Newt Gingrich: Obama's policy on Iran is a 'fantasy'

obama vs. Israel is Soros’ final revenge to make up for what he left unfinished in the war.

"They are systematically setting up the most decisive confrontation that we've ever seen,"

Deliberately!!!

Former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Sunday blasted the Obama administration for setting itself on a collision course with Israel and endangering the Jewish state. "They are systematically setting up the most decisive confrontation that we've ever seen," the leading Republican politician told The Jerusalem Post...

...which made up the part about his being the leading Republican.

"...which made up the part about his being the leading Republican. "

I think they meant most knowledgeable...

Things are clearly moving to a head. The Russians are threatening an invasion of the rump of Georgia and there is no reason to believe that Obama has the slightest intention of doing anything about it after the event or to take any steps to prevent the event.

We must see these growing threats as connected. A look at the map of Georgia shows that Russia is moving geographically as well as philosophically toward a connection with Iran. If Russia takes Georgia it will be in possession of virtually all the pipelines running to Europe which supply my neighbors here with gas and Europe with oil and gas. If Iran gets the bomb, the whole of the Middle East will become a nuclear nightmare and a strike somewhere by some crazed country such as Iran or some crazed terrorist group which acquires the bomb, is almost inevitable. One of the victims of this madness will undoubtedly be Israel.

Even if there is no war the entire balance of power in the Persian Gulf will have shifted away from America toward Iran which will have the same effect on the Gulf states as it has on our NATO allies, they will move away from America toward Iran to appease away the immediate threat. The price of oil around the world will Spike and Russia and Venezuela and Muslim states who fund terrorists will be empowered to do mischief everywhere.

It is self evidently in Israel's national interest to strike against Iran and prevent or at least delay them getting the bomb while Iran is under the control of these mad Islamicists. But there is every reason to believe that Obama will not facilitate the strike, rather, he will affirmatively move to stop Israel doing it.

So elections have consequences. We have a Manchurian Marxist in the White House who is going to countenance the separation of Europe from energy sources and the inevitable blackmail of Europe by Russia which will follow. He will countenance the likely breakup of NATO which will be the price to appease Russia and secure energy for Europe. He will passively watch an alliance between Russia and Iran which might well grow to include an alliance with Venezuela and Cuba, all of whom having access to the bomb. His policies will make war in the Middle East almost inevitable. They threaten the very existence of Israel.

The consequences of this election might be very terrible indeed.

“the US should be sending the message to Israel that “we are for the survival of Israel” and that “we are not going to tolerate Iran getting nuclear weapons.”

AMEN!!! I wish NObrain would say to that “Hitler of the Middle East”

Israel can and will take care of itself, with Michael the Archangel’s help, of course, LOL.

There was another article posted today about how Gates is trying to reassure the rest of the ME that Obama's slobbering over Ahmadinejad doesn't mean that we're going to hand over the rest of the ME to him. I can see why they're worried, though; Iran has always wanted to be the controlling power there, and Obama seems to be doing everything possible to permit that.

This "outreach" stuff is utter foolishness. I happened to overhear a conversation the other day about a construction project being done on a local military base - by an Iranian company (actually from Iran). I guess now that they've been redeemed by Bambi, the Iranians are our trustworthy buddies. They do a lot of construction projects for Chavez, too, so Bambi probably arranged it through him.

“we are not going to tolerate Iran getting nuclear weapons.”

Then are you prepared for a full blown war? Because that is what it is going to take. The only way to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power is invasion and conquest, and we are looking at a minimum of one million uniformed military personnel. The US doesn't want it and the Obama administration is even more opposed to military force. So the bottom line is that Iran is a member of the Nuclear Club.

So they’re still making it up.

Israel will NEVER be beaten!!!!!!!

That’s what God said and it is final!!!!

AMEN. She may lost some fights but never the war!

If I could find a weak link in your geopolitical assessment, I would gladly do so, for the consequences of its logic lead ineluctably to an awful moment for anyone who loves America, and liberty.

And by that I do not merely mean a breakup of NATO, which I judge already likely, or of the ability of a newly-revanchist Russia to project its naval power into the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean. The true nightmare scenario would be an Axis of Oil: between the neo-Fascist powers of the West (Russia, its reclaimed former Republics, Venezuela, and perhaps Mexico) on one hand, and the radical Islamic states on the other.

Such overwhelming control of the production, transportation, and pricing of the lifeblood of Western capitalism in nuclear-equipped hands would foment a crisis of global proportions and, I fear, a conflagration to match.

I'll read VDH on the subject and see if he can help me can poke some holes in the scenario. But then again: he's worried, too.

How sad that we are reduced to looking to pundits for solutions. That is, it is a given that Obama will not act affirmatively to address any of these threats.

I am really getting tired of hoping that I will be wrong about our government.

There are very few "pundits" in whom I place any stock, but Dr. Victor Davis Hanson is one. He has an encyclopedic knowledge of ancient history and a philosopher's grasp of metaphysics and causality.

In my estimation, you are not wrong about our government or about the intentions of those in whose care it has presently been placed. Not only do they lack an effective thesis to address the existential threats to our freedom and security, they have embraced the antithesis.

We are in agreement about the facts as least as they are recognizable at the moment. You're right to direct our attention to the "why" of it. Why does Obama and his administration leave the nation vulnerable to aggressive terroristic tyrants around the world? Some of those threats, such as the threat of Islamic fascism, are mortal threats to values the left professor still hold dear, such as the rights of women, homosexuals, scientific truth etc.

Normally I would reply that a committed leftist welcomes chaos to move his agenda and this is true no less on the international scene where the defense of the nation state can be compromised, as on the domestic scene. I believe the leftist sees America not as the shining city on the hill but as the great Satan who stands in the way of transnational socialistic utopia.

So, threats to America serve at least two valuable purposes for the leftist. They weaken America and that hasten OneWorld socialist order. They create conditions of chaos which is a precondition in their philosophy for socialism to triumph. I believe the leftist is arrogant enough to assume that he is smart enough to overcome primitive, medieval, theocracy with enlightened atheism of the 21st century after the terrorists, like useful idiots domestically, have served their purpose.

I have reservations, however, about a facile application of this analysis to Obama. Not because Obama is a moderate and not a Manchurian Marxist, but because of where Obama might see himself on the ladder of power. The career of Mao Tse Tung is instructive in this regard. Until he had attained absolute power in China, he was willing to cut deals with Shang Kai-shek to appease the Americans, to betray Shang Kai-shek to the Japanese to advance his power , to kowtow or defy the Russians as opportunity offered. In all of these affairs Chiang Kai-shek was willing to sacrifice soldiers and civilians by the hundreds of thousands for the most trivial seeming motivations as long as they remotely advanced his march to power.

Once he attained power he was utterly ruthless in maintaining it and utterly indifferent to the cost in human life. Indeed, he deliberately provoked the Korean War and willingly sacrificed hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers to wear down the American forces. He maintained this approach until it began to compromise his ability to obtain atomic weapons technology from Russia, whereupon, he abruptly changed policies.

My point is that the left is not reflexively pacifist. When it comes to advancing its goals it can be unbelievably bloodthirsty. When it's existence is threatened, as was the Soviet Union's in 1941, Stalin was implacable in trading Russian lives at a rate of 7 or 8 foe one to protect his dictatorship. There was not the slightest hint of pacifism there. Nor was there any shrinkage from torture or any other war crime or crime against humanity which might advance the cause. These issues are only respected by the he left when democracy, not socialism, is threatened.

To return to Obama, where does he see himself on the ladder of power? Does he believe he needs the chaos to advance his agenda? Or does he see chaos as a threat to his power which he is in the process of solidifying? I think this is the question which will answer the "why" of his foreign policy.

A key to understanding Obama is to acknowledge that he is not that deep a thinker. His worldview is not as profound, albeit misguided as that of his educators.

Where others have assumed the President's penchant for cliché and indistinct language a gauge of advanced intellect, I detect the presence of superficiality. Perhaps it ought to be unsurprising that curious Americans have not been made privy to Obama's college records, lest others advance the same diagnosis and be left with uncomfortable, unanswered questions.

What Mr. Obama does possess in addition to the useful charms and low arts of popularity is an unshakable faith in his own intellect and rectitude. The proper term for such misplaced faith is "arrogance" and as you well note, he is "arrogant enough to assume that he is smart enough to overcome primitive, medieval, theocracy with enlightened atheism of the 21st century after the terrorists, like useful idiots domestically, have served their purpose."

To such men, "chaos" is a useful tool to be wielded against those who such a person views as a means to his preferred ends. In my experience, there is an inherent ruthlessness in people who view others as stepping stones toward greatness they secretly know they have not earned. Such persons are never truly concerned with where they stand in relation to others (i.e. - the "ladder of power") because they presume to dwell outside of such metaphysical constraints as "value" and "merit", but rather assume their achievement as a matter of having convinced others to follow them.

There is frequently a pathological quality to people like this: Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro: all were or are far less intelligent and perceptive than they themselves believed, but each possessed an ability to motivate others and to promote a novus ordum on the strength of their personality and will.

That said, I am not prepared to place Barack Obama among the prior cast except in terms of tendency: he has not yet evinced a will to sacrifice his countrymen to his vision; whether he ultimately does depends upon the depth of his pathology and, still, upon the willingness of the yet largely free country over which he presides to allow it.

There is much to provoke thought in your reply but it seems that it all boils down to the "pathology" of our Manchurian Marxist. As you say in the last paragraph [what] "he ultimately does depends upon the depth of his pathology." It is worth note that his career path is strewn with many bodies and he seems able to discard his intimates quite cavalierly when they become liabilities. That is a symptom of the kind of pathology you cite. The cult of personality, it seems to me, is another indicator of this pathology. Before the election I wrote the following vanity which I think is relevant to your observations:

Our Republic has never before been confronted with a chief executive who might actually want to see the end of the United States as a nation state. It is conceivable, and I admit this is a leap of speculation, that Barak Obama, as an indirect product of The Frankfurt School, wishes to see the advent of one-world socialism and recognizes the United States as the single greatest obstacle to obtaining that goal. If he is in fact a socialist one worlder, Obama could very well exploit his treaty making powers and utterly enervate America.

THE OBAMA PATHOLOGY

The idea of the Authoritarian Personality originated in The Frankfurt School as a means of undermining the position of the father within the family circle and thereby undermine the family itself and ultimately the nation as a bulwark against communism. It was heavily larded with pseudo-Freudian analysis and was expanded to subvert all institutionalized authority. Every season we see an article, usually by some college professor with too much time in his hands or sometimes by psychiatrists acting either singly or in gaggles, opining that the current president, if he be Republican, is somehow psychologically deficient. No Republican president or Republican candidate in my lifetime has escaped this ritual psychoanalysis.

A recent excrescence of this genre is the book by Naomi Wolf in which she ludicrously argues that America, led by George Bush, is on the verge of descending into fascism. I have posted my objection to this sort of pseudoscience and I have tried to debunk this cheap propaganda so I am reluctant to engage hypocritically in the same game now. Well, I am going to do it anyway. I aim to indict about half of our whole society. The half, and likely more than half, that will vote for Barak Obama. My psychological conclusions do not pretend to the trappings of the "science" of the psyche and adorned with the word games of Freudian analysis, rather they are rooted in common sense.

The conclusion of anyone with common sense who has seen the films of innocent children singing their Obama songs or who has watched the quasi-military chanting and saluting of the Obama Youth in military garb must conclude that there is something very, very wrong with these people. I remember when I first saw the YouTube Children singing their Obama song I became conscious after a while that my mouth was gaping open, so appalled was I. My reaction to seeing the paramilitary gang marching into the karate hall was a mixture of embarrassment that these kids would make such fools of themselves and anger that adults would so brazenly manipulate children. Then I felt a creeping sense of unease that there was something potentially very sinister going on. Dear merciful God, this is Orwellian!

Beyond a very healthy repugnance to the spectacle of brainwashed children put on display, beyond the inescapable Maoist symbolism of it all, a commonsense person asks, what kind of man would permit this to go on in his name? What kind of parent would not seek to protect his child from such a man? What kind of pathology would lead parents who presumably love their children to consign those children to the demons of mind control? How could Americans fall for such a transparent cult of personality?

Unfortunately, we need not be uncertain about what kind of man would permit this grotesquerie to be advanced in his name. History provides us with plenty of examples: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Kim Jong-Il come to mind and now we add Barak Obama to the list. Why has he not spoken out and repudiated this? Would not a decent man do so if only for the children?

If Obama will not speak out now as a candidate when a little modesty, even false modesty, would advance his chances, what will he do when he gains office with no resistance anywhere on the horizon; no opposition in either the House or the Senate, no voice in traditional media to be raised against him, no institutional resistance on a national level of any kind organized to discourage him? Because he condones this obscenity one must ask, Is Obama really a narcissist as has been claimed? If so, how far will he go when he has the levers of power in his hands when there is no effective resistance to his ego?

How dangerous is Barak Obama?

Is he too dangerous to be put in a place where he could literally get us all killed? Or Is he the indispensable man in some sense? I do not think so. There is nothing in his career that suggests that he is the man for this season. In a time of war he has no military experience. In a time of looming financial disaster, he has no economic credentials. If he is potentially dangerous and if he is not indispensable, why would so many people want to put him in a position where he could do us harm, even get us all killed?

My commonsense explanation is that there must be a pathology, a mass psychosis, that brings people to the point where not only are they eager to make him the most powerful man in the world but they are invoking his name and calling upon him to be their savior. This they do rather than falling on their knees out of fear of The Real God.

This is the Obama pathology.

To a middle-class conservative who instinctively rejects conspiracy theories and normally wants to think the best of people because that's what he learned in Sunday school, this deification of an empty suit is as bewildering as it is frightening. What in the world are these people thinking? Do they not weigh the risks of consigning their fate to an unqualified man, worse, a person tainted his whole life with stunningly dangerous confederates including felons and Communists and terrorists? What is the upside? What is it about this man whose career is utterly uninterrupted by any accomplishment which would motivate these people to risk their children and my children to whatever he might do to them? How do they know? How can they be sure? Don't they have any doubts?

My problem is that I am seeking after that which I cannot find. I want to find an explanation in logic for a phenomenon of emotion. It is easy for middle-class conservatives to overlook the power of emotion even though history provides plenty of examples even within our own culture in America. Can logic explain why so many drank Jim Jonse's Kool aid? Why Charles Manson commanded such blood loyalty? How many cheered OJ Simpson's acquittal? Why did princes Diana's passing traumatize a nation? These are not questions which are answered with everyday commonsense. One almost has to go to the Bible to see the answer in Old Testament allegory which lets us know that evil is and there will always be worshipers of the golden calf.

I fear that in November we conservatives might find ourselves involuntarily embarked upon a journey that is foreign to our epistemology. We may be going into dark places and we might well be pushed into a netherworld where our common sense values are of no use because it is a place where down is up and black is white, a place where gravity does not pull but pushes, a place where we will need a pocket translator in order to converse in English with our government, our children's teachers, and our keepers even though they superficially use the same words we do. We sense we are about to be overwhelmed by forces guided by the ghost of Saul Alinsky.

I fear the downside of the Obama Pathology after his election may extend to dimensions we cannot begin to fasten to our everyday understanding or to our common sense. We have no way of knowing what will come because we don't know anything really about Barak Obama. We do not know if he is purely evil, we do not know if he is a committed communist, we do not know if he is a racist, we do not know if he wishes to see the submergence of the United States into a greater world order, we do not know if he is a megalomaniac, we do not even know, God help us, if he hates America. We do not know, in short, if we are backs - to- the- wall confronted with the Liberals' quadrennial nightmare: A real Authoritarian Personality.

We do know that Barak Obama has already encouraged a cult of personality whose implications are truly frightening and fundamentally un-American.