Most observers have spent the past few months trying desperately to interpret the mixed signals emanating from the Obama administration on Iran. It has escalated its rhetoric against Iran’s nuclear ambitions while at the same time continued to shy away from actions that might actually stop Tehran, such as the tough sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank that would set in motion a partial oil embargo. Yet, while American diplomats travel the globe trying to corral other nations to support sanctions on Iran, American leaders have been open about their unwillingness to contemplate the use of force and horror at the thought Israel will act on its own.
The latest such contradictory signal comes from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who told the Washington Post’s David Ignatius his biggest worry is the Israelis will take care of the problem for him:
Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily.
Ignatius goes on to say Obama and Panetta have told the Israelis not to strike, because they think it will “derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the threshold.”
Anyone wondering why the Israelis seem to be moving closer to deciding to attack on their own need only read that statement. The Israelis — and the Iranians — know the current sanctions program is nowhere close to stopping Iran. That is because Obama has not only hesitated to put the stringent sanctions recently passed by Congress (over his objections) into effect but also has never forced the Treasury Department to enforce the existing far weaker measures aimed at Iran.
Though Israel knows it cannot do the job of setting back Iran’s nuclear program as well as the United States can, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak may have arrived at the same conclusion their Iranian enemies have come to in the last three years: Barack Obama is too weak and indecisive to be taken seriously when he threatens Iran. That means the only alternative to sitting back and waiting patiently as the Iranians run out the diplomatic clock on a feckless Washington-led effort to restrain them, is for Israel to strike.
Clearly, the administration’s preference is for the Israelis to be sufficiently cowed by U.S. pressure into standing down. Obama and Panetta would like Netanyahu to believe the U.S. would cut off the Israelis the way the Eisenhower administration did in 1956 when it abandoned Israel during the Sinai Campaign. But, as Ignatius points out, an open breach with Israel during an election year would be political suicide for Obama.
So rather than take responsibility for dealing with a problem that threatens the peace of the world, once again the Obama administration is trying to lead from behind. Except this time it isn’t hiding behind France as it did in Libya but behind tiny Israel, who will face the risks of Iranian counter-attacks alone and under the threat of being cut off by its own ally. It is unlikely Israel can be convinced to back off by vague American promises of more negotiations or stepped up covert attacks. Neither plan offers much hope of success. That is why the Israelis may be on the verge of deciding to strike on their own.
Under these circumstances, Ignatius is right that Israel’s leaders probably feel they are better off on their own in this enterprise rather than being shackled by Obama. But with Iran once again vowing to destroy Israel, Netanyahu and Barak realize allowing Ayatollah Khamenei to have his finger on a nuclear trigger simply cannot be tolerated.
30 – 90 days at most. Les jeux sont fait.
Khameini said today that Israel is a "cancer" that must be gotten rid of. how is it that Barack Obama and his merry gang do not hear this, and understand what it means for Israel? n noh, wait–I know how: when you're pro-Palestinian all your adult life, you just don't have much sympathy for Israel. n nI would like to address my fellow American Jews out there for a moment. hello and shalom: n nI forgive you for having voted for Obama in 2008. you didn't know. hey, you saw an attractive, inspiring black guy; what's not to like? and you were terrified of Sarah Palin. so I forgive you. n nbut this is 2012. you know better now. n nyou know that Obama is close friends with Rashid Khalidi, the activist and professional Jew hater now on the faculty at Columbia. you know that his pastor was the anti-Semitic Jeremiah Wright, who said last year that "them Jews" were preventing him from speaking to Obama. you know that one of O's top security advisors refers to the city of Jerusalem as "Al Quds." not to mention how hideously rude Obama has been to Netanyahu, at the WH, when dishing with Sarkozy during their little open mic moment, and I'm sure plenty of other times. n nIsrael should do what it needs to do to survive. and if they can hold out until January, I hope our new president will care more about our allies than he does our sworn enemies. n
Obama is definitely not physically attractive by any standard. Just has a good voice.
You are misreading Obama. He is not indecisive, rather he is absolutely ruthless and decisive in pursuit of personal power and thus reelection. His current calculation is that going after Iran's nukes will hurt him with his base (same reason he kibboshed Keystone). However, he opposes Israel going after Iran's nukes because it will make him look weak, but more importantly, deprives him of an ace card for the election, an October surprise, which will be used to rally the country around him just before the election – BUT ONLY if Obama calculates that he is about to lose. Otherwise, he is comfortable to play to his base and let Iran go nuclear
People should remember that Israel has not made the political decision to launch an attack and has already inched up to that decision when the mechanics would have been less formidable with fewer and less protected facilities only to back down. Reports are, also, that Defense Minister Barak is one of the leading advocates of pre-emption and folks may wish to consider the long line of disasters Barak has stood at the head of, starting with Camp David and winding through the spectacularly botched 2006 Lebanese campagin under Prime Ministre Olmert, whom he served as Defense Minister. n nJust as he was totally unprepared for the Camp David negotations and taken by surprise when subsequent events went sideways, he was totally unprepared for how the Lebanese war against Hezbollah unfolded–as Israeli ground troops came up short on tactics and logistics against a well-trained enemy. n nThere's no reason to believe that predictions of a short, best-case, no repercussion attack will prove any more prescient than his prior fiascos.
Israel wants war? Then Israel should have war. War is the most consequential action a country can take. Americans cannot allow a foreign nation to dictate such policy. Israel believes they can never live in peace with the world, that's their right. My country, the USA, can live in peace. You want to kill your neighbors; do it. Kill them all, BUT LEAVE MY COUNTRY ALONE!
excuse me? btw can we have the phony handle back? You overlook that it is Iran that is building a nuke and calling Israel a cancer and, Israel has learned, threatening to target Israeli and Jewish targets in the United States, as well as threatening to wipe Israel off the map. Your country, USA does not belong to you and, in any event, Israel is reported to be interested in preempting a holocaust by attacking Iran not the United States. Beyond that, the whole point of this article is precisely that Israel does not expect the United States to do anything. Neither does Mr. Tobin. You also might look up from your obsessive nutters expostulations about Israeli blood lust and see exactly who is killing whom in the MIddle East. In the last 24 hours news cycle, Egyptian tempers got out of hand and resulted in a 70 death soccer brawl after which the same rioters returned to riot against the security police they blamed for not restraining them in the first place. And in Syria more Arabs were shot, bombed, and tortured by other Arabs. But no, with you guys its all jooz all the time 24-7.
Please, feel free to kill them all, but do it without my hard earned tax dollars. Why didn't we go to war with North Korea when Bush allowed them to go nuclear? How does south Korea live in peace and prosperity next to a nuclear power? We have allies all over the world with crazy neighbors but they're not pulling us into these bloody, costly, endless wars. You all lust after war as if it were a woman, so fight it out.
Iran says over and over that it wishes to liquidate Israel and is now deciding whether to kill Jews in the United States and blow up synagogues as "Zionist regime" targets. Why preemption comes up in the first place. In response to daily death threats, Israel is divided–many don't wish to preempt–those who do believe, possibly wishfully, that a preemptive trike in Iran could be limited without fallout. Meanwhile, Syria is at war with itself–Israel has nothing to do with that. Libya, same thing. Egypt, same thing. You are aware that in today's gazillions of dollars of debt-fueled deficits: a) all of foreign aid combined is a rounding error; b) taxpayers don't pay for it, the Chinese do. Yes? In any event Islamic foes and would be foes get the same shekels Israel does. Egypt, Paksitan, the PA, Turkey–it adds up; Iran doesn't but gets billions and billions in oil money from Europeans who have buried their moral compass under a rock. And, by the way, the Sunni Arabs fear their Persian Islamic competitors and have begged the United States, our Arab allies, to go into what you call a "bloody, costly war" by attacking Iranian nukes. Israel never made that request. One day that prosperous South Korea may be in real jam. Which is why the Sunni Arab countries of the Gulf begged Obama not to force them to live next to a blackmailing Persian version of North Korea. Ignorance is one thing. Sitting hunched over your beer in the blogosphere bar and hurling epithets in the corner is another. btw America has been involved in armed conflict since its birth, won in a war with England, and not free of clashes by night with foreign powers who, after all, like Spain, still had a presence on this continent.
I'm no fan of Barak but to blame him for the Lebanese campaign is pretty lame. He became Defense Minister after the war.
America did go to war with North Korea and has maintained a military presence to protect South Korea for about 50 years. n nEurope was protected from a nuclear, aggressive, expansionist, totalitarian Soviet Union by American taxpayers. Europe's contribution to its own self-defense was a fraction of America's and left to themselves Europe would be occupied territory. n nIran is not a friend of the USA. n nMore to the point, would we think that a President Romney or a President Gingrich willconftont the Iranians?
Um, America is not in the same position that Israel is. Hmm. Right now another question is whether Obama would live up to the "red lines" Panetta says are American policy: military option not now but if Iran is known to be assembling a bomb. But how many Presidential candidates have promised promised promised to take a step that involves no war, no conflict, no bombs–to move the United States embassy from Tel Aviv to West Jerusalem. Never happens. Nixon stood up to the Russians before leaning on Israel to wrap up the October 1973 conflict after Egypt and attempted (and nearly pulled off) and invasion. I don't see Romney acting decisively in crises where political calculations are clear. Newt talks a good game. And talks and talks and talks. Who knows?
A "cancer" needing to be "cut out." Vermin requiring extermination. Bacilli that must be wiped-out lest they infect the greater populace. To the Jewish ear, these eliminationist metaphors are terrifyingly familiar. We know what they presage, even if the rest of the world seems to have forgotten the lesson. Ayatollah Khameini knows exactly what he is saying. The only question is: How many outside of Israel are listening?
Zionism has become sheer lunacy.
Yes, the lunacy of wanting not to be killed, which is what you, Vile Old Anti Semite, would love to see happen.
Nobody is saying they are going to wipe Grumps off the map. n nEasy for Israel-deniers to climb on their high horse and condemn "Zionism" to death. Ethical selfishness and indifference is not moral superiority.
Certain belief in the near arrival of the Hidden Imam, the 12th Mahdi and violent suppression of peace loving Bahai, institution of religious and modesty police is, of course, eminently sane. As is conducting talks with said Imam-promoting sectarians after they tell you, well no, you can't take a look at the underground facilities we're using to enrich uranium to weapons grade. All sane. Was there ever any Zionism Israel-deniers accepted? So far not today, not in 2003, not in 1973, not in 1967, not in 1947, not in 1920 not ever. Remarkably enough, unremitting hostility has not inculcated a breed of hippies in Israel. Who wudda thunk it? Take comfort in having a relative peacenik like Bibi to deal with and not, say, Sharon in his salad days.
That said, as noted by many many times, no decision has been made in Israel to do anything dramatic and they've marched up this hill and down again many many times in the past ten years. And Barak's track record isn't a high predictor of succes or gaining support. If an attack were actually imminent all those "war-beating drums" would fall ominously … silent. n nOn the other other hand these are Barak's words on internal Israeli opposition to Israeli preemption: n n"It’s good to have diversity in thinking and for people to voice their opinions. But at the end of the day, when the military command looks up, it sees us — the minister of defense and the prime minister. When we look up, we see nothing but the sky above us."
They didn't forget. They close their eyes and their ears and stopper up their mouths from speaking the truth. State Department policy before American entered WWII was to deliberately obfuscate and delay processing valid visa requests by Jews living under Nazi occupation, until the Jews and their pesky requests for refuge should disappear. Maybe that will truly change before Israel has to take unilateral action (whose chances of success are not as glowingly self-evident as Barak assumes). Maybe Israel could devise a strategy to deter Iran and force the leadership to pay for their crimes without yet another air strike in another Muslim foe and without harming a bystander Iranian population many of whom are much less infatuated with the freaky-deaky Mahdi obsessed puritans who've commandeered Iran's destiny than was Obama's out of the gate infatuation.
Obama wants to appear "tough" but doesn't want to actually do anything about Iran. n nHis play is to yammer on about it – and then, when he gets nowhere, he'll blame Bush.
Apparently the rule that whoever mentions Hitler first loses the argument hasn’t been enacted in this venue. As a courtesy, therefore, I will supply a few items, which all comers may borrow:
Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler
kapo kapo kapo kapo kapo
SS SS SS SS SS
Kristallnacht Kristallnacht Kristallnacht Kristallnacht Kristallnacht
1938 1938 1938 1938 1938
Munich Munich Munich Munich Munich
When you’re done exploiting the dead for tendentious political purposes, we can discuss the proposed aerial bombardment of a 3000-year old civilization by the only nuclear power in the Middle East.
Laughing laughing laughing laughing laughing!! Thanks, GOM.
"So rather than take responsibility for dealing with a problem that threatens the peace of the world, once again the Obama administration is trying to lead from behind." n nA problem that threatens the peace of the world? WHAT peace of the world? What are you talking about?
Though Europe and the United States are accelerating economic sanctions in an effort to appease Israel, it plans to attack Iran anyway. One might start to wonder which of these two is now the more rogue state in the Middle East. nShould Israel surgically attack Iran, as it had done Iraq twenty years ago, we can expect Iran to return fire. And Iran might have unknown weapons in its arsenal and unknown ways to use them. nThe question then becomes to what extent do we help Israel when it picks a fight with Iran? nIf the U.S. helps it unconditionally, as it had done before, then we risk retaliation from Iran on our nearby facilities. The same is true for european countries which are all within a striking distance of Iran. nSo what do we do, sit back and not help a friend trying to make the world a safer place for the rest of us? nIn this case, perhaps. nIf Israel wants to bomb Iran on its own terms, when it wants to and how it wants to, then it can also stand ready to fend for itself when Iran returns fire. To let it assume otherwise is irresponsible since it encourages rogue action on the expectation of help. With the world on the mend from a profound economic downturn, such foreseeable misstep should be avoided. nDoes this mean then that we should resign ourselves to a nuclear Iran? George W. Bush may have thought so, as he may have thought the same about a nuclear North Korea. And despite his and Dick Cheney's professed love for Israel, they might have been looking for new friend in the Middle East when they toppled Saddam. Iraq did not prove a friend, but it has proved that U.N. inspections can work because the UN teams had destroyed all of its weapons of mass destruction. nWho knows, in time our economic sanctions might also slow down Iran. If not, having nuclear Iran — or nuclear anyone else — is something the rest of us can learn to live with. nMaybe Israel should too. And conduct itself accordingly.
If Iran want to kill jews, why don't they kill the 20,000 jews that live in Iran?
Leading from behind is a contradiction in terms.