In his 20 months in office, Barack Obama hasn’t had many foreign-policy triumphs to crow about. But yesterday when he spoke to the United Nations General Assembly, for once the president could cite an actual diplomatic achievement for his administration. Russia’s announcement that it will not honor the contract it had signed to sell S-300 missiles to Iran showed that efforts undertaken by Obama to sweet-talk Moscow out of acting as an enabler for the rogue regime in Tehran have not been completely in vain.
Stopping the sale of these weapons had been an urgent issue for both the United States and Israel. Had they been deployed by the Iranians, those missiles would have acted as the centerpiece of an air-defense system that would have posed a formidable obstacle to any effort to knock out the Iranians’ nuclear-weapons program from the air. Russia’s willingness to join in the ban on arms sales to Iran puts some teeth in the otherwise mild sanctions that the international community has placed on Tehran.
But despite this setback, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can’t be too downhearted about the way things have been going for his despotic regime during the UN jamboree in New York this week. Just when the Russian announcement gave Obama something to brag about, the administration was sending signals that it was prepared to step back from its recent tough talk about bringing Iran to heel.
The New York Times reports that: “At a meeting today with France, Britain, Germany, Russia and China, diplomats planned what one senior American official described to reporters as a ‘phased approach’ that would include reviving an earlier proposal to supply Iran with enriched fuel for a research reactor in Tehran in return for Iran’s shipping the bulk of its stockpile of uranium to Russia and France. ‘We’re prepared to engage and see if we can’t produce what would be a confidence-building step,’ said a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity.”
Thus, just when it seemed as if he were making some real progress on isolating Iran, Obama sends Ahmadinejad a signal that he is in no real trouble after all. Dating back to the Bush administration’s own feckless diplomacy on Iran’s nukes, Tehran has happily exploited the West’s efforts to appease it. Every initiative that sought to cajole or bribe the Islamist tyranny to back away from its nuclear ambitions has been welcomed by the ayatollahs. They were only too happy to string European or American diplomats along to buy more time in order to get closer to the day when they could announce their possession of a nuclear device. Last year, the Iranians agreed to a porous deal that called for the export of their uranium stockpile. But then, when it suited them, they repudiated it, leaving Obama and the rest of his foreign-policy team with egg on their faces. As with the rest of Obama’s pathetic attempt to “engage” Iran, such initiatives only convinced Tehran that the new American president was not to be taken seriously. With non-military trade with Russia still booming and with neighboring Turkey’s Islamic government providing Ahmadinejad with a reliable ally and trading partner, the Iranians understand that the UN sanctions are inconvenient but not crippling. And so long as Obama is still wedded to the absurd idea that he can talk them out of their nuclear plans, the Iranians have to be thinking that it will soon be too late for anyone to stop them from gaining a nuclear weapon.
See this article on the Generals disavowing the video and claiming it employed dishonest editing tactics:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017470356&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
I must have missed that mountain evidence that Barry has good intentions toward Israel. His longtime friends and associates certainly don’t. Maybe now that he’s met some Clinton-era machers he’s found his inner Zionist. (The Peres variety to be sure.) And I’m sure Axelrod made sure there were no PLO flags anywhere in his office.
Israelis supporting Obama — the definition of national suicide.
What do Naomi Chazan, Shlomo Brom, Yossi Alpher and Shaul Arieli have in common? They’re all supporters of J-Street.
Unlike Mr. Rosner, I don’t believe in the goodwill of these people. These are people who believe – against historical evidence – that Israel won’t make the necessary concessions for peace unless pressured by the United States. They believe further that this is the only to achieve peace. They do not believe that there needs to be a change in the beliefs of the Palestinians. The onus of peace is strictly on Israel. It’s a dangerous and counterproductive belief, but it is one that is closely tied to Sen. Obama and his supporters.
Look at Obama’s advisers: Brzezinski, the most anti-Israel Presidential advsier in recent history, Daniel Kurtzer, the recent American Ambassador to israel who has aggressively advocated far-reaching Israeli concessions to the Arabs, Dennis Ross,the architect of the disastrous Oslo Accords, Samantha Power, who supports the nefarious Mersheimer view of Israeli politics. and, guess who was in the Presidential box on his big speech night at the convention? That anti-semite Jimmy Carter.
You can judge a man by his friends…..
What makes Mr. Rosner so sure that Obama is a “genuine supporter of Israel”? “[G]enuine supporters of Israel” are rather scarce among the far-left urban political activists and academic ideologues from whose ranks Obama emerged. The soothing pro-Israel noises Obama has been making over the past several years are entirely attributable to his need for Jewish support (mostly in the form of financial contributions) to succeed in his campaigns for US Senator from Illinois, for the Democratic presidential nomination, and now for president. And, as noted in the comments above, Obama’s association with anti-Israel foreign policy figures strongly suggest that one should not take his current vague pro-Israel rhetoric at face value.
Once this megalomanical creep is in the White House (as appears likely to happen), I think we will find that his support for Israel is as sincere as his support for Second Amendment rights and his opposition to same-sex marriage. It’s amusing that Jewish Democrats, most of whom are flamboyantly contemptous of social conservatives, are themselves the most gullible voters in the country’s history.
Previous comment (#6) I misspelled “megalomaniacal.” “Creep” I got right.
Dammit it, Mr. Rosner, get your cases straight. This is English you’re supposed to be writing.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/05/video-former-obama-adviser-on-invading-israel/
Maybe someone should show that Power clip to the Israeli generals who are so entranced with Obama. This is suicide for Israel but they seem to be as gullible as the Obamabots. Hope and change.
Al Meyers:
You can fairly oppose Senator Obama because you do not agree with his Middle East policies, but to imply, as you do, that his election will result in the destruction of Israel is so extreme as to call your judgment on the subject into question. Just try to put this election in perspective. Israel will continue to exist and prosper. The U.S. will continue to support Israel. With Obama in the White House, there will be a greater sense of global strategy, greater impulse-control, if you will. There will also be less of a vested interest in promoting war and increasing oil prices. You can make the case (as I do) that the Bush administration has not been that good for Israel in that it strengthened Iran relative to all its neighbors, and that it strengthened the oil-producing states in general.
Supporters of Israel need to approach global politics with greater subtlety than evidenced in much of the anti-Obama backlash. Let’s start by not resorting to Chicken Little utterances.
Michael Dick Says: “…Dennis Ross, the architect of the disastrous Oslo Accords…”
Please, is this the level of knowledge that informs your position? Dennis Ross was not the architect of the Oslo Accords. Israeli vice-minister of foreign affairs Yossi Beilin and Norwegian researcher Terje Rød-Larsen engineered the accords. In August 1993, the delegations had reached an agreement which was signed in secrecy by Shimon Peres while visiting Oslo, after which Shimon Peres took the agreement to the United States to the surprise of US negotiator Dennis Ross.
Ross is not an Obama supporter. He agreed to be available for information on the I/P conflict to both campaigns.
So what if Obama puts words into people’s mouths. Or takes them out.
After all, isn’t that what Messiahs are allowed to do?
The foregoing statements are part of the reason we’re declaring anyone who votes for McCain/Palin is committing a truly gross unpatriotic act. We true Americans are tired of the foreign aid and corrupt defense spending when we need an encompassing health care, repairs on the crumbling infrastructure, jobs creation programs, and, yes, a paced studied increase in our defense spending to meet the potential global threats. But bomb! bomb! bomb! Iran we don’t need at this juncture…but I’m sure we wouldn’t want to stop Israel from doing it!!
Adam Holland has a vision of an Obama presidency as a time of peace. This view is ignorant and naive. Obama and his advisors have clearly stated that MORE American troops have to be sent to Afghanistan. When speaking in Berlin before the Victory Column which commemorates 19th century German victors over neighboring European countries, Obama told the crowd of Germans:
“The Afghan people need our troops and your troops.”
Well, maybe they do and maybe they don’t, although I’m sure that most of the mostly illiterate Afghans did not address an appeal to Obama notifying him of their needs. In any event, this assertion by The One indicates that he, like George Bush Jr and Sr is quite willing to send American troops abroad to fight and perhaps die for foreign policy purposes that he –at least– agrees with.
Before I forget, one of Obama’s senior advisors is Zbigniew Brzezinski, jimmy Carter’s national security advisor. Zbig caused quite a lot of trouble for the world in only four years of the Carter presidency. Does Adam Holland really want Zbig to come back?? Just to remind AH, Zbig is no friend of Israel.
Elliott:
I agree with you about Brzezinski not being a friend of Israel. I was pleased to hear Dennis Ross, who is at the top of Obama’s Middle East team, pretty much say that Brzezinski had been cut loose.
With respect to the idea that I predict a world of peace, I didn’t and I don’t. Where did you see that? I just think that Obama has a more sophisticated strategy for dealing with things as they really are, and that will benefit Israel. I’ve had enough of promises of impending paradise of the sort that preceded the Iraq War.
About Afghanistan: I too am worried. You oppose Obama’s plan to increase our military presence? You’re giving me ideological whiplash here. And, how does that relate to the Obama giving the speech in Berlin? Our fight in Afghanistan is against a group whose ideology advocates mass murder. The merits of that fight are so obvious that your comment scarcely merits a reply, even if I understood its point.
It is the most post-modern, anti-rational that is appearing at this video, even if some of them are truly supporters of Obama (taking Ephraim Halevi and Uzi Dayan out) it is stupid misuse of their position as retired military commanders to take part in this “semi-official” pretence.
If you can read Hebrew you may read my article here:
http://www.anochi.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=681&Itemid=2
Barry Obama is a racist!
i am horrified by the RJC’s blatant lies and hate mongering. it will come back to bite you.