In separate interviews broadcast last night on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” President Obama and Mitt Romney aired their differences on a host of issues. While much of the exchange consisted of the usual talking points on the economy from the two candidates, perhaps the most significant statement uttered (the complete transcript can be read here) was when the president was asked about the calls from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to state specific red lines about Iran’s nuclear threat that would trigger U.S. action:
When it comes to our national security decisions, any pressure that I feel is simply to do what’s right for the American people. And I am going to block out any noise that’s out there. Now I feel an obligation, not pressure but obligation, to make sure that we’re in close consultation with the Israelis on these issues because it affects them deeply. They’re one of our closest allies in the region. And we’ve got an Iranian regime that has said horrible things that directly threaten Israel’s existence.
While the second half of that answer sought to paper over the differences between his administration and Israel, there can be no doubt about the import of the first half. It was not only a clear statement from the president that he will not allow himself to be influenced by Netanyahu’s sense of urgency about Iran, but a not-so-subtle attempt to play the “Israel Lobby” card by asserting that he would do “what’s right for the American people.” The implication of this is that what’s good for America is not what’s good for Israel and if Netanyahu doesn’t like it, he can lump it.
Of course, even the closest of allies do have separate interests. But on Iran, as even the president has admitted, there is no real difference since a bomb in the hands of the ayatollahs is a threat to both the “Great Satan” and the “Little Satan” as the Islamist regime’s leadership refers to the United States and Israel.
The issue at hand is not Obama standing up for the American people against “the noise” coming from Israel but whether the president is actually defending those interests by a policy of failed diplomacy combined with belated and ineffective sanctions that no serious person believes can convince Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions.
While Netanyahu’s statements have been interpreted as an attempt to intervene in American politics, the difference between the two countries centers on the administration’s refusal to concede that its policies have failed. For four years, Obama has tried a strategy of “engagement” and endless negotiations with Iran that flopped badly. The Iranians have used these years to get closer to their nuclear goal.
As the most recent report from the International Atomic Energy Agency showed, the Iranians have doubled the number of centrifuges enriching uranium and stored them in underground bunkers that may be invulnerable to air attack. That means that more rounds of futile negotiations in which Iran’s representative can stall the West are likely to mean it will be too late to use force even if the president ever really decides that the game is up.
By refusing to meet with Netanyahu at the UN General Assembly in New York this month (though he will make time to chat with Whoopi Goldberg and the other yentas on “The View” while there), Obama is sending a pointed message to the Israelis that he will kick the can down the road on Iran for as long as he likes. The implication is that once re-elected, it is entirely likely that he will reverse course on containment of a nuclear Iran.
While most observers are blaming the trouble on Netanyahu, the problem remains Obama’s feckless Iran policy. More to the point, if the president considers the plea of Israel’s prime minister to get serious about Iran mere “noise” that is attempting to divert him from defending American interests while he is running for re-election, it isn’t hard to imagine how hostile he will be to the Jewish state during a second term.
From the Middle East Policy Council, Sept. 19: n n"Earlier this month, Defense Minister Ehud Barak appeared to have shifted from being a supporter of Netanyahu on a decision to strike Iran to being a skeptic. If so, that would leave Netanyahu with only two reliable supporters in the inner Cabinet: Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz. n n"The four members of the inner cabinet who have been widely identified as opposed to a strike at this time are: Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya’alon, Minister without portfolio Benny Begin, Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor, and Interior Minister Eli Yishai, who is head of the Shas political party." n nLet Netanyahu first convince his own cabinet of the validity of his stance on Iran before trying to limit US military and foreign policy options.
Has it ever occurred to you that the "Middle east policy Council' is an ultra liberal outfit which relishes in appeasement policies.I would not believe one word that emanates from that forum.
The info about the split in the Israeli cabinet is true. Deal with it.
It may be true but it is not relevant. Deal with that.
The info about the split in the Israeli cabinet is NOT TRUE. nYaalon and probably Yishai are for a strike and have been all along. You are just parroting Arab propagandists in the US who in turn quote Isaeli leftists. Deal with that.
Thanks for this information, Efratian. Of course, if it supports the Obama agenda, HillelA doesn't need it to be true.
nEd Koch Reverses Position, Slams Obama’s “Weakness” on Muslimsu2028Former NYC Mayor, Democrat Ed Koch, on Rosh Hashannah: “No one understands what ‘we have Israel’s back’ means”. At Park East Synagogue’s Rosh Hashannah High Holiday service, September 17, 2012, Former Mayor Ed Koch during his annual “sermon” from the pulpit, in front of over a thousand worshippers, said “I’m distressed.” “President Obama is refusing to publicly make clear to Iran that ‘If you get the bomb, we will take you out.’” Mayor Koch previously had publicly boasted of his close ties to President Obama. Mayor Koch also said “Nobody understands what ‘We have your back’” means. We shouldn’t have Israel’s ‘back’ we should have Israel’s ‘front’. n nFamed jurist, author Professor Alan Dershowitz, states: “Obama needs to look straight into the television camera and say to the leaders of Iran, 'We will never allow you to develop a nuclear weapon" nProfessor Alan Dershowitz says U.S. President Barack Obama must tell the U.S." we will not allow it to obtain nuclear weapons." n n Former IDF Chief Halutz Is Hawkish on Iran..What is Halutz saying? n On negotiations: “negotiations have failed”; on diplomacy: “enough Viennese coffee without results”; on sanctions: without the participation of China, Russia and India – all of which have been given exemptions by the US government – the sanctions will take too long to work; and on the issue of “red lines,” the problem isn’t that they are too bellicose, it is that they give the enemy an advantage you don’t want it to have. HALUTZ SAYS THAT ISRAEL MAY HAVE TO “GO IT ALONE.” nltch
Anyone but a shameless apologist for President Obama would admit that PM Netanyahu, as the duly elected head of a democratic state, speaks for that state, and that members of his cabinet, whether from his party or an opposition party, do not. n nDeal with it.
NOISE!!! Has anyone heard a more outrageous statement coming from an American president in relation to Israel? Romney must run commercials of this all over Florida!
I think that is unacceptable, Isreal is our ally we shouldn't be treating friends like that.
If Bush wouldn't preempt* Iran,isn't it a bit childish to expect Obama to do the preemption? nThe history of United States foreign policy demonstrates this discomfort with preemption,it seems to be a form of Hybris,the belief that we can accurately forecast the future. We tried it once in Iraq,with mixed results to say the least. n*Grotius,the father of International law and modern foreign policy,warned explicitly against the practice. To the degree that Grotius has shaped anglo-american concepts of the "Laws of War",we will be committed to attacking Iran in response to their attacking someone directly,similiar to our policy towards North Korea.
Points to you for knowing the variant spelling of Hubris (I certainly didn't), but points off for once again using a word without knowing what it means. Hubris does not mean "the belief that we can accurately predict the future."
the belief that we can accurately predict the future.”That is an example of Hybris,not a definition of Hybris. Whew
Although 9 times out to 10 we can accurately predict what you will post.
Better than saying wage war on Iran X 10
The fox won't start a disastrous war just because the weasel wants him to? Good on the fox.
Foxes. Weasels. And . . . WAR? Your metaphor is a mess.
Wow! Equating Jews to weasels… good thing we aren't a bunch of libs or we'd be accusing you of anti-Semitism but I'm sure you didn't mean it, right?
He meant it, all right . Grumpy is an anti-semite of the old school, who delights in depicting Jews as rodents. After all, nobody is upset if rodents are exterminated.
Nobody seems to have noticed that Iran has no reason to oppose Israel's existence. There is no tangible quarrel between the two countries. Iranians dislike Arabs and Shiites hate Sunnis. If Iran succeeds in destroying Israel and killing its people–a real possibility, alas–the neighboring states will divide the territory and persecute the Palestinians, as they always have. nThe most dangerous hatreds are those that have no motivation. nIran, like North Korea and Venezuela, seems to think that Israeli armed forces have crossed the common border year after year and annexed more territory. nWhat else could explain the intensity of their hatred?
Tiny Israel – containing approximately the square footage of New Jersey and comprising a Jewish population of around six million (less than 2% of America's population) – successfully, AND WITHOUT WAR, knocked out nuclear weapons programs in two countries, Syria and Iraq, by bombing reactors in these countries. Now President Obama wants us to believe that any military move by the United States to counter Iran's development of a nuclear weapons capacity would, ineluctably, buy the world's sole remaining military superpower a "war" (else there can be nothing beyond pure cynicism imputed as motive for the comment "If Governor Romney wants to start another war, he ought to say so"). Can there be any logic to this assertion? Or is it more a matter of the President hiding his UNWILLINGNESS to do ANYTHING significant to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons power behind a shibboleth cum pretext?
Obama has two aims here: (1 and always) to be reelected regardless of truth, integrity, or principle; (2) to frighten voters. n n(2) is in service to (1).
Israel, WITHOUT WAR, knocked out nuclear weapons programs in two countries, Syria and Iraq, by bombing reactors in these countries. n nSo,what's different about Iran? Pull the trigger.
Spoken like someone who does not want to know the difference – as to distances, the hardness of the target, the degree to which the weapons capability had advanced, the number of targets, and the countries that must be overflown. You know the answer, you just don't care.
Two down,one to go, Right?
Add to my previous answer the fact that Iran has already committed numerous acts of war against Israel.
Advise to Israel attack if its necessary,but donu2019t wait for us,we ainu2019t going there
we were never asked to "go there". Whne was the last time The US send one soldier to fight for israel? Israelies never aksed for that-will not ask for that and will ultimately do what has to be done.
Good,so whatu2019s all the noise about? If someone says that theyu2019re against war with Iran,some people start screaming about anti-Semitism. Just do what you must do,on your lonesome.
You evidently missed the premise of this latest dust up. The "noise" is about the "red light" that Obama has thrown up regarding Israel doing anything meaningful prior to his reelection…not to upset the applecart. Of course, after his reelection, he has already signaled that he will be more "flexible."
Middle East Policy Council= original name: American Arab Affairs council. President: george Naifeh (good anglo saxon name), Past presidents: george McGovern, Charles freeman jr (who was rejected by the senate for blatant anti israel bias. ) Enough said about this outfit.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Questions: does anyone writing posts on this threat believe that Israel does not want peace? Does it want a war with Iran, or any other country? Does anyone believe that if Canada or Mexico or Cuba were threatening the US in bellicose tropes that Americans wouldn't be worried about attacks? Does anyone remember that the US was braced for some type of combat against our nuclear adversary because it was placing missiles ninety miles from our mainland? And that it was an action taken by a Democratic administration? If most of you, even those skeptical of Israeli and American actions against Iran, answer as I guess you will, why, then, the hostility toward Israel being so concerned about Iranian intentions?
Yeah, Grumpy and rexford have both pushed the idea that Israel does not want peace. Meanwhile, HillelA seems to be pushing the idea that nasty Bibi is just out to hurt Obama's relection campaign, and is looking for excuses to make Obama look bad.
Jesus Christ this blather in the news about 'Interfering in America's elections', the Obama White House PERSONALLY supported candidates in the last Israeli general elections. They PERSONALLY embraced and supported Kadima. n nSomeone please punch Chris Balloonhead Matthews is his stupid face 15x. Thanks.
Thanks for pointing this out. The Obama Administration openly said they hoped Netanyahu would lose the last elections which he himself had called for. Of course, he and his party won handily, and Obama was left looking like an ass.
Moreover they proudly told the world they sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into the so called moderate secular parties in the first round of Egyptian elections. They got high single digit votes and pimp slapped right out of the country.
Obama has no true strategy when it comes to Iran. He is just voting present and hoping nothing happens until after the election–in reality, obviously, he hopes nothing happens until after 2016. It's like Bill Clinton, ineffectually throwing pebbles at Al Qaeda after some violent attacks against U.S. embassies and the USS Cole. He kicked the can down the road, and Bush inherited the mess. Of course, the Democrats then proceeded to second guess and vilify Bush through most of his two terms. n nIt's easy to criticize the man who has to make the hard decisions but it's hard to make those decisions, so of course Obama's strategy is to avoid making decisions, which reflects his political strategy throughout his career. Remind me why we elected this idiot again?
" Remind me why we elected this idiot again? " nI am more and more convinced that he was elected as punishment for our many sins.
Is anyone willing to consider it possible that Israel might feel the need to use atomic bombs delivered by missile as a first strike at Iran and all the hardened bunkers that are where Iran is creating weapons?
I have no idea what Netanyahu is doing. n nIs he really trying to convince the world, the civilized world, the UN, America or Barak Obama to publicly give Israel the right to attack Iran? n nHe will never get it. Not from Obama, not from Ban Ki Moon, not from anybody else. n nDid Begin bother to plead with the UN or with America or President Reagan to permit him to attack Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor? No. They all woke up one day and found out that the reactor has been destroyed. n nDid Eshkol beg the, all for the 6-day war? No. And in refusing to beg, he also did not prepare the enemy, this achieving complete surprise. n nFrankly, I can only attribute Netanyahu's behavior to Jewish political naivety. n(cont.)
We Jews are always begging to be loved, liked, or at least to be permitted to defend ourselves. n nHaven't we learned in the last 2000 years that the world does not consider us humans and doesn't give a spit if we all die? n nHow stupid. How undignified. n nIf Iran is a mortal danger — just nuke it off the face of the earth. Don't ask for permission.
"one of our closest allies in the region"……who the faulk are the other allies. israel is the u.s.a.'s best ally and only ally in the entire middle east. nhow stupid and hypocritical all these former capatalist filmmakers to embrace marxism/socialism after striking it big. for messrs. spielberg, weinstein, emannuel, boxer, feinstein……how can you delude yourself of obama's feelings toward israel. ms. portman, you may have graduated harvard, but you clearly learned very little. let's see all the tributes to the jews on yom kippur.