The Telegraph reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stood firm against Barack Obama’s effort to persuade him to utter the words “two state” solution and commit to stop building settlements on the West Bank. The Telegraph wrote that “Mr Obama was unable to secure any commitments on ceasing the construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank or embracing the ‘two-state solution’ to achieving peace in the Middle East.”
There was a conspicuous lack of praise for his 59-year-old Israeli visitor, whom he said had the “benefit of having served” previously as prime minister and for having “both youth and wisdom”.
The meeting overran to two hours, suggesting that the two sides had struggled to find a way of presenting a unified face to the watching world.
AdvertisementThough Mr Netanyahu made clear he wanted to hold peace talks with the Palestinians, he refused to utter the words “two-state solution”, the consensus approach towards peace agreed by previous Israeli governments and US administrations.
But it might be more accurate to say that Netanyahu didn’t so much “stand firm” as much as to try and pull Obama into the same boat. In the language of diplomacy, Netanyahu came with a bagful of linkages. The Israeli Prime Minister didn’t say “no” to President Obama but “yes, if”. He was too wily to merely dig in his heels and appear intransigent, which would have made him an easy political punching bag for President Obama. Instead Netanyahu welcomed the prospect of going down the “road to peace” provided President Obama could ensure that Hamas would not turn the adjoining territories into a “terror base next door” and further provided Obama could guarantee that Iran would not represent an existential threat. To Obama’s proposition ‘will you not negotiate for a Palestinian state?’ the reply was, ‘but of course, monsieur, provided you make sure that he does not turn out to be a homicidal maniac funded from Teheran’. They were like two men approaching a door, each insisting that the other go first.
Caroline Glick’s latest article in the Jerusalem Post suggests what at least some Israeli quarters were worried about. In plain words, certain Israeli sources suggest Obama has “made its peace with Iran’s nuclear aspirations”, and wanted Israel to get with the program.
Panetta was reportedly dispatched here to read the government the riot act. Israel, he reportedly told his interlocutors, must not attack Iran without first receiving permission from Washington. Moreover, Israel should keep its mouth shut about attacking Iran. As far as Washington is concerned, Iran’s latest threats to destroy Israel were nothing more than payback for statements by Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials regarding Israel’s refusal to countenance a nuclear armed Iran.
Over the past several weeks, we have learned that the administration has made its peace with Iran’s nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the US will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy.
Whatever Netanyahu’s own beliefs, publicly he was going to play the reluctant peace-maker. The Christian Science Monitor described the negotiating strategies of each side. “Clearly what Netanyahu wants to know is: What will the US do if diplomacy with Iran fails? And what Obama wants to know is, where is Netanyahu going on the Palestinian issue?” says David Makovsky, director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. ‘Each thinks the other is not committed to his priority, but each wants to know that the other at some point can say, ‘ ‘Yes I can.’ ”’”
Mr Obama is expected to announce his own revamped version of the “road map” next month, after he has met Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, and Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president.
“The terminology will take care of itself,” said Mr Netanyahu. “The important thing is to resume negotiations with the Palestinians as soon as possible. The issue is less one of terminology than of substance.”
He said that if a peace deal delivered a “terror base next door” to Israel than it would be worthless, and insisted that Hamas, the militant group that controlled Gaza, had to recognise Israel before he was ready to make concessions.
The prime minister dwelt at length on the threat posed to Israel by Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.
His goal is to persuade the Americans that Tehran must be reined in before peacemaking with the Palestinians can progress.
The ball is for the moment, back in Obama’s court. The Telegraph report suggests that President Obama will attempt to persuade Egypt to put a lid on Gaza, thereby fulfilling one of Netanyahu’s demands. Whether Obama will get far enough with Egypt or Iran to satisfy Netanyahu remains to be seen. Each has made his actions contingent on the progress of the other. Is it an Alphonse and Gaston case of “you first” or is it a Shane situation of “prove it”? Maybe it’s both, as the video below shows, where a metaphorical Hamas, or perhaps an Iran, makes a belated entry into the scene.
embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt
Tip Jar or Subscribe for only $5
Israeli visitor, whom he said had the “benefit of having served”
They need a grammar editor at the Telegraph.
The US government compares unfavorably to an episode of “Are You Being Served?”
Regarding the future of Hamasistan, the Sri Lankans have shown the way. The Israelis, the Arabs, the Chinese and the Russians may simply decide to ignore the Americans. Netanyahu has a single problem now. He must convince the other serious players, that leaves out the US and EU, that Israel is more important than Iran. If he can do that then the Russians and Chinese will double cross the mullahs and the Iranian regime implodes. The alternative is Russia and China backing Iran and Syria resulting in a death struggle by Israel.
Glick’s closing remark, about the abdication of the responsibilities of a superpower, and the abdication of responsibilities in the western hemisphere are right on.
The Obama administration is demonstrating in word as well as deed that it has no intention of defending its allies in the world or the hemisphere much less defend our own borders. Maybe off the radar of the press a different story can be told, but I am unaware of one.
How much OJT can we afford Mr President?
LofTM
China has a pact with Pakistan, a military treaty of sorts.
The Soviets have something similar in trade agreements with the Iranians and Syrians I believe.
What military secrets or hardware do either the Russians or the Chinese need that they did not get from President WJC?
When I hear the term “Two State Solution” I think of two states of existence:
People who are alive.
People who are dead.
And I much fear that the Two State Solution will amount to that.
Obama seems to think that his glorious personality can overcome all troubles. He is in for a rude awakening. Much like his multi-trillion dollar budget and his “unsustainable spending” he seem oblivious to the fact that conflicts are either solved (one way or the other) or they fester. The longer they are left unresolved the worse they get. Ignoring the existential threat posed by the mulla’s bomb does not make it go away.
If the West will not act others must.
Which means that this problem will likely end in mushroom clouds.
Hezbollah is taking over Lebanon, and thanks to 1 billion in military aid from the USA it will get lots of USA made weapons to kill jews with..
Syria keeps upgrading it’s weapon systems paid for by Iran and supplied by Russia…
Hamas keeps rearming….
and Yes Israel is alone…
America, under President HopeandChange, America is throwing many of it’s traditional allies under the bus to fend for it’s self…
Israel will not go quietly into the night, so I do predict another war….
this time Iran will be hit by Israeli cruise missiles, and it’s airforce will take out hezbollah, hamas and syrian targets….
it’s not going to be pretty….
hey
as noted in other posts, i commute from the gulf to south america, on a regular basis.
ms. glick is spot on -per usual. iran is a player in south america. even in lowly equador, they are building a power plant and ready to punce on the port of manta on the pacific coast, where we maintain an air force/dea air base, till we get tossed out next year at contract end.
south america is living in the classic power vacum. the strong presence of the chinese and the iranians have long indicated that the u.s. is a forgotten blip in the continents historical radar. i have had people come up to me in santa cruz, bolivia, the seat of the anti morales freedom movement and plead-”when will america help”. want to feel useless…want to feel small…try and answer a question like that from a 65 year old woman who has just faced down cuban trained police thugs. nort easy.
black moses has run out of fairy dust south of the border…ain’t no one who doesn’t feel he is a punk.
This regime is in fact closing the Sheriff’s Office. Glick’s article is the most depressing thing Ive read in a while.
A few months ago the San Antonio paper related an investigation they did into a pipeline thru Damascus that provided transit for “people from The Middle East” to get into Central America. Apparently the aim was to get to the US thru the back door. (or front door as the case may be) Looks like the mullahs have made the process more efficient. I suppose the President is unfazed that the Chavez regime has Hizbullah operating parts of his government.
Israel will not go quietly into the night, so I do predict another war…this time Iran will be hit by Israeli cruise missiles, and it’s airforce will take out hezbollah, hamas and syrian targets…it’s not going to be pretty…
If you recall previous Arab/Muslim efforts to procure a “one-state” homeland for the Palestinians, Israel has managed to survive and beat their opponents, as long as they had leadership in place that supports the military. But when is war ever pretty?
An attack on the mullah’s nuclear program, and its’ Hez’bollah, Hamas and Syrian allies would have additional benefits besides Israel’s survival:
- it would allow the Iranian and Syrian people to rid themsleves of oprressive governments that they hate,
- it would give the Lebanese some breathing room to strike a new balance in their government
- it would prevent a nuclear arms race in the “Arabian-Persian” Gulf by the Saudis, as well as the rich Gulf states.
- it would diminish the increasing Russian influence in the Middle East
Since all of these outcomes would benefit US foriegn policy, it’s NO WONDER the Obama administration refuses to support it!
Wadeusaf,
China also has interests in Iran, there is a contract for the gas fields. Russia is linked to China via the Shanghai Cooperation Council. While my first instinct or hope was that there would be a rivalry between them that the US or Israel could play to advantage I now think that they are acting in concert. Putin supports China and China opts for the Strike South. Israel has to convince China that she is not worth fighting and that Israel can support Chinese access to raw materials. If Obama and the Iranians have scared the Arabs enough then they may support Israel and then Netanyahu could pull it off. If you are right or Putin miscalculated then China should support Georgia vs. Russia in the Caucuses and Japan vs Russia in the Kuriles and start moving North.
The Palistinian Israeli problem can only be solved with the death of either one or both, perhaps all societies in the middle east. Time we, the UN, and the world just step aside and let these animals kill each other off.
We deal with who is left.
I think that there is plenty that Israel could provide the Russians/Chinese in the way of technology – there is probably plenty that they could provide us. And it’s been almost 9 years since Clinton was President. Whatever they got from the U.S. during his years is ancient compared to the latest advances.
Why has Israel built and continued to build settlements if it doesn’t intend to annex the West Bank? The settlers will never leave. The Israelis will not make them leave. They will not give the Palestinians anything like citizenship rights. A substantial part of the Israeli public wants to remove the Palestinians from the West Bank.
If people suspect the Israelis don’t want anything but a hubristic victory for themselves they should be excused for looking at the plain face of the situation.
exhelodrvr
Much technology has been updated but not all, our warheads are not updated, Congress has deliberately kept the military from modernizing in critical places.
What are we going to look like on Jan 20, 2012?
Bill
I am more afraid that President Obama would do some backroom deals with the bad guys, to show the world (on the surface) his messiah-hood can accomplish what previous admins couldn’t ever do.
During Obama’s long campaign, everything is done (calculated) for symbolism. I am just as sure, some thing symbolic will be done, but with more long term damage to us.
What would President Obama be giving away?
Obama is a gangster who has captured hope itself, and keeps it hostage. So far, huge throngs are intimidated by this gambit, tacitly acknowledging how shaky their own hopes really are.
History shows the hope of the Israeli to be of a higher caliber. The preener-in-chief has voted “present”, again.
As long as it works, he will keep doing it. It will take someone of Netanyahu’s stature to call the bluff.
Fellow Belmonteers,
Unless Lord Zero manages to hold the proverbial gun to Netanyahu’s (Israel’s) head, is it conceivable that Israel will fail to act to destroy (or seriously degrade) Iran’s nuclear facilities?
Will Netanyahu indeed “call the bluff?”
My first impulse is to snort “Hell no he won’t fail to act!”
But deep in my gut, as I watch “O” and his accomplices turn one thing after another on its head, I fear that even the Israelis will fold up…
Someone tell me my gut is just chickensh!t…
Triton
The struggle has always been a who first through the door. The problem is the power players who are “officiating” this fight favor one side over the other and therefore Israel is often told they need to come up with the accommodations first and to worry about the Palestinians meeting their obligations later.
Hussein Pasha has not only “made its peace with Iran’s nuclear aspirations”, he is actively encouraging it in the belief that it will be used on his enemies, foreign and domestic. There is a point in the affairs [and survival] of nations when all the diplomatic dancing becomes moot.
The game board has been laid out. It is not chess, it is not monopoly. It is perhaps more like Go. Things are now in motion, irreversibly, on so many levels that it is impossible to stop. Two constants seem to be operating on all levels of our foreign policy. It is now suicidal to depend on the United States as an ally. And it is not only safe, but beneficial, to be an enemy of the United States. One can add, perhaps, a domestic codicil replacing “the United States” above with “the Constitution and the Rule of Law”.
During the Napoleonic Wars, there was a morbid phrase used in the Royal Navy when they closed on French ship(s) and were awaiting the first deadly broadside from the enemy:
“Lord, for that which we are about to receive, make us truly grateful.”
It fits our circumstances.
Subotai Bahadur
Hard to imagine the self-control Netanyahu must have had to exercise while first being subjected to and then checking the dangerous foolishness of our boy king.
Alphonse and Gaston? – Hmmm that would be the, ah, clods in the previous admin.? Here’s Jack Goldsmith – former high official in the Bush Justice Dept. – author of The Terror Presidency – on how OBama has tweaked, not transformed, the “war on terror”…
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1e733cac-c273-48e5-9140-80443ed1f5e2
Take this however – but Goldsmith sees Obama’s symbolic gestures as a tribute to his political deftness (and to the reality that certaub policies Cheney pushed for had already been repuditated). Maybe Goldsmith is all wrong, maybe Dick Cheney will turn out to be the one with the extraordinary political gifts/instincts – along with doomy prophetic powers. Btu that seems a bit of s stretch right now (unless you think the G.O.P. is doing just fine)…
So are we all agreed, then, that America’s Jews (who voted in Obama) are fine and dandy with throwing Israel under the bus, Obama-style?
Caroline Glick said:
“Over the past several weeks, we have learned that the administration has made its peace with Iran’s nuclear aspirations…. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon… CLINTON’S STATEMENT makes clear the basic and disturbing consistency of the administration’s failure to understand that there are regimes that are inherently hostile to the US and will remain irreconcilably hostile to the US regardless of what it does or who sits in the White House.”
It’s obvious that Obama will not intervene against Iran’s nuclear program. I suspect there maybe two processes at work concerning Obama’s Iran policy:
1) It’s not the United States problem. Let Israel deal with it and then the US can blame Israel after things get out of hand.
2) Moonbat fallacy: We can make problems in the Middle East go away through the “Power of Affirmation”, i.e. Keep repeating that the Iranian nuclear program is peaceful and all problems stem from Israel until everyone actually believe it.
I should add that Obama has every reason to believe in the “Power of Affirmation” since President Bush’s political power was neutralized through the MSM’s constant repetition of seditious slogans while Obama’s own political success was enabled through constant repetition of meaningless platitudes like “Change”. It’s almost funny that the government (like King Canute) is trying to end our current economic difficulties by repeating “green shoots” over and over again.
Netanyahu will need to make some tough choices. He has been abandoned by Obama. First Netanyahu needs to decide whether or not Israel can tolerate Iran having a nuclear weapon.
I suspect the answer is “No”.
Then comes the second question: Can Israel stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program on their own?
I think the answer is “Yes” but it will require very careful strategy. Israel will have to effectively destroy Iran’s current nuclear weapon’s program and cripple Iran’s economic ability to prevent them from promptly rebuilding their weapon’s program. The hope is that the theocracy in Iran would fail politically before their economy could be reconstructed.
Israel would have only one shot to do this because Obama will be compelled to punish Israel afterwards. I suspect that Israel would use low yield nuclear weapons housed in penetrator warheads to collapse the underground nuclear enrichment facilities with subsurface detonations. Those weapons would be delivered by fighter bombers that were aerially refueled. Israel would probably use conventional weapons (submarine launched cruise missiles?) to take out surface facilities such as nuclear reactors. I also suspect that Israel would destroy the Iranian petroleum facilities on Kharg Island to take down Iran’s economy.
Iran’s immediate response would be to prohibit shipping through the Straits of Hormuz and activate any terrorist agents that they have pre-positioned. Iran’s best strategy would be to heighten Israel’s international isolation and attack economic targets associated with Israel. Obama will openly cooperate with Iran’s response while secretly congratulating the Israelis. The wild card would be Saudi Arabia’s military response to the loss of petroleum shipping and Obama’s obvious impotence.
LIfeofthemind,
Stealth technology, technology used to defeat air defense systems, anti-missile technology, just to name a few areas where the Israelis have plenty to offer in areas that the Chinese and Russians would be extremely interested in.
Goldsmith argues that the President is retaining the practices of the Bush administration while prettying up the practice field. He contends that making it more palatable for his own party is somehow a better terror tactic.
The problem lies in the direction to which President Obama would practice those more palatable terror tactics. So far as far as the guns, bibles and whatever else then candidate Obama slammed about the life style of a whole lot of America are concerned, he is following through by making the fight against domestic terror more palatable. Only instead of checking out the real terror supporters, (check out Code Pink in Falluja, Iraq or the illegitimate documentation and legitimizing of foreign nationals called motor-voter), now the State of Missouri among others will be checking out any dissenting statements made on line. I really don’t care that the president has determined despite all the fuss and muss, that what President Bush did was legal after all, I am interested in how the president intends to use his newly blessed intra-state-extra-supra-police-powers. I suppose I would be more relaxed if only visions of Waco and the kidnapping of that Cuban Kid weren’t so fresh in my memory of abuse of constitutional powers. Lain against the backdrop of the contractors on that bridge, whose murderers were the recipients of Humanitarian Aide from Code Pink, you really expect anyone to be cool with any power in this presidents hands? To be alright with power in the hands that shook the Venezuelan dictators hands in a sign of solidarity, the hands that long to hold the Cuban dictators hands in equal regard, just like Code Pink has done. Do you really think the hands that ache to be embraced by the Iranian Mullahs are the same hands I would entrust that kind of power to?
You must be out of your ever loving mind, Benj, or what may be worse, you believe I am. It is a good thing we have checks and balance built in to the system.
Israeli PM Netanyahu has a lot of friends in the United States of America. It is more than a shame America’s president is not one of them.
A road map can mean many things
To some a way to go
To others though the term just sings
Of peace with one’s dear foe
To those of messianic view
The road map shines so bright
That they cannot conceive of who
Could think the thing not right
Two states is surely what the world
Would like to come about
The Palestinian flag unfurled
In Israel and without
But Bibi knows that ‘Bama knows
That if he does agree
The danger from Hamas still grows
Despite Obama’s plea
That both sides come to friendly terms
Ensuring O’s repute
Until the maggots and the worms
Settle all dispute
My concern, if I read Wretchard right, is that Netanyahu is left waiting for yet another middle east/ Obama peace initiative to fail while Dinner Jacket fortifies his defenses and gets closer to operable nuke status. The longer Israel waits to strike the worse the outcome is going to be.
If anyone has any faith left in our Dear Leader, check this out from a WSJ editorial today:
“Last week the Medicare trustees reported that the program has an “unfunded liability” of nearly $38 trillion — which is the amount of benefits promised but not covered by taxes over the next 75 years. So Democrats have decided that the way to close this gap is to create a new “universal” health insurance entitlement for the middle class.
Such thinking may be a non sequitur, but it will have drastic effects on the health care of all Americans — and as it happens, this future is playing out in miniature in Medicare right now. Desperate to prevent medical costs from engulfing the federal budget, the program’s central planners decided last week to deny payment for a new version of one of life’s most unpleasant routine procedures, the colonoscopy. This is a preview of how health care will be rationed when Democrats get their way. ”
Yep, the rush to health care rationing has begun.
“Obama will openly cooperate with Iran’s response while secretly congratulating Israel [for taking out Iran's nuclear facilities].”
You don’t get it do you? Obama is an anti-semite. The Jewish state is never to be congratulated. The Jewish state is to be taken down, period. That’s his “vision,” whether or not he is a muslim. Just being a hard leftist is sufficient.
So I’m trying to put myself into Netanyahu’s shoes. The givens are:
1) He will not allow Israel to be destroyed on his watch
2) He will not get any help from the US regarding deterring Iran
3) It appears that Egypt and Saudi would support him taking action against Iran, although they won’t likely offer any tangible support.
So my questions are:
1) Who are Israel’s friends, or more properly who are those who have the same strategic interests? What quid pro quo will Saudi/Egypt offer on the Palestinians and Hamas in exchange for Israel doing the heavy lifting on Iran?
2) Does Israel having anything to lose by turning its back to the US? Can they replace whatever we support that we give them elsewhere?
3) Related to above, it is realistic to imagine that China or India would be a strategic fit, and are there any cultural non-starters that would preclude any of those alliances.
Using a worn out cliche, the most dangerous animal is one who is cornered and I wonder if that doesn’t apply to Israel’s situation at the moment. What do they really have to lose if they launch a major offensive against Iran? Not an easy decision, but I’m not sure what alternative Israel has now.
There are plenty at BC much better equipped than me to opine on these, but I would appreciate hearing those views on “What should Bibi do?”
There’s no way Israel and, say, China could successfully conspire to take control of the Saudi and/or Iranian oil fields in the course of neutering Iran, is there? The Chinese need oil and Israeli technologies and the Israelis need to enhance their chances of survival via acquiring a more ruthless “big brother” as well as “organic” energy sources. Probably a million reasons (China’s inability to project adequate power, etc.) why such an insane thing wouldn’t happen, but given how weak the US and Europe are at the moment (and how broke Russia is), I really don’t see who would step up to try and stop it were it attempted.
Does Israel strike before or after Iranian elections – June 12?
Obama has told Netanyahu and Israelis that he prefers, another Holocaust. That he wants Israelis to sit quietly and get nuked out of existence, as Iran has boasted that Israel is a “one nuke state.”
Israel cannot do anything “surgically” to destroy Iran’s nuclear arsenal and the ability to rebuild. In order for Israelis to live, most Iranians must die.
It’s that simple. Netanyahu now has first-hand knowledge that Obama cannot be trusted, has betrayed him already, and that only by wiping out Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and MUCH of it’s people (though not all of them) can Israel survive. Israel must strike first, hard, and without warning in a massive nuclear way. Killing most of the infrastructure (and just important, people) needed to make and sustain nuclear weapons. The only means to do this are nuclear missiles themselves.
Otherwise a Nuclear Iran will simply launch surprise missile attacks from Lebanon and Syria, both of which they control, to wipe out Israel. They’ve promised it explicitly.
Obama WILL tip off the Iranians if he can, so likely Netanyahu’s ploy is to ‘leak’ false information about an attack, watch the Iranian preparation (and US responses to DEFEND IRAN) and adjust accordingly.
Israel might do something unconventional like launch from the Med, off Turkey, or what have you.
But that is what Obama “living with” the Iranian nuclear bomb means — Israelis deciding to live or die, and if to live, killing many Iranians to do it.
Obama of course dreams of being a Vichy American President, bowing snd scraping to foreign leaders. He hates Americans, our traditions, and values.
Anodyne, your inquiry has got me to thinking maybe this is the president’s way of teaching Israel to fish.
India is a possible partner down the road, for Israel but I do not see them being characterized as particularly ruthless.
A big unknown concerning Netanyahu’s decision on attacking Iran’s nuclear program is the quality of his information on the Iranian political process. Arguably the best intelligence agency on Earth is the Mossad. The Iranian fundamentalists have done a good job of pissing off Iran’s educated classes along with Iran’s remaining Zorasterians, Christians and Jews. The Mossad is probably getting high quality intelligence from those sources.
Based upon the information that Mossad provides, Netanyahu would have three options:
1) Do nothing and absorb what ever first blow Iran delivers.
2) Act preemptively to precisely destroy Iran’s nuclear and economic infrastructure while minimizing Iranian civilian deaths.
3) Burn down all of Iran without concern for Iranian deaths.
Morally and politicaly, Netanyahu can not accept option 1). However Netanyahu might random walk into option 1) if he can not obtain actionable intelligence from the Mossad.
Assuming the Iranians intend to launch a nuclear attack against Israel:
Option 2) is the most moral option but also the most dangerous and technically difficult.
Option 3) is the easiest technical option (launch nuclear armed Tomahawk cruise missiles from Israel’s Dolphin-class submarines). However Netanyahu would have to bear history’s indictment of Iranian genocide (tough thing for a Jew to do).
If the Mossad tells Netanyahu that the Iranian leadership really do believe in the 12th Iman and really do plan on nuking Israel ASAP –AND– given that Obama will not cooperate –THEN– Option 3) is probably his best strategic option to protect Israel.
For what it’s worth, I would not have the courage to select Option 3). If that was my only option, I would resign as Prime Minister and allow someone else to tarnish their soul.
Here’s a mischievous question:
Looks like Obama got Netanyahu to promise not to strike Iran before the end of the year. Do you think Netanyahu was vague about whether he meant the secular year or the Jewish year?
In the Industry/37
Ha!
I am not a supporter of Obama, and do not believe he is good for the country. However, on this issue he is not alone, nor is he the first to act this way. A look back at our successive administrations since WWII shows that all have thrown their allies under the buss repeatedly. This is particularly true when it comes to the Middle East.
The problem is that most of the people in Washington have been raised on the belief that all other people in the world are dispensable. And, all problems are someone else’s. As long as oil continues to flow to the US so we can drive our cars and heat our houses on the cheap, life is grand and the Hell with them.
Is Israel next in line? Consider this anomaly. Emanuel Rahm, Obama’s chief of staff and the main force in his rise to power is an Israeli citizen. His father fought in the early Israeli wars and was one of the founders of Israel. Rahm is a die hard supporter of Israel and has family in Israel. I know this first hand.
So, is the Obama administration abandoning Israel? Or, are some people simply acting paranoid? Or, is there a diabolical game being played that is yet to become clear?
That question aside. Israel’s conflict predates the Iranian revolution, Hizbullah and Hamas. Why does anyone believe that Israel’s situation will be different if they cease to exist?
In fact all three along with other fanatics were either supported or tolerated as they were seen as an antithesis to the nationalistic movements that were fighting Israel. Hamas was considered an easier target to villainize and eliminate than the PLO and thus allowed to overcome it. Now we have a bigger problem. The Palestinians got nothing before Hamas, why should they believe they will get anything after?
Hizbullah became a force because the US struck a deal with Syria and Saudi Arabia that gave Syria full control over Lebanon 20 years. All arguments regarding the growth of Hizbullah were discounted. It was treated as a Lebanese problem and “who cares?” Now it is everyone’s problem.
The Saudis and Egyptians have no more love for Israel than the Iranians. Sure they will promise support for Israel to strike Iran. What do they have to loose? If Iran folds, they get rid of one menace. If it retaliates successfully, they get rid of another.
Any questions regarding the Arab position?
Eliminating Iran’s military capabilities successfully is near impossible. The Israelis believed they knew everything about Hizbullah in 2006. But, in spite of their extensive intelligence network in the country they were surprised at how much they did not know. After 34 days of massive bombardment and ground invasion, missiles were still being launched at Israel even from behind their lines.
The war with Hamas last December had a similar effect.
These are small areas in close proximity with limited military capabilities and a lot of intelligence gathering.
How much does Israel really know about Iran’s military facilities?
It is easy to beat one’s chest when one is not in the direct line of fire. But, when you and everyone and everything you care about are about to go up in a mushroom cloud, the calculations become a little more complicated.
Israel will have to be absolutely sure it can actually eliminate Iran’s ability to retaliate, even without nukes. Chemical and Biological warheads will wipe Israel out also. Death is death, regardless of the method.
The idea of crippling Iran all together and allowing the moderates to rise to power is a non-starter. Sure the Mullah’s may fall, but will the other Iranians whose livelihoods have just been destroyed really thank Israel? Will the world, which goes into extended crisis as the Gulf oil stops flowing, be thanking Israel?
I hope the Israelis prove to be survivors and not succumb to the Samson syndrome.
Cadmus
It’s worth remembering that Russia has had ambitions to expansion that predate the Bolsheviks, Lenin, Stalin, and the Central Committee by many centuries. Those ambitions were rolled into the goals of the nomenklatura of the CCCP and Комитет государственной безопасности by the end of WWI, and had as much to do with Russia’s dealings with the outside as any Marxist dogma.
Remember that Stalin had agents in Iran in the 1940′s trying to create conditions favorable for a Communist takeover. Troops from the U.K., India and the Soviet Union occupied much of Iran after 1941 to prevent the Nazi-sympathies of the first Reza Shah Pahlavi letting Iranian oil supply the Axis war effort. Soviet troops did not withdraw until a couple of years after WWII.
It was primarily because the bumbling and naive Mossadegh first nationalized (“confiscated”) the oil industry that British pounds had developed from nothing, then flirted with communists. Yes, US and British intelligence services helped topple his administration and install the second Reza Shah Pahlavi.
Then THAT Bastard set about democratizing and Westernizing the place. Allowing women to wear Western clothing, attend college, shop in the streets without male supervision, and VOTE IN ELECTIONS and Testify in COURT. He shamelessly took to distributing land to peasants to OWN and Cultivate without the consent of the imams.
No wonder the mullahs hated him.
Anyways, my point is that alliances and decisions about who will support whom in all this are not necessarily dependent on what’s going forward this week. There are affinities and resentments that have persisted for fifty generations, that will play out in the current schemes.
“The idea of crippling Iran all together and allowing the moderates to rise to power is a non-starter. Sure the Mullah’s may fall, but will the other Iranians whose livelihoods have just been destroyed really thank Israel?”
Please tell us how the need to preserve “German thankfulness” figured into the Allies’ attempts to hammer Nazi Germany into submission.
hey
my observations exclusively, and my do centavos of opinion but add to saudi and egypt the uae as potential allies to israeli actions against iran.
iran still holds two oil rich island in the gulf that are sovereign uae territory. the military doctrine is 100% geared towards a defense posture against the iranians. security on the costal ares and straits of hormutz has been bolstered thansk to british navy and u.s.coast guard. cutters are being built in abu dhabi shipyards for enhance control of waterways,arco traffic and illegal iranians. given thedebt mountain that is bearing down on dubai and the available reources (ports, new aitports, massive jet fuel storage) a few bucks in service contracts will get the emeirates off the fence…especiallyif the saudis are leading te parade. monkey see…ya get me…
much talk in thee waters for a strike that would destroy all power gen. and distribution systems in the regions of the nukes. no need to do more…just eleiminate power grid and bring things to a halt. ability tomrebuild anything in miran is mission impossible. everything would have to come from dubai anyway so control is there.
gulf arabs already think obama is weak and a bullshit artist viz. palestine. crucuial for all arabs is the identificationmof the ”strong horse”. obama is a slick pony at best. most big dog arabs admired W no matter what the public posture.
last week Collie ”the powell” gave a commencment address to he american univ.of dubai. his reception by the royal family was cool at best. compare this freak show to any visit by ”stormin normin”, which is always a love fest of big dogs. bottomline for arabs…obama ain’t no muslim…and sadly, he’s an african !!!!! refer to history of gulf arabs as east african slavers for 200 years…think attitudes change in part of the world…naaaaaaaa.
Cadmus,
Good points. The question comes down not only to how much Israel really knows about Iranian capabilities but also how much does the US really know about Iranian Capabilities.
If as is hoped, Rahm Emanuel puts a no BS stance on US/Israeli relations, what kinds of BS is the Obama Administration willing to put up with from the Arabs or from the Persians? How is the Iranian President, who conducted assassinations in Europe for the Ayatollah Khomnie, the conductor of sordid acts and developer of sordid tactics for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, to be labeled? How is the Ayatollah Khamanie to be viewed. How committed to the 12er philosophy are they, really?
Are they rational thinkers in just wanting the Bomb as a hedge against Arabs and Europeans? Are they serious about setting up a new Caliphate? Or are they just seeking the end of days.
That in a nutshell is what the question comes down to. It is the answer that scares so many, and should be cause for a remarkable amount of focus. For the answer may cause all other considerations to be irrelevant.
Israel is not in as much danger as we are in here in the U.S. and people do not even realize it. I believe that Israel has God and they will survive to the very end, and they are there in the Armageddon . Jesus said Israel is his.
I know that Israel is still there in the book of Revelations, it is the promised land, and the United States is not in Revelations. In fact we are not mentioned in bible prophecies, and I have searched for it.
I think we are in worse danger than a very small country that has the weapons and war around them, unless we always stand by them. We must always be the ally to Israel and never turn on her. When we turn on Israel we turn on God, because Jesus said Israel is his.
Zechariah 12:2-3: “I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem. On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves”.
Israel is God’s timepiece.
Wade – for what it’s worth – your summary of Jack G.’s piece leaves out a farily crucial point. Obama is keeping on with many of Bush’s practices/approaches in GWOT because the most egresious ones had been repudiated by 2006. (Like a few other aspects of Bush’s strategy – see: The Surge.) That Bush never seriously acknowledged the bulk of those Changes (or pushed hard for them) is precisely to G.’s point. That was Bush’s nada way of being Decider And that’s why Obama’s promise of Change had/has so much resonance…
PS That line re Cuban kidnapping was a wowser…- Hard for me to believe you’d go there…I’m thinking I might detest Fidel even more personally than you do – got buddies from there who paid serious dues ..But, damn, that kid belonged with his dad. You’ve got clarity about that sort of thing generally so why does it desert you here…
Are you letting ideology trump your good sense. Code Pink? Tbey’ve been as distant from O’s politics as Dick Cheney…Keep your balance man. And as for Benjamin N. – What’d he get – 30% of the vote in Israel? I wouln’t be under any illusions there. Binny has some friends with hardcore neo-cons on the right, in America but he’s anything but a beloved figure in Israel. Hell, the hard right in Israel is lock on that wonderful new Foreign M. – Binny is much more careful re going after the straight up racist vote in-country. BTW – the best account of what happened at that Binny/O meeting that I’ve seen is by a prof named Bromwich who posts at Huff. You might not like his politics – but he knows the Movement Conservative canon – he’s writing a book on Burke now =-…Check him out…At the very least you’ll be clearer about what to be angry about when it comes to O. You may not like, but he knows what’s he’s about.
I hope you will read that fellow Avnery – gives you a different pov on the the history in the making…
Benj,
Naw, It is not that I think president Obama and Code pink are tight (they have a fundamental disagreement on how to achieve the same or nearly the same result), the point was aimed at the rats behavior generally, and how President Bush did not attempt to stifle them. (President Lincoln would not have been so patient I think, but it is hard to say given his kid gloves approach on most matters of northern dissent.) The record for D-rats is, generally on these matters, a horrible march over the top of individual’s rights. I have little to encourage any belief that president Obama will be much different in being a reactor as opposed to actually putting new ideas in play.
The Cuban kid’s Mom, RIP, disagreed with your assessment of where he belonged, for good reason. Frankly, it is for that and other good reasons, I have doubts about your own clarity, and that of the Clinton’s asst. AG. Isn’t that guy president Obama’s AG, Erich something or other?
See, now that we are no longer at war, why does president Obama still retain the rights to use those leftover Bush era extra powers.
I see we have a difference of opinion about the tactics involved in the surge strategy which was used to achieve the exact same goal President Bush decided upon (democracy) as a way to put into effect the policy President Clinton signed into law. if it were not for Iranian intervention in the events in Iraq, there would not have been the need for the surge. While collusion is a stretch as well as unlikely, it is not so tough to imagine that without Iranian interference the golden mosque may never have been bombed. The more ridiculous part of that whole chain of events is that I believe reconciliation would be having an even tougher go even now and the Iraqi security forces would not be as well trained nor as effective as they have become with the hard edge of combat and the trials of facing the Mahdi Army.
Your fellow Bromwich has a good grasp of what went on with president Obama’s message as reported by the NYT. Welcome to the club.
It may be that is what the result would have been without the miscues. But pressure to accept the two state solution needs to be applied when the result is achievable. Israel has agreed in principal to the concept. Israel has shown good faith in pulling out of Gaza and even in the methods of conduct during the fighting in Gaza and in So. Lebanon. The Palestinians have not done themselves any favors. Israel nor the world has any reason to believe that the Palestinians governing body wishes anything but destruction and death to Israeli Citizens. NO REASON TO BELIEVE. Heck even Arafat would lie about his intentions. so I guess we should applaud Hammas at least, for not lying to us.
Benj,
“Obama’s promise of Change had/has so much resonance…”
Candidate Obama never once stood up for what his version of change would really mean. Even in his speech on terrorism yesterday, there were a lot of platitudes but no substance, a lot of wishy but it doesn’t wash. I have to say that thus far president Obama has shown a considerable adeptness at change. He has changed what was a vibrant economy headed for some understandably tough times, into angry multigenerational debt ridden and therefor unproductive mass of humanity, overburdened by tax and overshadowed by high prices and even higher interest rates.
I have no doubt you are sincere Benj, I believe you about the resonance.
That is sure some change.