Apologists for the Obama administration will spend the next year touting U.S.-Israel security cooperation in an effort to bolster the Democrat’s re-election chances. But a report in the Guardian this past weekend about the breakdown of communication between the two countries on the most important issue facing them undermines that talking point.
According to the Guardian, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak both refused to reassure Defense Secretary Leon Panetta that Israel would consult with the United States first before launching an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites. Panetta, who did the Iranians a favor last week by pouring cold water on the idea of a U.S. strike on their nukes, wanted a guarantee from the Israelis that they would ask America’s permission before acting. But though there was no confirmation such an Israeli campaign is being planned, Panetta did not get his guarantee. The reason for this is so clear that even Jeffrey Goldberg, who has served as one of the president’s chief cheerleaders on the question of his pro-Israel bona fides, understands what is going on: the Israelis simply don’t trust Obama.
As even Goldberg noted in his most recent piece on the subject, the Obama-Sarkozy live microphone gaffe told us more about the splintering of the U.S.-Israel alliance than some thought. While Goldberg continues to insist those of us who have pointed out it is Israel Obama resents rather than just the prickly Netanyahu have it wrong, he admits blaming the problem on the Israeli doesn’t explain what is going on. The bottom line here is that after three years of Obama picking fights with the Jewish state that did nothing to enhance the chances of peace, nobody in Jerusalem thinks the president can be counted on to do the right thing on the life and death question of dealing with a nuclear Iran.
So rather than work to repair the relationship, Obama makes stupid remarks to the French and, according to the Guardian, has ordered U.S. intelligence to step up its surveillance of Israel.
It should be specified that it is obviously in the interests of Israel to allow little daylight between its policies and defense strategies and those of the United States. Israel has but one major power ally, and an open break between the two would be a disaster. But it is more than a little difficult for an administration that came into office determined to create more distance between the U.S. and Israel and which has jumped on every opportunity to widen that rift with pointless quarrels over settlements, Jerusalem and even petty insults such as Obama’s complaints about Netanyahu, to now start complaining about Israel’s refusal to confide in them.
The notion that Israel must always ask Washington for permission before acting to defend its people is not one Jerusalem has ever considered sacrosanct. Nor should it. The bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981 took place without asking Ronald Reagan permission first. Israel has also undertaken offensives against Palestinian terror targets without prior consultation. But Iran is a horse of a different color. Israel’s leaders may ultimately be forced to decide that an attack on Tehran’s nuclear facilities is unavoidable given the existential threat that allowing the ayatollahs access to nukes poses. However, the consequences of initiating a conflict with Iran may well be felt by America as much as Israel. The potential for regional war involving Iran’s Hamas and Hezbollah allies and possible attacks on U.S. forces in the region make it vital that the United States not be taken off guard by an Israeli decision.
The problem lies not with Netanyahu’s unwillingness to consult as much as it does with Obama’s hostility and untrustworthiness. Though the president has continued to issue forth rhetoric deploring Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he has also acted in such a way as to undermine any Israeli faith that he takes the issue seriously. Three years of Obama’s ineffective diplomacy on the matter have merely allowed the Iranians to move closer to the moment when they can announce a successful nuclear test. Since Obama has shown himself reluctant even to enforce the tough sanctions that might give the Iranians a reason to step back from the brink, it is understandable that the Israelis have no confidence that he would, if push came to shove, use force to stop the Iranian bomb. Even more to the point, they may fear he would try to stop their last-ditch effort to spike the Iranian nukes or in some way sabotage it.
That Israel would even think about an attack on Iran without consulting first with America is tangible proof of just how much damage Barack Obama has done.
In this high stakes
A few comments: n nThere's a difference between 'notifying ina davance' and 'seeking permission'. Isrel owes teh US the former, but not the latter. n nIf the US is likely to use the advance notification to try and scuttle the Israeli action, however, Israel can be forgiven for not notifying on a life and death issue. Here is where the distrust of Obama manifests. n nOne would think the US, given the cowardice and impulse to ingratiate (with the 'Muslim World') of Obama, would want deniability in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran. Forcing Israel to seek permission would make any subsequent Israeli attack of Iran a US attack, in effect. n nIt seems that with the prickly Obama, being able to coerce Israel is the goal, regardless of strategic considerations.
Loose lips sink ships. And Obama has loose lips.
As for Goldberg, how many times does one have to be wrong in order to not be taken seriously? So he has a perch from which to spout his views. BFD. SO does Tom Friedman. Goldberg is approaching Friedmanian irrelevance.
"… and, according to the Guardian, has ordered U.S. intelligence to step up its surveillance of Israel" n nThis is nothing new. Wikileaks confirmed the order to US personnel in Tel Aviv to gather intel about Israel's communication networks, among other items of interest. And in Israel's south, the US has established an X-band radar site, similar to the one to be built in Turkey. It was originally "off limits" to Israeli personnel, which meant the US not only spied on everything flying in or near Israeli airspace, but would in addition decide for itself what it passed on to Israel.
Sorry, to finish the thought: in this high stakes nuclear poker game, amateurs like Panetta and Colin Powell go ahead and show their hand. Diplomacy 101 teaches to keep your enemies guessing about your capabilities and intentions. n nObama and Sarkozy's open mike clown rodeo proves there are no adults in the room and that the whole Iranian nuke problem will end badly.
Am I the only one that remembers the dance Kissinger and Nixon did to keep Israel from attaining nuclear weapons? Did the USA do a strike on Israel? The fixation with Iran has reached pathological proportions and is a case study of self-delusional hysteria feeding on itself. The whole western media is messenger for Israel’s threats against Iran, but its Iran that is the spitting viper? Oh, please. Israel better have its credit card number ready if she attacks anyone. There’s going be a lot of car owners that won’t appreciate un-affordable gas prices. There’s already is a popular belief among the huddled and tented that Israel is linked with international banking and the Hoovervilles forming worldwide. A nuclear winter to protect a mere 4 million Israeli Jews, (many European and misplaced in Palestine) wouldn't be tolerated when Europe's wheat crop fails due to the fallout from even one exploded A-Bomb, let alone more than one. Hillary Clinton has done a dis-service to America for always mentioning Israel in a best case scenario. An exchange of nuclear payloads wouldn't be an isolated event, a David & Goliath setting out in a field somewhere. Israel should know now, that it doesn’t need to lose to Iran for an Israel disappearance. A situation where a prolonged Israeli atomic defense (bomb after bomb) would be too costly for the atmosphere, then any right to exist for the Semite-ophile nation would be secondary to that of saving mankind. It may be an Israel ally who does the coup de grace to save us all from a rogue Israel that practices never-ending pre-empted threatening and bombing. And to think of all the Ronald Reagan Republicans advocating a first strike against Iran. It was in his STAR WARS Speech that Reagan said the USA will never be an aggressor and Reagan who condemned Israel's strike upon Iraq's production sites, 1981. n
"…a mere 4 million Israeli Jews…" I can't bothered to Godwin your ass. To Hell with you.
It would be great if the US government were capable of figuring out that an Israeli strike would be applauded by most of the Arab governments in the region, and that such a strike would be a huge favor to the US in the long run. As the Israelis are more than capable of success, it would be better polically if the US did not know or approve in advance. Hopefully the Israelis will adopt a comprehensive solution that gets the nuclear facilities plus the ayatollahs that want them. That way they can do a favor for the majority of Iranians at the same time. n nIf the US already suspects Israel is planning an attack then they should not be caught off guard when the attack happens. They should already have a considerable presence in the region given that we have been in Iraq and Afghanistan all these years.