It’s Lucy and the football, Iran-style. After ostensibly tough talk about preventing Iran from going nuclear, the Obama administration acquiesced this week to yet another round of talks with the mullahs.
This, 14 months after the last group-of-six negotiations collapsed in Istanbul because of blatant Iranian stalling and unseriousness. Nonetheless, the new negotiations will be both without precondition and preceded by yet more talks to decide such trivialities as venue.
These negotiations don’t just gain time for a nuclear program about whose military intent the International Atomic Energy Agency is issuing alarming warnings. They make it extremely difficult for Israel to do anything about it (while it still can), lest Israel be universally condemned for having aborted a diplomatic solution.
If the administration were serious about achievement rather than appearance, it would have warned that this was the last chance for Iran to come clean and would have demanded a short timeline. After all, President Obama insisted on deadlines for the Iraq withdrawal, the Afghan surge and Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Why leave these crucial talks open-ended when the nuclear clock is ticking?
This re-engagement comes immediately after Obama’s campaign-year posturing about Iran’s nukes. Speaking Sunday in front of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), he warned that “Iran’s leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States.” This just two days after he’d said (to the Atlantic) of possible U.S. military action, “I don’t bluff.” Yet on Tuesday he returned to the very engagement policy that he admits had previously failed.
Won’t sanctions make a difference this time, however? Sanctions are indeed hurting Iran economically. But when Obama’s own director of national intelligence was asked by the Senate intelligence committee whether sanctions had any effect on the course of Iran’s nuclear program, the answer was simple: No. None whatsoever.
Obama garnered much AIPAC applause by saying that his is not a containment policy but a prevention policy. But what has he prevented? Keeping a coalition of six together is not prevention. Holding talks is not prevention. Imposing sanctions is not prevention.
Prevention is halting and reversing the program. Yet Iran is tripling its uranium output, moving enrichment facilities deep under a mountain near Qom and impeding IAEA inspections of weaponization facilities.
So what is Obama’s real objective? “We’re trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel,” an administration official told The Post in the most revealing White House admission since “leading from behind.”
Revealing and shocking. The world’s greatest exporter of terror (according to the State Department), the systematic killer of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, the self-declared enemy that invented “Death to America Day” is approaching nuclear capability — and the focus of U.S. policy is to prevent a democratic ally threatened with annihilation from preempting the threat?
Indeed it is. The new open-ended negotiations with Iran fit well with this strategy of tying Israel down. As does Obama’s “I have Israel’s back” reassurance, designed to persuade Israel and its supporters to pull back and outsource to Obama what for Israel are life-and-death decisions.
Yet 48 hours later, Obama says at a news conference that this phrase is just a historical reference to supporting such allies as Britain and Japan — contradicting the intended impression he’d given AIPAC that he was offering special protection to an ally under threat of physical annihilation.
To AIPAC he declares that “no Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map, and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel’s destruction” and affirms “Israel’s sovereign right to make its own decisions .?.?. to meet its security needs.”
And then he pursues policies — open-ended negotiations, deceptive promises of tough U.S. backing for Israel, boasts about the efficacy of sanctions, grave warnings about “war talk” — meant, as his own official admitted, to stop Israel from exercising precisely that sovereign right to self-protection.
Yet beyond these obvious contradictions and walk-backs lies a transcendent logic: As with the Keystone pipeline postponement, as with the debt-ceiling extension, as with the Afghan withdrawal schedule, Obama wants to get past Nov. 6 without any untoward action that might threaten his reelection.
For Israel, however, the stakes are somewhat higher: the very existence of a vibrant nation and its 6 million Jews. The asymmetry is stark. A fair-minded observer might judge that Israel’s desire to not go gently into the darkness carries higher moral urgency than the political future of one man, even if he is president of the United States.
Vinnie,
From your mouth to God’s ears, as they say (except for the israeli casualties). If the goals are recognized en masse, then the desired result may be thwarted. I hope that Netanyahu can resist the pressures.
Yes, Obama is an ideologue and thus dangerous. I believe that Obama is unstable, and thus dangerous. When Joe Biden gave his speech after Ted Kennedy dies, he kept repeating the phrase that with Kennedy it was NEVER ABOUT HIM; and he is vengeful. With Obama is it always about him. When you see photos of world leaders with Obama, they look wary.
Lily
Lily,
Unless Ron Paul runs third party, Obama is not getting re-elected.
Even if Ron Paul DOES run third party, if he can be exposed for the Islamist stooge I firmly believe him to be – in cahoots with the Bad Guys to deliberately get Obama re-elected via a third-party run by Paul – then Obama STILL won’t get re-elected. His record is terrible. The Saudi-controlled media will try to dress it up , but you can put lipstick on a pig…it is still a pig. Complete control of the media in the old USSR could not save the collapse of that regime, and our corrupt media cannot save Obama.
If Israel strikes Iran on their own and it creates a big messy war in which Israel suffers a lot of casualties, and Obama is perceived to have helped create this state of affairs through his prior restraint of Israel, warning Iran of Israel’s intentions, etc., etc., this will HURT Obama politically. Yes, he’ll try to say “tsk, tsk, I told you so”, but the American public won’t buy this. He’ll be perceived by more than not of having let down a key U.S. ally (and most Americans perceive Israel this way; polling bears this out). He’ll suffer for this politically (which is nothing compared to the actual human suffering in Israel; I’d say even the blood of the Fogel family is on Obama’s hands).
Thus, I harbor at least a guarded optimism, based on the above and my earlier posts in this thread, that Obama will lose. Hopefully, the larger part of his what he really deserves in terms of punishment will be in the next world, as it clearly won’t be in this one. [I have no doubt that he’ll promptly retire to a most cushy sinecure as chair of some Middle East Studies Department or somesuch at some major, prestigious, Saudi-corrupted university – there are hardly any other kind nowadays – filling the heads of his charges with all manner of his nonsense and getting paid handsomely for the same…when he’s not on vacation in Spain or Hawaii or whatever.]
…But even if Obama is a one-term president as I predict, he’ll still be a pain in the a**. He’s in perfect position to take the place of that old twit, Jimmy Carter, who is very old now, and probably won’t be around much longer. Obama will then be the “Ex-President-Israel-Basher-In-Chief”. He’ll be even worse than Carter; Carter was only in it for the bucks, but Obama is a “true believer” in the Islamist nonsense. He’ll be even more highly motivated and bitter than Carter was. Carter blamed the Jews for losing in 1980; you can bet Obama will be doing the same this time ON STEROIDS. Black-Jewish relations in the U.S. are never going to recover, probably not in my lifetime, at least (I’m about the same age as Obama).
“IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE GOAL, LOOK AT THE RESULTS.”
Goal One: ISRAEL IS TO DO THE JOB OF THE US (and the rest of the world). The US avoids another costly war against (or for, as in Kosovo and Kuwait – it matters not) yet another Muslim nation. The world breathes a sign of relief.
Goal Two: ISRAEL HAS TO BE ON THE ROPES SO THERE ARE GREAT AND POSSIBLY FATAL CONSEQUENCES. The lateness, the delaying of weaponry etc., and the leaking of information etc., ensure huge Israeli casualties. Israel is condemned whist help is provided to the Iranian people.
Goal Three: Obama will then say, tsk, tsk, I told them so. He will portray himself as the voice of a wise leader. OBAMA IS REELECTED, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE ARABISTS IN THE US STATE DEPARTMENT CAN CONTINUE. The Saudis can then continue to influence American policy and congressional representatives. Oil delivery is assured. The power of the oil companies (and their friends) is maintained.
Sadly, when all is said and done, Jews will continue with their “Dayanu’s” and add “we survived the …” to their proud list.
Lily
They are “post-Jewish.”
Yes, by default, the leader of a tiny little country in the Middle East becomes the leader of the free world.
The “Free World” is in an advanced state of decay, and only Israel can possibly lead them out.
The only other government worth its mettle is the one of Canada and they’re not currently on the front line, like Israel.
An amazing state of affairs.
I still can’t, for the life of me, understand how we elected this character obama. Even worse, I can’t understand how half the Jews (or more) that I come in contact with plan to vote for him again.
Foxman should have heart palpitations. Maybe more. It’s time for him to exit from the scene…and time for his once-proud, but now moribund and ineffectual ADL to close up shop quietly.
It serves no useful purpose anymore, it avoids the biggest confrontations with those who are enemies of Jews, and simply provides an unwieldy, over-funded network of do-nothing offices.
What’s with that tolerance conference held every year in D.C.? What does it accomplish? Can the ADL point to tangible outcomes?
Pro-Israel upstarts and independent pro-Israel bloggers do the job that the ADL once did–and do it more effectively.
Is ADL still squandering its money on meaningless full page ads in the NY Times and Washington Post? No one reads newspapers anymore. When they did, a special analysis done at or for the San Francisco Jewish Community Relations Council back in the ’70’s questioned the value of such ads. They mainly mollified and comforted the more anxious among the pro-Israel and Jewish community. Such ads were a wasteful outlay of thousands of dollars which had limited utility in shaping public opinion in the direction we wanted.
Ben Epstein would get on the horn in a conference call and push the staff to go out and capitalize on the ads or some other PR “event” to have another round at contributors.
It was all about raising money.
I agree they are cowards, I just conceded they are cowards.
First, the importance of the Jewish vote is exaggerated. We’re only 1.7% of the population. Yes, in terms of campaign contributions and activism, our influence extends beyond our numbers, but our influence over elections in the big picture here is debatable at best, probably close to negligible.
Jewish Americans have been the most consistent and reliable Democratic voting bloc outside of blacks since the end of WW2.
If we were really that decisive, no Republicans would ever have won the White House since that time.
I can’t think of a SINGLE election since WW2, that the Jews had a decisive influence either way. Carter, who was an anti-Semite in any event, blamed the Jews for his defeat in 1980 against Reagan. Reagan got the highest percentage of the Jewish vote since WW2 up to now, 35%. That means 65% still voted for Carter. Who blamed the Jews anyway.
Jews LOVED Adlai Stevenson…who lost.
Jews HATED Nixon, who won not once, but twice.
No, I don’t think Obama is going to get 65% of the Jewish vote. He won’t get more than 60% tops, and I’d bet even less than that (he deserves ZERO). For all the real difference that is going to make either way.
In my neck of the woods, I find VERY few Jews who will defend Obama.
Obama is an incumbent. Most swing voters – the ones who decide elections – vote on the record of the incumbent. Obama’s record STINKS.
He’s got three things going for him.
1 – Obama presided over the death of Osama. But at an approximately similar point in the administration of Bush #41, we witnessed the spectacular feat of American arms known as “Desert Storm”. That didn’t get Bush #41 re-elected. The economy did him in. The economy is worse today than it was then.
2 – Obama got his health care bill passed. That was historic – despite the fact that Biden said so. But it won’t take full effect until 2014, if it isn’t gutted by the courts by then. Most Americans didn’t want this anyway. Net effect: Zero at best, and may well hurt Obama among independents.
3 – Obama can make a propaganda case that he “saved” the auto industry, via his bailouts of GM and Chrysler, who are doing great now. This is his most potent piece of re-election ammunition. But Ford is doing great, too, and they didn’t take any federal money. If GM and Chrysler filed Chapter 11, they might very well have done OK anyway…at the expense of their unions, which was what the bailout was really about anyway. This issue is good for some campaign ads, but it CAN be deconstructed.
That’s it. Other than the above, Obama has NOTHING. In terms of foreign policy, overall, he makes Carter look like a tower of strength, resolve, and wisdom by comparison. On the domestic front, he’s run up more debt than any president in history besides Bush #43, and more debt in one term than any president, ever, and all he has to show for this is GM and Chrysler, the necessity for which – in terms of the need for federal $$$ – is debatable anyway. Unemployment is as high as when he took office, and already rising oil/gas prices will keep it from getting any better. Income is stagnant. The housing market is still in the tank. We’re running up massive trade deficits. He’s a failure, all around.
If that weren’t enough, Obama is also vulnerable in terms of numerous scandals – e.g., “Fast and Furious”, Solyndra, etc.
There is a LOT of ammunition a challenger can use against Obama.
Either Romney or Santorum, once they lock up the nomination and can focus on campaigning against Obama, should be able to beat Obama handily if they run a minimally competent campaign against Obama’s record. AS LONG AS IT IS A TWO-WAY RACE.
My main concern is that Ron Paul will run third party and fracture the vote, deliberately handing Obama another term in office, just to screw Israel. Some say that Paul won’t do this so as not to sacrifice the career of his son, Rand, in the Senate. I hope people who say that are right, but I’m not convinced of this. If he runs, the only chance we have then is if something comes out to discredit Paul such that the ten or fifteen percent of the vote the conventional wisdom says he’d get, is whittled down to an irrelevant one or two percent.
You are correct but will never get the political partisans on this blog to concede such.
Obama is only the last one of quite a few American presidents (Carter,Reagan,Bush 1,Clinton,Bush 2) who were unwilling and fearful to counter Irans terrorism and the development of it’s nuke program…they all had not been commanders in chief but COWARDS!!!!!!!!!!
AMEN!
It drives me crazy when Bibi is diplomatic. I wish he would just say it like it really is and do what must be done. How can Bibi pretend things are good in any respect with Obama or think O is doing anything but trying to stall Israel until it is too late? Obama hates the whites, the jews esp, and the USA. He loves the muslims and is trying to help them in any way he can. I wish we would just throw him out of office asap. Obama understands perfectly well why Israel does not have a choice, but is trying to trap Israel until Iran attacks. I will bet if and when Iran attacks the USA Obama and his family are out of the country. How ridiculous for Obama to think Israelis are stupid enough to give him warning when Israel will attack Iran. O would let Iran know in a split second. AIPAC is sort of to the left in their support of Israel. Why did AIPAC invite Obama again this year? Why did they ever invite him to speak? He speaks lies and some there were applauding. Not very many and not too strongly, but applauding. Maybe it was leftist plants in the auddience. We all know there are many leftist jews even during this extreme administration. I would think all jews would be intelligent enough to see what Obama is up to. Lord knows, many Christians do. ANd I mean Lord (g-d) knows.
Krauthammer’s piece is good up to a point, but it misses the larger picture.
Re-election is actually a side issue.
The most important reason Obama does not want Israel to hit Iran, is that it is vital for Iran’s program to progress to the point where Israel no longer has the ability to stop it, and only the U.S. can.
Once that point is reached, Obama will have seemingly infinite leverage in forcing Israel to capitulate to the PA, and accept the so-called “Arab Peace Initiative” (nee, Saudi Peace [surrender] Plan).
I believe that Obama, per his Saudi programmers, really DOES want to stop Iran from getting nukes. But his first priority is to deliver Israel to the PA. Once he does that, THEN he will be willing to act against Iran. He can’t give up his most important element of leverage.
At this point, the Saudis, who’ve brainwashed him for years via their paid lackeys in academia for decades to care about the Palestinians above all else, can’t exactly come back to him now and say, “Forget about the Palestinians for right now. It really isn’t so important. CAN YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IRAN ALREADY???!!!”
He wouldn’t listen to them anyway, even if they did that. Kind of like the HAL computer in that old Kubrick flick, “2001”. He’s on “autopilot” now.
That’s the real issue here, above and beyond re-election.
If Israel hits Iran and it is effective – I’d define “effective” as setting them back at least five years – then Obama no longer has any leverage. Israel can tell him to go screw until he’s out of office for good, even if he does get re-elected.
Which he won’t, as long as Ron Paul doesn’t run third party. Unfortunately, I think Ron Paul will do this – at the behest of Saudi or Iranian (or both) sponsors – just to get Obama re-elected. This will work, as long as Paul is not discredited in some way between now and November that will make his run irrelevant.
We can only hope, at this point. Hope that Bibi gives Obama the finger, and that the strike works.
Anyone who has seen The Godfather is familiar with Don Carleone’s addage, “Keep your friends close; keep your enemies cloaser.” Obamao considers Israel the enemy and attempts to keep it close. But the veneer is very thin. And anyone who wants to can see through the deception. Obamao backs Islamic jihad and Iran, and is decidedly against Israel and the Jewish people.
Only a liberal Jews, blinded by their zingoistism and false messianic belief in this shvartzeh, buy into his blatant lies and deceptions. Besides, liberal Jews are not really Jews; they are liberal/secular socialists of Jewish ancestry. There is nothing “Jewish” about them. Eating lox and cream cheese on a bagel does not make you a Jew.
If Obamas position is as described then it is dangerous for BB to diplomatically pretend in public that all is alright between his and Obama’s positions. It lulls US jews into a false sense of security. US jews use this as their reasoning to vote for obama: if its ok with a right wing Israeli PM who are we to say differently. US Jews being predominantly leftist vote for the social policies of the democratic party unless they believe there is an existential danger. I am not talking about those at the aipac meeting who probably are more involved but rather the Jew on the street.
These two films may help:
Chips
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izw8wddjqAw&feature=youtu.be
Daylight: The story of Obama and Israel
http://www.committeeforisrael.com/
President Obama still does not understand why Netanyahu does not have a choice and will not give in. It was clearly stated in an article by Ari Shavit in Ha’aretz:
“A few years ago Netanyahu held an in-depth discussion with Middle East expert Bernard Lewis. At the end of the talk he was convinced that if the ayatollahs obtained nuclear weapons, they would use them. Since that day, Netanyahu seems convinced that we are living out a rerun of the 1930s.”
Here is what Bernard Lewis says: During the Cold War, both the Soviet Union and the United States had nuclear weapons but both knew that the other was very unlikely to use them. Because of what was known at the time as MAD—mutually assured destruction. MAD meant that each side knew that if it used a nuclear weapon the other would retaliate and both sides would be devastated. And that’s why the whole time during the Cold War, even at the worst times, there was not much danger of anyone using a nuclear weapon,” says Mr. Lewis. But the mullahs “are religious fanatics with an apocalyptic mindset. In Islam, as in Christianity and Judaism, there is an end-of-times scenario—and they think it’s beginning or has already begun.” So “mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent—it’s an inducement.” See MAD is Dead http://www.madisdead.blogspot.com
On May 7, 1940 Leo Amery spoke in the Commons, attacking Neville Chamberlain’s government, quoting Oliver Cromwell: “You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”
On May 10, 1940, Winston Churchill became Prime Minister.
There is nobody to play Leo Amery’s role today. But it is obvious that Netanyahu is destined to play Churchill’s role and become the leader of the Free World, and with that happening Obama does not stand a chance on Nov 7.
The Republican Jewish Coaltion and Emergency Committee For Israel have already broadcast TV ads warning Obama: “THE JEWISH COMMUNITY WILL REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER”. This is causing Abe Foxman to have heart palpitations and neo-Nazi groups are using the adds as recruitment. An ad on the virulently anti-semitic site VNN reads: “THE JEWS DON’T WANT OBAMA TO CARE ABOUT AMERICA. THEY ONLY WANT HIM TO CATER TO THE JEWS!!!”. Things are getting hinky. The irony of course is that Obama is very likely to win the same 70% of the Jewish vote total he won in 2008. Maybe 65% at the worst. Romney or Santorum are lousy candidates. Obama’s re-election chances are extremely good.
That statement would ring true if our PM was not BB, our President not Peres and our DM not barak!!!
Covering Israel’s Back?
Obama told AIPAC: “I’ve Got Israel’s Back”.
< sarcasm >Yes, there’s an assurance you can take to the bank.
President Obama will give Simon Peres the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the United States’ highest civilian honor.
You remember Shimon Peres the guy who had this to say:
Interviewer: What happened in this election?
Peres : “We lost.”
Interviewer: Who is we?
Peres : “We, that is the Israelis.”
Interviewer: And who won?
Peres : “All those who do not have an Israeli mentality.”
Interviewer: And who are they?
Peres : “Call it the Jews.”
This will be as important as Mr. President’s own peace prize!