Craig Andresen

Israeli Action vs Obama’s Inaction

By Craig Andresen on February 21, 2012 at 1:03 pm

Not since Jimmy Carter was in office has an American administration so lacked the political will to engage either our enemies or the enemies of our allies.

With the clock ticking between Israel and Iran, Obama seems much more inclined to try and stop any Israeli action than to force Iran into compliance.

Yes, Obama is enacting sanctions – but sanctions don’t work against such an ideology as Iran’s. If sanctions, even strict sanctions, have any effect at all, it isn’t noticeable for years; and rarely, if ever, even after years of implementation, do sanctions have the desired effect.

Anyone who believe sanctions will keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons would also be apt to believe in rainbow farting unicorns.

In reality, the sanctions pave the way for Iran to “claim” a desire to talk at which point they will make ransom demands for halting their nuclear weapons program while continuing their nuclear weapons program.

National Security Adviser, Tom Donilon, just ended several days of talks IN Israel. Along with Netanyahu, Donilon also had talks with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Chief of the General Staff Benny Gantz, and National Security Adviser Gen. Yaakov Amidror.

With Iran ramping up THEIR efforts to develop nuclear weapons and with their near non-stop calls for Israel to be eliminated, sanctions in play against Iran, Iran stating they will cease oil shipments to France, Iranian agents trying to kill Israel diplomats in various countries, Iran’s threats to bring THEIR form of terror attacks to OUR nation, a plot regarding the Iranian assassination of Saudi diplomats on OUR soil uncovered last year…

Obviously, these were not your run-of-the-mill, garden-variety discussions.

Nor, one would suspect, will Netanyahu’s visit to the White House on March 5th contain your “normal” conversations.

The last time this happened, Netanyahu took Obama to school regarding the situation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Obama stated publicly, that Israel should return to their pre-1967 borders from which talks with the PA could begin.

Netanyahu then, just as publicly, provided a history and defense lesson regarding Israel, their borders and the issues at hand. It was stunning and most likely, didn’t sit well with the Emperor.

So be it.

A statement from Donilon’s office stated the upcoming visit, “…is part of the continuous and intensive dialogue between the United States and Israel and reflects our unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security.”

Uh huh.

I suspect that Panetta’s declaration a couple of weeks ago regarding the timetable for an Israeli strike against Iran came up in Israel in the past few days and will again in the first week in March.

Those who know of such things are now saying that such a strike has gone from “possible” to “probable.”

What must be weighed are the potential effects of a strike against the proposition of doing nothing at all.

Iran’s past and indeed their present suggests strongly that should they develop nuclear weapons, they would use them and their stated belief that Israel should be eliminated is a clear indicator as to whom they would target. Obviously, a nuclear holocaust in Israel would achieve exactly what Iran has stated they want but, reprisals from either Israel or other nations against Iran would lead to Iran’s destruction as well.

Would that factor into an Iranian decision to strike Israel with nukes?

Probably not as much as some would like to think it would.

While many of the Iranian PEOPLE may not be hell bent on the destruction of Israel, in that country, the people don’t count. Speak out against the government’s ideology and see how long you last.

The ideology of Iran’s leadership calls for the destruction of Israel and remember, this is also an ideology which states if you die in the process of carrying it out, you are a martyr and you will be rewarded. That ideology believes whether or not THEY survive, the world would be better WITHOUT Israel.

Mutual destruction is not much of a deterrent in this case.

Would a strike by Israel END this situation once and for all?

A preemptive strike by Israel will have short range implications and could begin a war between Israel and Iran. If such a strike is effective, it will stall possibly for years if not a decade, Iran’s efforts in development of nuclear weapons. While such a delay is not permanent, it does allow for a great deal of possibilities including the overthrow of Iran’s government before Iran could retool and therefore, is definitely worthwhile.

Is standing with Israel and supporting a preemptive strike the same thing as advocating war?

No.

Call those who believe Israel SHOULD launch a preemptive strike, “War mongers” all you want but, that is an extremely stupid thing to do. Yes, a preemptive strike could lead to a war between Israel and Iran but, doing nothing and allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons would lead to a NUCLEAR war between the two nations.

What those who would slap the “War monger” label on others SHOULD be asking THEMSELVES is; which is less desirable? A conventional war between Israel and Iran or a nuclear war between Israel and Iran?

Perhaps the best question overall to be asking is this; Why now? Why is this coming to a head NOW?

Simple.

Iran only respects strength.

Think back to the Iranian hostage situation in 1979. Iran took 52 American diplomats hostage and held them for 444 days.

Carter was President and he did not have the political will to engage in what was clearly an act of war. Carter had also, over his term, cut military spending leaving our military weakened. When were those 52 hostages freed? On the day of Reagan’s inauguration. Iran KNEW Reagan would STRENGTHEN the military and he DID have the political will to engage.

Today, throughout HIS term, Obama has shown NO political will to engage and is now, actively engaged in cutting military spending thus, weakening our military.

Iran is threatening to shut the Strait of Hormuz, embargoing oil shipments to Europe and England, pressing forward with their nuclear ambitions, threatening terrorist strikes on the U.S. and more…BECAUSE they have received the message that the Obama administration has no resolve to stop them.

They have ALSO been bolstered by the Obama administration’s furthering of Islamic power in Egypt and Libya.

The only Presidential candidate Iran would believe, and rightfully so, to have as great if not greater lack of resolve, would be Ron Paul.

If a preemptive strike is launched, who gets the blame for it?

Israel and the United States, of course, and it matters not whether we are involved in any way at all, we will be held accountable right along with Israel.

So, what happens if Israel does nothing?

Iran would continue on their path toward nuclear weapons and act upon their ideology of destroying Israel. For Israel to do nothing would be akin to aiding in their own elimination.

For those who claim Iran has never advocated the elimination of Israel…

 

That leaves us with the question of what do we, the United States, do in regard to a possible or probable preemptive strike by Israel?

For the United States, doing nothing, as in not providing assistance to our ally, or actively trying to stop Israel, is unthinkable. Not that there aren’t people thinking of doing nothing or actively advocating inaction, there clearly are such people but should their call for Israel NOT to act or to take care of itself while we simply not become involved, come to fruition…

We would, at worst, be guilty of ALLOWING or AIDING in Israel’s destruction while sitting idly by.

If we are going to be blamed whether or not we participate, and as Israel is one of our most steadfast allies, the moral implications of doing nothing are of great concern. We SHOULD be ready to offer whatever assistance Israel might need.

This should not be construed as believing without U.S. assistance, Israel would be incapable of carrying out such a mission but, assistance from the United States, be it in the form of refueling, intel, rescue or some type of ordinance would no doubt be helpful.

Iran will direct Hezbola to fire rockets into Israeli cities forcing Israel to defend itself from 2 fronts. This too would be a place where US assistance in the form of Patriot missile systems would be of great help.

Obama’s goal is to string this along through the election without action being taken by Israel with or without our assistance. If push comes to shove, Obama will take as minimal a role as possible but try to play it into something much bigger with the Jewish voting bloc while at the same time, trying to downplay it in the Muslim world.

While Obama tries to score points with Jewish voters by applying sanctions against Iran, it’s a smoke screen. Jewish voters need to look at the sum total of Obama’s actions over the last three years to see where he will stand should he be reelected and if they do so honestly, they will not vote for him in November.

It is not at all hard to suspect that Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu have told Obama and his administration of their plans and given Panetta’s disclosure of their timetable, the sharing of sensitive information is over. Netanyahu, upon his arrival in Washington on March 5th, should make it clear to Obama that unless he goes all in with Israel, he should simply get the hell out of the way.

A President’s actions regarding our strongest allies in times of their need is a direct reflection on how that President would react to direct threats to OUR nation.

For those who believe that the world would be at peace were it not for U.S. involvement or that any involvement by the U.S. in THIS situation will make the region less stable…

Nothing is less stable than those who believe in rainbow farting unicorns.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Israeli Action vs Obama’s Inaction”

  1. Louise Mann Says:

    Israel needs to do what ever it takes to ensure her survival. Obama made it crystal clear during Prime Minister Netanyahu’s last visit, that he is not supportive of Israel. I believe that Obama is going to issue an ultimatum to Israel to refrain from any action against Iran.

    The one thing Israel has going for it, is that Iran has also threatened our bases over there. If Obama hesitates for 10 seconds if our bases are attacked, I do believe he will be relieved of his position as CIC. After 9/11 Americans will not tolerate any kind of aggresive action taken against us, regardless of the catalyst.

    To me the reality is, Obama will force Israel’s hand, Israel will do what they need to do, and Obama will have no choice but to support Israel due to the involvement of our bases.

    The most brilliant former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, issued a statement the other day, that an armed conflict will occur in the forseeable future so get ready. Israeli experts are comparing the current situation to the conditions just prior to the 6 day war.

    ISRAEL WILL NOT BE DENIED HER RIGHT TO EXIST!

  2. T.L. Says:

    You know that in one of his books, Obama wrote about if push came to shove; that he WILL stand with Muslim world.

  3. Irena Hemry Says:

    Obama seems to say one thing (like he’s the greatest defender of Israel ever) and do something else. Besides that, so much of what he’s done in the last year or so is to push a decision until after the election. Can anyone trust the decisions as he will make them after the election based on the dichotomy of his words and actions?