Replies

From the WSJ commentary on this:

There is a certain logic to this prediction, inasmuch as President Bush is serious about his Manichaean formulation of the war on terror--"either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." The Arab world has taken the side of the terrorists, at least those who target Israel. (The Washington Times reports that the Arab League yesterday completed a draft communiqué praising the Palestinians' "heroic intifada.") For diplomatic reasons, the Bush administration has drawn a distinction between Israel's antiterror struggle and America's, but this is not sustainable given the Palestinians' palpable determination to spurn all peace overtures and the financial and other ties between anti-Israel terrorists and Iran and Iraq.

What's more, despite Arab despots' willingness to have their young men and women blow themselves up in the name of killing Jews, it's hard to imagine the dictators themselves are all suicidal. Israel alone has defeated the Arabs in three wars; a U.S.-Israeli-Turkish alliance would surely be unbeatable.

It's also true, though, that if Baghdad unleashes weapons of mass destruction, victory could come at a steep cost to Israel. The ideal outcome surely would be to topple terror-sponsoring regimes one at a time, starting with a U.S. attack on Iraq with "moderate" Arab support. Despite public statements to the contrary, there's reason to think some such support--or at least a willingness to fall into line--exists. London's Guardian reports that "the US Air Force has begun preparations to move its Gulf headquarters from Saudi Arabia to Qatar, to bypass Saudi objections to military action against Iraq." The Army also has a substantial presence in Kuwait.

Certainly it's in Saddam's interest to widen the war quickly so as to take the heat off him. Little wonder the Iraqi regime has increased its payments to Palestinian suicide bombers' families (all the while complaining that U.N. sanctions are starving Iraqi children). Warren is right at least to fear that the war will become wider and deadlier than the U.S. would prefer. If it does so, there is no doubt the right side would prevail--but if Saddam unleashes weapons of mass destruction, victory could come at a high price to Israel.

what we are witnessing looks like joint preparations by the Palestinian Authority, Syria, its Lebanese client, Iraq, and Iran, for war on a regional scale, against both Israel and U.S. interests. I fear we may face a major, sudden, external assault on Israel, meant to precede U.S. action against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, and indeed prevent the U.S. from going there by enmiring it in the defence of Israel.

Fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

"While lost on the Western media . . ." LOL! They never "get it." The Western mediots were so busy chortling at the alleged "rejection" of Cheney's position at every stop, it never occurred to them he was on a different mission.

This piece, on the other hand, is very insightful.

So, if true, which oil companies are less dependent on Mid East oil and rely instead on domestic reserves?