President Obama has repeatedly pledged that he will never allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. But given that his various attempts at engagement, diplomacy and now sanctions show no signs of working, it is inevitable that speculation about his willingness to use force persists. However, that is the one thing Washington has never seemed willing to contemplate. Though even the president will occasionally say that no options are being left off the table, the administration has been doing its best to argue that military strikes would only give the West a temporary respite. But, as Lee Smith writes in Tablet, the claim that strikes on Iran wouldn’t effectively end the threat tell us more about the president’s unwillingness to use force than it does about its effect on Iran.
This premise that Iran’s nuclear program is basically invulnerable to military attack is wrong. Though its targets are spread out and many have been hardened to render air strikes less deadly, the notion that a concentrated campaign couldn’t take them out underestimates American air power. Moreover, the notion that the Iranians would have the personnel, the resources and the will to start from scratch again overestimates their capabilities. The difficulties that are cited as insuperable obstacles to an attack have been inflated out of proportion to the actual problem, because the administration has no interest in undertaking the mission.
As Smith writes, if the United States were to knock out Iran’s air defenses, its missile program as well as the nuclear plants, it would present the regime with an impossible dilemma because the cash-starved government barely has the resources to maintain its infrastructure, let alone rebuild it.
Smith quoted one credulous Israeli who expressed faith in the Obama administration’s willingness to go to the mat with Iran despite everything it has done and said that would incline a more sober observer to conclude it has no intention of making good on its promises. Indeed, as Retired General Jack Keane (the former vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army) said to Smith:
I don’t believe this administration has any intention, ever, of attacking Iran. I don’t believe it, the Israelis don’t believe it, and the Iranians don’t believe it.
Keane is right. The whole thrust of American diplomacy has tended to reinforce Iran’s belief that President Obama is a paper tiger who will never challenge them. That explains their arrogant refusal to play in the P5+1 talks where they could, if they wanted it, accept a weak deal that would probably enable them to eventually go nuclear because of the probability that the West hasn’t the will to enforce such an accord.
So long as the United States is committed to diplomacy, the odds are Israel will not act on its own. The “window of diplomacy” that the president has touted is all but closed, but it is likely that it will limp along at least until the November election. After that, should the president be re-elected, belief in his willingness to act on Iran, even as a last resort, rests on pure faith that is undermined every day by the signals emanating from the administration.
"President Obama has repeatedly pledged that he will never allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons." n nAnd Iran has not obtained nuclear weapons.
And I supposed we are all to take him at his word? Count me out. n nWon’t it be just great if February next year Iran tests publicly its first nuclear bomb (not counting any that North Korea has already tested); then Obama can say he kept his word, at least on this issue. (As far as ObamaCare is concerned; well, that is an entirely different matter.) n
North Korea? ObamaCare? Iran testing a bomb and Obama saying he kept his word? n nWell, nvkma, yours may not be the most nonsensical comment ever posted, but you get an A for effort.
thanks Shecky! I needed the laugh.
Always glad to oblige an imbecile!
HillelA, your comment about Obama keeping his pledge because Iran has not obtained nukes was imbeclic, so please watch yourself.
Another county heard from. I wonder if BDZ also challenges (or scoffs at) my simple claim that Iran has not obtained nuclear weapons. If so, perhaps he and they have info that's thus far has eluded US and Israeli intelligence. If not — if it's agreed that Iran has not yet obtained nuclear weapons — then the question of Obama keeping his pledge is moot.
"Another country heard from"—this is a webiste, you remember? People are encouraged to post, right? Or is this just the HillelA show, with everyone else a distraction. n nI don't know if they have nukes, but it was imbecilic of you to assume that (a) Obama kept his pledge (which was not really a pledge) just because they don't, as if if Obama promises it won't rain today and it doesn't, that Obama has kept his pledge and (b) that even he had such a pledge, that pledge is beyond question the right one to to make, when in fact many strategists point out that the real red line should be different.
Hah! Hillel, if we are to take Obama's "pledges" as given in the first sentence of this post as literal to the utmost (which is what you're [**emphasis**] attempting to do), then Iran will NEVER obtain nuclear weapons, or else Barack Obama will have broken his pledge. I.e., if Romney wins the White House in November, and Iran obtains nuclear weapons in 2014, Obama will have broken his pledge. n nYou can't just look to the claim as to whether or not he's kept to it so far, because he's made it in light of the plausibility of the negative outcome of a current scenario (such is why Obama claimed unemployment wouldn't rise above 8%–because we were expecting the immediate future of jobs to be in jeopardy). (As such, the scenario still exists, and is trying.) I don't see anyone pledging that Saudi Arabia will never have nuclear weapons–well, actually, I will make that pledge: I will never allow Saudi Arabia to obtain nuclear weapons. (That should bolster my credibility quite a bit!)
I'm sure that all this is obvious to you Hillel, and that you're just being obtuse, but what is at issue is Obama's clarity regarding the Iranian problem, his clash of various interests (such as his seemingly chief desire to prevent an Israeli attack), his ultimate goal (hopefully, not just reelection) and, lastly, his resolution–his willingness to use force if it becomes the only means that will halt Iran's nuclear program.
Obama is far more worried about Israel attacking Iran than Iran getting nukes. he foolishly thinks the Iranians can be reasoned with. he apparently hasn't been paying attention for the last half a century or more. n nIsrael should NOT wait until after the election to bomb Iran; they should go now. there's just a chance the US will back them; as long as old Barack needs Jewish votes and Jewish money for his campaign, he has to be somewhat circumspect about his anti-Zionist leanings. n nbut if Obama is reelected, Israel's going to be in a world of hurt. Obama will continue to fund the Islamos in Egypt even if they break the treaty with Israel…he will continue to give the Pals money even tho Congress has said that he can't…and, IMHO, he will support the Pals' bid for a state at the UN, which would be devastating to Israel. he could even try to reduce Israel's foreign aid. n nif Obama somehow gets in for a second term–look out, Bibi.
The rhythmic regularity with which Jonathan Tobin, Jennifer Rubin, and their confrères agitate for and demand an aggressive air war on Iran has, alas, inured us to the fundamental criminality of this demand. Let us be clear–Iran has not attacked us frontally. Occasional covert forays have occurred on both sides, but there has been nothing remotely constituting an open military attack. We are not friendly with Iran, but we are at peace. n nTo agitate, therefore, for an aggressive bombing campaign is to advocate a crime, under the treaty obligations of the United States, and under most versions of the just war doctrine. n nIn short, this is open warmongering. It is also fair to say, in spite of efforts to justify it in terms of the US national interest, that this agitation is to a large extent motivated by concerns about Israel, not about the security of the United States, which even a nuclear-armed Iran could scarcely threaten. n nBecause AIPAC and other have enlisted most of the Congress in its campaign against Iran, and because this clamor have been so oft-repeated, so that this war agitation has become as commonplace as acts of prostitution in a crack house, there is a tendency for us no longer be shocked. Think about it for a minute. Iran is a sovereign country that has not attacked us, and is not planning to attack us, the agitation is for us to attack it repeatedly with high-tech explosives, from the air. n nSuch a demand is morally disgraceful. It is criminal. It is strategic folly. For shame. For shame.
I'm sure you apply the same standard to all other conflicts in which the US has engaged despite not having been attacked, right? You wouldn't selectively impose this standard only when Israel can be brought in, would you?
Yes, I'm sure that in the run-up to the Second World War, GOM was also warning about war mongers orchestrated by the internatioan Zionist bankers trying to push the US into another criminal war for the benefit of Jewish profiteers.
My goodness. I don't know if Iran should be attacked to remove it's potential nuclear arsenal or not. Nobody really does. I have my assessment, but I can't know if I am right. Only history will provide the answer. But your reasons for being so sure that no attack is warranted are crap. Does your dislike of Israel and your firm belief that all Jews in the U.S. are Israel-firsters cloud your judgment so much that you cannot see what this Iranian regime is all about and the potential havoc they could unleash on the World! You have to ask yourself … it is less moral to strategically bomb a country to prevent an unstable regime from acquiring nucleur weapons when they have no good reason for developing nuclear, are prevented from doing so by treaty, and were offered alternatives to development if they really want it; then not bombing and taking the chance against all evidence that they really just want to have nuclear power generators; or they are really good world citizens and would never, never use a bomb if they were to develop one. This question remains whether or not there is AIPAC, Richard Perle, or Israel.
@BDZ. As a matter of fact, I try to apply this standard across the board. There is no threat of the magnitude of the Soviet Union in the days of the Cold War. We should radically reduce our commitments across the board, close many of our foreign bases, review our treaty obligations, and rely primarily on a continental defense. I happen to find Israel rather distasteful, but I don't think our policy should be based on "human rights," always a selective and propaganda-laden matter, and Israel's unpleasant features wouldn't be our problem if the domestic claque for Israel were not so loud and influential. The Greek, Cuban exile, Armenian and East Indian lobbies are far weaker. n n@MacDaddy. I don't think most Jews in the US are Israel-firsters. Jews mostly opposed the war in Iraq more than most Americans, and I suspect if you asked them, many or even most would be opposed to attacking Iran. There are, however, coteries of Jewish pundits and Jewish organizations that favor an aggressive policy that is not in the US interest and arguably not in Israel's interest, either. n nI don't think the Iranian regime is what you say it is. It is clerical to a degree and the clerics are rooted in Shi'a Islam, but it is not not expansionist–it's already 1/2 non-Persian and doesn't need more minorities. The US has had troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf, and has a history of intervention in Iran, so it would not be irrational for Iran to develop a nuclear deterrent (as, of course, Israel has done for similar reasons). But it is not clear Iran is doing so. As for using nukes, I do not believe the clerics want to lose Teheran, Isfahan, Qum, etc., which they very well might do if they attacked Israel or a US ally with a nuclear weapon. n nThere is no strong geopolitical reason for Iran and the US to be at loggerheads. It's mostly historic grievances and the need for someone to play The Enemy to justify a national security state on each side. Where is this generation's Kissinger, to begin a rapprochement with Teheran? n nI also don't believe anyone but John Bolton would be agitating for an attack on Iran were it not for the "friends" of Israel mobilizing on the issue. The Jewish organizations are quite powerful on issues they care about, as they boast to their own members and donors, but woe betide any non-Jewish observer who recognizes this.
I am glad to hear your reasoning on this, but I don't buy it. Yes, there are a coterie of Jews that advocate an aggressive approach with Iran, but though I cannot say with certaintly, I am confident that there are coteries of Jews and Jewish organizations that advocate the opposite (In fact I have heard individual Jews speak out against force). And there are plenty of non-Jews that argue the exact same points. So, I think there is little to suggest that religion or ethnicity has any bearing on how one thinks on this issue. Some Jews may be concerned about Israel vis a vis Iran, but it does not necessarily form their thinking on the U.S./Iran relationship. Your other points are overstated IMO. Yes, we have a history of some intervention. But U.S. actions and behavior do not suggest that we would be a threat to Iran at this point in history (except for perhaps trying through non-violent means to remove their power structure – which unfortunately even that we did not do when we had the chance) if not for their nuclear ambitions.
(continued) It is much more rationale for a country like Israel to want this type of deterrent. They have been, are and will be faced with existential threats from almost all of their neighbors. They have the capacity to create this deterrent and are not ruled by a theocratic cadre of religious zealots. And 'yes', there are no strong geopolitical reasons to be at loggerheads with Iran. So why do they always screw with us and create such mayhem? This shows their nature. Unbridled hatred of Israel is sufficent to give them common cause and deflect some hatred toward their government. They do not have to add the U.S. to the mix. So, I do not believe that they are rational actors, as you would seem to suggest.
"Unbridled hatred of Israel is sufficent to give them common cause and deflect some hatred toward their government. They do not have to add the U.S. to the mix. " nWe Americans are fond of deluding ourselves that Iran hates the US because of Israel. The reverse is true — the Irananians hate Israel, whom they call The Little Satan, because they see it as an extension of the culture of the US, whom they call the The Great Satan.
" I don't think most Jews in the US are Israel-firsters. Jews mostly opposed the war in Iraq " nBy that standard, Israel is not an Israel firster either. The Israelis thought that the war against Iraq was a dumb idea, notwithstanding the delusions of the world's Jew haters and anti-Zionists.
On top of what others have said, Tobin and most Jewish organizations are NOT as you misrepresent, demanding bombing. They are demanding harsh sanctions to avoid the need for bombing. But that does not fit your preconceived "AIPAC is Master of Universe" meme, so you ignore it.
Don't be a dunce, Old Man. The Cold War was a time of abnormally high tension because the whole world was in fear of NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION. During this time, what "comforted" us was the Mutually Assured DESTRUCTION dynamic. n nA rational actor we can hope will a) confine their nuclear arsenal to themselves (at best) or (more negatively) themselves and rational, like-minded allies, and b) understand the MAD dynamic. n nWhat, pray tell, will we console ourselves with concerning an irrational actor with nuclear weapons? n nSo, while there may not be a "threat of the magnitude of the Soviet Union in the days of the Cold War," I think we can fairly say that there is a threat of there being such a threat.
As well, Old Man, the US is not limited to military action only when its security is threatened. The foreign policy of the US (ideally if not in practice) is to increase American prosperity and influence in an ever more stabilized world. (Generally, conservatives, it could be said, find America to be the only stable source of stability.) When something threatens any of those things, America is justified to use force. (Read Krauthammer's "The Unipolar Moment"–mine and your foreign policies are defined therein.) n nI'll let others make the case that we are already warring on various fronts against Iran, such as an economic one–and that Iran has first fought against us, and that materially and through proxies. (It's also odd that you're such an isolationist and think "[w]e should radically reduce our commitments across the board, close many of our foreign bases, review our treaty obligations, and rely primarily on a continental defense," while simultaneously suggesting the "treaty obligations of the United States" are sufficient to bind us in this regard and should.)
Observers must wonder what are the likely outcomes of the present build up of US, Brit and French forces in The Gulf and elsewhere and likewise Russia’s mobilization of ships seemingly focused at or around it’s naval base at Tartus, Syria.
It seems to me that all of them have one clear objective in common, and it’s not to attack Iran, it is to prevent Israel from attacking Iran. If true, it amounts to the most concerted international gauntlet set up to counter a purely defensive move by Israel. On the one hand, it is perhaps, in a sense, a recognition or appreciation of Israeli Military prowess on the other a glimpse of what could one day be an international effort to force Israel into accepting the indefensible ’49 lines with an armed angry and bitter terrorist entity in addition to Gaza, Judea and Samaria. Add to that, if I may project ahead; given the result, so far, of the so-called Arab Spring, Syria ends up being worse for Israel than under Assad’s Alawite rule. Sure Assad was sinister, but the border was quiet. I’ll project a hot border with rocket attacks kind of like what we see in Gaza and now Egypt,not to mention the same from Lebanon.
Add to that Iran getting the bomb, soon to be followed by Saudi and the so-called “moderate” arab states’ acquisition of portable ready to go bomb programs, probably with help from North Korea and other assorted scum.
That is what I think is happening. I hope I am wrong.
Iran and Obama have no doubt reached a quiet detente where Iran agrees not to detonate a nuke before the Spring of 2013 and the US agrees not to attack them if they do. After that, all bets are off, at least on the Iranian side. They will most likely have some kind of nuclear weapons test by mid 2013 and while they will claim they'll be able to stick one on the end of a missile, they won't at least not for another year. By then end of 2014 the US and Europe will be in such economic and political turmoil they won't have the bandwidth to worry about Iran any more and they wind up leaving it to Israel to sort out by default.
Really, all that matters is that Barack Obama is a liar. Any Israeli who think he will "protect" Israel is either a fool or an Evil Son.