The Real Meaning of Obama’s New Policy: War Is Inevitable
Does President Barack Obama now love Israel? Is he lying to help his reelection bid? Precisely what is the meaning of this or that sentence in his AIPAC speech?
All of this debate misses the point. What is needed here is not a partisan view or one which focusses on Obama himself but rather a strategic analysis.
Here it is:
Whether he realizes it or not, Obama changed history with his AIPAC speech. What he did is to make a war between Israel and Iran almost inevitable, let’s say more than 90 percent probable, most likely some time in late 2013, 2014, or 2015.
What a lot of people are going to miss is not that Israel now thinks Obama is reliable — it doesn’t — but that Israeli leaders know he has now locked publicly into a major commitment. If Israel ever were to attack an Iran on the verge of getting nuclear weapons, how is Obama going to bash Israel for doing so after telling it to do so? In effect, then, Israel has traded patience for freedom of action.
Obama laid out a very clear chain of events. If and when Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, then the U.S. government will support an attack by Israel on Iranian nuclear facilities. It might even join in with such an attack.
This is a commitment that cannot be retracted. It will apply whether Obama wins or loses the election. It will apply if he changes his mind. Some will see his action as heroic; others will see it as reckless. But it makes no sense to see it as false or to nitpick about his precise definition of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
Here is Obama’s simple chain of argument:
–The U.S. government officially and publicly recognizes that Israel cannot and should not accept Iran having a nuclear weapon.
–Iran having a nuclear weapon is a tremendous and unacceptable danger to U.S. interests.
–If Iran obtains even one nuclear weapon, that will prove sanctions have failed.
–Consequently, at that time Israel is entitled to use force to prevent Iran from having such weapons or to destroy any that exist.
–Indeed, according to Obama, Israel must attack Iran at that point. After all, if Obama says Israel cannot live with an Iranian nuclear capability, how can Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu be less concerned about Israeli security than the president? And how can Obama then ignore what he said would be completely unacceptable for U.S. interests by not backing such an attack or even participating in it?
War was always inevitable.
Either we attack Iran or Iran attacks us.
Actually, the war started some time ago – Israeli military action is only a delayed reaction.
And the sooner we strike, the better.
agreed
War is on the way, no doubt. But the Socialist-in-Chief wants Israel to wait a while to give sanctions a chance to work. Europe started down the sanctions road many years ago and America jumped in when sanctions were not working and they will not work. The liberal governments keep banging their collective heads against a wall expecting different results. And our S-I-C wants Israel to put off their attack until after elections in November. Their existance is in the balance and the S-I-C offers them this! I am ashamed for America’s actions with regard to Israel. This puts our Republic in harms way far more than assisting Israel to bomb Iran.
You write that “This is a commitment that cannot be retracted. It will apply whether Obama wins or loses the election. It will apply if he changes his mind.” Of course this commitment can be retracted by Obama (assuming he is re-elected) or by Romney (assuming he isn’t). What is to prevent whoever is President in 2013 from saying that the policy has been changed?
This also is what I don`t fully understand, This was not a true commit from the President to a PM….What does Congress have to say, anything,…Didn`t think so…This is just positioning by a narcissist who hates Israel, and PM Netanyahu I have read what Ms. Glick has written and she has called it true to form…Obama read word for word what someone else wrote down for him to say…The USA and our leaders seem to be deceived by the devil himself..I cannot think that PM Bibi cannot read the evil in 0zamb0`s eyes, and know that his country will be totally destroyed if he does not act, and act now….I remember in 1967 when Israel broke out with such a destructive force, and even straffed a US naval ship, in her zeal, I was a teen in Viet Nam, and saw a cartoon where the US Gvt. told Israel, allow me to slap your hand for the straffing, then i will shake your hand for a job well done….Not today, PM Bibi, you must act, and tell 0zamb0 when you have accomplished your mission…My heart and prayers will be for you Bibi, every minute for great Wisdom, from Above…
Precedent says Obama *can* renege on commitments – not just his own but those of his predecessor. He, for example, declared the Bush-Sharon understandings “non-binding”. Then, after agreeing with Netanyahu on a settlement freeze limited to the West Bank, went ballistic when a zoning bureau approved the next stage in a permit process for apartments in a JEWISH neighborhood of Jerusalem.
I mentioned in an earlier comment on another PJM article that this total flouting of G.W. Bush’s PUBLICLY announced, PUBLICLY declared, and swapped letters of agreement with Israel was, in my 47 years, a first in modern Presidential history. For a President to NOT observe the (highly CRITICAL!) continuity of his predecessor in FOREIGN AFFAIRS — in AGREEMENTS, whether by treaty voted on by Congress, or whether by the presidential executing executive Power to conduct foreign affairs as his his right” — is an act which WILL go down in history as seriously under-cutting all future presidents, crippling their abilities to make foreign policy. Why? (in short, b/c otherwise our word means nothing).
Because if I were any foreign country, why would I possibly believe any “public letter’ as given to me by the US President, as clearly now Obama has set a precedent that it can become null and void with the next office-holder. This will go down as a far reaching and damaging decision on his administration ‘s part — I say administration as I distinctly remember Hillary claiming that because the letter was in the proper “cabinet” or Pile of “truly formal treaties” or not part of “official American treaties or agreements” or some such equation that when mumbled added up to nothing.
A highly corrosive decision which will be remembered by ALL foreign leaders when doing business with the USA for a LONG TIME TO COME.
– FF
What most of these commentaries fail to recognize, is that Israel has a pretty strong nuclear capability. While the tactical situation for Israel is pretty bad, strategically, they are doing pretty well. The fact is, Israel could utterly destroy the nation of Iran, but Iran could not do the same to Israel, unless Iran also gets the bomb. The thing to watch from Obama in the near future is mention of “Israel” and “nuclear non-proliferation” in the same speech. Even though Israel has a full-fledged thermo-nuclear capability, while Iran is struggling with little fission-bombs, even little Hiroshima style bombs could turn Israel’s tactical weakness into a strategic weakness, and if that happens, well, all bets are off for the entire region.
I agree with this analysis insofar as it recognizes that Obama’s speech is a conscious attempt to buy time against the prospect of a unilateral Israeli strike (certainly not unmindful of the election calendar!). However, I also disagree in two critical respects: 1) I do not believe that this affords Israel any greater freedom of action once Iran obtains a nuclear weapon; and 2) that classic nuclear deterrence is (as implied) Israel’s best option in the conditions left to it.
First, whether, vel non, Obama is reelected to a second term, it becomes at a certain point of analysis hard to credit the idea that US policy will be and remain governed by a speech that a President happened to deliver before AIPAC in 2012, an election year. Recall, here how George W. Bush, anticipating Israel’s unilateral concession in withdrawing from Gaza, in a FORMAL exchange of letters with Ariel Sharon (Israel’s then Prime Minister) extended more or less explicit assurance that it would be US policy to recognize facts on the ground intervening between 1967 and 2005 (viz. the settlement blocs) as an integral consideration with regard to any negotiated settlement which might be transacted by the government of Israel with the so-called Palestinians. Of course, we now KNOW what happened to this commitment – it is, quite literally (and without intending to be funny) a dead letter where it comes to American policy – the death certificate coming with the election of W’s successor; the man who currently occupies the Oval Office, the same guy who had/has no trouble robustly repudiating the American undertaking at every available opportunity. Second, and as a more practical matter, it is all but entirely clear that the “chain of reasoning” referred to, insofar as it may be construed to authorize an Israeli strike from the point at which Iran acquires nuclear weapon number 1, begs a whole host of technical military planning and coordination questions regarding American involvement and/or assistance in the event of an ensuing Israeli strike. This means in essence that Israel’s military planners STILL have to reckon the feasibility of such action in specific relation to what an (unknown) American administration might take for American interests in the eventuation. Thus, the assumption that Obama’s speech before AIPAC ineluctably implies war inter Israel and Iran presents more issues than the analysis is prepared to address or solve.
Finally, with reference to the notion (not explicated but fairly implied from Professor Rubin’s analysis) that classic nuclear deterrence is Israel’s best option with regard to an Iran prospectively possessing nuclear weapons, it is all but manifest that this would mark a severe deterioration in Israel’s strategic position from where things exist in situ. Specifically, today there exists at least SOME prospect that in the event of an Israeli assault on Iranian nuclear facilities a US President in an election year, even one as hostile to Israel as Obama, might opt to follow on with American military capabilities. Given the reticulated context where American military facilities, aircraft carriers, bases etc. are distributed, given the nature of some American ordnance not presently at the dispense of Israel’s military, given the nature of how the Saudis and other Sunni elements regard the prospect of a Shia weapon, it is at least plausible that an American President might decide to assist in an Israeli attack before Iran acquires such a weapon; even Obama in an election year.
Taking this all into account, the cases for (and against) an Israeli decision to launch such a strike may STILL have the better half of the argument – but certainly not on the basis of anything Obama said or committed to yesterday in his speech to AIPAC.
Agree. And furthermore, the best intelligence on Iran’s program indicates that Iran is doing everything possible to accelerate the re-location of their enrichment and weaponization programs to underground facilities that would be very difficult to destroy absent nuclear strikes or ground troops. Israel simply cannot wait until 2013 or later as they themselves have said that there is a “point of immunity” that will soon be crossed where Israel will no longer have the capacity to inflict crippling damage on the nuke program, making Israel dependent upon U.S. capabilities, something Netanyahu clearly said he would never allow.
Also, according to the recent article in Die Welt, Iran appears to have used North Korean facilities to test a nuclear device with a uranium core, so there is now no need for Iran to conduct a test in Iran which would presumably be the definitive indication to the U.S. that Iran possessed a nuclear weapon.
Finally, would Iran really be so stupid as to devote all the resources into building nukes and then leave them in a location where they would be unusable or easily destroyed? To the contrary, Iran is likely to weaponize their nukes in such a way that they can be readily exploded in Israel at the first sign of an Israeli or U.S. strike. Waiting for Iran to actually possess a nuke, then, is national suicide. Something that Netanyahu again said will not happen.
I agree with the other commenters here; the idea that Obama is “locked into a major commitment” is absurd. What, you think that Obama understands the weight of publicly stated Presidential commitments? Look what he did to Bush/Sharon letters of understanding!
Obama has spent his entire political life promising whatever was necessary to get by, without the least intention of keeping his promises. If you want to see what Obama will try to do, look at his ideology, not his promises. Never his promises.
Nadine, you are so correct, this S.S. Chicago street Hood that worshiped at the feet of Communists such as Ayers, and his Alinsky messiah….sat in under 20 years of G-D da****ing America, and Calipso Louey Farracan…And the daily scheming and plotting what is necessary to become President of the USA, and what lies will be needed to keep in power for the second term….This man was saying what someone else wrote for him to say, about his speech concerning Israel…This is as serious as the Cuban Crisis under JFK…for the nation of Israel…This street punk, hood, has never mentioned What Will the Congress have to say on the USA going to an all out war that will include Russia, and china, and a few others….Putin is in a position to Stare down America, and make The US govt. to blink…And that Will be the small back door to allow 0zamb0 to not keep his word….Or any of a dozen of other senarios that will do the same thing…This Man at the helm of the largest boat in the pond is a mental disaster, as unstable as A. Hitler….this man will promise the moon to anyone on this earth to be re-elected….And if anyone still have any doubts, play with someone else`s life, and let the world see….Mr. Bibi must do all that is necessary to jump the gun on this matter, call 0zamb0`s bluff, and that was all this speech was, just a big bluff, written by a master speech writer….A lie with every sentance…And this street punk, and his Pals are probably lapping up some expensive bottles…..toasting their ability to PUNK Mr. Bibi, and G-d`s little planting, His Garden, Israel….Our Father in Heaven, Please confound this Evil Satanic Hater of what is Good and Pure, and Has Your Signature written all over it, Please give Mr Bibi great wisdom, and we ask for true Peace for Jerusalem….Amen
Bingo. This is the flaw in Mr. Rupin’s argument.
But!
This was a public, and very strong, statement.
Obiewan cannot just wave it away. He will have to make an equally public and strong statement to get out from under this one.
Not that I don’t think he will do so (in fact I suspect he’s already planning to do so), but that will be an interesting speech. Pity the poor speechwriter! He’s going to have to call on all his skills of twisted reasoning and outright lying to pull this one off.
Which he will do, shortly after the election.
I think Obama’s commitments should be treated with huge caution. Especially his commitments to a country for which he obviously doesn’t have much empathy or affection. He has a long association with the far left which is overtly anti-Israel. He sat listening to the Rev. Wright’s anti-semitic rants for 20 years without any compunction. He has snubbed Israel time and again during his presidency. Israel should never rely on this man. If Iran is to be stopped militarily then it should be stopped as soon as possible. Obama is saying, “the dragon is still in the cage and is contained for now but if it figures out how to unlock the cage then we’ll attack it together.” But when the dragon emerges from that cage, is Obama simply going to prevaricate and dither like he has so often? He might, having put Israel face to face with the dragon, just walk away. I just don’t trust him. He wants the jewish vote and if he gets that whilst simultaneously putting Israel in a more dangerous position, it oculd be just what he wants.
Obama will never agree that evidence is conclusive that Iran has even one nuclear weapon even if Iran explodes one for all the world to see. In fact, it may already have done so.
What does anyone make of the report on DEBKAfile today, to wit, that North Korea already tested Iran’s nuclear weapons in 2010?
To ascertain the truth, take anything that Obama says and multiply it by -1.
Interesting. Containment and maintaining a balance of nuclear terror is out. Apparently the cost benefit analysis favors war to enforce nonproliferation in this situation and region as apposed to mutually assured destruction among religious fanatics. Very few in the middle east currently living probably remembers or was alive 67 years ago when nuclear weapons were last used in anger, I’m surprised the party has gone on that long. Apparently we haven’t outgrown learning through exemplification.
A much better analysis, by Caroline Glick:
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2012/03/obama-makes-the-case-of-an-isr.php
I also wanted to point to Mrs Click’s article (see comment #9). From the same data as Mr Rubin’s article, they reach different conclusions: While RR beleives Obama can’t retract its committment to back an Israeli attack, CG considers that, beyond a given point of development, Israel will not be able to attacak, thus, there will be nothing for Obama to back. In this case, the alternative will only be a direct attack by the US, that is, Israel will not depend on itself, but on the US will to act… and that is not at all tranquilizing. I don’t have any hard data, but I tend to agree with GC.
Bravely accurate. Thanks for the link.
Caroline’s analysis is spot on. Barry’s-not so much. Very disappointing.
It appears that Barry has a blind spot when it comes to Israeli pre-emption. I am not sure exactly why, but he does.
At this critical juncture in time I will rely more on Caroline’s acumen.
Superb analysis form Caroline.
One thing that may explain why she and Rubin come to different conclusions is how they estimate the time frame for Israel’s attack. Caroline writes that Israel must attack before the Iranians transfers uranium to Fordow, which may be in a matter of weeks, whereas Barry talks about an attack in 1 or 2 years from now.
I don’t know if the transfer to Fordow is really that crucial or not – if it is, then Obama is indeed obstructing Israel by going for another round of negotiations. If it’s not – then not so much.
I also agree with the Glick analysis and see unproven Barry’s assertion that Obama is, ” locked in ” at all. His history proves one thing- agreements and promises mean nothing. I put the Obama assertion in the same category as his promise to move the embassy to Jerusalem.
You write ” Israel has traded patience for freedom of action ”
later on you also says that such an action requires a lot of US-Israel military planning .I do not see Obama – neither do you – as a reliable person, who will stands true to its word from an electoral speech in front of AIPAC.
Commitment from Obama as you wrote:” If and when Iran gets a nuclear weapon , then the US govt. will support and eventually join such an attack ” .Iran will as usual hide its advancement so the proof will be quite difficult to assert.
Now I do not see future US President ( hoping it will s.o elese than BHO) constricted by one BHO speech.
But when you poin out BHO chain of five arguments, you also mention that the second one means an iranian nuclear bomb is an unacceptable danger to US interests, then I agree with you that finally , BHO stated one absolute US red line. Is this red line a moveable line ? Given BHO contorsions and weakness on North Korea, I still think BHO will retract himself when faced with the decision to act. Finally , without the US delivery to Israel of GBU 57 or equivalent and all the related military capacity to perform such an attack, I do not see it as feasable. Without such arms consignement this speech remains only a chain of arguments , not a chain of deeds.And in the meantime Israel remains alone left only with a nuclear arsenal that might be turned from last salvo to first strike. The more BHO procrastinates on what should be a US-Israel tactical war on Iran( and I see his speech exactly as that ;mere procrastination ) the more Netanyahu will be constrained to leap over his tactical weakness by using is ultimate weapon as a tactical weapon.
The USA political and military weakness is all the more flagrant after this BHO speech : If you are not able to maintain , control a situation through tactical power and warfare , then you are constrained by the consequence of your passivity i.e an uncontrolled chain of events, to pass to a superior dimension a much more dangerous one.The dynamic of the local actors which do not see any logic behaviour from the superior actor (the USA) . That is a very ironic situation for the one and only superpower and that has to be changed either with BHO or without him. The world is too dangerous to be left to the passivity of dreamers like BHO who wake up from their dreams when it’s almost too late.
Obama’s passivity and procrastination are acts of aggression against Israel and the US, giving Iran plenty of time to get the bomb, his intention from the minute he took office.
A real American president, a president on America’s side, would have taken out Iran’s nuclear capabilities immediately.
Only one comment:
During his last campaign Obama spoke about:
Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital
Israel’s right to defensible borders.
Then he was elected and did a complete about-face, to the extend of a return to the 1949 armistice lines (with minor swaps).
Israel can no more rely on him (even less) than it could on the pre-existing US committments (from 1956) back in May, 1967
fwiw, I heard Donald Trump say on the radio today that he thought Obama might attack Iran during the campaign in order to win the election. While I don’t usually rely on The Donald for political analysis, I agree with him that Obama might do nearly anything that he thought would win him the election.
Trump is a dolt.
Obama is absolutely basing his calculations on helping his own re-election.
He wants to forestall an Israelis strike until after he is in office.
Striking Iran himself is absolutely the last thing on his mind.
Democrats have been abandoning their commitments since the Vietnam war, if not earlier – and ny man who says “I don’t bluff” already has.
Agreed — remember when he told Eric Cantor not to call his bluff? No one did and Obama folded anyway.
One small problem with that: Nixon, the one who would the Vietnam War down in his quest for “peace with honor”, was a Republican. LBJ, a Democrat, was the one who kept increasing the US contribution to South Vietnam, at least until Tet.
That’s true. But it was liberal Democrats (RFK, Eugene McCarthy) who pressured LBJ into not running for a second term, and it was Democrats in Congress who blocked funding for South Vietnam after we left, thereby insuring a Northern victory (which was achieved, BTW,by conventional military forces, not by “insurgents”). Nixon talked about “Peace with Honor”, Democrats gave us “defeat with dishonor”.
Nuclear nonproliferation has been one of President Obama’s touchstones all along–remember he set “zero” (complete abolition of nuclear weapons worldwide) as his goal. Thus, he logically could not tolerate Iran getting nuclear weapons and triggering the immediate nuclearization of the entire Middle East, leaving nonproliferation, much less “zero,” a completely dead letter. Whether zero was ever a realistic goal is another question, as is the wisdom and consistency of Obama’s actual policies on Iran. But there is much more going on here than simple election year pandering.
What – you are imputing ‘logic’ to Obama??
That is the prime error. Obama’s calculations are logical in the same way that Iran’s calculations are logical. He wants only to assure his own survival – ditto Iran (the regime, not the country).
All ideology or ‘committments’ are only in service of this goal – his own personal power and position. The ideology serves the man, not the other way around.
well said….Obamb0 is not concerned about anything except using anyone or any situation to further his evil take over of the USA…I have never in my life seen a bigger Ego problem than this man…The word i want is hard to spell…Narsissist…he is their king…Friends it is time for the world to stand for something, because most have fallen for the world`s biggest deceiver.
You state that Israel could attack Iran AFTER it already has a nuke. What is the likelihood of destroying that nuke and what is to prevent Iran from building another once it has the ability to make one?
I am an avid reader of this column, but this time I did not get the point, if there is one.
President Obama making a commitment that cannot be retracted by just having spoken?
I don’t get it. If you do, please explain.
This post misses the point by referencing the condition precedent: “[i]f and when Iran obtains a nuclear weapon then the U.S. government will support an attack by Israel on Iranian nuclear facilities.” The real danger occurs prior to that eventuality, when Iran has assembled sufficient enriched uranium and other precursors to manufacture nuclear weapons. Once Iran has reached that point, and dispersed and placed vulnerable infrastructure in hardened locations, it could refrain from taking the final step — of assembling and testing a weapon — safe in the knowledge that it retains the capability to activate in relatively short time. This would still be a gamechanger in the Middle East, enhancing Iran’s power and making it less likely that other powers would confront or seek to block its regional aggression.
That is a great point and one that I wished I had stated yesterday when I heard Netanyahu’s excellent speech.
What we should be debating of is not Iran obtaining “a bomb” which they obviously have the capability of detonation, but of Iran producing fissile material – weapons grade uranium.
And it is an important point, because once enriched uranium is produced, it will be much too late to stop the process.
Thank god Bibi understands this distinction.
Bibi – degree from MIT
Obama – degree from Ivory Tower University
Here it is, in slightly more technical language:
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=1837
I rarely disagree with Prof. Rubin – but I do today. Not on the fact that Obama’s speech is progress: it undoubtedly is, since the President has given up the option on punishing Israel if it attacks Iran. But on the timing of this attack, Prof. Rubin is, I think, wrong. All the benefits of Obama’s speech will disappear on the minute the man is re-elected, or someone else hopefully takes his place. The alliance pledged to Israel by the President must be enjoyed when it is still warm. If Israel attacks tomorrow, this speech will stop Obama from doing anything excessive; he might even join in the attack when he sees the positive opinion polls. If the window of opportunity is missed, however, Israel will be facing the real Obama – the man who fundamentally dislikes what he sees as Western encroachment on non-Western cultures, and who won’t be embarassed anymore by the constraints of re-election politics. So, yes, we’re heading for war. But -if Israel really wants Obama’s support – this should happen in the next few weeks, not in the next few years.
This is an absolutely excellent point. While it does not really affect the Israelis’ calculations on the ground (which are based more on Iran’s actions than anything else), nonetheless it is quite true and very well-put.
The United States has a legitimate interest in ensuring transit through the Hormuz Strait. It has no legitimate interest in how Iran or any other country equips its armed forces and even less interest in how that might effect Israel. Please, please, please stop lobbying to commit American blood and treasure to the support of Israel. We are broke and can’t afford another war and we have no desire to sacrifice our young on your behalf whether your cause is just or not
is in voting Obama out of office. He is the danger, and the reason America is so broke.
Obama has sacrificed America’s blood, treasure, and our young already by borrowing 5 trillion in 3 years.
Uncle Carbuncle can’t get it through his skull that Israel is protecting America, not the other way around.
Buncle, remember Great Satan, Little Satan? Iran decided on the USA as an enemy. Pretending it’s just about Israel is cowardly self-delusion.
(Notice how Obama squirmed when BN mentioned GS-LS? Could Carbuncle really be Obuncle?)
HEY CARBUNCLE,
Upon his return from dealing with Hitler in 1938,Neville Chamberlain was told by Winston Churchill “You were given the choice between war & dishonor,you choose dishonor & you will have war”
Carbuncle,old boy,if the Iranians get nuclear weapons & start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East the whole world will be at risk.Imagine a regime with the world view of Atilla the Hun or Genghis Khan armed with Nuclear weapons.If your own survival & well being are your main concerns you will have heap big problems!You won’t find a hidey-hole deep enough or remote enough to keep you safe!
“This is a commitment that cannot be retracted.”
Right. Kinda like closing Gitmo or winning the campaign in Afghanistan.
Commitments, especially unstated oness, made by pols mean zippo.
The equation here is real simple for Obama. The election is still 8 months away. He’s planning on creating some sort of international crisis that dominates the news and smother out all the anti-Obama messages, etc. Timing is all important. How it will work out is Obama will stall Israel for about 6 1/2 months then start really rattling the swords. He has the nomination by then, doesn’t really need the raving, barking mad loony left since they’re mostly concentrated in really red states. He becomes the “war” President in “crisis” and will “rally the nation”, etc., etc. Wag the dog without the blue dress this time around.
Oh, and same with Bernanke and Geithner. “Liguidity” (QE3?) will hit timed to peak around the first of November. What they’re doing today is merely stalling before they rev up the feel-good-God-help-us-when-inflation-hits printing presses.
Everything will drive toward the last week of October. The only issue is will Israel wait? A safe bet is they will since Obama will likely even promise them Joe Biden or Michelle in order to get the timing right.
My take on Netanyahu’s speech the other night was somewhat different than what I’ve read here and elsewhere.
I think more than anybody world leader going, Netanyahu understands Obama – Obama’s weaknesses, Obama’s schemes, Obama’s game. Netanyahu doesn’t trust Obama any further than he can throw him. The shared disdain is palpable, but the shared capability is not. Netanyahu is the real deal – Obama is a flimflam.
If Netanyahu is as cunning and shrewd as I think he is, and American’s politicians should take note of how Netanyahu deals with Obama because it the model of how to defeat Obama in the Fall election, I can’t believe Netanyahu is counting on Obama’s assistance in any military capacity. From just a few snippets, I quickly picked up at least two years ago that Netanyahu recognizes Obama for what he is. Anybody really naive enough to believe Mr. Netanyahu wasn’t listening closely to Obama deny his Rev. Wright Jew hatin’ affiliation? Anybody here dumb enough to think Netanyahu came away convinced?
These warriors in Israel win with their wits as much as their weapons. This isn’t a bunch of gullible rubes like Obama is so accustomed to parading around like dumb clucks wetting their pants at Obama’s teleprompter. I can tell you one thing for sure – Obama ain’t going to be pulling any puppet strings when he’s dealing with Israel.
What I believe Netanyahu has accomplished is to remove any semblance of debate or criticism here and elsewhere, including the U.N., once the inevitable starts. There won’t be any denial about where the U.S. stood, as there can now be no denial about where the American public stands. Because I don’t believe for a minute Obama has any intent of providing assistance to Israel much more than lip service. But behind closed doors…well, let’s just say Netanyahu brought his vise with him, with Obama straddling the vise.
What Obama wants is the credit for stopping or deterring Iran – not the responsibility. I believe what Netanyahu has successfully done is remove the luxury of Obama voting “present” pertaining to Iran. In essence, Netanyahu has forced Obama’s hand to cooperate one way or another.
Netanyahu has very shrewdly forced Obama to go public in the court of world opinion. The entire world heard that speech the other night. The entire world saw the applause. Liberals are notorious for eating one’s cake and having it too. Not this time.
Just listened to BB’s speech in its entirety. The salient part (apart from all of the applause lines) was when he quoted and praised Obama for his Iran policy (‘no nukes’ ‘military option’ ‘no containment’) and then stated that Israel’s policy was the exact same.
This was BB’s way of holding Obama’s feet to the fire prospectively. When Israel strikes, Obama’s words, and BB’s enunciation of them as Israel’s policy will be all the cover BB needs.
Don’t think Obama is smart enough (as much of a trickster as he is) to realize that his own words were just used to further Israel’s ends.
So, Tex, in other words – I had the same perception as you did, and for the very specific reasons noted above.
Yes, but you said it so much more succinctly and eloquently then I did.
Exactly…
As a ‘Bitter Clinger’ Christian, in the sticks of heartland wasteland, clinging to our guns and our religion (pass the Bible, a toothpick and the ammo, honey) – the ones Obama would not recognize and our mainstream media detests (much to our delight), many of us clingers still retain one gift:
The difference to recognize rhetorically baloney from the brilliance of real meat.
Miriam, beautiful name, and Tex, I have no doubt that Bibi has read this SS Chicago`s street hood`s thought and every intention,…It is impossible to fool someone as fine tuned to his national survival as Mr. Bibi is…Bibi was a military man when 0zamb0 was smoking crack on de hoods of Chi-town…Tex you have some very good comments, as do nearly everyone commenting….Mr Bibi will turn the very words of 0bam around to his advantage, as with Israel`s…I read where one good man spoke about we should give our words of support to Israel, and her IDF…As a BA Christian, i give my entire support and will come over and help if needed, 64 years old, but i will still come….After calling 0zamb0 the lying trash from hell that he is, i may need to slip out of the USA for my own good..lol…I Believe it when the Lord said that Israel would become a stumbling stone for many nations…Ouch, That Bibi hurt my foot..
And how exactly do you attack a nuclear power? The Obama doctrine is to have a nuclear war in the middle East? This is an absurdity, and if the Israelis believe it they’re drinking bottled stupid water. It’s nothing but huff-puff to get the Jewish vote. Brilliant politician, imbecile of a president.
The US will NOT attack once Iran is ‘nucular’. This is a very simple point that doesn’t get said enough. Thank god many (though definitely not all) American Jews are not that imbecilic (and certainly not the Israelis). This dissonance is why the Jewish vote is eroding in favor of the GOP.
The downfall of the con man is when he can’t see past his own con.
“This is a commitment that cannot be retracted. … It will apply if he changes his mind.
That’s Purim Torah.
Dr. Rubin, get real.
Barry’s analysis is difficult to argue against. A few other issues are worth considering.
Iran is continuing to harden its facilities as it purifys uranium. What tactical challenges does this present to the Israelis?
If Israel attacks Iran in the next year or so, what support will the US provide? Our Aegeis cruisers have an anti missile capability which could supplement Israel’s defense from Iran’s assured retaliatory strike which is likely to involve medium range missiles. Will that be deployed? Will the US Navy defend the Straits of Hormuz? Would it provide other assistance to an Israeli strike force? Would it help defend Israel from proxy attacks by Hezbullah?
Will the US military be employed in a more strategic capacity, perhaps using Spirit bombers to destroy Iranian hardened sites?
It’s obvious that the US is in a far better position to sustain a multiple sortie campaign to attrit Iran’s nuclear capacity and go after command and control. I have advocated for a reduced US military footprint world wide in the years to come as we cannot continue to defend the world without going bankrupt. It is past time for allies to assume the burden of their own defence.
That being said, the Iranian’s are responsible for the deaths and injuries of thousands of US citizens and soldiers over the last thirty years. If they get a hydrogen bomb, they will use it, no doubt. We are high on their target list. On that basis it is rational to consider joining in an attack on Irans nuclear capacity and going after command and control.
One final thing is obvious as well. If President Bows Alot had embraced and supported the Greens in the spring of 2009, instead of living in a fantasy world that he could reason with Khamenie, things might be very different now and significantly more stable. If Iran gets the bomb, it will be Obama’s fault. If Rubin is right, Obama will be forced to act and it will be too late. The Iranians will have already squrriled away enough material for more bombs before they detonate their 1st test device. Given that they don’t view US citizens as people, there can be little doubt of their intentions at that point.
“By the way, has Obama considered Russia’s warning that it will defend Iran in his new policy? ”
Maybe he has. I wouldn’t trust the guy as far as I could throw him especially if my life depended on it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/07/usa-russia-missiledefense-idUSL2E8E6EL920120307
As some writers have suggested, Russsia can be bought with the right concessions.
Perhaps Poland.
“Whether he realizes it or not, Obama changed history with his AIPAC speech. What he did is to make a war between Israel and Iran almost inevitable, let’s say more than 90 percent probable, most likely some time in late 2013, 2014, or 2015.”
2013, 2014, 2015???????????? Mr. Rubin, do you really believe that Israel will wait up to three years? Caroline Glick talks about weeks from now, not even months. It is ludicrous to think that Israel will wait even one more year.
I’d say before summer.
Yep.
Miriam, I have a strong feeling that May is the month. The preponderance of evidence is leading to this timeline. If not May, then soon thereafter, certainly NOT in many months as Barry is suggesting!
But then we have yesterday’s press conference. Obama said that having Israel’s back was not a military doctrine. What on earth does that mean? It it isn’t a military doctrine, what is it? Sending such mixed messages certainly doesn’t help matters – if the goal is to appeal to Iran’s (admittedly limited) rational side, a clear and definite position would be best.
a walking mixed message, lies and equivocations pour out of him every time he opens his mouth.
Whose side is Rubin on here? Is he actually unhappy that the Israeli government has got Obama to commit to supporting, or at least not opposing, an eventual Israeli attack? It is one thing to believe that the Israeli policy is unwise; it is another to cheerlead America’s telling Israel what it can do. Still, Rubin may rest assured: the U.S. commitment is, to quote Hillary, “unenforceable.”
I’ve believed for a long time that war with Iran is inevitable. But what makes you think everybody will wait until 2013, 2014, or 2015?
Israel: “Jump.”
America: “How high?”
Are all the “conservatives” going to at least get congressional authority for a war with Iran? Didn’t think so.
For what it’s worth, I think Obama would be far more credible re his support of Israel if he requested a congressional resolution of authorization. His Marxist background has trained him otherwise however. Look at how he disregarded Congress re Libya.
I bet he would get solid bipartisan support.
We have been at war with the Islamic Republic since 1982, when Hezbollah of Iran killed 241 US Marines in Beirut. In the meantime, they killed our soldiers at Khobar Towers in 1996, and kill our soldiers daily in Iraq/Afghanistan with Iranian made EFPs. The Iranians interpret our lack of response as weakness, just as Al Qaida did up to 9/11
Technically, since embassy invasion during Carter’s presidency. Any embassy is sovereign territory of the state it represents, so an attack on any embassy is an act of war.
I believe the window has closed to go after Iran. Iran already has a mating combination. We have no good options, and realistically, we never had good options since 1979. I think we had an albeit-poor military option until 2007 or 2008.
We cannot pre-emptively nuke a sovereign country, creating known innocent casualties, based on what they might do. It’s immoral.
On the other hand, a nuclear Iran will in all likelihood mean TEOFWAWKI.
This isn’t hitting one reactor — stuff is underground, it may be moved around, there’s no guarantee they don’t already have one, and it’s a temporary solution. The country is hard to invade by ground forces, mountainous and very big.
A pre-emptive strike gives them cause to attack us. They have shown a willingness to use terrorism. Nuclear terrorism will mean the end of liberty, by necessity.
Moving away from the bellicose options to the other extreme, we have a series of dishonorable, duplicitious and craven possibilities, which may or may not avoid war:
1. Throw Israel under the bus. Say your national interest is not our national interest, and we’re not risking ourselves for you. Tell the rest of the world the U.S. is still open for business, but not for world police work. We’re taking our guns and going home. Then we do so — we withdraw from all nations and go home. In the ensuing conflagration, we pay off our national debt selling arms and electronic intelligence to the highest bidder. We slide the lower bidders just enough info to keep those bids high.
2. Speak softly, tell the Iranians they have won, ask for their terms, and tip toe quietly back to North America, declare ourselves Switzerland, amend our constitution to make it so, and live to fight another day.
There are intermediate possibilities, but they will require extremely competent statecraft. Perhaps we can do it. It involves living with a nuclear Iran. Containment and balance of power.
There are technical options short of war that someone is already trying: things like Stuxnet. They aren’t a long term solution.
There is, I suppose, a military option that’s unrealistic: If we can get the European Union states, the Arab middle eastern states, Russia, India and China to openly cooperate and contribute to a military solution, perhaps. It is in their interest, after all.
As I said, we have few good options left. And fewer every day.
The only one of about a thousand issues with this is that mayhem would ensue. The Us projects power because we have the only blue water navy and can do so. Also, to keep oil flowing (though I don’t know why the Saudis, Iraqis and Kuwaitis done pay us an escort fee of $25 a barrel), keep access to markets open and maybe most importantly to keep other nation/states off balance and always keeping a little friction so they are constantly [playing off each other. I hate the notion of being the world’s policeman, but if not us, who? The UN? HA!
Besides, if we throw Israel under the bus, that means we throw Jordan, Turkey, Poland, India. Ukraine, South Korea, Japan and Vietnam and Australia and dozens of other countries under the bus and our word, shaky as it already is, is worth nothing. There is no escaping that Nature abhors a vacuum. Where there a vacuums there’s mayhem. Where there’;s mayhem there’s a bad guy moving in to fill that vacuum. Our access to scores of strategic markets for the materials we need for our economy is compromised.
Great libertarian fantasy, I vote no.
Why don’t we destroy all of Iran’s oil wells with conventional weapons? They’ll then probably try to close the strait of Hormuz. If they succeed, it will cut off the flow of oil money to the rest of the Muslim population, reducing the funding for all the world’s Muslim terrorists and not just the Shia. If you take away the oil income, then Iran (and most of the other Arab states for that matter) turn into North Korea, with or without a nuke or two. Only about 30% of the world’s oil comes from the Middle East, and we can survive its loss — even though it won’t be fun. At last, an armed conflict where the US home front suffers as much as the military, adding moral legitimacy to the struggle!
Both of those (really one and the same) guarantee WWIII. Why? Two words: Samson Option. If Israel is backed into a corner, they will use nuclear weapons to obtain revenge, and if we throw them under the bus or surrender to the Islamic Empire, it will be futile to beg them not to bomb Moscow when the time comes to use the Samson Option. If Moscow is destroyed, the Perimetr protocol will be executed, which will result in a retaliatory strike against the US and UK (even though we wouldn’t be guilty, Perimetr assumes we were). There is still a chance for cooler heads to prevail before the control missiles are launched, but once the control missiles are launched, the result is a global thermonuclear war.
Is this then the road to Hell I’ve heard so much about?
Or in the words of Billy on the movie the Predator, “We all Gonna die.”
Late 2013 or later? I would put my money on april 2012 or few months later. Iranians are digging in, and more Israel waits harder time it will have.
Lets see what Israel can do:
It has no heavy bombers; only a BUFF, B-1 or B-2 can carry the weapons needed to destroy underground facilities
It has limited air refueling capabilities to sustain a 1000 sortie campaign which is the minimum it would take.
Its ability to take out Russian supplied air defenses is unknown and could face an attrition rate of unacceptable proportions
It has Jericho and other missiles that could be launched with conventional warheads, but when the Russkie satellites see them fire up, who knows what the Mullahtocracy will do? fire everything at Israel? Even with Davids Sling, Arrow, and layered defense a whole lotta casualties going to occur (of course of more are going to occur later, better now in the thousands then in the tens of thousands (see Cordesman’s brilliant analysis of a nuclear exchange)…
Given all that, why not just bomb the oil fields like in the Crash of ’79? In 50,000 years or so they may be able to be approached in the meantime we all pay more for gas but they collapse…..
They will knock out their infrastructure. Chaos will ensue, and then when the dust settles, rebuild without the mullahs. That’s the only plan that has half a chance IMHO.
“What might avoid this outcome? I can only think of two alternative developments. Either Iran will stop just short of actually building nuclear weapons even though it has the necessary material and knowledge, or the regime will be overthrown. Both are doubtful outcomes.”
Why? Why can’t the regime be overthrown? The Iranian people came very, very, close to it in 2009 after that “election” of theirs and it would have worked if we had thrown our total support behind the rebellion. But we didn’t and it failed. Spilt milk for Obama the jerk, but why not try it again? Put all our efforts (along with Israel’s and Saudi Arabia, who hate the Iranians) into Special Ops forces to assist all of the rebel groups in Iran. Give them the weapons, the training, and the money to pull it off. And, unlike a lot of other Middle Eastern Countries, there actually are pro-western Iranians who like us. This is the time to be bold and support the rebels, especially with the new Iranian “elections” coming up. I think we should try that first before bombing anyone.
Barry; 2013+ will be too late. If Israel moves it will be no later than early summer. However, if it look very likely that Obama will lose the election, look for an American attack.
I don’t think it is a good idea to concentrate six million Jews in a small sliver of land within reach of Iran with it’s atomic bombs and surrounded by 180 million hostile Arabs and Muslims. To prevent a Second Holocaust the Jews need to be evacuated to a safe haven like New York or Florida or California or Texas.
Better would be to build spaceships and get the heck out of here. Maybe we”ll find a planet with some intelligent life.
And what, pray tell, makes you think America is safe for Jews anymore? I have seen antisemitism grow these past few years, and I fear that persecution of Jews is not far away. Large swaths of the government and the population have already assented to persecution of Catholics (don’t object to that word- forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs and participate in something he believes to be sacrilege under penalty of law is persecution. Persecution always starts as belittling, then harassment, then declaring the religious belief to be in violation of the law or subversive to the State and then finally imprisonment and/or murder).
You counsel Jews in Israel to move to America; I say that the Jews in America should relocate to Israel while they still can.
The only real certainty I gleaned from this article is that as long as Obama is the president he will STUMBLE,BUMBLE and FUMBLE through his term in office. He’s a complete disaster!!!
Talk is cheap, especially when we consider this source. Remember, if you are happy with you health insurance, you can keep it?
In l956 Ike threatened England and France when they tried to take back the Suez Canal. I wouldn’t put it past Obama to threaten to drop the bomb on Israel. He already had a general threaten to shoot down an Isreali plane over Iraq on the way to Iran.
No-one apparently sees the ultimate goal of all this DEMONcRAT theatre.
It’s not about getting MAObama re-elected.
It’s about working up a justification to take away Isreal’s “Samson Option”.
It’s about making a war against Isreal winable….
One missing word at the end: Another “Boom!”. If Israel does not take out that bomb and the capability to make another, that would be a bombing of a country with a brand new nuclear deterrent.
Clever, Cat! just catching up on the blog.
a politician will say anything to be reelected, then they can say i dont recall.
Yet another issue is actually that games became one of many all-time biggest varieties of recreation for people spanning numerous ages. Kids take part in video game titles, plus grown ups do, too. The Xbox 360 is probably the favorite online games systems for people who love to experience a huge various activities open to them, in supplement to who want to learn stay with various other individuals across the world. Thanks pertaining to sharing the thinking.
Dude, I must say that overall My business is fairly taken because of this web page. It really is apparent you know you subject theme and you are therefore excited about it.
Did you know your IP address is uncovered every time you go to a website?