| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Ahmadinejad to offer devil's bargain? |
| 2008-12-31 |
| Iran's US-Israel mischief Hamas' missile attacks on Israel last week, and Israel's thunderous re sponse, may only be the prelude for the next big Middle East confrontation between America and Iran - and a defining moment for the new Obama presidency. Imagine if, in the summer of 1941, Adolf Hitler had approached Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt with this deal: I will cease hostilities and leave the British Empire alone, if you leave me alone to finish my extermination of the Jews. Expect Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to offer a similar deal to Barack Obama come January. Officially, the offer will be Iranian cooperation with the West in Iran's nuclear program, possibly including United Nations inspections - if the United States reverses course on its support for Israel, including its actions against Hamas in Gaza. Iran expert Ze'ev Maghen of Bar-Ilan University thinks this may be what top Iranian officials are preparing to offer the West in a kind of crude devil's bargain. In short, Iran's price for getting along with America, "the Great Satan," will be our acquiescence in the destruction of "the Little Satan," Israel. Would Obama accept such a pact? Certainly many on his foreign-policy team, including Vice President Joe Biden, are on the record urging direct talks with Iran as a path to resolving the nuclear impasse - even if others on his team, like Hillary Clinton or Rahm Emanuel, resist. The problem is that Iran will clearly see a US policy of direct talks on the nuclear issue as a green light to its larger ambitions. The violence in Gaza should remind us of who really pulls Hamas' strings, namely Iran. Iran wants to be the first nuclear power in the Middle East, and it wants to destroy Israel. What few Americans realize, including (it seems) key Obama foreign-policy aides, is that Iran doesn't need to achieve the first objective in order to secure the second. Iran doesn't have to rely on a nuclear bomb to annihilate Israel. It simply has to continue to close the Hamas-Hezbollah-Syrian noose around the Jewish state, until Israel is forced to allow Palestinians to reenter Israel and perhaps offer them citizenship, which could lead to the effective end of the "Zionist entity." But Tehran knows this can't be done without US acquiescence. The mullahs will certainly assume that an offer for direct talks will open the door to charging a price for peace in Iraq and future Iranian nuclear cooperation: namely, that America stand idly by while Israel gradually ceases to be an independent Jewish state. The actual timetable and details - such as an Obama administration forcing Israel to return to pre-1967 borders, or forcing it to accept Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state, or yielding on "the right of return" for Palestinians - don't matter. What counts is that Iran will get the credit for crippling and then perhaps, ultimately, eradicating Israel and for tricking the Americans into helping Iran to do it. In 2006, Ahmadinejad disclosed the outline for such a deal in an open letter to President Bush, stating that Muslim hostility to the West will never cease until the West abandons its support for Israel. Sooner or later, he is bound to make a similar offer to President Obama, this time possibly including a deal on Iran's nuclear program. The problem, of course, is that such an offer will be worthless. Iran has systematically lied to UN and European Union officials and cheated on agreements on its nuclear program for years. Why should it change now? If Iran can fool the new administration into unwinding its policy of support for Israel, then it will see no reason why it can't bluff its way into completing a bomb. All the same, the pressure will be on Obama for some kind of "accommodation." Time and the willpower for a military option, such as bombing Iran's nuke sites, is running out. Since 2005, the Bush administration has tried every diplomatic avenue for that accommodation short of direct talks, without much result. The temptation to start direct talks as the crucial next step will be almost overwhelming. Obama has said Israel has a right to self-defense and to an undivided Jerusalem. But he has a life-long association with the New Left, which has an instinctive hostility to Israel as the representative of an "imperialist" West. And the New Left has had a sympathy for Palestinian activists no matter how militant - like Obama's friend Rashid Khalidi. We also know Obama's view of Iran, that it's "a tiny country" that doesn't "pose a serious threat to us." The harm Iran can do to Israel is another matter. The Hamas-Hezbollah-Syrian noose around Israel's neck is tightening. Even if the Olmert government somehow manages to degrade Hamas' military strength, that still leaves Hezbollah and Syria, with Iran lurking in the background. Will America take a firm stand to prevent the noose from closing - even if that means dealing with a permanently hostile Iran? Despite its many mistakes in dealing with Tehran, the Bush administration never yielded to the temptation of the devil's bargain. We'll soon find out if Obama is made of the same stuff. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #14 No one wants to be the next Neville Chamberlain How 'bout the next Jimmy Carter? |
| Posted by: DMFD 2008-12-31 16:57 |
| #13 Noone wants to be the next Neville Chamberlain. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2008-12-31 16:52 |
| #12 It would be glass parking lot time for Tehran. I'm afraid so. If the US no longer supports Israel, what's to stop them and what choice would they have? There would be a much better chance for peace if we'd glass Tehran for them just to make sure it gets done right. Peace through strength, you know. Maybe we could give 'em a little Hiroshima or Nagasaki and then ask if they want to talk. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2008-12-31 16:19 |
| #11 So with Israel outta the way, who moves into the top spot on their list? If Barry wants to know the answer to that one, tell him to look in a miirror. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-12-31 12:39 |
| #10 Let me destroy this country, and I will cooperate. Of course I already agreed to cooperate, then changed my mind, but I won't change my mind again, honest! You know they only offer this insult because our leaders keep coming back for more. |
| Posted by: flash91 2008-12-31 12:28 |
| #9 If Sloe Joe and the Magic Man think that their big surprise is the abandonment of Israel and cuddling up to the Muzz, they are going to see a complete turn over in Congress in two years. And, they may be prosecuted for war crimes. |
| Posted by: Woozle Elmeter 2700 2008-12-31 12:23 |
| #8 Death to Iran ! Death to Hamas ! Death to Ahmadinejad !!! Jihad American Style... 50 megaton mushroom cloud! Death to the satanic religion called Islam ! |
| Posted by: goatdonor 2008-12-31 10:24 |
| #7 Any American politician and the American President have to realize that most of us (Israeli's) have nowhere to go Unfortunately, that is NOT the case judging from what gets into the MSM. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2008-12-31 10:15 |
| #6 We also know Obama's view of Iran, that it's "a tiny Here kitty, kitty, kitty.... come to Bebe. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-12-31 08:49 |
| #5 Well, Maybe Obama will cut a deal with Ahmadini-Baby. However, this will not really change anything fundamentally. - While the US under Obama can economically and militarily make us seriously hurt, I don't think this can finish us in only four years. and I think by this time there would be another republican at the white house. Even if the US completely abandons us, in my view this will lead to a no holds barred nuclear confrontation between Israel and the Arabs Remember Massada? Any American politician and the American President have to realize that most of us (Israeli's) have nowhere to go and we will fight to the end (and if we have to take a few hundred million Arabs with us -so be it !). It doesn't sound very nice but life isn't always fare. |
| Posted by: Elder of Zion 2008-12-31 08:49 |
| #4 I have to agree with Scooter. Israel isn't going down without a fight. The worst thing Iran could do is to back them into a corner. It would be glass parking lot time for Tehran. I also have a bone to pick with the author's history. Hitler did offer to let the Brits keep their empire in exchange for letting him dominate the continent (FDR wouldn't have been involved because the US wasn't at war with Germany then). Churchill had the spine to tell him to pound sand. Sadly, that appears to have used up most of the spine in Britain. |
| Posted by: Spot 2008-12-31 08:36 |
| #3 I'm shaking. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-12-31 08:33 |
| #2 I don't know about that. Israel's economy is not in strong shape. We provide a few billion in military aid, money that is rather fungible, and taking that away would hurt the Israelis. In the short term the Israelis could withstand the Paleos. In the longer term, a lack of US support, coupled with increasing (and increasingly open) Iranian support for the Paleos, would indeed draw the noose tighter. That has a snowball effect: less immigration into Israel, more emigration out, slower economy, etc., etc. If this is where Iran has been going it's clever, but of course it depends on finding an American president who would strike the bargain. Perhaps Bambi is that one, in which case, look out. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-12-31 08:10 |
| #1 All this blather is based on a false supposition: that Obama Hussein and the USA can "force" Israel into suicide. Israel is an independent state, and can't be forced to do anything. A cessation of US support would be a blow, but not a terribly serious one. Other states would fill the vacuum. I could see India stepping up, for example. |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2008-12-31 07:49 |