The U.S. is harder on its ally than on Iran’s nuclear program.
WSJ
Barack Obama is fond of insisting that he “has Israel’s back.” Maybe he should mention that to ?the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
In remarks to journalists in London quoted by the Guardian, General Martin Dempsey warned that any Israeli attack on Iran would “clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran’s nuclear programs.” He also said economic sanctions on Iran were having an effect and needed more ?time to work, but that the good they were doing “could be undone if [Iran] was attacked prematurely.”
And to underscore the firmness of his opposition to an Israeli strike, the Chairman added that “I don’t want to be complicit if they choose to do it.”
?We don’t know what exactly Gen. Dempsey thinks American non-complicity might entail in the ?event of a strike. Should the Administration refuse to resupply Israel with jets and bombs, or condemn an Israeli strike at the U.N. Nor do we know if the General was conducting freelance diplomacy or sending a signal from an Administration that feels the same way but doesn’t want to say so during a political season.
Whatever the case, the remarks were counterproductive and oddly timed, with this week’s report by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran’s nuclear programs haven’t been ?slowed in the least by U.S. or international sanctions. In fact, they are accelerating.
Iran has now installed 2,140 centrifuges at its underground Fordo facility near the city of Qom. Its stockpile of uranium enriched to 20%—or 87% of the enrichment needed to reach bomb-grade levels—has grown from effectively zero to some 200 kilograms in a year. Only 50 more kilograms of 20% uranium are needed to produce a bomb, and that’s saying nothing of Iran’s ?additional large stockpiles of reactor-grade uranium that can also be enriched to higher levels ?of purity. ?
?Administration officials have also repeatedly told the media that they aren’t entirely sure if ?Iran really intends to build a bomb.
We’ll grant that ultimate intentions are usually unknowable, especially in closed societies such as Iran’s.
Yet as the IAEA noted, “the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.” These activities, by the way, “continued after 2003,” according ?to the report.
This puts paid for the umpteenth time the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that misleadingly claimed the contrary.
No wonder the Israelis are upset—at the U.S. Administration. It’s one thing to hear from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he wants to wipe you off the map: At least it has the ring of honesty. It’s quite another to hear from President Obama that he has your back, even as his Administration tries to sell to the public a make-believe world in which Iran’s nuclear intentions are potentially peaceful, sanctions are working and diplomacy hasn’t failed after three and half years.
The irony for the Administration is that its head-in-the-sand performance is why many Israeli decision-makers believe they had better strike sooner than later. Not only is there waning confidence that Mr. Obama is prepared to take military action on his own, but there’s also a fear that a re-elected President Obama will take a much harsher line on an Israeli attack than he would before the first Tuesday in November.
If Gen. Dempsey or Administration officials really wanted to avert an Israeli strike, they would seek to reassure Jerusalem that the U.S. is under no illusions about the mullahs’ nuclear goals—or about their proximity to achieving them. They’re doing the opposite.
Since coming to office, Obama Administration policy toward Israel has alternated between animus and incompetence. We don’t know what motivated Gen. Dempsey’s outburst, but a President who really had Israel’s back would publicly contradict it.
:
@ Laura:
LAURA HAÏ!
Notice the right way to write “HI”! Your comments are a bit pessimistic. I live in France and Europeans are just starting to react towards the dangers Israel and the rest of the Free World is facing. Need I be clearer?
Where Bibi is concerned, it’s absolutely true that he’s been over-diplomatic. Not a coward as someone called him.
This time the situation in the ME is much more delicate than previously. Religious fanaticism knows no borders or barriers. The world risks a serious conflagration of the religious kind. And that is deadlier than bombing where the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ are minced together…
There are sleeper cells everywhere in Europe and the USA. Personally, I’m still mourning 9/11. We risk in Europe to see all that is our heritage go up in dust. Every now and then we have an serious alert.
When the moment is propitious, they’ll take care of Iran.
RUBEN
The General is expressing his view that Israel should not attack Iran, which Obama and I and multitudes of others agree with. That’s all.
I’m reading Biblical Archaeology Review and hope you can answer my questions. How is a First Fruits sacrificed to G-d, and does this mean that a Jew cannot walk through his garden/orchard, pick a newly ripened strawberry, tomato or fig and eat it on the spot before a sacrifice is made?
Regarding not to produce graven images, does this mean a present day Jew cannot paint a picture of a shepherd and his flock? Or carve likenesses of animals or create pottery animals? I don’t think there’s a danger anymore of anyone worshiping these items. Marc Chagall painted people and animals. Is he a sinner?
Could the name Ben Ben Ben be a legitimate Israeli name?
On my http://www.allenzhertz.com website there are several articles about President Obama, including a November 2009 posting containing lengthy line-by-line Israel analysis of his June 4, 2009 Cairo speech. Any person who really understands what President Obama then said cannot possibly believe that he is anything but a dangerous opponent of Israel. And since the Cairo speech, President Obama has consistently moved the big pieces on the board to set Israel up for disaster and defeat. I would be in complete despair but for the circumstance that, in my heart, I know that both Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defence Minister Barak completely understand this bitter Obama reality and will do what they think best under these specific circumstances. I am also consoled because it seems that Mitt Romney also understands what President Obama has been doing to Israel. And here we now see that the Wall Street Journal too gets the point. So what about prominent Jewish Americans like Alan Dershowitz and Jeffrey Goldberg who have directly spoken to President Obama? When do they finally wake up and take a look at reality? And, the same question applies with respect to all Jewish Americans who say that they care about Jews, Judaism, the Jewish People and Israel.
“The WSJ Headline”: “Why doesn’t Israel trust Obama?”
We have an empirical fact: Israel distrusts Obama .. yet has taken no action to defend itself in spite of that distrust.
How do we explain this? The answer is Israel’s presuppositions about Obama are faulty.
Let me explain it this way. When do we say a theory is a good theory? Scientists say a theory a good theory if it explains the facts. Why does it explain the facts? It explains the facts because the presuppositions of the theory are correct.
Proposition I: Israel distrusts Obama yet takes no action. The theory to explain this statement presupposes Israel believes the Obama Administration is mindful and attentive of Israel’s predicament and Obama feels Iran is no immediate threat. By taking no action, the theory says Israel acts as if it trusts Obama.
Proposition II: Israel distrusts Obama and takes action. The theory to explain this statement presupposes that Obama with known personal Muslim not Jewish predilections personally believes together with the Secretary of State and their supporting advisors that Israel’s demise will not affect America’s vital interests in the Middle East and may, indeed, be enhanced.
I think if one held the presupposition of proposition II it will explain the empirical fact of distrust more correctly and be a guide to the correct action. The only ironic distasteful quandary is the thought that a strike by Israel before the election may enhance Obama’s chance of being elected, to Israel’s detriment.
I am afraid to repeat myself but the US administration will not allowed a strike on Iran. No need to explain to what extent the O. administration will go. But they will go as far as it takes! Ur guess is as good as mine.
Bibi got the message. That may be the reason of the shouting between Shapiro and him.
The least damaging solution would be a naval blocus of Iran, but even that is not in the cards. The O will accept the production of “low grade U” (it is already “medium grade”) by Iran and take its chances on blackmailing Il into silence.
North Korea is an example to follow! They are unable to build a rocket for nuke payload!!!
Pr. O believes that he can “reason” the Mullahs!
After all, the US is still the mighty power on this Earth! Not on the next. That is up to “Allah”!!!!!!!!!
Methinks Dempsey, who I did respect for awhile had better change his name to “Von Rundstedt”…It fits him much better, since its obvious he can only follow orders from “Der Fuhrer”…
Some personal observations:
The USA, spends more on it’s military than all of the nations of the world combined. One might think that there would be more bang for the buck.
One might think that the American people would demand a winning performance after sacrificing their economy to the Mil Industrial complex and very narrow corporate and political interests for the better part of a half century. The fact is that the inputs far outweigh credible outputs and by any standard the Law of diminishing returns seems to be the result. The concept of winning seems to have been expunged from American military and strategic thinking since the end of WWII. Israel has caught the American bug but without the prerequisite ability to shape and execute an independent political and strategic military concept.
America can get away with declaring political and military losses in the field victories but not Israel. Our losses really hurt and are so apparent that it’s impossible to spin it like the Americans.
Masters always grow to hate and disrespect their vassals especially when they become less useful. Israel for most of the American Political, Corporate and military establishments is viewed based on their perceived interests unfavorably even by some expendible.
Remember: “THE BUSINESS OF AMERICA IS BUSINESS” Not moral fortitude. Wars are started and continued for economic gain by those same interests.
Israel can never compete in that arena. Jews world wide have lost most of their economic edge to Mega Global Corporate interests and Arab money. Especially when the Jews are not united and even supporting our detractors and enemies.
Israels only chance to beat the odds stacked against her is to become [albeit at a heavy cost], politically independent which would dictate the cessation of being Americas or anybody’s Vassal.
Israel Must become a Crazy or MAD State, threatening nuclear destruction the whole of western civilization if we are attacked by anyone even a conventional attack on us. The world can threaten us economically and militarily but we can threaten back and there is no power under heaven that can stop us were we to make GOOD on those threats.
Should the Arabs and Iranians decide to launch their final Jihad against the Jewish State, it’s only fair that ALL weapons’ supplying nations also “Share the Pain.”
There is no point to having tactical nuclear weapons if you won’t consider using them even in the face of an existential threat and the betrayal of Obama’s promise to have Israel’s back. The nuclear bombing of Japan saved millions of lives- most of them Japanese. The same will hold for Iran unless Khameni nukes Israel first.
The world is ready to sacrifice the Jews once again to appease madmen. Israel’s very existence is at stake regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons. America is not under that kind of existential threat so I will not appologize for standing with Israel even if that means opposing my own government. If people, including conservatives, want to construe that as putting Israel’s interests ahead of America’s, then so be it. As I said, this is a matter of life and death for the Jewish state. So I hope they bomb Iran. If we don’t want to be involved then remove our military from the Middle East.
Israel doesn’t trust Obama? DUH! And even if Israel doesn’t trust Obama, Bibi either trusts him or is timorous and will do whatever the affirmative action Hitler wants him to do.
Look foward to a nuclear Iran very soon. Thanks to Obama’s venality and Bibi’s cowardice.