If President Obama means what he says about stopping Iran from going nuclear, he has bi-partisan support for that stand. That’s the upshot of a Senate resolution introduced today with 32 co-sponsors that rejects the notion a nuclear Iran can be contained. Proponents of the resolution such as Senator Joseph Lieberman say Iran has only two choices: disarm or face the consequences.
The introduction of the measure prompted some of its Republican sponsors to point out that their position is identical with that of President Obama’s statements on the issue. As South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham noted, “All I can say is, we’ve found something we’re united about.”
The question for the senators, as well as the nation, is whether the president is as serious about not considering a policy that would view “containment” of a nuclear Iran as a viable option. Though Obama has insisted he will not let Iran go nuclear, speculation continues that the administration’s reliance on sanctions to stop Tehran is, at best, overly optimistic. With Washington acting as if it is more worried about Israel acting on its own to eliminate an existential threat, the Senate resolution is a timely reminder to the president that he should not think he can get away with a policy that seeks to avoid confrontation until after the November election. With influential figures such as Obama sycophant Fareed Zakaria advocating containment in the Washington Post yesterday, Graham’s assumption is that both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are in agreement on Iran.
Zakaria, who has been a White House favorite in the last three years, has been a consistent opponent of confronting Iran. His latest piece attempted once again to make the case a nuclear Iran could be contained as easily as the Soviet Union was during the Cold War. He claims the “lessons of history” show the attempt to stop Iran is a rerun of the rush to war in Europe in 1914. According to Zakaria, Israel’s concerns about a nuclear Iran are similar to those of the fools who launched the slaughter of World War One. That’s an unfair and distorted slap at a Jewish state that faces the possibility a tyrannical regime led by Islamist fanatics already pledged to their destruction might get hold of a genocidal weapon. Just as absurd are his comparisons between a nuclear Soviet Union and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran.
The administration’s Iran strategy is dependent on cooperation from nations such as China that show little sign of being serious about helping. That means sooner or later, the president may be faced with actually having to resort to force if he wants to keep his promises. The worry here is that Zakaria’s sophistry about a potential catastrophe is a better reflection of Barack Obama’s thinking than his public statements. If push comes to shove, Israel as well as the Senate will have to hope Obama’s actual beliefs on the subject are closer to those of Lieberman and Graham than Zakaria.
Nobody's going to listen to Joe Lieberman. He lied about Iraq, called the President a "Marxist", and is a mendacious Israel-Firster. As far as Iran – the top brass in The Pentagon believe Iran can be contained, and so does the rest of the world. Iran will get its Bomb, and that will be that.
"a mendacious Israel-Firster"r nr nAnd that disqualifies him how?
"… a Senate resolution introduced today…that rejects the notion a nuclear Iran cannot be contained…." n nI think you mean the resolution rejects the notion that a nuclear Iran "CAN" be contained, yes? n nthose durn double negatives! anyway… n nit's pretty obvious how Barack Obama feels about Ahmadinejad and the Mad Mullahs of Persia. he seems to like and respect them. he shares their irritation with the world's only Jewish state for daring to stand up for itself–the difference is only in the degree of contempt. n nObama has offered Iran the famous "unclenched hand" for three years now, and they've consistently spit on it. and that seems to be ok with him. they got one of our drones (somehow. we still don't know the truth of that) and he politely asks for it back. really? we uncover an Iranian plot to kill a diplomat on American soil and it barely causes a ripple in Obama-land. compare and contrast to the reaction after Israel's announcement that it would be building apartments in Jerusalem. n nIsrael is fortunate to have a leader like Bibi Netanyahu in dangerous times like these. would that America could say the same of our leader.
It's not even about Iran, It's about the palestinians. If Obama wins, Bebe will be forced to make peace. The threat to bebe is the US economic recovery, and he will do Anything to kill it.
And what exactly is Bibi's interest in not making peace? Is he just a fanatical evil person or is there some rational reason why he would want to avoid being celebrated in Israel and world-wide for being the prime minister who managed to get the Arabs to lay down their weapons?
If bebe tried to make peace he would be killed just like Rabin.
@Israeli100 . "The Pentagon believe Iran can be contained". US Army leaders are generally incompetent . Americans believe the generals of the US Army are Napoleons. In reality, the US Army in it's 235 year history , has only defeated a few weak opponents :Mexico 1846, Spain 1898 and Iraq. In all other wars, the US Army played a relatively minor role such as in WWII, lost to smaller nations such as Vietnam, could not defeat China /North Korea , or took credit for victories which were only possible due to the prominent role of other nations such as the American Revolution. "The pentagon" "geniuses" made one of their typically brainless statements.
Very few people outside of the 'progressives' and the Arabs and the Iranians themselves are actually saying that Israel has much intent to do anything overt about or to Iran. I just wanted to point out that the people who are, much like Sy Hersch and Glenn Greenwald and PressTV, have been literally promising, guaranteeing us, that the Evil Jewish Project ™ is absotively 1 million percent going to bomb the peaceful peace loving Persians of peace tomorrow morning 8am local time, no doubt about it, bet the ranch, uh huh no we really mean it this time for more than 4,500 days in a row. Which of course is merely wishful thinking on their part in order to justify their own fantasies of a new Holocaust.
Is "Israeli 100" just a new pen name for Grumpy Old Man? Be that as it may, is it necessary to let somebody like Grumpy reiterate endlessly his stubborn anti-Jewish prejudices, never bowing to facts or reason?