First we hear that the Saudis wouldn’t be chagrined by an Israeli strike on Iran. Now we hear, although not much reported or remarked upon over the holiday weekend (h/t TNR):
An Israeli submarine sailed the Suez Canal to the Red Sea as part of a naval drill last month, defense sources said on Friday, describing the unusual maneuver as a show of strategic reach in the face of Iran.
[. . .]
A defense source said the Israeli navy held an exercise off Eilat last month and that a Dolphin took part, having traveled to the Red Sea port though Suez. Israel has a naval base at Eilat, a 10-km (6-mile) strip of coast between Egypt and Jordan, but officials say it has no submarine dock there.
“This was definitely a departure from policy,” said the source, who declined to give further details on the drill or say whether the Dolphin had undergone Egyptian inspections in the canal, through which the submarine sailed unsubmerged.
This might be a wake-up call to Tehran:
Another Israeli defense source with extensive naval experience said the drill “showed that we can far more easily access the Indian Ocean, and the Gulf, than before.”
But the source added: “If indeed our subs are capable of doing to Iran what they are believed to be capable of doing, then surely this is a capability that can be put into action from the Mediterranean?”
It looks as though Hillary Clinton and the president have had the “linkage” concept backward, as some of us have long argued. In their book, an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement was the price to be paid for Arab co-operation with Israel on the Iranian threat. But that seems not to be the case. In fact, the Arab states and Israel have a common objective in limiting Iranian hegemony in the region, curtailing Iranian support for terrorist groups, and preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. And all sorts of co-ordination and productive mutual defense activities seem to be proceeding while Obama continues his search for the key to unlock that magical ”peace process” (and for the Grand Bargain with the mullahs).
Iran, contrary to the Clinton-Obama view, has become a motivating factor for Israel and the Arab states to leave aside the non-existent “peace process” and deal with something far more critical — an existential threat to the region. And once again, just as on the response to the Iranian uprising, America seems to be trailing or playing the role of a mute bystander, rather than leading the international response.
Chas Freeman is clearly a skrewball and bigot. He hangs out with LaRauchians like Richard Dreyfuss and sees eye to eye with conspiracy theorists such as Norman Finkelstein.
The real problem however, centers on Admiral Blair, who chose Freeman to be one of his top analysts. Moreover, the admiral publicly defended his choice and it was revealed that Freeman is his personal friends.
What does this say about Blair’s judgment? Who befriends a creature like Freeman; what kind of vetting was done of our national intelligence director?
Granted, this point has already made by many, not least by me who wondered about Blair early on when Gabriel Schoenfeld and Marty Perez first spotlighted Freeman’s partialities.
But this Blair disclosure needs to be kept in sight. He has given strong evidence of either very poor judgment or real perversity.
There are only two logical possibilities regarding plausible explanations for someone like Freeman to have been proposed for such a sensitive position. One is that it’s amateur hour with the Obama administration in over its head on too many fronts to count; the other being that Obama intends to radically transform – or attempt to transform – American foreign policy and traditional American alliances in such manner as to betray just how far left leaning/leveraged (blame America first) his world view is.
Both of these explanations – albeit according to differing portions – derive a good deal of support from Sunday’s televised interview with Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes.
My own (decidedly provisional) reading at the moment is that Obama is an erstwhile leftist where it comes to both domestic and foreign policy. Hearing him last night inveigh against Cheney for making “the Arab and Muslim world” mad at America for defending itself was an eye opening experience. Before this, I never could have imagined an American president coming off this way post 9/11. A friend of mine said something that is beginning to ring true: Obama, for all relevant intents and purposes, might as well be Dennis Kucinich with a higher IQ and better wardrobe. I’m beginning to agree with this assessment.
One AND two.
(But mostly two.)
Quibble: For “blame America first,” replace “blame Israel first and America for ‘kowtowing’ to it”.
So that for this administration, “thinking” outside the box (heh), America will NOT, repeat, will NOT ‘kowtow’ to Israel (even if it means that this would be against America’s, and the world’s wider, interests, pace 1935-1939/1941; though one must keep in mind that the definition of “America’s interest” will be, precisely, “not kowtowing to Israel”).
In other words: Demonstrating (or attempting to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Israel’s impossible-to-satisfy ‘partners in peace’, along with all those other sophisticates who perceive that Israel is the reason why there is no peace in the ME) that America is no longer the “unqualified supporter” of Israel will be the lynch pin of this administration’s foreign policy.
And the hell with everything else. (Since we know that solving the Israel / Palestine impasse is the world’s most pressing problem, something, by the way, of which Iran is also cognizant….)
This is the main message of the Charles Freeman nomination. And, as expected, the ever-useful Israel Lobby was trotted out as the prime culprit, the sole culprit for having torpedoed the administration’s attempt to institute a “novel,” “progressive,” “pragmatic” foreign policy, at least for this round.
The ever-useful Israel Lobby.
Crikey, there’s no “Commentary of the Day” in those responses to Bromund’s inane whinge.
Though Bromund reveals the narrow and tyrannical mindset of the armchair Zionists who populate this blog – a President cannot possibly include in his administration appointees who disagree with the policies he took to the election – surely there is no precedent! And what could be the value in that?
The Leftist always retreats to formalism and scapegoating when his aims become too evident: he just wants a diverse administration! What’s wrong with hearing some other points of view! Anyway, what are you, some kind of Zionist? The obvious point gets overlooked: the man picked as “arbiter of US intelligence estimates” is no inteliigence professional, committed to reviewing and renewing intelligence gathering and analysis, wherever that may lead policy-wise; rather, he is a man of very fixed, very idiosyncratic (to put it generously) views, who we can expect will want intelligence to say very specific things. And, further, we can assume these are things that Obama himself will be very happy to hear, and probably also assumes is the real truth, hidden by the nefarious activities of the “Lobby.” In other words, it’s not so hard to “connect the dots” here, as the phrase once went.
I do not understand why is it either or. Obama is completely unqualified and his administration is absolutely incompetent AND they do not have commitment to wining in Afghanistan or to anything that is good for America. What did you expect from community organizer without any relevant experience who’s only secret is hit birth certificate, LSAT scores and medical history.
The longer yum-yum will suck his thumb(s), the more toxic the product will be.
What’s your justification for calling Norman Finkelstein a conspiracy theorist?
I can’t find a petition signed by Finkelstein or Freeman on the NYRB website (nybooks.com)
And their archives don’t list an issue for February 26, 2009 …
Is it possible that Bromond meant a different issue of the NYRB or a different publication?
Thanks,
Adam