Love of the Land: What Happens When Iran Gets the Bomb

What Happens When Iran Gets the Bomb

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
03 May '10

John Bolton writes that we can no longer avoid the obvious: “There are only two options: Iran gets nuclear weapons, or someone uses pre-emptive military force to break Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle and paralyze its program, at least temporarily.” The watered-down sanctions under contemplation by the UN or being slow-walked through Congress are too little, too late. And as Bolton notes, it is virtually inconceivable that Obama will employ military force to thwart the mullahs’ nuclear plans. So where does that leave us? Bolton explains:

That leaves Israel, which the administration is implicitly threatening not to resupply with airplanes and weapons lost in attacking Iran—thereby rendering Israel vulnerable to potential retaliation from Hezbollah and Hamas.

It is hard to conclude anything except that the Obama administration is resigned to Iran possessing nuclear weapons. While U.S. policy makers will not welcome that outcome, they certainly hope as a corollary that Iran can be contained and deterred. Since they have ruled out the only immediate alternative, military force, they are doubtless now busy preparing to make lemonade out of this pile of lemons.

The notion that we can contain a nuclear-armed Iran is preposterous — for we are not containing an Iran that lacks a nuclear capability. For those who perceive a nuclear-armed revolutionary Islamic state as literally “unacceptable” — not merely regrettable, as the Obami seem to — Bolton suggests that it is time to begin marshalling support for Israel’s military action:

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: What Happens When Iran Gets the Bomb

Love of the Land: Bibi’s Real Mistake

Bibi’s Real Mistake

Graphic: TY Stephen Hughes
Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
17 March '10

The Israelis’ error was not in announcing a housing-complex addition, writes John Bolton. It was in trying to play ball with an American administration that seeks to dictate negotiations with intransigent Palestinians and has little interest in stopping the mullahs from acquiring nuclear weapons. Bolton explains:

Mr. Netanyahu’s efforts to avoid open disputes with Washington have not won him White House plaudits. Mr. Obama almost certainly believes the real obstacle to peace is not new housing or unfortunate timing but so-called Israeli intransigence.

On Iran, Mr. Netanyahu has faithfully supported Mr. Obama’s diplomacy, hoping to build credibility with the president against the day when Israel might have to strike Iran’s weapons program preemptively. . . As time passes, Israel’s military option grows more difficult and the chances for success shrink as Iran seeks new air-defense systems and further buries and hardens nuclear facilities.

Mr. Netanyahu’s mistake has been to assume that Mr. Obama basically agrees that we must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But the White House likely believes that a nuclear Iran, though undesirable, can be contained and will therefore not support using military force to thwart Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

The rub will come, as Bolton notes, when Israel determines that it must take military action and when the Obami do all they can to prevent the Jewish state’s preemptive strike, or to punish it after the fact (”if Israel bombs Iranian nuclear facilities, the president will likely withhold critical replenishments of destroyed Israeli aircraft and other weapons systems”). Bolton’s advice to Bibi is to stop trying to gain chits with Obama and strike while it is still possible. He argues:

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Bibi’s Real Mistake

Love of the Land: The Price of Engagement

The Price of Engagement

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
19 October 09

John Bolton observes that the UN Human Rights Council, in its latest spasm of Israel-bashing, has further damaged the so-called Middle East peace process. (It isn’t like things were going swimmingly, but leave it to the UN to make things worse.) He writes:

In the month since the report’s release, it has roiled the Middle East peace process. An Israeli spokesman said “it will make it impossible for us to take any risks for the sake of peace,” perhaps foreshadowing Israeli withdrawal from negotiations while the report remains under active U.N. consideration.

The HRC resolution endorsing the report’s recommendations repeatedly lacerated Israel, leading Mr. Goldstone himself to cringe, saying he was “saddened” the resolution contained “not a single phrase condemning Hamas as we have done in the report.” A U.S. State Department spokesman conceded that the adopted text “went beyond even the scope of the Goldstone Report itself.”

But this is what one expects of the HRC – and why the Bush administration thought it best not to give credence to the body. But, as Bolton observes, it is not simply out of solidarity with the Jewish state that it would be a good idea to bug out. It is rather in our own self-interest to do so:

The Goldstone Report has important implications for America. In the U.N., Israel frequently serves as a surrogate target in lieu of the U.S., particularly concerning the use of military force pre-emptively or in self-defense. Accordingly, U.N. decisions on ostensibly Israel-specific issues can lay a predicate for subsequent action against, or efforts to constrain, the U.S. Mr. Goldstone’s recommendation to convoke the International Criminal Court is like putting a loaded pistol to Israel’s head—or, in the future, to America’s.

Bolton’s observation highlights a key problem with Obama’s push to put that “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel. As we aim to ingratiate ourselves with Israel’s foes, we also do great damage to our own interests, which, despite the Obamis’ moral and geopolitical obtuseness, are closely aligned with Israel’s. The Goldstone report strikes at the heart of democratic societies’ ability to wage wars of self-defense against terrorists who would use woman and children as shields (and thereby maximize the body count of both for propaganda value). Wouldn’t this be a bad precedent to set for America, which is, after all, engaged in wars against those who employ the very same tactics? You’d think our rhetoric would be more robust in condemning the Goldstone report, and our toleration much less for the HRC’s anti-terror-fighting gambit.

Nevertheless, we can surmise that an administration that sees benefit in putting daylight between America and another democracy beset by Islamic terrorists isn’t likely to put daylight between America and the HRC. In fact, the rush to “engage” Israel’s foes as well as our own, to smother them with words of affection and apologies at all costs, makes itimpossible to disengage, even when their behavior is reprehensible, as is the case with the HRC.

By making “engagement” a central principle of American foreign policy, we hand the foes of democracy, human rights, and the West tremendous influence and immunity from retribution. They can engage in whenever outlandish behavior they see fit to without fear of detrimental consequences. After all, we’ve already told them we’re going to engage with them no matter what. Doesn’t seem like very smart diplomacy, does it?

Love of the Land: The Price of Engagement

Israel Matzav: Bolton on the Norwegians: 'Why can't America be more like us?'

Bolton on the Norwegians: 'Why can't America be more like us?'

John Bolton talks about some of the crooked thinking behind Europe's Norway's awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama (Hat Tip: NY Nana).

There is, of course, nothing wrong with encouraging hope and the possibility of future success. But it is otherworldly and in fact dangerous in national security matters to confuse emotions with reality. In fact, however, these vacuous aspirational justifications for giving the Nobel to Obama simply obscure the real ideological motivation behind the award: the Norwegian committee is promoting a cause, its cause. They seek to promote and encourage a particular kind of American, one who finds favor with European Leftists, who constantly ask, paraphrasing Rex Harrison’s musical query in "My Fair Lady": "why can’t Americans . . . be more like us?"

In 2002, for example, in selecting Jimmy Carter, the then-chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize committee said the award was intended as "a kick in the leg" to President Bush, which should hardly be a qualification, let alone a public justification. Then, in 2007, former Vice President Al Gore’s selection for his global-warming work was widely seen as criticism of Bush administration environmental policy. Over the last several decades, moreover, the Nobel has repeatedly honored UN agencies or personnel, rewards increasing in inverse proportion to the organization’s effectiveness.

This year, one Nobel Committee member, Aagot Valle, of Norway’s Socialist Left party, said we should view the selection as "support and a commitment for Obama." Indeed. Unable to vote in America’s 2008 presidential election, the Nobel Committee apparently decided to vote this year, making their ideological perspective unmistakable. Valle and the committee chairman, a failed former Norwegian prime minister, both referred to Obama’s hopes for nuclear disarmament. But they are just that: hopes. Ronald Reagan also aspired to a world without nuclear weapons. Where is his Nobel Peace Prize? Obviously, Reagan was not the right kind of American, not one appealing to the Norwegian and broader European Left.

Their message really is quite straightforward: "Jimmy Carter in 2002, Al Gore in 2007 and now Barack Obama. Do you Americans get the point yet?" It is precisely the preachiness and attitude of moral superiority inherent in these awards that many Americans find offensive, and which may, ironically, leave President Obama in a more difficult position here and abroad than before the award.

Read it all.

And for your entertainment pleasure, here's the song to which Bolton was referring.

Let's go to the videotape.



Israel Matzav: Bolton on the Norwegians: 'Why can't America be more like us?'

Israel Matzav: John Bolton opposes Israeli nukes?

John Bolton opposes Israeli nukes?

Keep in mind that Bolton is being interviewed on Comedy Central.... On the other hand, Bolton sounds serious.

About 6:58 into this eight-minute tape, John Bolton says that as far as he is concerned, the only country that should have nuclear weapons is the United States of America.

Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Washington Note via Arms Control Wonk)

See Video and Read All at :

Israel Matzav: John Bolton opposes Israeli nukes?

Israel Matzav: Bolton: It's 'crunch time'

Bolton: It's 'crunch time'

Those of you who are basketball fans know that 'crunch time' is the last few minutes of a close game when all the exhausted starters are on the floor and every shot counts. If you're a coach, you want your best players on the floor during 'crunch time' and you want to have them control the game flow as much as possible.

Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton argues that it's 'crunch time' for Israel on Iran's development of nuclear weapons. According to Bolton, Israel is going to have to make a decision to go it alone in the next few months, or the world will be staring at a nuclear Iran.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Bolton: It's 'crunch time'

Israel Matzav: Bolton on Iran: 'All options are no longer on the table'

Bolton on Iran: 'All options are no longer on the table'

This is a FoxNews interview with former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton. After a brief discussion of the disclosure of a CIA program to target al-Qaeda terrorists, the discussion turns to Israel and Iran around the 1:20 mark.

There are three quotable quotes from Bolton. They are all spot-on. The first, the Obama administration has a 'neo-religious faith' in 'negotiations' with Iran. The second, there is 'zero chance' that Iran will be negotiated out of its nuclear weapons program. And the third, the one with which I headlined this post, 'all options are no longer on the table.'

I believe that Bolton has nailed it. It's no longer a question of whether there will be an Israeli strike on Iran, but when.

Read and See All at :
Israel Matzav: Bolton on Iran: 'All options are no longer on the table'

Israel Matzav: Bolton: Time for Israel to go after Iran

Bolton: Time for Israel to go after Iran

In Thursday's Washington Post, former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton says that the 'already compelling logic' for Israel to strike Iran's nuclear program is now 'inexorable' in light of the option of regime change having apparently been lost, at least for the time being (Hat Tip: Memeorandum). Bolton argues that the Obama administration will never go for a military option, and that it is preparing the groundwork for a 'plan B' that will leave Iran with at least the capability of ramping up quickly to nuclear weapons.

Only those most theologically committed to negotiation still believe Iran will fully renounce its nuclear program. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has a "Plan B," which would allow Iran to have a "peaceful" civil nuclear power program while publicly "renouncing" the objective of nuclear weapons. Obama would define such an outcome as "success," even though in reality it would hardly be different from what Iran is doing and saying now. A "peaceful" uranium enrichment program, "peaceful" reactors such as Bushehr and "peaceful" heavy-water projects like that under construction at Arak leave Iran with an enormous breakout capability to produce nuclear weapons in very short order. And anyone who believes the Revolutionary Guard Corps will abandon its weaponization and ballistic missile programs probably believes that there was no fraud in Iran's June 12 election. See "huge credibility gap," supra.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Bolton: Time for Israel to go after Iran

Israel Matzav: Bolton on Obama's foreign policy: Like Bush's second term, only worse

Bolton on Obama's foreign policy: Like Bush's second term, only worse

Former American ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton rips President Obama for his 'apology tour' and his abandonment of allies.

Conservative foreign policy is unabashedly pro-American, unashamed of American exceptionalism, unwilling to bend its knee to international organizations, and unapologetic about the need for the fullest range of dominant military capabilities. Its diplomacy is neither unilateralist nor multilateralist, but chooses its strategies, tactics, means and methods based on a hard-headed assessment of U.S. national interests, not on theologies about process. Most especially, conservatives understand that allies are different from adversaries, and that each should be treated accordingly.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Bolton on Obama's foreign policy: Like Bush's second term, only worse