Much of the attention devoted to U.S.-Israel diplomacy in recent months has been on whether the United States will seek to prevent the Jewish state from acting on its own to forestall an Iranian nuclear weapon. The differences between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu over the utility of sanctions or diplomacy and how much more time these measures should be allowed before force can be used have not been resolved. Nevertheless, it is more likely than not that the Israelis are going to give the president a bit more time before launching their own strike.
But despite the near obsessive focus on the fractious Obama-Netanyahu relationship, the most important messages being sent from the speeches at the annual AIPAC conference in Washington were not those exchanged between those two leaders. Instead, it was the clear warning to Iran by Netanyahu that the Jewish people will not live under the shadow of annihilation. For all of the justified concern about what Obama will or will not do to try to impede the Israelis as he hangs on to the forlorn hope of a diplomatic solution to the problem, the fate of the Middle East hangs on whether Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, comprehended Netanyahu’s clarion call to action during his Monday night speech to the conference. Tehran must either stand down on its nuclear ambition or face an Israeli attack at some point in the not too distant future.
By stating unequivocally that Israel will always be master of its own fate when it comes to its security, Netanyahu was making it crystal clear that Obama’s misgivings about force will not preclude an Israeli assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities before the program is rendered invulnerable. However much time Netanyahu may give Obama, it is also easily understood that this is not an open-ended commitment. He is rightly convinced that neither renewed diplomatic activity nor even the stepped-up sanctions Obama now contemplates will convince the Iranians they must give in.
As Netanyahu said, Israel has waited patiently for years as Western diplomatic initiatives intended to cajole or buy off the Iranians have flopped. It has also looked on as the half-hearted sanctions against Iran were tried and has seen they will not answer the problem. And the Israeli leader is well aware that even the oil embargo mooted by some Western European nations and reluctantly seconded by Obama will also certainly fail due to lack of cooperation from China and Russia.
All of this renders much of the speculation about Obama’s intentions moot. He may argue that Israel must give diplomacy another chance to work, but few even in the administration believe any such initiative will succeed. It has already been amply demonstrated that the Iranians interpret any opening for talks as an invitation for delaying tactics that only serve to get them closer to their nuclear goal. As it is unlikely the president will let go of his illusions about diplomacy or engagement with Iran working until it is too late to do anything about their nuclear program, that puts the ball squarely in Israel’s court.
That is why the most important message delivered this week was not the exchange between Obama and Netanyahu so much as it was the one delivered to Iran. The Iranians may be laboring under their own set of delusions in which they cling to the notion that the United States can exercise a veto over Israeli self-defense. But Netanyahu’s speech, which drew a direct parallel between the current impasse over Iran and the refusal by the Allies to attack the rail lines to Auschwitz in 1944, is a signal that Obama is ultimately powerless to prevent the Jewish state from acting to prevent another Holocaust.
Iran has conducted itself in the last several years as if it believed it had impunity from retribution should it acquire a genocidal weapon to be used against the Jewish state it has sworn to destroy. It has also acted as if it believed, not unreasonably, that President Obama wasn’t serious about stopping them. But if Iran wishes to avoid having its nuclear facilities attacked, it needs to understand that Netanyahu was speaking in deadly earnest when he warned them of the consequences of their actions.
The Obama-hatred is so thick here that you can't see what going on. Barack and Bibi are playing this perfectly to the Iranians. OF COURSE they can't appear to be cordial! Barack, having laid his "engagement policy," is playing Good Cop, trying to restrain Bad Cop Bibi. Just listen to their respective rhetoric! n nThe signals we should be giving the Iranians are the signals they are getting. Allies are lined up, the Russians and Chinese won't intervene, the Fifth Fleet is standing by. This is classic, well-executed brinkmanship. The Iranians can either dismantle their nuclear weapons program, or it will be dismantled for them. They can do it peaceably, Obama's way, or not. It's up to them.
If you believe that, just ask yourself how much more effective, or at least how much more formidable a front would be presented to Iran if, instead of playing the "good cop/bad cop" routine you imagine is taking place, Obama actually came out and announced his red lines and for example, prepared the American people for war. He hasn't done any of this, because he has no red lines and doesn't want war to interfere with his re-election chances. Rather, he is emboldening Iran by allowing them to think (correctly) that he is working to restrain Israel. n nSometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
The red line already has been drawn. Obama has said a nuclear Iran is "unacceptable". He has said he does not bluff and that we have Israel's back. I don't know what else he can say. Of course, one may say he lies, as some here seem to suggest, but that ends the discussion. n nAs for preparing Americans for war, what kind of war are you talking about? Iran will be no Iraq. There will be no boots on the ground or occupation. There will be bombing and/or special forces. Our mission is to dismantle or destroy Iran's nuclear weapons capability, not to occupy Iran. Obama wisely kept us out of Libya and is doing the same in Syria, but we are still recovering from a big recession, in deep debt from it and are still in Afghanistan. n nIt is no coincidence that Iran accelerated its nuclear program while we were preoccupied with Iraq and then with our failed economy that we also inflicted on our allies. We got bin Laden, we are winding down in Afghanistan, the economy is recovering, which means we're in a better position to focus on Iran. n nAnd please, whatever else you think of Obama, it's childish and petty to think he (or any president) would use war and peace as an election ploy.
Yes, you make a good point here. I hope and pray that you are right and Obama is just playing the good cop. I kind of doubt it though myself. My feeling is that Obama believes in appeasement. I'm thinking that Obama would not mind Iran having nuclear weapons because for some reason he does not feel this would be a direct threat to the U.S. Regardless, I feel a slow-motion train wreck is happening. If the Iranian regime does not stand down the Israelis ARE going to strike them. And I do not blame the Israelis one bit. If I were them I would not want to live under the shadow of the Iranian Damocles sword every day either. Why should the Israelis? They know firsthand what hatred and genocide is all about.
But that is my point. I see nothing that Obama has said that precludes the Israelis or America and its allies from defanging Iran's nuclear capability by force. n n"Obama is a wimp" talk is partisan bloviating. As he says, watch what he does, not what others say about him. And what he does must remain at our discretion; loose talk and sabre rattling is what the Iranians do. Obama was right in not getting us involved in Libya, and he is right not getting us involved in Syria. Offering a peaceful alternative to the Iranians is NOT appeasement, it's just plain statesmanship. n nAs for an Israeli strike, I agree with you 100%. I'd LOVE to see the Israelis, with the Fifth Fleet at its back, cream the Iranians. And because Assad is otherwise occupied, I'm not sure how effective an Iranian retaliation through Hezbollah and Hamas would be. n nI think where we may disagree — and I don't think we do — is my belief that even if Israel attacks Iran without the U.S. go-ahead, we will still back Israel all the way. I think Obama has already as much as said, that Israel will do what it feels it must do.
Yes buddy, you make very good points here. I see what you are saying and perhaps I have been underestimating President Obama on this Iran nuclear thing. I hope and pray that I have been. What I would love to see is the 5th fleet and the U.S. Air Force absolutely CRIPPLE Iran's nuclear program; and also go after all Iranian naval assets and shore missiles so that they cannot threaten the Strait of Hormuz any longer. And also go after the Iranian regime itself. Go for regime change and do not stop until we have achieved it. I am sick to death of the hatred that has been spewing forth from Tehran since 1979. Obscenities like hanging homosexuals from cranes for public viewing. The public stoning of women; things like that, among other things. These SOB's of the Iranian regime MUST be made to pay for the evil acts they have committed since 1979. I have a feeling the majority of the Iranian people will be very relieved and happy if we can help to give their beautiful country back to them. I know that at heart the Persian people are a good, decent, intelligent, wonderful people.
The idea of Netanyahu acting his own without the US is overblown. First, Israeli public opinion won't allow it. Second, Netanyahu needs the US military to pull it off.
Assuming that Israel does strike Iranian nuke sites, the consequences must be faced squarely. n nIt is quite possible that retaliatory missile attacks from Lebanon and Gaza (now that intel has confirmed that all of Israel is in range) could be so severe and overwhelming that the death and destruction from conventional missiles could be as great as a nuclear attack. n nIf Israel cannot quickly stop such a rain of missiles by conventional means, it is possible that Israel might be forced to use one or more nukes against portions of Lebanon to stop the missile attacks. In that vein, Israel should be warning Hezbollah and Hamas that Israel reserves the right to use any and *all* weapons in its arsenal to stop missile attacks against Israel. Let Nasrallah know well in advance that if he chooses to unleash the hordes of missiles he has intentionally placed among civilian neighborhoods, Israel's response will not be restrained.
Yes, sadly, I feel you are right. However, I am no military expert. I also do not know the capabilities of Israel's civil defense to protect its citizenry from conventional missiles. But yes I would in advance warn Hezbollah and Hamas that Israel will not be restrained. After all, Israel really has no choice do they? The wolves surrounding Israel have brought this upon themselves.
The Iranian regime has not to date shown the slightest inclination to relent in their nuclear ambitions. Netanyahu's warning will likely fall upon deaf ears as well. In any case the regime certainly cannot be trusted, no matter what they say or agree to. The time to act is now.
The answer is Tobin's question is no. n nIran wants nuclear weapons. It doesn't believe either the US or Israel have, respectively, the will or the ability to keep Iran from proceeding. And if Iran was wrong on either count, and it is going to lose its program, then it would rather not lost it as a result of outside attack than because Iran's leaders backed down. n nSuch an easy answer, was it a trick question?
Make the following assumption and then draw the likely conclusions: The Iranian regime believes that its acquisition of nuclear weapons is essential to assuring its survival against both domestic and foreign adversaries. Put another way, for the Mullahs not having nuclear weapons poses an existential threat to its survival.