If this blogpost title doesn't sink your stomach, then there isn't any hope for your sorry ass but the fact of the matter is that our President is blatantly trying to manipulate the Iranian nuclear situation for his own personal gains....NOT the benefits of the Israeli people or the American people. Obama is doing what he can to protect his own ass, not yours, not mine and certainly not those of the Israelis.
The story is from Family Security Matters and what it means is that every single one of us has to get off our asses and work round the clock to see that Barack Hussein Obama does not win a second term. It's is simple as that - it's either him or us, that survives.
Outmaneuvering Netanyahu - Obama's Iran Strategy
The impending talks between the 5+1 group - the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany and Iran - are widely seen as aimed at curbing Iran's drive to nuclear weapons. While this may be so it is only a half-truth. Equally important to the participants, most of all to the Obama administration, is blocking a possible Israeli preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear installations. Indeed, assuming Israel is serious, Mr. Obama must be viewing the threat of an Israeli military undertaking as more immediate than the risk of Iran crossing the nuclear threshold as the former might be realized before the upcoming U.S. elections.
It would be simply a mistake to view the negotiations as dissociated from the other open as well as inconspicuous steps taken by Washington to restrain Israel. While the overt measures include a non-stop coterie of high-level messengers arriving in Jerusalem to press for restraint and Mr. Obama's public admonition last March to the AIPAC convention that "there is too much loose talk of war," other more oblique steps have been in evidence as well.
A well-orchestrated campaign of leaks citing unnamed U.S. intelligence and/or defense officials has been underway for some time aimed to galvanize opposition to an Israeli military undertaking both inside and outside the Netanyahu government. (Undoubtedly, opinion polls that indicated a majority of the Israeli public is opposed to a unilateral Israeli preemptive strike did not go unnoticed in Washington.) First, it was intimated there is no evidence Tehran has taken a decision to build a bomb. Second, in contrast to Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak's assertion that the Iranian nuclear project is about to enter a "zone of immunity" the leaks suggested Tehran's program would continue to be vulnerable to existing and especially forthcoming U.S. capabilities. Third, an Israeli unilateral attack it was said will not be effective - it would delay the Iranian program by a year at the most. Fourth, the U.S. intelligence will know in advance if Iran has taken the decision to build the bomb. For example, the Washington Post on April 7 cited "a senior U.S. official involved in high-level discussions about Iran policy" as saying "There is confidence that we would see activity indicating that a decision [to go nuclear] had been made. Across the board, our access has been significantly improved."
Indeed such has been the tempo and scope of the disclosures that some officials in Israel have charged the White House was actively working to scuttle Israeli preparations for an attack. Specifically they mentioned Washington-originated leaks of the flight routes and regional air bases supposedly made available to the Israeli Air Force so it can reach its targets inside Iran.
The public and discreet measures taken so far by the U.S. fit squarely with the pending talks with Iran. Combined they form the Obama Administration's grand plan to outmaneuver the Netanyahu government and rein in Israel. Indeed, unless they end in collapse, Obama likely views the negotiations as a win-win stratagem already - they will either box in Iran or Israel but in any case reduce dramatically the chances of an Israeli preemption. First the talks themselves buy the U.S. president time so that the U.S. economy - central to his reelection chances - continues to recover. Second, if an accord were reached to dismantle Iran's uranium enrichment program and transfer the stash it had already accumulated abroad, the threat of Israel taking military action would be gone. But even a bad agreement from Israel's point of view - one that preserves Iran's enrichment capability and/or its existing stockpile in exchange for Tehran agreeing to refrain from uranium enrichment to higher purity (i.e. 20% or higher) - would keep Mr. Netanyahu in check and make a military preemption much harder politically. It is virtually inconceivable that Israel would take military action while the 5+1 nations celebrate the conclusion of such an agreement as the "new dawn" in Iran's nuclear relations with the international community.
There is no doubt that Iran understands Washington's calculations. It has been trying to provide Mr. Obama ammunition to hold Mr. Netanyahu at bay for some time. For example, the message given by Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei to visiting Turkish Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan alleging that Iranians and Islamic beliefs do not allow for the use of weapons of mass destruction and that there was no place for such weapons in Iran's defense strategy. But more importantly, Tehran must view the talks as an opportunity to drive a wedge between Washington and Jerusalem. It knows that by helping Obama in his master plan to stymie Netanyahu it is helping itself. The last thing the mullahs would want is an outcome that will unite
Obama and Netanyahu in support of a military solution. That is why they will do their best to assure the talks do not break down.
While Jerusalem has long been saying that the danger of a nuclear Iran is the world's problem not just Israel's, the truth of the matter is that the 5+1 group sees it as a longer-term threat especially compared to the dangers of an imminent Israeli military action. Thus an agreement if one is reached is likely to leave Israel thwarted and Obama smiling. Sadly, despite Mr. Obama's vows that Israel's safety is "sacrosanct" and that he would "rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term [one]," assuring his reelection evidently trumps vital Israeli as well as global security interests.
No comments:
Post a Comment