Powered by WebAds

Monday, August 16, 2010

Obama voting present on Iran

Rick Richman says that there's a second point of no return on Iran that may occur before Iran ever develops a nuclear weapon. That point of no return is when the other countries in the region (aside from Israel) decide that the United States will not stop Iran and start cutting their own deals with it.
But there is another “point of no return” that might occur even earlier. It relates not to Israel but to the other states in the region. At a certain point, they will themselves conclude that the U.S. is not going to act, and their response will be not to help bomb Iran, but to accommodate it. Once that process reaches a critical point — and it has already started — Iran will have won a historic geopolitical victory, which its eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons will simply confirm.

Perhaps the two most important paragraphs in Goldberg’s article dealt not with Israel but with the Arab states — and a message Goldberg heard multiple times:
Several Arab officials complained to me that the Obama administration has not communicated its intentions to them, even generally. No Arab officials I spoke with appeared to believe that the administration understands the regional ambitions of their Persian adversary. One Arab foreign minister told me that he believes Iran is taking advantage of Obama’s “reasonableness.”

“Obama’s voters like it when the administration shows that it doesn’t want to fight Iran, but this is not a domestic political issue,” the foreign minister said. “Iran will continue on this reckless path, unless the administration starts to speak unreasonably. The best way to avoid striking Iran is to make Iran think that the U.S. is about to strike Iran. We have to know the president’s intentions on this matter. We are his allies.” [Emphasis added].
Goldberg cited two administration sources as saying this issue had caused tension between Obama and Admiral Dennis Blair, the recently dismissed director of national intelligence:

Blair, who was said to put great emphasis on the Iranian threat, told the president that America’s Arab allies needed more reassurance. Obama reportedly did not appreciate the advice.

So the administration has not communicated its intentions to its Arab allies, even generally; the president did not appreciate advice according to which he needed to reassure them; his secretary of state told the Arab press earlier this year that the military option was off the table; Obama told David Brooks, at the beginning of his presidential campaign, that Iran wanted nuclear weapons for defensive purposes and could be contained — the approach of Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser.
Richman is right that the process has started already. Just count how many Arab countries are already seeking nuclear plants of their own. But Obama is giving no assurances to the Arab countries. What could go wrong?


At 1:46 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

Hi Carl.
I know you don't like to hear it but according to me the whole sharade is only to get the nuclear weapons of Israel banned.They will let Iran go on ,but will ask Israel to remove or reduce hers.Watch and see how "They don't trust me cause of my name " will act at the Un.

At 8:04 PM, Blogger dprosenthal said...

When Iran secures complete nuclear power, they will first try to erase from the face of the earth, which will please the other Arab nations no end, but do they not realize that THEY will be next in Iran's drive for world domination?
Instead of secretly hoping that the U.S. and/or Israel will take care of the problem, they should join both military and financial resources to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities for their own protection. They can then go back to hating each other in relative safety.


Post a Comment

<< Home