Love of the Land: The Distracted President, the Frustrated Prime Minister

The Distracted President, the Frustrated Prime Minister

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
21 April '10

You can imagine Bibi Netanyahu’s frustration: a nuclear-armed Iran is perhaps only a year away and all Obama wants to talk about is Jerusalem housing and proximity talks with intransigent Palestinians who are utterly unprepared for a “peace” deal. As this report makes clear, Bibi is struggling to get the American president to focus on the real issue:

“If you stop Iran from importing refined petroleum — that’s a fancy word for gasoline — then Iran simply doesn’t have refining capacity and this regime comes to a halt,” Netanyahu said on the morning [ABC Good Morning] program.

The U.S. is leading a push in the United Nations to apply another round of sanctions against Iran in an effort to stop it from pursuing a nuclear program that Western nations believe is aimed at building atomic weapons.

Tehran says its program is designed to produce electricity for civilian use.

Calling the standoff with Iran “the biggest issue facing our times,” Netanyahu said the international community could deliver “crippling sanctions,” without the support of China and Russia, both permanent members of the UN Security Council.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: The Distracted President, the Frustrated Prime Minister

Love of the Land: The Jews of Silence

The Jews of Silence

Richard Baehr
American Thinker
18 April '10

The New York Times, in a front page article, described how President Obama appears to be reconsidering, if not turning away from, the historic strategic alliance between the U.S. and Israel. In remarks made at the end of the multinational nuclear security talks, Obama reinforced this message, saying the following:

It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower[.] ... And when conflicts break out, one way or another, we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.

It is almost impossible to exaggerate the significance of these two lines as to the president's thinking. It is also impossible to read these and not realize that this president is the greatest threat to the strategic alliance of the U.S. and Israel since the founding of the modern Jewish state in 1948. The first sentence is in some ways the more incredible. No prior American president has been resentful or unhappy about leading the world's greatest superpower. This can mean only one of two things:

(Read full article)

Please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.

Love of the Land: The Jews of Silence

Love of the Land: Watch the Themes, Not the Headlines

Watch the Themes, Not the Headlines

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
24 February '10

A basic principle is to look at the underlying interests and perceptions of specific governments, not the immediate headlines. Over and over we see stories that prove false in a few days yet probably leave a lasting impression to the contrary on readers.

That thought is prompted by a recent flurry of stories that the Palestinian Authority is about to return to negotiations with Israel. In fact, for reasons I’ve outlined repeatedly in this blog (relating mainly to the radical nature of internal Palestinian politics) that isn’t going to happen for a long time.

Another story we keep hearing is about how Russia or China are about to support real sanctions on Iran. Yet every time an official from those countries makes a statement it is to the contrary.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Watch the Themes, Not the Headlines

Love of the Land: The Israeli Punditry’s Own Goal

The Israeli Punditry’s Own Goal

Evelyn Gordon
Contentions/Commentary
22 February '10

Though Barack Obama bears primary responsibility for fumbling the ball on Iran’s nuclear program, the Israeli punditry has played a non-negligible supporting role.

Even before Hillary Clinton openly disavowed the possibility last week, U.S. military action against Iran was never a very credible threat, given Obama’s visible distaste for the idea. That left Israel as the only credible military threat. And without such a threat, no nonmilitary solution is possible — something even the Obama administration now tacitly acknowledges. As the New York Times reported this month, the administration’s main argument in trying to persuade China to back tough sanctions is that otherwise Israel is likely to bomb Iran, and the resultant instability in a major oil-producing region would be far worse for Chinese business than sanctions would. Thus, everyone who favors a nonmilitary solution to the Iranian problem has a vested interest in keeping the Israeli threat as credible as possible.

Incredibly, Obama has been doing the exact opposite. It’s hard for administration officials to persuade either Tehran or Beijing to take the Israeli threat seriously while simultaneously proclaiming Obama’s determination to stop Israel from carrying it out. But that makes it all the more important for Israel to project willingness and ability to strike Iran whether Washington likes it or not — which Israel has tried to do.

Unfortunately, Israel’s efforts have been undercut by a string of academic and media pundits proclaiming that Israel cannot possibly strike Iran without U.S. permission. A typical example is the editorial Haaretz published last Tuesday, reprinted by the International Herald Tribune two days later.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: The Israeli Punditry’s Own Goal

Love of the Land: “Hello, Syria? Hey, it’s Ahmadinejad calling. Look, I know it’s been a while, but I really, really need a favor.”

“Hello, Syria? Hey, it’s Ahmadinejad calling. Look, I know it’s been a while, but I really, really need a favor.”

Judeosphere
15 February '10

Tariq Alhomayed, the editor of Asharq Al-Awsat—the Saudi-owned, international Arabic newspaper—believes that the Iranian regime is growing increasingly nervous over its political isolation.

Alhomayed notes:

There is a small – but important – piece of news that reveals the Iranian confusion and anxiety as a result of the western political deluge which is attacking Tehran from all directions, including Israel, after it was announced that Netanyahu is visiting Russia for three days. This small news item which was announced by Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting [IRIB] and reported by the Syrian-News website is that Ahmadinejad telephoned President Bashar al-Assad on Thursday and that “Ahmadinejad informed al-Assad that should Israel launch an attack on the region it [Israel] must be confronted and eliminated.”

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: “Hello, Syria? Hey, it’s Ahmadinejad calling. Look, I know it’s been a while, but I really, really need a favor.”

Love of the Land: Sanctions, shmanctions

Sanctions, shmanctions

Fresnozionism.org
14 February '10

News item:

Visiting U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen declared Sunday that Washington was committed to Israel’s security, voicing concern over the “unintended consequences” a war in the Middle East over Iran’s contentious nuclear program would bring.

“I worry a great deal about the unintended consequences of a strike,” he told reporters during a visit to Tel Aviv, referring to Iran’s threats to retaliate against Israel and U.S. sites in the Gulf. “I think the Iranians are very difficult to predict.”

Translation: he’s worried about Israel’s security so much that he really doesn’t want Israel to attack Iran. This makes little sense. Nobody is more aware than Israel of Iran’s ability to retaliate in many unpleasant ways, and so it’s very likely that it would not take that step unless there was absolutely no alternative. It would only attack if the consequences of not attacking were judged to be worse.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Sanctions, shmanctions

Love of the Land: New York Times Says: Time’s Up for Sanctions with Iran. But the Obama Administration isn’t Ready

New York Times Says: Time’s Up for Sanctions with Iran. But the Obama Administration isn’t Ready

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
10 February '10

The New York Times has a new editorial on Iran, February 9, and it is probably the best one yet. Naturally, it is phrased in ways friendly toward the Obama administration, though a note of impatience appears. Nevertheless, there’s an explosive device contained within it that the writers probably didn’t even notice. Don’t stop reading until you get to it.

In this case, the title tells all: “Time’s Up.” Paragraph 1:

“Over the last four years, the United Nations Security Council has repeatedly demanded that Iran stop producing nuclear fuel. Iran is still churning out enriched uranium and has now told United Nations inspectors that it is raising the level of enrichment — moving slightly closer to bomb-grade quality.”

This is fine as far as it goes, but notice it puts the onus on the UN Security Council. The Obama Administration has only had one of those years but it has not led in taking any real action--last September in his big speech there he didn't ask the Security Council to do anything--so this paragraph could just as easily have been directed at the president. No, that’s not the bomb.

Then, the second paragraph tells us what a great job the president has been doing:

“ President Obama was right to offer to negotiate with Tehran. Washington and its allies were right to look for possible compromises even after Tehran was caught—again—hiding an enrichment plant.”

OK, so he tried and it didn’t work (though this has been clear now for five months). Then the Times gives the conclusion: “Enough is enough. Iran needs to understand that its nuclear ambition comes with a very high cost.”

Here’s the bomb:

“President Obama said on Tuesday that the United States and its allies are `moving along fairly quickly’ on a new sanctions resolution. He also said it would take several weeks to draft a proposal. That is not reassuring. Once a resolution is written, the negotiating process typically drags on for weeks, if not months.”

Right. After dealing with this issue for a year, as of mid-February the Obama administration has not yet started drafting a proposal for the UN, despite his own September deadline, despite his own December deadline, no one has had time to plan the next step? Why wasn’t a draft resolution set in early January when it was clear that it would be needed? In other words, with luck there won’t be a resolution before the middle of the year.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: New York Times Says: Time’s Up for Sanctions with Iran. But the Obama Administration isn’t Ready

Love of the Land: Analysis: Iranian Quickstep: 1 Step Forward, 2 Steps Back

Analysis: Iranian Quickstep: 1 Step Forward, 2 Steps Back

Jonathan Spyer
GLORIA Center
05 February '10


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this week told Iranian state television that "we have no problem sending our enriched uranium abroad." In so doing, Ahmadinejad appeared to agree to the long-standing plan for the export of the greater part of Iran's enriched uranium stocks.

Recent experience with the diplomatic methods of the Islamic Republic of Iran suggests that this statement is the latest instance of Teheran's favored approach to diplomacy. The Iranian tendency is to seek to offset confrontation at the 11th hour by appearing to show flexibility. Once crisis is averted, the regime relies on differences over the details to make sure that nothing actually happens. It is the diplomacy of one step forward, two steps back. Thus is further time bought for the Iranian nuclear program.

The hitherto seemingly inexhaustible international patience at Iranian maneuvering, meanwhile, has recently been showing signs of at last wearing thin. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is the latest convert to the cause of renewed sanctions. Brown said on Tuesday that "What we now, I think, have to do is accept that if Iran will not make some indication that it will take action - we have got to proceed with sanctions."

It remains to be seen if the latest Iranian move will revive the spirits of the advocates of "engagement." Ahmadinejad's statement relates to the IAEA proposal that Iran should ship its low-enriched uranium abroad, where it would be converted into fuel rods for an Iranian research reactor producing medical isotopes.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Analysis: Iranian Quickstep: 1 Step Forward, 2 Steps Back

Love of the Land: Washington is narrowing its options on Iran

Washington is narrowing its options on Iran

Tony Badran
Now Lebanon
05 January '10

December 31 has come and gone, and with it the deadline set by the Obama administration for Iran to respond to the latest offer on its nuclear program. Where does the United States’ policy on Iran now stand? Recent reports have come out that the administration is preparing to go once again to the UN Security Council in February to seek sanctions.

However, these are unlikely to be of the “crippling” kind that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised last year. While there is a movement in Congress to slap sanctions on Iran’s energy sector, the administration has shown no appetite to support it. According to one official, “We have never been attracted to the idea of trying to get the whole world to cordon off their economy.” Instead, the US is apparently gearing up for “targeted sanctions” – measures, that is, directed at specific regime elements, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

On the basis of past experience, it is highly doubtful that this move will actually convince the Iranian regime to drop its quest for nuclear power, and most probably weapons. The shift from “crippling” to “targeted” sanctions reflects Washington’s continued inability to marshal support for stronger measures, such as targeting Iran’s energy sector.

Moreover, one suspects that when push comes to shove, the Obama administration will find it easier than its predecessor to resign itself to a nuclear Iran. Many observers already concluded as much in July, when Clinton remarked that Washington would extend its defense umbrella over the Middle East. Furthermore, commentators close to the administration are working to create an intellectual climate in which “containment” of nuclear Iran is viewed as the wisest policy.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Washington is narrowing its options on Iran