Powered by WebAds

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

No, the US is not preparing to attack Iran

Good morning and thank you all for sticking with me.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad backed the right horse in 2008. Barack Hussein Obama's current posture in the Persian Gulf region demonstrates once again that he plans to do nothing to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons (Hat Tip: Danny A).
I’m sure the Obama administration would characterize its political posture as one of concern that holding these exercises on schedule would be seen as provocative in an already unsettled situation. The unspoken premise is, of course, that demonstrating US-Israeli collaboration in missile defense and military operations is provocative.

And from the perspective of Tehran, and no doubt Damascus, it presumably is. Well-intentioned people can argue honestly over whether it is a good idea to let policy decisions be governed by what our opponents consider provocative. “Provocative” is always the flip side of “deterrent”; the question is whether, in a given situation, one thinks like a global leader determined to deter, or like a nation that hopes to avoid the need for exertion.

Regardless, it cannot be argued that the Obama posture is anything other than defensive. Equally defensive is the administration’s emphasis on supplying Gulf nations with air- and missile-defense systems. These systems are of obvious interest to Iran’s neighbors, but they cannot prevent Iran from launching attacks – of any kind. They are purely passive, entailing no preemption or active deterrence.

It has been a mistake at every turn to look for evidence of the conventional use of US power in the actions of the Obama administration. The operations in Libya demonstrated clearly that Team Obama is determined not to use US military power to secure transformative outcomes rapidly. Obama is prepared to let conflicts continue as long as they must in order that the outcomes be achieved by other means. His solicitude for missile defenses in the Gulf and in Israel is a signal that he expects to approach Iran on defense.

Our overall military posture in the Gulf simply reinforces that approach.
Read the whole thing.

This is why Obama's entire claim that his administration has brought 'closer cooperation than ever' to Israel is a lot of bunk. Everything Obama has done has been with a view to putting Israel into a position where it seemingly has 'no excuse' for not making concessions and standing down. Commander Dyer makes a convincing case that is true with respect to Iran. On a smaller scale, let's look at another case: US support for the Iron Dome program, which has increased under Obama.

Why is Obama supporting Iron Dome? It should be obvious. If he can claim we have a credible defense system against 'Palestinian' rockets, then there's 'no reason' why we should not evacuate Judea and Samaria. After all, we can shoot down any rockets that the 'Palestinians' shoot at us. That's why it's important to keep pointing out the flaws of Iron Dome: That it cannot hit the shortest range rockets, that it cannot respond to large barrages, that rockets occasionally do get through, and - most importantly - that the citizens of Israel cannot continue to go about their daily business even with Iron Dome's protection, meaning that even if Iron Dome was as close to perfection as it is ever going to get, anyone within rocket range (and that includes all of us at this point) would not have a normal life.

The 'anti-missile exercise' - which as I reported over the last couple of days has been postponed - is more of the same ilk. It's intended to keep Israel from responding to threats and is not going to contribute to our security.

Obama must go.

Labels: , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home