December 14, 2008

Breaking News:Obama shows cards on Israel

You don't say. I mean it literally. You don't tell your enemies your strategy or tactics in advance. Why would you give away your game plan. Can you imagine the New York Giants handing the Dallas Cowboys their playbook before their upcoming game? People would be calling for firings.

But when Barack Obama does it, suddenly it's fine?

In Harretz, Obama is quoted as making the following statement;
U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's administration will offer Israel a "nuclear umbrella" against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, a well-placed American source said earlier this week. The source, who is close to the new administration, said the U.S. will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran.

But America's nuclear guarantee to Israel could also be interpreted as a sign the U.S. believes Iran will eventually acquire nuclear arms.Secretary of state-designate Hillary Clinton had raised the idea of a nuclear guarantee to Israel during her campaign for the Democratic Party's nomination for the presidency. During a debate with Obama in April, Clinton said that Israel and Arab countries must be given "deterrent backing." She added, "Iran must know that an attack on Israel will draw a massive response."
So the United States has foregone the pre-emptive position of not allowing, by whatever means necessary, Iran to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities, "we aren't going to try to stop them from succeeding in becoming a nuclear-armed terror state, but we'll bomb them if they bomb you."

And Hilary is the hawk? Maybe she was during the primary campaign to an extent because of who she was up against. Remember when she was saying this (pay close attention at 20 seconds);

Are we now saying that we have accepted that it's inevitable they will get them? Even if we have, why put those cards on the table for nothing in return? Where is the strategic logic to making this announcement? Is Obama trying to establish some foreign policy tough guy cred? If so he hasn't done it here. Was Hilary involved in this decision to offer the umbrella at this time? It was clearly part of her platform while campaigning, so likely she was involved in discussions. Does it buy her any foreign policy cred? No. In the primaries it made for good tough talk, but now it's showing your cards.

What have they done? They've made unfeasible any pre-emptive action. Iran now knows this. They can proceed at any speed they want because the enrichment battle is now over. They won. How can the US seek sanctions on enrichment (a liberal panacea, internationally speaking). if they have forfeited the position of not allowing enrichment? The answer is they likely couldn't get sanctions before, now it's off the table.

The outgoing Bush administration did nothing to help. Yes it was a dumb decision but the Harretz article goes on;
A senior Bush administration source said that the proposal for an American nuclear umbrella for Israel was ridiculous and lacked credibility. "Who will convince the citizen in Kansas that the U.S. needs to get mixed up in a nuclear war because Haifa was bombed? And what is the point of an American response, after Israel's cities are destroyed in an Iranian nuclear strike?"

So Obama says "we give up, we know you're getting the nukes, we can't stop you so we'll retaliate". Then the Bush administration piles on with "that's silly, no one in the US has the stomach to go nuclear if Israel is attacked".

Game, set, match Iran. Build 'em, fire 'em, and then, wait for it, international (but not even universal) condemnation because there's no Israel left on the map. Ahmadinejad must be licking his chops.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Disagreement is always welcome. Please remain civil. Vulgar or disrespectful comments towards anyone will be removed.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Share This