Submit your comments on this article |
Home Front: WoT |
The View From Israel: Obama Was Bluffing On Iran |
2014-06-09 |
![]() US President Barack Obama I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody... 's West Point foreign policy speech has given Israel both good and bad news. The good news for Israel is that the president has given up on the idea of achieving a so-called "peace" deal between the Israelis and the Paleostinians during his presidency, but the bad news is that Obama has no intention of ever attacking the Iranian nuclear program militarily even as a last resort, and will never support an Israeli attack. Consequently, ongoing useless and endless negotiations, as well as meaningless diplomatic agreements, will lead to a nuclear Iran unless it is stopped by Israel or the US congress. Obama's commencement speech outlining his foreign policy doctrine confirmed at last what Israel and the Gulf states -- as well as Iran -- have all suspected, that the president was bluffing when he repeatedly stated that all options are on the table to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon including the military option. He has used the idea of such an attack as a bargaining chip against the Israeli prime minister who perceives protecting the Jewish state against a nuclear holocaust by Iran to be his ultimate responsibility. He has been bluffing to woo and pressure Israel to make major concessions to the Paleostinians in any peace deal. But when he recently realized that there is no chance for any major breakthrough between Israelis and the Paleostinians during his presidency, he showed his hand at last regarding Iran. The fact that in his West Point speech Obama chose not to even mention the so-called "grinding of the peace processor" between Israel and the Paleostinians marks quite a telling departure for this president who told the UN General Assembly last September, as he outlined US foreign policy priorities during the remainder of his presidency, that "America's diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and the Arab Israeli conflict." But the fact that Obama in his speech chose to base his future foreign policy doctrine on his personal aversion to military solutions, actions and the use of military force after a decade of US wars, has reassured Iran that his military threats against them have never been credible. In the Middle East, which houses the most brutal dictators in the world, perception of the use of power is more important than having the power. Tyrants only change their behavior if they believe you will use your power against them. Unbridgeable gap After such a speech, Iran and others will perceive the US as a paper tiger. The only time Iran suspended its nuclear program was 2003, after the US invaded their next door neighbor Iraq because the ayatollah truly believed President Bush's warnings that it will be attacked next. But in his speech, Obama highlighted the fact that under his watch all US troops were removed from Iraq and that those remaining in Afghanistan would soon be removed. He talked repeatedly about America's "costly wars" and that "not every problem has a military solution" and that "some of our costly mistakes came...from our willingness to rush into military adventures," as well as that "US military action cannot be the only or even primary component of our leadership." When the president specifically discussed Iran, he stated, "And now we have an opportunity to resolve our differences peacefully. The odds of success are still long, and we reserve all options to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But for the first time in a decade, we have a very real chance of achieving a breakthrough agreement, one that is more effective and durable than we could have achieved through the use of force." Unfortunately, reality shows that Obama is deluding himself. For the first time in a decade the Iranians know that they can achieve their nuclear capability without paying a price, as long as they are making believe they are truly negotiating. The Iranians have already witnessed Obama's desperate concessions to induce them to engage in these negotiations. In exchange for Iran agreeing to six months negotiations with the six major powers over their nuclear program, Obama conceded them the right to continue enriching uranium while lifting many of the economic sanctions which brought Iran almost to its knees economically. Moreover, Obama fought hard to convince the pro-Israel Senate, including many Democrats, to shelf the Menendez-Kirk sanctions bill, which is the legislative threat of imposing additional crippling economic sanctions against Iran if the negotiations fail. The July 20 deadline for the six months talk is approaching and the gap between Western and Iranian demands is evidently unbridgeable. However, the difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits... it seems that Obama and the Western powers have already agreed that the deadline could be extended by a further six months. The only way Iran will not have a nuclear weapon is if they agree to shut down their uranium enriching underground military reactor at Fordo, remove 15,000 centrifuges, downgrade the reactor at its plutonium production facility at Arak, and export its entire stockpile of enriched uranium, which can produce a few bombs. Of course, the Iranians will never agree to such conditions if they stop believing in the credible threat of a military attack. On Wednesday, in his first public reaction to Obama's West Point speech, Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, asserted in an address to the country's political and military establishment that the B.O. regime had taken the option of a military intervention to resolve conflicts off the table, saying: "A military attack is not a priority for Americans now. They have renounced the idea of any military actions." However, the difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits... the Iranians should not forget that Israel destroyed both the Iraqi and the Syrian nuclear programs alone, without getting US permission or assistance. |
Posted by:trailing wife |
#3 ISRAEL IS BASICALLY SAYING THAT THE BAMMER IS DOING THINGS INTENTIONALLY. As a OWG Globalist, its should be self-obvious to anyone that the Bammer + aligned intend for Iran to be the principal = major domo Great Power [OWG Co-Superpower] in dominance of one or more OWG Global Federal Unions as per Muslim + Regional States. Each OWG Co-Superpower + Global Fed Union is intended to par wid the Superpower USA + NAU, EU, NOT INFERIOR TO SAME. BY DEFINITION, IRAN MUST-NOT-COULD HAVE NUKES BECAUSE GLOBALISM'S TENETS WOULD ARGUE OR REQUIRE IRAN CAN'T BE PAR WID THE SUPERPOWER USA + OTHER WIDOUT THEM. IMO the real OWG CoSuperpower + Region to watch is China + East Asia, espec as per Vietnam + Japan whom have histories fighting China in war. IN A WORST-CASE EAST ASIA SCENARIO, IFF OBAMA-THE-GLOBALIST = USA CHOOSES NOT TO INTERVENE WID US MILFORS IN RIGHTEOUS BAMMERIAN/GLOBALIST RED-LINE ABANDONING INDIGNATION, IT MEANS VIETNAM + JAPAN, ETAL. WILL HAVE TO BE THE ONES-N-ONLY-ONES TO MILITARILY DEFEND THEMSELVES AGZ CHINA + PLA. THE GLOBIES MAY NOT BE ABLE TO CONTROL THE CONSEQUENCES OR OUTCOME(S), ETC. LIKE THEY THINK THEY CAN. Pesky Persians = Chinese = even iff they don't win or prevail the first time, they will come back again + again + again, ...@etc. until their enemies give up or are too worn down to continue the fight. |
Posted by: JosephMendiola 2014-06-09 19:53 |
#2 Good men sleep well at night because rough men stand ready to do violence in their behalf. He never read that. Obviously, he is the logical evolution of one hundred years of "liberal" and leftist pacifism...peace at all cost, nothing is worth fighting for, and living under a brutal tyrant or oppressive government is better than one day on the battlefield. The peace movement isn't about peace, it is about subservience to a tyrant. |
Posted by: Bill Clinton 2014-06-09 14:19 |
#1 "When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President. Now I'm beginning to believe it." -- Clarence Darrow |
Posted by: JohnQC 2014-06-09 10:18 |