Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Israel says Iran will be in a position to begin enriching uranium on a military scale this year.

According to The Jerusalem Post, the new assessment moves up Israel’s forecasts on Tehran’s nuclear program by almost a full year – from 2009 to the end of 2008. According to the new timeline, Iran could have a nuclear weapon by the middle of next year.

The Post, in an execlusive, quoted a senior Iranian defense official as saying the Islamic Republic was now on track to master the technology needed to enrich uranium within six months.

SO! Who’s gonna stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb (or as many as 40 a year), and most importantly how does one stop Iran from giving a nuke to one of their state-sponsored terrorists seeking martrdom (They give these terrorists bullets, rifles, bombs, and short range missiles…why not a nuke)?

Will President Obama take office and bomb Iran?
Will the Israelis bomb Iran before the US election and set off a regional war?
Will the US bomb Iran before the US election, and if so…how will President Obama end the regional war?
Will the US bomb Iran after the US election, and if so…how will President Obama deal with the thousands of suicide bombers already signed up to attack the US?
What happens to oil prices if Iran is bombed by anyone?
Is there a peaceful way to stop Iran from killing Americans in Iraq, from fueling the terrorist wars against Israel, and from pursuing nuclear weapons in the next 6-12 months?

And if 8 months into the Obama Administration a nuclear bomb goes off in an American city…who will President Obama hold responsible, what will he do, and will he get the “it happened on his watch” rantings from the left?”
LINK

also:

Sadr Surrenders

Now how will the MSM spin this?

Followers of rebel cleric Muqtada al Sadr agreed late Friday to allow Iraqi security forces to enter all of Baghdad’s Sadr City and to arrest anyone found with heavy weapons in a surprising capitulation that seemed likely to be hailed as a major victory for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.

In return, Sadr’s Mahdi Army supporters won the Iraqi government’s agreement not to arrest Mahdi Army members without warrants, unless they were in possession of “medium and heavy weaponry.”

The agreement would end six weeks of fighting in the vast Shiite Muslim area that’s home to more than 2 million residents and would mark the first time that the area would be under government control since Saddam Hussein was toppled in 2003. On Friday, 15 people were killed and 112 were injured in fighting, officials at the neighborhoods two major hospitals said.

It also would be a startling turnaround in fortunes for Maliki, who’d been widely criticized for picking a fight with Sadr’s forces, first in the southern port city of Basra and then in Sadr City.

Members of Maliki’s Dawa Party and the powerful Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq met with Sadr officials on Thursday and Friday to come up with a 14-point agreement to end the weeks of fighting, …

What prompted this turnaround? The residents of the city were sick and tired of the fighting:

A government supporter said the Sadrists were brought to the table by the anger of Sadr City residents. On Thursday, the Iraqi military ordered Sadr City residents to evacuate in apparent preparation for a major offensive push.

“It is not the government who pressured the Sadrists into entering this agreement,” said Ali al Adeeb, a leading member of the Dawa party. “It is the pressure from the people inside Sadr City and from their own people that will make them act more responsibly.”

That and this didn’t help I would imagine:

An aide to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr lashed out on Friday at Iraq’s most revered Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, for keeping silent over clashes that have killed hundreds in Baghdad.

“We are surprised by the silence in Najaf where the highest Shiite religious authority is based,” Sheikh Sattar Battat said, referring to Sistani.

“For 50 days Sadr City is being bombed … Children, women and old people are being killed by all kinds of US weapons, and Najaf remains silent,” he told the faithful at the weekly Friday prayers in Sadr City, Sadr’s stronghold.

Battat said the Sadr movement has not seen any “reaction or fatwa (religious decree) from Najaf” criticising the government assault on Shiite fighters in Sadr City.

“For us this means that Najaf accepts the massacre in Sadr City,” a sprawling slum district that has been the site of fierce clashes between US forces and Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia since late March.

Calling out the top cleric in Iraq probably didn’t set well with him I suppose.

The MSM and the left were hoping for another big disaster to lay at the feet of Bushitler. Foiled once again. When will they learn?

UPDATE

Bill Roggio updates with the main points of the agreement:

The major points of the agreement, based on press reports, are as follows:

• The Iraqi government and the Mahdi Army would observe a four-day cease-fire.
• At the end of the cease-fire, Iraqi forces would be allowed to enter Sadr City and conduct arrests if warrants have been issued, or if the Mahdi Army is in possession of medium or heavy weapons (RPGs, rockets, mortars).
• The Mahdi Army and the Sadrist bloc must recognize the Iraqi government has control over the security situation and has the authority to move security forces to impose the law.
• The Mahdi Army would end all attacks, including mortar and rockets strikes against the International Zone.
• The Mahdi Army must clear Sadr City of roadside bombs.
• The Mahdi Army must close all “illegal courthouses.”
• The Iraqi government would reopen the entrances to Sadr City.
• The Iraqi government would provide humanitarian aid to the residents of Sadr City.

The Sadrist said the US military would not be allowed to operate inside Sadr City; however there is no confirmation of this from the Iraqi government or the US military. “The Iraqi forces, not the American forces, can come into Sadr City and search for weapons,” Baha al Araji, a Sadrist legislator said. “We don’t have big weapons, and we want this to stop.”

And:

Obama’s History Lesson

In this earlier thread I commented on the incredible ignorant statement by Obama that FDR and Truman talked to our enemies:

The other side can label and name-call all they want, but I trust the American people to recognize that it’s not surrender to end the war in Iraq so that we can rebuild our military and go after al Qaeda’s leaders. I trust the American people to understand that it’s not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but our enemies – like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.

Its a breathtaking quote and one that should not be glossed over. Not only is he completely wrong on his history (maybe the result of 20+ years of lessons from Rev. Wright), he is basically telling us what his policy will be once gaining the White House. To sit down and discuss our differences with our enemies. Let me see. With Iran we’ve talked to them, cajoled them, placed many carrots in front of them, and begged them….results left much to be desired.

Iran is one enemy, al-Qaeda is another. Talking to AQ is akin to madness and treason.

But there it is, in black and white, the evidence that this man would sit down with those who deserve no sit-downs.

As far as the history goes Jack Kelly slaps the messiah down a bit:

I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.

FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.

Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman’s response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.

Perhaps Sen. Obama is thinking of the meeting FDR and Churchill had with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in Tehran in December, 1943, and the meetings Truman and Roosevelt had with Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam in February and July, 1945. But Stalin was then a U.S. ally, though one of whom we should have been more wary than FDR and Truman were. Few historians think the agreements reached at Yalta and Potsdam, which in effect consigned Eastern Europe to slavery, are diplomatic models we ought to follow. Even fewer Eastern Europeans think so.

When Stalin’s designs became unmistakably clear, President Truman’s response wasn’t to seek a summit meeting. He sent military aid to Greece, ordered the Berlin airlift and the Marshall Plan, and sent troops to South Korea.

So, in actuality, FDR and Truman did the complete opposite of what Obama is alleging. Instead of talking to our enemies, instead of running from a fight, they took the fight to the enemy and did not stop until a unconditional surrender was achieved.

I have a feeling we wouldn’t get the same resolve from a President Obama