New York Times Editorial, "Iran, Israel and the United States": Don't Doubt Obama's Mettle

Obama's cheerleaders at the editorial board of The New York Times are again busy singing paens to the president's resolve and steadfastness. In an editorial entitled "Iran, Israel and the United States" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/opinion/iran-israel-and-the-united-states.html?_r=1&hp), the editorial board concludes:

"Mr. Obama is right that military action should only be the last resort, but Israel should not doubt this president’s mettle. Neither should Iran."

Obama's "mettle"? If this is indeed the case, why does the editorial board observe a few sentences earlier that Obama required "a sharp nudge from Israel and Congress" to rally the international community to isolate and punish Tehran.

Merely a "sharp nudge"? In fact, Obama bitterly opposed the US Senate amendment enabling the president to sanction foreign banks carrying out a "significant financial transaction with the Central Bank of Iran" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/12/iran-obamas-secret-agenda.html).

The editorial board writes:

"The president’s offer to negotiate with Tehran has made it easier to persuade others to ratchet up the pressure."

I suppose that this is a reference to Obama's charm campaign at the beginning of his first term, which was intended to convince the world that Iran and Syria had been falsely depicted by Bush as belonging to an "Axis of Evil," when in fact they were merely misunderstood. Excuse me, but is this a sign of "mettle" or "naivete" on the part of Obama?

You want more "mettle"? Consider Obama's speech before AIPAC:

"I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say."

Sorry, but I don't have a clue what the president "means" when he "says" this. He is preserving all "options," but where are the red lines? Can Iran continue to enrich its uranium and develop a ballistic missile delivery system, so long as it doesn't put the pieces together? And when it finally does put the pieces together, who is to say that this will not be too late -- for Israel, for the United States and/or for Iran's Sunni Arab neighbors, e.g., Saudi Arabia?

Obama said that among the options remaining on the table are "a military effort to be prepared for any contingency." Maybe I'm stupid, but I also don't understand what this means. It sounds to me as if Obama's "options" are merely intended to give rise to additional "options."

Indeed, both Israel and Iran have every reason to doubt that Obama is intent upon deterring Tehran's nuclear weapons program.

[The first online reader's comment posted by The New York Times in response to this editorial states:

"We should be tired of Israel as well. They do not want to make peace with Palestinians. Politician like receiving dollops of American aid guaranteed by the free-spending Israeli lobby. But really, are we going to let a 7 million person country drag us into high oil prices and a new war?

So let's cool the rhetoric. Let's turn off the drums. Sure, we can contain and sell arms to neighboring countries, but there's no appetite to spend blood or treasure for this little crappy country."

I have again complained to Andrew Rosenthal concerning the ongoing willingness of The New York Times to post anti-Semitic readers' comments. I will keep you informed if he deigns to respond.]