"But the friendships and the bonds of trust that I’ve been able to forge with a whole range of leaders is precisely — or is a big part of what has allowed us to execute effective diplomacy.
I mean, I think that if you ask them — Angela Merkel, or Prime Minister Singh, or President Lee, or Prime Minister Erdogan, or David Cameron would say, we have a lot of trust and confidence in the President. We believe what he says. We believe that he’ll follow through on his commitments. We think he’s paying attention to our concerns and our interests. And that’s part of the reason why we’ve been able to forge these close working relationships and gotten a whole bunch of stuff done."
Remarkably, Obama named as one of his best friends Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan, whose Islamist, neo-Ottoman, AKP government has imprisoned journalists, savaged women's rights, befriended Iran, and fomented tension in southeastern Europe and throughout the Middle East. Needless to say, Obama did not mention Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu.
In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Israel’s Best Friend" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/opinion/friedman-israels-best-friend.html?_r=1&ref=opinion), Thomas Friedman would have us believe that Obama is perhaps "the most pro-Israel president in history," owing to his belated acknowledgment that Iran poses a threat not only to Israel, but also to U.S. and global security. Indeed, if Iran acquires an atomic weapon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Turkey will also be seeking "nuclear parity," and given the nature and temperament of the region (unbeknownst to many, Iran and Saudi Arabia have been engaged in a proxy war in Yemen for many years), it would only be a matter of time before we were to see mushroom clouds sprouting throughout the Middle East and beyond.
Why did it take Obama three years as president to recognize this threat?
In his first year in office, Obama was determined to demonstrate that Iran (and Syria) were misunderstood by the Bush administration and could be won over by his silver tongue. Accordingly, Obama remained silent in 2009 during Iran's Green Revolution and barely muttered a word while those protesting Iran's fraudulent presidential elections were imprisoned, murdered and tortured by Ahmadinejad's thugs.
More recently, as observed in yesterday's New York Times 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), 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 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).
Friedman today writes:
"Reports from the Aipac convention this week indicated that those advocating military action were getting the loudest cheers. I’d invite all those cheering to think about all the unintended and unanticipated consequences of the Iraq war or Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon. That’s not a reason for paralysis. It’s a reason to heed Obama’s call to give diplomacy and biting sanctions a chance to work, while keeping the threat of force on the table."
I wasn't at the AIPAC convention, and I don't cheer for military action. I have already witnessed too many wars and am haunted by their images. On the other hand, I have no illusions as to Iran's intentions vis-a-vis Israel, which have been spelled out quite clearly.
Regarding military action against Iran, no one is proposing or suggesting "boots on the ground" involvement by Israel or anyone else along the lines of the Iraq war or Israel’s 1982 attack against Fatah in Lebanon. Rather, discussion is centered upon a surgical strike intended to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.
Friedman concludes:
"If it comes to war, let it be because the ayatollahs were ready to sacrifice their whole economy to get a nuke and, therefore, America — the only country that can truly take down Iran’s nuclear program — had to act to protect the global system, not just Israel. I respect that this is a deadly serious issue for Israel — which has the right to act on its own — but President Obama has built a solid strategic and political case for letting America take the lead."
Perhaps Obama has indeed built a "solid strategic and political case" for eliminating Iran's nuclear weapons building capability, but given his proclivity for procrastination and hostility to sanctions, which should have been implemented at the beginning of his first term, Israel has every reason to doubt that he is capable of getting tough with Iran.
Obama told AIPAC earlier this week:
"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."
However, he also stated that among the options remaining on the table are "a military effort to be prepared for any contingency." Or in other words, Obama's "options" are intended to give rise to more "options." This is hardly reassuring for Israel, whose very existence is on the line.
Can Israel go it alone? Regrettably, it may have no other choice, even if such a move will only delay the Iranian nuclear weapons effort by several precious years.
No comments:
Post a Comment