Ken Berwitz

Over the past year, I have written a number of blogs warning that if the world (led by -who else - the United States) does not choose to do something about Iran's march toward nuclear weaponry, Israel will have to do something about it.

I have pointed out that Iran's "leader", mahmoud ahmadinejad, has repeatedly told us in so many words that he intends to vaporize Israel the first chance he gets.  

I have concluded that, as a matter of survival and in the absence of anyone else doing it, Israel will be forced to pre-emptively attack Iran's nuclear capabilities.  If/when it happens, the world runs a major risk of nuclear war.

Although there are a number of blogs to choose from which are entirely in my own words, the best of the bunch features a column by Dick Morris and (his co-writer and wife) Eileen McGann.  They lay the facts out just about perfectly.  It was published in May, and (as you might expect) completely unheeded by the geniuses in DC.

I am reprinting their column below so you can see just how completely accurate it was, and just what kind of a risk we run now by dithering ineffectively while this potentially cataclysmic event becomes more and more likely:

==================================================================================

Monday, 25 May 2009

THE DEATH OF ISRAEL?

Ken Berwitz Dick Morris and Eileen McGann (his wife FYI) have written a column about the possible demise of Israel.  Are they exaggerating?  Overstating for dramatic effect?  Misrepresenting the current administration? Here is the column.  Decide for yourself:   The Death of Israel   Sunday, May 24, 2009 5:31 PM By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann     From Caroline Glick, deputy editor and op-ed writer for the Jerusalem Post, comes alarming news. An expert on Arab-Israeli relations with excellent sources deep inside Netanyahu's government, she reports that CIA chief Leon Panetta recently took time out from his day job (feuding with Nancy Pelosi) to travel to Israel to "read the riot act" to the government warning against an attack on Iran.   More ominously, Glick reports (likely from sources high up in the Israeli government) that the Obama administration has all but accepted as irreversible and unavoidable fact that Iran will soon develop nuclear weapons. She writes, "...we have learned that the [Obama] administration has made its peace with Iran's nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the U.S. will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy."   She goes on to write that the Obama administration is desperate to stop Israel from attacking Iran writing that "as far as the [Obama] administration is concerned, if Israel could just leave Iran's nuclear installations alone, Iran would behave itself." She notes that American officials would regard any harm to American interests that flowed from an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities as Israel's doing, not Iran's.   In classic Stockholm Syndrome fashion, the Obama administration is empathizing more with the Iranian leaders who are holding Israel hostage than with the nation that may be wiped off the map if Iran acquires the bomb.   Obama's end-of-the-year deadline for Iranian talks aimed at stopping its progress toward nuclear weapons is just window dressing without the threat of military action. As Metternich wrote, "diplomacy without force is like music without instruments." By warning only of possible strengthening of economic sanctions if the talks do not progress, Obama is making an empty threat. The sanctions will likely have no effect because Russia and China will not let the United Nations act as it must if it is to deter Iranian nuclear weapons.   All this means is that Israel's life is in danger. If Iran gets the bomb, it will use it to kill six million Jews. No threat of retaliation will make the slightest difference. One cannot deter a suicide bomber with the threat of death. Nor can one deter a theocracy bent on meriting admission to heaven and its virgins by one glorious act of violence. Iran would probably not launch the bomb itself, anyway, but would give it to its puppet terrorists to send to Israel so it could deny responsibility. Obama, bent on appeasement, would likely not retaliate with nuclear weapons. And Israel will be dead and gone.   Those sunshine Jewish patriots who voted for Obama must realize that we, as Jews, are witnessing the possible end of Israel. We are in the same moral position as our ancestors were as they watched Hitler’s rise but did nothing to pressure their favorite liberal Democratic president, FDR, to take any real action to save them or even to let Jewish refugees into the country. If we remain complacent, we will have the same anguish at watching the destruction of Israel that our forebears had in witnessing the Holocaust.   Because one thing is increasingly clear: Barack Obama is not about to lift a finger to stop Iran from developing the bomb. And neither is Hillary Clinton.   Obama may have held the first White House seder, but he's not planning to spend next year in Jerusalem.     There is the column.  What do you think?   Before making a judgement, please consider whether the facts Morris and McGann use are accurate.  Then consider whether their concerns over how Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton would act are realistic - i.e. would Obama and Clinton stand back, decline to act decisively, and let this happen?  Gauge your answer on what they have done so far.   Now what do you think?   That's a pretty disturbing picture, isn't it?

=======================================================================================

How scary is that?  It was published in May, but could have been written yesterday.

When do Obama, Clinton and the rest of what passes as our "leadership" wake up and decide that we better do more than issue smoothly worded proclamations? 

Ever?