Follow by Email

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Maureen Dowd, "Neocons Slither Back": Netanyahu Makes "Outrageous" Demands for Red Lines

Today's quiz: Read Maureen Dowd's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Neocons Slither Back" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/dowd-neocons-slither-back.html) and tell me what's missing.

Sorry, time's up.

Although Dowd bristles with indignation at Paul Ryan's lack of foreign policy sophistication, where is there any mention of Obama's escalation of American involvement in Afghanistan? Hundreds of American servicemen have laid down their lives for this inanity, which is currently costing the US $6 billion per month.

Where is there any mention by Dowd of Obama's courtship of Syrian President and mass murderer Bashar al-Assad? Do you remember how Senator John Kerry befriended this monster at the behest of Obama? Do you recall how Hillary declared in 2011, "There is a different leader in Syria now, many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer" (see: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-3460_162-20047627.html)?

And where does Maureen refer to Obama's unconscionable conduct during the Green Revolution? When Iranians took to the streets in July 2009 to bring down the Ahmadinejad regime, Obama, wishing to cozy up to the mullahs, did nothing as protesters, calling out his name, were gunned down, imprisoned and tortured. What did Obama gain by turning a blind eye to these outrages? Tehran has raced ahead with its nuclear weapons development program, notwithstanding Obama's conciliatory posture throughout much of his first term, leading to the current imbroglio involving Iran and Israel.

Regarding Israeli requests for reassurance from Obama in the face of Iran's nuclear weapons progress, a venomous Dowd writes:

"If President Romney acceded to Netanyahu’s outrageous demand for clear red lines on Iran, this global confrontation would be a tiny foretaste of the conflagration to come."

Netanyahu's "outrageous demand"? Israel is facing an existential threat. Today, given routine declarations from Iran's clergy, government and military concerning Tehran's readiness to excise the "Zionist tumor," even Iran's leading Western apologists can no longer whitewash this menace.

Moreover, Hezbollah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon, is concurrently cautioning that if Israel launches a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear weapons development facilities, it will let fly some 60,000 rockets and missiles against Israeli population centers.

Now add to this ugly mixture the fact that the discussions between the P5+1, led by the EU's nincompoop foreign policy head Catherine Ashton, and Iran, regarding Tehran's nuclear development program, have come to naught.

Then, too, consider the "serious concern" expressed by the IAEA on Thursday over Tehran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment and its refusal to allow IAEA inspectors to examine sites suspected of nuclear weapons development activity.

Obama's response to this catastrophe? He has downgraded the joint American-Israeli anti-missile exercise, Austere Challenge 12, scheduled for October, and refused to meet with Netanyahu in New York later this month, owing to his busy schedule. (Obama has time to appear on "The Late Show with David Letterman" on September 18, but has no time to discuss the Iranian crisis with Netanyahu.)

Should Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu be concerned with the Iranian nuclear weapons development program and Obama's post election attitude involving this catastrophe in the making, if he should be re-elected? Answer: Wouldn't you be worried? More to the point, would you trust Obama to keep his promise to prevent Iran from building its first nuclear weapon?

Meanwhile, Obama has sent his attack dogs to applaud his refusal to adopt red lines and to demonize an apprehensive Netanyahu. California Senator Barbara Boxer, who claims to be "one of Israel’s staunchest supporters in Congress," wrote a letter to Netanyahu, expressing her "deep disappointment over your remarks that call into question our country’s support for Israel." Boxer went on to accuse Netanyahu of injecting "politics into one of the most profound security challenges of our time – Iran’s illicit pursuit of nuclear weapons."

Sorry, Barbara, for Israel this is not about American politics, but rather about basic survival.

Plagiarist, would-be Iran expert and adviser to Obama, Fareed Zakaria, recently wrote in The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-the-folly-over-red-lines-for-iran/2012/09/12/119a6a62-fd10-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story.html):

"The Obama administration has brought together a global coalition, put into place the toughest sanctions ever, worked with Israel on a series of covert programs and given Israel military hardware it has long wanted. In addition, the Obama administration has strongly implied that it would be willing to use force as a final resort. But to go further and define a red line in advance would commit the United States to waging a war; no country would make such a commitment."

Obama has "put into place the toughest sanctions ever"? The problem is that the sanctions came too late, and Iran continues to pursue its nuclear weapons program notwithstanding the sanctions.

Israel has been given the "military hardware it has long wanted"? Although there is no denying the Obama administration's support for Israel's defensive Iron Dome anti-missile system, Israel has not been provided with America's latest bunker buster bombs, which could be used to destroy Iran's underground Fordow nuclear facility.

No country would ever commit to red lines and waging a war? Oh really? And all this while I thought that France and England declared war on Germany in 1939 owing to commitments made to Poland. Now imagine how many millions of lives would have been saved if France and England had earlier that year provided red lines with respect to Germany's occupation of Czechoslovakia, instead of insisting, notwithstanding opposition from Czechoslovakian President Edvard Beneš, upon mediation with respect to Hitler's demands. Sound familar?

Yesterday, The New York Times, the unofficial mouthpiece of the Obama administration, published an editorial, "No Rush to War" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/opinion/no-rush-to-war.html), stating:

"There is no reason to doubt President Obama’s oft-repeated commitment to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

. . . .

The best strategy is for Israel to work with the United States and other major powers to tighten sanctions while pursuing negotiations on a deal. It is a long shot, but there is time to talk. And that’s where the focus must be."

So, notwithstanding Obama's decision to downgrade Austere Challenge 12, Netanyahu should have no reason to doubt Obama's resolve, and despite the fact that negotiations with Iran are a "long shot," there's time for talk. Yeah, right. I doubt that the editorial board of the Times would be talking in this manner if Manhattan was facing an imminent nuclear attack.

Yes, there is a serious problem involving a mutual lack of trust between Obama and Netanyahu, and this crisis of confidence could have been averted had Obama agreed to meet with Netanyahu in New York, but Obama, for his own personal reasons, refused.

Which brings us to the crux of the current crisis involving Iran and Israel: After witnessing his foreign policy procrastination over the past three years, neither of these countries believes that Obama is true to his word. In fact, this perception of Obama as irresolute and weak-kneed, i.e. "leading from behind," is what could well lead to war.

[Senator Barbara Boxer declined to comment on the content of this blog entry, inasmuch as I am not a resident of California.]

8 comments:

  1. Dowd is an anti-Semite obsessed with "neo-cons" by which she means "Joooz".

    ReplyDelete
  2. The writer of this blog is clearly an Israeli or zionist. Their sole interest is to promote the killing machine Israel and its apartheid system as has been proven time and again with its actions against innocent Palestinian people and land. Israel is the existential threat to world order. Iran is a peaceful nation which have not waged war on anyone, yet the author wants the world to attack it.
    Israel defies all U.N. resolutions against it. Today, it is an occupier of land with the U.N., the world, says is not hers.
    Why should Israel hold nuclear weapons (and biological and chemical, and ...) and not others??? What should make Israel special or different?
    Furthermore, the U.S. president should have the interests of the U.S. in mind, NOT those of Israel. So far in U.S. political history, it has been the zionists who can make or break U.S. leaders and hence all those who want a chance at getting elected must visit Israel and make pledges to get their support and a chance at their target. The U.S. is a Christian country with all different religions living in harmony, its NOT a jewish/zionist state (and I do differential between teh real threat which is zionism and not jews as a religiosu people) as the zionists would like it to be. Why should the zionist minority in the U.S. control Congress, Wall Street, Holywood, the media, and any and all entities or clout in the country??? Why does the average American who does not know the depth of the U.S. support for Israel, have to pay billions of dollars each year to maintain Israel's existence?
    As a Christian, I am saddened at how the zionists have infiltrated and brainwashed many so-called Christians to becoem Evangelicals whose goal i life, they think, is to support and safeguard the existence of Israel. Israel is a parasite on the U.S. Their Mosad agency have killed Americans time and again in covert operations to get a reaction against entities it is hostile towards. Its time the U.S. and the world see teh Zionists for what they are, parasites and to criminalize their actions, not to veto anyone speaking against them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The writer of the prior comment is clearly an anti-Semite and an idiot, who obviously couldn't care less about Iran's horrific persecution of its Kurdish, Baha'i and Sunni minorities and its travesties, e.g., stoning, against women.

      Delete
  3. Typical of a Zionist or blind Zionist follower to just label someone as an anti-Semite to try to try and remove credibility to what they say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to the definition of the European Forum on Antisemitism, an antisemitism includes:

      "Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews CONTROLLING THE MEDIA, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT OR OTHER SOCIETAL INSTITUTIONS."

      Have a good look in the mirror and then crawl back under your rock.

      Delete
    2. Also from the US Department of State (http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/fs/2010/122352.htm):

      "Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism
      . . . .
      - Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective—especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions."

      Sound familiar to your allegations? Again, crawl back under your rock.

      Delete
    3. Ignore this Jew-hating racist from Nicosia.

      Delete