Today, "Starbucks" Joe Scarborough judged on his morning TV circus that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not fit for command. I guess he has missed the fact the CJCS is not "in command." The reason - General Dempsey had the temerity to tell the world that the USG considers Iran to be a "rational actor." Obama may say otherwise but that is just to get The Lobby off his back until the election. Scarborough is yet another avoider of military service and lacks any qualifications to judge General Dempsey. What Scarborough might think that he knows about Iran is mystifying until one remembers that his program reflects the bias of the owners of the media and the city in which he chooses to live. But, no matter, Scarborough is who he is and Dempsy is also himself. I doubt that General Dempsey will be leaving his post any time soon.
A little later, Natanyahu sat in the Oval Office and once again lectured the president of the United States on the world and the place of the United States in it . He said that Israel trusts nobody. He also said that Israel exists because Gentiles cannot be trusted but that the US and Israel are the same thing. This implies that the US, although untrustworthy as a country is nevertheless at the disposal of Israel for various suitable tasks. The inevitable conclusion of these statement is that the US must obey Israel.
IMO, Bibi is mad as a hatter. He is consumed with fear and paranoia. There is no injury that he would not do the US if he thought it useful to his fantasies. Barak is no better. These two men along with their henchmen and lackies in this country will try to drag the US into war with Iran before November. Probablity of the attempt? Somewhere around 80%. If they wait longer than that and Obama is elected, there will be a reckoning. pl
I took a little run at Mr. Starbucks. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/0305/Joe-Scarborough-implies-General-Dempsey-unfit-to-lead-joint-chiefs
Posted by: DanM | 05 March 2012 at 04:52 PM
That Obama is standing as firm as he is is a tribute to the pushback by the Pentagon and intelligence community. But it seems to me that the only thing that can actually stop Netanyahu is a firm statement that the US will in no way and under no circumstances get involved if Israel starts a war with Iran. Such a statement will not be forthcoming not only because it is an election year but also because Obama cannot relish a battle with AIPAC and its close supporters, which includes his own Chicago Mafia.
Bibi has to know that minus such a statement if he starts a war the US will get involved,dragged in by congress and the media over possible WH-Pentagon-CIA objections. But he might also be thinking in the long term and might want to replace Obama with a completely compliant Republican. That would mean delaying any attack while turning the Iran issue into a cause celebre to beat Obama over the head with prior to November using a friendly media and plenty of congressional voices from both parties. It would be interesting to see how some of the Dem congressman would line up. Tricky, but probably doable if Bibi wants regime change in the US.
Posted by: Phil Giraldi | 05 March 2012 at 05:04 PM
Oh, let the reckoning come!
Posted by: Matthew | 05 March 2012 at 05:09 PM
Col: Not John Bathelor's finest hour. See http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/65515/iran-busters/#more-65515
You have appeared on his radio show. He appears comfortable using words like "clean out" the "nests" in Gaza. Weren't the Interveners shocked that Assad used the word "clean" to refer to the pounding of Homs?
Posted by: Matthew | 05 March 2012 at 05:15 PM
Bravo Dan. That's an excellent piece. In a few paragraphs you showcased the thoughtfulness and depth of understanding that General Dempsey possesses. It stands in stark contrast to the witless ranting of Starbucks Joe and his ilk.
Posted by: The Twisted Genius | 05 March 2012 at 05:24 PM
I don't think it should be any great surprise that the democratic congressmen and senators will line up with Israel in opposition to their democratic president, with some rare exceptions.
Posted by: steve | 05 March 2012 at 05:27 PM
Exactly Dan.... A firing offense.... Bet they don't?
Posted by: Jake | 05 March 2012 at 05:34 PM
Who to say that those Israeli nukes are not used to blackmail us?
Posted by: Jake | 05 March 2012 at 05:35 PM
Matthew
Batchelor suddenly stopped having me on his show. I guess he got the word. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 05 March 2012 at 05:49 PM
If we do go to war with Iran because of Israeli paranoia, our nation will drop to the bottom of the pit in world affairs. We need to realize that, in spite of the Holocost and other touted factors, Israel is similar to all the others in the Middle East - tribal, try to eliminate all opponents, societies going nowhere unless they start focussing on daily responsibilities instead of fighting each other. Of course, most of the opponents in the other societies are in their own countries while the Israelis are essentially the opponents of everyone else in that region. But that is not really our problem, or it should not be.
Posted by: StanleyHennig | 05 March 2012 at 05:59 PM
Mr. Lang said: "He also said that Israel exists because Gentiles cannot be trusted but that the US and Israel are the same thing."
That is a great catch.
Contradictions like this should only exist in comedies.
Posted by: Paul Escobar | 05 March 2012 at 06:04 PM
Phil,
Why do you think a firm public statement would stop Bibi? It could have the opposite effect because it would demonstrate to many Israeli's that the US, despite the rhetoric, doesn't intend to do anything about Iran. Consequently, the Israeli leadership could see that they have no choice but to go it alone.
Posted by: Andy | 05 March 2012 at 06:10 PM
Madness can be congenital, due to chemical or neurological derangement (hatter's mercury), or stem from extreme socio/psychological experience. In ALL cases, behavior is mediated - to varying degrees - by the 'mad' person's awareness of with whom or what he is interacting - and his own primitive survival needs. The implication is that Netanyahu's 'mad' behavior (and that of those in his gang)is in good part our fault. We have been enablers in a crucial sense. As a result, he (and they) will only become crazier unless we change our ways drastically.
Posted by: mbrenner | 05 March 2012 at 06:13 PM
Andy
Let Israel exercixe its sovereig right to attack without our agreement. Let us not support them with other than words in that case. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 05 March 2012 at 06:16 PM
Word has it, Bibi brought a copy of the Zapruder film with him and he and Obama sat and watched it. There were no words. The message was clear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6KLFrye9Xk&context=C346c570ADOEgsToPDskIpUIRAtYG-x4cE53UvBfzI
Posted by: Morocco Bama | 05 March 2012 at 06:24 PM
Very sad.
Posted by: Matthew | 05 March 2012 at 06:31 PM
If Obama appeases Bibi on Iran, what will Bibi ask for next? Germany as an Israeli fiefdom? Russia? Or just suzerainty over Persian Gulf oil and gas shipped to the world?
Appeasement didn't work in 1938. It doesn't work now. It only whets the appetite of the bully.
Posted by: JohnH | 05 March 2012 at 07:19 PM
Colonel,
IMO Russia would be well advised to send a few of their own fighters (fighters that display Russian Military Identifications) to provide combat air patrols over Iran, such a Russian display would make the mad hatter Bibi think twice, as well as Bibi's 5th Column operating on our U.S. shores. And it would help to take the pressure off our D.C. that is being exerted by the Mad Hatter and his 5th Column until their attack windows of opportunity diminish. It's called preventing WWIII.
Posted by: J | 05 March 2012 at 07:24 PM
The few times I've heard the John Batchelor Show, Malcolm Hoenlein from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations was a guest, pushing the neocon all war all the time agenda on behalf Israel. I wondered if the show might essentially be a Likud propaganda outlet. I don't know for sure since I've heard too few shows to judge.
Posted by: Sean McBride | 05 March 2012 at 07:54 PM
If Obama is as narcissistic as many believe he is, he must really resent the fact that Bibi has him by the short hairs. Bibi thinks us weak and like a puppet whose strings he can pull as he wills. I hope we prove him wrong.
Obama is not stupid. Joining an attack on Iran will cost him the election, in my opinion. He wants very badly to be re-elected and avoid being the next Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: Will Reks | 05 March 2012 at 07:57 PM
Is there any chance that we will ever get our nation back? Or is that prospect hopeless?
We appear to be doomed to be a subservient satellite of Likud until the neocons manage to take us down for good. Most Americans have no idea whatever what is going on -- the mainstream media have worked hard to keep them in the dark.
Posted by: Sean McBride | 05 March 2012 at 08:20 PM
There've been a number of fantastic scenarios postulated, the latest by R. Haddick over at SWJ.
There would be an IDF/AF first strike followed by a IRGC/ASF MRBM counterstrike, that much we're fairly sure of.
One more fantastic scenario would be the next step in the conflict having RuAF responding with CAPs over Iran to put an end to the insanity.
But that's too WWIII to take seriously. But then, the whole enterprise makes no sense, except to certain Israeli elites and their supporters.
Posted by: Pirouz | 05 March 2012 at 08:42 PM
More and more, current events make me sit back in my chair with an old mans slouch and wonder how my country ever came to be controlled by incompetent misfits and beady-eyed money-grubbers.
Posted by: Paul Deavereaux | 05 March 2012 at 09:16 PM
Some interesting speculation on Mondoweiss on what methods Likud, Netanyahu and their neocon network in the US might use to deal with Obama:
"The last time a Democratic president took on Benjamin Netanyahu…" [Monicagate]
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/03/the-last-time-a-democratic-president-took-on-benjamin-netanyahu.html
Posted by: Sean McBride | 05 March 2012 at 09:22 PM
Well, I may not know as much about foreign policy as the other commenters here, but what I see is that there was a lot of talk about Israel using a "first strike" against Iran in the near future before this weekend, and now it looks like that's been put off until some indeterminate point in the future. So I consider that a win.
I also see Gen. Dempsey basing his opinions on the best facts that can be determined (even if unpopular) rather than based on some free form hallucinatory view of foreign policy demands by various interest groups. I call that a win also.
Posted by: HankP | 05 March 2012 at 09:23 PM