As I reflect on that day and the aftermath of September 11, 2001, most of my memories are that which I witnessed firsthand when the second jet airliner slammed through Tower II, blowing out the north side of the building. I stood beneath it, stunned at the enormity of the explosion and the realization that America was under attack.
In the weeks and months that followed, we set out to rescue the fallen and recover those that perished. We learned over time that more than 2,700 people died in the attack, 23 of which worked for me and the NYPD. The loss to the New York City Fire Department was unimaginable - 343 firefighters. The Port Authority Police lost 37 police officers.
The city and our country united. We responded and rebuilt a shattered city, and in the months and years after, we went to war with those responsible and those perceived as a threat, in an attempt to make sure that day never happened again.
In many ways, we have seen success, and, in some ways, we have not.
The future of our country and its national security depends on our political leadership at every level and their ability to realize our successes and failures, learn from them, and use that knowledge to insure victory in fighting terrorism and defending our nation.
As an American and someone who has seen terror first hand, both here and in the Middle East, my concerns are many. The enemy that attacked us in 2001 still exists today on many continents; Somalia is becoming their new training ground. A conventional battle against this enemy is impossible, and will depend on our intelligence and our leadership. Our local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies must be fastidious in working together, and our political leadership must insure these agencies get the appropriations, resources and tools they need to be strong and effective.
Nine years later, we are still working to make this happen. From my point of view, the greatest detriment in reaching this goal is political partisanship. Our political leadership must work together or nothing ever gets accomplished. Something is quite often better than nothing, and given the political tide today, nothing is what we are getting due to political partisanship.
Regardless of party lines, whether it is the most extreme left wing Democrats or the staunched right wing Republicans, no one wants to see another attack on this country. Somehow, our political leadership must come together when it comes to this battle, or we all lose.
We have yet to secure our borders and continue to talk about immigration reform. Lately, however, the more we talk the less gets done.
We need to take a good look at the hard working immigrants that are here, many working jobs that Americans will not, taking care of their families in their native country. Before we offer lottery programs to outsiders to become residents, we should figure out how we benefit from those already here. Whatever we are going to do, we must do it with appropriate controls at our borders, or our security will remain compromised, again opening access for Al Qaida and terrorists to infiltrate our country. This must be a priority for Congress.
President Barack Obama recently announced the end of combat operations in Iraq. I am glad to see combat end and equally pleased with our accomplishments. Saddam Hussein launched multiple wars against his neighbors, used weapons of mass destruction, displaced and killed millions of his own people. This is similar to that which is presently occurring in Sudan. I believe Hussein should have been removed long before he was for the atrocities he committed against his own people.
Today Iraqi's live in freedom and no longer fear Iraq being a threat to their neighbors and region.
Afghanistan, on the other hand, will not be as easy - particularly without the right strategy and the resources that ground commanders need to get the job done. It is imperative that there are NO TIME LIMITS! If we have learned anything about the Taliban and Al Qaida, it is that they have all the time in the world and will just wait us out. With the recent increase in attacks on U.S. troops by the Taliban, the United States must keep the pressure on and give General David Petreaus the resources he needs for victory.
I have concerns about the weeks ahead and the forthcoming trial of Ahmed Ghailani, one of the remaining 180 prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on charges of assisting Al Qaida bomb the U.S. In 1998, embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. Ghailani will be one of the first terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to be tried in a civilian court in the U.S. I fear this will open the door for constitutional challenges that could result in his release and the release of those just like him. These men must be held accountable. We must send a clear message to those that would consider attacks against our country or our citizens around the world.
With respect to building a Mosque in close proximity to Ground Zero, I oppose the mosque for three reasons. My reasoning has nothing to do with the Muslim religion nor do I dislike Muslims. The fact of the matter is, I have many Muslim friends all around the world.
Building the mosque so close to Ground Zero, the first real battleground in the war against radical Islam, is extremely insensitive to the surviving friends and family members of those that died there. Furthermore, it is a constant reminder of the message sent by the attackers and those like Osama Bin Laden. I also question the motives of the founders of the project, and strongly agree that we need to determine the source of the funding. Inevitably, the controversy surrounding the Mosque will bring with it security concerns for local, state and federal law enforcement authorities.
As I reflect on the controversy that the Mosque has created thus far, I am reminded of the war against terror and those who did or did not support it. If you recall, there are many that supported the war in 2001 and 2002, yet today, are totally against it. Notwithstanding the politics involved, would all those who are presently in support of building the Mosque have supported it on the morning of September 12, 2001? I think not.
On this particular September 11th, nine years later, I hope every American realizes and appreciates the sacrifices made by our law enforcement agencies and first responders on that dreadful day. Most important are the men and women in our armed forces, both here in the United States and abroad that are in harm’s way.
At a time when we are reminded of our constitution on a daily basis, albeit in our courts, regarding immigration, or the war against terror, it is the men and women in our armed forces who fight on our behalf, and defend our constitutional freedoms and the very democracy that we often take for granted.
We should be thankful for their service and sacrifice, and for the families that many have left behind. For without them, this country would not be what it is today.
God Bless them and God Bless the United States of America.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Sunday, August 15, 2010
For Victory's Sake - No Time Lines!
Immediately after President Barack Obama announced that United States forces would begin leaving Afghanistan in July 2011, intelligence services began intercepting the following text messages on Afghan insurgent's mobile phones:
"Mubarak," Congratulations in Arabic. "If you are a believer, you will be a victor," quoting the Quran.
Then came the message that said it all, "The enemy president is announcing a withdrawal of troops who will leave our country with their heads bowed."
Is that a reality? Of course not, but Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership will use it to their advantage, building strength in their following as a result.
It was the wrong message, at the wrong time.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda need to know that we intend to stay the course until the job is done, and the new Afghan government can stand on their own. We're either in it for victory or we're not... and telling your enemy when you intend to throw in the towel and give up, is a strategy that can only lead to defeat, because then it is only a matter of time... and the enemy has all the time in the world.
They have waited us out before and they will do it again.
There are a number of things we must do to win this battle and telling our enemy when we intend to leave, isn't one of them.
"Mubarak," Congratulations in Arabic. "If you are a believer, you will be a victor," quoting the Quran.
Then came the message that said it all, "The enemy president is announcing a withdrawal of troops who will leave our country with their heads bowed."
Is that a reality? Of course not, but Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership will use it to their advantage, building strength in their following as a result.
It was the wrong message, at the wrong time.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda need to know that we intend to stay the course until the job is done, and the new Afghan government can stand on their own. We're either in it for victory or we're not... and telling your enemy when you intend to throw in the towel and give up, is a strategy that can only lead to defeat, because then it is only a matter of time... and the enemy has all the time in the world.
They have waited us out before and they will do it again.
There are a number of things we must do to win this battle and telling our enemy when we intend to leave, isn't one of them.
Monday, August 2, 2010
TAKE CARE OF THE 9/11 HEROES
Nearly nine years after the attack on the World Trade Center, the 9/11 heroes who paid with their health and their lives are still waiting for the health care coverage and compensation they so deserve.
Why we haven't come to their aid as quickly as they came to ours is a question that all Americans should be asking their political leadership.
Instead of honoring the valient first responders that ran into those buildings by passing the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, they were told to "go to hell" as the Daily News so appropriately put it.
I believe that we should return the sentiment to our legislators that voted against the bill in the next election. If our legislators can't support our first responders that so selfishly put their lives on the line for each and everyone of us, then they don't deserve your support on election day.
The Democratic majority could have brought this bill up and passed it, but they did not. Even worse, only 12 Republicans voted to support the bill. As the ninth anniversary of 9/11 approaches, the House will bring this bill back to the floor for a vote in September, and every American should be watching.
We don't want legislative trickery or hypocrisy, or childish tirades for our enemies' entertainment.
The men and women in the police and fire departments that have sacrificed so much - some with their lives, deserve better.
We need to come to their aid as quickly as they came to ours.
Why we haven't come to their aid as quickly as they came to ours is a question that all Americans should be asking their political leadership.
Instead of honoring the valient first responders that ran into those buildings by passing the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, they were told to "go to hell" as the Daily News so appropriately put it.
I believe that we should return the sentiment to our legislators that voted against the bill in the next election. If our legislators can't support our first responders that so selfishly put their lives on the line for each and everyone of us, then they don't deserve your support on election day.
The Democratic majority could have brought this bill up and passed it, but they did not. Even worse, only 12 Republicans voted to support the bill. As the ninth anniversary of 9/11 approaches, the House will bring this bill back to the floor for a vote in September, and every American should be watching.
We don't want legislative trickery or hypocrisy, or childish tirades for our enemies' entertainment.
The men and women in the police and fire departments that have sacrificed so much - some with their lives, deserve better.
We need to come to their aid as quickly as they came to ours.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
No Mosque at Ground Zero
For me, building a mosque at Ground Zero in New York City is out of the question, and here's why.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 Islamic fundamentalists slammed two jet airliners into the World Trade Center towers, murdering 2,750 people; 23 of those people worked for me. Thousands of New Yorkers and people all across America and around the world suffered the loss of family members and friends. For them, the memories of that shocking morning and their deep losses are no less vivid today than they were then. All Muslims are not terrorists, but those responsible for the slaughter of innocents on 9/11 were, in fact, Muslim, and that is something that the families and friends of those lost can never forget. That Muslim connection, like it or not, is always going to be there, burning in the hearts of those left behind.
I personally think they have suffered enough and we should not add to their grief and pain.
A proper respect for their feelings should prevent a building associated with the motivation for the attack from being built so near the one spot mourners should be able to go unchallenged to grieve over their dead. There are many other locations in New York City where the proposed mosque could be built. Indeed, there are already about 100 mosques in the city, where 600,000 to 800,000 Muslims worship daily. Unlike the proposed new structure, these mosques serve Muslims who live and work nearby. Few Muslims live or work near the location for the proposed mosque, raising the question, why must the new, 13-story mosque be built there? Is its purpose to be more than just a place of worship?
There are serious questions relating to the funding of this project, and those questions must be answered. Who is involved? Do they have any connection to terrorists or terrorist supporters and sympathizers? I'm also concerned about how the mosque will be perceived by Islamic radicals around the world. Will it be seen, as supporters of the mosque claim, as a demonstration of American religious tolerance, or will it become a symbol of Islamic radicals triumphantly imposing their extremist version of Islam on America through terror?
I believe the builders' true intent is to build this mosque as a permanent reminder to all of us of the damage done to us on 9/11. And that's what it will be, whether anyone has the courage to admit it or not.
In the aftermath of 9/11, we saw a spike in anti-Muslim incidents and I believe Americans will continue to understand that it is wrong to blame all Muslims for the sins of a radical few, but the proposed mosque may well become a target for those who will see it as a provocation. This could become an enormous security issue for the NYPD and other law enforcement authorities. Any violence directed at the mosque could easily generate an international incident that could further empower radical Islamists - just consider the deadly, world-wide fury aroused by the Dutch cartoons. We shouldn't alter our behavior to cower before terror threats, but we shouldn't set ourselves up to be exploited by those looking for supposed transgressions to avenge, either.
Lastly, supporters of the proposed mosque invoke freedom of religion. While I strongly believe in the freedoms our forefathers gave us in the U.S. Constitution, I believe that those politicians insisting on building such a controversial structure in such a sensitive location when there are less controversial and less sensitive alternatives are placing political correctness ahead of common sense and simple respect for the bereaved.
The real issue should be about what is the right thing to do and building this mosque so near Ground Zero is just wrong.
Dead wrong.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
I Won't Support the Mosque at Ground Zero
Supporting the building of a Mosque just 600 feet from Ground Zero is absolutely outrageous, and for those politicians that are doing so under the guise of the First Amendment and Freedom of Religion, I would suggest that for once you not worry about being politically correct.
Think of the victims and the families they left behind on 9/11; the security implications for the surrounding area, the involvement in the project of those with questionable backgrounds and most importantly, the perception it will create in those countries and with those groups that sponsor Islamic terror. For them; this is the trophy that will stand as a symbol of victory.
This has nothing to do with religion; It's just the right thing to do. Allowing this project to move forward is insensitive at best and should not be permitted.
Think of the victims and the families they left behind on 9/11; the security implications for the surrounding area, the involvement in the project of those with questionable backgrounds and most importantly, the perception it will create in those countries and with those groups that sponsor Islamic terror. For them; this is the trophy that will stand as a symbol of victory.
This has nothing to do with religion; It's just the right thing to do. Allowing this project to move forward is insensitive at best and should not be permitted.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Newsmax
No Mosque at Ground Zero
Thursday, July 22, 2010 02:13 PM
By: Frank Gaffney
The Center for Security Policy today unveiled a powerful 1-minute video opposing the construction of a 13-story, $100 million mega-mosque near the hallowed ground of the World Trade Center.
The twin towers were destroyed on 9/11 by adherents to the barbaric, supremacist and totalitarian program authoritative Islam calls “Shariah.” And the imam who is promoting this mosque has publicly declared that he seeks to “bring Shariah to America.”
{^YouTubeVideo (url)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkMolLriAkQ (width)425 (height)264 (fs)1 (rel)1^}
As the ad makes clear, Shariah’s followers have long built mosques on the most sacred sites of those they have conquered; for example, on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, at Constantinople/Istanbul’s St. Sophia Basilica, and in Cordoba, Spain, the capital of the occupying Moors’ Muslim kingdom.
A growing chorus of New Yorkers and other Americans, including, notably, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, have expressed outrage at the prospect of a similar, permanent beachhead for Shariah being use to defile ground zero, and symbolize America’s defeat at the hands of her enemies.
We say, “No Mosque at Ground Zero.”
And I say:
Supporting the building of a Mosque just 600 feet from Ground Zero is absolutely outrageous, and for those politicians that are doing so under the guise of the First Amendment and Freedom of Religion, I would suggest that for once you not worry about being politically correct.
Think of the victims and the families they left behind on 9/11; the security implications for the surrounding area, the involvement in the project of those with questionable backgrounds and most importantly, the perception it will create in those countries and with those groups that sponsor Islamic terror. For them... this is the trophy that will stand as a symbol of victory.
This has nothing to do with religion... It's just the right thing to do. Allowing this project to move forward is insensitive at best and should not be permitted.
No Mosque at Ground Zero
Thursday, July 22, 2010 02:13 PM
By: Frank Gaffney
The Center for Security Policy today unveiled a powerful 1-minute video opposing the construction of a 13-story, $100 million mega-mosque near the hallowed ground of the World Trade Center.
The twin towers were destroyed on 9/11 by adherents to the barbaric, supremacist and totalitarian program authoritative Islam calls “Shariah.” And the imam who is promoting this mosque has publicly declared that he seeks to “bring Shariah to America.”
{^YouTubeVideo (url)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkMolLriAkQ (width)425 (height)264 (fs)1 (rel)1^}
As the ad makes clear, Shariah’s followers have long built mosques on the most sacred sites of those they have conquered; for example, on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, at Constantinople/Istanbul’s St. Sophia Basilica, and in Cordoba, Spain, the capital of the occupying Moors’ Muslim kingdom.
A growing chorus of New Yorkers and other Americans, including, notably, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, have expressed outrage at the prospect of a similar, permanent beachhead for Shariah being use to defile ground zero, and symbolize America’s defeat at the hands of her enemies.
We say, “No Mosque at Ground Zero.”
And I say:
Supporting the building of a Mosque just 600 feet from Ground Zero is absolutely outrageous, and for those politicians that are doing so under the guise of the First Amendment and Freedom of Religion, I would suggest that for once you not worry about being politically correct.
Think of the victims and the families they left behind on 9/11; the security implications for the surrounding area, the involvement in the project of those with questionable backgrounds and most importantly, the perception it will create in those countries and with those groups that sponsor Islamic terror. For them... this is the trophy that will stand as a symbol of victory.
This has nothing to do with religion... It's just the right thing to do. Allowing this project to move forward is insensitive at best and should not be permitted.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
SUBJECT: Three Questions from Mr. Matt Davis
July 21, 2010 Dear Mr. Davis:
Thank you for your note of July 17, 2010.
As to your questions, naturally I am disappointed in the American criminal justice system as it relates to my case, but still have some faith in the system, and pray that my appeal remedies that which we feel were unjust. It has not however, diminished my faith in, or love for my country.
As for Osama Bin Laden... capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden would be a cinch, if in fact we knew where he was. Our problem is two fold: He lives in the mountainous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan and is keenly aware of our intelligence and technical capabilities and uses that to his advantage, i.e... no speaking on a cell phone, using a computer, etc... He is basically been resolved to living like a rat to avoid detection, in a space that can only be described as a needle in a haystack, in size and magnitude.
There has been a $50M dollar reward on his head for nearly 8 years and the entire Arab region is aware of it. His loyalists and followers could care less about the money. It means nothing to them. Less than a month after we announced the $25M dollar reward on Saddam Hussein and his sons, Uday and Qusay were dead, and Hussein was captured within 90 days. It was all about the money. Bin Laden's followers wouldn't know what to do with the money if they had it - they love the life they live.
I believe we will eventually capture or kill him, but it is not as easy as many people think.
Lastly, I can only hope that the American people in judging me, will look beyond the tabloid headlines at my 30 years of public service, my patriotism and love for this country, and all the good I've done throughout my life before they form their opinions. That is all I can ask.
For now, I pray that the time I am imprisoned goes as quickly as possible so that I may return to the wife and children, who are my strength in overcoming this challenge.
Thank you for writing and thank you for your support.
BERNARD B. KERIK
Thank you for your note of July 17, 2010.
As to your questions, naturally I am disappointed in the American criminal justice system as it relates to my case, but still have some faith in the system, and pray that my appeal remedies that which we feel were unjust. It has not however, diminished my faith in, or love for my country.
As for Osama Bin Laden... capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden would be a cinch, if in fact we knew where he was. Our problem is two fold: He lives in the mountainous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan and is keenly aware of our intelligence and technical capabilities and uses that to his advantage, i.e... no speaking on a cell phone, using a computer, etc... He is basically been resolved to living like a rat to avoid detection, in a space that can only be described as a needle in a haystack, in size and magnitude.
There has been a $50M dollar reward on his head for nearly 8 years and the entire Arab region is aware of it. His loyalists and followers could care less about the money. It means nothing to them. Less than a month after we announced the $25M dollar reward on Saddam Hussein and his sons, Uday and Qusay were dead, and Hussein was captured within 90 days. It was all about the money. Bin Laden's followers wouldn't know what to do with the money if they had it - they love the life they live.
I believe we will eventually capture or kill him, but it is not as easy as many people think.
Lastly, I can only hope that the American people in judging me, will look beyond the tabloid headlines at my 30 years of public service, my patriotism and love for this country, and all the good I've done throughout my life before they form their opinions. That is all I can ask.
For now, I pray that the time I am imprisoned goes as quickly as possible so that I may return to the wife and children, who are my strength in overcoming this challenge.
Thank you for writing and thank you for your support.
BERNARD B. KERIK
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
BAD BUSINESS AT THE PENTAGON
According to sources at the Pentagon, the United States is buying Russian-made helicopters for the government of Afghanistan, which has upset some members of Congress. If that is true... we need to identify all those Congressional leaders who are not upset by this program and either impeach them or vote them out of office.
Every member of the House and the Senate, as well as every American in this country should be outraged by this stupidity.
The United States government has spent $648 million dollars to buy or refurbish 31 Russian Mi-17 transport helicopters for the Afghan Air Corps. WHY NOT AMERICAN? According to some legislators, the Pentagon never even considered alternatives to the Russian purchase, which has prevented competitive pricing and will enable Russian defense contractors to gouge prices.
This is outrageous... so where is the outrage?
Legislators on both sides of the House have said that this program has close to no oversight, and there has been massive waste, cost over runs, schedule delays, safety concerns and major delivery problems. If this is true, as are the reports that there are substantial no bid contracts being handed out in this program in which our government is paying significantly higher than the going market rates for these choppers, there should be even a bigger concern -- Corruption.
All that said and done, why Russia? Pentagon officials have outlined a number of reasons why they believe that the Russian made choppers are best for Afghanistan, but are they? If we're using the same people to make that decision that allowed these no bids contracts with massive waste, cost over runs and delivery problems, we may want to take a serious second look at the requirements, and who can fill them. More so... IT'S RUSSIA! The same country with that has these cushy relationships with Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. At the rate we're going, maybe we can buy some helicopters from Iran given they have much of the same terrain as Afghanistan, NO?
This program and these contracts are stupid and should be stopped immediately.
Russia is not an ally, a friend or a business partner. Why are we giving them this business and worse, why are we spending more that we should.
This is a bad business, bad management and bad government.
Every member of the House and the Senate, as well as every American in this country should be outraged by this stupidity.
The United States government has spent $648 million dollars to buy or refurbish 31 Russian Mi-17 transport helicopters for the Afghan Air Corps. WHY NOT AMERICAN? According to some legislators, the Pentagon never even considered alternatives to the Russian purchase, which has prevented competitive pricing and will enable Russian defense contractors to gouge prices.
This is outrageous... so where is the outrage?
Legislators on both sides of the House have said that this program has close to no oversight, and there has been massive waste, cost over runs, schedule delays, safety concerns and major delivery problems. If this is true, as are the reports that there are substantial no bid contracts being handed out in this program in which our government is paying significantly higher than the going market rates for these choppers, there should be even a bigger concern -- Corruption.
All that said and done, why Russia? Pentagon officials have outlined a number of reasons why they believe that the Russian made choppers are best for Afghanistan, but are they? If we're using the same people to make that decision that allowed these no bids contracts with massive waste, cost over runs and delivery problems, we may want to take a serious second look at the requirements, and who can fill them. More so... IT'S RUSSIA! The same country with that has these cushy relationships with Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. At the rate we're going, maybe we can buy some helicopters from Iran given they have much of the same terrain as Afghanistan, NO?
This program and these contracts are stupid and should be stopped immediately.
Russia is not an ally, a friend or a business partner. Why are we giving them this business and worse, why are we spending more that we should.
This is a bad business, bad management and bad government.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
UAE AMBASSADOR SPEAKS THE TRUTH
Just last week, I stressed the importance of dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the threat they pose not only to Israel and Europe, but to the Arab countries as well.
The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial on July 9, 2010, which expounds on that theory specifically detailing the concerns of Yousef Al-Otaiba, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Ambassador to the United States.
According to Ambassador Al-Otaiba, the UAE and other Arab countries fear a nuclear Iran as much and perhaps more than Israel does. When asked if the Ambassador wanted the United States to intervene in Iran’s bomb program, he answered, “Absolutely.” He then went on to highlight a point that is not often addressed or mentioned by the pundits, and that was the immediate threat to the United States of a nuclear Iran, which in turn would have an enormous impact on the security of our Arab allies. That threat isn’t a threat against us here at home, but more so, a threat to military assets buried within the Arab region.
The Ambassador’s concerns for our assets obviously has a self-serving interest, that being that a multiple attack on the U.S. installations in the region would clearly diminish our ability to defend and support our allies like Dubai, Israel, the UAE, Jordan, etc. If that happened, many countries in the region would reluctantly cower and run for cover toward Iran if they lacked the assurance that the United States was willing or able to confront Iran.
The Ambassador and I concur that a nuclear Iran will never be deterred by sanctions, and that the U.S. or Israel needs to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities. We further agree that THE TIME TO DEAL WITH IRAN IS NOW.
The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial on July 9, 2010, which expounds on that theory specifically detailing the concerns of Yousef Al-Otaiba, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Ambassador to the United States.
According to Ambassador Al-Otaiba, the UAE and other Arab countries fear a nuclear Iran as much and perhaps more than Israel does. When asked if the Ambassador wanted the United States to intervene in Iran’s bomb program, he answered, “Absolutely.” He then went on to highlight a point that is not often addressed or mentioned by the pundits, and that was the immediate threat to the United States of a nuclear Iran, which in turn would have an enormous impact on the security of our Arab allies. That threat isn’t a threat against us here at home, but more so, a threat to military assets buried within the Arab region.
The Ambassador’s concerns for our assets obviously has a self-serving interest, that being that a multiple attack on the U.S. installations in the region would clearly diminish our ability to defend and support our allies like Dubai, Israel, the UAE, Jordan, etc. If that happened, many countries in the region would reluctantly cower and run for cover toward Iran if they lacked the assurance that the United States was willing or able to confront Iran.
The Ambassador and I concur that a nuclear Iran will never be deterred by sanctions, and that the U.S. or Israel needs to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities. We further agree that THE TIME TO DEAL WITH IRAN IS NOW.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)