Obama, Iran, Red Lines and 1939: Israel May Have to Go It Alone Again

Make no mistake about it: 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.)

Obama has also refused to set any "red lines" involving Iranian progress toward its first nuclear weapon.

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 German occupation of Czechoslovakia, instead of insisting, notwithstanding opposition from Czechoslovakian President Edvard Beneš, upon mediation with respect to Hitler's demands. Sound familar?

Most recently, 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.

Indeed, Israel, as in the past, i.e. June 1967, may have to go it alone again.

Haim Saban, "The Truth About Obama and Israel": Like the Power Rangers, the "Truth" Comes in Many Different Colors

Haim Saban, who resides in Beverly Hills, California, and whose estimated net worth of some $2.9 billion makes him, according to Forbes, the 128th richest person in America (http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#p_1_s_arank_All%20industries_All%20states_All%20categories_Haim), has written a New York Times guest op-ed entitled "The Truth About Obama and Israel" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/opinion/the-truth-about-obama-and-israel.html), in which he tells us that he will vote for Obama in November:

"When I enter the voting booth, I’m going to ask myself, what do I prefer for Israel and its relationship with the United States: meaningful action or empty rhetoric? To me the answer is clear: I’ll take another four years of Mr. Obama’s steadfast support over Mr. Romney’s sweet nothings."

Well, whereas Mr. Saban left Israel and made a fortune in the US in the media and entertainment business, I left the US in order to volunteer for the Israeli army, and until today, at the age of 58, I serve as an officer in two reserve units.

Let me put this delicately: Mr. Saban's "truth" is not my truth. Unfortunately, however, given where I serve, I am severely limited in terms of what I can say. Nevertheless, allow me to make several observations.

As acknowledged by Aaron David Miller of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, who has served as an advisor to six US Secretaries of State, "Barack Obama is no Israel-lover," and "if the president wins a second term, expect a major clash with Benjamin Netanyahu" (see: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/25/warning_turbulence_ahead). So whose "truth" do you believe, that of Mr. Miller or that of Mr. Saban?

Israeli Vice Premier Moshe Ya'alon, a former Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, stated less than a week ago that "Iran did not believe it faced a real military threat from the outside world because of mixed messages from foreign powers, including the United States" (http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=283363). Ya'alon's remarks came one day after Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that he did not want to be "complicit" if Israel attacked Iran's nuclear development facilities. Whose "truth" is correct, that of Mr. Ya'alon or that of Mr. Saban?

Israelis, by a 2:1 ratio, believe that Romney cares more than Obama about Israel (see: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=281579). Israelis are not stupid, and their lives could well depend upon which presidential candidate Americans choose in November. Is the "truth" of this overwhelming majority of Israelis less valid than that of Mr. Saban?

More very recent evidence of the Obama administration's "true" friendship for Israel in the face of persistent Iranian threats to annihilate the Jewish homeland? As reported by The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-scales-down-annual-military-drill-with-israel/):

"Washington says that it will scale down its participation in what was planned to be the largest ever joint Israeli-American military exercise, Time Magazine reported Friday.

The Austere Challenge 12 exercise, to be held in October, was to feature thousands of soldiers and advanced anti-missile defense systems and simulate simultaneous fire from Iran and Syria.

The report quoted sources in Washington as saying 1,500 US troops — perhaps even 1,200 — would be sent to participate in the exercise instead of the original 5,000. In addition, sources in both Jerusalem and Washington told Time that it was probable that only one Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense warship — instead of two — would be sent to Israel.

The Patriot anti-missile systems set to be dispatched to Israel would reportedly arrive as planned, but not the crews to operate them."

Finally, one cannot help but notice the timing of Saban's guest op-ed in The New York Times, immediately after it became known that the Democratic Party plank no longer recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital and no longer acknowledges that Israel is America's staunchest ally in the Middle East, as in years past. According to the Democratic National Committee, the plank is in keeping with Obama adminstration policy (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/new-york-times-editorial-words-not.html). Is this yet another "truthful" act of friendship from Obama and friends?

Mr. Saban, there are obviously many different shades of "truth." I can't afford to fly out to Los Angeles to engage in a philosophical discussion with you, but the next time you are in Israel, you are cordially invited to come to our home for coffee and to exchange views.

Obama's Relationship with Israel at New Nadir

On Friday, White House press secretary Jay Carney stated (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/08/31/Carney-US-Israel-relations-strong/UPI-67541346443820/):

"It is the president's firm commitment that we must prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon."

The problem, however, is that neither Iran nor Israel believe in Obama's "firm commitment." In response to the International Atomic Energy Agency's latest report on Iran's nuclear development program, Bloomberg's editors wrote yesterday (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-31/new-iran-nuclear-report-should-not-be-signal-to-attack.html):

"The IAEA’s latest update makes four important things clear. First, that Iran has recently been putting less energy into developing its main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, and a lot more into expanding production at the hardened bunker at Fordow, near the holy city of Qom.

Second, that the pace at which Iran is producing uranium enriched to 20 percent picked up sharply in February and has continued at that pace. . . . Uranium enriched to about 3.5 percent is used for civilian power plants.

. . . .

Third, that since the IAEA first demanded access to a military site called Parchin in January, Iran has kept out the inspectors, stalled on negotiations and suddenly begun razing and apparently cleaning the site.

. . . .

Finally, the report says that IAEA monitoring suggests none of Iran’s enriched uranium stocks appear to have been diverted. Just less than half of the 20 percent enriched uranium Iran has produced so far (the total to August stands at 189.4 kilograms, or 417.6 pounds) is been being used to make plates for the medical reactor. That leaves a stockpile of about 90 kilograms. It takes roughly 175 kilograms to make a bomb."

In short, notwithstanding Obama's warning to Iran that "as president of the United States, I don't bluff" (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/), Iran is obviously proceeding posthaste to build its first atomic bomb, and Obama's much vaunted economic sanctions have had no effect on that effort.

Israeli credence in Obama's professed intention to prevent Iran from building its first nuclear weapon was dealt another slap in the face this past week when US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, declared that he didn't want to be "complicit" in an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear weapons development facilities. As reported by The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/30/israeli-attack-iran-not-stop-nuclear?newsfeed=true):

"Distancing himself from any Israeli plan to bomb Iran, Dempsey said such an attack would 'clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran's nuclear programme'.

He added: 'I don't want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it.'"

Obama's attempts to isolate Iran again also met with failure yesterday. As we are told by The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/world/middleeast/iran-criticizes-egypts-mohamed-morsi-over-syria-comments.html):

"The 120-nation Nonaligned Movement handed its host Iran a diplomatic victory on Friday, unanimously decreeing support for the disputed Iranian nuclear energy program and criticizing the American-led attempt to isolate and punish Iran with unilateral economic sanctions."

Meanwhile, as reported by The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-scales-down-annual-military-drill-with-israel/), Israeli trust in Obama's intentions were further depleted by his decision to downgrade an upcoming joint military exercise:

"Washington says that it will scale down its participation in what was planned to be the largest ever joint Israeli-American military exercise, Time Magazine reported Friday.

The Austere Challenge 12 exercise, to be held in October, was to feature thousands of soldiers and advanced anti-missile defense systems and simulate simultaneous fire from Iran and Syria.

The report quoted sources in Washington as saying 1,500 US troops — perhaps even 1,200 — would be sent to participate in the exercise instead of the original 5,000. In addition, sources in both Jerusalem and Washington told Time that it was probable that only one Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense warship — instead of two — would be sent to Israel.

The Patriot anti-missile systems set to be dispatched to Israel would reportedly arrive as planned, but not the crews to operate them."

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's response? Yesterday, we were informed by The Jerusalem Post of a "shouting match" between Netanyahu and the US ambassador to Israel in the presence of US Congressman Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (see: http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=283353):

"Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu got into a diplomatic shouting match with US Ambassador Dan Shapiro over US President Barack Obama's handling of Iran's nuclear program, saying 'time has run out' for diplomacy, Yediot Aharonot cited a source as saying on Friday.

According to the report, which The Jerusalem Post could not independently verify, the showdown took place as Netanyahu met with Shapiro and Republican Congressman Mike Rogers, who visited Israel earlier in the week.

A source that participated in the meeting said that a particularly angry and stressed Netanyahu began a tirade against the US president, attacking him for not doing enough on Iran. 'Instead of pressuring Iran in an effective way, Obama and his people are pressuring us not to attack the nuclear facilities,' the source quoted Netanyahu as saying."

In short, the relationship between the US and Israel hasn't been this bad in decades.

Robert Reich: Unemployment Figures to Determine Obama's Fate

Robert Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, former Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, and one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century according to Time Magazine, says that the US presidential election will be determined by the unemployment situation after Labor Day. In a July 6 HuffPost blog item entitled "The Jobs Doldrums and Obama's Future" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-jobs-doldrums-and-oba_b_1654082.html), Reich writes:

"In Ohio yesterday, Obama reiterated that he had inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. That's true. But the excuse is wearing thin. It's his economy now, and most voters don't care what he inherited.

. . . .

Yet he has to show he understands the depth and breadth of this crisis, and is prepared to do large and bold things to turn the economy around in his second term if and when he does have the votes in Congress. So far, his proposals are policy miniatures relative to the size of the problem.

But the real political test comes after Labor Day. Before Labor Day, Americans aren't really focused on the upcoming election. After Labor Day, they focus like a laser. If the economy is moving in the right direction then -- if unemployment is dropping and jobs are increasing -- Obama has a good chance of being reelected. If the present doldrums continue -- or worse -- he won't be."

Obama now owns the economy? "Policy miniatures relative to the size of the problem"? I agree, but I don't see any "bold" proposals on the horizon.

However, there is an alternative scenario in which the election is not decided by the state of the economy.

Tensions continue to mount in the Persian Gulf as Iran threatens to sink US aircraft carriers, block the Strait of Hormuz, and destroy 35 neighboring US military bases. The US has responded to Tehran's saber rattling by quietly bolstering the level of its forces in the region (see: http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=276589).

Note also that a major US-Israeli anti-missile exercise, Austere Challenge 12, is scheduled for the fall (see: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=275764).

My belief remains that Obama's handling of this crisis with Iran, when it comes to a head in the coming months, could well tip the results in November one way or another.