Netanyahu's Ultimatum to Obama: Either You Take Out Iran's Nukes Or We Do
On Friday, I wrote that I thought that incoming Prime Minister Netanyahu may have moderated over the years.
Not for the first time, I was wrong. Big time.
Check out this interview Netanyahu gave the Atlantic's Jeff Goldberg today. Netanyahu says flatout that either the Obama administration deals with Iran's nuclear development or Israel will have no choice but to act unilaterally (i.e, with bombs).
Pretty incredible. An Israeli attack on Iran would jeopadize a myriad of American interests in the region, starting with 130,000 US troops but Netanyahu talks as if he can call the shots without any regard for our interests. The fact is that, in the eyes of Iran (and the world), there is essentially no difference between an Israeli attack and one by us. Israel is viewed as our client. In other words, any blowback from an Israeli attack is as likely to be against us as against Israel. Americans in Iraq, or here at home, could pay the ultimate price.
President Obama needs to get on the phone and let Netanyahu know that Israel can take no action vis a vis Iran without full consultation with Washington. Obama is pursuing diplomacy which means, whether it lkes it or not, that Israel is too. And that, quite simply, means that Israel cannot act unilaterally as if it is a free agent. It isn't. Like the Britain, Germany, Canada, or France, it cannot take unilateral actions that would endanger Americans.
That is a message Obama needs to deliver not diplomatically but directly and unambiguously.
In this week's New Yorker, Seymour Hersh reports that, just before leaving office, Dick Cheney told the Israelis that Obama is a wimp and could be ignored.
Netanyahu appears to have bought into the Cheney thesis and is now testing it by insulting the President on the day he is sworn in as Prime Minister. Let's see if Obama let's him get away with it. My guess is that Bibi just made the first major blunder of his tenure.
It is also not a coincidence that Netanyahu trash talked Iran while US Special Envoy Holbrooke was holding the Obama administration's first face-to-face meeting with an Iranian official in The Hague. This is in keeping with the pattern set by President Shimon Peres who sent a nasty greeting to the Iranian people simultaneously with Obama's friendly overture. The name of the game is to make it impossible for Obama to achieve a breakthrough with Iran by always leaving the impression that America is in thrall to Israel. Clever. And dangerous.
And how, MJ.
March 31, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Warning to Binyamin Netay: Never directly challenge the king in public.
Maybe Mr. Netay wants an even shorter premiership this time around.
March 31, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Like the Britain, Germany, Canada, or France, it cannot take unilateral actions that would endanger Americans."
Something like that could have been written by Bill Kristol or Robert Kagan. Long live the American Empire and its supremacy over the rest of the world!
Israel can do whatever she thinks is essential to her national security, just like Iran. The issue is the ties between the US and Israel. If Netanyahu decides to ignore Obama's advice, this fact should be publicized in the press, and there should be consequences.
March 31, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, America supplies the weapons and pays the bills. Never tell the guy who holds the mortgage to go to hell.
March 31, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The plot is a little thicker than that: how if the debtor is brother-in-law to the creditor and expects that his sister (who, as it happens, edits The Uniquely Standard for Western Civilisation) will, sooner or later, be able to nag the spineless wimp into agreeing to pretty well anything?
Happy days.
(( On a literary point: considering the amount of paraphrase and extraneous yimmer-yammer that Neocomrade J. Goldberg allows himself, should that document with his name on it really be labelled an ‘interview’? ))
April 1, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You neglect to mention that it could also happen that Israel doesn't take America's advice, and yet America is grateful in hindsight.
That's what happened with the Osirak reactor.
March 31, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, because Iraq didn't get nukes, so we could invade Iraq without immediately devastating consequences, and that worked so well for us!
Note that Iran is a far less aggressive state than Saddam's Iraq ever was. In fact, according to Roger Cohen, Iran hasn't attacked another country in centuries.
Nuclear proliferation is a huge and scary problem, but Iran getting nuclear weapons would be a small problem for the US. How is it worse than Pakistan and India building more nukes while their soldiers shoot at each other?
Or, for that matter, Israel being the only country with (dozens of) nukes in the middle of a highly volatile region. Should Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey feel safe although Israel could annihilate all of them in hours while suffering little damage in return? This is the elephant in the room: Israeli nukes.
March 31, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iraq is known to have used chemical weapons against its own population. The entire world, and progressives in particular, are grateful to Israel for taking out the Osirak reactor and eliminating its nuclear capability.
"Should Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey feel safe although Israel could annihilate all of them in hours while suffering little damage in return?" They all feel perfectly safe, knowing that civilized Israel will not attack them if they don't threaten her. You just need to read a bit of history to know that, or perhaps to watch television if reading is beyond you.
March 31, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you're collecting a paycheck for this shilling.
March 31, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Define shilling, and tell me how you know I'm doing it.
March 31, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't feel like I have to define shilling - it can easily be looked up in an online dictionary ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shill#Noun ). Your comments on every Israel-related thread speak for themselves - you state matters of opinion as fact:
"The entire world, and progressives in particular, are grateful to Israel for taking out the Osirak reactor and eliminating its nuclear capability."
Care to back this up? Polling data for 'the entire world?'
Every single comment you post blindly defends the actions of Israel and snidely implies that anyone who questions any Israeli policy is either stupid, uninformed, or anti-Semitic. In my mind, this makes you a shill.
March 31, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You still haven't defined shilling, so it's hard for me to respond.
Are you suggesting that my opinions are somehow less valuable than yours or those of other posters? If so, can you explain why?
I back up most of my opinions very carefully. The one about the civilized world being glad that Iraq lost its nuclear capability seems obvious to me to the point that it requires no backup. Do you feel it's not true?
March 31, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get it. Jormungand clearly did define 'Shilling' by providing a link to the definition. So why do you insist that he hadn't defined it? If it's because you expect people to spell it out for you in their messages because of a general laziness to click through links then that is just intentional ineptitude on your part. Your poor vocabulary reflects badly only upon yourself.
April 3, 2009 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Incidentally, Mr. Jurg - is the fact that you're using a word apparently derived from the Yiddish an example of the unseemly Jewish influence on our country's policy that is so often derided here on TPM? Maybe you work harder at purifying your language . . .
April 1, 2009 5:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Progressive said;,
April 1, 2009 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
re-do post;
The Progressive says:
Whether you're shilling or not I leave to you and your antagonist, but this post seems to exude paranoia.
And before you ask me to define "paranoia",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia
April 1, 2009 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course he is. Did you not get the memo from our Israeli masters. Just for clarity, your comment is moronic. If you spend any time here you would know that PC is anything but a shill. Now on the other hand Mythbuster and MJ.......
March 31, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any time since March 26th when the first comments appeared? 'Cause I do not recall the moniker, and the trend in the comments is pretty clear.
March 31, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, some people believe the bombing of the Osirak reactor was the start of Iraq's nuclear weapon's program. Richard Wilson, a Harvard physicist, inspected the reactor after its bombing and didn't think the design was useful for weapons production.
Link
March 31, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your link doesn't support your contention.
Which people "believe the bombing of the Osirak reactor was the start of Iraq's nuclear weapon's program"? Certainly Richard Wilson is not quoted in your Wikipedia link as saying anything resembling that.
March 31, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Progressive - All the bombing of Osirak did is drive Iraq's nuclear program underground where neither the US or the IAEA knew anything about it. Until the Gulf War I ended the program, Iraq had made startling progress.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Iraq/iraqintro.html
March 31, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
hey, kids, 'progressive conscience' (if ever there were a laugher of a name) has a huge chip on the shoulder and can't take it if someone disagrees with him/her or has a fact that contradicts his/her biases.
just sayin'
March 31, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Pretentious Conjob"
April 1, 2009 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
"has a huge chip on the shoulder and can't take it if someone disagrees with him/her or has a fact that contradicts his/her biases."
Mr. Pot - Please Meet Mr. Kettle . . .
April 1, 2009 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pretentious Conjob.
April 1, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is long last time Israel learns the lesson that they can not give America ultimatums. Unfortunately, it will take America learning that lesson first for it to happen. I don't hold out much hope for that.
If I were Obama, I know what I'd say (privately) to Netanyahu. And he would not like it.
March 31, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to be cute or anything, but can someone actually point to where Netanyahu "flatout" says that a failure to act will mean Israel has no choice but to act unilaterally? That may be the way he wanted his words to be interpreted, but it doesn't seem to be what the words themselves said.
The closest the article comes to making an explicit reference to Israeli military plans is the anonymous aide who says that Israeli plans are measured in months, not years. Whatever that means.
Personally, I would be simply dumbfounded if Israel went ahead with an attack on Iran against the express wishes of the US government. I think it's bluff more than anything. I think the most likely outcome is that Iran will build its bomb and that neither the US or Israel will do anything about it. We will learn to live with the Iranian bomb the way we've lived with a Pakistani bomb.
I think the big difference could come if Iran were to actually test a bomb. Now that would make people stand up and pay attention.
March 31, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
They would have to fly over Iraq, with US permission, or over Turkey, with the permission of the Turks.
How likely is either of those ?
Maybe Cheney has a memo somewhere giving them permission.
March 31, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
What, you think we would shoot them down? They would call and tell us they are coming. We would look the other way. Maybe they want our intelligence. Maybe they need our radar. Our permission? I don't think so. This will be Netanyahu's biggest mistake, but he has been saying this for 10 years. He's going to do it. Look in his eyes. He means it. This will make the economy problem look like a day at the beach.
March 31, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
They need mid-air refueling, I believe.
No one will believe the Americans if they say 'we looked the other way' ... most observers will conclude the two countries coordinated the attack. I think that is what I would believe.
It is possible that ally will defy the Americans if they are told not to do it ? Yes. Is it likely ? I would bet against it.
I would bet this way : if it happens, it is a joint project.
I am not disagreeing with you. Nor am I being disagreeable.
Post on.
March 31, 2009 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
israel also has ballistic missiles. They could launch those at Iran with any kind of warheads, including the tactical nuclear ones they have been developing and hinting at (and desperately hoping to try on some suitable "target").
The weapons that pose real threat to the ME - and to world peace - now are israel's. We know they'll stop at nothing to make their point. We know that killing hundreds of children in broad daylight and starving 100's of thousands mean nothing to them. Does anyone honestly believe Israel's illustrious generals and politicians are losing sleep over so-called collateral damage? MJ might. Many in the US would and do. But in Israel? I estimate fewer than 20% give a hoot about Arab lives - or for that matter - American lives.
Seems to me that the real danger to America is israel's nuclear weapons and other WMD's. Look at what israel has done in lebanon, gaza, west bank, sudan, whatever. Listen to how they talk, and the threats they issue. Don't ignore Lieberman - listen to what he has to say, and believe he meant every word of it when he said what he'd do in gaza. If Israel felt desperate enough, there's no telling what they might do. If I were Obama, I would immediately cut off any weapon co-operation with this country - which just might go rogue anytime. The threat from israel to American interests is far graver than any other threat to the US out there (except of course, from our own brilliant bankers - but that's another story).
April 1, 2009 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
They want to attack Iran because Iran supports their tormentors. Why not say so ? It would add a scintilla of credibility to the enterprise. Iran is helping people in Lebanon who are disagreeable to Mr Netanyahu - is that not the case ?
Why do we have to hear a faked-up story about nukes ?
We already had more than enough fake stories rammed down our throats by Netanyahu's friends in the last administration. This fake story is an insult.
Mr Netanyahu's friends in the US are still working hard but no longer run everything. He should also note that the Christian religious right in the US has come down with a severe case of laryngitis.
The betting line ( see Intrade ) on this attack happening has not moved much lately. I am inclined to bet against it - until the line moves ...
April 1, 2009 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
BrianSkuse" "...Mr Netanyahu's friends in the US are still working hard but no longer run everything.
Hmm... just keep this at the back your mind:
April 1, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh definitely true.
Sure they have people working to limit the options that work up to the policy level. They want to box in the president by tooling the information that reaches him.
Will it work this time ? Quite a different president now.
April 1, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Seems to me that the real danger to America is israel's nuclear weapons and other WMD's."
"I would immediately cut off any weapon co-operation with this country - which just might go rogue anytime."
"The threat from israel to American interests is far graver than any other threat to the US out there"
Showboat: you sound like a Nazi. Cut it out, or find another place to post more accepting of your abhorrent views.
April 1, 2009 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
What exactly is "nazi" in my comment? I'm stating the obvious: we should worry more about those who not only threaten to kill thousands of people, but those who actually showed they are willing to do it. Right now, the worst you have from Iran is the occasional blaster. What you have from israel, however, is blaster plus demonstrated utter disregard for lives not their own. If you don't believe me, look at gaza. Is it being a nazi to say that killing hundreds of children and maiming thousands is criminal?
When an incoming right wing president of a country known to viciously attack those it perceives as enemies threatens the US and its interests, I say we should take it seriously because in the past they followed through on their threats. And to me, threatening to bomb Iran on their own and the heck with Persian AND American lives is a very serious business indeed, and I hope our military and intelligence services do not make light of it. And if you don't know what the mood is really like in Israel, I suggest you go there with your hebrew dictionary and listen to what people are saying. Then tell me whether you wish to arm a country that appears to have gone collectively mad.
I have absolutely no doubt that Israel will use any threat it can to maintain its chokehold on the palestinians. All they need is to "feel threatened". maybe you feel safe with them armed to the teeth. I don't because I don't trust their sanity as a collective. I guess wanting to cut back on arming madmen makes me "nazi-like".
April 1, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
What nukes ? Iran has some thirty year old outmoded centrifuges ... are they a problem ?
The same people are making up the same story that was a big fat lie last time ... it is certain they do not believe their own story .. it is doubtful very many thoughtful people believe it ...
Why does this nonsense get treated with respect ?
A bunch of pugnacious bastards want to start ANOTHER war - and they are treated as if legitimate. Why do we have to put up with this crap ?
The Americans should put the kibosh on this scheme, today. So sick, so heartily sick, of their crapola.
March 31, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you know what Iran has, Brian? Are you a deep-cover agent?
March 31, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, do not worry - Netanyahu knows his story is phony.
The smoking gun would be in the form of a mushroom cloud ! Remember that one ?
He is trying to work the American public the way they were worked a few years back.
Alas for him, the American public are not responding the way he would like ... but he and his friends have not come up with any fairy tales that work better.
So they are stuck with this horse crap story until they make up a better one.
About the centrifuges : google around and you will find reliable reports ( not signed off on by C. Rice ) that the Iranian centrifuges are an old design ...
See the photo of I'm-a-dinner-jacket in a lab coat walking between centrifuges ? Those centrifuges are shorter than a man. The current designs are ten meters tall ... again, easily found by asking around.
Engineers have noted that the Iranian project is the slowest, worst organized and least serious project imaginable. They have been at it since the Shah was in power ... they are not serious.
However: they like to pretend they are serious and some Americans like to pretend the same thing.
The whole thing is a big, fake puppet show put on to fake out the gullible.
March 31, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you're telling us that the results of your "googling around" are more reliable than those of Israeli intelligence?
April 1, 2009 5:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a better reason : I did not believe the lie last time - and I was right !
Anyone following the 'Aluminum tubes' story before 2001 could tell that Bush, Rice et al. were firing up a big fat lie when they started telling the public that Iraq had nukes. The 'Aluminum tubes' story had already been debunked before it was resurrected.
Thus it was easy to see, last time, that they were lying. Not just lying a little bit; lying all day long. It was a deliberate hoax.
So the people that believed Rice's 'mushroom cloud' nonsense were fooled. But not everyone was fooled.
It is astounding that anyone would go along with this same story, hearing it a second time, from the same sort of people.
In fact, just like last time, there is another reason they want to attack Iran, but they think they will get more public support with the 'nukes' story.
April 1, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Logical Note : that country's 'intelligence' is not assumed by me to be the source of the story. Others may know, or may assume, that it is or is not the source.
The 'intelligence' may be full of facts but we do not get to see it - it is 'classified'.
A story is being told by a politician: should we believe it or not ? Or is it partly true ? Because he is a politician the audience has the option of disbelieving what he says.
I do not know the man; is he particularly truthful ? Is he famous for his probity ?
Does his story sound like one we have already heard - and proved to be a whopper ?
April 1, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, is cheney and now netanyahu the only people that think obama is weak?
this seems to be the perception obama himself has created.
if it werent why would netanyahu risk this public outburst?
March 31, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Initial capital letters for each sentence will help add some needed panache to your posts.
March 31, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Content would help yours.
March 31, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Y'all forgot the mandatory ad hom comment that is required to accompany sarcasm.
March 31, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I'm sure you know, my posts contain content whenever they are responding to a post with content.
March 31, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you shouldn't use words like panache. Don't use words like that. Never seen that word used when it didn't start an argument.
March 31, 2009 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never start arguments - I only continue them.
April 1, 2009 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Israelis can't take on Iran w/out US so the gigantic bluff speculation is probably accurate.
I found the brand-spankin' new rationale for what Iran is up to hilarious:
"Few in Netanyahu’s inner circle believe that Iran has any short-term plans to drop a nuclear weapon on Tel Aviv, should it find a means to deliver it. The first-stage Iranian goal, in the understanding of Netanyahu and his advisers, is to frighten Israel’s most talented citizens into leaving their country. “The idea is to keep attacking the Israelis on a daily basis, to weaken the willingness of the Jewish people to hold on to their homeland,” Moshe Ya’alon said. “The idea is to make a place that is supposed to be a safe haven for Jews unattractive for them. They are waging a war of attrition.”
So now Iran is responsible for the Israeli brain drain? Talk about displacement....
Yup. So I guess it's a duty of all Americans to reverse the braindrain by attacking Iran. Our "special relationship" requires that we insure that the Israelis emigrating to Germany instead stay put in the light unto nations.
I'm used to egregious bullshit coming out of the mouths of Israeli politicians but this has to take the cake.
Goldberg is so funny in his admiration of the manlyman bibi.
Nevermind that bibi's fellow citizens think he's a putz. Only in America does bibi's brother's very really heroism rub off on the man-afraid-of-Richard-Perle's-pooch.
March 31, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you think it's perfectly acceptable for Israeli men, women, and children to live in daily fear of genocidal threats? If such fear causes people to leave Israel, you don't see this as a problem that progressives need to grapple with?
March 31, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And threats are all that they will remain. Your scaremongering ('genocide' sounds awfully like 'mushroom cloud' and 'smoking gun' to some of us) is way off the mark and you know it. I assume none of us are "deep cover agents" as you suggested in a 1-up-asshole reply to another poster, but the overwhelming evidence to the reading public is that:
a) Israel's deterrence capability is unmatched. Period. It is the dominant military power in the region, both in land and air war, with an estimated 200 nuclear weapons and sophisticated intelligence, targeting, and delivery systems (brought to you mainly by American dollars and engineering). You can add in over 150k American soldiers on both sides of Iran and a massive USN presence in the two regional bodies of water. The Iranians have nothing like that, at all, and you should know that.
b) Iran has a smallscale, primitive nuclear research program. They are no where close to developing weapons grade uranium, let alone the delivery systems necessary. IC via the NIE, IAEA, UN, and numerous FP research bodies -- All are in agreement on this. The Israelis are isolated on this issue.
Juan Cole has a recent post on the Iranian nuclear program that you should check out:
http://www.juancole.com/2009/02/iaea-inspectors-iran-not-producing.html
c) Iran is generally a rational actor. They have consistently benefited from events in the region over the past 30 years, while we have not (the development of Hizbullah, intifada 1 and 2, the Clinton cold years, aftermath of 9/11, esp Gulf War II). Maybe we should stop the boogy man bullshit and confront them as competent adversaries?
d) America is engaged in two protracted land wars involving sensitive nation building efforts in Islamic lands. An Israeli attack on Iran would be brutal to American interests, and could virtually wipe out the fragile gains in Iraq that have cost thousands of Americans their lives. Iran is strategically placed along our lines of communications and logistics. The Iranians have deep contacts in Iraq, contacts that we are currently depending on, and an attack against Iran could very well result in our own version of the Battle of Recroi. It would also signal that the proxy is above subordination, further dampening America's shattered reputation.
e) the fact you believe your own bullshit is hilarious. Why don't you just come out and say what you really feel: Israeli lives are worth more than hundreds of thousands of American lives and the fate of the US military.
- FZ1999
March 31, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your point (c.) is crucial - that point should remain in the front of all consideration.
The Americans have encircled Iran, have spent plenty of money trying to create mischief there ( oh but covert American forays into Iran are SUCH A BIG FAT SECRET !! SHHHHH ! ), have tried in every way to tip over the regime ... all failed.
Note : there is now an oversupply of Natural Gas on world markets ... the price has fallen quite far ... so the urgency is off for now.
Oh, no, did I say the war was about oil and gas ?!? OOPS ....
March 31, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could you explain the salience of the Battle of Rocroit?
Who are the Spanish and French?
April 1, 2009 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
FZ,
excellent post.
April 1, 2009 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually the thought that terrorism can, over decades, accomplish what a war cannot is an old Palestinian conceit. Arafat's lieutenants spoke about it often. The idea is to make life in Israel, if not necessarily completely unbearable, unpleasant enough so that people move out to better lives in the US or Europe. Over time, demography will weaken the Jewish hold on the land and Israel can be phased out.
Whether this is a conscious Iranian strategy is debatable to be sure. But it is not completely absurd to think so.
March 31, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I read the latest booscary-Iranian-golem nonsense, I thought to myself that it is folks like you, Brad, who are the intended targets.
In other words, members of the American Disapora who revel in exaggerating threats to Israelis. Why hasn't this new Iranian threat of exilic Jews leaving in droves been bandied about in Israel? Perhaps because Israelis are far less afraid than their American aunties and uncles are afraid FOR them and would be insulted.
bibiboyo knows his American friendlies. This is yet another bid for support for an attack on Iran. Although, it certainly won't be chalked up to a ringing endorsement of making aliyah, will it? Avigdor L. and Danny Ayalon must be gritting teeth.
In any case, since Hamas has now suddenly become another arm of Iran rather than the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt from whence they came, it's too bad that Israel thought to assassinate Sheikh Yassin who absolutely refused to have anything to do with Iran:
"....the Hamas movement, which has become Iran’s favorite protégé in the wake of the assassination of Sheikh Yassin (who was quite opposed to receiving support from Tehran.) "
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3692708,00.html
The Israelis are pretty damn dumb about this stuff sometimes and when they combine strategeries with equally idiotic Americans of the neoconish variety, one can know with certainty that another fuck-up w/blowback will be the result.
March 31, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"members of the American Disapora who revel in exaggerating threats to Israelis"
You are suggesting by implication that the Israelis themselves do not feel seriously threatened by Iran.
Can you cite even a single opinion poll that suggests this is the case, or are you talking out of your hat and assuming your audience isn't listening?
March 31, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you PROVE that you aren't davai?
March 31, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you tell me what davai is?
It's not easy for me when posting is done in code - I vote for English all the way.
March 31, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I remember correctly davai was a frequent poster in MJ's threads who used to appear under a variety of names. He may have been banned and so used a new name to get back. If I remember correctly. This clown is slurring you by suggesting you are he. As I recall davai wasn't particularly literate in English.
March 31, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've never heard of davai - I'm a relatively new poster. No offense taken.
April 1, 2009 6:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
WTF?
This whole conversation started because it WAS being bandied about in Israel - by Netanyahu no less.
March 31, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't seen anything in the Israeli media that echos Bibi's claims that Iran is determined to scare Israelis out of Israel.
If you can quote and link to information refuting my opinion, I will admit to being in error.
If no proof of the pudding is produced, I will stand by my contentions.
March 31, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have been in Israel several times over the past few years and the alarm caused by Iran's apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons and Ahmedinejad's belligerent rants is very real and cuts across the political spectrum. The psychological effect of one's sworn enemy professing a desire to wipe your nation off the map and taking steps that even arguably can be construed as developing the capacity to do so can not be understated. Whether these threats are intended, as Netanyahu suggests, to drive Jews from Israel seems a bit fanciful, but they have had a profound effect on a nation comprised in the shadow of a genocide that, since its founding, has been threatened with extinction.
April 1, 2009 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow Bibi is awfully beligerant. Just imagine this kind of rhetoric being directed against the US, Israel, the UK, etc.
The logic behind the Iran threat is bizarre: a) War didn't make them peaceful (like it has for Israel?). b) Despite the fact that they haven't launched an aggressive war for centuries, they are clearly aggressive. c) If they do get nukes, they won't use them but will instead attack Israel through proxies, as they do now.
Seriously, I expect better propaganda. What if Ache-me-gentials gets voted out?
March 31, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recall reading that Iran's Natanz nuclear facility cannot be destroyed without using nuclear weapons. Is Netanyahu prepared to acknowledge the existence of Israel's nuclear arsenal? Someone ought to ask.
March 31, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I recall reading that Iran's Natanz nuclear facility cannot be destroyed without using nuclear weapons"
Do you believe that because you read something, it is automatically true?
March 31, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Progressive Conscience asks:
Should we keep this in mind when we read your posts?
March 31, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zing!
March 31, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Should we keep this in mind when we read your posts?"
Anything in my posts whose facticity you doubt you are free to ask me about. I generally cite sources and logically justify my statements unless I consider them obvious to all educated people; however, as Mencken famously said, No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. Probably goes double for TPM commenters.
One of my goals here as the Progressive Conscience is to prod my fellow TPMers to think a bit before they post. Some of the material that is posted here doesn't pass a laugh test, and may make outsiders think that progressives are dumb and illogical, God forbid. It's important to call the posters on it. When illogical or obviously erroneous statements are made by posters, it lowers the entire level of our discourse.
March 31, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Some of the material that is posted here doesn't pass a laugh test, and may make outsiders think that progressives are dumb and illogical."
The bigger risk is that the dumb and illogical may mistake themselves for being progressive instead of broken-record nationalists who don't pass a laugh test.
April 1, 2009 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Define "Nationalist" and explain to me why I am one more than you are, Miss Overreach.
April 1, 2009 6:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. Never fucking tell me what to do.
2. Never fucking tell me what to do.
April 1, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Progressive said:
Maybe you should have heeded your own advice before you posted this:
April 1, 2009 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
What Netanyahu does vis a vis Iran will reveal in stark terms the 'special relationship'. It will show who is the child and who is the daddy at the table. Or it will show that there is really no child at the table but just mom and dad about to carve the turkey together.
March 31, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has an opportunity here.
I believe that, if he were to publicly tell Yahoo "you're on your own if you attack Iran," he'd get a very favorable response in the US and abroad.
March 31, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are the rest of us supposed to know what you mean by "Yahoo"?
March 31, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, it means ZOG or the Zionist entity or just all the Juice.
Should be obvious anyone in the Mideast and not part of the ZE would know,
March 31, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, are we all supposed to know what ZOG is?
Are you assuming that all of us read the same anti-Semitic web sites that you apparently do?
March 31, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
PC
It's called a "pun." Sorry you didn't get it.
March 31, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
PC My attempt at sarcasm failed. MJ's sites are the only ones I read that dip into anti-semitism and then only in the comments. Sorry.
Chard, if that was a pun you need to go back to pun school. It seemed to me to just be another in the regular run of the mill silly comments here. Have you not noticed that many here really do not like Israel and some don't even like Jews who seem to them them to be the root of all evil.
March 31, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
sbobker;
No, I have not "noticed that many here really do not like Israel and some don't even like Jews...etc."
I have noticed a few commentators who characterize any statement critical of Israeli policies regarding Palestine as rank antisemitism.
Can you say "canard?"
March 31, 2009 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does referring to Israel's Prime Minister as "Yahoo" count as "criticism of Israel's policies regarding Palestine"? Or is it just a run-of-the-mill slur?
You can be honest, you're among friends here . . .
April 1, 2009 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"PC My attempt at sarcasm failed. MJ's sites are the only ones I read that dip into anti-semitism and then only in the comments. Sorry."
I'm sorry too. A well placed barb is healthy at times, and I was dense for not noticing your irony. It takes a while to keep track of the cast of characters of this somewhat goofy enterprise . . .
April 1, 2009 6:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
sbobker said:
I don't dispute that there is anti semitism, and that some in here may not like Israel (very few), but I think what you see at TPM is both sides of the Israel issue as debated by Jewish people who come here.
I think what is seen at TPM and especially on MJ Rosenberg's columns is the "Israel can do no wrong" side, and the more objective side that criticizes Israel now and then.
April 1, 2009 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
How will the US media treat an Israeli attack on Iran? A cartoon is worth a thousand words: US Media and Israel
March 31, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pearl:
Does it really surprise you that the liberal New York Times refused to publish an anti-Semitic cartoon?
March 31, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither the NY times nor you surprise me when it comes to putting Israel-First.
March 31, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you believe that refusing to print an anti-Semitic cartoon is "putting Israel first"?
I guess that refusing a racist cartoon would be putting Africa first?
I have news for you: This is a progressive web site, and racism and anti-Semitism are not welcome. That's because we're Americans and progressives, not from any imaginary dual loyalty.
April 1, 2009 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Accordingly that would mean that USA Today who printed the cartoon is also antisemitic. Geez, they are everywhere.
In psychology there is what is called projection. Simply put, 'If you can spot it, you got it'. People who see antisemitism around every corner, have their own repressed hatred issues which they fail to acknowledge and deal with. This is not to say that there aren't any people who hate all Jews for no particular reason. That is true antisemitism. But the antisemitism card is being used to silence critics. It's not working as it used to. Drop it!
Also, you are letting the progressive label of your name get to your head. It should be more like 'I'm-a-progressive-in-everything-except-when-it-comes-to-Israel-Conscience'.
April 1, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greece is a very antisemitic country. On March 31 in the World Cup qualifying match, Greece defeated Israel 2-1 in soccer.
April 1, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: I'm confused. If Netanyahu is a Israeli elected official, isn't it right that he is looking out for Israel's safety and interests?
Are you suggesting that he should be looking out for America's interests? Wouldn't that be dual loyalty, a subject you happen to be fond of bringing up?
March 31, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Progressive,
if Netanyahu isn't going to take our interests into consideration in this particularly important issue, an issue that will directly affect the United States, I would suggest we rescind all military and financial aid to Israel.
Don't you agree?
March 31, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"if Netanyahu isn't going to take our interests into consideration in this particularly important issue, an issue that will directly affect the United States, I would suggest we rescind all military and financial aid to Israel."
That's a coherent, logical point of view for you to take to your elected officials, particularly if you apply it to all recipients of aid, not only to Israel. I say this even though I disagree with you.
In contrast, saying that Netanyahu shouldn't act in the interests of Israel as he understands those interests is an incoherent view. That's why I'm surprised MJ said it - he's usually fairly coherent even where I don't see eye to eye with him.
March 31, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Progressive says:
All things being equal, of course I support the idea being applied to all. But of course actions taken by all recipients of U S aid rarely have the effect of involving the U S as Israeli actions are capable of, such as an Israeli attack on Iran.
April 1, 2009 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
President Obama needs to get on the phone and let Netanyahu know that Israel can take no action vis a vis Iran without full consultation with Washington.
And what credible threat of sanctions can Obama put forward to enforce his will? Wouldn't the conversation go something like this:
Obama: Don't attack Iran without our go-ahead, or else we'll cut back on your aid package.
Bibiyahoo: Yeah, you and what army? I have more influence over the US Congress than you do.
Obama: The US Congress doesn't support a strike on Iran.
Bibiyahoo: Who are you talking about? Nancy? Steny? Harry? I'm having them all over to the house next week for Passover.
Obama: The US public doesn't support a strike on Iran.
Bibiyahoo: They will after we unpack our planned propaganda feast, which your very friendly networks and newspapers will gobble up like banana pops and sponge cake. By the time we're done, Americans will be wondering why you didn't strike first, and left the job to poor little Israel.
Obama: Our intelligence services won't be taken in.
Bibiyahoo: Yeah, maybe Chas Freeman will prepare a nice intelligence estimate for you to steer you in the right direction. Ooops ... sorry. My bad.
Obama: Umm...
Bibiyaoo: Look, Barack, I've got to go. I've got some settlements to expand and Arab kids to shoot. Later?
Obama: We'll have to talk more about this.
Bibiyahoo: Leave the line open. I may have to call you in the middle of one of your speeches to let you know the bombs are falling, just like Ehud did.
Obama: Will do, sir.
March 31, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan: Do you believe that Israel's most notable contributions to the world have been "expanding settlements and shooting Arab kids"? Have you ever read a book about Israel?
March 31, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Progressive Conscience:
Do you think anything in my post implies that Israel's most notable contributions to the world have been expanding settlements and shooting Arab kids? Have you ever read a book on logic?
Yes, I have strongly criticized Israeli leaders and contemporary Israeli culture. Above, you are yourself appropriately critical of Iranian leaders for issuing genocidal threats. Do you think Iran's most notable contributions to the world have been the making of genocidal threats? Have you ever read a book on Persian history?
I take it you can see the point, here?
Honestly, this sort of kneejerk, broad-brush victimization routine just makes Israel's defenders look foolish. The whole theatrical anti-antisemitism racket becomes more preposterous every day. One struggles to grasp its silly rules:
- No Israelis or other Jews can be criticized for murdering people, even if they have murdered people. To do so is to promulgate a "blood libel."
- No Israelis or other Jews can be called out for exerting a heavy financial influence over US politics, even if they do exert a heavy financial influence over US politics. To do so is to promote the stereotype of the "gold-hungry Jew".
- No Israelis or other Jews can't be cited for seeking to dominate US media messages about Israel, even when they do seek to dominate US media messages about Israel. To do so is to promote conspiracies on the order of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
- No American Jew can be called out for acting on dual loyalties to Israel and the United States, not even those American Jews who actually possess dual citizenship in Israel and the United States. To do so is manufacture a new Dreyfus Affair, and summon the spirit of Emile Zola to avenge these maligned dual citizens.
And now apparently this one:
- Israelis or Jews can't be criticized for carrying out brutal and illegal policies, or for exhibiting a decadent and depraved indifference to life and law, even when they do in fact carry out brutal and illegal policies and exhibit a decadent and depraved indifference to life and law. To do so is to deny any positive cultural contributions from Israel or Jews whatsoever.
These tactics don't work anymore, progressive Conscience. They have been so overused that they have lost most of their former rhetorical oomph, and now have a vaguely comical feel. Those who want to defend Israel and its policies should now try doing so without hiding behind these tattered old argumentative skirts.
Why don't you turn your critical attentions to Israel, Progressive Conscience? Because it appears to me that Israeli society and culture are experiencing a widespread moral and civilizational meltdown, and that the positive contributions of Israel to world culture are in danger of being wiped away as Israel discards every last vestige of its ambivalent liberalism, and descends into rightist, racist barbarism.
March 31, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh nonsense Dan. Your mock colloquy centered on one point, and one point only, namely that Netenyahu, the Israeli president, has more sway over the American Congress than does Obama, the American president. Nobody's telling you to shut up, but please don't pretend that there is no reason for anyone to see the various implications of your little comedy routine. If you think Bibi trumps Obama on Capitol Hill, then say it man. If you think that is the only way you can challenge Bibi's ridiculous and reckless comments about Iran, by parroting age-old and historically consistent accusations about the extraordinary power of the Jewish People, then do it and stop your bellyaching about it. I mean really, why would you care if anyone thinks your comments are fundamentally bigoted? Are you being stifled? To the contrary, the crowd loves it. So write whatever you want. Go for it.
March 31, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant Netanyahu the prime minister, not the president.
March 31, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say anybody stifled me or told me to shut up, Bruce. Pay attention. What I suggested is that Israel's defenders frequently resort to completely ineffective, unresponsive, red herring responses to criticisms.
I have in mind one or both of the following:
Critic: Israel, or American supporters of Israel, are guilty of X.
Response 1: The claim that Israel, or American supporters of Israel, are guilty of X reminds me of another false charge that some very bad people once made about some Jews once in the past. Thus, I am entitled to pretend that this charge is false on that basis, and am relived of the burden of actually responding to this criticism by refuting it.
Response 2: When you say Israel, or American supporters of Israel, are guilty of X, what you really mean is that Israel, or Jews, are worthless, hateful beasts who have never done anything good. How dare you sir?! I decline to dignify with a response the disgusting charges that I am imagining you are making!
I don't really regard these tactics as attempts to stifle discussion in 2009 because they have been reduced by this point to comic inefficacy, and will only stifle discussion among silly fools who are irrationally intimidated by this kind of sophistry. I just regard the tactics as bad and silly arguments. They don't work. They are intellectually lazy dodges.
Yes, I don't really think Netanyahu has more control over the US Congress than Obama, just as I don't really think he invited Pelosi to his house for Passover or that Obama calls him "sir". It was satire, pointing in the direction of truth, as satire does, with an over-the-top portrayal.
I do think Israel's influence over US politics is extensive, and that as a result Obama has very few tools at his disposal to push Israeli policy one way or another.
March 31, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't really regard these tactics as attempts to stifle discussion in 2009 because they have been reduced by this point to comic inefficacy"
Lol. I guess it must be my imagination Dan. Perhaps you're enlightened my friend, but it does seem to me that lots of folks spend an extraordinary amount of time complaining about how allegations of anti-semitism are used to stifle debate. Eye of the beholder I guess.
March 31, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't I turn my attentions from the several dozen tyrranical, homophobic, repressive dictatorships in the Middle East to the single imperfect democracy with a free press, freedom to worship, separation of powers, etc.?
Dan, your question is a tough one - I need to give it some thought.
As for your self-righteous "Do you think anything in my post implies that Israel's most notable contributions to the world have been expanding settlements and shooting Arab kids?"
was the following inserted into your post by a gremlin or a troll, or were you somnambulating when it appeared?
"Look, Barack, I've got to go. I've got some settlements to expand and Arab kids to shoot. Later?"
March 31, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some have asserted that Israel is different because of the amount of aid it receives from this country. It is a somewhat compelling argument, but I'm not particularly impressed with it because I see most of the vitriol against the Jewish state to be pretty much confined to narrow extremist swaths of the population (left and right), or as some would say, people who perceive themselves to be smarter than the average Joe. Of course, the hatred for Israel around the rest of the world, relative to other regimes (see Mr. Bashir's welcome at the Arab summit this week) is quite another story and one which boggles some minds, even Average Joes like myself.
Of course, this Average Joe lives in a world where he can smack down Netanyahu without getting into conspiracy theories. I'd like to think that that is where MJ Rosenberg was coming from in drafting this post.
March 31, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I distinguish between people who want foreign aid to be reduced or tied to specific policies, and people who have a visceral, Nazi-like hate for Israel out of all countries that can only be explained by the fact that it's a Jewish state.
Anti-semitism is unacceptable to me, pure and simple, and it should be unacceptable to every progressive. That includes attacks on Israel that are out of proportion to anything Israel has ever done. And I don't care how many times the perpetrator says he's not an anti-Semite - if he acts or talks anti-semitic, he's an anti-Semite. It's like the goons that claim they're not racist but obviously can't stand blacks.
March 31, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Marc Lynch's take on the Bashir BS:
"Second, Omar Bashir. Sudanese President Bashir's appearance and warm reception at the Summit demonstrates the regrettable level of support for the alleged architect of the Darfur horrors and the limited reach of the International Criminal Court. Darfur has increasingly been framed in the Muslim and Arab arenas as a contest between Islam and the West, not as a question of international justice -- yet another legacy of the Bush years, I think, where such a frame fell on fertile soil. The welcome for Bashir will likely overshadow a lot of the more substantive inter-Arab issues under discussion, but the Emir of Qatar -- whose deep involvement in a Sudanese national reconciliation initiative is one of the sources of the current conflict with Egypt -- clearly wanted it."
Lynch specializes in analyzing the Arabic media and on the "right" margin of his blog provides sketches of articles appearing there. His take:
"I'm having a hard time finding anyone with a good thing to say about the Doha summit."
http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/
March 31, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
was the following inserted into your post by a gremlin or a troll, or were you somnambulating when it appeared?
"Look, Barack, I've got to go. I've got some settlements to expand and Arab kids to shoot. Later?"
The clear implication of that part of the dialogue is that Netanyahu is a murderous criminal. I think the same is true of other Israeli leaders. I have said similar things in the past about Bush and Cheney. And yet there is no rational basis whatsoever for leaping from the latter claim about Bush and Cheney to the conclusion that I think America's "most notable contribution to the world" is the perpetration of war crimes. So why would any honest reader infer that my bitter condemnation of the murderous actions of Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders implies that I think expanding settlements and shooting kids is Israel's most notable contribution to the world.
This is just lazy argumentation. It's a way of avoiding the issue by throwing up preposterous straw men.
March 31, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan - have you ever inveighed about the war crimes of people that have really done war crimes, like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Mao, Qaddaffi, Arafat . . .
or is it just a rhetorical device that you use for people you dislike, especially if they're Israeli?
April 1, 2009 6:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I do recall going on a few times about Mao. I have also had some harsh words for Genghis Khan. But generally speaking, I reserve my major inveighing for current events and leave history to the historians.
I am also slightly selfish, and tend to focus a lot more of my attention on those countries whose criminal actions produce blowback that can harm my own country, and particularly the relatively small number of people I really care about who live in this country.
If Israel was just some random, expansionist local bully on the world map, with no particular connection to the United States, I would probably ignore it most of the time - just as I do other such spots. Unfortunately, Israel has an army of domestic US defenders and special pleaders, who are determined to yoke American policy as closely as possible to the defense of Israel and its expansionist policies. Partly as a result of this fact, Americans are in the line of fire, and are now seen as the "far enemy" by a bunch of Arabs and other Muslims with whom I would prefer we had as little to do as possible.
If you can point to another region in the world where Americans have been put in jeopardy due to the US government's support of Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot, I will be happy to start inveighing against those policies as well.
But all of the above is really too dignified a response for you, since the real point of your puerile and insinuating comment, which is too lame even to rise to the level of "sleazy", is to suggest that since I have spent more time recently inveighing against the actions of recent Israeli governments than I have against Hitler, Mao and Stalin, that must be because I hate Jews more than I do Nazis and genocidal, totalitarian despots. Maybe next time I discuss the global financial crisis I should spend more time inveighing against Herbert Hoover, Louis XVI and Cosimo di Medici - just to prove I am not bigoted against Wall Streeters particularly.
I don't know if you have had success with these amateurish, hackneyed, baiting tactics against some super-sensitive blogospheric greenhorns, but you should know my skin is a bit thicker than that.
April 1, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why you bother -- I pegged what this guy was about two weeks ago.
Just ignore him. He's like an angry fart in the wind.
April 1, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K, as Orwell said 'To see what is in front of one's nose needs constant struggle'. To those with an agenda, the obvious is antisemitic.
March 31, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blue:
Do you really believe that the obvious is anti-Semitic, or rather that the anti-Semitic is obvious?
April 1, 2009 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Example: It has been obvious to many impartial observers that Israel unnecessarily, and in some cases, killed Palestinians in cold blood in the recent Gaza War. When a person points out this obvious observation, the Israel-can-do-no-wrong crowd, labels the one making the obvious observation antisemitic.
April 1, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alas, Dan K, I was so enjoying your comments over on Dean Baker's blog, and now this. Where to begin... ?
March 31, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all accurate - in spirit.
March 31, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ - I've read the interview, and I'm genuinely surprised at you.
Netanyahu comes across as reasonable, and your position truly comes across as incoherent. Netanyahu is sworn and duty-bound to protect Israel's interests. Are you telling us that even if he genuinely believes that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, and that the threat can be removed by appropriate actions, he shouldn't do it without permission from the United States?
What kind of distorted logic is that?
March 31, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good luck trying to have a discussion based on logic. Chances are you'll get called a "neocon" before MJ deigns to take your question seriously and answer it.
As for myself, I think that you are correct in saying that Israel should, at the end of the day, make its own security decisions. At the same time, in the case of Iran, the issue is that an Israeli strike will quite possibly blow up the region, with Iran retaliating in unpredictable ways that could threaten the entire region and the world economy. Thus if Israel does strike, and this is NOT sanctioned in Washington, then the US will likely pay a huge price that it was not prepared to pay. It is certainly possible this will irreparably damage the US-Israel alliance.
If and when Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, Israel will likely be handed a terrible choice: attack and possibly destroy the US alliance, or sit back and possibly compromise its security. I think that ultimately Netanyahu will not green-light a strike unless Obama agrees and Obama will not agree unless things get considerably uglier with Iran.
March 31, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly agree. Israel will need to weigh all factors before taking any step, including possible impact on the US, and including even the possibility that Israel could itself be physically destroyed, God forbid, by the blowback.
March 31, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is using our might like a little punk kid who's older brother can beat up anyone else on the playground. If they go it alone - they should go it alone. Don't count on America's weapons and money if you don't coordinate with America.
If they act unilaterally to mount an offensive attack within Iran's borders. America should respond with a total military boycott of Israel and demand they join the NPT and subject their nuclear program to international monitoring.
March 31, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, he should not have to ask for permission. But he should not use US tax payer money and US supplied weapons to attack a country that has not attacked anyone in over 200 years. If he does, then it is correctly seen as an US/Israeli attack.
Another words, Yahoo can unleash what inhumanity he can muster, and then marinade in the paranoia that others could be as cruel as he, which then leads him to commit other acts of one-sided (preemptive) bloodshed, etc., etc., all he wants, all on his own. He is a big boy now. He ought to give the training wheels back to the US.
Anyone concerned for Iran, spare yourselves the worry. Likud's pathologies have long been factored into Iranian foreign policy/security calculations. I.e. ignored.
http://www.bibijon.org/iranimage/
March 31, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The kind you routinely employ.
March 31, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you give even one example of a flaw in my logic, or is this just a childish way of saying "You're right, but I want to get the last word in"?
March 31, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how America would deal with Taiwan if they behaved like Israel.
March 31, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm posting some stuff from the former head of Israel's Military Intelligence, Ze'evi Farkash. He made some surprising comments at a recent meeting of Israeli security types which contradicts much of the CW .
He sees Pakistan, not Iran, as the biggest threat to Israel and according to the Jerusalem Post said;
"Iran does not view Israel as its No. 1 nuclear target, but Israel, in its actions, pushes towards becoming Iran's primary target," Farkash said. "Israel needs to be more modest.
Pakistan, according to Farkash, poses a more immediate threat. "Pakistan has nukes and it exports terror," he said."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1236764156826&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Ynet news had an OP Ed that describes the role and importance of the heads of Israel's Military Intelligence and the import of Ze'evi Farkash' words:
"Former IDF Intelligence Chief, Major General (Res.) Aharon Zeevi-Farkash, made one of the greatest mistakes of his life last week: He apparently uttered the truth – and who in the State of Israel wishes to hear the truth these days?
In a recent interview with Ynet, Zeevi said that Israel would not be able to address the Iranian nuclear threat on its own and would need America’s assistance. Therefore, he said, some modesty is required on Israel’s part."
snip]
"The head of the IDF intelligence branch is the most important government official, or at least one of the three or four most important officials in the State of Israel. Much depends on what he says. Relatively few people realize this, but the intelligence chief is the person who decides what the prime minister, defense minister, and even chief of staff know. His desk is used to classify thousands of reports – the “row material” – and from there they are relayed, with interpretations, to the “consumers – that is, the prime minister and others."
snip]
"The person selected for the post of IDF intelligence chief is usually of a special ilk: A combination of a fighter and an intellectual – the thinking fighter. Former intelligence chiefs have already become chiefs of staff and defense ministers, including Defense Minister-designate Bogi Yaalon.
The IDF intelligence chief usually weighs his words carefully. We therefore must assume that Major General Zeevi-Farkash uttered his words after he consulted with others, after he scrutinized the “row material” and the Intelligence Branch’s assessments, and after he convinced himself this was the time and place to speak out and end the illusions."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3686600,00.html
Note the above contains a sidebar link to the original Ynet interview with Ze'evi Farkash that includes some other observations of interest about Syria/Israel peace prospects, the Palestinian rift and a devastating asessment of the effects of the attack on Gaza:
".....the damage caused to Israel's image as a result of the Gaza operation was "horrible", and that it marked a turning point in Turkey's policies towards the Middle East, since the Islamic leadership in the country decided to neglect Ataturk's tradition of not interfering in political matters in the region."
I reiterate my contention that the most valuable analyses of Israel's true security situation come from those professionals tasked with evaluating it....after they've retired from active service and if they have no political ambitions.
March 31, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Normalization with Iran is the real threat. Let's not kid ourselves: There are two strategically important countries in the ME: Saudi Arabia and Iran.
With noramlization with Iran, Israel would be about as useful to the US as tits on a boar hog. Hence, the Zionists demonize, demonize, demonize. It's the only pathetic schtick they've got.
March 31, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"With noramlization [sic] with Iran, Israel would be about as useful to the US as tits [sic] on a boar hog [sic]. Hence, the Zionists demonize, demonize, demonize. It's the only pathetic schtick they've got."
So you're telling us that Iran is a perfectly respectable country, and Israel (or in your lovely anti-Semitic cliche, "the Zionists") has brainwashed the majority of the American people and administrations of both parties into thinking otherwise?
With logic like that, I'm not sure you could even graduate from pre-K to Kindergarten.
March 31, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Agreed.
And that's why there are so many Israel-Firsters planted in ME foreign affairs.
April 1, 2009 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice work lally.