Obama wants Israel to attack Iran?
Jennifer Rubin makes a plausible case that the Obama administration is leaving Israel no choice but to attack Iran.The abject lack of seriousness from the Obama administration — its disinclination to even suggest the use of force or to aid the Green Movement in any meaningful way — has not gone unnoticed either here or in Israel. At the AIPAC conference, the contrast between Hillary Clinton’s platitudinous “unacceptable” formulation and Tony Blair’s “whatever it takes” phraseology was hard to ignore. And, as Kristol points out, even doves in Israel like Ephraim Sneh, a former deputy defense minister, are talking about the need for an Israeli strike on Iran this year, absent the implementation of “crippling sanctions.” (”An Israeli military campaign against Iran’s nuclear installations is likely to cripple that country’s nuclear project for a number of years. The retaliation against Israel would be painful, but bearable.”)All true. But does Obama not know what he is doing? Is he such a fool that he would place Israel in a position where it feels that it has to attack Iran? Or is there another reason for his actions?
We can speculate as to whether the Obami’s assault on Netanyahu over the Jerusalem housing permit was meant to stymie Israel’s plans for such action. If so, this is yet another gross error in judgment by the Obami, who have an exaggerated sense of their own ability to bully those who interfere with their plans. As fraught with peril as an Israeli military operation might be and as unseemly as it might be for the U.S. to stand idly by – ignoring its role as leader of the West and shrinking from its international responsibilities – Israel, if faced with the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran and a recalcitrant U.S. administration, will have no choice but to act in its own defense. Netanyahu said it clearly last month, no doubt to put the administration as well as the mullahs on notice. (”The future of the Jewish state can never depend on the goodwill of even the greatest of men. Israel must always reserve the right to defend itself.”)
By publicly savaging the Israeli government and making apparent just how not solid is the current relationship between the U.S. and Israel, the Obami are encouraging, not dissuading, the Israeli government to take matters into its own hands. Given the treatment by the Obama administration, what Israeli government could place its trust and the fate of the Jewish state in the Obami’s hands? It would be foolish and irresponsible — and the Israelis are neither.
I believe that there's a method behind Obama's madness. From Day One of his administration, Obama has articulated only two foreign policy goals. In order of importance, one is the creation of a 'Palestinian state' and the other is bringing about nuclear disarmament. Obama went a long way toward the second goal on Monday by effectively announcing that America would no longer use its nuclear weapons even in its own defense. But the first and most important goal is what's at stake in Iran.
Obama is betting that Israel will attack Iran rather than risk seeing itself destroyed. And when the World heaps opprobrium on Israel for that attack, Obama will lead it. He will not only abandon Israel in the United Nations. He will insist on attacking it. The price of ending that attack will be a 'Palestinian state' on
So Prime Minister Netanayhu is left with a Hobson's choice: Allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons and Israel will be destroyed God forbid. Attack Iran and even if he succeeds, the price will be the creation of a 'Palestinian state' that will attempt to destroy us.
For Obama, it is truly a 'win-win' situation - a 'teachable moment.' Israel, like the Jews in Monday's Torah reading, is trapped between
What could go wrong?
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:19 AM
9 Comments:
I don't believe this is true. Obama is far too arrogant to actually give Israel anything for the creation of a Palestinian state on his terms.
Moreover, the conflagration which will follow an attack on Iran makes everything unpredictable, including American pressure on Israel (imagine an Israeli attack just before midterms. Can Obama pressure Israel publicly in that case?).
It is much more likely Obama want to promise Israel to protect it against Iran (a promise he'll forget in an instant), and as a price for continued relations and "protection", demand a Palestinian state...
This scenario would require Israel does not attack Iran, which explains the rest of Obama's policy in the ME.
Yair,
Obama can 'require' all he wants, but the one thing he cannot do is require Bibi and the IDF to roll over and play dead.
And he knows it.
You know it, but I don't think Obama knows it. Given Israel's recent history with the "peace process", I wouldn't blame anyone for thinking Israel can be pushed to "play dead". Add in Obama's huge ego...
Frankly, before Obama started "working" on Israel, I also believed Bibi would punt. Now I am starting to think he might just do it.
i think there is a way to get out of the trap.
just WIPE OUT GAZA along with the attack to iran.
and i really mean wipe out. if one terrorist is surrounded by 10000 civilians, so be it. bye bye 10000 civilians.
if one qassam hits israel, let the napalm rains over gaza.
if one terrorist kills a jaial, kill 1000 terrorists.
enough is enough. the world is going to balme us anyway.
if they want WAR lets give them a real WAR with no restrain.
Hi everyone,
I am new to this blog. It is very interesting to read, so please keep up the good work and commentary.
Something that strike me as odd, is that nobody has really mentioned one very important fact in the whole debate.
Israel's size...
Israel's size really does matter.
The way I see it, Iran will, in the very near future, acquire nuclear weapons and, then, realise it can't possibly use them on Israel, because Israel's size puts it in a proximity far too close to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and of course the dreaded Palestinians.
If Iran were to try and nuke Israel, the nuclear fallout for Iran's and Israel's neighbours would be far too vast to be militarily tolerable or politically "acceptable".
To my mind Israel's size will actually save our beloved land and nation from annihilation, simply because it's too small.
Not quite David and Goliath, but almost.
With kind regards from Switzerland,
Alex Beck
No Caffeine that's a huge mistake. That is the main problem with the western today.
you are in the assumption that Iran (like any other islamic country) care for other islamic countries.
well, they NOT.
if they have to nuke syria, lebanon, egypt, jordan and saudi arabia, don't doubt they will do it.
they (the islamics) don't care about they own sons, so why they will care for other people??
Dear Mushi,
On the one hand I agree with you, if only because Arabs kill each other every day in Iraq and other places and Arabs aren't bothered by these heinous acts of violence.
On the other hand I have this cunning suspicion that nuking the Temple Mount isn't going to win Iran any Oscars either...
I am certainly the last person who wishes to see Iran in possession of a nuclear device of any kind, I merely think that Israel's air force, undoubtedly the best air force in all the world, simply hasn't got the weaponry to cause much harm to Iran's nuclear projects without using tactical nuclear devices that will cause sufficient havoc underground. In any case, using nuclear weapons as a first strike weapon doesn't seem like a viable option either, if only, because David used a simple stone and not Mount Everest to knock out Goliath.
I am sure Israel will strike Iran sooner rather than later, but I am also sure Israel won't be using nuclear weapons. After all Israel Defence Forces is clever and will work out some cunning plan to thwart Iran's plans fairly and squarely once and for all through conventional means.
Cheers,
Alex
Incidentally, wiping out Gaza does rather appeal to me... :-)
Its time to call an end to the "peace process" - before it takes down Israel piece by piece.
Post a Comment
<< Home