If we consider President Barack Obama's work in two parts, one domestic and one foreign, we discover that he passed the most trying domestic policy challenges by seeing the healthcare plan passed. He is now preparing to face the most difficult foreign policy challenge, namely, the Middle East peace process, which I find much more difficult. If I were gambling on odds I would bet on his failure, while I would be wishing him success. Domestically, he is now pushing for reforming the financial regulations that were unchained with no limits by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and then by George W. Bush, leading to the ongoing global financial crisis. However, reforming these regulations will be like climbing a hill, in comparison to the Mount Everest-like summit that he had to climb as he pushed his healthcare plan bill forward. This latter bill was not supported by even one Republican in Congress, while the financial reform plan is a bipartisan effort being pursued by both the Democrats and the Republications. When President Obama visited New York, he asked prominent financial executives there not to support any ‘lobby' against reforms, unless their business model relies on bilking (read “sucking the blood of”) the people they deal with. In foreign affairs, the signing of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia was another hill in comparison to the Mount Everest climb that awaits him with the peace process. This is particularly valid given the fascistic government in power in Israel today that is supported by the known lobby, whose only allegiance lies with Israel often at the expense of the United States. Is there a relationship among certain issues that on the surface appear to be unrelated? Before I answer, I want to note down Obama's declared desire to seeing a world free of nuclear weapons, and that the treaty with Russia was signed in conjunction with the issuance of the US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), a report on the US government policy on nuclear weapons. This was then followed by a meeting that brought together 47 countries, aimed at curbing the proliferation of nuclear arms and preventing them from falling into the hands of terrorists (there needs to be a summit to prevent chemical and biological weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists as well). Moreover, there is a summit being currently held at the United Nations on nuclear non proliferation that will bring together all UN member states, i.e. 192 countries, to review the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). However, all the above does not invalidate the fact that the United States and Russia have more than ten thousand nuclear warheads, and each is many times more devastating than the Hiroshima bomb. In addition, Israel, India and Pakistan are yet to sign the NPT, while North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2003. Returning to the question regarding the relationship among issues that are seemingly unrelated, I would like to remind the reader that Obama wants a world free of nuclear weapons. Compare that to his predecessor whose administration concluded a deal with India to extract uranium from used American nuclear fuel, with all the strong opposition that ensued and that is still being voiced by Pakistan. Today, we find that in addition to the massive nuclear stockpile in both the United States and Russia, there are hundreds of nuclear bombs in France, Britain and China's possession. This is not to mention Israel, Pakistan and India, which have not signed the NPT, and also North Korea, which probably has two or three nuclear bombs as well. However, the focus in the nuclear issue seems to be entirely on Iran, which does not have a nuclear weapon...yet. Here lies the crux of the matter: each time Barack Obama says ‘peaceful solution', Benjamin Netanyahu says ‘Iran'. It is thus clear for the whole world, with the exception of the Israel lobby and the American Likudniks, that Iran is nothing but an excuse for Israel not to engage in the peace process with the Palestinians. The American concern that weapons of mass destruction may fall into the hands of terrorists is completely justified, and I have warned against this scenario many times in this column. I also wrote that Israel's rejection of the peace process means that the day will come when terrorists from al-Qaeda or other organizations will acquire nuclear bombs or biological or chemical material and then use it. I would have supported the U.S administration's bids against Iran had it also included for the larger threat represented by the Israeli nuclear arsenal, as this latter is in the hands of war criminals that belong to an occupying and murderous gang. In truth, for the United States specifically, the Israeli nuclear program should be the primary focus, firstly because it already exists and because it encourages other countries in the region to acquire nuclear weapons to confront it, and secondly, because Israel spies on the United States: for instance, the case of Jonathan Pollard is known and has caused immense damage to the U.S intelligence services, especially in Eastern Europe where American agents were caught and killed. And thirdly, because Israel receives U.S military and financial aid, which means that the United States is directly helping Israel against U.S interests in the Middle East and beyond, as the commander of the US Central Command Gen. David Petraeus put it. I believe that the Israel lobby and the Congressmen whom the lobby has in its pockets, along with the Likudnik Americans, are betraying their country for the sake of the country of thieves and war criminals that will defeat Barack Obama in the end, despite his intelligence, diligence and perseverance. This is because the evil Israeli cabal in Washington remains stronger until further notice, and peace in the Middle East is a mountain that the U.S President will not be able to climb. [email protected]
