On Friday, March 11, a “Day of Rage” was organized by the younger Saudi generation. According to Prince Alwleed Bin Talal, a Saudi royal, the divide between the middle and lower classes is expanding. He has called for “unwavering enduring and sincere” change.

Demonstrations in the Eastern Region began earlier than planned after reports of Saudi security forces opening fire on a group of protesters in the mostly Shiite area. The unrest caused a spike in oil prices and a corresponding drop in the stock market. However, the actual publicized event failed to materialize as most Saudis elected instead to take a day of rest.

An upheaval in the Kingdom could endanger the petroleum-based export reserves of the world’s largest seller of oil abroad. Even with a gross domestic product that is higher than normal, the Saudis have not escaped an 11 percent unemployment rate and a reported 5 percent rate of inflation. Those near the bottom of the social pyramid are suffering the most from the economic disparity.


Unfortunately, those most deeply affected are the younger Saudis between the ages of 20 and 25. This is a critical situation especially in a country where 23 is the median age. In an attempt to try to avert turmoil and disruption, King Abdullah infused the economy with $36 billion to aid the jobs market, bolster living allowances and provide interest-free loans, among other options. It appears that throwing money at the problem worked for King Abdullah, at least for the moment.

Mike Evans’ recent book delves into the appeasement policies of our 39th president and their impact today: “Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos”

The question we hear most often is: How high will oil prices go? Oil began the year at $91.38 per barrel, a 15 percent increase from 2010. Already this year oil has risen to $105 per barrel, and with turmoil in Libya, Bahrain, Egypt and other oil-producing states, could go higher. Early predictions are that oil could rise to $150 to $200 per barrel. The increase would not be from economic growth as first indicated, but rather from the crisis that has now gripped the Middle East.


Ben Bernanke, chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, has apparently taken up the crystal ball as a hobby. He recently assured the Senate Banking Committee that the rise in oil prices would be “modest and temporary.” How could he possibly know?

Later the same week, in his twice-yearly report to Congress, Bernanke assured lawmakers that the Fed was prepared to step in if the economic trickle-down from inflated prices for petroleum-based products “represent a threat to both economic growth and overall price stability, particularly if they were to cause inflation expectations to become less well anchored.” Huh? Inflation expectations? How can Mr. Bernanke hope to retain any measure of credibility on Wall Street or Main Street? 


The deciding factor for a barrel of oil will most certainly be whether or not the Saudi police can keep demonstrators in check in the Kingdom. The economic future of the world will be determined by what transpires in the oil-producing states in the Middle East. Stay tuned! Mr. Bernanke’s crystal ball may prove to be more unpredictable than is stability in the Middle East.

Much of the U.S. secular media are jumping up and down with joy while cheering the protesters. They say it is a democratic Twitter and Facebook revolution. The truth is, it’s a “mullah and madrasas” revolution financed by terror-funding regimes. The youth are only pawns whose wake-up call from hell once Islamic fundamentalists rule will be too little too late.

It is reminiscent of another time: It was the third year of his presidency. He ran on hope and change, and that’s what the world got. He was a weak democratic president whom the bad actors of the world did not fear. Rather, they saw his presidency as an opportunity to advance their wicked agendas.

As a nation rioted, he kept demanding that the Muslim government show restraint and restore freedom of the press. “Who knows what horror will come upon the earth if this president has his way. I fear the Russians will invade Afghanistan, Iraq will invade Iran, and my beloved country will be turn into an Islamic terror state.” Those were the words of America’s strongest Muslim ally, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the shah of Iran, to his wife, Empress Farah.

It appears history is repeating itself in Egypt as hundreds of thousands of protesters flood central Cairo, defying yet another order of a nationwide curfew and demanding that President Hosni Mubarak step down. Yet, President Obama continues to orchestrate the same swan song that an earlier president, Jimmy Carter, played for the last Muslim dictator-ally 30 years ago.

Carter said last Sunday that this was not a revolution orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood and that Mubarak would have to leave. It appears that Carter is as blind to reality today as he was during the Iran crisis.

President Obama has bought into the myth that an Arab democracy is better for the U.S. than an Arab dictator. The illusion that democracy can co-exist with Islamic fundamentalism is existential. Jimmy Carter tried it in Iran, buying into a protest movement that the jackals of the Middle East willingly and gladly exploited. That mistake birthed a Shiite Islamic state, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda.

Now the Muslim Brotherhood has united behind Mohammed ElBaradei, a shill for Iran, who is also calling for President Mubarak to leave the country. He fronted for them as the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). You can be sure Iran and al-Qaida have joined the fray in attempting to script another Islamic revolutionary state.

The Muslim Brotherhood is Egypt’s most well-organized opposition movement and has been waiting for this opportunity since its inception in 1928. If it grasps the reins in an Arab country of more than 82 million, Israel, the other Middle Eastern countries and the West will face an enemy with one of the largest and strongest militaries in the Muslim world built on some of the most advanced American-made platforms. The revolution in Egypt could spread to Jordon and then to the entire Arab world.

The Brotherhood simply waits in the wings to see how this civil disturbance, entering its second week, will further its goal of a fundamentalist state ruled by the most strict interpretation of Shariah (Islamic) law.

Its vision, which the members believe has been ordained by the Quran, has been forestalled by secular Arab regimes far too long. While the group shares the goal of Islamic sovereignty within the global jihad movement as orchestrated by al-Qaida, it scorns the tactics viewed as counterproductive. However, it does seem to be making headway among the more fanatical Muslims in Egypt.

Recent polls of the Egyptian population suggest that 77 percent want to see whipping and hands cut off for robbery; 84 percent favor the death penalty for any Muslim who changes his religion; 82 percent favor stoning for those who commit adultery.

Egypt has been ground zero for Islamic terror: The blind cleric, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, charged and imprisoned for the first World Trade Center bombing; Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, top lieutenant to Osama bin Laden, indicted for U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania; the infamous Egyptian physician Ayman al-Zawahiri, arrested at age 15 for his involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood, and who helped plan the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center Towers; and Mohammad Atta, the Egyptian-born hijacker of American Airlines flight 11 on Sept. 11, 2001. These are but a few of the terrorists birthed and indoctrinated in Egypt.

President Mubarak swore in a new cabinet on Monday. The interior minister who headed internal security and was hated by Egyptians for his cruelty was replaced by retired police Gen. Mahmoud Wagdi, whom is despised by the protesters for his brutality.

President Obama will attempt to put lipstick on the pig the same way Jimmy Carter did. Too late, he will discover the reality that will end his presidency the same way Carter’s ended – by ignoring those fanatics who are hiding behind the curtain and manning the machinery of internal upheaval in Egypt. A domino effect will cause Shiite and Sunni caliphates all over the Middle East to fight each other for domination.

Mocking the memory of the more than 3,000 who died on Sept. 11 just a few miles from the U.N., the Iranian dictator said: “A majority of the American people, as well as most nations and politicians around the world,” believe that U.S. officials orchestrated the Sept. 11 terrorist attack “to reverse the declining American economy and … save the Zionist regime.”

U.S. and European diplomats promptly got up and walked out of the hall. Such wild accusations seem to be a sign that Ahmadinejad is beginning to panic under the impact of the growing number of sanctions imposed by the world community against his regime’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad canceled many scheduled meetings following the growing notoriety of his Sept. 11 speech. A particular sign of his entering panic mode was his sudden cancellation of an opportunity to get his message across to the American people. Shepard Smith, Fox News Channel’s lead news anchor, was to host an exclusive interview with Ahmadinejad on Friday morning, which I had arranged.

After having worked through the night in meetings with Iranian contacts, I was able to secure permission directly from President Ahmadinejad to proceed with the interview on Friday morning. Eric Shawn, Fox senior correspondent and anchor, hosted the interview at 10:30 a.m. at the Warwick Hotel.

This was the third major U.S. TV network interview for the Iranian leader since coming to the U.S. last week. CNN’s Larry King and ABC’s Christiane Amanpour conducted their interviews early in the week.

As a journalist specializing in the Middle East, I arranged the Fox interview while in meetings all week with Iranian diplomats. It was the product of several years of contacts.

I had just made arrangements with the Secret Service to inspect the camera equipment for the interview when all hell broke loose. Iranians were shouting at each other in the Hilton Hotel lobby in a growing state of panic. The Iranian chief of staff then came to me and asked if the Fox network could arrange a debate between Ahmadinejad and Obama. I said there was no chance of that happening.

The situation became totally chaotic when Ahmadinejad himself arrived. The Iranian delegates were shouting at one another and running around in alarm.

A Sudanese diplomatic delegation arrived from the U.N. shortly afterward for a scheduled meeting with the Iranian leader. Before the meeting, a scuffle broke out as they pushed, shoved and screamed at each other. One of the Sudanese diplomats had to be cuffed by police.

Ahmadinejad’s aides would only repeat to me that the president had “bilateral problems, bilateral problems.”

It was Iran’s mullahs who overpowered many of their own diplomats in demanding Ahmadinejad attack America by accusing the U.S. of carrying out the Sept. 11 attacks. I met with the Iranian religious leaders and their diplomats in the hotel, and the inescapable conclusion is that the mullahs, Iran’s real rulers, were seeking to use Ahmadinejad’s speech to appeal to their followers in Iran. During the Fox interview, the mullahs were seated next to the cameras. There were few Iranian diplomats in the room.

Eric Shawn asked Ahmadinejad if the Mahdi, the prophesied redeemer of Islam and the world, would come soon. Ahmadinejad responded in the affirmative. Shawn then followed up by asking if his coming would be ushered in by an apocalyptic event.

In the four days at the Hilton Hotel, Iranian spies living in the United States poured in almost hourly. Some claimed to be physicians, others were journalists and numerous business leaders as well. One thing was obvious: They were treated as celebrities by Iran. In addition, diplomats with embassies from Turkey to Pakistan used their missions to assist Iran. The entourage ranged from a Holocaust-denying rabbi desperately trying to profit financially from Iran to a group of Zionist-denying rabbis who had the same ambitions.

For 62 years, Israel has been America’s one true friend and strategic ally in the Middle East. With recent developments, the actions of President Obama and his administration have clouded the relationship between the two nations. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was stiff-armed during his recent visit to Washington, D.C. In the words of one reporter, Obama “treated [Netanyahu] like some third-world, tin-pot dictator,” and even denied him the customary state dinner.

Obama’s arrogant and cavalier treatment of the prime minister of Israel callously accelerated the housing dispute into a full-fledged tragedy. He has endangered the long-standing alliance between Israel and the United States – one that dates back to Truman’s presidency.

Do you believe in miracles? Learn how Israel has persevered despite its many enemies, in the DVD chronicle: “Against All Odds: Israel Survives”

It was Truman who courageously led the world in being the first country to recognize Israel on May 14, 1948. A year or so after the Jewish state came into being, its chief rabbi paid an official call on Truman. The Israeli dignitary blessed the president with the words: “God put you in your mother’s womb so you would be the instrument to bring about Israel’s rebirth after 2,000 years.” Tears began flowing down Truman’s face.

Since Harry Truman, all U.S. presidents have considered the support of Israel a moral imperative, believing that a secure and strong Israel is in America’s self-interest – until now.

In his attempts to look like an Arab, Obama has joined the “kick-a-Jew” club. The president is linking housing projects to the safety of American soldiers by stating that the U.S. often gets involved in conflicts that cost “American blood and treasure.” Surely, Mr. Obama is not trying to cast blame on Israel for U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It sounds suspiciously like other U.S. politicians who have failed to take seriously Israel’s repeated overtures to the Palestinians. Mr. Obama should also read the history of the rejection by Palestinian leaders of Israel’s olive branches.

In a much-touted speech delivered from Cairo, Egypt, on June 4, 2009, Barack Obama outlined what he saw as the first and second greatest sources of tension between the Muslim world and the United States. Al-Qaida topped his list, but the Israeli/Palestinian conflict came in as the second-greatest source of tension. The president said, “Israel has been depriving the Palestinians of their homeland for 60 years.” It did not go unnoticed that no mention was made of centuries-old Jewish claims to the land.

Arab neighbors who stand threateningly on its borders have long singled out Israel for pariah status. Not only does the tiny nation live in the crosshairs of Hamas and Hezbollah, but Iran, which funds and arms these enemies, blatantly and vocally calls for the decimation of Israel. The rhetoric has grown even stronger since Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “… we are not planning anything other than going for sanctions.”

Working through leaders such as Hamas’ Khalid Mashai, Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah and Iraq’s Muqtada al-Sadr, Iran continues to destabilize the Middle East. It provides funds and arms to Hezbollah and Hamas and ships weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan. This is particularly disturbing to Israel because of Iran’s threats to “wipe it off the map.”

The Jews are regularly demonized by the Arab media, and now seemingly by the president of the country that has heretofore been a trusted ally.

I am reminded of the old saw, “With friends like these, who needs enemies?”

Biden was speaking for President Barack Obama, but does the Obama administration speak for the American people? Fifteen years ago, Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which stated that “Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.” A loophole in the act has allowed presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama to postpone implementing it for reasons of so-called national security, but the Jerusalem law remains the will of the American people.

Washington, D.C., has been the capital of the United States for about 200 years, and no Israeli politician would presume to question plans for housing in the District of Columbia. Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish people for about 3,000 years, since the time of King David – yet for 15 years no president has seen fit to move America’s embassy there.

The reactions to the Jerusalem housing plan were a spectacle of hypocrisy in the theater of the absurd, beginning with the condemnation by the Obama administration and followed by the expected handwringing of the European Community. They were exceeded only by the blatant hypocrisy of Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority.

Do you believe in miracles? Learn how Israel has persevered despite its many enemies, in the DVD chronicle: “Against All Odds: Israel Survives”

Besides their political agenda, all of these reactions reflect a basic ignorance of the actual geography and history of Jerusalem. It is no coincidence that this week’s brouhaha over Jerusalem housing followed the exact same script as a similar housing alarm several months ago.

The latest Israeli “threat to the peace process” involves municipal approval for 1,600 badly needed housing units in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood, located – surprise! – in northwest Jerusalem. It is a sign of the basic irrationality of the conflict that every point on the Jerusalem compass is referred to erroneously as “East Jerusalem.” This loaded term is cynically used to designate anywhere that Arabs live in the city, despite the reality that more Jews than Arabs live in Jerusalem’s geographically eastern neighborhoods.

The eternal capital of the Jewish people was reunited in June 1967, after being divided under Jordanian occupation for 19 years. Its municipal boundaries were established on June 28, 1967, and included the bare hillside that became Ramat Shlomo, a neighborhood of devoutly religious Jews. As the crow flies, it is a couple of miles west of Jerusalem’s Old City, the only part of the city that truly justifies the moniker of East Jerusalem.

Ramat Shlomo is just as much a part of Jerusalem as Givat Ram, where the Knesset, the Supreme Court and other government institutions are located. Questioning Israel’s right to build apartments in Ramat Shlomo makes as much moral sense as questioning its right to locate its parliament or highest court in any part of the city.

Virtually the same hypocritical castigating of Israel’s sovereign right to build on its own land occurred last November regarding the southwest Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo. Although the uproar over Gilo might have stemmed from the State Department’s ignorance of the difference between Har Gilo and Gilo, this is no excuse.

The former, the hilltop adjacent to Gilo, was the site of a Jordanian Arab Legion artillery position that shelled civilian Jerusalem repeatedly over the years and was captured by Israel during the Six Day War. As it lies over the Green Line, this disputed territory – even though it was captured in a war of self-defense – is indeed not an appropriate place for building a planned 900 Israeli apartments.

However, the land upon which Jerusalem’s southernmost neighborhood of Gilo was built – of course referred to as East Jerusalem – was purchased from its Arab owners by the Jewish National Fund before 1948. Gilo was once indeed occupied territory: It was Jordanian-occupied Israeli territory from 1948 to 1967, after which its Israeli sovereignty was restored.

It is as insulting for the Obama administration to object to construction in an area that has always been part of Israel’s capital as it would be to object to similar construction in Tel Aviv.

With all this loose talk about Israel undermining trust, what really deserves condemnation by the United States is the unceasing incitement against Israel by the Palestinian Authority. To cite just the latest example, why didn’t Vice President Biden condemn the PA for scheduling a ceremony in Ramallah during his visit to name a public square there for Dalal Mughrabi, the terrorist who led a 1978 massacre in which 37 Israeli civilians were murdered, 12 of them children?

Contrary to agreements it signed, the Palestinian Authority’s textbooks continue to teach little children that murderers are heroes. The PA names schools, youth movements, sports teams, even streets to glorify terrorism – and breed a new generation of terrorists. And don’t forget that Hamas still calls for Israel’s destruction. So who is undermining whose trust?

In my conversation with the Iranian diplomats, the men made it quite clear Iran had nothing to fear. They said there would not be an attack. “Israel is bluffing,” confidently averred one of the men. “There is absolutely nothing for us to concern ourselves with because neither Israel nor the United States tried to save its ally, the shah. They could have with their military, but were too weak to do it. If you think either one will go to war with us, I can tell you, it will never happen.”

He went on to say that stringent sanctions, including an oil embargo imposed by the West or an attack by Israel or the U.S., would serve only to unite the people behind Ahmadinejad, who has been under attack since the mullahs in Iran confirmed his re-election earlier this year.

These men consider President Obama just another Jimmy Carter who would never attack Iran. They believe he is already losing two wars on their borders – Iraq and Afghanistan – and would not dare instigate a third – especially a war that could mean a 10-year ground offensive with the probability of over one-quarter million body bags.

Ahmadinejad’s bravado suffered a major blow, however, when it was disclosed last Friday that Iran had constructed a secret uranium enrichment facility near its holiest city, Qom. Unfortunately, the powers-that-be had failed to inform the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency. The disclosure prompted the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany to schedule a meeting Thursday in Geneva to discuss Iran’s rogue nuclear program.

How dangerous is Iran’s nuke program, really? Discover Ahmadinejad’s chilling plans in Mike Evans’ “Showdown with Nuclear Iran”

With Obama’s efforts to promote sanctions against Iran, the round-the-clock security council meetings and America’s first official confrontation with the Persian Gulf country since the days of Jimmy Carter, it seems that Iran would do everything conceivable to placate the West. Instead, last Sunday Iran test-fired three short-range missiles with a range of 90-100 miles as part of a military exercise. On Monday, it tested two-stage, long-range Sejil-2 missiles and Shahab-3 missiles capable of hitting Israel, most Arab states, Southern Europe and any location from which an attack on Iran might be launched.

The newest revelation of the secret reactor has destroyed Obama’s ability to engage Iran in meaningful dialogue. The Iranians do not fear President Obama’s sanctions. They do not believe that Russia and China will agree to more stringent restrictions.

Russia, a country that has balked at imposing strong sanctions against its neighbor, is now expressing concern about the missile tests and might be persuaded to approve some additional moves. China, however, has much to lose if it joins the West in sanctioning Iran. This year alone, China National Petroleum inked a $5 billion contract to expand Iran’s South Pars natural gas field; was asked to bid on a $42.8 billion project to construct seven new oil refineries, as well as a 1,000-plus–mile pipeline across Iran; and agreed to increase two other refineries to the tune of $3 billion.

Ahmadinejad seems confident that the sanctions will not undermine his government; he is selling the country to the Revolutionary Guard. On Sunday, the day of the first missile tests, the Revolutionary Guard purchased more than 50 percent of Iran’s tele-communications company, one of the nation’s largest conglomerates, in a $7.8 billion deal. It has been awarded more than 750 oil and gas construction contracts and has its own port in Iran.

Ahmadinejad believes that sanctions only serve to toughen his countrymen and make them more “self-sufficient.” He could be proven wrong, however, as the loss of capital that would result from such a restrictive move could create havoc in Iran’s banking system. It could possibly deliver the final blow to his still-tottering regime. The Revolutionary Guard diplomats reiterated that not even the candidates who ran against Ahmadinejad supported renewed unilateral restrictions on the nuclear program.

It seems obvious that the world is threatened by Iran’s resolve to possess an atomic bomb. It would seem equally evident that global measures could and should be initiated to stop the radical Islamic Republic from achieving its purpose, now rather than later.

It seems that President Obama is determined to remain aloof to the cries of the people of Iran in favor of doing nothing in order to preserve the possibility of negotiating with the very man who holds the Iranian people under his thumb, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei is the man who has ordered a bloody crackdown on those who voted for Mir Hussein Moussavi; a man who is so paranoid he has the challenger’s supporters arrested.

The young men and women of Iran, who stood up to Ahmadinejad and had their votes stolen, waited 11 days for President Obama to issue a supportive statement. It came after the death of an innocent bystander from a gunshot wound. Neda, the 26-year-old young woman killed during the protests, had not been part of the street demonstrations.

In his belated statement, Obama offered no support of any kind for the protesters. The French government, on the other hand, responded immediately to the brutal reaction by the Iranian regime. Israel Deputy Prime Minister Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya’alon told me that if President Obama would sanction refined oil and enlist global support, the youth of Iran would eventually overthrow the tyrannical regime.

Mike Evans’ latest book delves into the appeasement policies of our 39th president and their impact today: “Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos”

To add insult to injury, an unidentified U.S. State Department employee confirmed that embassies abroad were encouraged to “invite representatives from the government of Iran” to attend Independence Day events. With his smoke-and-mirror show, Obama has made America an international laughingstock.

The question now: Does President Obama understand that events in Iran today really have nothing to do with the fraudulent election and everything to do with freedom? Men and women aren’t willing to die for a vote recount; they are willing to lay down their lives for the right to be heard. They are not protesting faux ballots; they are protesting the despotic limitations imposed on them by the tyrannical clerics who really run the country.

What will President Obama’s reaction be if the Revolutionary Guard and its rabid voluntary paramilitary force, the Basij, decide to mow the protesters down by the thousands in an attempt to halt the protests? Will he remain aloof? Will he take the side of those who are seeking a true democratic voice in the affairs of Iran? Will he imitate Jimmy Carter and support what he called “vigorous debate” over the “irregularities” of the election?

Mr. Obama took office vowing to extend a hand to our adversaries. Jimmy Carter held a similar worldview of the Soviet Union, promising to “cure our inordinate fear of communism.” Our enemies pushed back at what they perceived as weakness in Afghanistan, Iran, etc.

Carter was forced to hand over $7.9 billion to Khomeini in an attempt to secure the release of the American Embassy hostages. If President Obama cannot use diplomacy to support democracy, his extended hand to Iran’s ruling mullahs had better have a whole lot more money in it.

Will Obama announce that the U.S. will not support those seeking régime change in Tehran? There is a reason their signs are in English; they love the freedom for which America stands. Should the U.S. abandon the “green movement” in Iran we would have the blood of countless men and women on our hands. Do not our basic principles as a nation dictate that we stand with those who oppose a system that is the exact opposite of what we as Americans believe?

As president, Obama seems more intent on negotiating with the sworn enemies of the United States, i.e., Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his purveyors of terror, than with those who seek freedom in Iran. Has Obama learned all too well Carter’s mating dance with terrorists, while ascribing to them altruistic acts, legitimizing terrorism and those who carry out such heinous attacks?

President Obama now has a legitimate chance to support change for good. He has an opportunity to respond vigorously to those whom poet Emma Lazarus described on the Statue of Liberty as “… your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Will he stand with the freedom-seekers, or has President Obama truly become another Jimmy Carter? He seems to be following in Mr. Carter’s footsteps; it was Carter who recognized the Islamic Republic of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini with catastrophic results.

The mullahs who are in power seized that power by revolution in 1979. They know what a united Iranian people can do. This is what Khamenei fears and why he has avowed that a “street challenge is not acceptable.”

The mullahs have perfected the art of enmity over the past three decades. In spite of the hatred spewing from their mouths, the youth of Iran are as passionate about freedom as are the mullah’s clenched fists. I support the Iranian people who want to be free from oppression; yet at the same time, I fear for them.

The upheaval that will surely come if they are successful will change the complexion of the Middle East; how dramatically, no one really knows. The challenge is great.

Where is Obama’s support for those who fight for freedom? His silence is most telling. As the Iranian people risk their lives, he refuses to see the country that is “terror central” as an evil empire. President Obama has taken a neutral stance. Dante Alighieri said, “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crises, retained their neutrality.”

I was so moved by the Netanyahu family and Benjamin Netanyahu’s moral clarity at the anniversary of the death of his brother in 1981 that I asked then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin to give him a government job. I said, “I believe this man will be prime minister some day.” Begin hired him the following evening.

What precisely is Obama doing? He has pressured Prime Minister Netanyahu to commit that Israel would not attack Iran, at least until the end of the year, so as not to disrupt Washington’s plans to dialogue with Iran over its nuclear program.

Additionally, he has played into Iran’s hands by tying the Palestinian situation into the Iranian nuclear crisis. In essence, he is telling the state of Israel: If you want my support in dealing with Iran, you are going to have to give the Palestinians a state.

Why does Netanyahu demand the Arab world recognize a Jewish state? Because they are bigots and they hate Jews.

Mike Evans’ latest book delves into the appeasement policies of our 39th president and their impact today: “Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos”

Barack Obama should read Dr. Martin Luther King’s words: “You declare, my friends, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely anti-Zionists. I say, let the truth ring forth from the highest mountaintops. Let it echo through the valleys of God’s green earth. When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews. Zionism is nothing less than the dream and the ideals of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land.”

Netanyahu wants the U.S. to reaffirm its support for Israel’s right to self-defense against the looming threat from Iran. During the last three years, Israel fought two bitter campaigns to halt the bombardment of its civilian population by thousands of terrorist missiles – fired by the Iranian terrorist proxies Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Meanwhile, Iran denies the Holocaust while threatening to wipe the Jewish state off the map, as it develops nuclear weapons and tests long-range ballistic missiles.

Israel’s prime minister takes Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at his apocalyptic word, as must the leader of a country that has suffered unrelenting Islamist terrorism for 61 years. In terms of Jewish history, Netanyahu considers Iran to be a threat similar to that posed by the Israelites’ biblical scourge, the Amalekites, and more ominously by Hitler’s Germany. President Obama, on the other hand, thinks Iran can be won over with patience and reason and is no real threat to America or world peace.

Obama’s advisers reportedly consider the sole obstacle to peace in the Middle East to be the lack of a Palestinian state. The problem with this Pollyannaish vision is that it lacks hindsight. On Nov. 29, 1947, the United Nations voted to partition British Mandatory Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab. The Jews accepted the resolution and the Arab states did not and invaded Israel in the first of many unsuccessful attempts to destroy it. The Palestinians could have had their state 62 years ago, but preferred to deny the Jews their own state. The only state the Palestinians have been capable of living in since then is the state of denial.

President Obama has said he does not support regime change. Will this apply to Netanyahu’s government, if Washington spins it as an “obstacle to peace”? A possible indication is that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s spouse, former president Bill Clinton, is advising the leader of Israel’s opposition Kadima Party, MK Tzipi Livni.

Obama made his feelings about Netanyahu’s Likud Party clear during the recent election when he said, “I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel, and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel.”

The president wants speedy action and hinted so at a recent press conference with Jordan’s King Abdullah. “I agree that we can’t talk forever,” Obama said, “that at some point steps have to be taken so that people can see progress on the ground.” He said he expects such progress to take place in the coming months. If that is going to happen, Obama must first change the Palestinian regime to recognize Israel.

Fortunately, the group had been infiltrated early during the planning stages of its proposed assault. The men were armed only with harmless, fake C-4 explosives and a dud Stinger missile. A spokesperson for the Simon Wiesenthal Center said of the attempted bombing, “The dangers from such fanaticism have not passed, and American Jews must maintain their vigilance.”

For these men to say that this was a planned attack on America when the target is a Jewish synagogue is extremely telling. Even more telling is the statement made by one of the jihadists: “If Jews were killed in this attack … that would be all right.”

WND’s Aaron Klein gets to the heart of Israel’s decline in his new book, “The Late Great State of Israel: How Enemies Within and Without Threaten the Jewish Nation’s Survival”

The real meaning of the planned assault is these men believe the “Jewish conspiracy theory” that the Jews control America and the world. This is the same belief system in which Hitler believed and embraced as outlined in “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,” the same system that provoked the pogroms in Russia and the Holocaust in Europe.

Three American citizens who had converted to Islam were involved in this plot. The liberal left is trying to sell a belief system that Islam is a peaceful religion. The version of Islam embraced by these men is not peaceful; it’s the same version subscribed to by the 9/11 suicide bombers.

All suicide bombers believe the same thing concerning martyrdom – a crown of glory on their heads in paradise, 72 black-eyed virgins and 70 relatives exempted from the horrors of hell. Why the U.S. refuses to say the “B” word – bigotry – is incomprehensible; it is what feeds the entire terror world.

Jews are not killed in Israel because of “land.” They are killed simply and purely for being Jews. It is strange that Jews experience Islamist racism every day in the Middle East and the world sits silently by. It is no less remarkable that the Obama administration is boosting a peace plan with Arab governments whose schoolbooks teach their children that Jews are the descendants of monkeys and pigs. These so-called “moderate” Arab regimes still aren’t prepared to accept Israel’s right to exist.

Sixty years after the Holocaust, millions of Arab bigots continue to propagate the vile Nazi racist doctrine of Hitler. Arab children are taught that all wars are caused by the Jews, that the Jews invented AIDS, that the Jews attacked America on Sept. 11 and blamed it on the Arabs, and that America went to war against Iraq on the Jews’ behalf.

Make no mistake: Arab racism is killing Jews. These bigoted myths and conspiracy theories brainwash Palestinian children to commit suicide bombings against Jews. Innocent children play death games, such as collecting “martyr” cards with pictures of suicide bombers.

The war on terrorism must first of all be a war against the bigotry that drives it, for the same racism that kills Jews also kills Christians, as America discovered on 9/11. This latest plot to kill Jews was not formulated in the back alleys of Gaza; it was planned and almost executed on the busy streets of New York City where Jews were again targeted.

Any Arab peace initiative will of necessity be judged as genuine only if it is based upon mutual respect. To date, that has not been forthcoming from the Arab countries.

Nothing reflects the divisiveness between the two cultures better than the reaction to Ahmadinejad’s tirade at the conference. The Muslim world cheered; delegates from 24 Western countries rose as one body and marched to the exit.

The diminutive despot chose April 20, 2009, the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, to call for the decimation of Israel. He appealed to the assembly to encourage and support the fight to eradicate what he called Israel’s “barbaric racism. Efforts must be made to put an end to Zionism,” intoned the fanatical Ahmadinejad. We must not forget that eradicate means to exterminate.

The leader gave a nod to what was to be the central point of the conference, human rights worldwide; then he zeroed in on the West and berated what he characterized as the evils of Zionism. He had the audacity to minimize the horrors suffered by the Jewish people during World War II by labeling the Holocaust the “pretext of Jewish suffering.”

WND’s Aaron Klein gets to the heart of Israel’s decline in his new book, “The Late Great State of Israel: How Enemies Within and Without Threaten the Jewish Nation’s Survival”

Prior to the opening ceremonies of the conference, Germany, Australia, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Israel and the United States sent their regrets. During Ahmadinejad’s speech, 24 delegates rose and marched out in protest including those representing Britain, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain. While Ahmadinejad decried the behavior of those who exited the hall as “rude,” he had no problem being interrupted with applause by delegates from such Muslim countries as Iran and Pakistan.

Outside the conference setting, pro-Jewish organizations reverently recited the names of some of the 6 million people who perished in the Holocaust.

A statement issued by the U.S. called the Iranian’s remarks “hateful.” Robert Gibbs, White House press secretary, told reporters: “Obviously, the president disagrees vehemently with what was said … so did many others.” Although U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had asked Ahmadinejad not to cause disruption and division with his comments, he was sorely disappointed. Ban pointed out that the comments were used “to accuse, divide and even incite.”

Even as Ahmadinejad was holding court in Geneva, a solemn event was being conducted at Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial in Israel. President Shimon Peres, presiding over Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremonies, called Ahmadinejad’s trip to Geneva “a deplorable disgrace.” He said, “The conference opening today in Geneva constitutes an acceptance of racism, rather than the fight against it, and its main speaker is Ahmadinejad, who calls for the annihilation of Israel and denies the Holocaust.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu paid tribute to those countries that chose not to give their seal of approval to the events in Geneva. Netanyahu vowed, “We will not let the Holocaust deniers perpetrate another holocaust on the Jewish people.”

One has to question why the United Nations provided a venue for a head of state who leads a country where methodical and organized tyranny is practiced daily, a country where women are cruelly subjugated.

It is horrifying to think that the rhetoric spouted during Ahmadinejad’s speech was delivered by the man who controls a country on the brink of becoming a nuclear power. Iran will soon have the tools to attempt to carry out its threats to wipe Israel off the map.

The leaders of this superpower wannabe are motivated by a deep-seated hatred for all things the Western world represents – freedom and choice among them. This is a dogma that can’t be ignored by those so wishful for adulation that they will turn a blind eye to the nature of the beast in order affect change. Ahmadinejad is a fanatical leader whose only emotions are hatred and vengeance.

In 2001, just days before the 9/11 attacks, the U.N. sponsored the first Durban Conference. Instead of fighting racial discrimination, Durban only fueled and fed it. The Crusaders (America) and the Zionists (Israel) were charged with racism, slavery and colonialism.

This despite the fact charges were being levied by Arab countries guilty of blatant discrimination. No mention was made during that conference of the genocide in Rwanda or Iraq, or the gassing of the Kurds; no condemnation was levied against Iran’s use of children as minesweepers during the Iran-Iraq War; nor was there a mention of the repressive regime in Saudi Arabia.

Jews are banned from setting a foot on the soil in Saudi Arabia and throughout the Middle East. It is no wonder Durban deteriorated into an anti-Semitic hate fest against Israel.

The U.S. and Israel exited those proceedings in South Africa in protest while conference goers took to the streets to parade vile posters that portrayed the Jews as having fangs dripping with blood. Following 9/11, the world media refused to call the events of that infamous day what they were: bigotry against the Americans (Crusaders).

The war on terror is, in fact, not a war against terror or against an ideology; it is a war against bigotry and racism. This war has never really been fought. Even the debate over the right of the Jewish people to exist is beyond comprehension. Racism and bigotry are the soil in which the virus of terror grows. This is a war that cannot be won unless the root of racism is exposed.

Ahmadinejad has become the poster boy for racial discrimination. He smiles, while watching his nuclear centrifuges run on a fast-forward track, and says he likes Jews; he just hates Zionists and denies the Holocaust. His rhetoric did not appear to inspire the millions of Zionists living in Israel who are aware that one-third of the Jewish race was exterminated during the Holocaust – including 5 million adults and almost 1 million children.