Pages
▼
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
The Rift Between Obama And Israel Widens
Two examples of how President Obama's non-actions on Iran are destroying the relationships between America and not just Israel but our other long term allies in the region.
Mark Regev, a spokeman for Israeli Prime minister Netanyahu and the Israeli government makes it quite plain to Jake Tapper how the Israelis feel betrayed by the president..although I can't think for the life of me how they could have expected anything else. As it is,the Iranians have already received significant sanctions relief and a 3 month window to continue their illegal nuclear weapons program in exchange for absolutely nothing.
Regev reminds us that the U.S. is not a disinterested party here. "The Iranians are building intercontinental ballistic missiles. They're not building them for us. They already have missiles that can hit Israel. They are building them for you."
Regev said that while Israel wants "to see the Iranian nuclear crisis resolved peacefully," the only good way to do that effectively short of military action is "a good agreement that actually effectively dismantles Iran's military nuclear program." Of course, this is anathema to President Barack Obama, who has done everything possible to thwart the Iran sanctions he now takes credit for. Just ask Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) about the president's opposition to the Kirk-Menendez amendment (which passed in the senate 100-0) implementing them :
Here's another signal, sent by none other than Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman,who says flatly that Israel needs to look for other allies other than America because the U.S. is "dealing with too many other challenges:
"The Americans have a lot of problems and challenges around the world that they need to solve and they have problems at home. We need to understand them and our place in the global arena," Lieberman stated a week after returning to the ministry following his acquittal on corruption charges. During a speech given at the Sderot Conference, Lieberman stressed the importance of not putting too much focus on America as Israel's main ally. "For many years Israel's foreign policy was one directional towards Washington, but my policy has many more directions."
Barack Hussein Obama was quite plain when he came into office that his goal was to "create daylight" between America and Israel, and he's succeeded, to the detriment of both countries. Eventually, as I've written before on these pages, he intends to destroy the relationship completely if he can. His long history of having close relations with a whole slew of anti-Semites and 'anti-Zionists' like Al Sharpton, Khalid al-Mansour, Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi, Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan means it's practically in his DNA.
Of course, on our side of the pond, the White House has already given talking points to its anti-Israel apologists and flacks, as my friend Snoopy at Simply Jews reports.
In any event, the Israelis cannot allow an Iran with nuclear weapons. It is an existential threat to them, and I have no doubts they're going to do something about that .
"the Israelis cannot allow an Iran with nuclear weapons. It is an existential threat to them, and I have no doubts they're going to do something about that ."
ReplyDeleteI agree, it is an existential threat. That said, are you disputing the consensus of military experts who agree that Israel lacks the conventional resources to stop Iran's nuclear program? Or are you suggesting that Israel will launch a nuclear first strike?
I think the Israelis are capable of doing a great deal of damage to Iran's nuclear facilities. As for military experts, the actual opinions are pretty split. German Military analyst Hans Rühle, a leading German security expert who was head of the planning department of the German Defense Ministry between 1982-1988 is one of them, as is Anthony Cordesman, who's written that in the event of an Iranian strike on Israel, Israel would be badly damaged but that Israel's second strike capability would ensure that Iran would virtually cease to exist as a cohesive country.
ReplyDeleteThe Israelis would undoubtedly have to use tactical nukes to take out Fordow and some of the other underground facilities, and the political fall out would be horrendous, especially from the EU and Obama. It would have been easier and more doable three years ago. But it's definitely doable.
The alternative is for Israel to sit back and wait for Khamenei to wake up one morning and say to his fellow ayatollahs 'Today's the day.' The Iranians already know Obama won't do anything except mouth some condemnatory language. He's said so.
If the Israelis are smart, they'll also take out Iran's oil infrastructure as well. This will insure that it is decades, not years until Iran is in a position to buy more dangerous toys..and of course, will eliminate any interest in Iran by Russia, China and the EU for quite some time.
Cordesman was speaking of a retaliatory strike by Israel with which every analyst agrees that, "Israel's second strike capability would ensure that Iran would virtually cease to exist as a cohesive country" but we are discussing an Israeli nuclear first strike as one of the two ways that Israel might stop the Iranians.
ReplyDeleteCertainly Israel is capable of doing substantial damage to Iran's nuclear facilities, that conventional munitions alone are inadequate to do "great damage" is supported by your admission that, Israel "would undoubtedly have to use tactical nukes to take out Fordow and some of the other underground facilities".
So, unless Israel is willing to risk a nuclear first strike against Israel, to respond effectively to the existential Iranian threat Israel must launch a nuclear first strike, correct?
But the primary lesson that the Israeli's took from the 73 Yom Kipper War is that Israel cannot survive without American support. Thus the catch-22.
For you are correct that, "the political fall out would be horrendous, especially from the EU and Obama" Obama would unilaterally, by executive order, cut off all aid and support to Israel. Nor would it be merely economic and military aid. Israel would lose its last protector in the UN Security Council and the UN would impose an economic blockade of Israel, declaring them to be a rogue, pariah nation. That is the threat that Obama hangs over Israel's head.
That is why Israel is caught in the proverbial "rock and a hard place". Obama has put Israel there by betraying them and stabbing them in the back. Obama sees this as a win-win for him. Either Israel allows Iran to get the bomb or he gets to end American support for Israel. With the UN certain to impose international sanctions upon Israel. As far as he's concerned its checkmate in but a few moves.
Thus, until Israel accepts the end of American support for the foreseeable future, it will continue to be constrained in its actions and strategies. Once they accept reality, then it becomes an entirely different game because the 'rules' will have changed.
Then yes, attack the Iranian oil and command and control facilities first. Follow up with conventional attacks upon nuclear facilities. Then issue an ultimatum to Iran; 48 hours to announce the abandonment of its nuclear program unless they agree to UN inspections and conditions OR Israel will attack Fordow, etc, with tactical nukes. Then tell the US and the world to go pound sand.