Obama, Netanyahu & the Iranian Bomb
By: Yedidya Atlas, RightSideNews
Roger Cohen’s January 16th column in The New York Times, “Don’t Do It, Bibi” is only the latest in the Obama election campaign’s efforts to pressure Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to take a serious risk at Israel’s being nuked by a nuclear Iran rather than cause any ripples in President Obama campaign for re-election to a second term.
Mr. Cohen begins his rant by quoting the purported advice of an unnamed American ambassador in Europe declaring Mr. Netanyahu to be an ingrate for all that the Obama administration has done for Israel, and strongly suggests the Israeli Prime Minister should “above all stay out of our election-year politics.”
According to Mr. Cohen, President Obama’s is justifiably furious with the Mr. Netanyahu because he had the audacity to “go over his head” by speaking “to a Republican-dominated Congress” even though it was Congress that invited him; again “ingratitude for solid U.S. support”, including in the UN; and the Netanyahu government’s refusal to declare a second freeze on building houses for Jews over the 1949 armistice lines “for the sake of peace negotiations” even though the first unprecedented freeze failed to bring the Palestinians back to the negotiations table. But for Mr. Cohen, Obama can do no wrong, and Netanyahu can do no right.
Should anyone think the existential threat to Israel is more serious than Mr. Obama’s re-election next November, Roger Cohen disabuses of this notion. “I would add a further piece of advice to Netanyahu if he cares about his dysfunctional relationship with Obama — and he should because Israelis know the United States matters…,” opines Mr. Cohen. “That advice is: Do not attack Iran this spring or summer.”
Mr. Cohen writes of Netanyahu’s chutzpah for considering bombing Iran, and this “despite a call from Obama last Thursday and messages from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.”
But Mr. Cohen from atop his high horse in The New York Times cuts to the chase: “Then there is the American political calculus. An Israeli strike a few months before the U.S. election in November would stymie Obama. He would be in no position,” Mr. Cohen decries, “to express anger given the clout of the pro-Israel lobby, the important Jewish vote in Florida, and the fulsome support any Israeli bombing would get from the Republican contender.”
But Mr. Cohen is not alone in this barrage to block an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iran. Aaron David Miller, former State Department Mideast advisor, brings the same message in his November 8, 2011, article in Foreign Policy wherein he brings five reasons that Israel “might want to think long and hard about preemptively striking Iran’s nuclear facilities.”
True, “Sanctions may never prevent the Iranians from acquiring a weapon, but they do have some impact,” Mr. Miller says.” Impact perhaps, whatever that means, but anything less than stopping Iran’s producing nuclear weapons is irrelevant.
“An Israeli attack could undermine all that good work,” decides Mr. Miller. “An Israeli attack might be quietly welcomed by the rulers of some Persian Gulf states, but it would be viewed on the Arab street as another example of Israeli aggression and US double standards.”
Mr. Miller admits “The fact that Israel faces an existential threat may understandably lead it to downplay the costs to others, particularly to the United States. After all, it’s easy enough for Americans to assume, living thousands of miles away, that Iran is a rational actor and would never use a nuclear weapon against Israel….. Israelis, of course, maintain that the threat of retaliation is not an acceptable deterrent and will look to their own interests first” – “their own interests” is Mr. Miller’s euphemism for not gambling with their national survival.
Mr. Miller writes: “The Iranian capacity to strike the continental United State may be limited, but the capacity to wage a clandestine war against US and Israeli interests across the Middle East is far more formidable.” In other words, until now, Iran has refrained from waging a clandestine war against US and Israeli interests, but if Israel attacks, then all bets are off.
“If the Israelis strike, the United States is necessarily involved,” warns Mr. Miller. “There’s no way that an Israeli strike comes off without major complications and a military response against US interests.” Again, if the US has any problems with Iran, it is Israel’s fault. The idea being until Israel attacks Iran, the US has no Iranian problem.
Mr. Obama’s fantastical Iran policy was put under the harsh light of reality by General John M. Keane (ret.), former US Army Vice Chief of Staff, in testimony before the US House Homeland Security and House Intelligence Committee on October 26, 2011. Excerpts include:
“Indeed, Republican and Democratic administrations since 1980 have failed to deal effectively with the harsh reality that Iran is our number one strategic enemy in the world….they have been systematically killing us for over 30 years,” the General said.
“Since 2003 in Iraq the Iranians have provided rockets, mortars, enhanced IED’S and money to the Shia Militia who were directly involved in killing U.S. troops in Iraq,” General Keane said. “Moreover, the Iraq Shia Militia were trained by the Iranian special operations force, the Qods Force, at training bases
in Iran…… Similarly, the Iranians are supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan with money and ammunition.”
“… It is time to review our strategy for Iran against the harsh
reality that despite our rhetoric, attempts to negotiate, isolate and
sanction, the fact is the Iranians continue to use their proxies against US interests and continue to pursue nuclear weapons. Therefore, one must conclude the obvious that, our policy has failed and failed miserably……if we continue the half measures of the past the Iranians will continue to kill us, will continue to sponsor terrorism and use their proxies against our interests and will continue to pursue nuclear weapons,” declared General Keane, concluding, “The next nightmare for the world is around the corner, an unchecked Iran with nuclear weapons.”
While President Obama has apparently decided that he can either community organizer style talk the Mullahs to drop their aspirations for nuclear domination of …well, the world, or he has already decided, irrespective of public pronouncements, that a nuclear Iran is something that America and her allies can live with after all is said and done – or not done in Mr. Obama’s case.
Then why is Mr. Obama and friends so concerned? It’s all about the re-election campaign. No matter how serious the threat, Israel is forbidden to rock the Obama re-election boat. Mr. Netanyahu should keep quiet and stop making Iran an issue.
Nonetheless, the Iranian nuclear threat is fast becoming a significant political football which Republican presidential contenders see Mr. Obama fumbling in a big way.
According to a Quinnipiac University poll (November 23, 2011), American voters, 60 – 33 percent, say that economic sanctions to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons aren’t effective, and 50 percent say the US should take military action to stop Iran if sanctions don’t work. Moreover, 88 percent perceive Iran’s nuclear program as a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” threat to US national security with “no disagreement from any group.”
Politically the situation has not improved for Mr. Obama. According to a January 15th Washington Post-ABC News poll: Americans disapprove of the way Obama has handled the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons by a 48 to 33 percent margin.
Thus Scott Clement in the January 18th Foreign Policy: “The economy and unemployment rate will almost certainly remain top issues throughout the campaign, but Obama’s Republican challengers see an opening and have already drawn parallels between weakness in the US economy and Obama’s positioning with Iran. In a November debate,” Mr. Clement points out, “Mitt Romney called Iran ‘the gravest threat to America and the world’ and said that Obama ‘did not do what was necessary to get Iran to be dissuaded from their nuclear folly.’”
Whether or not Israel launches a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities will be based on the reality on the ground after all other options have been exhausted. Ultimately, the Netanyahu government will do what is best for Israel. Hopefully, the Obama administration will be able to move past politics and do the same for America. The odds are it will be same.
*****************************
The author is a veteran journalist specializing in geo-political and geo-strategic affairs in the Middle East. His articles have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, Insight Magazine, Nativ, The Jerusalem Post and Makor Rishon. His articles have been reprinted by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in the US Congressional Record.
On the other hand, an American attack on Iran, before the election, would put Obama’s numbers through the roof. The Republicans will be unable to criticize and will have no counter move.
Iran’s goal is clearly a monopoly over Mideast oil, formed with nuclear terror and perhaps maintained with an Islamic Caliphate headquartered in Iran. This is why the Arab oil states are so frightened of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Once the middle east is under Iranian control, the atomic Ayatollahs imperial dream is that they can turn their attention to the rest of the world.
Israel is almost a sideshow, useful mainly as common hate object to glue the Arab street to the Iranian cause. If the Iranian regime gets into a war with America, the US electorate will rally around Obama, and the Arab street will rally around Iran. Obama wins the election. Four more years!
The key to defeating Iran is cutting off their supply of oil money, so they cannot rebuild after their nuclear and key military facilities are destroyed. As a last resort, one way to do this is to seize their oil fields. China and Europe must be reassured that their access to oil will not be blocked.
Most articles on the subject mention that the Saudi’s have said they will make up any shortfall of Iranian oil. The articles don’t go on to explain why. Clearly they aren’t trying to protect Israel, but rather themselves. Obama may be able to resist the demands of Israelis, but perhaps not the combined demands of the Arabs and the Israelis.
You left out a word: succssful
Don’t forget the Iran hostage rescue fiasco.
In theory, there was no reason that the U.S. military of 1980 could not have pulled off that operation. But poor leadership and presidential micromanagement doomed it to failure.
One would hope that we’d have learned from history, but if there’s one thing Obama proves with each passing day of his sorry presidency, he doesn’t learn from ANYTHING.
There is nothing more dangerous than extreme hubris combined with extreme ignorance. That’s Obama in a nutshell, especially where military matters are concerned.
If my choices were: Israeli goes it alone, Obama attacks, or Obama’s successor attacks, I’d prefer the third choice (if there’s still time by then, which there probably won’t be). After that, the first. After that, Obama.
Yes, if Obama launched a spectacularly successful attack, his numbers would go through the roof.
I wouldn’t trust Obama to attack a submarine sandwich properly, let alone Iran.
At any rate, this is all academic, because there is NO WAY Obama is going to attack Iran. He’d only consider doing this after he got Israel to capitulate to the Saudi Surrender Plan vis-a-vis the PA. That has always been his quid pro quo on decisive action against Iran. No bend over for the PA, no help with Iran, and public resistance to Israel taking matters into her own hands. That is NOT going to change.
Yes, a rational and shrewd president in Obama’s shoes might act on Iran, but Obama is not these things, certainly not in terms of foreign policy. Forget it. It is not happening.
Israel can and will handle Iran’s nuclear threat and survive.
America cannot survive another four years of Obama.
Long overdue for Israel to take care of business re: Iran. And while they’re at it, when the arab streets rise up, take care of them as well. And while they’re at it, deport ALL muslims within Israel and take back the lands that are rightfully theirs. The free world must stop playing nice and must FINALLY get tough with these savages. Screw obama and his admin, and the NYT’s, etc, etc. World opinion can kiss my…
It seems to me that it is the Obama administration who is using Israel for election year politics. How has Bibi in any way, shape or form interfered in our elections? That statement amounts to projection. Cohen is the same kind of sleezeball as friedman and klein, using their purported “Jewishness” to advance Obama’s anti-Israel policies. Like I said, these kind of traitorous “Jews” are Israel’s worst enemies. I’d like to have a list of all the things the Obama administration has done for Israel that it should be grateful.
Roger Cohen and the NY slimes are beyond vile. It is not the potential of a nuclear holocaust against the Jewish state that concerns them. What concerns them is the impact on Obama’s reelection prospects as the result of a potential preemptive strike by Israel.
The US has no Iranian problem? What would that jackass Miller call the last 3 decades ever since November 4,1979?
The only way Obama will actually ACT is if Iran goes up against his Sunni friends in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood and others of the same ilk. Barak Obama has a history of responding (reacting), not or initiating aggression, and only if he is assured of success without injuring his Islamic allies. Vinnie, you hit the nail on the head. However, SUCCESS is already assured in Obama’s mind, since he has never demonstrated any sign that he has ever been in error. If he fails, the responsibility will always fall on someone else.
I personally think it’s good that Israel has become more independent from the United States. Obama is not a petty man. He wouldn’t do anything that would intentionally place Israel in jeopardy, because Israel is a beacon of freedom and civilization in the Middle East that exists nowhere else there and is a reflection of Western values that much of the world holds dear. Pity the Greeks. The source of democracy has been brought low by uncontrollable debt that most Greeks didn’t even know was occurring.
Would an attack on Iran, by anybody, result in the first explosion of an atomic bomb since WW II? This is what I worry about. This sounds like a scenario out of a Robert Ludlam novel. And a caliphate in Iran? That will never happen because of the animosity between Sunnis and Shiites. Maybe it’s good for us they are at loggerheads. That detracts from their stated goal of worldwide domination.
It’s Muslims who are missing the boat here. They have a U.S. president who is open to more negotiations with them. Many believe Islamic culture is falling apart. As far as I know they have not contributed anything to world knowledge for centuries. Egypt is now preventing some U.S. citizens working for U.S. nonprofits from traveling, including the son of Ray LaHood, U.S. Transportation Secretary. Egypt’s military is getting $1.3 billion from the U.S. yearly but for how long? State Media and nightly talk shows are portraying these nonprofits as working to undermine Egyptian sovereignty. Egyptian media reported that up to 40 foreigners would be referred to court next month on charges of “illegal foreign funding”. So we watch as Egypt falls further into wretchedness. They have no money, and tourism is only 30% of what it once was.
If anyone is under the illusion that the US is a friend of Israel, read the following:
American foreign policy is, and always has been, to pressure Israel to do its will — EVEN IF that means endangering Israeli security. The above report concerning Jonathan Pollard, and the fact that the US has treated Pollard more severely than any other person under a similar charge, shows the depth of that enmity.
Israel needs to act ON ITS OWN, IN ITS OWN INTEREST, WHENEVER IT DAMNED WELL PLEASES, WITHOUT INFORMING UNCLE SAM.
Obama should be notified by the sound of exploding Iranian assets.
You are wrong, Obama IS a petty man. And he is a Jew hater.
Israel and the US seem to be the world’s first line of defense against Islamic global domination and the biggest barriers to overcome if radical Islam’s goal of world conquest is to be achieved. Is it any wonder that the US and Israel are the most hated by radical Islam?
The war against Israel is not a war for political self determination of the local Arabs in Palestine. The Two State scenario is a red herring. The Oslo Peace Process is a charade. The Arab Israeli conflict is simply a separate front in the third wave of the war of jihad against the West. It started in Palestine in the 1920s instead of the 1970s because it is closer to Egypt, the birthplace of the Muslim Brotherhood and it was not until the late 60s when it could be financed with OPEC petrodollars that the Brotherhood could mount terror further afield. See: Dore Gold, Hatred’s Kingdom. It is motivated by religious jihad not the fake secular nationalism of the fake “Palestinian People” conjured up by the Soviet Union’s disinformation masters in 1964. See: Brand, Soviet Russia, the Creators of the PLO and the Palestinian People. http://www.think-israel.org/brand.russiatheenemy.html
Israel is simply receiving blows motivated by the same animus such as that found in Robert Kennedy’s assassination in California in 1968, the attacks on our embassies in Iran, Kenya and Tanzania, the bombing of the USS Cole, the World Trade Center attack on 9/11/2000 in New York, the rail bombing in Spain in 2004, the London underground bombing in 2005 and the recent Russian subway bombings in March, 2010 and many more attacks globally. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other locations to release its energy and its desire for conquest. It is not unlikely that Spain, formerly under Islamic domination, would have been the target. According to Geert Wilders, a Member of the Dutch Parliament, “Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in America, Spain, England and Russia can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.”
President Obama and the elite in the left wing such as Cohen, MIller, Friedman, are in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the main stream media narrative of conjured up grievances of Muslim minorities. But it is clear from Al Qaeda’s own communications in Arabic with other Arab entities that if Israel were to fall, it would not bring any relief to the West. . See: Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader, (Random House, Inc.), 2007, as discussed in the Middle East Quarterly article ” How Taqiyya Alters Islam’s Rules of War Defeating Jihadist Terrorism.”
http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war,
Both Raymond Ibrahim and Geert Wilders predict: “It would not mean the terrorists would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. Just the opposite. The end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the terrorists. They would, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and easy prey. The end of Israel would not mean the end of [the US] problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everyone.” [The quote is of Wilders}
If you were representive of the average Jew, then yes, Obama would hate you.
I guess I’m the petty one.
But if Obama attacks Iran in September or October, the rise in popularity will last through the election. Most of the blowback won’t be felt until later, disaster or success. So I’m predicting that Obama will attack Iran before the election.
In any case, the best way to attack is to announce that the Iranians have attacked a US-flagged ship, preferably a warship. Or sunk a civilian vessel. Remember the Maine! For that matter, remember the Maddox! I guess it helps if the ship name begins with ‘M’.
I know nothing about the Pollard affair so I can’t comment. I see this is really dated material. 1986? As far as the U.S. pressuring Israel, every country in the world uses pressure to get some other country to do its will. War is pressure. Israel pressures the PA, the PA pressures Israel.
The United States is a very good friend of Israel. We prove it frequently. Was the combined military activity between the U.S. and Israel planned to show a united force? Why did Netanyahu cancel it?
AreaMan,
I enjoyed your comment, but I still don’t see this president initiating action against Iran.
The best argument AGAINST Israel acting on her own, though, is that I strongly suspect that, per his Saudi stooge playbook, for Israel to hit Iran on her own is what Obama really wants.
He wants Israel to do the dirty work and defang Iran’s nuke program – assuming that is really feasible – but up to that point, he’s got his Judenrat friends like Cohen going on about how destabilizing this would be.
He’s setting up Israel to take the blame for whatever military/economic calamity flows from an Israeli strike. He’ll wag his finger at Israel and say, “See??!! I TOLD you not to do this! And now, the world economy is all f***** up and it’s YOUR fault, Israel!”
The U.S. military will of course get dragged in and contain the damage, having no choice but to do so after Israel’s “reckless, irresponsible” behavior.
And so, the week after the strike, per Obama, let’s see all those GOP presidential candidates and members of Congress stick up for Israel when the public is howling about gas being $8/gal, and the stock market has dropped a few thousand points.
Plus, Obama still gets to look “tough” mopping up, getting his licks in against Iran, as Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz.
Yes, there is a strong case to be made for Israel sitting back and letting the U.S. take the lead in a military attack against Iran, when Iran’s progress on nukes/provocations against the U.S. get to the point where the U.S. has no choice but to act. But I just don’t see Obama acting. Period. No matter what. I mean, look at what he’s done so far as president. His top priority is screwing Israel…no matter how badly the U.S. gets screwed in the process.
You see, if Obama strikes in September or October, and the strike is effective, he will have helped Israel, before Israel gave into the PA. Israel will have “got over”. And Obama won’t allow that, if he can help it.
If Obama is re-elected, Israel will face the full force of Obama’s pressure to get them to knuckle under to some variation on the Saudi Surrender Plan. Election year pressures for Obama to take it easy with Israel will no longer be present.
For these reasons, if Israel is going to act, it is going to have to be before the election. The dynamics of the election year, as Cohen rightly points out, will dampen/delay Obama’s “punishment” of Israel. Assuming the strike is effective – at least good enough to keep Iran’s nuke program down through a second term of Obama (that’s my definition of “success” in this case) – then even a re-elected Obama will face an Israel that has already achieved a fait accompli with respect to Iran, thus removing the most important aspect of leverage Obama has had over Israel. With the most immediate potential existential threat removed, Israel is now free to tell Abbas, the PA, Obama, etc., to f*** off until Obama is out of office for good.
Amen to that.