The Hostage

     Israel, of course:

     Iran fired as many as 15 ballistic missiles into Iraq, targeting U.S. military and coalition forces early Wednesday, officials said, in a major retaliation by the rogue regime after the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian Quds Force Gen. Qassem Soleimani last week.

     Ten missiles hit Al-Assad Air Base, one missile hit a military base in Erbil and four missiles failed to hit their targets, according to a U.S. military spokesman for Central Command, responsible for American forces in the Middle East. The attacks unfolded in two waves, each about an hour apart.

     Initial assessments showed "no U.S. casualties," a U.S. military official in Baghdad told Fox News....

     Iran’s Revolutionary Guard then warned the U.S. and its regional allies against retaliating over the missile attack in Iraq.

     The Guard issued the warning via a statement carried by Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency: “We are warning all American allies, who gave their bases to its terrorist army, that any territory that is the starting point of aggressive acts against Iran will be targeted.” The Guard in the warning also threatened Israel.

     I added the emphasis.

     The Iranian government, as mad as it is, cannot harm the United States except by firing missiles at American military bases in Iraq – and it appears that those missile attacks, while they’ve done property damage, have not reaped any lives. Whether President Trump will respond to those strikes with force remains to be seen, though the zero casualty count lessens the probability. But what the Iranian announcement tells us is at least as significant geopolitically.

     Iran might or might not have a nuclear weapon; in that regard a regime that does business with North Korea is beyond confident assessment. But it does have a large army and the ability to launch ballistic weapons it most certainly does have against Israel, America’s Middle Eastern ally and client state:

     Iran possesses missiles capable of reaching Israel’s population centers. Moreover, the states geographically between Iran and Israel would not prevent Iranian ground forces from advancing against Israel from the west. Thus Iran’s threat to strike Israel in “retaliation” for an American response is credible from a geographic standpoint. But is it likely?

     I can’t decide. On the one hand, Israel is a nuclear power that could obliterate Iran’s government and the greater part of its population, and the Iranian theocrats know it. On the other hand, the Iranian theocrats are irrationally evil (or “chaotic amoral” in gamer’s terms) and cannot be relied upon to act in the objectively best interests of Iran. On the gripping hand, Washington would surely attempt to restrain the Israeli government from “drastic” measures. So any calculation of “probable” responses to further Iranian provocations must be performed under a cloud.

     One thing seems certain: Iranian tactics that get Iran’s rulers what they want will be repeated. Hearken to Charlie Martin:

     Looking back over the last 10 years, we've seen the Obama administration ignoring Iranian provocation to get the "nuclear deal," sending them billions of dollars in cash — and releasing this same Soleimani from previous sanctions, something John Kerry tried to explain by saying it wasn't this Soleimani, but another guy of the same name (which was a lie, by the way), and then ignoring blatant violations of the agreement they were so proud of making, while Iran continued to attack the Iraqi government and kill civilians.

     When you reward a behavior, you get more of it. And we have: since the Obama deal, Iran has increased its military budget using the money the Obama deal supplied; support for terrorism has actually increased.

     Of course, this is what we'd expect: we keep rewarding the Iranian government, they keep doing what gets them rewarded.

     So far, this “should” be “obvious.” But this is less “obvious:”

     A lot of the responses, so far, have been sanctions. Sanctions sound like a great idea: sanction a country and its people suffer, and they pressure the government to mend its ways.

     Unfortunately, that doesn't help much with an authoritarian theocracy that is willing to gun down 1500 protestors. "Hey, you can make our people suffer, but we kill them! Top that!"

     As Skinner found out, negative reinforcement is not as effective as positive reinforcement. To work at all, negative reinforcement has to be negative — it has to hurt, or at least be unpleasant.

     Charlie doesn’t lean on that point hard enough, so I’ll do it for him:

Negative reinforcement must be
MUCH HARSHER
Than the positive reinforcement it seeks to negate.

     (Can you say “disproportionate?” I knew you could.)

     President Trump is not in the mold of other post-World War II presidents. He sincerely values the integrity and security of Israel. He’s not in thrall to his “foreign policy experts.” Moreover, he believes in simple remedies for simple diseases. There’s no simpler disease than violence between nation-states. The remedy is a response with overwhelming force: enough force so that those who can learn must draw the lesson, and those who cannot are all dead.

     This could prove to be the big test of Trump’s first term. Watch this space.

The Pope’s Persian Conversion

Popemania – the new Beetlemania.  The new cable news network mantra, “All Pope, all the time.”  Why the mainstream media’s interest in this Pope?  My hunch, they think he can be turned -- they think deep-down he’s a leftist too.
 

I was raised a Roman Catholic, but after reading the Bible in 1993 became a non-denominational, Bible-believing, born-again, washed in the blood, follower of Jesus Christ.  Louie Giglio, an Atlanta pastor and founder of the Passion movement, made the point one Sunday that “non-denominational” is not the best term since one would not want to be defined by what they don’t believe in.  I get that.  Consider the saying, “American by birth, Texan by the grace of God.”  In the spiritual realm, my case would be, “Roman Catholic by birth, Christ follower by the grace of God.”  

In the military, the two main services were either Catholic or General Protestant.  Although I would identify as “protestant” (after 1993) in keeping with Louie’s logic, I was not protesting anything.  My allegiance is not to a particular church or denomination – it is to the God of the Bible.

So, is the Pope Catholic?  Do bears defecate in the woods?  The answer used to be obvious.  In a FoxNews.com opinion piece published December 04, 2013, editor Adam Shaw (a Catholic) said, “Pope Francis is undergoing a popularity surge comparable to the way Barack Obama was greeted by the world in 2008. And just as President Obama has been a disappointment for America, Pope Francis will prove a disaster for the Catholic Church.”  He’s obviously right about the former but what about the latter?

Shaw continued, “Just like President Obama loved apologizing for America, Pope Francis likes to apologize for the Catholic Church, thinking that the Church is at its best when it is passive and not offending anyone’s sensibilities.”  How’s that “apology approach” to foreign policy working out for America and the world?  Shaw then describes the results for the Catholic Church: 

  ”For all we’re being told about how ‘disenfranchised’ Catholics are being brought back by Francis ‘reaching out,’ a recent Pew Research study showed that in America, the number of people who identify as Catholic has actually decreased.  Lesson: rubbing the egos of Church-hating left-wingers doesn’t make more Catholics; it just makes the Church less respected.”  

Take a lesson America.  Jesus knew the world would hate Him and made no bones about it, explaining, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.   If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.”   So how is it that this Pope trumps this teaching of Jesus? 

Another indicator beyond the press drooling over the Pope that should alert one’s spidey-senses – nary a peep out of the “freedom from religion crowd.”   There’s the Pope flying around in Marine One, the President’s personal helicopter, again, silence.  It is common knowledge that that aircraft is supposed to be reserved for flying the Obama’s on vacations – not a supposedly anti-gay marriage, pro-life, male-only priesthood promoting pontiff.   The leftists’ lack of outrage at this cooperation between Church and state is deafening, and a sure sign that they aren’t scared of the guy. 

As a wacko Bible believer (i.e. orthodox Christian) I’m anticipating the prophesied marriage of the apostate church and the government.  Seeing Obama and this Pope side-by-side at the White House the other day was almost enough to believe the archangel’s lips were on the trump of God.  Perhaps this Pope is just Obama’s new Jeremiah Wright – to be thrown under the bus at some future date.  Maybe it’s a marriage of convenience – each hoping to advance their respective agendas by appearing together in unity.   

Although Obama and the left-wing American media may have rolled out the red carpet for Francis, I’m pretty sure Jesus would not enjoy a similar welcome.   If the Jewish Messiah were to show up tomorrow (and scripture says it’s very, very possible), it’s my bet Obama and the press would treat Jesus a lot more like the last Jewish guy to address a joint session of Congress – Benjamin Netanyahu.  

Another way Obama, the Pope and the press are alike (besides believing in climate-change) – they all support the Iran deal.  Said the Pope, "it is proof of the potential of political goodwill, exercised with sincerity, patience and constancy,"

Now that’s faith.

This column appears in The Upson Beacon, 30 SEP 2015 published in Upson County, GA.