In his recent $3.8 trillion budget announcement for 2013, President Obama presented a new national defense strategy and foreign aid priorities. With regime change and unrest in the Middle East, will Americans continue to be safe? Do we know what we are funding?

Priorities Gone Awry

Regarding foreign aid, the President’s 2013 budget (voted down 414-0 in the House of Representatives) “establishes a new $770 million MENA (Middle East North Africa) Incentive Fund, which will provide incentives for long-term economic, political, and trade reforms to countries in transition—and to countries prepared to make reforms proactively.” [1]

With two of the recipient nations – Egypt and Tunisia – having changed regimes through violent protests in 2011, incredibly we are funding countries moving quickly toward Islamic fundamentalism.

In 1979, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat signed on to the American-brokered peace deal with Israel. Since that time, Egypt has been the second largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid behind Israel.[2] In 2011 the pro-American Hosni Mubarak – who became Egypt’s president after the 1981 assassination of Sadat – was overthrown as violence and Islamic fundamentalism swept across Egypt and the Middle East. In a wave of anti-American sentiment since the revolt, relations between the U.S. and Egypt have been tense.

A crisis over American-sponsored non-governmental organizations (NGOs) led the Egyptian government to file criminal charges against Americans they prevented from leaving the country. In October 2011, one Egyptian official claimed that the U.S steered the course of Egypt’s transition toward “a direction that realized American and Israeli interests.”[3]

The following statements were seen in the February 15, 2012 editions of state-funded, and widely-distributed, Egyptian newspapers. “America is behind the anarchy,” (front page of the Al Gomhuria newspaper). “American funding aims to spread anarchy in Egypt,” (front page of Al Ahram newspaper).[4]

The seed for violence in Egypt – in some measure – comes from the brutal tactics of the pro-American Mubarak. Over the length of his time in power, Mubarak’s police forces killed, illegally detained, and threatened his many enemies.[5] The lasting failure of the Bush and Obama presidencies is that they did not hold in check the growing reign of terror by Mubarak against his enemies. The radical Muslim Brotherhood was able to feed off the anger of the Egyptian people to successfully oust Mubarak, and blame America for our well-funded support.

In Obama’s 2013 budget proposal, $1.3 billion is designated for military aid to Egypt, the same as 2012.

Under a condition placed by Congress for 2012 aid, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must certify that Egypt is abiding by its 1979 peace treaty with Israel, holding free and fair elections and “implementing policies to protect freedom of expression, association and religion and due process of law.”[6]

In effect, Congress ordered the White House to deliver a level of accountability concerning Egypt.

Yet disturbing questions remain:

* Given Egypt’s dismal track record, what possible assurances could they give to guarantee our funding will fulfill our conditions?

* Why do we continue funding Egypt after they overthrew their pro-American leader a year ago, imprisoned and detained Americans, and strengthened ties to Islamic fundamentalists such as the Muslim Brotherhood?

* Will we fight tomorrow against a military force and former ally (Egypt) we are funding today?

Out-of-Control Washington Spending Forces Change in Defense Strategy

In January, President Obama announced a new strategy for the defense of our nation. “I called for this comprehensive defense review — to clarify our strategic interests in a fast-changing world, and to guide our defense priorities and spending over the coming decade.”[7]

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta declared, “It really does represent a historic shift to the future.  And it recognizes that this country is at a strategic turning point, after a decade of war and after large increases in defense spending.”[8]

A debt crisis caused by excessive government spending has led the President and Defense Secretary to propose a reduction in the size of planned increases in defense spending over the next 10 years. Upcoming budget “sequestration” (special rules for spending cuts by Congress) may force actual cuts in defense spending.

Since 9-11, our military has adapted to fighting Islamic fundamentalists who are quite willing to kill Americans on our own soil in their hatred of the “Great Satan.” With our troops removed from Iraq, the military focus in the Middle East has shifted to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. President Obama has announced the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan by 2014.

Were we ready 10 years ago for 9-11 and the fight against terrorism? No.

Are we ready to meet the latest challenges from the Middle East?

With changing defense strategies and questionable foreign aid, our ability to remain safe from our enemies is being threatened. President Obama’s 2013 expenses would add $1 trillion to our debt. Added to our current $16 trillion of debt, the White House and Congress must provide the fiscal responsibility and military courage to protect our country.

Americans need to be informed about the impact of budget cuts and our ability to defend our borders. Start by asking your representatives where they stand on automatic cuts forced by upcoming budget “sequestration,” and which defense priorities they will fund. Challenge the continuing renewal of foreign aid to countries with loyalties shifting from the U.S. and toward our enemies.

On March 5, 2012, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Obama. This was their ninth meeting in three years, and the stakes have never been higher. The potential of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons is a direct threat to both Israel and the U.S.

Before their meeting, Obama and Netanyahu shed little light on their disagreements over Iran.

In a statement made 24-hours earlier to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, Obama stated, “I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power: a political effort aimed at isolating Iran, a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored, an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.”[1]

Prime Minister Netanyahu responded to Obama’s AIPAC speech by saying he was pleased with the president’s remarks. “I very much appreciated the fact that President Obama reiterated his position that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and that all options are on the table. Most important of all, I appreciated the fact that he said that Israel must be able to defend itself by itself against any threat.”[2]

Based on their public statements, you would expect that diplomatic efforts and sanctions have had some success in stopping Iran. Not true. Obama wants diplomacy and more time for sanctions against Iran to work, and Netanyahu needs the U.S. to back Israel, as the potential for military action becomes more imminent.

Iran is steadily moving toward atomic weapons, a situation verified by the United Nations. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated in November 2011 that “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device” and that their efforts may still be under way.[3]

In June 2011, outgoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that most intelligence estimates predicted Iran was one to three years away from building a nuclear weapon.[4]

While Iran appears to be nearing the ability to use nuclear weapons (against Israel and elsewhere), the internal political pressure to do this very thing has been ratcheting up inside Iran. With an economy based on oil exports, Iran has been in hardship the last several years. The popular Iranian Green movement is picking up support while the Islamic fundamentalists, led by Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are doing all to maintain power.

To stir up public sentiment in Iran against the U.S. and our allies, Khamenei recently said that “the arrogant powers are bullying us to maintain their prestige.”[5] Whether they call us “arrogant powers”, or the “Great Satan”, the Islamic hardliners inflame the Iranian public to keep themselves in power. The Islamic fundamentalists used the connection of the U.S with the Shah of Iran, to gain power in 1979. Islamic fundamentalists have been in power since the Islamic revolution.

The Shifting Balance of Power

Dramatic shifts in the balance of power are occurring in the Middle East due to Iran’s progress toward atomic arms. If the U.S. hesitates in applying pressure on Iran, and is slow in support of Israel, the balance of power may tilt permanently toward Iran and away from the U.S.

In a statement to an Atlantic reporter, the ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to the United States, Yousef al-Otaibaif, said, “There are many countries in the region who, if they lack the assurance the U.S. is willing to confront Iran, they will start running for cover towards Iran. Small, rich, vulnerable countries in the region do not want to be the ones who stick their finger in the big bully’s eye, if nobody’s going to come to their support.”[6]

Arab states will not wait for the U.S. to deal with the nuclear threat imposed by Iran. As Iran quickly becomes the emerging power of the region, and if the U.S. backs away from our role of strategic defense, Arab countries will want to strengthen their own security by aligning with Iran (Iranians are not of Arab heritage, they are Persian).

The United States and Israel cannot afford to watch the dominos fall to Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East. World War I exploded as the dominos (countries) in Europe fell one by one, and the major powers doing too little. It will be too late for us to act if the dominos (countries) in the Middle East begin to fall.

By destroying nuclear reactors in Iraq (1981)[7] and Syria (2007)[8], Israel has clearly demonstrated they are not afraid to eliminate weapons that might be used as weapons against them.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is asking for the firm assurances that the U.S. will support Israel when Israel must act militarily to defend itself against the development of nuclear capability by their enemies.

President Obama faces tough questions as he considers the aggressive behavior of Iran and the lack of success of his diplomatic approach and relatively mild sanctions:

With the opposition Green Movement in Iran, why did Obama refuse to support their efforts to stand strong against Islamic fundamentalists?

Can we believe economic sanctions alone will work against a regime already under political pressure at home, is verified as moving toward nuclear arms capability, and is a sworn enemy of Israel and the U.S.?

Why would the U.S. allow the Middle East to swing toward Iran simply because our leaders waited too long to deal with Iran?

President Obama’s immediate choices are the same that President Reagan faced against the Islamic fundamentalists of Iran. The Iranians of the 1980s had no doubt President Reagan would have acted with strength.

The president must have the will to apply stronger sanctions on an immediate basis including stopping Iran’s oil shipments, restricting refined oil shipments to Iran (they have no refining capability), legally seizing assets, and further banking restrictions. Where necessary, the U.S. must act with Israel with the greatest speed to destroy Iran’s nuclear arms capability.

There is no deterrence against the will of our enemies if our own response lacks the will to act. Indecision is the unavoidable path of weak leadership.

American voters must demand that the candidates, including President Obama, stand strong against Islamic fundamentalists who would destroy our country. The voice of our leaders must once again echo the will of the people by supporting our allies, delivering tough sanctions, and following up with tougher military action. We must not back down in the face of threats to our security; our allies and our children depend on it.

The last year has been filled with crisis and revolt in Egypt and across the Middle East.

In February 2011, Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak was forced to resign[1] after 18 days of mass protests in Cairo, as all across Egypt it turned violent when police clashed with protesters.  The military took over control of the country, the parliament was disbanded and the constitution was abolished.[2] In November 2011, demonstrations broke out once again in Egypt just days ahead of general elections to replace military rule with a new civilian government.[3]

Should American citizens be concerned?  Do the events in the Middle East affect U.S. vital interests? Do recent actions of the White House and Congress show leadership?

Political instability in the Middle East is a major economic concern because of the impact on oil prices and oil supply.  Egypt controls the Suez Canal, which connects trade routes to the U.S. and Europe.  While Egypt controls slightly more than 2% of the world’s oil distribution, oil prices increased by 8 percent during the Egypt riots in January and February, on the threat that the oil supply through the Suez Canal might be interrupted.[4]

Then in November 2011, attackers blew up the natural gas pipeline from Egypt to Israel.[5]  Is a major disruption to the oil supply next?

The impact on global price and supply of oil would be significant if a major oil-producing nation in the Middle East experienced revolt and political disruption.

The U.S. has become more dependent on Middle East oil since President Obama halted oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and put a hold on the Keystone pipeline from Canada.  Americans must be aware of events in the Middle East to understand the negative impact on the fragile U.S. and global economy.  With large oil reserves in America, why hasn’t the White House delivered a practical plan for energy independence?

Protests – and demands for regime change – have erupted across many Islamic countries in the Middle East over the last year.  Egypt, Tunisia and Libya have all experienced regime changes.  Will the dominos of change continue to fall in other countries and increase oil prices for America?

What is the real impact to Israel – our major ally in the Middle East – if the violence and regime change continues?  Israel is bordered from the South and East by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.  Israel has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan.  Jordan[6] and Syria[7] have both experienced rioting in 2011.  What will happen to Israel if regime change is forced on Jordan and Syria like has occurred Egypt?

Iran has become an increasing threat to stability and safety in the Middle East.  The Iranian president has agreed with the “wisdom” of Ayatollah Khomeini that, “Israel must be wiped off the face of the map.”[8]  The watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that Iran has the technical means to make a nuclear bomb.[9]

In the face of increasing rioting and regime change in the Middle East, along with threats from Iran, what firm action has the President taken to protect our allies and national interests?

On October 21, 2011, President Obama announced final troop withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2011. In the announcement the President stated that the U.S., “Will continue discussions on how we might help Iraq train and equip its forces — again, just as we offer training and assistance to countries around the world.” [10]

In response, twelve U.S. Senators demanded hearings on the White House ending of negotiations on the continuing of U.S. training and counterterrorism in Iraq.  “As you know, the complete withdrawal of our forces from Iraq is likely to be viewed as a strategic victory by our enemies in the Middle East, especially the Iranian regime.”[11]

The hearing on the Iraq withdrawal was held by the full Senate Armed Services Committee.  Where is the White House plan for training assistance to Iraq?

The complete removal of troops from Iraq is not an isolated act by President Obama.  On June 22, 2011, the president promised that troops stationed in Afghanistan will be partially reduced in 2011 followed by another reduction in 2012.  In 2014, President Obama plans a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan.[12]

At a time when the threat from Iran in the Middle East is growing, the lack of leadership by the White House has taken away the counterbalance: U.S. troops.  By withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama is fulfilling his campaign promises to the Liberals and Progressives…and putting us at risk!

The current policies of the White House put our allies in greater danger at a time when our enemies are moving toward seizing power.  The lack of a clear plan for energy independence makes us more dependent on Middle Eastern oil, and weakens our borders both economically and politically.

Where is the White House plan to promote stability in the Middle East?

America must wake up and see that feeble action and weak leadership are a dangerous combination for our nation and the world.  We must elect leaders who will support our allies and not back down in the face of threats.  We must put our nation back on sure footing.

It is time to send a strong message to the White House and their supporters in Congress: Lead, Follow or Get Out Of The Way.

Do you remember when you heard the awful news about 9-11?  I do. I was listening to the radio on the way to work. I remember my emotions after seeing the news footage of planes burning on the sides of the Twin Towers in New York City.  My brother-in-law – who works in New York – watched in horror out of his office window as the Twin Towers came crashing down.  All of this was the work of terrorists.

The nation mourned and became enraged.

The terrorist acts on September 11, 2001 killed 2977 victims and caused incredible wreckage in the lives of families, friends, and co-workers.  The damage to the US economy was estimated to have cost American workers 1.6 million jobs by 2002.[1]

The events of 9-11 were a wake-up call for America.

We knew that we were at war because America was attacked on our own soil.

After 9-11, the US led the uncompromising attack against Iraq – one of the key countries to sponsor terrorism – and took down their dictator, Saddam Hussein.  The war was then expanded to Afghanistan.  Al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden were the prime enemies.

By the end of 2011, the last of the US troops were withdrawn from Iraq by President Obama, keeping one of his campaign promises.  Then the timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan was announced; followed by the death of Osama bin Laden.  We also solemnly commemorated the loss of life during the 10th anniversary of 9-11 at a new memorial on the site of the Twin Towers.

A decade has come and gone since 9-11.  Are we still at war?  Are we safe or safer today?

The 9-11 Commission Report concluded that, “In sum, there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers.”[2]

Iran continues to this day to threaten the Middle East and the US.

In November 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency announced that Iran has received the necessary help from foreign sources and has mastered the critical steps to build a nuclear weapon.[3]

The sanctions in Iran, placed on them by the US and the United Nations, has further ratcheted up the tension.  In December 2011, Iran tested their long-range missiles[4] and conducted 10 days of naval exercises in the Straits of Hormuz – a key passageway for transporting 40 percent of the world’s oil sea-based shipments[5]. Iran has warned that they will blockade the Straits if sanctions are imposed on its oil exports.[6]

In November 1979, Iran seized 79 US hostages under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini, while moving their people to riots by calling the US “the Great Satan”.

Despite negotiations, President Carter was not able to secure the release of the hostages.  The hostages were released just minutes after the start of President Reagan’s inaugural address in 1981.

Iran backed down instead of facing a strong response by a strong president.

Iran continues in the present time to be ruled by radical Islamic fundamentalists who believe that the US is “the Great Satan”.

There is a war still under way by the most radical Islamic fundamentalists against America.  The personal and economic freedom – which is provided by the constitution to each of our citizens – is an outrage to the most radical forces of Islam.

Thirty years have gone by since President Reagan forced Iran to back down and release the hostages.  We can continue down the path of Ronald Reagan by strengthening our military and financial muscles – and having strong leadership in place and the good sense of when to use them. We cannot afford the current administration’s impending military cuts if we plan to remain strong with an imminent Iran nuclear threat.

Americans must live by the words of President Reagan: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.  We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream.  It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”[7]

Our leaders must not be afraid to stand strong against Iran by using the toughest sanctions – and even military presence – to stop Iran from becoming armed with nuclear weapons.[8]

Without oil refining capability existing in Iran, why have the White House and the UN held back by not placing sanctions against oil products being sold to Iran?  This action would cripple Iran.

The elections of 2012 are vitally important to our country. The threat of military spending cuts puts our nation’s security – and strength – in danger.

Make your voice heard.  Work in your state caucuses and primaries to ensure that we elect leaders who will strengthen our borders.

Each voting citizen must be armed with the understanding that our enemies hate us and want us to be destroyed.

Do not settle for leaders who demand that the US become isolated in the world.  Identify and work for candidates who will make the tough choices to use the economic and military might when needed to stop our enemies from developing nuclear arms.