Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's visit with US President Barack Obama at the White House on Monday was a baptism of fire for the new premier. What emerged from the meeting is that Obama's priorities regarding Iran, Israel and the Arab world are diametrically opposed to Israel's priorities.
During his ad hoc press conference with Netanyahu, Obama made clear that he will not lift a finger to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And acting as Obama's surrogate, for the past two weeks CIA Director Leon Panetta has made clear that Obama expects Israel to also sit on its thumbs as Iran develops the means to destroy it.
Obama showed his hand on Iran in three ways. First, he set a nonbinding timetable of seven months for his policy of appeasement and engagement of the ayatollahs to work. That policy, he explained, will only be implemented after next month's Iranian presidential elections. And those direct US-Iranian talks must be given at least six months to show results before they can be assessed as successful or failed.
Here is how Dick Morris has characterized the Obama administration's view of an Iranian nuclear weapon.
we have learned that the [Obama] administration has made its peace with Iran’s nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the US will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy.”
Now, if these sources are correct, then the ramifications are parts stunning and dangerous. What this says is that the Obama administration sees an Israeli attack on Iran as more dangerous than Iran having a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, the Obama administration is more comfortable confronting their ally Israel than they are their enemies in Iran. Finally, it means that President Obama views his own vision of the Middle East to be of more importance and value than Israel's security and very survival.
What's most troubling, for me at least, is the phrase "made his peace with Iranian nukes". Several years back Chicago native, Vince Vaughn, sang the seventh inning stretch at Wrigley. When being interviewed in the booth, Vaughn remarked that he made his peace with no longer living in his hometown. That's how I understand the term "make my peace" with something. It's the process of coming to terms with a situation that you would like to change but know is now impossible.
This is of course not the situation with Iran. More than that, if Iran were to get nukes, that isn't something that we could "make our peace with". It would be a game changer and that's exactly how Obama described in this interview with Bill O'Reilly.
This was not something he said he could "make his peace with". Furthermore, it's much easier for Obama to "make his peace" with Iranian nukes since the first line of fire of said nukes is Israel not the United States.
The president has a few short months to come to his senses. Iranian nuclear weapons is not something that any leader should "make their peace with". Instead, it is something that must be avoided at all costs including war. If such a stand is made clearly, that is the only chance the world has of avoiding the untennable position of the Iranian regime acquiring a nuclear weapon. So far, it appears the Obama administration is far away from this position.
Now, if these sources are correct, then the ramifications are parts stunning and dangerous.
But that is the whole problem with the piece.
We dont know if the sources are correct [at all]
One is from an Israeli newspaper - bias much???
Why would an Israeli newspaper have any motivation to misrepresent the motivations and words of President Obama? What motivation would an Israeli newspaper have to misrepresent what he said? Are you implying that Israelis want to present the president as anti Israel? That is simply not the case. Glick is journalist of integrity. There is no reason to question her integrity.
Yes I agree Israeli newspapers have no interest at all in pushing the rightness of their position over that of Iran's. [sarcasm icon insert here]
Maybe, however these stories are about the position of the Obama administration toward Iran, not Iran itself.
I'm really not sure where you are going with this.
Post a Comment