Recent precedents document that there are many military options, which are dramatically short of war, but are critical to moderate the nature of rogue regimes and prevent war. On the other hand, the removal of a military option from the table -- while negotiating with rogue regimes -- whets their appetite and fuels war. The contention that there are only two options in dealing with the rogue Ayatollahs' regime -- negotiation or military option, which supposedly amounts to war -- defies reality. Such a contention is either mistaken or misleading.
Military option prevents war
By Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger (6:16 PM 5/26/2015 Beijing Time)
The contention that there are only two options in dealing with the rogue Ayatollahs' regime -- negotiation or military option, which supposedly amounts to war -- defies reality. Such a contention is either mistaken or misleading.
The threat of a limited surgical naval or air force bombing of critical nuclear installations -- with no ground troops - would not amount to a war, would deter the Ayatollahs, possibly moderating their nature, and -- if activated - would permanently cripple their pursuit of nuclear capabilities, and could be repeated if necessary from US military bases in Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman and the Indian Ocean or from US aircraft carriers.
Recent precedents document that there are many military options, which are dramatically short of war, but are critical to moderate the nature of rogue regimes and prevent war. On the other hand, the removal of a military option from the table -- while negotiating with rogue regimes -- whets their appetite and fuels war.
For example, on December 19, 2003, Libya's President Gaddafi announced a drastic moderation of his modus operandi: the dismantling of his chemical, nuclear and long range ballistic missiles capabilities. Gaddafi's stunning decision was induced by the high visibility of the US military option. He was traumatized by the December 13, 2003 capture of Saddam Hussein, which upgraded the US posture of deterrence, convincing the Libyan tyrant that the US was determined to leverage the military option in its battle against additional rogue regimes.
In fact, Iran's Ayatollahs suspended their nuclear program, in 2003, due to their fear of the US military option. Alas, the Ayatollahs resumed, expanded and accelerated their nuclear program, upon realization that there was no threat of an imminent US military operation against them or against their ally, Syria's Assad. They were emboldened by President Bush's embrace of Secretary of State Colin Powell's May 3, 2003 statement that the military option against Syria "was not on the table."
On July 20, 1988, following eight years of intransigence, Iran accepted a ceasefire agreement, ending its eight year war against Iraq -- including full retreat from occupied Iraqi territory -- in response to a surgical US attack on sensitive Iranian installations, and the unintentional downing of an Iran Air Airbus by the US Navy.
However, on July 25, 1990 -- one week before the August 2 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait -- Secretary of State Jim Baker removed the US military option from the table, misleading Saddam Hussein into believing that he could get away with the murder of Kuwait, thus unintentionally paving the road to the First (1991) and Second (2003) Persian Gulf Wars. Secretary Baker instructed the US Ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, to tell Saddam Hussein: "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.... Secretary of State Jim Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction [that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America]."
Secretary Baker assumed that the overwhelming US military edge would deter Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait. He underestimated Saddam's megalomaniac ideology and the erosion of the US posture of deterrence. Currently, the US Administration applies similar assumptions towards the supremacist, Islamist, repressive, violently intolerant, megalomaniacal, expansionist, anti-US Ayatollahs. Unlike Saddam, the Ayatollahs are apocalyptic, undeterred -- but energized - by mutual assured destruction (MAD), the prospect of a nuclear confrontation. They are emboldened by the dramatic decline of the US power projection in the Middle East and beyond.
The removal of the military option from the table -- when dealing with the Ayatollahs -- would be similar to a police chief removing guns, tasers, rubber bullets and tear gas from policemen dealing with violent criminals. Intensified crime will follow.
The removal of the military option from the table projects the intent to ignore precedents, or to learn from precedents by repeating -- rather than avoiding -- devastating mistakes.
When dealing with the rogue Ayatollahs' regime, the stick/threat of military (not war) option constitutes a most effective, and humane, means to spare humanity the wrath of a global nuclear war. The absence of such an option brings the globe closer to an unprecedented tectonic chaos.
This article was first published in "Israel Hayom" May 15, 2015
A regime change in Jordan would exacerbate Palestinian terrorism, possibly forging a radical bloc from Iran to the Jordan Valley, posing a clear and present danger to the relatively pro-US regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Oman and Egypt.
Israeli Arabs strongly oppose Defense Minister Liberman’s land – not population – swap proposal, which stipulates the transfer of Arab-majority land in Israel to the Palestinian Authority, while Jewish majority land in Judea & Samaria (the West Bank) would be transferred to Israel. They are determined to remain Israeli citizens, rather than become subjects of the Palestinian Authority.
In order to avoid the failed Middle East track record of all US Presidents, since 1948, President Trump should refrain from – rather than repeat – the systematic errors committed by his predecessors. They were misguided by the political correctness and conventional “wisdom” of the US State Department, which courted...
Since 2004 he has been writing academic articles, social commentaries and photographic 'Stories from China' both here at KingsCalendar, and formerly as a contributing columnist at Magic City Morning Star News (Maine USA) where from 2009 to 2015 he was Stand-in Editor. He currently has a column at iPatriot.com and teaches English to Business English and Flight Attendant College Students in Suzhou City Jiangsu Province People's Republic of China.)
BenDedek originally created the site to publicize his research results into the Chronology of Ancient Israel. Those results were published under the title: 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran.' Whilst there have been many attempts to solve the chronological riddle of the Bible's synchronisms of reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah and their synchronism with other Ancient Near Eastern Nations, no other research is based on a simple mathematical formula which could, if it is incorrect, be disproved easily. To date, no one has been able to dismiss the mathematical results of this research.
Free to air Academic articles set forth Apologetics for and results of his discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Bible, Josephus, the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah. Check the Chapter Precis Page to see details of each chapter and to gain access to the Four Free to Air Chapters
(The Download book does not contain a section on Seder Olam)
Definition: King's Calendar Chronological Research
The Premise: Between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE (but continuing down to at least 104 BCE), Sectarian redactors transcribed the legitimate 'solar year' chronological records of Israel and Judah, into an artificial form, with listed years as each comprised of 12 months of 4 weeks of 7 days, or 336 days per year, thus creating a 13th artificial year where 12 solar years existed.
When the Synchronous Chronological Data provided in the Books of Kings and Chronicles for the Divided Kingdom Period are measured in years of 336 days, the synchronisms actually align. [Refer to Appendix 5. to see how it synchronises the Divided Kingdom Period]