Speculation about whether Israel will decide to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities continues to build, but the latest report out of Jerusalem confirms that the answer to the question is still to be found in Washington. The Times of Israel reports that Israel’s Channel 10 has quoted sources close to Prime Minister Netanyahu that claim the chances of a strike on Iran are declining. What’s more, they say that if President Obama gives Netanyahu assurances that the United States has firm “red lines” that will trigger action against Iran, there will be no need for Israel to act on its own.
The two men are scheduled to meet later this month on September 27 while Netanyahu is in New York to address the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. But the question hanging over this meeting is whether the White House will interpret Netanyahu’s attitude as an opportunity to call his bluff or a challenge that requires the president to start taking the issue seriously.
What the Israelis want is clear enough. They need the United States to stop acting as if they can kick the can down the road indefinitely on this issue. The administration line that a policy of diplomacy and sanctions needs more time to work has no credibility. Iran has already made it clear for years that they have no intention of backing away from their nuclear goal. The sanctions that were belatedly adopted by President Obama are just as unlikely to bring Tehran to its knees even if they were rigidly enforced rather than being routinely flouted.
The latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency is eroding any lingering doubts about Iran’s intentions or the progress it has made toward realizing its dangerous ambition. But with the number of centrifuges being doubled and now stored in a possibly invulnerable underground facility, the Israelis are rightly worried that time is running out fast before it will be too late to stop Iran.
Unfortunately, the administration has spent most of this year worrying more about Israel acting on its own than about the fact that the Iranian peril may no longer be manageable. But the Israeli preference has always been to act in concert with the United States. The problem is their lack of trust in Obama. They know he has been dragged reluctantly toward confrontation with Iran every step of the way and rightly worry that he will refuse to act if he is re-elected.
Should Obama give a concrete, public promise that action will be taken, Israel’s concerns will be answered and the U.S.-Israel argument will be put to rest. However, if the president interprets this report as Netanyahu weakening his stand and fails to deliver the assurances that are needed, he will squander a chance to end this argument.
As his intervention in the Democrats’ platform fiasco showed, the president is aware that he has a problem with pro-Israel voters. But what is needed now from him is not the traditional boilerplate political rhetoric he has used in the past but a genuine vow to avert a danger to American security as well as an existential threat to Israel.
Stop deluding yourself- Obama will not take any action against a muslim, or a muslim state. Netanyahu is a coward – he talks tough publicly, but then he wavers privately, and he always yields to every demand from the United States. Sadly, the children of the pioneering generation of strong, tough Jewish Israelis are a disappointment.
Well said!
Bibi has the choice of following Menachem Begin, who bombed the Iraqui nuclear reactor, and be a hero to the jewish people forever or end up like ehud olmert, a turncoat and an embarassment to his people.
Can Israel trust Mr. Obama to keep his word, assuming he gives his word? n nMr. Obama has consistently snubbed Israel, reneged on Mr. Bush's promise (given in writing no less) to keep certain settlements within Israel in any land partition, disrespected Mr. Netanyahu at the White House, and has, in concert with Mrs. Clinton, floated the idea that the U.S. could contain a nuclear Iran under America's nuclear umbrella. Let's not mention how the democrats despise God (and by extension any people based on religion; note also their battle with Catholics on payments for abortion). What is more, the democrats can't bring themselves to call Jerusalem the capital of Israel as Mr. Jay Carney could not say so in an interview nor was it in the democratic platform approved by Mr. Obama. n nIf you need further evidence, ask yourself how Iraqi's feel now that Mr. Obama has abandoned that country, as Max Boot noted today. Plus, as if we need more, ask the Afghani's how they feel with a U.S. withdrawal date fast approaching and the Taliban waiting to return. n nFrankly, the situation for Israel is that she can't count on Mr. Obama, no matter what he might say. The only hope is that Mr. Romney is elected and then Israel will have a friend in the White House.
Wait a minute. Surely Obama would never disavow his own assurances? When has he ever done that? Oh, wait – - – n nBut surely he would be deterred by the fact that the US has always stood by foreign nations that have put themselves at risk based on the assurances of the US? Just ask the South Vietnamese, the Hmong, the Cambodians, the Laotians, the — oh. Never mind. n nAnd that US forces would guard Israel's northern flank if Israel withdrew from Lebanon. It's not like the US pulled out completely the first time US troops were killed in a completely foreseeable and inexcusable act of negligence on the part of their commanding officer. Oh, wait; n n[more]
[cont'd] But it's not like the US (pre-Obama) has ever gone back on its word to Israel. I mean we promised that if Israel allowed PLO forces to sail out of Beirut in 1982 we would see that they were first disarmed and — oh. Or that we would make sure as part of Oslo that the PLO would disavow its goal of destroying Israel, would strictly limit the number of its armed police force, would not train terrorists as security force members, and would limit who got armed and what kind of arms and — oh. n nAnd surely the US never broke its promise to make sure the PLO would stop supporting terrorism, glorifying terrorists and inciting people to murder Jews, as promised at Oslo, Wye River and again and again. n nI could go on, but the day is short and the work is much.
Obama will do nothing. Israel is on its own. What is will do is a decision for its own people and leaders.
Mind games and subterfuge. On both American and Israeli sides. n nLet the Iranians believe an Israeli attack is not forthcoming. It may compensate for the over-talking and over-promising the Israelis have engaged in for the past 7 years. n nIs it possible to regain surprise? Doubtful, but worth a try.
Let us hope an Israeli attack is both forthcoming and effective. I shudder to think of a world where the Iranians have a deliverable WMD.
If we played "shot bingo" every time Bibi or Barak leaked or hinted or opined that "Israel and America have different clocks" or "Israel reserves the right to guarantee its own security" etc. etc. we'd all be roaring drunk by now. The Iranians are probably right.
Israel should not even remotely consider accepting any words of Obama, when it comes to issues of their national security. To do so, would be national suicide.
Yes it is. Isn't this the same US ambassador who claims that the parents of Rachel Corrie (may her name be erased) did not get a fair trial?
Will Israel Attack? It’s Up to Obama
Why assume Obama will win?;maybe it’s up to Romney
Because by the time anyone finds out whether Romney wins, it will be too late; Israel cannot risk having to attack during a second Obama term, when fear of reelection will not constrain Obama from doing whatever he liks. Duh.
Duh n nSo if Israel attacks Iran between Nov 7th and Dec 31st,whose fault would it be,the winner's or the loser's? LOL
Depends who wins, doesn't it? But it would be Obama's for failing to take meaningful and effective action to stop Iran from reaching nuclear weapons capability, wouldn't it? nEch omrim 'troll' b'ivrit?
Will Israel Attack? It’s Up to Obama n nWhy assume Obama will win?;maybe it's up to Romney.
Israel should attack while Natanyu is speaking to the UN. This would give Israel the opportunity to justify. The attack should be a nuclear attack on the soft target of the Royal Guard, so that the Iranian people would be able to overthrow the leadership.
no–allowing Iran to go nuclear would be the beginning of World War III. that must not be allowed to happen. n nseems to me Israel bombed a nuclear reactor in Syria some years ago, and everyone pretended to be outraged. aren't we all glad Syria doesn't have nukes today?