DEBKA: Strike first, apologize later
Obama’s charm offensive for radical rulers abandons Israel to Iranian threat
DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis, April 18, 2009
The new US president’s dramatic global policy shifts have easily dwarfed the knotty Israeli-Palestinian peace issue handed down from one US president to the next over decades. Barack Obama’s outstretched hand to Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Iran’s best friend in the Americas, on April 17, at the summit of American leaders in Port of Prince, made the talk surrounding Special Middle East Envoy George Mitchell’s mission to Jerusalem and Ramallah this week sound eerily like voices from the past.
After talking to Mitchell, Israel’s prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and defense minister Ehud Barak tried the usual bromides: They protested that Jerusalem’s ties with Washington and Jerusalem were as strong as ever and they would work together toward an agreed solution for the Palestinian problem.
But those words were lost in the black Iranian cloud hanging over the relations.
Barack Obama has set his sights and heart on friendship with the rulers of the Islamic Republic of Iran and their radical allies. The name and policies of the occupant of the prime minister’s office in Jerusalem do not matter - any more than Tehran’s determination to complete its nuclear weapons program in defiance of the world, or even its first A-bomb test in a year or two, for which intelligence sources report Tehran is already getting set.
Washington may believe it can live with a nuclear-armed Iran – a decision probably taken first under the Bush presidency. But Israel cannot, and may have no option but to part ways with the Obama administration on this point. As a nuclear power, Iran will be able to bend Jerusalem to the will of its enemies: Israel will be forced to unconditionally give Syria the Golan plus extra pieces of territory; tamely accept a Hamas-dominated Palestinian West Bank louring over its heartland and let the Lebanese Hizballah terrorize Galilee in the north at will. All three will make hay under Iran’s nuclear shield.
Israel will be stripped of most of its defenses against a radical Islamic Republic anointed by Washington as the reigning regional power and dedicated to its destruction.
Israel is not the only country in peril.
Unlike Israel, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt has stuck his neck out, backed quietly by Saudi Arabia, as the only Middle East ruler to stand up to the threat Iran poses to the region directly and through its surrogate, Hizballah. He is openly critical of Washington’s courtship of the revolutionary Islamic republic.
Cairo’s Al Ahram Saturday, April 18, accused Iran, Syria, Qatar, Hizballah, Hamas, al Jazeera TV of a conspiracy to overthrow Egyptian government.
The US president is not daunted by the radicalism or enmity of his new friends. At the Summit of All Americas, Obama greeted Hugo Chavez first, 24 hours after the Venezuelan ruler said: “The United States empire is on its way down and it will be finished in the near future, inshallah!”
Using the Muslim blessing to underline the wish for America’s downfall was no bar to the smile and handshake, any more than Chavez’s close personal and political bond with Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both have called US leaders devils; the latter has sworn to “wipe Israel off the map.”
The Venezuelan ruler recently severed its ties with Israel for no provocation and will host a delegation of Hizballah (internationally branded a terrorist organization) in Caracas.
The only point relevant to President Obama is that Hugo Chavez is co-architect of the joint Russian-Iranian campaign to displace American influence in the southern hemisphere. The US president has opted for winning America’s enemies over with smiles and embraces rather than punishing them like George W. Bush.
Syria is another object of Obama’s charm offensive for extremists regardless of Bashar Assad’s blunt statement Friday, April 17, to the pro-Hizballah Lebanese publication al Akhbar that Damascus will not loosen its strategic ties with Tehran or stop supporting the Lebanese Shiite group [with arms] because Hizballah is dedicated to fighting Israel.
For the first time in years, the administration this week sent a high-ranking delegation to Syria’s independence day celebrations at Washington’s Mandarin Oriental Hotel, headed by Jeffrey Feltman, former ambassador and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs.
The thaw in relations has gone so far that some Washington wags are calling Assad’s capital “Syria on the Potomac.”
The American storm besetting the Middle East is leaving Israel’s most vital interests way behind, so that the condition Netanyahu put before Mitchell for progress in peacemaking - that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state, instantly rejected by Palestinian Authority leaders – aroused scant attention in Washington or anywhere else. The Israeli government’s claim that it needed a few weeks to review its policies was taken as a bid to buy time.
Even if the Israeli prime minister should suddenly turn around and line up with Obama’s quest for a Palestinian state alongside Israel and the 2007 Annapolis declaration, and freeze construction in the West Bank and Jerusalem, the US president would not digress from his course.
As Netanyahu will find when he meets Obama in Washington early next month, Israel is no longer a prime factor in US global policy because America’s Middle East allegiances and alliances have been fundamentally reshuffled. Even Tzipi Livni at the helm in Jerusalem would not divert Obama from his détente with Ahmadinejad, Assad and Chavez.
To gain points with these new friends, Obama’s White House is not above nudging Israel to please them. This week, his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told Jewish leaders whom he met in Washington that if Israel wants America’s help for thwarting Iran’s nuclear program, it must first start evacuating West Bank settlements.
This was of course cynical claptrap.
Even if every single settlement were to be removed, the Obama administration would not help Israel strike Iran’s nuclear facilities because this would interfere with its drive for friends in the anti-American radical camp.
After ceding Tehran’s uranium enrichment program (and therefore its drive for nuclear arms), Washington would have to forcefully oppose Israeli military action against Iran for the sake of consistency.
US defense secretary Robert Gates made no bones about the administration’s total opposition to any Israeli military action. He went to almost absurd lengths this week to play down the Iranian nuclear threat and Israel’s ability to handle it.
So what options are left to Israel at this juncture?
1. To bow under the Obama tempest until it blows over, in keeping with the old proverb which says that the trees bowing in the wind remain standing. The question is will Israel’s trees still be standing when the storm has passed and, if so, in what strategic environment?
2. To follow the example set by Likud’s first prime minister Menahem Begin in 1981. He stood up to Ronald Reagan’s fierce objections and sent the Israeli Air force to smash the Iraqi nuclear reactor before it was operational, which Saddam Hussein never rebuilt. By following in Begin’s footsteps before it is too late, Netanyahu would change the rules of the game regionally and globally.
(The London Times reported from Jerusalem Saturday that the Israeli military is preparing itself to launch a massive aerial assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities within days of being given the go-ahead by its new government. Two civil defense drills have been scheduled to prepare the population for missiles that could fall on any part of the country without warning.)
3. Israel could go for a more modest target, one of Iran’s faithful surrogates – Syria or Hizballah – to warn Washington that a larger operation is in store for their boss. If the Gaza offensive against Hamas last January was meant to send this message, it failed. Hamas is still the dominant Palestinian power and Barack Obama was not diverted from forging ahead with his policies of rapprochement with Iran and other radical world leaders.
My fear is that” barking dogs don’t bite” These last two years Israel has done a lot of barking. Too much for my peace of mind. If you are going to shoot, shoot! I know the Iranians invented chess but we have some of the best the best chess players in the world. Trouble is I don’t think our political leaders ever learned the game.
Comment by yamit82 — April 18, 2009 @ 11:47 am
For Israel to have some possibility of achieving success , a one strike option is out of the question. Iran has numerous possible nuclear sites,which are heavily fortified, and in most instances are in underground locations. It would require numerous bombing missions over a prolongued period to obtain the desired results, and even then the odds are very high that it might not suffice. My guess is that Israel is hoping that the mere threat of attack will frighten the Iranians to back off.
Comment by h peskin — April 18, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
Yamit:
Wrong again. It was the Indians who invented chess. Better luck next time.
Comment by h peskin — April 18, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
[...] Ted Belman placed an observative post today on Israpundit » Blog Archive » DEBKA: Strike first, apologize laterHere’s a quick excerptBarack Obama has set his sights and heart on friendship with the rulers of the Islamic Republic of Iran and their radical allies. The name and policies of the occupant of the prime minister’s office in Jerusalem do not matter - any more than Tehran’s … Using the Muslim blessing to underline the wish for America’s downfall was no bar to the smile and handshake, any more than Chavez’s close personal and political bond with Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. … [...]
Pingback by Topics about Barack-obama » Blog Archive » Israpundit » Blog Archive » DEBKA: Strike first, apologize later — April 18, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
Many countries claim to have invented the chess game in some incipient form. The most commonly held view is that chess originated in India.
BUT: As a matter of fact, the Arabic, Persian, Greek and Spanish words for chess, are all derived from the Sanskrit Chaturanga. The present version of chess played throughout the world is ultimately based on a version of Chaturanga that was played in India around the 6th century CE.
Chess eventually spread westward to Europe and eastward as far as Japan, spawning variants as it went. One theory suggests that it migrated from India to Persia, where its terminology was translated into Persian and it name changed to chatrang. The entrance of chess into Europe, notably, is marked by a massive improvement in the powers of the queen. The oldest known texts describing chess seem to indicate a bi-directional spread from the Persian empire. From Persia it entered the Islamic world, where the names of its pieces largely remained in their Persian forms in early Islamic times. Its name became shatranj, which continued in Spanish as ajedrez and in Greek as zatrikion, but in most of Europe was replaced by versions of the Persian word sh?h = “king”.
There is a theory that this name replacement happened because, before the game of chess came to Europe, merchants coming to Europe brought ornamental chess kings as curiosities and with them their name sh?h, which Europeans mispronounced in various ways.
* Checkmate: This is the English rendition of sh?h m?t, which is Persian for “the king is finished”.
* Rook: From the Persian rukh, which means “chariot”, but also means “cheek” (part of the face). The piece resembles a siege tower. It is also believed that it was named after the mythical Persian bird of great power called the roc. In India, the piece is more popularly called haathi, which means “elephant”.
* Bishop. From the Persian p?l means “the elephant”, but in Europe and the western part of the Islamic world people knew little or nothing about elephants, and the name of the chessman entered Western Europe as Latin alfinus and similar, a word with no other meaning (in Spanish, for example, it evolved to the name “alfil”). This word “alfil” is actually the Arabic for “elephant”, where “al” means “the” and fil means “elephant”. The Spanish word would most certainly have been taken from the Islamic provinces of Spain. The English name “bishop” is a rename inspired by the conventional shape of the piece which resembles the tusk of an elephant and the mitre of a bishop.
* Queen. Persian farz?n = “vizier” became Arabic firz?n, which entered western European languages as forms such as alfferza, fers, etc but was later replaced by “queen”.
The game spread throughout the Islamic world after the Muslim conquest of Persia. Chess eventually reached Russia via Mongolia, where it was played at the beginning of the 7th century. It was introduced into Spain by the Moors in the 10th century, and described in a famous 13th century manuscript covering chess, backgammon, and dice named the Libro de los juegos. Chess also found its way across Siberia into Alaska.
Checkmate!!! Modern version of Chess as we know it today is Persian and there are theories that postulate it originated in China predating the Indian version
Comment by yamit82 — April 18, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
Where prey tell do you get your extensive knowledge of military acumen and expertise? I bet you are quoting from some hack in the NYT who probably got his insight from some vested interested parties spin.
Your Black piece of shit sitting in the White House will rue the day he fucked with the Jews and guess what? As he goes you go. I would if I were you consider moving to a safer location or buy an atomic fallout shelter with at least a years supply of vittles and other essentials. Be like a Boy Scout: Be Prepared. The life you save might be your own.
Comment by yamit82 — April 18, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
“Barack Obama has set his sights and heart on friendship with the rulers of the Islamic Republic of Iran and their radical allies. The name and policies of the occupant of the prime minister’s office in Jerusalem do not matter - any more than Tehran’s determination to complete its nuclear weapons program in defiance of the world, or even its first A-bomb test in a year or two, for which intelligence sources report Tehran is already getting set.”
That puts matters succintly. If the politics of the world today are REALLY about Israel, then I believe the “Protocols of the Elders…” Israel is, and has always been, a scapegoat for leaders and followers everywhere. Pressuring Israel to do this or that, is just so much protocol — like the protocol of bowing before a superior ruler. Obama knows the rules of etiquette: If you want to ingratiate yourself before Moslems, you curse Jews. Even if there were no Jews in the world, people would imagine them and curse them.
Comment by BlandOatmeal — April 19, 2009 @ 7:17 am
Yamit:
This is the consensus opinion of highly reputed nuclear experts with extensive knowledge of the Iranian program. If you have any information to counter this opinion, please furnish it. Put up or shut up. Iran is not Iraq and Osirik with a one reactor plant which was above ground and easily attacked. Even so Osirik almost failed.
Comment by h peskin — April 19, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
Peskin:
I can and will but you must first cite who those highly reputed nuclear experts are; a synopsis or more of what their opinions are first! Then I can and will respond in kind. Are you chicken?
Comment by yamit82 — April 19, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
If anyone here doubts Israeli capability here are some data to consider:
New Satellite Surveillance System Was Key Israeli Tool In Syria Raid
Nov 2, 2007
David A. Fulghum, Robert Wall and Douglas Barrie/Aviation Week & Space Technology
Israel pulled out all the stops technologically in its recent raid on Syria, employing several new intelligence-gathering and strike systems in a chain of events stretching from satellite observations to precision bombing of a target thought to be a nuclear facility.
Syria’s internal politics might have contributed to the apparent success of the Sept. 6 mission. The target was so highly classified in Damascus that the military wasn’t briefed and, therefore, air defenses were unprepared, says an Israeli official.
But the absence of a dense air defense around the facility didn’t stop Israel from digging deep into its technology quiver, drawing on the newest technologies in its arsenal.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/ISRA110207.xml&headline=New%20Satellite%20Surveillance%20System%20Was%20Key%20Israeli%20Tool%20In%20Syria%20Raid&channel=defense
The first piece of the puzzle is linked to the launch of a new reconnaissance satellite this summer. It allowed the integration of several advanced technologies, including electro-optical imaging from space, image enhancing algorithms, scene-matching guidance for precision weapons, and the use of advanced targeting pods carried by the Israeli air force’s two-man F-16Is, which are not yet available on its F-15Is.
Israeli and U.S. officials will not reveal operational details: read whole article in Aviation Week
Can the Israel Defense Forces in fact disrupt Iran’s nuclear program?
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/isec.2007.31.4.7
Does Israel have the ability to conduct a military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities similar to its 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor? The Israeli Air Force has significantly upgraded its equipment since the early 1980s, but the Iranian nuclear complex is a much harder target than was the Osirak reactor. Iran has three facilities that are critical for nuclear weapons production: a uranium conversion facility, an enrichment facility, and a heavy-water production plant and associated plutonium production reactor. This article analyzes possible interactions of Israel’s improved air force, including the addition of F-15I aircraft and U.S.-supplied conventional “bunker-buster” precision-guided munitions, with the Iranian target set and air defense systems.
Beyond the case of Iran, this finding has implications for the use of precision-guided weapons as a counterproliferation tool. Precision-guided weapons confer the ability to reliably attack hard and deeply buried targets with conventional, rather than nuclear, weapons. Intelligence on the location of nuclear sites is thus the primary limiting factor of military counterproliferation.
Comment by yamit82 — April 20, 2009 @ 3:56 am
Will Israel be forced to make a Satanic deal. Iran for all of the so called territories?
We Jews have made them in the past? Like in Ghetto Lodz.
The Deportation of the Children
from the Lodz Ghetto
(September 4, 1942)
…The ghetto has been struck a hard blow. They demand what is most dear to it ? children and old people. I was not privileged to have a child of my own and therefore devoted my best years to children. I lived and breathed together with children. I never imagined that my own hands would be forced to make this sacrifice on the altar. In my old age I am forced to stretch out my hands and to beg: “Brothers and sisters, give them to me! ? Fathers and mothers, give me your children…” (Bitter weeping shakes the assembled public)… Yesterday, in the course of the day, I was given the order to send away more than 20,000 Jews from the ghetto, and if I did not – “we will do it ourselves.” The question arose: “Should we have accepted this and carried it out ourselves, or left it to others?” But as we were guided not by the thought: “how many will be lost?” but “how many can be saved?” we arrived at the conclusion – those closest to me at work, that is, and myself – that however difficult it was going to be, we must take upon ourselves the carrying out of this decree. I must carry out this difficult and bloody operation, I must cut off limbs in order to save the body! I must take away children, and if I do not, others too will be taken, God forbid… (terrible wailing).
I cannot give you comfort today. Nor did I come to calm you today, but to reveal all your pain and all your sorrow. I have come like a robber, to take from you what is dearest to your heart. I tried everything I knew to get the bitter sentence cancelled. When it could not be cancelled, I tried to lessen the sentence. Only yesterday I ordered the registration of nine-year-old children. I wanted to save at least one year – children from nine to ten. But they would not yield. I succeeded in one thing – to save the children over ten. Let that be our consolation in our great sorrow.
There are many people in this ghetto who suffer from tuberculosis, whose days or perhaps weeks are numbered. I do not know, perhaps this is a satanic plan, and perhaps not, but I cannot stop myself from proposing it: “Give me these sick people, and perhaps it will be possible to save the healthy in their place.” I know how precious each one of the sick is in his home, and particularly among Jews. But at a time of such decrees one must weigh up and measure who should be saved, who can be saved and who may be saved.
Common sense requires us to know that those must be saved who can be saved and who have a chance of being saved and not those whom there is no chance to save in any case….
Rumkowski’s speech at the time of the deportation, I. Trunk, Lodzsher Geto (”Lodz Ghetto”), New York, 1962, pp. 311-312.
Comment by yamit82 — April 21, 2009 @ 3:16 am