At nearly the same moment, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the perennial talks between Israel and the Palestinians are set to begin anew; talks which would result in “the emergence of an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors.” And, Secretary Clinton assures us, these talks “can be completed within one year.”

This fixation with a one-year timetable is not a coincidence. It’s the Obama administration’s plan to deal with Iran. They think the road to Tehran runs through Jerusalem.

The Obama administration, and the Bush administration before it, failed to derail Iran’s nuclear weapons program. So we’re now watching a train wreck in slow motion. The United States (and Israel) will have to come to grips, within the year, of either bombing Iran or letting Iran get the bomb. Either one will be a disaster.

If we (or Israel) bomb Iran, it will ignite a regional war, as Iran inevitably retaliates. It could do any or all of the following: give Hezbollah and Hamas the green light to launch their large stockpiles missiles on every square mile of Israel; unleash sleeper terrorist cells in Europe and the U.S.; and mine the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of all worldwide oil shipments flow. The price of oil would skyrocket to $400-500 a barrel overnight, and plunge the world into another, even more serious recession. At the same time, the world’s oil producing states would reap windfall profits.

The job of sweeping the Strait free of mines would fall to the U.S. Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf, thus drawing the U.S. into a third war in the region. And, as Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mullen has said, even a successful bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear sites wouldn’t stop their program, but only set it back a few years.

On the other hand, if we don’t stop Iran’s nuclear program, the entire Middle East will be swept into an arms race – a nuclear arms race. Neighboring Sunni Arab states will not stand idly by and let Shiite Persian Iran dominate the region. They will rush to “nuke up,” too. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty won’t be worth the paper it’s printed on – in the Middle East or anywhere else. And, if the single most volatile, dangerous part of the world is awash in nuclear weapons, it is only a matter of time before one gets detonated – accidentally, intentionally or inadvertently.

So, what’s the Obama administration’s plan to deal with these horrors? Officially, they say the military option remains on the table. But almost no one believes they mean it, least of all the nations in the region.

Instead, the administration thinks they can contain Iran, and manage the situation. First, they think if they extend America’s nuclear umbrella over the region, the Sunni states will no longer think it’s necessary to acquire their own nuclear weapons. And in the bizarre world of nuclear theory, the administration thinks Iran will be deterred from ever using its nuclear weapons by the threat that America might use its nuclear weapons in retaliation to an Iranian attack. This raises the question of how credible Obama’s promise to trade Tel Aviv for Texas might be, which is what extending the nuclear umbrella would mean.

The administration also plans, as one administration official told me, to force an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and thereby “change the trajectory” in the Middle East away from war and towards peace and economic development. According to this plan, an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement would clock in just ahead of a nuclear Iran, and thereby make Iran, even a nuclear Iran, increasingly irrelevant in the region.

This raises the question of how easy it’s going to be to force the Israelis and Palestinians to reach an agreement that both sides would honor. It is an issue that has proved illusive since the creation of the Israeli state in 1948, and bedeviled the region for millennia. Secretary Clinton should know better than to predict an agreement in a year’s time. President Clinton came closest to forging a peace agreement and nearly succeeded, only to have the Palestinians renege in the 11th hour. And even if the administration were able to force an agreement, what guarantees are there that Hamas would honor any deal signed by its Palestinian adversary Fatah?

If containing a nuclear Iran is such a long shot — as surely the administration must know even if officials won’t admit it publicly — then why come out now with this one-year timetable and reassurances that a year is a long period of time? Because in the end, Team Obama thinks the greatest threat to peace in the region comes not from Iran, even a nuclear Iran, but from Israel and a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear sites.

An Oval Office speech is a rare and powerful event. With both the American flag and the president’s flag at his back, and the White House Rose Garden glimpsed through the windows, the president sits behind the Resolute desk, made from the timbers of HMS Resolute, an abandoned British ship discovered by an American vessel and used by nearly every president since 1880. It has the Great Seal carved on its front.

The whole nation is watching an Oval Office speech; all the domestic news channels broadcast it, it’s aired live to U.S. military personnel around the world. When the president speaks from the Oval Office he has the entire authority and power and might of the United States behind him. It epitomizes his role as leader of the United States and of the free world.

President Kennedy used the Oval Office speech to accept personal responsibility for a disaster; President Reagan used it to announce a bold new vision and set out a plan to achieve it; President Bush used it to lay out our response to the September 11 attacks.

What did President Obama do? He blamed everyone he could think of for the Gulf oil fiasco– BP, President Bush, the bureaucracy, Mother Nature, and the American people (for consuming too much oil) — but of course NEVER took responsibility, himself, for his own administration’s slow and bungled response.

What answers did he offer?– The typical Obama solutions: we’ll throw money at the problem, lots of it, but we’re not quite sure yet what we’re throwing it at or how it will turn out; we’ll confiscate a private company to punish it; and with stirring and eloquent words tells the American people “trust me,” everything will be okay.

I’ve written Oval Office speeches, and been there when they were delivered. I was in the White House the night Nixon resigned, and the night Ford pardoned Nixon. I was there when President Reagan gave the “Star Wars” speech. What do all Oval Offices speeches have in common? Leadership. At their best, they are given by a strong and decisive president presenting a bold and visionary and specific plan, exhibiting competence and inspiring confidence.

The mainstream media will no doubt fawn all over president Obama’s first Oval Office address, and applaud his vague call for energy independence and his fuzzy plan for how we get there. Just like they did with Jimmy Carter.

But when I watched last night’s Oval Office speech, I wanted to scream “This Emperor Has No Clothes!!!!”

Just when you thought the Afghanistan mini-series was winding down, it’s headed for another season – turns out all those goat herders and militants are sitting on one of the world’s largest deposits of valuable minerals. It will be like “The Beverly Hillbillies” with guns and turbans.

Let’s recap the show so far: Nearly 30 years ago the Soviets invaded Afghanistan where they were met by a stubborn resistance movement of religious fanatics – which neighbor Pakistan encouraged and the U.S. secretly supported. The Soviets became bogged down and ultimately quit Afghanistan, tail between their legs.

The Taliban took over and played host to Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization bent on destroying western civilization.

Al Qaeda attacked us on Sept 11, so we attacked Afghanistan.

In quick order we toppled the Taliban and drove the motley remnants of Al Qaeda into Pakistan.

We stuck around to bring democracy to a country where the vast majority of the population was illiterate and essentially living in the 15th century. The democratic government we formed under Karzai turned out to be corrupt and incompetent.

Meanwhile, the Taliban reconstituted itself, and headed back to into the fight, where they made inroads into Afghanistan’s south and east.

America elected Barack Obama, on his claims that Afghanistan was the ‘good war,’ while Iraq was the ‘bad Bush war.’ So Obama redoubled our efforts in Afghanistan; surging more troops and changing our strategy back to nation building, while but promising to withdraw U.S. forces in 2011.

And now, we’re in a fight that isn’t going so well. Americans are war weary, and Obama’s stuck in a conflict experts say it will take another 5 to 10 years to win.

And suddenly the planet’s poorest country is about to have the entire world, no doubt led by China, knocking at its door looking for cheap resources.

This is just about as complicated and confusing and frustrating as the TV series “Lost.”

So, the Palestinians set a trap for Israel and they sailed right into it. Israeli SEALs boarded a ship in a Turkish flotilla supposedly carrying humanitarian supplies and were promptly knifed and clubbed by the so-called “peace activists” aboard. They didn’t use guns, but knives and steel pipes – which look harmless in the after-action photos. So does their cargo of the teddy bears,diapers and wheelchairs.

But not so the Israeli SEALs, who killed nine of the ship’s passengers in the melee. The UN moved speedily to condemn Israel. So did Turkey, Israel’s onetime ally in the region, which has now turned its sights to a bigger role in the Muslim world. So far President Obama has been neutral, condemning “violence” in general.

But the Palestinians have inched one step closer in their ultimate goal — to separate the White House from Israel and then provoke a war. They’ll settle for the U.S. remaining neutral in the Arab-Israeli disputes; so far they’re close.

What happens when the next “peace flotilla” leaves Turkey bound for Gaza? Will the Israelis seize and search it? Will it end in more violence and condemnations of Israel? Or will Israel ultimately be forced to bow to world public opinion and end its blockade? Will Obama move from neutrality to condemnation?

The next few ships to challenge the blockade will likely be filled with more children’s toys and baby formula. But once the blockade is broken, those ships will be filled with missiles, weapons and ammunition bound for Hezbollah and Hamas.

But this isn’t really about Israel and the Palestinians. It’s about Iran and nuclear weapons and the Obama’s credibility in the region. After assuring the Israelis for the last year that they’re going to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program with diplomacy and sanctions, they’ve privately resigned themselves to a nuclear Iran, saying Team Obama can contain it. They figure to force an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal that will turn the tide in the Middle East away from conflict.

The plan makes no sense to anyone other than Team Obama. The Iranians don’t want it, the Israelis don’t believe it, and the Palestinians are itching for another fight. Meanwhile the President keeps making those eloquent speeches that increasingly nobody believes. And the clouds of war are gathering.

Contrast this to President Obama, who also came into office facing a troubled economy. He is expanding government and increasing taxes; and unemployment is climbing. He begrudges America’s military superiority, which he acknowledges exists “whether we like it or not.” His efforts to extend “the hand of friendship” to the Iranian regime have been rebuffed. His attempts to enlist Chinese and Russian support to halt Iran’s nuclear program have so far met with failure. His take as America: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

Which approach do you trust to keep America safe?

Kathleen Troia “K.T.” McFarland is a Fox News National Security Analyst and host of FoxNews.com’s DefCon 3. She is a Distinguished Adviser to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and served in national security posts in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. She wrote Secretary of Defense Weinberger’s November 1984 “Principles of War Speech” which laid out the Weinberger Doctrine. Be sure to watch “K.T.” and Mike Baker every Monday at 10 a.m. on FoxNews.com’s “DefCon3″ already one of the Web’s most watched national security programs
.

President Obama is in the middle of a frenzied fortnight of efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons. First, there was the new Nuclear Posture Review, the administration’s effort to overturn America’s deterrence policy, which has kept the peace for 60 years, and replace it with a more limited plan that calls into question America’s nuclear umbrella over our allies.

Second, President Obama initialed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russian President Medvedev, which reduces nuclear arsenals of both countries.

Today begins Washington’s Nuclear Summit, where 47 nations will meet to discuss how get a handle on loose nuclear materials and keep them out of hands of terrorists.

And when the flurry of meetings is over we’re all supposed to feel safer. But we shouldn’t. Why? Because the president’s nuclear initiatives are akin to putting deadbolts on the front door, while leaving the back door wide open.

The biggest threat to world peace today isn’t Russia’s nuclear arsenal or America’s nuclear policy – it’s Iran’s nuclear weapons program. If allowed to go forward unchecked it will precipitate a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous, unstable part of the world — as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Emirates and others conclude they need nuclear weapons of their own.

Israeli leaders believe that if Iran gets nuclear weapons Israel’s days are numbered. If the U.S. fails to stop Iran, Israel could soon conclude it has no choice but to launch a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Most experts believe an Israeli-Iran war will quickly escalate into a regional conflict and could well draw in the U.S. So how is this making us safer?

The president has offered us hope that he can bring about a world free of nuclear weapons. But as long as his actions are more hype than hope, he’s lulling us into a false sense of security at a time when the world is on the verge of becoming a much more dangerous place.

Today President Obama reversed 60 years of U.S. nuclear policy and pledged we would not retaliate with nuclear weapons were we — or our treaty allies — attacked with conventional, biological or chemical weapons by nations in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He hopes that other nuclear weapons states will follow suit with a similar pledge and we will be well on our way to a world without nuclear weapons.

In addition, by carving out those rogue states not in compliance, like North Korea and Iran, the president will give them sufficient incentive to drop their nuclear weapons programs.

That’s a lot of change resting on nothing more than awful lot of hope.

During the Cold War we kept the peace between the U.S. and the Soviet Union through a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). As President Reagan said, we insure that “any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States or our allies…concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he won’t attack. We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression.”

This worked whether the adversary was the Soviet Union, or a lesser state. If a country picked a fight with us, we kept open the possibility of unleashing a response that would crush them. We thereby deterred them from launching an attack against us in the first place. This policy of deterrence may have made for an uneasy peace — but it managed to keep that peace for 60 years — perhaps the longest period of great power peace since the fall of the Roman Empire.

But President Obama wants us to believe he knows better. He wants to wash his hands of this old, tired policy of nuclear deterrence as the first step in his plan to rid the world of nuclear weapons. That may be fine as far as it goes (although I have my doubts), but it fails to address the nuclear threat the United States and our allies are most likely to face in the months and years ahead — nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue states or state sponsored terrorist groups.

Regardless of all the press briefings and talking points about reducing U.S. and Russian stockpiles, or reducing the number of targets in the U.S., or modernizing the nuclear arsenal, the real issue with Obama’s new nuclear policy is it fails to check the rise of rogue nuclear states like Iran and North Korea, or to deal with sub-national terrorist groups — like Al Qaeda — who he admits are seeking nuclear weapons.

How can Iran take President Obama seriously about the possibility of a retaliatory nuclear attack when he doesn’t even have the backbone to impose unilateral crippling gasoline sanctions, which even his Democratically-controlled Congress is pushing for? When President Obama prefers yet another round of watered down U.N. sanctions, in the hope that this time they’ll come around around to the negotiating table.

Without crippling sanctions President Obama has no leverage over Iran. And negotiating without leverage isn’t negotiating, it’s begging. Does President Obama really believe that his goodwill gestures will convince Iran to change course, especially now that it is so close to possessing a nuclear arsenal?

Or has President Obama already thrown in the towel, and concluded that a nuclear Iran is inevitable and the best way to deal with them is through containment and deterrence……and the reassurance whispered behind closed doors that, ‘they wouldn’t dare…’ It’s okay, if those weapons aren’t aimed at you. But if they are, it’s not the odds that worries you, it’s the stakes.

President Reagan said, “a nuclear war which can never be won must never be fought.” (I know because I drafted those words). But Reagan never took the nuclear option off the table. And he said those words while he was building up America’s defenses, modernizing our nuclear arsenal, and launching the Star Wars system to defend against nuclear weapons. Reagan understood that without leverage, these are just empty words.

President Obama has said similar things while taking the nuclear option off the table and cutting back on missile defense. He’s given up whatever leverage we had in the form of goodwill gestures.

We’ve seen the folly of unilateral concessions before. Jimmy Carter believed that if we showed unilateral restraint by canceling the B-1 bomber, the Soviet Union would follow suit and cancel their Backfire bomber. They not only built the Backfire but several others.

Reagan believed in peace through strength. His policies allowed us to win the Cold War without firing a shot.

President Obama believes in peace through unilateral concessions. Not only is it unlikely to work, it might even contribute to ending the peace.

President Obama believes that if we reverse course, apologize and are deferential enough, those ills will disappear. So far, it’s not working.

With the Detroit bomber we now have a clear pattern that reveals how the Obama administration deals with terrorists – try them in civilian courts with the full rights of American citizens.

When the young Mr. Abdulmutulib got off the plane in Detroit he had started talking to the FBI. He told them there were more like him — that is, Yemeni trained suicide bombers — coming to America. But once we granted him Miranda rights, he got him lawyered up and clammed up. Does Abdulmutullab know who the next terrorist attacker is, where he’ll strike, what weapons he will use? Now, we’ll never know. Yet Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was quick to claim the “system worked.”

Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept 11 attacks, in public civilian courts — even though the evidence gathered against him might be thrown out of court, his testimony gives Al Qaeda a propaganda platform, and the trial presents a irresistible target for suicide bombers.

The Obama administration remains committed to closing Gitmo and releasing some of the prisoners to Yemen, though previous Gitmo “grads” have returned to Al Qaeda, rather than join the Yemen Rotary Club.

And Team Obama remains so committed to political correctness that they refuse to use profiling to identify potential terrorists.

Contrast this to the way they’re treating three Navy SEALs who succeeded in capturing an Iraqi terrorist. They’ve been courtmartialed for giving the terrorists a bloody lip.

President Obama believes that many of the ills besetting America are the result of Bush administration policies and if we reverse course and apologize and are deferential enough, those ills will disappear. So far, it’s not working. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda has spread its tentacles to new countries, recruitment is up and they’re sending a new wave of suicide bombers to attack us.

The president is treating terrorists like citizens and citizens like terrorists. It’s not working – it’s not making us safer – and it’s time to stop.

Remember Polish jokes? They’re politically incorrect these days, so no one makes them. No one, that is, except President Obama. By cancelling the promised missile shield, he in effect cut Poland loose and threw her to the Russians…70 years to the day after of their brutal invasion of the country. Nice timing.

The missile shield was designed to protect Eastern Europe from the growing Iranian missile threat, which threatens to soon go nuclear. It would have put American military personnel in Russia’s backyard, in countries that were until recently part of the Russian empire, and which Russia yearns to control again.

The very thought of this drove the Russians nuts. They would have paid dearly to get it dropped. If Obama was willing to renege on a promise and toss an ally overboard, he should have at least gotten something for it– like getting Russia to cooperate with us to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

What could Obama have traded? He could have gotten the Russians to delay or halt delivery of the state-of-the-art air defense system they’ve promised Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu went to Moscow recently to plead with them to delay delivery. Once Iran gets the S-300 system, an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites would be nearly impossible.

Obama could have gotten Russia join with us in a gasoline embargo on Iran. Iran imports 40% of its gasoline– an embargo would force them to the negotiating table, quickly, and leave them ready to make a deal. But an embargo would be toothless if the Russians block it at the U.N., or cheats on it once it’s been passed.

Obama could have gotten Russia to stop helping Iran enrich uranium. Without Russian assistance, it will be more difficult and take longer for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

If President Obama had gotten one or more of these concessions, cancelling the missile shield might have made sense, especially if we retained the right to have a ship-based system. But he has apparently cancelled it without extracting anything from Russia, hoping instead that his goodwill gesture would allow us to ‘reset’ the U.S.-Russian relationship. The administration said there was no “quid pro quo.” The Russian Foreign Minister said sanctions against Iran would be a “serious mistake.”

President Obama not only threw an ally overboard, he got snookered by the Russians, and just moved us closer a world where the Mad Mullahs have the bomb. If he hasn’t learned his World War II history about Poland and the Soviet Union, he may want to read up on what happened to Neville Chamberlain when he tried to curry favor with Hitler.

FOXNews.com – September 11, 2009

I looked up to see the first tower get hit. Once the second tower was struck I realized it was probably terrorists and the beginning of a new era of crisis for my country. And I vowed, that day, to do whatever I could to help.

September 11 was a turning point in my life. I had held top national security positions in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations and spent my entire career as a cold warrior. I left government and public life when we won the Cold War and became a stay at home mom. For years, I cared more about who ran for Class Mother then who ran for Congress.

I sewed Halloween costumes, taught Sunday School and watched countless soccer, football, hockey, basketball, tennis, horseback riding and crew games and races. I figured my professional days were done, and I would spend the rest of my days as a wife, mother, and doting grandmother.

But I was downtown on September 11, going to a hat sale of all things, after voting in the New York mayoral primary. I was on a crosstown bus and looked up to see the first tower get hit. Once the second tower was struck I realized it was probably terrorists and the beginning of a new era of crisis for my country. And I vowed, that day, to do whatever I could to help.

I dusted off my resume and resumed my career. I reentered politics and public life, reengaged in the national security debate and today am a fierce advocate for rebuilding America’s defenses, intelligence services and security.

As corny as it sounds, I love my country and will do whatever I can ’til my dying day to defend her.