Labor Day Monday news roundup

Muslim ERA watch: So, those moderate Muslim Brotherhood guys who are now running Egypt? They’re so, so moderate that Egypt’s state news anchorwoman now has to wear a hijab. You gotta love the explanation:

But new Islamist Information Minister Salah Abdel Maqsud told a private satellite channel on Saturday he could see no reason why a woman in hijab could not present the national news.

“Finally the revolution has reached” Egyptian media, Nabil told the Muslim Brotherhood’s daily newspaper, Freedom and Justice.

You know who predicted this? Barry Rubin. You know who didn’t see this coming at all? Tom Friedman. Which one is the high-paid New York Times columnist? Yeah, the one who’s always wrong.

Facebook Revolution my ass.

I don’t buy this at all: Barack Obama may be a lousy president, but I do not believe that the U.S. would abandon Israel in this respect. I’m calling bullshit on this from the get-go.

The United States has indirectly informed Iran, via two European nations, that it would not back an Israeli strike against the country’s nuclear facilities, as long as Tehran refrains from attacking American interests in the Persian Gulf, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Monday.

According to the report, Washington used covert back-channels in Europe to clarify that the US does not intend to back Israel in a strike that may spark a regional conflict.

In return, Washington reportedly expects Iran to steer clear of strategic American assets in the Persian Gulf, such as military bases and aircraft carriers.

That’s the move of a cowardly nation, like certain European nations who made deals with the Palestinians so they wouldn’t be attacked by terrorists. (Yes, I’m looking at you, Germany.) That is not what Americans do. Not even President Obama’s administration. Don’t believe it, because I don’t.

This entry was posted in Feminism, Iran, Israel, Middle East. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Labor Day Monday news roundup

  1. Cynic says:

    Talk on Iran ‘Red Lines’ Comes After U.S. General Distances Himself from Israeli Strike

    Following U.S. General Martin Dempsey’s statement that he won’t support an Israeli strike on Iran and the report that the Islamic Republic has doubled its uranium enrichment capacity at Fordow, Israeli officials and others are expressing concern over America’s commitment to preventing a nuclear Iran and helping to defend Israel against that threat.

    Dempsey, chairmain of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters the following in London on Aug. 30 regarding the possibility of a unilateral Israeli military strike: “I don’t want to be complicit if they choose to do it.” He also said the “international coalition” applying pressure on Iran “could be undone if [Iran] was attacked prematurely.”

    Of course “international coalition” applying pressure in this case is just another of those hot air moments given all the holes in the sanctions.

  2. I read that. I still don’t believe the reports that we are abandoning Israel like the story says. A nuclear Iran hurts the U.S. as well as Israel, and the Saudis are probably screaming their heads off about it, too.

    Michael Ledeen said to ignore everything you read about whether or not Israel will attack Iran, because nobody really knows what’s going on except for the people involved in making the decisions. Barry Rubin is of the same mind. Barry, particularly, has a track record of being right. (I don’t follow Ledeen as closely, so I can’t comment on his track record.)

    When Barry Rubin starts worrying, I’ll start worrying. And he has extremely high-placed sources. Just sayin’.

Comments are closed.