Iran's nuclear arsenal is not intended for civilians

The country of Iran has been striving to become nuclear since the 1960’s, yet they still have not achieved their goal. In the 1960’s Iran first assembled its nuclear program, the program made very little development, and was eventually deserted in the year 1979. It was not until the 1990’s that Iran began a new attempt to carry on its nuclear program. Since then speculation and distrust surrounds Iran and their nuclear program. Iran claims its utilizing nuclear energy to generate electricity in order to conserve the oil supply Iran sells overseas. Also Iran claims that it needs more fuel for the research reactor that supplies them with nuclear medicine. In order to produce the medical isotopes, it requires highly enriched uranium. The recent increases of Iran’s uranium levels continue to grow closer and closer to the amount necessary to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Turkey and Brazil made a deal with Iran that proposed they would process Iran’s low-grade uranium in Turkey, and the uranium would be returned to Iran as fuel. After the deal among these countries was achieved, Iran was indecisive and kept refusing and then accepting the deal many times. Iran’s disinclination to present a clear and uncomplicated answer was interpreted as a delaying tactic. Iran’s plan of exchanging low-grade uranium for fuel distracts the public from the thought that Iran is producing nuclear weapons. While Iran is trading its low-grade uranium, It is also producing large amounts of high-grade uranium which is what weapons-grade material requires. These amounts are far more than what is necessary for civilian nuclear-energy production.

Iran continues to reassure the United Nations that its work is strictly for peaceful purposes; however the United Nations nuclear monitoring agency reported that Iran has not cooperated entirely throughout the investigation to determine whether or not Iran is also manufacturing nuclear weapons. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters, “Every step of the way has demonstrated clearly to the world that Iran is not participating in the international arena in the way that we had asked them to do and that they continued to pursue their nuclear program.”

The United States along with our allies Britain, France, and Germany have been repeatedly pressing the United Nations Security Council to enforce harsher sanctions on Iran for its nuclear objectives. The sanctions that are being introduced to the United Nations Security Council are aimed Iran’s ships and weapons. The sanctions would limit the sales of arms to Iran, and also allow for inspection of cargo ships heading to and from Iran. Also there are sanctions targeting banks in Iran that are financing Iran’s nuclear production. "While we do not welcome sanctions, we do not fear them either," Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told reporters in New York. "We feel that the US government will be damaged more than us by those sanctions."

Iran continues to show dangerous signs that it is producing nuclear weapons, nevertheless persists that its nuclear plans are intended for civilian purposes only. If Iran is being truthful about its intentions, then Iran should be cooperating completely with the desires of the United Nation.

The End of the British Mandate 1948

Just after World War I, Europe's boundaries were undergoing some dramatic alterations. The British Mandate changed the map of Europe. By 1948, and the end of the mandate, the Middle East map would also be changed.

France and Great Britain declared war on the second Ottoman Empire in World War I and parts of the Middle East had been liberated. Lebanon and Syria went to France and the British seized control of Iraq and Palestine (modern day Israel, including the West Bank and Jordan).

The Balfour Agreement was signed and essentially stated that The British Parliament would develop an Independent Jewish Homeland to be called Israel (in the current Israel location today). Back then Israel was called Palestine. Again anti-Semitism raged, and this only broadened an ongoing controversial subject; the re-settlement of the Jews into their homeland.

Later, the Arab’s, (represented by Amir Faysal) and the Zionists, (Jews represented by Chaim Weizmann) convened at peace treaty negotiations along with the Allied and Central Powers. Nonetheless, because the pledges were not fulfilled to the Arab’s satisfactions, they did not conform to this agreement.

As a result, the League of Nations (now known as the United Nations), came together during a conference to determine a compromise. The purpose of the meetings concluded on July 24, 1922 with an approval by the League of Nations Council. The United States had not yet joined the League, but they did agree on the plan of the Jewish National Home in Palestine (Land of Israel). The British Mandate of Palestine was therefore in effect from 1920 to 1948, and divided Palestine for the first time since before the Ottoman Empire.

The British Mandate declared the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine,” called upon the mandatory power to "secure establishment of the Jewish National Home," and recognized "an appropriate Jewish agency" for advice and cooperation.

The British commitment to the institution of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was made with good intentions, however it significantly weakened over the years. Therefore another idea was purposed; the MacDonald White Paper of 1939

It was supposed to resolve the opposing Arab opinion about Jewish settlement. By this time, desperate refugees from the Holocaust emerged, but their settlement back to their homeland was prevented. Jewish immigration was periodically limited by the British, but even more so restricted after 1939. However, the Arab immigration was not restricted at all.

The Zionists were becoming angry. The Mandate was not working. A workable decree was required to pacify the Arabs and the Jews. As World War II came to a close, action was required on behalf of Jewish people. The survivors of the Holocaust were in need of resettlement, and so it happened through the establishment of a Jewish state.

The British were looking to get out of the Middle East, and they needed to appease both Arabs and Jews. An eleven member committee comprised the UN Special Committee, UNSCOP, convened to study the issues. It was determined that the Jewish National Home was never fulfilled and that both the Arabs and Jews were claiming the state. An end to the British Mandate was at hand. As a result, Palestine (Land of Israel) was about to become two states; one Arab and the other Jewish in a call to partition the area. It also called for the withdrawal of British forces and a termination of the mandate by August 1, 1948, and establishment of the new independent states by October 1, 1948. The conclusion to the British rule with the U.N. Partition Plan of Palestine was met with delight by the Jews. It was accepted by the Jewish community leaders in Palestine; the Jewish Agency. On the contrary, the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, rejected the Partition Plan by the Arab League (still in existence today with over 21 Arab states).

Keep in mind that the Jerusalem-Bethlehem cities, home of the Holy Places and religious buildings and sites, had been granted special international protection. It did not belong to neither of the two states.

Turmoil and chaos began again. The mandate was no longer in effect, and consequently the Palestine Civil War broke out, but the victory went to the Jews. Britain announced it’s pulling out of Palestine by May 15, 1948 without a transition plan in place. The day before Britain’s withdrawal, the Jewish community published their Declaration of Independence. The State of Israel was proclaimed when the flag bearing the Star of David was raised over Israel. Subsequently, five Arab armies unsuccessfully attacked Israel, starting the Arab-Israeli War.

To really understand the division of the Palestinians and the Jews, you undoubtedly must go back to Abraham where it all originates. The Jewish people base their claim to the Land of Israel on four premises: the Jewish people settled and developed the land; the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people; the territory was captured in defensive wars; and God promised the land to Abraham, specifically detailed in Genesis 15.18-19 and exclusively to Abraham as explained in Genesis 32.24-30. The providential protection afforded to the Jewish people has always been their security and will continue to be their refuge.

Tragedy of Pearl Harbor launches United States Maritime Strategy forward.

On December 7, 1941 the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor resulted in one of the greatest defining moments in history. The well-executed raid on the United States Navy’s Pacific fleet destroyed ninety ships and forced the Navy to completely change its maritime strategy. The new maritime strategy called for a greater reliance upon aircraft carriers as opposed to Battleships as a more effective strategy for maritime warfare. Although the events of that historic day were catastrophic, the lesson of that tragedy launched the Navy into the modern warfare tactics that are used today and documented in the United States National Maritime Strategy.

The current National Maritime Strategy defines key goals and objectives for the United States Navy. Specifically, the strategy outlines six goals:

• Forward Presence
• Deterrence
• Sea Control
• Power Projection
• Maritime Security
• Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Response

This strategy relies heavily upon the Navy’s force structure consisting of eleven aircraft carriers supported by over two hundred destroyers, cruisers, and auxiliary ships.

Note that not a single Battleship exists today in the United States Navy inventory of ships. Clearly, the aircraft carrier is the centerpiece of today’s maritime strategy and represents the most recognizable symbol of American naval supremacy providing five sovereign acres of United States territory that can be deployed in international waters at the will of the President.

Before 1941, Naval strategists debated whether Battleships or aircraft carriers provided the most capable firepower to accomplish the maritime mission. Battleship advocates favored its heavy caliber guns to deliver the firepower to conquer adversaries and ensure command of the sea. Compared to cruisers and destroyers, the Battleship’s heavy caliber guns provided far superior naval gunfire with ranges over twenty miles, but aircraft provided the capability to deliver ordnance for hundreds of miles. While Battleships enjoyed the reputation of providing supreme authority and control in naval operations, there was only a single fleet engagement of battleships during WWI to corroborate its exalted position. Nevertheless, the battleships reigned supreme as evidenced by its inventory advantage of eight battleships to three aircraft carriers on the eve of the historic Pearl Harbor attack.

The debate between the battleships and aircraft carriers was soundly resolved on Dec 7, 1941, when the Japanese delivered a fatal strike to the United States Pacific fleet using carrier-launched aircraft. The Japanese aircraft ironically destroyed eight American battleships and forever sealed the future of battleships by literally sending them to the bottom of the sea.

I believe that even without the events at Pearl Harbor, the United States Navy would have undoubtedly recognized the efficiency and supremacy of the aircraft carrier over the battleship. I have made this observation based on the relatively significant technological advances in aviation compared to lesser advances in ships. For instance, jet aircraft introduced in the early 1950s could fly faster, higher, and farther with more ordnance than WWII rotary aircraft, and thus were far more capable to wage lethal warfare. This fact alone would have ended the debate between battleships and aircraft carriers as the most capable war-fighting platform.

Today, the United States Navy has over 3700 operational aircraft, supported by 11 aircraft carriers and 286 deployable ships in its force. The Navy continues to advance and prepare itself to accomplish its maritime mission.

Even though December 7, 1941 was a tragic day in history, the United States learned a tremendous lesson on the power and lethality of carrier-based aircraft and the aircraft carrier. The tragedy at Pearl Harbor was the forcing function that drove the Navy to adopt the tactics and strategy used today.

Armenian Massacre or Genocide? When will we know?

As we all know the Armenian Massacre that took place during 1915-1922 was a heartbreaking tragedy. The Ottoman Turks systematically forced the Armenian people to starvation; they were tortured, murdered, and exiled. These actions resulted in the deaths of over 1,500,000 Armenians.

The United Nations Convention defined Genocide as the following:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

The following events prove that the execution should be considered as Genocide:

(a) On April 24,1915 nine hundred Armenian leaders and intellectuals were murdered.
(b) The Armenian people were subjected to starvation and did not have clothing.
(c) On September 26, 1915 property was legally taken from the Armenians.
(d) Women and Children were targeted in order to keep the Armenian population from growing. They were tortured and abused, also deprived of food and water.
(e) The children were taken away form their parents and forcibly driven into the desert.

This act of violence should clearly be classified as Genocide based upon the United Nations criteria. Why isn’t it? It is time to acknowledge and take responsibility for the actions of the past to prevent it from happening again in the future. The Turkish Government consistently refuses to recognize the repulsive incident as Genocide.

There has been many presidential candidates who have promised in their campaigns that they would recognize the Armenian Genocide, however once they are elected into office they avoid the issue and it is left unresolved. President Obama declared that he too would recognize the Armenian Genocide in his campaign, “America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide. I intend to be that president.” In the video in the top right corner Obama is delivering a speech as President, his views on the issue have changed, and he now sees the Turks as in important ally. Obama is ignoring the tragedy and once again leaving it up to the Turks and Armenians to decide what really happened. That solution hasn’t worked in the past and is very unlikely to work now, or in the future. It is like putting a thief on trial and letting him decide if he is committed the crime, he will obviously deny his actions because he does not want to be put in jail. It is our obligation to stand by the Armenians and help them receive justice.

Sitting around and waiting, hoping the Turkish Government will finally take responsibility for their actions is the wrong approach. If no one stands up and recognizes this as Genocide, then we are allowing it to happen again, maybe to millions of innocent people. Don’t let there be a next time! Help the Armenians reach their goal in acknowledging their pain and misery by deeming this Genocide.