innocent civilians," waging Jihad. These children had been trained for years in a radical Islamic kindergarten terror camp. Yesterday, I met with Sderot's mayor Eli Moyal just one mile from the Gaza border where 7,500 Hamas-fired missiles have landed. The mayor's office is a bunker as are many buildings in Sderot. The children's play areas are filled with concrete playground equipment which can double as bunkers in the event of a missile attack. Hezbollah and Hamas, Iran's sub-contractors, have perfected the art of manipulating the media. This has been achieved despite the fact they are rabid, racist, terrorist organizations that make the Ku Klux Klan look like mere Boy Scouts. Some time ago, I debated Al Sharpton on Hardball with Chris Matthews. The topic was Israel's use of what the media labels "excessive force." I said to Mr. Sharpton, "Would you defend the KKK if it fired thousands of missiles into Harlem, and the residents of Harlem responded with what the media perceived to be 'excessive force'?" The media does not want to show hundreds of Israeli trucks crossing into Gaza with medicines and food. Likewise, no one wants to acknowledge that Israeli hospitals in southern Israel continue to treat wounded Palestinians. Neither is it popular to acknowledge that the majority of the injured and dead are Hamas operatives and fighters who surround themselves with innocent civilians, often women and children. During the Hezbollah attack on Israel in 2006, I was shocked to see American liberal reporters stage shots on the roofs of 4- and 5-star hotels in Haifa. These reporters, attired in dress slacks and spit-shined shoes, had donned flak jackets and helmets in order to look as if they were reporting from Lebanon. Most often, their stories were about "innocent Lebanese civilians" being killed. These men and women refused to acknowledge that the missiles were being fired from Hezbollah garages hidden deep in populated areas. One cannot escape the truth that a person is just as dead whether killed by a woman or child, or an adult, male terrorist dressed in a quasi-military uniform. America's greatest threat is from Liberal Left liars and lunatics in the media determined to lull the American people into complacency. Most often, the victims of terror are castigated while the terrorists are lionized. The war on terror cannot be won unless media terror is exposed ********** Dr. Michael D. Evans is a #1 New York Times bestselling author. His latest book is Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0800 President George W. Bush has been blamed for having created the mess in the Middle East during his presidency. The turmoil in the region can be laid squarely at the door of a Democratic president backed by a Democratic Congress. Not Barack Obama, former President Jimmy Carter. It was Carter who abandoned America's strongest ally in the region, the Shah of Iran. The president was determined to push his human rights agenda without any real understanding of the people or history of the region. It was not President Bush who opened Pandora's Box and allowed the genie of terrorism to escape; it was Jimmy Carter. Mr. Carter has set the standard for today's Liberal Left when it comes to shifting focus away from terrorists and onto America's perceived wrongs. When he appears in concert with terrorist leaders in the Middle East, it must surely make their activities seem acceptable. Norman Podhoretz wrote "Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot also had their apologists who saw them as 'nationalists' with 'legitimate grievances.'" Carter's stance was never more obvious than the meetings between him and Hamas leaders in April 2008. Fox News reported: Hamas official Mushir Masri…said the meetings with Carter were proof that Hamas was not a terrorist group, but a national liberation movement. After Carter's election, Ebrahim Yazdi, one of the Ayatollah Khomeini's supporters urged him to "begin to think of the 'new possibilities' that the expected rift between Tehran and Washington might offer." Yazdi, an Iranian-born American citizen, wrote to him in Iraq that 'the Shah's friends in Washington are out.…It is time to act.'" Circumstances dictated that "having picked Khomeini to overthrow the Shah, Carter and the French had to get him out of Iraq, clothe him with respectability, and set him up in Paris." Soon thereafter, Khomeini left Iraq for Paris. There his visitors totaled more than 1000 per day; the French blessed this, or at least, turned a blind eye. His disciples, including a number from American universities, were not coming just to sit at the feet of the "Teacher"; their money-lined pockets were empty when they left Khomeini's presence. Some estimates place the contributions at approximately twenty million British pounds. The Ayatollah's compound was reportedly surrounded by representatives of covert agencies: the CIA, Britain's MI-6, Russia's KGB, and the French intelligence organization, SDECE. CIA memoranda regarding Khomeini seem to have either been deliberately ignored by the Carter administration or lost in the great governmental paperwork shuffle. One memo flatly stated, "Khomeini is determined to overthrow the Shah and is unlikely to accept compromise.…He has cooperated in the past with Islamic terrorist groups." Carter viewed Khomeini as a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution rather than the founding father of modern terrorism. UN ambassador Andrew Young said, "Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint." Iran ambassador William Sullivan, said, "Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure." Adviser James Bill proclaimed in a Newsweek interview in 1979, that Khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of "impeccable integrity and honesty." In the fall of 1978, President Carter appointed diplomat George Ball to do an independent, classified study on the Shah and make recommendations to Carter. While formulating his report Ball met with Israeli Ambassador to Iran Uri Lubrani and Security Council member Gary Sick. Sick and Ball were most interested in Lubrani's sources for a report on Iran which he had forwarded to Moshe Dayan. Lubrani later told me Carter was to blame, to some extent, for the current state of affairs in Iran. Ball's assessment of the Shah's precarious position was underlined by such inclusions in his report as: We urgently need to open a disavowable channel of communication with [Khomeini] or his entourage. In the midst of the turmoil in Iran, Carter asked for a meeting on the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe. Invitations were issued by French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing to West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and British Prime Minister James Callaghan. Giscard d'Estaing related to me: "Carter told us suddenly that the United States had decided not to support the régime of the Shah anymore." Giscard expressed his shock at Carter's lack of regard for a country that had been a close ally for decades: "We were humanly shocked by the way Carter spoke because we knew at the end it would lead to the torture or the killing of the Shah…[Carter] was a bastard of conscience, a moralist, who treats with total lightness the fact of abandoning a man that we had supported together." With the Shah's departure from Iran Khomeini's entourage prepared to return to Tehran. A jumbo jet was chartered from Air France for 3 million dollars plus an undisclosed sum to cover insurance for the aircraft. The crew was comprised of volunteers. On the plane with Khomeini and a contingent of terrorists were dozens of journalists, including a young ABC reporter, Peter Jennings. During the flight Jennings is said to have asked the Imam, "What do you feel [about returning to Iran]?" Khomeini replied, "Nothing" - a strange answer from a man whose life had been consumed with overthrowing the Shah. Khomeini's coup d'état turned out to be the incarceration of 52 American hostages for the final 444 days of Carter's term. During marathon negotiating sessions in the wee hours of January 20, 1981, Carter made a last-ditch effort to secure the release of the hostages. Finally, the Bank of England was approved as the repository of escrow funds. Shortly after 4:00 AM on Inauguration Day, the Carter administration relinquished $7.977 billion to the Iranians. Sources say the transfer required fourteen banks and the participation of five nations acting concurrently. It was thought U.S. aid to the Afghanistan Mujahedeen was initiated in 1980. Not so; according to a document declassified on March 4, 2004, President Carter signed the directive on July 3, 1979, approving covert assistance to anti-Soviet rebels in Kabul. In 1980 the Afghan rebels received a $30 million infusion from the Carter administration. The ante was raised in Carter's 1981 budget to $50 million. It marked a rise in significant aid for the resistance from international sources. Liberal Democrat Jimmy Carter apparently believes evil really does not exist. Terrorist organizations are simply human rights movements; people are basically good; and America should embrace the perpetrators while castigating the victims. As president, Carter loved to talk to America's enemies; he still does. His mating dance with terrorists, while ascribing to them altruistic acts, legitimizes terrorism and those who carry out such heinous attacks. Jimmy Carter is among the number clamoring to change the worldview of terrorists from mass murderers of the innocent to "insurgents" or "liberation movements." He is quick to indict the U.S. at every opportunity and to champion the downtrodden suicide bombers as "martyrs." Now the trillion-dollar question has become: Will President Obama become another Jimmy Carter? ********** Michael D. Evans, a #1 New York Times bestselling author, is the author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. A television special based on the book is currently being produced (www.carterbooktv.com). Join us now at the National Prayer Campaign Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0800 On January 20, 2009 Jimmy Carter announced a new plan for peace in the Middle East and appealed to President Barack Obama to implement that plan. He met with Obama just days before the inauguration to attempt to sway him about what the former president called an "unnecessary war" in Gaza. Carter has long been a vocal proponent of establishing an ongoing relationship with Hamas' terrorist leaders. It appears his influence has already made inroads in Obama's Middle East policy plans. Today's society is replete with makeovers, everything from extreme home makeovers to extreme people makeovers; everything from plastic surgery, to botox, to liposuction and other cosmetic enhancements. However, one of the most extreme makeovers took place in France in the late 1970s when the dour Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was transformed almost overnight into a VIP, the darling of the liberal Western media. Khomeini received the make-over of all times. This son of an Indian fortune-teller was stripped of his past. His father became the leader of the Khomeini clan who, supposedly, was murdered by Pahlavi's father. Khomeini graduated from second-rate mullah to academic and renowned holy man. If he was the Eliza Doolittle of this scenario, who was the Henry Higgins? What country (or countries) was so determined to unseat the Shah that it was willing to undertake the transformation? Dominique Lorenz, a journalist for the French Libération, wrote that "having picked Khomeini to overthrow the Shah, [the Americans] had to get him out of Iraq, clothe him with respectability, and set him up in Paris; a succession of events which could not have occurred if the leadership in France had been against it." In France, Khomeini's Iranian visitors totaled more than one thousand per day, all of whom the French blessed or, at the very least, turned a blind eye. The Ayatollah became the "Guru of Hate" as he shared his vitriolic dislike for the Shah with all who would listen and learn. These disciples, including a number from various American universities, were not coming just to sit at the feet of the "Teacher" and learn; their pockets, lined with money collected through the Bazaar, the commercial system in Iran, were empty when they left Khomeini's presence. Some estimates place the contributions at approximately twenty million British pounds. The Ayatollah's compound was reportedly surrounded by representatives of covert agencies from the major powers: the CIA, Britain's MI-6, Russia's KGB, and the French intelligence organization, SDECE. One has to wonder why an unknown, uncultured, old cleric was the focus of such attention. Intelligence officers from Israel, France and the U.S. stated that the U.S. government wrote checks to Khomeini while he was in Paris in increments of approximately $150 million each. They were delivered through the CIA. One man with whom I spoke stated, "Jimmy Carter should have been tried for treason for aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States." Carter perceived Khomeini more as a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution than the founding father of modern terrorism. Carter's ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, said, "Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint." Carter's Iranian ambassador, William Sullivan, said, "Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure." Carter adviser James Bill proclaimed in a Newsweek interview on February 12, 1979, that Khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of "impeccable integrity and honesty." In the midst of the turmoil in Iran or perhaps because of it, President Carter called for a summit on the French Republic island of Guadeloupe in the Caribbean. Invited to meet with Carter in January 1979 were French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing, West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, and British Prime Minister James Callaghan. In his memoir, Answer to History, the Shah wrote: "Giscard said they hoped to 'evaluate the situation of the world,' with special emphasis on events in the eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. I believe that during those meetings the French and West Germans agreed with the British and the American proposals for my ouster." It was at Guadeloupe, according to D'Estaing, that Carter showed his hand in favor of the ouster of the Shah. Giscard d'Estaing expressed his shock at Carter's lack of regard for a country that had been a close ally for decades: We were humanly shocked by the way Carter spoke because we knew at the end it would lead to the torture or the killing of the Shah. And he [Carter] was not embarrassed at all; no, no, he spoke very lightly of a man that we supported very strongly.…He [Carter] was a bastard of conscience, a moralist, who treats with total lightness the fact of abandoning a man that we had supported together. At least you need to have some emotion. And we didn't have any discussion.…It was, "We have decided." Is Jimmy Carter guilty of treason? In more recent times, he has thumbed his nose at the State Department after having been asked not to meet with leaders of Hamas. Mr. Carter drooled all over Yasser Arafat and went so far as to help him write a speech designed to influence opinion in the terrorist's favor. Mr. Carter has betrayed the trust of the American people by purporting to represent its government in terrorist lairs; he has denounced the United States and its leaders in the presence of enemy combatants and terrorist leaders. If not guilty of treason, Mr. Carter is at the very best a quisling, a collaborator with the enemy. Vedkum Quisling was a Norwegian politician who ordered all armed resistance to the Nazi invasion to cease, and gave Norway into the hands of the Germans during World War II. His name is now synonymous with the words "collaborator" and "traitor." How far will Mr. Carter go in order to make a name for himself? ********** Michael D. Evans, a #1 New York Times bestselling author, is the author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. A television special based on the book is currently being produced (www.carterbooktv.com). Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0800 In June 1976, during the only major address on the Middle East of his entire presidential campaign, Jimmy Carter stressed that a pre-condition to peace in the region must be a change in Arab attitude toward Israel. Carter emphasized that such a change must be reflected by tangible and concrete actions, and not just empty words. Among the necessary alterations must be: Recognition of Israel; diplomatic relations with Israel; an end to hostile propaganda against Israel.[i] Unfortunately nothing has changed since the Carter years. Principals are still demanding that the Arab countries recognize Israel's right to exist prior to negotiations, and Arab leaders continue to refuse. In his speech, Carter specifically addressed the Palestinian problem by indicating that "there ought to be territories ceded for the use of the Palestinians. I think they should be part of Jordan and be administered by Jordan. I think that half of the people of Jordan are Palestinians. That would be my preference."[ii] Once ensconced in the Oval Office, however, Carter's Middle East policy contrasted sharply to his pre-election discourse. The president and his counselors predicated talks on the belief that the key to lasting peace in the Middle East was to force Israel to return to the pre-1967 borders. These advisors also cautioned Carter of the necessity for Palestinian self-rule and a pledge of security for the nations of Israel. Then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin considered the American leader to be openly hostile to Israel, and the Israeli leader's suspicions of Carter only grew stronger after the two men met in Washington in March 1977. The Israeli prime minister, though toughened by years of anti-Israel sentiment, was nevertheless stunned by Carter's about-face. Rabin's anger grew exponentially later that month when Carter spoke in Massachusetts. During his speech, the president urged a "homeland for the Palestinians."[iii] The Carter contingent demanded Soviet involvement in the process, something that neither Egypt nor its neighbor, Israel, favored. It was diametrically opposite of the Richard Nixon-Henry Kissinger shuttle diplomacy efforts. After a six-hour emergency meeting of Sadat's cabinet on October 3, 1977, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ismail Fahmy personally handed Secretary of State Cyrus Vance a message from Sadat to Jimmy Carter. Although the content of the note was not divulged, the Egyptian media soon left no room for speculation: Sadat objected to what he saw as Carter's decision to impose a renewed Soviet role in the Middle East peace process.[iv] It was ultimately Egyptian president Anwar Sadat who circumvented Carter and thwarted Soviet participation. Following the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Sadat determined that the old "business as usual" approach to Israel was simply not working. He began to search for ways in which the two neighboring countries might reach détente. With the backing of Nixon and Kissinger, Sadat signed two separate disengagement agreements with Israel. Sadat sealed the agreements by agreeing to travel to Israel in 1977. The meeting in Jerusalem between the two disparate leaders achieved a second, and perhaps unintended, object; it effectively halted Carter's ill-advised plan to hold a peace conference in Geneva with full Soviet participation. After his election in June 1977, Menachem Begin wished to meet with Sadat; he did not want to rely only on Carter's negotiating skills to make that happen. He sent General Yitzhak Hofi to Morocco to meet with King Hassan. Hofi was surprised to see Sadat's confidant and senior cabinet minister, Muhammad Hassan el-Tuhamy, in attendance. His presence was sufficient proof that Sadat was at least willing to explore a separate peace agreement with Israel. The meeting set the precedent for further discussions between Egypt and Israel, none of which were arranged by Jimmy Carter. Sadat's acquiescence to a meeting with Begin in Israel signaled the first measurable change between the two countries. It was a courageous move by both men. Carter, however, continued to hinder any real progress between the two countries with pronouncements such as "a separate peace agreement between Egypt and Israel is not desirable." Simply translated, it was not "desirable" if Mr. Carter failed to get the credit. The president's own disastrous foreign policy gaffes in Panama, Nicaragua, and Iran, coupled with the abysmal economic situation at home, produced desperation. In 1980, the president determined to push his way into the Middle East peace process by inviting Sadat and Begin to Camp David for a political rendezvous. Much has been written of the thirteen days of negotiations between the two leaders. But how did Jimmy Carter view his role at Camp David? Was he an interested bystander? Was he a catalyst? Was he an intermediary? Carter perceived his role to be that of an agent of change. Certainly he had a vested interest in the signing of a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. Carter could achieve two major goals at Camp David: the salvation of his presidency and a huge political step toward stability in the Middle East. Despite the president's skillful maneuvering of the two protagonists he was forced to avoid one of the major items on his own agenda - a Palestinian state. Once foiled, forever on the offensive; that failure continues to haunt Mr. Carter even today as he unerringly supports the terrorist factions of Hamas and Hezbollah that now inhabit the Palestinian territory. The real story behind Camp David is not Jimmy Carter's prowess as a negotiator; it is the determination of two old warhorses to hammer out an agreement that just might have been good for both their homelands. Perhaps the two leaders men knew intrinsically what Carter and his successors have never grasped: The Palestinian issue is the death knell to any possible lasting peace agreement in the Middle East, not the starting point. [i] Samuel Segev, Jimmy Carter: Foreign Policy and Post-Presidential Years (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994), p. 125. [ii] Ibid, p. 125 [iii] Ibid [iv] Segev, Sadat - The Road to Peace, p. 45. Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0800 Nothing reflects the divisiveness between the two cultures better than the reaction to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's tirade at the Durban Review Conference in Geneva, Switzerland. The Muslim world cheered; delegates from twenty-four Western countries rose as one body and marched to the exit. The diminutive despot chose April 20, 2009, the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, to call for the decimation of Israel. He appealed to the assembly to encourage and support the fight to eradicate what he called Israel's "barbaric racism. Efforts must be made to put an end to Zionism," intoned the fanatical Ahmadinejad. We must not forget that eradicate means to exterminate. The leader gave a nod to what was to be the central point of the conference, human rights worldwide; then he zeroed in on the West and berated what he characterized as the evils of Zionism. He had the audacity to minimize the horrors suffered by the Jewish people during World War II by labeling the Holocaust the "pretext of Jewish suffering." Prior to the opening ceremonies of the conference, Germany, Australia, Canada, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Israel and the United States sent their regrets. During Ahmadinejad's speech dozens of delegates rose and marched out in protest including Britain, France, Greece, Portugal, Spain, and a number of other countries. While Ahmadinejad decried the behavior of those who exited the hall as "rude", he had no problem being interrupted with applause by delegates from some Muslim countries including Iran and Pakistan. Outside the conference setting pro-Jewish organizations reverently recited the names of some of the six million people who perished in the Holocaust. A statement issued by the U.S. called the Iranian's remarks "hateful." Robert Gibbs, White House press secretary, told reporters: "Obviously, the president disagrees vehemently with what was said, as, from some of the video I saw, so did many others." Although UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had asked Ahmadinejad not to cause disruption and division with his comments, he was sorely disappointed. Ban pointed out that the comments were used "to accuse, divide and even incite." Even as Ahmadinejad was holding court in Geneva, a solemn ceremony was being conducted at Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial in Israel. President Shimon Peres called Ahmadinejad's trip to Geneva "a deplorable disgrace." He said, "The conference opening today in Geneva constitutes an acceptance of racism, rather than the fight against it, and its main speaker is Ahmadinejad, who calls for the annihilation of Israel and denies the Holocaust." Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu paid tribute to those countries that chose not to give their seal of approval to the events in Geneva. Netanyahu vowed, ""We will not let the Holocaust deniers perpetrate another holocaust on the Jewish people," he said. "This is the highest responsibility of the State of Israel and of myself as prime minister." One has to question why the United Nations provided a venue for a head of state who leads a country where methodical and organized tyranny is practiced daily, a country where women are cruelly subjugated. It is horrifying to think that the rhetoric spouted during yesterday's speech was delivered by the man who controls a country on the brink of becoming a nuclear power. Iran will soon have the tools to attempt to carry out its threats to wipe Israel off the map. The leaders of this superpower wanna-be are motivated by an evil and deep-seated hatred for all things the Western world represents - freedom and choice among them. This is a dogma that can't be ignored by those so wishful for adulation that they will turn a blind eye to the nature of the beast in order affect change. Ahmadinejad is a fanatical leader whose only emotions are hatred and vengeance. This is why delegates from twenty-four countries rose as one and marched out of the conference in Geneva, Switzerland on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day. ********** Michael D. Evans, a #1 New York Times bestselling author, is the author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. A television special based on the book is currently airing (www.carterbooktv.com). Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0800 It has been almost ten years since President Bill Clinton rebuffed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a trip to the U.S. In 1999, Clinton refused to meet with the Israeli leader, and was in many ways instrumental in bringing about the election of Ehud Barak. Now, Netanyahu is faced with having to deal with another Clinton whose Middle East policies resemble those of Jimmy Carter. Mr. Carter has set the standard and provided the training for today's Liberal Left when it comes to shifting the focus away from terrorists and their deadly activities and onto America's perceived wrongs. After all, if the former president appears in concert with terrorist leaders in the Middle East, it must surely make their activities acceptable. As Norman Podhoretz wrote on CommentaryMagazine.com, "Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot also had their apologists who saw them as 'nationalists' with 'legitimate grievances.'"[i] This was never more obvious than the meetings between the former president and Hamas leaders in April 2008. Fox News reported: Hamas official Mushir Masri, in a fiery speech…to thousands of Hamas supporters in Gaza, said the meetings with Carter were proof that Hamas was not a terrorist group, but a national liberation movement.[ii] Comatose is the state in which the Liberal Left leaders have most often found themselves. For instance, Carter shilly-shallied over the Soviets and the Shah of Iran; Clinton turned ostrich when confronted with terrorism. Rather than take a strong stand, each man adopted the tactics of appeasement to the detriment of the United States. Whether one chooses the quotation from Edmund Burke ("All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.") or from Albert Einstein ("The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."[iii]), there is one absolute: evil will flourish if not met head-on and conquered. Jimmy Carter was absolutely right in his assessment: the American people had suffered a "crisis of confidence[iv]" during his White House tenure - not in the nation - but in its leadership. In her address to the Republican National Convention in 1984, Kirkpatrick put her finger precisely on the problem when she declared: "The Carter administration's motives were good, but their policies were inadequate, uninformed, and mistaken. They made things worse not better. Those who had least suffered most. Poor countries grew poorer. Rich countries grew poorer too. The United States grew weaker…the Soviet Union grew stronger.…Those were the years the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in Iran."[v] Only time will tell if President Barack Obama proves to be even more liberal and left than was Jimmy Carter, or if Hillary Clinton will embrace Bill Clinton's animosity toward Benjamin Netanyahu. During the election campaign, Obama stated one of his first goals as president would be to sit down and negotiate with the rogue leaders of such countries as Iran and Syria. The despotic heads of those countries and others like them are looking for any microscopic evidence of weakness on the part of an American president. Hillary Clinton has said the United States would "vigorously pursue a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", and called for "urgent action by Arabs, Israelis and the international community to break the cycle of Mideast violence and to move toward a comprehensive peace in the region." In other words, she has embraced Jimmy Carter's proposed peace plan. This latest Carter plan is no more and no less than the old Road Map Peace Plan/Shelf Agreement dressed up in "The Emperor's New Clothes," and every bit as transparent. It is not a "new" plan at all; it is the same tired "old" plan to force Israel to return to its1967 borders, give Judea and Samaria to the Palestinian Authority, divide Jerusalem, and present East Jerusalem to the terrorists as the new capital of the Palestinian state. Just as Carter ascribes altruistic acts to Hamas and Hezbollah, so his plan legitimizes terrorism and those who carry out such heinous attacks. It is reminiscent of the former President's plan to remove America's greatest Muslim ally the Shah of Iran from power; consider the chaos that caused. The Middle East today suffers from Carter's political machinations during his presidency. Mr. Carter has set the standard and provided the training for today's Liberal Left when it comes to shifting the focus away from terrorists and their deadly activities and onto America's perceived wrongs. After all, if the former President appears in concert with terrorist leaders in the Middle East, it must surely appear to make their activities acceptable. Jimmy Carter is among the number clamoring to change the worldview of these terrorists from that of mass murders of the innocent to "insurgents" or a "liberation movement." He is quick to indict the U.S. at every opportunity; and equally quick to champion the downtrodden suicide bombers, or to be in sync with the Liberal Left…"martyrs." Now he will be joined by Hillary Rodham Clinton and her Middle East minion, George Mitchell who will serve as an undersecretary in the state department. Mitchell headed a commission to determine the cause of the second intifada (aka, the Oslo War.) Among the conclusions of his commission were: the Israeli security forces were not seriously threatened by Palestinians armed with molotov cocktails; the PLO had not made a concerted effort to halt terrorism against Israel; and the IDF had killed enemy combatants during an armed confrontation. The commission did not address the fact that the PLO spent nearly seven years readying its schools, media and security forces for a vicious confrontation with Israel. It gave the PLO a slap on the wrist for "positioning gunmen with or near civilian dwellings." The commission suggested that Israel allow Palestinians entry into Israel to return to their jobs, and pay the salaries of the PLO fighters at war with Israel. In its reported suggestions which would have left Israel amazingly vulnerable, Mr. Mitchell's commission made no mention of the Palestinian Authority having "amassed 50,000 weapons, more than they are supposed to have, in clear violation of the written Oslo accords." Apparently, it was permissible for Yasser Arafat to defy the Oslo edicts because he was a "freedom fighter." Israel, however, though obviously targeted by terrorist attacks was supposed to simply turn the other cheek. It is obvious, to me at least, that as Israel's leader, Benjamin Netanyahu will once again have to face an administration and state department determined to force Israel back to the bargaining table. The truth remains: It is impossible to reason with the unreasonable, with those who want Israel wiped off the map. [i] Nathan Podhoretz, CommentaryMagazine.com, "A Response to Andrew Sullivan," November 19, 2007, http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/podhoretz/1340. (Accessed April 2008.) [ii] "Carter-HAMAS Meeting comes on 25th Anniversary of Deadly Terror Attack," Fox News, April 18, 2008, http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendlly_story/0,3566,351717,00.html. (Accessed April 2008.) [iii] www.wisdomquotes.com. (Accessed April 2008.) [iv] Jimmy Carter, "Crisis of Confidence" speech, July 15, 1979, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_crisis.html. (Accessed April 2008.) [v] Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Ambassador to the United Nations, Republican National Convention 1984, http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/san.diego/facts/GOP.speeches.past/84.kirkpatrick.shtml. (Accessed April 2008.) [1] Nathan Podhoretz, CommentaryMagazine.com, "A Response to Andrew Sullivan," November 19, 2007, http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/podhoretz/1340. (Accessed April 2008.) [1] "Carter-HAMAS Meeting comes on 25th Anniversary of Deadly Terror Attack," Fox News, April 18, 2008, http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendlly_story/0,3566,351717,00.html. (Accessed April 2008.) [1] www.wisdomquotes.com. (Accessed April 2008.) [1] Jimmy Carter, "Crisis of Confidence" speech, July 15, 1979, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_crisis.html. (Accessed April 2008.) [1] Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Ambassador to the United Nations, Republican National Convention 1984, http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/san.diego/facts/GOP.speeches.past/84.kirkpatrick.shtml. (Accessed April 2008.) Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0800 President Barack Obama spoke directly to the Iranian people recently in an endeavor to engage that country in direct talks. I believe he is making a terrible mistake. It appears he is attempting to appease the fanatical leaders in that rogue nation in the same way Jimmy Carter did. Radical Islamic terrorists worldwide will surely interpret this as a sign of fear and weakness on the part of our new commander-in-chief. It could embolden them to strike America yet again. Mr. Obama is following the pattern set by Jimmy Carter when the former president abandoned long-time ally Shah Reza Pahlavi and engaged Ayatollah Khomeini in covert talks while the leader of the Islamic revolution was ensconced in Paris in 1979. Carter opened a "disavowable" channel of communication through contacts in the U.S. in an effort to use diplomacy to build bridges with the Ayatollah's revolutionary movement in Iran. The only thing Carter created was a 444-day living hell for fifty-two American hostages held captive by Iranian terrorists, not to mention his loss of a second term as president. He was ultimately forced to distribute $7.9 billion to the Iranians from the Federal Reserve through a series of bank transactions on the day of Ronald Reagan's inauguration. He signed an Algiers Accord that prevented the U.S. from future intervention in Iranian affairs, and kept the hostages from suing for reparations. Our high-tech, twenty-first century president followed his nationwide appearance on late night television's Jay Leno Show to push his stimulus package to Americans with a YouTube and White House website broadcast offering a "new day" to the Iranian people. How many Iranians do you suppose were gathered around their flat-screen computer monitors waiting with bated breath to hear the forty-fourth president offer his message of appeasement? Just as Jimmy Carter attempted to look Rooseveltian by donning a cardigan for a fireside chat directed at the American people, so Mr. Obama has adopted the modern technical tools of the trade in order to get his message across to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his radical cohorts. His aim was to engage the Iranian people; only time will determine if he was successful, or if he, like Mr. Carter has only broadcast his weakness rather than strength. And, we must note that many sites such as YouTube are blocked from broadcast in Iran. It will likely not be as effective a tool as was Khomeini's use of old-fashioned cassette tapes to infuse the Iranians with revolution. The liberal Mr. Obama was joined in his pursuit by the liberal Israeli president, Shimon Peres. Each man appealed to the nobler of the Iranians, which most certainly does not include the likes of the fanatical Ahmadinejad and supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who continues to call Israel a "cancerous tumor" that is on the verge of collapse and has called for its destruction. Unfortunately for President Obama, the Iranians have a long history with the United States, and an even longer memory. Ahmadinejad is now engaged in making his list of injustices perpetrated by the United States on the poor, mistreated country of Iran. Said the diminutive Iranian president, "We cannot simply forget what the U.S. did to our nation. They need to perceive what wrong orientation they had and make serious efforts to make up for it." The real truth is that such slogans as "Death to America" can still be heard floating over those amassed for Friday prayers in Tehran. Iran turned a blind eye while many of the nineteen 9/11 perpetrators crossed its territory on their way to target Americans with death and destruction. It has provided IEDs by the truckload to be used against our troops in Iraq. But of course, no one bothered to mention those little facts. The sobering question is, "How far will President Obama go to appease the Iranians?" One can only hope he will not adopt the tactics used by Mr. Carter who ultimately uncorked the bottle which held the genii of terrorism, and unleashed it on an unsuspecting world. ******** Michael D. Evans, a #1 New York Times bestselling author, is the author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. A television special based on the book is currently being produced (www.carterbooktv.com). Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0800 In the words of Ronald Reagan during the second Reagan-Carter debate in 1980, "There you go again!" Jimmy Carter was not content to skew the facts in Palestine Peace not Apartheid; he is at it again in his latest book, We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land. A recent opinion piece in the Washington Times outlined Carter's inequities in the manuscript regarding two former prime ministers, Menachem Begin and Benjamin Netanyahu. The Begin Center Diary, an authorized blogspot for the Begin Center, applauded the Times article for setting the record straight. On the subject of dividing Jerusalem, Mr. Carter wrote that Menachem Begin viewed the possibility favorably. Nothing could have been further from accurate. I was a confidant to Mr. Begin; he gave me a copy of a letter he had written to President Carter on September 17, 1978. In the letter, Begin penned, "On the basis of this law, the government of Israel decreed in July 1967 that Jerusalem is one city indivisible, the capital of the State of Israel." That doesn't sound like Mr. Begin wished to divide Jerusalem to placate Mr. Carter. The former president wrote that Begin agreed to a freeze on building Jewish settlements. Again, not true. Begin told me he had only agreed to a three-month moratorium on building, from September 17 to December 17, 1978. Carter also targets Benjamin Netanyahu who is certainly no friend to the Liberal Left. He writes that in 1976 this Israeli leader was a "naysayer" who opposed returning control of the Sinai to Egypt. I ask you: How could Netanyahu have been a naysayer in 1976? He was working as a salesman in the U.S. while pursuing his education. It was in 1982, on the anniversary of his brother, Jonathan's, death as leader of the raid on the Entebbe airport in Uganda to free Jewish hostages that I prayed and wept with Benjamin. I was so impressed with him that the following day, I asked Prime Minister Begin and his senior advisor (and my dear friend) Reuben Hecht to offer him a position in government. I said, "Someday this young man will be the prime minister of Israel." Begin smiled and asked the identity of this competing Prime Minister. I did not relate this to Benjamin until some twenty years later. As with the inaccuracies in Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, Mr. Carter seems to weave fact and fiction with a weary old plan to achieve peace in the Middle East and hope that he can, at least, fool some of the people some of the time. As is the norm in any initiative for Middle East Peace, Mr. Carter's miraculous "new" plan demands much of Israel and very little of the Palestinians. While Jimmy Carter seems to view Israelis as the radicals in the Middle East, he exposes his soft underbelly where the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria are concerned. Carter believes Israel will live happily ever after with the Arab world by simply giving terrorist regimes their land. I am reminded of the question I asked Benjamin Netanyahu at the Madrid Peace Conference: "For human rights not to be biased, "I said, "Jews would have the same freedom as Arabs regarding settling in territories if they chose to do so, be it Riyadh of Amman, etc. Has there been any discussion on that?" Netanyahu replied, "On the question of individual rights of Arabs and Jews, there is no symmetry now. That is, if Arabs desire to live among Jews, as they do and they have a right to, Jews should have the right to live among Arabs. The fact is that no Jews are allowed to live in Jordan or Saudi Arabia, and that is the kind of conception, an apartheid peace if you will, that we cannot tolerate and that no one should tolerate in the closing part of this century." And yet, it was Jimmy Carter who in a previous book accused Israel of being an apartheid state. When Mr. Carter's tired and trite commentary is exposed to the light of day, it will be easily seen that there is truly nothing new under the sun. ********** Michael D. Evans, a #1 New York Times bestselling author, is the author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. A television special based on the book is currently being produced (www.carterbooktv.com). Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0800 Evans: How do you see the current Iranian nuclear situation? Netanyahu: Iran could inspire three hundred million Shia to a religious war—first against other Arabs, then against the West. They don't hate you because of us; they hate us because of you. They don't hide the fact that they intend to take on the West. We have to have our eyes on the two objectives: one, to take care of Iran, especially Iran's part in Lebanon and Gaza; and two, deal with Iran's nuclear missile program. Iran must not arm itself with weapons of mass destruction. Evans: We have proxies that are attacking your country, and no one is using the word "Iran" any longer. Is it possible that if America sleeps that America could be experiencing proxies coming across our borders? Netanyahu: Up until now, nuclear weapons have been in the hands of responsible regimes. You have one regime that apparently has them now in North Korea. There aren't a billion North Koreans that seek to inspire a religious war. That's what Iran could do. It could inspire the two hundred million Shiites. That's what they intend to do—inspire them into a religious war, first against other Muslims, then against the West. They say we are the "Small Satan" and that America is the "Great Satan." Europe is the "Middle-Sized Satan." It is important to understand that they could impose a direct threat to Europe and to the United States—and to Israel, obviously. They don't hide it. They don't even hide the fact that they intend to take on the West. Evans: On 9/11 you spoke to the nation and you described 9/11 as a "wake-up call from hell." What would America look like and what could happen to our nation if Iran goes nuclear? Netanyahu: Iran has said in unequivocal terms that first of all its target is Israel and they do it with a particular brand of malevolence because they deny that the Holocaust took place—the murder of six million Jews—while they're openly declaring their intention to create another holocaust to destroy the six million Jews of Israel. Number one, Israel could be in great jeopardy. Number two, so will everybody else. And number three, of course, is the ability of Iran to use its nuclear arsenal and its missile arsenal to threaten Europe and the U.S. directly. You can't count on the ayatollahs of the world, armed with nuclear weapons, to back off. They often prefer their zeal over their survival. This is a different ideology; it is a different threat. Iran must not be allowed to be armed. It is the new barbarians who are seeking the weapons of mass death, and we have all been forewarned. This is another wake-up call. That's all it is. EVANS: Are saying there is an Islamic faction that would prefer a mushroom cloud in Israel and America, a world without Zionism and America, and that somehow they think we are all going to submit to Islam? Netanyahu: That's what they want; it's not a preference. It's like they are ordered to do it. This is the danger of this creed. It's not a choice; it is almost like an order from Allah. That's why these people are willing to commit suicide. This is probably the first time that such a mad militancy on a global scale would seek to acquire weapons of mass death. ********** Michael D. Evans, a #1 New York Times bestselling author, is the author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. A television special based on the book is currently being produced (www.carterbooktv.com). Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0800 President Barack Obama spoke directly to the Iranian people Friday, March 20, in an endeavor to engage that country in direct talks. He wished Iran and its leaders a Happy New Year at the start of the Persian holiday Nowruz. It marked the beginning of Spring and the Iranian new year. Obama’s greeting came after three decades of strained relations between the two countries. It was the first "Happy New Year” speech made by any president since Jimmy Carter delivered his greeting to the Shah of Iran On December 21, 1977. In fact, while at the home of Farah Pahlavi, the wife of the late Shah, while visiting with her outside Washington, D.C., I noticed on her coffee table, a beautiful Persian album. She opened it to the page where Jimmy Carter had written a New Year’s greeting more than thirty years ago. President Obama offered the Iranian people greater opportunities for "partnership and commerce” and said, "We know that you are a great civilization, and your accomplishments have earned the respect of the United States and the world.” Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenie rejected Obama’s offer. He demanded the U.S. revamp it foreign policy which, he reiterated, would include terminating "unconditional support" for Israel and a cessation of claims that Iran seeks nuclear arms. Iran insists its nuclear program is only for peaceful energy purposes. Khamenei challenged the president, "Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials?” While the Ayatollah delivered his scathing rhetoric in the northeastern city of Mashhad, the crowd gathered around him chanted "Death to America." On April 1, 1979 "Death to America” chants were also heard from the crowds surrounding the American Embassy in Iran. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, responsible for the rise of the Islamic revolution, declared it the "first day of the government of God.” It was to become the birthday of radical Islam. That inauspicious day thirty years ago has become the great crisis of the twenty-first century. How could it happen that a little-known, exiled cleric could take the world by storm? One answer could center in the fact that a CIA memo from 1972 revealed: "While in Iraq, Khomeini began working closely with the Islamic Terrorist Group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (the People’s Strugglers). In late 1972 Khomeini issued a religious declaration, or Fatwa, that enjoined faithful Shia to support the Mujahedeen and called for the devout to provide funds for their use. The money was raised from the ulema (Muslim scholars trained in Islamic law) and in the bazaars and funneled to Khomeini, who in turn gave it to the terrorists.” The Carter administration failed to pinpoint Khomeini as a possible source of turmoil in the Middle East. After all, he was revered as a holy man. "U.S. Ambassador William Sullivan even compared Khomeini to Mahatma Gandhi, and Andrew Young termed the radical cleric a ‘twentieth-century saint.’” Surely a religious man could do little harm in political circles in the Persian Gulf region. Khomeini decided in October 1978 to leave Najaf, Iraq for the greener pastures of Neauphle-le-Chateau just outside Paris. It was in France, that most cosmopolitan of countries, that Khomeini received the make-over of all time. Dominique Lorenz, a journalist for the French Libération, wrote that "having picked Khomeini to overthrow the Shah, [the Americans] had to get him out of Iraq, clothe him with respectability, and set him up in Paris; a succession of events which could not have occurred if the leadership in France had been against it.” In November of 1978 former diplomat and Johnson Administration Undersecretary of State George Ball was engaged to do an independent and classified study on the Shah and make recommendations to the Carter administration. Among the suggestions in the Ball Report was the need to "…open a disavowable channel of communication with [Khomeini] or his entourage” and a recommendation that "The Shah must announce unequivocally that he is transferring all civil power to a civilian government coalition.” The opening days of 1979 found three world leaders in a meeting on the island of Guadeloupe. Although Carter prompted the meeting, ostensibly for him "and the leaders of Britain, France, and West Germany to talk informally about strategic and economic problems,” the invitations were issued by French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing to West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and British Prime Minister James Callaghan. During the meeting of the three European heads of state, President d’Estaing was amazed to hear Jimmy Carter’s announcement that "…the United States had decided not to support the régime of the Shah anymore. Without that support, that régime is now lost.” In my interview with the former French president, he described Carter as "a bastard of conscience, a moralist, who treats with total lightness the fact of abandoning a man that we had supported together.” In France, Khomeini’s visitors totaled more than one thousand per day, all of whom the French blessed or, at the very least, turned a blind eye. Two of Khomeini’s visitors in France were Farouk Kaddoumi, PLO department head, and a Libyan representative of Muammar al-Qaddafi. Khomeini tendered arms and money in support of the revolution. Soon after, Radio Tripoli broadcast messages in Persian to Khomeini backers in Iran, and PLO terrorists were dispatched to Tehran. The Ayatollah’s compound was reportedly surrounded by representatives of covert agencies from the major powers: the CIA, Britain’s MI-6, Russia’s KGB, and the French intelligence organization, SDECE. On February 1, 1979, a jumbo jet was chartered from Air France for the mere pittance of $3 million dollars plus an undisclosed sum to cover the insurance premium for the aircraft. The crew that manned the Tehran-bound airliner was comprised totally of volunteers. On the plane with Khomeini was a young ABC reporter, Peter Jennings. During the flight Jennings is said to have asked the Imam, "What do you feel [about returning to Iran]?” Khomeini replied, "Nothing.” In his attempt to reach out to the Islamic Republic, President Barack Obama called for Iran to take its rightful place among the nations. To the fanatical leaders in the former Persian nation, Iran’s "rightful place” is at the head of a worldwide caliphate with every individual bowing a knee to Islam. Mr. Obama seems to be following in the footsteps of Jimmy Carter who, too, recognized the Islamic Republic with catastrophic results. President Ronald Reagan made a similar error in judgment in 1986. He sent a key-shaped chocolate cake, a Bible with a personal inscription, and an offer to supply millions in military hardware to the crafty cleric. What signal does this send? Radical Islamic terrorists worldwide will surely interpret this as a sign of fear and weakness on the part of our new commander-in-chief. It could embolden them to strike America yet again. ********** Michael D. Evans, a #1 New York Times bestselling author, is the author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. A television special based on the book is currently being produced (www.carterbooktv.com). Iran’s Supreme Leader Dismisses Obama’s Overtures, ABC News, March 22, 2009’ http://abcnews.go.com/International/WireStory?id=7138814&page=2. (Accessed March 22,2009) CIA intelligence memorandum, January 19, 1979, entitled "Iran: Khomeini’s Prospects and Views.” Dinesh D’Souza, "Giving Radical Islam its Start”; Townhall.com, January 29, 2007; http://www.townhall.com/Common/Print.aspx. (Accessed December 2007.) ] "Une Guerre,” ("One War”), Ä-ditions des Arénes, Paris, 1997. ] George W. Ball, "Issues and Implications of the Iranian Crisis,” Declassified December 12, 1984; Princeton University Library, Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library, Princeton, NJ. Jim Hoagland, "Carter Set to Tell European Allies He Fully Backs Shah,” The Washington Post, January 5, 1979, p. A5. Extract from Le Pouvoir et le Vie, Part 3, Chapter 6, V. Giscard d’ Estaing, 2006; translated in Paris for Dr. Evans with permission from Mr. d’Estaing in May 2008; and personal interview with Giscard d’Estaing, May 2008. Extract from Le Pouvoir et le Vie, Part 3, Chapter 6, V. Giscard d’ Estaing, 2006; translated in Paris for Dr. Evans with permission from Mr. d’Estaing in May 2008; and personal interview with Giscard d’Estaing, May 2008. Samuel Segev interview, Jerusalem, Israel, May 15, 2008. Mohamad Heikal, pp.191. Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0800 Former President Jimmy Carter's pro-Arafat and pro-Palestinian leanings are legendary. According to Carter's assessment, Israel is the crux of the problem. Never mind that Israel has endured decades of terror attacks from Lebanon, Syria and Gaza, worthless peace agreements, and a desire by its Arab neighbors to see Israel "wiped off the map." None of this moves Mr. Carter. In his world, Yasser Arafat was the put-upon Palestinian leader sorely abused by the Israelis. Carter presents himself as a neutral, third-party arbitrator, especially in Middle East affairs. Despite his role as intermediary at Camp David, Carter has, in recent years, made statements that might be construed as anti-Semitic. He continues to be a harsh and outspoken critic of Israel, and has often favored Israel's enemies over the only democratic society in the Middle East. Of course, there are many today who believe the Republican Party under the leadership of George W. Bush is solely responsible for the mess in the Middle East. In truth, the groundwork for this miasma was laid during the term of former Democratic President Jimmy Carter. It was all brought about in the name of change and hope; familiar themes being heard today from Democratic front-runners. It was Jimmy Carter who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest firewall in the Muslim world, the Shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Carter viewed Khomeini more as a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution than the founding father of modern terrorism. His advisors concurred: Ambassador to the UN Andrew Young said, "Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint." Ambassador to Iran William Sullivan said, "Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure." Carter adviser James Bill proclaimed that Khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of "impeccable integrity and honesty." As a result, the Carter administration stood by while Iran descended into the chaos of a fanatical Islamic revolution and was stunned when American embassy employees were taken hostage and held for 444 days. Ninety days following Khomeini's declaration of the first day of the "Government of God" on April 1, 1979, President Jimmy Carter inked a top-secret document launching America on the path that in 2001 would lead to the deaths of 2,974 innocent American civilians. It was generally thought that U.S. aid to the Afghanistan Mujahedeen was initiated in 1980 under the Republican administration of Ronald Reagan. It was, however, the directive signed by Carter that favored supporting insurgent propaganda and other psychological operations in Afghanistan; establishing radio contact with the Afghan people through a third country; providing appropriate support either in funds or non-military supplies. Carter approved another infusion of $30 million in 1980; and in 1981 the amount was raised to $50 million. Carter's ill-advised execution of human rights guidelines and his decision to unseat the Shah ultimately caused the loss of more than 600,000 lives during the Iran/Iraq War. Why? With the departure of the Shah, Saddam Hussein saw his opportunity to boldly march into Iran and seize power in that country. Carter's decision to abandon Iran to the Khomeini-implemented rule by the mullahs and ayatollahs was eventually responsible for Iraq's attack on Kuwait and Desert Storm; it spawned the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan, the rise of the Taliban, HAMAS, and al-Qaeda. Dr. Michael D. Evans is the author of the #1 New York Times bestseller, The Final Move Beyond Iraq (www.beyondiraq.com). Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:00:00 -0800 Soon the U.S. will choose its next president. The prevailing holy grail of understanding is that the only vote that matters is the vote of the American people. Persia (Iran), however, may have a dog in the fight as U.S. policy in Iraq will greatly affect U.S. policy in Iran. To think that Iran would support another "Bushie" (John McCain) in the White House is a ridiculous assumption. Iran, a predominately Shia state as is Iraq (100 million plus Shiites combined), ultimately desires a Shia super-state. It has everything to gain and nothing to lose by destroying McCain's bragging rights. To do this would require an Iranian surge of IEDs (improvised explosive devices) in Iraq and the 60,000 pro-Iranian Mahdi army death squads to deliver a few hundred U.S. body bags. It appears this fall will be a bloody one as Iran attempts to achieve a goal similar to the one it achieved during President Jimmy Carter's last days of the 1980 election campaign. On Sept. 23, 1980, during the Reagan-Carter presidential campaign, I had dinner with Isser Harel, founder of Mossad Israeli Intelligence and director from 1947 to 1963. Dr. Ruben Hecht, senior adviser to Prime Minister Menachem Begin, joined us. "Who do you think will be the next president?" I said during a light moment in the meal. Harel responded, "The Persians invented the game of chess. Arab oil buys more than tents. You kill a fly and rejoice, they kill one and a hundred come to the funeral. The word on the street is that when Reagan places his hand on the Bible during the inauguration, the hostages will be released." I was stunned when Ruben Hecht called me during the inauguration and said, "Can you believe it? Harel is a prophet. It is happening now." Earlier that morning, Jimmy Carter approved the wire-transfer of $7.9 billion to Iran through the Federal Reserve to a bank in England. The Iranians were hell-bent on humiliating Jimmy Carter to the very end. For the Republican Party not to anticipate Iran's obsession to humiliate George Bush is extremely naďve. Before I left the dinner that evening, I asked Harel two more questions: "How do you think Sadat is going to do in the future?" and "Do you think terrorism will ever come to America?" Harel's response was, "We saved Sadat's life twice, but I fear some event will take place at an inopportune time and we may not be there. He will be assassinated." That inopportune time would be the 1981 Egyptian celebration of the Yom Kippur War. In answer to my second question, "America has the power but not the will, and the terrorists have the will but not the power," said Harel. "All of that could change in time. They will strike your greatest fertility symbol; the symbol of your power and economic wealth, New York City, and your tallest building, the Empire State Building first." (At the time of Harel's prophecy, the Empire State Building was in fact the tallest building in New York.) America reeled in shock when on Sept. 11, 2001, the World Trade Towers were hit. Yes, the Iranians are winning. They seized our hostages in 1979 and we launched an ineffective rescue operation. We tied yellow ribbons around trees. In 1983, Hezbollah blew up our embassy and Marine barracks in Lebanon and we left. During the various Iranian and terrorist attacks of the 1980s, we basically sent lawyers. We treated it as a law enforcement issue. In the 1990s, we had Blackhawks downed in Mogadishu. We were struck at our reserve facility in Saudi Arabia and at the Khobar Towers. Until 9/11, we responded as we did in the 1980s; we ran it as a law enforcement operation trying to catch and imprison a few terrorists. This had little effect on the religious fanatics who would rather die and presumably go to Paradise than go to prison. In 1993, Saddam tried to kill President George H. W. Bush with a bomb in Kuwait. During his presidency, President Clinton launched two dozen cruise missiles against an Iraqi intelligence headquarters in the middle of the night. The secretary of state explained that we responded as we did so that no one would be in the building. James Woolsey, President Clinton's CIA director, told me the story and said, "I don't know what we had against the cleaning woman and night watchman, but I would not call that an effective response." The most dangerous thing in the world in dealing with religious fanatics is to talk big and then not follow through. It appears that neither party has the intention of doing so. Teddy Roosevelt had it right: "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:00:00 -0800 During his first visit to Israel in January as leader of the free world, President George W. Bush made the expected rhetorical endorsements of Israel as the Jewish state and even prodded Israel to remove unauthorized settler outposts in the West Bank. But the very next day, on the first visit by an American president to the Palestinian Authority, Bush glibly repeated the Palestinian party line on the so-called "right of return," thereby encouraging the perpetuation of one of the greatest frauds of the Arab-Israeli conflict and a Palestinian strategy aimed at the ultimate destruction of Israel. Bush urged Palestinian authorities to halt rocket attacks against Israel from the Gaza Strip - which continued without interruption during his three-day visit - and he issued a sharp warning to Iran following a naval incident in the Persian Gulf. He also announced the appointment of Lt. Gen. William Fraser to monitor the implementation of the 2002 Israeli-Palestinian Roadmap for peace plan - which has remained stalled for the past five years. One reason for this is the unfulfilled first stage of the plan: the cessation of Palestinian terrorism. "The only way to have lasting peace, the only way for an agreement to mean anything, is for the two parties to come together and make the difficult choices," Bush told a news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, "But we'll help, and we want to help." How helpful can the United States be if it supports Israel's existence as a Jewish state one day, then parrots Palestinian strategy to flood Israel with "refugees" who will be able to vote it out of existence as a Jewish state? Bush and his advisers suggested that the purpose of the presidential visit was to prompt Olmert and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to get to work on "core issues" such as the future status of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees. Mention of Jerusalem - before halting terrorism - was enough to evoke a threat by the religious Shas Party to withdraw from the coalition and bring down Olmert's government. This was surely not Bush's intention, but neither should have been his reference to the so-called "right of return" claimed by the great-grandchildren of Arab refugees misplaced by a war begun by Arab states in an effort to destroy the nascent state of Israel in 1948. The president of the United States is a busy man and relies on his advisers to keep him informed. Here's what Bush's advisers failed to tell him: In 1948, two refugee populations were created as a result of the Arab states' war against the newly established State of Israel: the Palestinian Arabs and the Jews from Arab countries. In fact, more Jews were expelled by or fled Arab countries - some 850,000 - than were Palestinians who became refugees - about 750,000. But while Jewish refugees were absorbed into Israel and granted citizenship, the Palestinian refugees were, with the exception of Jordan, forced to remain in camps for the past 60 years by their host Arab countries, to cynically perpetuate their "refugee" status and use this as a weapon against Israel. Both issues must be dealt with in peace negotiations. The Jews who were forced out of their homes by Arab governments, which then confiscated their property, were the victims of the same aggression carried out by the Arab states against the newly founded State of Israel. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency has spent billions of dollars to maintain the Palestinian "refugees" in their camps for more than half a century, in the process making them the only "refugees" in the world who are able to transmit their "refugee" status to their fourth-generation offspring. When the Palestinian Authority claims a "right of return" for Palestinians whose great-grandparents once lived in what has become Israel, it is only with the cynical intention of inundating the country with enough Palestinians to eliminate it as the world's only Jewish state. Bush said that, "We need to look to the establishment of a Palestinian state and new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue." It is perhaps no coincidence that previous US estimates have put the cost of compensation at $100 billion to $150 billion. This is also the conservative estimate of the value of property left behind by the Jewish refugees from Arab countries. Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:00:00 -0800 I am outraged and you should be also. President Bush is in Saudi Arabia. He has just agreed to sell the Saudis $20 billion worth of military equipment. This is the same country that refused to recognize Israel's right to exist; the same country that will not allow one Jew to set foot on its soil; the same country that birthed the 9/11 suicide bombers; the same country that refuses a church to exist and will cut the heads off any Christian who leads a Muslim to Christ - the Saudis do this all the time - as the world sleeps. This is the same country that is sending suicide bombers into Iraq to kill our troops and the same country that is attempting to destroy the U.S. economy with One-Hundred-Dollar barrel oil. This is blackmail! I was completely outraged when I heard that Ehud Olmert, whom I have known for 26 years, stood next to President Bush and declared that he would work to fulfill the final status solution to the Road Map to Peace. In essence, this means the division of Jerusalem (with all Christian Holy Sites being under Islamic rule of law) and Judea and Samaria turned over to the Palestinians. A national Save Jerusalem Campaign has been launched. Presently over 120,000 have signed the petition. The goal is to have one million signatures of the petition to present to President Bush. This petition will also be sent to Ehud Olmert. You can add your name to the Presidential Petition by voting now. This is outrageous. These are terrorist organizations that will kill a Jew in a second if they make a wrong turn on the road and will shoot a Christian Palestinian in the head for saying nice things about Jews. As this absurd ceremony was going on, they were singing; they had music playing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." The only rainbow that I believe in is the rainbow that God put in the sky when He made the Covenant in the time of Noah that He would not destroy the world again by water with a flood. God's word says I will bless them that bless thee and curse them that curse thee. America must not touch prophecy. The nation of Israel was born by a royal land grant given by God Almighty. It was birthed before there was a United States or a United Nations. All nations were only pagan nations at that time. Do you realize that the U.S. Government is shuttling around with almost a dozen Arab states that refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist and, in fact, funding terrorists to kill Jews? It's outrageous! Please, get one friend today to sign the Save Jerusalem Petition. This will double the number. Our ultimate goal is one million, but our goal right now is to reach 200,000. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that the State Department is going to push this through if we remain silent. If it happens, God's hand of protection will be lifted from our country in a way that we couldn't possibly have imagined. I will not allow that to happen. I will do everything in my power to resist that. I'm asking for everyone ask just one friend today to sign the Petition. Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0800 The White House is sending mixed messages in advance of President George Bush's first presidential visit to Israel this week - stressing his steadfast support for Jerusalem, but also pushing for a settlement freeze. Freezing settlements is one obligation Israel undertook under the 2002 Road Map formulated by the Quartet of the United States, United Nations, European Community, and Russia. But on the other side of the map, the Palestinians undertook to stop terrorism and dismantle their terrorist infrastructure. Israel has been meeting its obligation, while the Palestinians continue to terrorize the population of southern Israel with daily rocket attacks launched from the Gaza Strip. It is anybody's guess what this trip by a lame-duck president will contribute to the cause of Middle East peace. But Bush's trip is taking place just as the campaign to elect his successor is getting under way. The views of the major candidates for their parties' nomination on some of the major issues may prove instructive. For example, does any support the Road Map or a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital? Sen. John McCain Republican McCain's offers a traditional approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, recently explaining that a gradual solution in line with the incremental goals of the Road Map is preferable to trying to impose a settlement. He also links the conflict with an American victory in Iraq, which he says is a necessary precondition for a successful Israeli-Palestinian agreement. While McCain supports establishing a Palestinian state at the end of the process, the Arizona senator believes America must give Israel whatever equipment and technology it needs for defense. With this in mind, he is wary of Iran's nuclear intentions, saying, "They are still state sponsors of terrorism — Hamas, Hizbullah, still dedicated to the extinction of the State of Israel, still an oppressive and repressive government." Mitt Romney At Israel's Herzliya Conference in Jan. 2007, Romney expressed a keen understanding of the jihadist enemy: "Contrary to the Baker-Hamilton Commission," he said, "resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict will not magically mollify the jihadists. "No, what we should have realized since 9/11 is that what the world regarded as an Israeli-Arab conflict over borders represented something much larger. It was the oldest, most active front of the radical Islamist jihad against the entire West. It therefore was not really about borders. It was about the refusal of many parts of the Muslim world to accept Israel's right to exist - within any borders…Israel stands on the front lines of the struggle against radical Islam's jihad, whose goals are not confined to the Middle East." Mike Huckabee An ordained Southern Baptist minister who has made his Christian faith a prominent feature of his campaign, Huckabee has been outspoken about Iran's threat to Israel. "I condemn Iran's irrational call for the destruction of Israel and its reckless defiance of the international community by its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons and other hostile actions," he said before the recent Iowa caucus. "I urge Iran to stop enriching uranium and accept monitoring by the IAEA, to recognize the right of Israel to exist, and to end its support of all terror groups, such as Hamas, Hizbullah, and Islamic Jihad." Huckabee's position on Israel, as stated on his Web site, is uncompromising: "I am a steadfast supporter of Israel, our staunch ally in the War on Terror, the only fully-functioning democracy in the Middle East, and our greatest friend in that region. The United States must remain true to its long-standing commitment to the Israeli people. As president, I will always ensure that Israel has access to the state-of-the-art weapons and technology she needs to defend herself from those who seek her annihilation." Rudy Giuliani Giuliani is not at all certain that a Palestinian state is in America's of Israel's best interest, as he recently explained in an article for Foreign Affairs. The former New York mayor is famous for two symbolic gestures that endeared him to Jewish voters: in 1995, he had the late PLO leader Yasser Arafat ejected from a Lincoln Center concert and he returned a $10 million donation from a Saudi prince after 9/11 for badmouthing Israel. He has received the heartfelt endorsement of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert: "I have found no better friend of Jerusalem in America than Rudy Giuliani." (AP) Some Giuliani remarks on Israel: "Israel is an oasis of freedom in a desert of authoritarianism and worse. It is an outpost of democracy where democracy is unique…There is no moral equivalent between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.There is a difference between a nation based on law and democracy and one that harbors terrorism." (Rally In Support Of Israel, Washington, DC, 4/15/02) Sen. Barack Obama Obama chose a meeting of the pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, in March 2007 to deliver his presidential candidacy's first foreign policy speech. "Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel, to renounce violence, and to get serious about negotiating peace and security for the region," he said during an MSNBC debate. After making his first visit to Israel in January 2006, where he toured the security fence, Obama stated: "Our starting point must always be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel." Obama's top Middle East adviser is Dennis Ross, who served in the same position during the Clinton administration. Obama was the only candidate to refer to the Road Map by name, in a speech in August 2007: "Our job is to never forget that the threat of violence is real. Our job is to renew the United States' efforts to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do not share this vision. Our job is to do more than lay out another road map; our job is to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security throughout the region." While Obama has expressed a commitment "to ensure Israel's qualitative military edge," this has so far not been enough for him to supplant Sen. Hilary Clinton among Jewish voters. In a recent American Jewish Committee poll, his favorable rating was 38 percent, while hers was 53 percent. Sen. Hilary Clinton The senator for New York and former first lady is the only candidate to express support for moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel's capital, Jerusalem. She is strong on Israel's security: "It is important that we help Israel keep its qualitative and technological military edge in an increasingly dangerous region…The United States must continue to support our ally, Israel, as it defends itself against these attacks and insist that Hamas cannot be recognized until it renounces terrorism and recognizes Israel's right to exist." Clinton champions Israel as "a beacon of what democracy can and should mean." As she told an AIPAC conference in 2005: "Israel is an important ally and strategic partner of the United States. Our nations are united by shared values, a commitment to democracy, and a belief in the dignity of men and women. We are also united by a common strategic interest in fighting back against the forces of terrorism and nihilism." John Edwards The former senator for North Carolina has said that Iran poses an enormous threat to Israel and to the Israeli people. He has also expressed the campaign-issued statement of support to "maintain Israel's qualitative edge and keep Israel strong and safe in a dangerous region." "Israel can take more steps to advance peace like bolstering Abbas against Hamas," Edwards told the 2007 Herzliya Conference. "While Israel is willing to go back to negotiating table, little has been seen on the Palestinian side. We instead have seen chaos and violence on the street, and no revocation of violence against Israel. However, Edwards is still trying to spin out of the effects of a remark he made at a Hollywood fundraiser in February 2007. "Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace," Edwards was quoted as saying, "was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities." Edwards's spokesman denied the quote, saying Edwards had actually said that one of the greatest short-term threats to world peace is Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. Variety stood by the accuracy of its report. Dr. Mike Evans is the New York Times #1 Bestselling author of , The Final Move Beyond Iraq, and the publisher of the Jerusalem World News. Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0800 The Washington Post does its readers a disservice by publishing reports about Israel that lack balance and context. Israel's behavior is constantly presented without relation to Palestinian behavior; its reaction to Palestinian actions is given without reference to the Palestinian actions that precipitated it. In a recent article, for example, reporter Scott Wilson accused Israel of degrading the residents of the Gaza Strip to "beggar status." He neglected to inform Post readers that Gazans are going begging for a properly functioning government because they elected Hamas, which is committed to the destruction of Israel, as their leadership. Had Wilson chosen to write about the Israeli civilians of the northern Negev who are daily bombarded with Hamas rockets, he might have described them as being reduced to "beggar status" with regard to security from Palestinian terrorism. At the beginning of December, the number of Kassam rockets and mortars fired at Israel by Palestinian terrorists in Gaza during 2007 hit the 2,000 mark — nearly double the number in 2006. Attacks and casualties increased steadily despite efforts to renew Israel-Palestinian peace talks, whose primary goal is solving the conflict by creating a sovereign Palestinian state. The escalation, it should be pointed out but seldom is in the Post, followed Israel's 2005 withdrawal from all of Gaza and parts of the West Bank. Palestinian autonomy in Gaza has meant intensification in arms smuggling and the attacks this enables, a context that is not to be found in the Post. The paper recently published another front page article supposedly describing the "isolation and exclusion" of Israel's Arab citizens. It depicts a young and successful Arab-Israeli couple, both professionals, whose application to join a new Jewish community in the Galilee was rejected. In response, they have filed suit against discrimination. Not coincidentally, Arab members of the Knesset, Israel's parliament, voting with the Jewish majority, have approved the construction of a new city in the Galilee for Arabs. Leaving aside the curious fact that the Post chooses to single out and analyze ethnic inequalities within only one country in the world, Israel, it doesn't do a very good job of it. The Post fails to note, for example, that following independence the Arab countries expelled all their Jews. This fact could reasonably be expected to lead the Post to observe that finding Arab and Jewish citizens living together in peace inside Israel is quite remarkable. And if an exclusive Jewish community votes not to admit an Arab couple, such discrimination is challenged in the High Court of Justice. The Post does not mention this, nor the fact that Jewish couples would also not be welcome in close-knit Arab communities. The world tolerates discrimination against racial and religious minorities in countless countries without this being singled out on the front page of the Washington Post. The fact that Israeli Arab victims of discrimination have recourse through the courts and their democratically elected parliament means that they have it a lot better than in some European Community countries, not to mention the members of the Arab League. Israeli Arabs have equal rights, serve in parliament and on the Supreme Court, have the highest per capita income and standard of living, and the lowest infant mortality rate of any Arab country. Do the few inequalities they may suffer rate the front page treatment that is not accorded worse discrimination in other countries? Not if balanced reporting is the issue, rather than badmouthing Israel. The Post's apparent bias also leads to a rather silly tendency to misinterpret facts. For example, Wilson bemoans the fact that "Arabs are excluded from military service" as if this is yet another example of discrimination. Arab citizens are excused from military service by their own request, so they would not be in the position of having to fight their own relatives. Arabs may perform non-military national service instead, and many do. Druze and Bedouin citizens do proudly serve in the Israel Defense Forces. The Middle East is a tough neighborhood, and Israel has been defending its place in it not just for the past 60 years since independence, but for more than a century. Israelis deserve better consideration on its pages than to be cast as the default villain. One can only wonder how the Washington Post would have covered the story if French Canadian separatists had fired 2,000 rockets into New England during the past year. Mon, 7 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0800 The Annapolis Peace Summit Annapolis, Maryland In the pre-dawn hours, my car winds its way down the streets of this historic city toward the Naval Academy and the Annapolis Summit. Precious fathers, mothers and grandmothers shiver in the cold darkness of the morning. Some of the men blow shofars and pray openly. Most hold signs printed with their pleas: "Don't touch Jerusalem," "Don't touch the Bible land," "Don't touch prophecy." Unbidden tears slide down my cheeks for I sense how desperate and hopeless they must feel. These who love Jerusalem are overshadowed by the high and mighty of the world: President George W. Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and foreign ministers from many Arab states. Among those are known terrorists who are being treated as honored diplomats. This is the first international peace conference since the U.S. organized-Madrid Peace Summit at the end of Operation Desert Storm in 1991. It was during that debacle that I openly challenged former Secretary of State James Baker over Jerusalem. The names change, but the desire to offer up Jerusalem as the sacrifice to appease terrorists is as passionate as ever. The Madrid Summit destroyed the economy of Israel. It caused the overthrow of the government as literally tens of thousands of Russian Jewish immigrants were forced to sleep in tents. Why? The U.S. froze $10 billion in loan guarantees that would have provided housing for these destitute men, women and children. Israel was ultimately forced to give up more than 80 villages and towns, i.e., Jericho, Hebron, and Bethlehem. Today, the vultures gather again, sensing that more of the City of David will be laid on the altar of sacrifice. President Bush has agreed in what is being called "The Final Status Plan" to divide Jerusalem before the end of his term in 2008. He has also demanded that Israel halt construction in the settlements for refugees. The plan is to turn those settlements over to the PLO. The Saudis, of course, want the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon to be able to move into Israel, not into the Palestinian Authority land holdings. The plan calls for Palestine to be a state within one year, with East Jerusalem as the capital. This "Final Status Plan" calls for vigorous, unceasing, aggressive negotiations that would end in the creation of a two-state region by the end of 2008. It seems that the participants of the summit are trying to breathe life back into the Road Map plan introduced in 2003. When Mahmoud Abbas refused to implement the very first clause of the plan - to disarm the terrorist organizations - the plan died in utero. The Saudis, of course, were overjoyed to hear President Bush's comments during the Summit. The Road Map, an invention of Saudi Arabia and the Arab League was designed to force Israel to the bargaining table. Then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon related to me that he had asked for 14 amendments. Secretary of State Colin Powell flatly refused to include any of Sharon's amendments. Phase Two of the plan as outlined was the dismantling of all terror organizations and their infrastructure. HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade to name a few would have been forced to turn over all illegal weapons and stop terror incitement. Needless to say, Phase Two was not implemented by Abbas. Quite the opposite occurred: HAMAS took over Gaza; Abbas' own terror organization, Fatah and al-Aksa martyrs Brigade continue to kill Jews. (The latest murder was that of a 29-year old father of two from the village of Shavei Shomron, just days before the Summit in Annapolis.) The acceptance of this vile plan would turn Israel into a living hell. The Jewish people would be forced to live next door to a state controlled by Islamic fanatics such as Hamas. I am reminded over and over of the scripture in Psalm 83:2-5: For behold, Your enemies make a tumult; and those who hate You have lifted up their head. They have taken crafty counsel against Your people, and consulted together against Your sheltered ones. They have said, "Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation, that the name of Israel may be remembered no more." For they have consulted together with one consent; they form a confederacy against You…" I stand here now with this document in my hand - this "Agreement of Joint Understanding" to which both parties have pledged acceptance. This document, if followed, will result in the division of Jerusalem. I've asked myself how the U.S. government could partner with a terror organization responsible for thousands of terror attacks worldwide. How could President Bush cavalierly shake hands with the man responsible for the Munich massacre? Is George W. Bush so consumed by his legacy that he would sacrifice Jerusalem and hundreds of thousands of innocent Jews to attain his goal? Israel would have to give up the Temple Mount and the Western Wall in East Jerusalem; evacuate most of the strategic West Bank which would leave it vulnerable to rocket attacks in Tel Aviv and at its international airport. What does the future hold for Israel? President Bush has indicated that Israel had "painful compromises" to make during the negotiations that were to begin immediately. I can tell you that Israel seemed very alone during the Annapolis Summit. It greatly concerns me. Why? President Clinton attempted to divide Jerusalem in January 2001, before the end of his term of office. He almost succeeded. I believe those negotiations and Arafat's subsequent rejection of Clinton's offer led directly to the events of 9/11. Now, President Bush is attempting to follow in Bill Clinton's footsteps. I, for one, am appalled to have to admit that President Bush believes the Palestinian cause is the root of Islamic hatred for America. His advisors are likely telling him that this agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority will affect his legacy in a most positive way. How wrong can they possibly be? Only time will tell. Can the Palestinian crisis be resolved? YES! I believe that the first action that must be taken is a rehabilitation package calling for the dismantling of the 59 U.N.-maintained refugee camps. The Arab world needs to provide resettlement, employment and housing for the refugees. This would be similar to what happened to the Jewish refugees throughout Europe and the Arab world in 1948. Secondly, I would do everything to help Jordan grant citizenship to Arabs in the West bank. I believe that the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan should serve as their representative body. Jordan granted citizenship status to West Bank Palestinians until the late 1980s. The Palestinians do not need more land; they need a life free of Islamic kindergarten camps that continue to instill hatred for the Jews into children at an early age. Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:00:00 -0800 Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards (IRG) is using Iran's Baghdad embassy as its headquarters for secret military operations against coalition forces in Iraq, according to an Iranian opposition group. Mohammad Mohadessin, spokesman for the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the parliament-in-exile of the Iranian Resistance, said in a statement that the IRG had transformed the embassy "into the most important center for coordinating its terrorist and intelligence activities against coalition forces." IRG officers hold top positions throughout the Iranian government - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for example - so it is not surprising the embassy is under its control. Mohadessin identified four "diplomats" as senior Guards officers, including Ambassador Kazemi Qomi. "They are directly responsible for supervising the transfer of shipments of weapons and ammunition … from Iran to [the Guard's] proxy forces in Iraq," he said. Although Teheran denies it, the US has ample proof the Iranians are behind much of the killing of American soldiers in Iraq, from supplying sophisticated bomb-making material for the IEDs that have caused hundreds of casualties in recent months to infiltrating fighters. Ironically, in his first state visit to Iran in early September, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki asked his host, President Ahmadinejad, for his support in quelling the violence that threatens to destroy Iraq. Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying, "Iran will give its assistance to establish complete security in Iraq, because Iraq's security is Iran's security." It was not reported whether Ahmadinejad was smiling when he said that, but evidently Maliki needed reassurance. Just a few weeks later, when both leaders were attending the opening of the UN General Assembly, they met again at the Blue Mosque in Queens, New York, following Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia University. Last week the US imposed sweeping new sanctions against the IRG, because of Teheran's support for terrorism and nuclear weapons ambitions. The ban targeted three of Iran's largest banks and eight individuals Washington said were engaged in trading missiles and supporting terrorist groups throughout the Middle East. This is the first time the US has put a military force of a sovereign government in the same category as al-Qaida, Hamas, and Hizbullah. Iran's Revolutionary Guards is a select force of some 200,000 members that is separate from the country's regular military. It has its own ground, naval, and air divisions. Guards members in southern Iraq are training Shi'ite militias to use mortars and rockets, according to US Army Maj.-Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of US forces south of Baghdad. He noted that rocket attacks were becoming "more accurate and more effective" due to the Iranians. Mohadessin also said the IRG had taken over some of Iran's most lucrative companies and is profiting from trade with the European Union. "Over the years the [IRG] has created financial sources which do not fall under the control of the government," he said. "A major portion of the $40 billion in [non-petroleum] EU trade is now done with [the IRG], its affiliates, and its front companies." This would seem to be a good place for Europe to apply pressure and help stop Teheran's march toward manufacturing nuclear weapons. But that would be expecting too much, even of countries within range of Iran's ballistic missiles. Christiane Hohmann, spokeswoman for the EU External Relations Commission, said the 27-nation bloc had not yet imposed sanctions on Iran. "There is no economic embargo against Iran in place and no economic sanctions; there are export restrictions in place with regard to dual-use goods," she said. Doesn't the word appeasement mean anything to the Europeans after World War II? Iran is less a theological regime than a military dictatorship, and the IRG dominates political, economic, and cultural life, while protecting the ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad from opposition at home. Besides being Iran's top imam, Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and has exploited his control over the IRG to fortify his rule. Dr. Michael D. Evans is the author of the New York Times #1 bestseller, The Final Move Beyond Iraq. Wed, 7 Nov 2007 00:00:00 -0800