What happens when two peoples have title to the same land?

 

A lot of noise is being made in regard to the war between Hamas and Israel.  Sadly, most people around the world are getting misinformation, and sound bites aimed to keep their respective ethnic groups supporting corrupt leaderships.  In the case of the current Middle East conflict, the reality on the ground is much more nuanced than most people are led to believe.

A little over 100 years ago, allied powers forced the Ottoman Empire to divest itself of lands outside of Asia Minor.  This meant that control of lands such as Lebanon and Palestine (I'm using the older meaning of this place name, and not today's meaning here) were ceded to Western powers such as France and the United Kingdom.  Unlike the Ottomans, the French and British ran these lands in a ham-fisted manner.  Neither cared much about the delicate interactions that took place between Christian, Muslim and Jew.  In some cases, the same land was promised to multiple ethnic groups as payment for a temporary peace.

After World War 2, there was pressure on the UK to divide Palestine into a Muslim and a Jewish state.  However, leaders on the Muslim side did not accept compromise, and in the late 1940's Israel had to fight for its right to be a Jewish homeland.  Muslims who stayed on their land and cut peace deals with the Jewish state to be were allowed to stay and have full rights in the Jewish state.  Sadly, the Muslims who fought against the Jewish state to be could not be allowed to return to their ancestrial lands.

Today's Palestine (which contains areas belonging to Israel, as well as the West Bank and Gaza) is not a two-state solution which has been talked about since the 1940's.  Palestinian Muslims have been herded into both the West Bank and Gaza.  This might not have been such a bad thing, if Jewish settlers hadn't turned the West Bank into a "Swiss Cheese" of a territory - what could have been a Palestinian homeland is dotted with illegal Israeli settlements due to population pressures in the Israeli state.  The Israeli state doesn't care to remove these settlements to lay the groundwork for a healthy Muslim Palestine to evolve.  The people have no political rights.  And what rights they do have are often ignored by the Israeli government for reasons of political expediency. 

To make things worse, the Palestinian Authority is corrupt, and is not trusted by the people.  In the West Bank, they selected Fatah to run a government, and things have been tolerably calm (until now).  But, in Gaza, things are much different.  This part of Palestine is run by Hamas, and hasn't held an election since it took power over 15 years ago.  Unlike Fatah, Hamas has both acted like a government AND retained its goal of the total destruction of Israel.  There is no room for Israel to compromise when its neighbor advocates for Israel's total destruction.

Palestinian Muslims say that the Jews did not have a right to come in and take their land.  But how long should a claim to land exist?  The Jews were pushed out of Palestine by the Romans.  Should their claim to a homeland be denied?  But this question got me to thinking about North America.  Europeans came to North America over 500 years ago, and displaced the native peoples.  Should we be forced out?  How should the legitimate rights of the natives to their land be dealt with?  Does might make right?  In the US, we have evolved a tolerable middle ground (tolerable for "old world" settlers, that is) that allocates "reservations" (unless that have valuable resources) to native tribes.  We have a peace based on both higher population and on superior technology.  The native tribes accept our existence on what was their lands and have found ways to live in peace with us.

A while back, a prominent US politician stated that Israel will either be an apartheid Jewish state with no rights for Palestinian Muslims, or it will be forced to become a non-religious state to survive.  Previous Israeli inaction in regard to the West Bank settlements may have made a two-state solution impossible.  But what does this mean for options which may lead to a meaningful peace?

As I see it, Hamas must be vanquished at all costs.  At the same time, Israel must work with Fatah to make the West Bank a viable, functioning Palestinian state.  Peaceful actions must be rewarded, as much as they may make Israel uncomfortable.  Violence must be crushed with extreme prejudice.  A future Palestinian state may have to be sacrifice Gaza in order to become a truly independent state.  Yet, the question of Gaza remains.  Can Israel destroy Hamas' leadership in Gaza without a scorched earth policy?  No matter what, I expect to see many innocent Gazans die because Hamas wanted to prevent a grand peace deal from becoming reality.

But what can be done?

Muslims and Jews both self-select "news" that supports their own beliefs that they alone should be in control of historical Palestine.  Outside regional forces have reinforced the views on the "Arab street" that Israel can never be up to any good.  Arab media is just as biased as American media outlets such as Fox, Newsmax, and ONN have been in the United States.  Even if one was to force the media outlets to only report objective news without biased opinions from bloviating media stars, it would take generations to undo the damage caused by information biases.

So, what do I see happening?

The Grand Deal regaring Mideast Peace has been scuttled for a while, but it will return.  The Saudis have too much at risk to allow Iran to gain more power.  The Turks (successors to the Ottomans) will try to gain influence in this region, possibly by turning itself into a peace broker.  The Iranians will continue to try to stir up trouble by supporting Hamas and Hezbollah.  But this will be a losing effort, as forces allied with the Saudis and the Turks will quietly work with Israel to defeat Iran.  Israel will get involved in a protracted ar with Hamas, keeping Gazans imprisoned in their small strip of land, as they are a danger to any land that accepts them - including a West Bank Palestinian state.  

Now, what happens to innocent Gazans?

Israel needs to clean Hamas out of Gaza.  It may need to rebuild Gaza as a Hamas free zone and pay for the rebuilding of Gazan infrastructure.  But it will not govern Gaza - this has been proven unworkable in the past.  Part of a potential peace deal might involve the temporary administration of Gaza by a third power, a transitional government and media structure geared to "teach" Gazans how to live in the modern world and demand a government that responds to their needs first.  Until then, we will have war....

I'm not sure of what to think

Does adding a second bible add any substance, legitimacy or truth to what Trump swore to on Inauguration Day?  I doubt it.  It only serves to create an image of false piety for a man from whose mouth only comes lies - including the words "And" and "The".

- - - - - -

As I write this entry, less than two weeks have expired since Trump took office, and we're already seeing chaos in the land. Previously approved refugees, legal residents/green card holders, and other vetted people are being denied entry to the USA, because of Trump's latest executive order. How does this make us any safer? How does this make us appear to the rest of the world?  To me, it only gives nations such as Iran a propaganda advantage, as they will not reject previously approved holders of American passports from visiting their country. And to make things worse, the 3 Arabic speaking countries which are exempt from Trump's executive order (Egypt, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia) are those in which Trump has business interests.  Two of these countries (Saudi Arabia and the UAE) are countries that supplied the 19 hijackers that commandeered the planes on 9/11/01, killing almost 3,000 Americans.

An op-ed piece in the Huffington Post is already.talking about the inevitability of impeachment. But is that what a Democrat should be looking for?  Each day that Trump is in office, he tarnishes the GOP brand and helps to mobilize more potential Democratic voters - people who could be very useful in 2018 and 2020. When the Women's March gathered 3 times on the National Mall as many people as Trump's inauguration, one has a potential movement.  But when one takes into account the other 1,500,000 people protesting around the world, it's easy to see that a raw nerve has been touched.  We have to make sure that the reaction gets us the results we want.

- - - - - -

It is no accident that ALL of Trump's appointments have been to the extreme political right. His deal with Pence is likely the same he offered to John Kasich: You run both foreign and domestic affairs, while I make America great again.  Kasich has some ethics, Pence does not. He is a religious wingnut, someone more dangerous to us than Trump - something that I found hard to believe at first.  If we are stuck with a President Pence, he will follow the GOP policy with no compromises allowed. This is different from Trump, as he can easily be manipulated with flattery.  

The Huffington Post piece noted that Trump suffers from Malignant Narcissism.  Otto Kernberg characterizes it by an absence of conscience, a pathological grandiosity and quest for power, and a sadistic joy in cruelty. And everything said about Trump indicates a diagnosis of Malignant Narcissism would be one of the things high on the list of possibilities. Can we afford this in a national leader?

It is possible to manipulate someone like Trump.  It has often been said about him, that if you are the last to give him an opinion, he will often lean your way - as long as he feels in charge and feels that he is the strongest alpha male in the room.  However, it is much harder to manipulate someone like Pence, as his currency is power. Pence is smart enough to wait around until someone self destructs. And that's what Trump seems to be doing, seeing how much work and thought goes into being president.

- - - - - -

But I go back to the title of this entry, as it raises an important question: Is it in our best interest to help get Trump out of office, taking an immediate gain? Or, is it better to help Trump stay in office until the 2018 elections, preventing a potential President Pence from serving more than 6 years as President in his own right?  Can we afford the damage that Trump will do to this country in a little under than 720 days?  

I've already accepted that Trump will destroy as many external checks and balances as he can, regarding those we have on large businesses.  I've already accepted that Trump will be a disaster for the environment, given his belief that Global Warming is a Hoax.  And I've already accepted that he will be a disaster for human rights. Do we know ALL the risks of removing him from office either via impeachment or via the 25th amendment to the constitution?  I don't think so.  And that worries me.

Have we sunk this low?

Although this is not the mosque in the article, "As Houston Islamic Center burns, firefighter posts "Let it burn - Block the fire hydrant" , it illustrates what is on much of conservative America's mind - blind hatred to others who are not like them.  It's not just Islam - Sikhs are being caught up in the hatred of the ignorant, as noted in this article.  Even my father lumps Sikhs in with Muslims, calling them all "Towel Heads", without the slightest understanding that Sikhs are often at odds with Muslims because of their religion and practice of it.

This is the kind of event that disgusts me.  There is nothing wrong with fearing the unknown. I fear the potential of having an unassimilated ethnic group demanding rights they have in other countries that no ethnic group should have in ours. But giving into that fear is something else.  The quickest way to radicalize the Muslims in the United States is to treat them as third class citizens.

There are legitimate fears - Americans do not want to see the United States become like Europe.  We successfully absorbed millions of people from around the world in simpler times - and virtually every major group has been successfully brought into the mainstream. People coming here wanted to become Americans and leave the old world behind.  Current European immigrants want to bring the old country (and culture) with them - and this poses a dilemma for today's Americans:  Will newcomers (in any large number) from truly foreign cultures assimilate successfully?

I'm concerned with the growth of Islam in the United States.  It's because I see Saudi Arabia funding many of the prison chaplains, spreading the most conservative practice of Islam in the world.  I'm afraid that their barbaric culture (vs. the barbaric culture we're already familiar with) will cause us problems if its members grow too large in our society.  

- - - - - -

However, I also fear radical Christianity.  We've identified the San Bernardino shootings as terrorist activity. But what about the bombing of Abortion Clinics, as well as the assassination of doctors who have practiced there.  Many of the same people who say abortion is wrong often try to impose their moral values on the rest of us by also getting in the way of women having a full range of safe and legal contraception options.  (The "Hobby Lobby" case comes to mind here.)  So I am concerned for the women who do not have convenient access to safe and legal medical procedures to keep a baby healthy while it's in the womb, as well as access to safe and legal medical procedures for those women (for whatever reasons) need to abort the fetuses inside them.

Once a woman's right to control her own body is taken away by social conservatives, what is next?  We've already seen legislators pander to the religious right by saying that church attendance should be made mandatory.  How would Atheists fare?  Then, I'd bet that religious purity zealots would go after "social undesirables" such as Homosexuals, Bisexuals, and Transgender people.  And then, who would be next to suffer in the potential religious purges?

- - - - - -

If you don't think anything like this could happen here, you haven't been paying attention to history.  Politicians will lie to the people.  But sometimes, they get caught up in their lies, and have to act in disgusting ways.  For example, we've seen Japanese Americans herded up into prison camps -  only because of their ancestry.  Was this done to people of either German or Italian ancestry?  No.  But we feared the Japanese, and "needed" to control the "Japanese" in our midst in the most brutal and inhumane way possible.  (And Donald Trump) is using this as a model of what we should do to Muslims living in America.

After seeing pictures of Jews wearing Yellow Stars in Germany, it sickens me to see this crap being proposed here.  And I feel very sorry that the most "conservative" of Christians are making the same mistake Germany made in the 1930's. Instead, I'd like to see America address the problems brought up in this video clip from the HBO series, The Newsroom.  Only then, can America be great again (no help from Trump.)

The Iran Deal.... What the average political hack misses.

This is a picture I dare not blow up any further (pun intended) - it is of "Fat Man", the plutonium based bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki.  And it is a little knowledge of the Manhattan Project and Nobel Prize winning scientist Glenn Seaborg that is needed to understand what is "in between the lines" of the deal recently cut with Iran.

According to nonuclear.se, Plutonium is a man-made nuclear explosive; it is created inside all nuclear reactors when uranium is bombarded with neutrons. Some uranium atoms can absorb a neutron without fissioning; when that happens, they are transmuted into plutonium atoms. Plutonium has become the nuclear explosive of choice in the world’s nuclear arsenals. Therefore, the goal of this deal had to be to stop Iran from developing a Plutonium based nuclear arsenal - Iran still could tell its hard-liners that they can produce a bomb.  The P5+1 (The permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany) gets to be able to tell its hard-liners that Iran will not be able to produce Plutonium based bombs, explaining why this is so important in private.

No deal is perfect.  But this deal allows both sides to save face.  If anyone is worried about what will happen to Israel, they shouldn't be - the history of the US and the USSR shows how Mutual Assured Destruction helped prevent World War 3. (Or, I should say, that this war was fought via proxies and with money - a much safer form of warfare for all sides.) The Iranians may be crazy, but they are not insane.  The last thing they want to do is provoke the Israelis into exploding 1 of their estimated 100-200 warheads over Tehran.

If one looks at the size of a ball that represents the amount of fissile Plutonium needed for a bomb, it's easy to see that one could easily transport that much material anywhere on the globe.  Years ago, my high school had some non weapons grade "Yellowcake" (Uranium) - and I expect that 64 Kilos of the stuff would be much larger than the ball above.  In short, Iran has signed off on a deal which prevents its fissile material from being used by non-state operatives.  (That means: No Uranium or Plutonium in the hands of Hamas or Hezbollah.)

I'm not sure if Iran will live up to the letter of this deal.  But I expect that there will be many people interested in keeping everyone honest - and I'd bet that the Iranians are serious, if only because they prefer not to ignite an arms race between it, the Saudis and Egypt....

Iran - Again

What many of us often forget is that the people of Iran are human beings just like us.  Yet, a letter from the op-ed page of the New York Times stated that the only way to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons would be to bomb the country into submission.  This offends me. Iran and the USA may have been participating in a cold war against each other, but we have not been bombing each other's cities, nor have the two nations been in direct ground conflict with each other. Shouldn't diplomacy be given a chance before we see more American man and women come home in body bags?

In 1979-1980, I would have advocated blasting Iran off the map during the "Hostage Crisis". But as official US documents (carefully pieced together after having been shred) show, we were about to attempt to overthrow their democratically elected government. How could they trust any peace overture that could have been made? (especially when none were made for years.)  And yet, our current president overcame 35 years of hostilities to work with 5 other nations AND Iran to cut a deal that reduces the risk of nuclear war in the Middle East.

The following text was in an article written by Bill Moyers: 

"In its refinement of uranium, Iran has not progressed toward the level required for a nuclear weapon since its 2013 interim agreement with the global powers known as “the p-5 plus one” – for the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. Instead, Iran has dialed back the level of refinement to below 5 percent (what’s needed for generating electricity) from its earlier level of 20 percent (needed for medical research) — compared with the 90-plus percent purity to build a nuclear weapon." 

This makes me wonder - Is Iran really the threat our media has made the country out to be? I doubt it.  But, if Iran were to restart Uranium refinement, it could trigger a Middle East arms race, as noted in the New York Times op-ed piece:

Ironically perhaps, Israel’s nuclear weapons have not triggered an arms race. Other states in the region understood — even if they couldn’t admit it publicly — that Israel’s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure.

Iran is a different story. Extensive progress in uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing reveal its ambitions. Saudi, Egyptian and Turkish interests are complex and conflicting, but faced with Iran’s threat, all have concluded that nuclear weapons are essential.

If one ignores the bellicose position of the op-ed piece's author, John R. Bolton, one sees that the Saudis, Egyptians, and Turks have been considering going nuclear in response to Iran's position. Yet, the Iranians are willing to ratchet down their nuclear technology and use it (for now?) for peace. Currently, the Saudis and Iranians are on opposite sides of a war being fought in Yemen. Could you imagine what would happen if either (or both) nations had nuclear weapons at its disposal? Could you imagine what would happen (and I believe it would) if any of this material would make it out of the labs and into unauthorized hands?

To Israel, any but the most restrictive and emasculating deal is unacceptable - Iran is an existential threat to the Jewish state. But is this deal unacceptable to America's long term interests? Israel pays us no taxes. Israel does not vote in our elections. And Israel is not necessarily an ally we can trust. If the Prime Minister of Israel can destroy the hope for a two-state peace solution for Israel and Palestine in a reelection bid, can we trust him to act in other ways that benefit the United States?

Yes, gradual normalization of relations with Iran is a risk. But it is the only path that makes sense. As I see it, there will be three regional players jockeying for influence in the Middle East - Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. And it is America's interest to make sure that none of these powers becomes a hegemon - especially when the world is still addicted to Middle East Oil. America needs to disentangle itself from the Middle East, and a deal with Iran may be our ticket to leave the region. Given our headaches in the region since 1980, this may be the only time we can use that ticket and go home.  If the Chinese need that oil, let them get stuck in the regional quagmire!

Persia, Iran, no matter what one calls this nation, we must deal with it.

I can still remember that in my lifetime, the United States once considered Iran as one of its closest allies. And there is no reason not to do so today, save for a 35 year pissing match that was triggered by the Embassy Hostage Crisis and the United States getting exposed as preparing to overthrow the duly elected government of Iran.

This conflict between nations should not only be examined from the American side (we have just complaints), but from the Iranian side as well (where they also have just complaints). What would be the key issue getting in the way of normalizing relations between the two countries after a generation and a half, if Israel was not given a veto over our actions in the Middle East?  Both countries want to crush ISIS. Both countries want stability in the region. And both countries have legitimate concerns about the balance of power in the region.

Looking at the above map, one can easily see the regional importance of Iran - it borders part of the former USSR, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and shares the Persian Gulf with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, The U.A.E. and Oman. This country could either cause a lot of mischief, or be a valuable power for peace. But without normal diplomatic and trade relations, we have no direct way to influence them to work with us. (I must note that American soldiers are reported to being ferried over Iranian airspace to Afghanistan via foreign flagged aircraft, with the tacit approval of the Iranians. So there is something going on behind the scenes that few people want to talk about in a loud voice.) So it only makes sense to find ways to openly work with this country, if only because they hold a strategically important position in the region.

- - - - - -

When I started writing this entry, the P5+1 (5 Permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany - a major Iran trading partner) negotiations are taking place to resolve the West's issues with Iran's stated plans to develop nuclear technology for peaceful uses. These negotiations have been extended for several months because both sides realized the importance of cutting a deal everyone could live with. 

As it was 35+ years ago, both sides have legitimate issues. From our perspective in the West, it's easy to understand our goal - this world does not need another nation with the capability of making nuclear weapons. When India and Pakistan developed their bombs, it took a lot of diplomacy to develop deals that preserved most of the pre-bomb status quo, and allowed both countries to save face while not getting into a nuclear arms race as the USA and USSR did after WW2. But Iran has a legitimate issue that we in the West don't think of - Tehran is one of the most polluted cities on Earth. Iran's leadership knows that it must lead the country out of the fossil fuel age, and sees nuclear energy as the best short term way to bridge the gap from a fossil fuel age and a renewable fuel age. They simply want to control their destiny - and this is very understandable.

When the Israeli PM, Bibi Netanyahu, was invited to speak to Congress, it was a slap in our president's face, and a violation of protocol. Congress does not make foreign policy. That power is solely invested in the executive branch of government. When Bibi spoke, he was against a deal with Iran, considering that nation's policies to be an existential threat to his country. And most in the GOP support Israel with unquestioned loyalty - as if they want to accelerate the "Second Coming" via support of Israel's bellicose policies. Bibi had no alternative to negotiations - and it appeared that he wanted the USA to fight a war against Iran that his country couldn't win alone.

Luckily, Obama is more cerebral in his thought patterns. He knows that we have a once in a generation chance to gradually shift Iran into a partner for peace. With the exceptions of Egypt and Jordan, no Middle East Muslim country has relations with Israel. Officially, they all call for Israel's destruction, while working very quietly with Israel on the side. This is what we would likely see several years after a deal with Iran. But it will take time to get there.

- - - - - -

Sadly, 47 US Senators wrote a letter to Iran attempting to undercut Obama's ability to work with the Iranians in negotiating a nuclear technology treaty. The NY Daily News labeled these Senators as traitors on its front page. And the Washington Post simply considers the actions of these senators irresponsible. Luckily, the Iranian leadership recognizes this as a Propaganda Ploy and responded accordingly, enlightening these Senators about what our Constitution and International Law say about the subject. And in an article in the Daily Kos, they note that Al Jazeera got it right - The Iran deal will be a Security Council Non-Proliferation Treaty Resolution, and likely be covered by a previous treaty ratified by our Legislative branch of government. I'll bet that these Senators now wish they had tried to make their point with softer words and actions....

- - - - - -

As I said in this entry's title - Iran is a country that must be dealt with. And it only makes sense for us to deal with Iran from a position of mutual respect, as only with respect will we be able to resolve our differences.....

Reading between the lines

It seems like the GOP establishment is taking the 2016 election seriously. The two most electable contenders recently had a "social meeting", and if I read between the lines properly, they discussed how they could avoid bloodying each other before the main event", the 2016 election. 

Romney's departure from the race only makes sense for the GOP establishment. He is damaged goods. Not only did he have to disavow his greatest achievement as the Governor of Massachusetts, but he had to take on relatively extreme positions (due to the Tea Party and other GOP wingnuts) that alienated him from the moderates he needed to be elected.

Jeb was the Bush brother who should have been elected president in 2000. Instead, we got George W. and his neo-con friends, and a "Forever War" that no average American really wants. To give Jeb credit, he did not pursue higher office when the establishment may have wanted him to do so - he seems to have followed his own path. He was smart enough to know that his brother damaged his chances of running for president. And even more so, waiting until 2016 when Hillary Clinton would likely run again.

- - - - - -

Hillary has some baggage which may be able to become assets. She was working on healthcare long before Obama became a US Senator. The question is - can she turn her prior failed efforts in this arena into an asset among the Democratic base, while separating herself from Obamacare to attract a small number of independents.

Although Hillary seems to be the Democratic candidate in all but name, the question is: How far to the left will she need to steer to keep the loyalty of the base, before tacking to the right to pick up independent votes? If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, she'll need to cut a big deal with Elizabeth Warren in order to keep the loyalty of the base.

- - - - - -

We're seeing the GOP hopefuls say strange things to the base. I find it amazing that anyone could believe that legalizing "gay marriage" would trigger the end of civilization. Even more so, I find it amazing that anyone would believe this malarkey.  But they do.  

In another forum, I had a discussion about a controversial issue with some die-hard supporters of a certain status quo.  I stated I supported the status quo, but didn't give a reason why I did so. And then I asked, religion aside, why should we support this position? A person responded not with a reason, but with an echo taught to the loyalists of a political party. I then said that "I believe that group loyalty trumps the need to examine why its causes should be supported." Then, I noted that I always test ideas presented by any leader to see if I'm being lied to, or are earning my respect. And what did I get? A middle class version of the "Whatever" one would hear from someone who couldn't support his/her position on Jerry Springer. 

- - - - - -

Sadly, this fatalistic inability to articulate support for a position is not limited to GOP loyalists - it is present in the Democratic party as well. It is not that I want to agree with people. Instead, I want to understand where they come from - they are not sure themselves, and are unable to say much than to regurgitate 2 second sound bites such as "defending marriage". What makes things worse is history and its marriage with politics. Deciding to slowly normalize relations with Iran should be a no-brainer, as well as negotiating a halt to the weaponization of their nuclear stockpile. But some say that this betrays Israel. Others say that Obama is being this generation's Chamberlain. Maybe, just maybe, there is a multidimensional game going on which is influenced by many things:

• America's relationship with Israel
• America's and Iran's desire to end their cold war
• Stabilization of the Middle-East (shut down ISIS)
• Sunni Islam vs. Shiite Islam (an ongoing battle to legitimize one group of mullahs)
• Arab hatred of Jews 
• The GOP Congress and its wish to emasculate Obama for the last 2 years of his term
• Israel's vulnerability in a hostile neighborhood
• Israel vs. Palestine
• Israel's nuclear stockpile (estimated at 150+ warheads)
• Iran's nuclear stockpile (not enough pure "yellow cake" for 1 warhead)
• Israel's lobby and its effect on both the GOP and the Democrats
• Christian Fundamentalists and the litmus test they use on GOP hopefuls
• Christian Fundamentalists and a desire to speed up Christ's second coming
• Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia - which Muslim nation dominates the Middle-East

The above is only a short list of the factors which are influencing what is going on in the Middle-East, and few people have a clue as to how any of these factors relate to each other on a given day. I'd bet that only Obama's cabinet and a handful of Republicans in the House and Senate have enough information to read between all of these lines. And as such, any noises we make and opinions we have are those of "armchair quarterbacks" - meaningless, as we are only spectators to the main event.