As Seth wrote earlier today, Israeli distrust of President Obama’s intentions on Iran is the product of nearly four years of policies designed to create more distance between the two allies on this and other issues. But since the president wants to stop an Israeli attack on Iran (and worries that some pro-Israel voters will hold his inaction against him in November, the administration used its favorite media mouthpiece — the New York Times —to float a raft a proposals that are intended to calm Jerusalem and its overseas friends. But the problem with these ideas is that they are focused more on stopping Israel than Iran.
Today’s front-page story in the Times states that the administration is considering the following: Naval exercises in the Persian Gulf to intimidate the Iranians; efforts to clamp down on Iran’s still-booming sources of oil revenue despite the supposedly “crippling” sanctions belatedly imposed on the country by the West; more covert activities aimed at sabotaging Iran’s nuclear facilities; the construction of a radar facility in Qatar and a clear statement by the president as to the circumstances under which the United States will use force to stop Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. The last point is the one the Israelis have been begging Washington for but it is also apparently the one that the president is least interested in carrying out.
As for the other ideas, they have all been tried and failed. Under these circumstances, can anyone wonder why the Israelis fear they are on their own and the Iranians are confident they can defy the United States?
As to the administration’s ideas for mollifying the Israelis, they are not terribly impressive. There’s nothing wrong with conducting Naval exercises in the Gulf. But unless President Obama can convince the ayatollahs that their belief he is too weak to challenge them is wrong, little good will come of such activities.
Obama administration rhetoric about toughening the sanctions is about as credible as politicians promising to cut the budget via eliminating waste and corruption. The sanctions have been undermined by the more than 10,000 exemptions handed out by the Treasury Department to businesses to maintain ties to Iran as well as the president’s pass given to China to keep importing Iranian oil. That’s not counting the various measures the Iranians have come up with to evade the sanctions via smuggling and financial sleight-of-hand. Nothing short of a full economic boycott and blockade of Iran is called for, but we all know that isn’t happening. So any further discussion of sanctions is merely a diversion intended to distract us from the fact that the current policy has failed.
As for more covert activities directed at Iran, I might be more impressed with the prospect if I didn’t read about it first on the front page of the New York Times along with the Iranians whose responsibility it is to stop the West’s efforts. For the same administration that illegally leaked information about cyber-warfare to the Times earlier this year to go back to the same newspaper to publicly threaten a new round of attacks demonstrates astonishing chutzpah as well as incompetence.
But far worse than that is the talk of a new radar system to be installed in Qatar that would serve, along with other facilities in Turkey and Israel, to create an arc of anti-missile coverage. As much as such a system would be useful to defend the region against Iranian attacks, it is also a sign that, contrary to the president’s pledge, the administration is contemplating “containment” of a nuclear Iran rather than preventing them from obtaining such a capability.
That this is being publicly mooted makes sense, since everything the administration has done is leading to the inevitable conclusion that it will not undertake any concrete action to stop Iran. Under the best circumstances, containment would greatly empower Iran and allow it to intimidate its rivals in the region and strengthen its allies such as Hezbollah and the Assad regime in Iran. But the notion of deterrence of a fanatical, anti-Semitic regime determined to eliminate the Jewish state is probably a fantasy and that is why Israel’s leaders are determined to act to prevent their acquiring nukes before it is too late.
President Obama might avoid such an eventuality if he were to make firm public promises about the use of force and state that he would do so before Iran’s program got close to completion rather than afterward. But that is something he seems most reluctant to do. With reassurances like these, the Israelis are being brutally reminded that they must depend on no one but themselves.
If Israel were going to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, wouldn't a good time be during Obama's convention speech? That would send a certain kind of message…
I doubt many people will be watching Obama. n nI can't be the only one who can't stand the sound of his voice, at this point. n nBut I am sure the Iranians will be listening. They like the cut of his jib. n n(Is that racist? . . . because 'jib' is a sailing term, and sailing is viewed as a white man's sport, and by using that allusion, I subtly remind readers that Obama is not white. I don't want to be accused of dog whistling you see . . . .)
I know it's easy for me to say, safely here in America, but I really don't know what Bibi is waiting for. if Obama wins in November, well, G-d better help Israel because nobody else is likely to. n nblue, I really like the idea of going during Obama's convention speech. I hope the IDF is listening!
If I hear Obama say 'We're going to implement sanctions that bite!' one more time, I won't be responsible for what happens to the bottle of vodka in the freezer. n nCrunch time for America and Israel. So much rides on this election.
If Israel were to attack Iran now, Obama's threat to retaliate against Israel is no longer even hidden. He's basically saying "We'll flatten you with our carrier groups".
How so? I get the 'you're on your own', but I don't see active military action. n nObama is passive aggressive with Israel. n nMedically speaking, passive aggressive is code for a$$h*le, you know.
My sense of it it's a direct threat. Obama has no need to send carriers in harm's way in Iran if in the same breath he's announcing he won't intervene in any Iranian counter strike. Those ships and planes serve no useful purpose except to be big fat targets, unless he's using them as a not very subtle bludgeon against Israel.
Israel isn't on the Gulf, Empress_Trudy. It's very roundabout to send the planes on flyovers to get to Israel air space from there when the Mediterranean is next door to Tel Aviv and the Israeli waistline. Even the most dire reports, which have been denied, have O telling the Persians that he would deter Israel/allow Iranian retaliation *as long as Iran didn't attack U.S. and allied Sunni assets in the Gulf.* The carriers would be there to make sure that Iran kept away from the emirates and the oil, not to defend Israel (worst case) and not to attack Israel (any case).
This particular piece by J.S.T., is one of the best I have read recently on this current situation. It is brief, clear, concise and objective.
Sure, it is more bad news for Israel and her leaders, yet,it is much better to know NOW, rather than in 2013; that The United States’ assurances to Israel, in Sept. 2012, have about as much value as The Camp David Accords.
Israel has been played for a sucker by this administration since day one.
It must be really difficult for Bibi to keep his cool under these dire set of circumstances. Yet when Prostitute Shapiro, and Captain Kangaroo Dempsey pressured Netanyahu last week to guarantee Washington that Israel would not act on Iran, he said, “NO”.
I’m afraid that is going to be the easy part mostly because I tend to agree with The Empress Trudy. The clearest expressions of Obama advisors as well as the ‘noise’ emanating from the so-called US intelligence’
talking heads is that cia and MOSSAD are at daggers drawn.
The US is prepared to try to intercept Israel in order to keep it’s commitment to Putin, for one, but it really lusts to give Israel and particularly PM Netanyahu a black eye, no pun intended.They wish to remove him from his seat.
I am optimistic Obama is finished. Which, considering he may truly be the unmitigated WORST US President since George Washington, is a good thing.
Romney very intelligently gave Obama no new information into how he plans to knock him out in the first round of debates. Keep them guessing until the last second. Romney has the raw materials, now refine them to perfection.
A second Obama term is suicide for The USA. That has now become crystal clear. No errors, I beg of you.
How maddening! n nHow maddening! n nThe way to combat Iran, if one is reluctant to use direct force, yet determined to be effective, is to undermine the regime though clandestine support of opposition groups, while simultaneously destabilizing it through economic pressure. And by the latter, I do NOT mean another round of toothless sanctions. Rather, one combats Iran by making oil cheaper. One makes oil cheaper either by reducing demand (not feasible in the short or mid-term), or by increasing supply. n nLet the next POTUS announce, and take steps in furtherance of, a policy of exploiting prodigious indigenous American oil and gas resources, and watch the price begin to slide. You think the Iranian people are cranky now?…… n nBonus round: a more robust and dynamic American economy (of the sort which would be unleashed by such indigenous energy exploitation) would be FAR more capable of chipping away at demand over the longer haul, via the development of alternate energy sources, like, say, hydrogen as an industrially scalable fuel, via fission-cracked seawater.
with friends like obama who needs enemies.? n nisrael must re enact for the umpteenth time the david and goliath story. n nexcept that israel is perceived as the goliath when in fact it is still david and we all know how that story ends. n nisrael will prevail but is living in a fools paradise, this pariah situation cannot go on forever. n n n
It is clear that those who read and post here are Israel Firsters whose loyalty to the US is not even skin deep and probably not a one ever serve in the US military. In other words, a pack of traitors, one and all.