Sunday, 11 March 2012
[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: Question that I know will annoy some American Jews:
Apparently President Obama believes that his reelection is more important
than the threat of nuclear Iran.
The question is where Israel's survival fits into the priorities of American
Jews.
Here is a list:
1. The election of a Democrat for president of the United States
come-what-may.
2. The personal thrill of having someone in the White House who knows your
first name [or at last acts like he does] and whose photo with you is
prominently displayed in your home.
3. The business clout of having someone in the White House who knows your
first name [or at last acts like he does] and whose photo with you is
prominently displayed in your office.
4. Abortion on demand.
5. Acting in time to end the threat of nuclear Iran.
Here's the paradox: if enough rich and politically connected American Jews
picked #5 over the rest of the list and let Mr. Obama know that they
genuinely put #5 over the rest then it could turn out that he reaches the
conclusion that #1 and #5 do not contradict each other.]
If the administration were serious about achievement rather than appearance,
it would have demanded a short timeline.
Won't sanctions make a difference this time, however? Sanctions are indeed
hurting Iran economically. But when Obama's own director of national
intelligence was asked by the Senate intelligence committee whether
sanctions had any effect on the course of Iran's nuclear program, the answer
was simple: No. None whatsoever.
So what is Obama's real objective? "We're trying to make the decision to
attack as hard as possible for Israel," an administration official told the
Washington Post in the most revealing White House admission since "leading
from behind."
A fair-minded observer might judge that Israel's desire to not go gently
into the darkness carries higher moral urgency than the political future of
one man, even if he is president of the United States.
------------------------------------
Tough talk on nukes not enough to stop Iran
Charles Krauthammer March 11, 2012 12:11 am
WASHINGTON
--It's Lucy and the football, Iran-style. After ostensibly tough talk about
preventing Iran from going nuclear, the Obama administration acquiesced to
yet another round of talks with the mullahs.
This, 14 months after the last group-of-six negotiations collapsed in
Istanbul because of blatant Iranian stalling and unseriousness. Nonetheless,
the new negotiations will be both without precondition and preceded by yet
more talks to decide such trivialities as venue.
These negotiations don't just gain time for a nuclear program about whose
military intent the IAEA is issuing alarming warnings. They make it
extremely difficult for Israel to do anything about it (while it still can),
lest Israel be universally condemned for having aborted a diplomatic
solution.
If the administration were serious about achievement rather than appearance,
it would have warned that this was the last chance for Iran to come clean
and would have demanded a short timeline. After all, President Obama
insisted on deadlines for the Iraq withdrawal, the Afghan surge, and
Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Why leave these crucial talks open-ended
when the nuclear clock is ticking?
This re-engagement comes immediately after Obama's campaign-year posturing
about Iran's nukes. Sunday in front of AIPAC, he warned that "Iran's leaders
should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States." This just two
days after he'd said (to the Atlantic) of possible U.S. military action, "I
don't bluff." Yet on Tuesday he returns to the very engagement policy that
he admits had previously failed.
Won't sanctions make a difference this time, however? Sanctions are indeed
hurting Iran economically. But when Obama's own director of national
intelligence was asked by the Senate intelligence committee whether
sanctions had any effect on the course of Iran's nuclear program, the answer
was simple: No. None whatsoever.
Obama garnered much AIPAC applause by saying that his is not a containment
policy but a prevention policy. But what has he prevented? Keeping a
coalition of six together is not success. Holding talks is not success.
Imposing sanctions is not success.
Success is halting and reversing the program. Yet Iran is tripling its
uranium output, moving enrichment facilities deep under a mountain near Qom,
and impeding IAEA inspections of weaponization facilities.
So what is Obama's real objective? "We're trying to make the decision to
attack as hard as possible for Israel," an administration official told the
Washington Post in the most revealing White House admission since "leading
from behind."
Revealing and shocking. The world's greatest exporter of terror (according
to the State Department), the systematic killer of Americans in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the self-declared enemy that invented "Death to America Day" is
approaching nuclear capability--and the focus of U.S. policy is to prevent a
democratic ally threatened with annihilation from pre-empting the threat?
Indeed it is. The new open-ended negotiations with Iran fit well with this
strategy of tying Israel down. As does Obama's "I have Israel's back"
reassurance, designed to persuade Israel and its supporters to pull back and
outsource to Obama what for Israel are life-and-death decisions.
Yet 48 hours later, Obama tells a news conference that this phrase is just a
historical reference to supporting such allies as Britain and
Japan--contradicting the intended impression he'd given AIPAC that he was
offering special protection to an ally under threat of physical
annihilation.
To AIPAC he declares that "no Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear
weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe
Israel off the map, and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel's
destruction" and affirms "Israel's sovereign right to make its own decisions
to meet its security needs."
And then he pursues policies--open-ended negotiations, deceptive promises of
tough U.S. backing for Israel, boasts about the efficacy of sanctions, grave
warnings about "war talk"--meant, as his own official admitted, to stop
Israel from exercising precisely that sovereign right to self-protection.
Yet beyond these obvious contradictions and walk-backs lies a transcendent
logic: As with the Keystone pipeline postponement, as with the debt-ceiling
extension, as with the Afghan withdrawal schedule, Obama wants to get past
Nov. 6 without any untoward action that might threaten his re-election.
For Israel, however, the stakes are somewhat higher: the very existence of a
vibrant nation and its 6 million Jews. The asymmetry is stark. A fair-minded
observer might judge that Israel's desire to not go gently into the darkness
carries higher moral urgency than the political future of one man, even if
he is president of the United States.
Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group.
--------------------------------------------
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il
Posts
