Nothing annoys foreign policy establishment types more than the need for presidents to pander to the opinions of the voters. That’s even more true this year than most as President Obama’s desire to pose as Israel’s best friend ever to sit in the White House has caused him to take stands that not only bother veteran Foggy Bottom “realists” but also his core supporters and staffers who apparently take a dim view of the desire of the overwhelming majority of the American people to support Israel and to vigorously oppose Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But though Obama’s Jewish charm offensive may still be in full swing, government insiders are apparently working overtime to send Israel and the rest of the world the signal that the president’s political commitments ought not to be taken all that seriously.
That’s the upshot of a week of heavy duty leaking on the part of administration officials who are less than thrilled about the fact that the president has publicly enlisted them in an effort to stop Iran. Yesterday, there was the attempt by Washington to expose Israel’s secret alliance with Azerbaijan and thereby ensure that it would be broken off so as to render an attack on Iran more difficult. Today, the New York Times has another leaked story in which anonymous government figures state their concern the president’s public rhetoric on Iran has boxed them into a spot that neither he nor they want to be in.
The leaking demonstrates just how unhappy the Washington foreign and defense policy establishment is about the way the president’s re-election campaign has led him to commit himself to action on Iran. Lest there be any doubt about the purpose of these disclosures, the officials tell the Times their hope is these stories as well as the recent leak about a Pentagon war simulation that was specifically crafted to feed speculation about possible U.S. casualties in the event of a conflict with Iran are designed to “provide the president with some political cover.”
The “cover” will presumably be necessary because the administration has no intention of ever actually going to the mat with Iran in spite of all the tough talk that comes out of the president’s mouth when addressing pro-Israel audiences. Some of the anonymous sources for the Times story are worried about the tough talk taking on a life of its own and overwhelming their proposed diplomatic plans on Iran. But the underlying assumption of these leaks is that the real truth about the president’s plans was revealed in his “hot mic” moment with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev when he spoke of having more “flexibility” after his “last election,” not his speech to AIPAC.
But for all the duplicity involved in the formulation of current U.S. policy toward Iran, the leakers have brought attention to a genuine dilemma. The president has condemned “loose talk” about war with Iran and has stuck to his belief that diplomacy can find a way to beguile the Iranians to abandon their nuclear plans. But the talkative administration officials understand all too well that the president’s “window of diplomacy” never really existed. No matter how much they boast of their success in creating an international coalition to back sanctions against Iran, they know this is mere talk. The Iranians don’t believe the Europeans will, when push comes to shove, enforce crippling sanctions against them. And they have no intention of backing down.
That means sooner or later, President Obama will have to choose between actually taking action on Iran and breaking his promise to ensure that Iran never goes nuclear. His staffers just hope that moment comes after November when, they presume, he can safely break his word. After all these leaks, if the Iranians didn’t already know this to be true, they know it now.
Unfortunately for those despairing of Obama's nervously eyeing the doors of concession and appeasement exiting from even the appearance of possible tough action, Israel, from all available evidence has zero, zilch, nadda, effes actual plans to launch a preemptive attack against Iran and are happy to see what happens as Obama, to preserve appearances, tiptoes in and out of sanctions that are beginning, with all the waivers and backtracking to bite. The Israeli timeline is not as close in as some folks assume.
And your evidence for this conclusion would be?
If Besht 2003 is correct, the Israeli government is less war hungry than its American acolytes. This is hardly surprising, because the retaliatory missile barrage would not hit New York or DC, but Israel. Moreover, Israelis have military experience, which may give them pause. Neurashthenic luftmenshn beating the war drums are a pretty sad lot.
Well, could be an *American attack* would actually succeed imo. But that isn't happening so worrying about it is flogging a horse that hasn't even been born yet. America doesn't feel the pain. Israel, not yet. If Israel were truly set on it near term then American pressure to refrain–which is not helpful when it exposes delicate relations with Baku–would be more consequential imo. On the one hand Iran moves ahead (with Korea possibly) testing components of a nuclear delivery system, otoh there is something ragamuffin about the bizarre displays of less than overwhelming military credibility rolled out with supposed miracle drones out of an Ed Wood movie and special ops forces buzzing about on little Japanese red motorcycles. It's a puzzler.
I know that nothing would entertain the right more than a war in Iran, but there are some points to consider – 1. Much of Israel's bluster is an attempt to manipulate U.S. public opinion and damage a President that they feel is not compliant enough. 2. A military strike would set the Iran nuke program 1 to 2 years, after which we are left with…diplomacy. 3. The sanctions are having an effect on Iran. so why not let them play out? 4. Military options are always available, but hysterical public threats are correctly seen, by the Iranians, as political B.S. Real threats are delivered quietly and through channels – even with Iran.
I think only your first point has any truth in it (with some exaggeration alongside–"Much of Israel's bluster," "not compliant enough"), though it is far from being completely true: because Israel, while it would of course like for the U.S. to strike Iran, will almost certainly strike Iran absent a U.S. strike or U.S. support of an Israeli strike. n nRegarding "point 2," well, once Iran goes nuclear, the US will have nothing to work against it except… well, diplomacy. As well, to quote the prologue of an old book ("The Spymasters of Israel") I have in my possession (the truth still historically holds, I'm sure), the context in the book being the strike against the Iraqi reactor: "Ever since Hiroshima, the world has talked about the problem of proliferation. This was the first time a country about to go nuclear had been halted in its tracks, and it was military action and not negotiation that did it." n nAs well, I'd also like to know how effectively sanctions are setting back the Iranian nuclear program: the Iranian economic issue is a large one, as are the economic issues of all countries; and yet, it's debatable as to whether and to what degree the general economic state effects individual programs. (The Iranian leadership [leadership] has to be significantly affected or significantly damaged for its calculus to be significantly affected and altered.) n nRegarding "point 3," well, what matters is not that sanctions have "an effect," but THE effect, the desired effect and end of our Iranian policy. Sanctions can severely damage Iran's economy and still fail the test. n n"Point 4" has no value because, among other things (your knowledge of these types of affairs one might fairly doubt), your choice of words is inane–"hysterical public threats" at most would only be the promises of Obama, though "hysterical" they certainly are not (charitably, one could easily say they're "doubtful"). n n~ n nAs to whether or not a "war in Iran" (IN Iran? and who being the actors?) would "entertain the right," well, let's see: 1) Iran is already AT war with Israel and the West; 2) a nuclear Iran would become immortal; 3) and immortal Iran would be emboldened; 4) an immortal emboldened Iran would mean the West and Israel would find itself in an immortal war, and of escalated character from the former character. n nWhat's most fair to say "of the right," or at least the segments of right that come out hawkish on this issue, is that they don't view an escalated and open war against Iran (if they even view that as a possible or probable outcome–I don't think Iran would escalate action against America in the region following an Israeli strike, as that'd be certain doom under most American Presidents) as the worst possible outcome of the current state of things–the worst possible outcome of the current state of things would of course (per this group) be a "weapon state" Iran. On that note, I see no reason, even though this is generally a neoconservative-informing site, why you even had to speak in such terms of your supposed political opponents–you are for continuing the sanctions because they are "having an effect," so obviously you are, to some degree, for some effort to stop the acquisition of the Iranian nuke (or you are, at least, when those on the left try to appear as they are). Who are you more against: those who try to develop the most credible threats and resolutions of actions (the more credible and determined we, the more affected Iran's calculus), or Iran? Whom, on this issue, are you more against?
Of course, I don't want to see a nuclear Iran. My stated concern is with Neo-Cons and certain Republicans who make public and militaristic pronouncements that seem a little hollow. Most of these folks would not dream of serving in our military or of sending their children to do so. Further, they would reject tax increases to support these conflicts. ( Afghanistan & Iran were the first major set of combat operations that were not accompanied by a tax increase in American history.) nGoing to my maligned point 4, we currently have two carrier groups in the Persian Gulf. I know that Romney wanted to send the entire Navy, but we have sufficient force there for major air strikes now. But, planes will be brought down, ships may be hit and we will take casualties. nThese operations will be costly in every sense, so my inclination ( as a combat veteran) is to proceed with a little caution.
2. A military strike would set the Iran nuke program 1 to 2 years, after which we are left with…diplomacy……. n nOr more military strikes.
Your rating is -63? that's worse than mine. How does a conservative achieve that here?
If the complaint is that a plucky President with the novel strategy of defending the red white and blue via on-budget plus sequestration cuts of 1.5 trillion (trillion) dollars–and slashing our nuclear deterrent (and, is this mic one?–our anti-missile capability)–is under attack for not being a pliant satrap of Israel-that's some prime B.S itself. Israeli leaders don't know what to do, and Obama is all too prone to cut and run leaving Israel stranded on the dotted yellow line of the freeway. Stil, yes there are sanctions. Yes, Israel's talk right now is still at the just talk stage. And maybe diplomacy works and maybe 5 plus 1 ends with Obama crowing, "We have them exactly where we want. They've agreed to accept all of our unilateral concessions." Or maybe not. n nThe funny thing about the future is that it really isn't here yet. The kids on the way to visit Aunt Ethel and Uncle Sid can ask all the way from Bayside to West Palm Beach, "are we there yet? are we there yet?" The answer has to be, "no we aren't. Read your books or watch a movie, you'll just have to wait."