There has been a great deal of rhetoric from the Obama Administration and its loyal foot soldiers about how 'tough sanctions' on Iran are the way to get Iran to curb it's nuclear weapons program. Yet the president has always shied away from th eonly real sanctions that might carry some bite - on companies supplying Iran's refined fuel imports and financial institutions dealing with Iran's Central Bank, which is how the Islamic Republic processes its oil payments from other countries.
Well, the Senate just unanimously approved a defense bill that had an amendment in it that would contain a ban on transactions with Iran’s Central Bank. It mirrors bill the House passed already, so the measure has gone to President Obama for his signature.
Unfortunately, President Obama was able to twist the arms of enough of the Democrats in the Senate to make two key changes. He persuaded the Senate to water the amendment down by giving the president the power to waive enforcement of the law at his discretion, and a six month waiting period before the measure goes into effect.
So the Iranians aren't going to have to worry a swift shutdown of the oil income they get from transactions that are run through their Central Bank. They have ample time to set up as new mechanism to handle it. And the president can simply use his waiver to not enforce the law at all if he feels like it.
Even after he got the changes he wanted, Obama shafted his supporters in the Senate by threatening a veto.
Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who co-sponsored the amendment with Illinois Republican Mark Kirk was absolutely livid at being treated in this fashion after he had watered down the bill at the president's request:
Had Menendez resisted Obama’s pressure to include the waivers, the bill would have had to be enforced. As it is, the president's actions guarantee that even if it survives a veto, the sanctions against Iran's Central Bank will simply be shelved as though they didn't exist.
This president has obviously been lying all along when he claims that he will never allow Iran to go nuclear...and his defenders among the Democrats,particularly Jews who continue to shill for him need to take a look at exactly who they're standing with.
There are only two reasons for President Obama's poisonous vacillation. Either he's decided he can live with a nuclear Iran and his many statements on the matter are sheer snake oil, or he's cynically decided to pull a strike on Iran in eight or nine months or so to help his re-election.
If it's the latter, the fact that Iran will be much better prepared, will have hidden and hardened their nuclear facilities to a much greater degree and will inflict greater casualties on US forces taking part in the operation isn't bothering him one iota.
Nor are the possible Iranian retaliations against Israel or the Saudis a problem for him, if that's what it comes down to. Not compared to his re-election.
2 comments:
Even if the US implemented the toughest imagiinable sanctions, it would make no difference. Other nations could and would violate them with impunity. In the end, sanctions would make no difference and very likely have negative utility as they only increase the hatred felt for America around the world.
Actually there are other possibilities besides the ones you mentioned on why the Obama Administration acted in the manner they did. One such possibility is after careful consultation with military and intellegence leaders it has been correctly concluded that America cannot prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
As such, unless the Israelis and the Saudis are successful in stopping it we will have to "live with a nuclear Iran." The IAF has the flying skills and the technical savy to defeat the Iranian air defense system. The USAF does not. Also, Israeli and Saudi intellegence services are much more skilled than US intellegence services at identifying and destroying key nulcear weapons infrastructure. Any effort by Israel or Saudi Arabia to eliminate the Iranian nuclear weapons program is much more likely to be successful if America stays out of the way.
Since it is in our interest that they succeed, stay out of their way is what we should do. If they should fail, it would not be good for us but if we take prudent steps regarding the deployment of our forces to defensible positions along our borders and closely monitor what comes into our country we can have an effective deterent to Iran. Also, upgrade our nuclear arsenal and the delivery capabilities so we have nuclear strike capabilities.
It seems unlikely that the Obama Administarion would launch a war against Iran in eight or nine months. Such a move would not enhance his election prospects. It would be disasterous for them. He'd be in effect handing the election to whom ever his Republican opponent happened to be. The American people are not going to support this, European and other "western" allies we'd need for the operation to be successfuL are not going to suppor this, the action would create further enimity between us and Russia and China, the "street" around the world would be staunchly against the operation driving "allied" governments even further away from us, anti-Americanims would explode exponentially, the strait of Hormuz would be cut off, the price of oil would double over night, the US military would suffer masive losses in ships, men, planes, and other equipment, and Iranian forces or terrorist proxies would attack the American mainland kiling tens of thousands and possibly millions of American civillians.
This is not a complete list of the disasters that would result from a US military operation against Iran. All of these things would happen and probably much more and on top of this the chances of the military operation successfully harming Iran's nuclear program are only 50/50 at best. Certainly not a strategy one would pursue if trying to get reelected.
It seems very strange indeed to be rooting for Saudi Arabia to succeed in thwarting the Iranian nuclear weapons program. That is assuming the reports are to be believed that the Saudis are assisting the Isaelis here.
I suppose rooting for the Saudis here is a bit like it would have been to root Josef Stalin and the Soviet Union during WWII. Clearly they were needed to confront a common enemy in Nazi Germany and without their help WWII would have been lost. Essentially it seems we must never lose sight of the fact that one day we are very likely going to have to confront them and, at a minimum, they are not to be trusted.
Post a Comment