Obama "playing nice" with Israel.

""I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

Many of the president's supporters are concerned about that commitment, an uneasiness Obama reportedly hopes to allay in a Sunday speech to a pro-Israel lobby. Obama's agenda the next day in his meeting with Netanyahu is to convince Israeli leadership that they can rely on that assurance enough to delay military action of their own."  LA Times

------------------------------------------

This is a fundamentally unsound way to deal with a client state.   It makes me wonder if President Obama really has the cojones and toughness needed to deal with people like Bibi and the Ziocons.  Obama's approach seems to be to promise ("cross my heart") to the Israelis and their 5th column that if Iran's behavior does not become as transparent as water, then the US will atteck Iran and relieve the Israelis of the prospective  burden that their own failure in such an attack would be.  In other words, the Israeli phalanx will have the ability to tell us when  we should attack Iran.

This is ridiculous.  The position of the USG is that the Iranians do not have a weapons program.  Obama knows that.  He knows it well.  Senator Menendez pointed out on the boob tube this AM that the uranium that the Iranians would have to further refine in order to fabricate nuclear weapons is UNDER IAEA SUPERVISION.  In other words we would know if they diverted this material.  In addition, US intelligence is perfectly capable of detecting ssuch a diversion.  Israeli intelligence "lives on" scraps pf information from the US intelligence community's table.  The thanks we get for that relationship is for USI to be attacked by the lackey media and the Israeli government.

The truth about Israeli hysteria over Iran is that Israel wants Iran crippled so that it will not have a competitor for geo-political power in the ME.  The rest is nonsense.  The Iranians know that the aftermath of an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel would be an Iran that resembled a parking lot.

It appears that Obama fears for his re-election.  Too bad.  pl

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-interview-iran-20120302,0,7234351.story

Comments

[alinaustex]

I would agree with most of what you said JT.President Obama based on the evidence at hand has done most of what he has promised .Saw an excellent bumper sticker here in Austin Tx " Usama is dead .GM is alive " Good luck Ozark trout fishing. We once had an excellent backpacking & trout fishing trip through the Mark Twain National Park , Spent one night in Greer Springs cave.

[walrus]

Thank you for your comment JTCornpone, you put your case rather well I think.

Regarding Obamas narcissism, it doesn't take much "armchair psychoanalysis" to spot one when you have worked for one, been personally involved with another, acquainted with a Third and just watched a Fourth try and wreck his own political party's Government of Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/we-need-to-talk-about-kevin-20120224-1ttxx.html

I hope Obama is not as bad as Kevin Rudd; if he is, then I stand by what I've said: America will support an Israeli attack on Iran in exchange for AIPAC suport for Obamas re-election. The wishes and hopes of the American people are nothing to Obama.

I'm prepared to believe that Obama has done "something" for the Liberal cause, but not nearly as much as he promised. I was one of the "netroots" that he threw under the bus the instant he was elected.

[optimax]

A news article I read said that Netanyahu, at a news conference with Harper in Canada, said that Iran must get rid of all its enriched uranium--except what was needed for medical purposes. I had seen the conference on C-Span and knew Netanyahu demanded Iran remove all enriched material, including 3 1/2%, from the country. You can see for yourself at 4:30 into the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu8lezIYxdI

MSM is almost all propaganda.

[Jake]

"We have seen that phenom before, with no effect."

A Little Rebellion Now and Then Is A Good Thing
.......Thomas Jefferson To James Madison

[Charles I]

You might want to examine the polls linked to by Jake above.

[Nancy K]

JT, I agree with you completely. I wish Obama were a little more in your face with the Republicans but he is President of the entire country, not just Democrats. I voted for him last time and will vote for him and support him again. I look at Gingrich, Santorium and Romney and just say No. I consider myself a liberal and wish he were more left leaning but if he were the right would just condemn him more. Unlike Walrus, I don't feel thrown under the bus. Maybe I just don't take it so personally.

[YT]

"a high school kid playing president in a simulation game"

Dr. Brenner,

But sir, Americans have been living in a (dis?) simulation since way back when?

The (in)famous (late) Jean Baudrillard comments back in '96 --

http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=164

[Damian Lataan]

There has for a long time been a lot of talk of Israel launching a unilateral strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. There has even been talk of Israel launching a unilateral strike without warning the US in advance.

Such talk is nonsense. It is merely part of a “good cop, bad cop” strategy designed on the one hand to demonstrate to the world how anxious Israel is about Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’, while on the other hand creating the illusion that US President Obama is the reluctant protector of Israel against Iranian ‘threats’ and retaliation.

The reality is this: It would be utterly impossible for Israel to launch a truly unilateral strike against Iran, and to even suggest that Israel would launch such a strike without warning the US in advance, borders on downright stupidity.

The reason it would be impossible for Israel to strike ‘unilaterally’ is simple; everything Israel needs in order to strike Iran – from jet fuel to bombs, to anti-retaliatory measures – comes from the US. Indeed, not only would Israel not be able to unilaterally strike Iran, it would actually need US connivance to do so – no matter how discreet the Israelis wanted to be about protecting Obama from blame of initiating war.

At the moment, Obama needs to tread a very careful path. On the one hand he can’t afford to ‘pre-emptively’ go to war against Iran for the Israelis – at least not this side of an election – but on the other hand, he can’t afford to be seen not supporting Israel – at least not this side of an election when the Jewish vote will be important for him.

But all this is simply for political show. The Israelis really couldn’t care less who the President is, just as long as whoever it is, he ultimately supports Israel. Sure, they would prefer a Republican President to get up at the next election since the Republicans are far more militantly sympathetic to the right-wing Israeli cause and, if a Republican President wins the election, the Israelis will be assured of support from the people of America since the Israeli cause is a major platform of the Republican campaign. But, if Obama is returned, the Israelis know that they can rely on him as a nothing to lose President for support in helping them attack Iran.

At this time, however, the “good cop, bad cop” strategy is in play for the sake of public opinion, but behind the scenes, as I have mentioned elsewhere on this blog, everything is already in place and ready to go.
It’s just a matter of finding – or creating – the right opportunity. That opportunity might arise at anytime, but one thing everyone can be assured of; there will be absolutely nothing ‘unilateral’ about it.