Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is inserting himself into America’s political process as he tries to pressure President Obama to support Israel’s war on Iran. Nevermind that Netanyahu and Romney are friends for over 30 years … Netanyahu would prefer Mitt Romney as President because as Israeli newspaper Haaretz has described it “Romney apparently accepts instructions from Netanyahu“. Mitt Romney has openly accused President Obama of “throwing Israel under the bus” and David Gregory had to ask Prime Minister Netanyahu whether or not that was a true claim; he wouldn’t answer the question.
He didn’t answer the question because he wants to embarrass President Obama due to their frosty relationship. Netanyahu wants to attack Iran and Obama doesn’t. It is very clear. Netanyahu has been playing American politics for the last couple of years siding with Republicans in Congress openly (and vice versa). Netanyahu wants America to “draw a red line” for what it would take to go to war with Iran. In other words – he wants to force Obama to say we’ll go to war with you if XYZ. He also said that they would have the ability to produce fissile material in the next 6 to 7 months.
Even 61% of Israelis do not want to attack Iran unilaterally (source); they won’t do it without the support of America because they’d get their asses kicked by the Iranians and it would only further add anger in the world against the Israelis whose Apartheid policies in the West Bank and Gaza has left it with all time lows in approval ratings in the world (source).
I’m very angry at this constant beating of the war drum by the Netanyahu administration. If Israel were attacked – I am pretty sure most Americans would feel compelled to support defending them. I certainly would. But Israel is calling for a pre-emptive strike against a country that has not attacked them. They claim Iran would use nuclear weapons against them but that’s ridiculous; if Iran did build a nuclear weapon it would create very serious problems for America and Israel but to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon would result in hundreds of thousands of dead Muslims and the destruction of sacrosanct Muslim holy areas. It ain’t gonna happen.
Salon details a long history of Israel claiming that Iran would have access to nuclear weapons since 1992 HERE. Israel has claimed over and over and over again that Iran would have nuclear weapons for 20 years. Newsflash – they still don’t have them.
I have written about this before many times – most recently in “If Israel attacks Iran – let them fight their own war“. Bottom line – America should not be involved in attacking Iran pre-emptively. It would be a disaster and would completely break up the international coalition external to Iran … and it would consolidate power internally as the opposition party in Iran would have no choice but to openly support the Ayatollah and any response after being attacked.
Laura Rozen explains Netanyahu’s focus on “red lines” HERE:
“Netanyahu is going berserk,” a former Israeli official told Al-Monitor Tuesday. “By asking for red lines publicly, dialoguing with Obama through the media,” and by doing it on the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The Israeli leader’s latest broadside against the United States appeared to be set off by comments made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday, that the United States is “not setting deadlines” on Iran diplomacy.
“We are not setting deadlines,” Clinton said in an interview with Bloomberg News Sunday. “We have always said every option was on the table, but we believe …the diplomatic effort …but also pressure …[are] by far, the best approach to take at this time.”
The comment appeared to infuriate Netanyahu, who spoke in English as he lambasted international calls for Israeli restraint at a press conference with visiting Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov Tuesday. His tirade also followed the urging of restraint and vows of international resolve by a parade of European foreign ministers to Israel in recent weeks.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta – spoke to Foreign Policy – as recounted by the Israeli newspaper – Haaretz – where he says drawing a red line with Iran would be for political purposes HERE.
In an interview with Panetta published by Foreign Policy on Saturday, Panetta said that “One demonstration of extremists, any more than a Ku Klux Klan demonstration in the United States, is not necessarily reflective of what the rest of the country feels.”
Panetta also discussed the ongoing debate between the U.S. and Israel regarding the setting of “red lines” for Iran. He said, “Leaders of these countries don’t have, you know, a bunch of little red lines that determine their decisions. Red lines are kind of political arguments that are used to try to put people in a corner.”
Panetta told the magazine that the Middle East was going through “convulsions” following the far-reaching changes in leadership that took place during the Arab Spring, which Al-Qaida and other radical groups are trying to take advantage of. But these convulsions do not represent a real change in the status of the Middle East.
Reuters is reporting that a senior defense Israeli official has said that war with Iran is not imminent HERE:
A senior Israeli official signalled on Saturday that there would be no unilateral attack on Iran in the coming weeks, saying that international pressure had kept Tehran’s controversial nuclear programme in check.
Speculation that Israel might attack Iranian atomic facilities alone, and soon, has soared given an unusually public dispute with the United States about how much time to allow for negotiations and sanctions to run their course before considering military action.
Amos Gilad, top aide to Defence Minister Ehud Barak, was asked in a television interview whether the Jewish high holidays, which begin on Sunday and end on Oct. 9, would be “quiet in terms of any initiative taken by Israel”.
Jeffrey Goldberg is the preeminent conservative American writer when discussing America’s support for Israel. He is very hawkish and always seems to skew towards the needs of Israel before he does America when discussing Israel’s security concerns … even he has said that Obama is a great partner for Israel who considers the possibility of Iran getting nukes a serious issue HERE:
Netanyahu doesn’t appear to understand three aspects of Obama’s position on Iran:
1) Obama is committed, and has been committed, long before he became president, to a vision of a nuclear-free world. He is a militantly opposed to proliferation. He believes that if Iran were to go nuclear, the world’s most volatile region would quickly become the scene of a nuclear arms race. He has said many times that this is completely unacceptable to him.
2) Obama has stated clearly, and repeatedly, that a nuclear Iran would represent a “profound” national security threat to the United States. Nothing in his behavior suggests he does not actually believe this to be true. He understands that competent presidents do not go about identifying profound national security threats and then ignoring them.
3) Obama understands that his presidency will be judged a failure if Iran goes nuclear. He has gone on record many times promising the American people, and the world, that Iran will not get a bomb. If Iran succeeds, he will have failed, catastrophically. His legacy will be shattered, his credibility will be destroyed, and he will bequeath to his party a reputation for weakness and fecklessness that will not be shed for a generation. For these reasons alone, Obama knows he cannot let Iran go nuclear.
In April – Netanyahu gave an interview to Erin Burnett as he tried to push for war with Iran … we wrote about that HERE; an excerpt:
Burnett: How do you know what <Iran is> doing?
Netanyahu: Oh, we know.
Burnett: You know?
Netanyahu: We know and others know and we share what we know.
Well – now I’m convinced. The NY Times previews the longstanding relationship/friendship between Benjamin Netanyahu and Mitt Romney HERE:
The relationship between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Romney — nurtured over meals in Boston, New York and Jerusalem, strengthened by a network of mutual friends and heightened by their conservative ideologies — has resulted in an unusually frank exchange of advice and insights on topics like politics, economics and the Middle East.
The ties between Mr. Romney and Mr. Netanyahu stand out because there is little precedent for two politicians of their stature to have such a history together that predates their entry into government. And that history could well influence decision-making at a time when the United States may face crucial questions about whether to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities or support Israel in such an action.
Mr. Romney has suggested that he would not make any significant policy decisions about Israel without consulting Mr. Netanyahu — a level of deference that could raise eyebrows given Mr. Netanyahu’s polarizing reputation, even as it appeals to the neoconservatives and evangelical Christians who are fiercely protective of Israel.
4 Comments
[...] that Iran could obtain nuclear weapons; I have written about this thoroughly … most recently HERE. Israel is wholeheartedly against Iran having access to nuclear weapons …. and [...]
[...] legally allowed to say that. This is a guy who is trying to draw America into a war with Iran (source) even though a majority of Israeli Jews do not want to unilaterally attack Iran (source) because he [...]
[...] into a war with Iran over suspicion they are building nuclear technology for military purposes (source). But as I’ve said before HERE – if Israel wants to attack Iran, let them fight their [...]
[...] that Iran could obtain nuclear weapons; I have written about this thoroughly … most recently HERE. Israel is wholeheartedly against Iran having access to nuclear weapons …. and they’ll go to [...]