« Everglades Challenge 2012 | Main | New Article (archaeology) on "The Athenaeum" »

02 March 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"Israel is not a typical client state...."

I'll say.

I would suggest rather that the President is boxing himself in and the more he concedes that Iran with X or Y is "unacceptable" the closer he gets to war. I must say, however, he is receiving little help from the rest of his party. If we're heading towards disaster it will be a bipartisan one.


Sadly. I concur with Dr. Brenner. We are watching a narcissist at work. Reading part of The Atlantic interview, I was struck by Obamas tone - it was all about him. There is no statesmanship, no concern for Americas strategic interests, just himself. I'll refrain from commenting on the sordid spectacle of The President Of The United States granting an interview to a not very good journalist, and a former Israeli prison guard to boot, except to express my disgust. Can any Arab nation now take anything Obama says seriously?

Obama will sacrifice Iran on the alter of his re-election. Nothing is surer.

The only thing that may save Iran is a dignified refusal to retaliate to the inevitable Israeli attack.


Mr Giraldi, you have made a very sad comment coming from a man who has seen things that most of us have never seen.



I stated the repercussions explicitly in my comment - war, possibly nuclear, with Iran.



My apologies. I read too much into the first sentence of your comment.



Putting Iranian nuclear development back by a few years is probably good enough for the Israeli's. The risk for them in an attack is to fail to achieve even that. An attack that fails would be very, very bad for Israel. I think that's a big part of why they want the US to do it for them.


In order to resist the pressure to bless an Israeli attack, he can not just insist that there is no Iranian nuclear weapons program. However incorrectly, many in Israel, and many here, believe there is such a program. That position would merely lead to the Israelis claiming that he is afraid to face facts, and that he was delaying a decision until it is too late, to avoid a war.

In order to resist such pressure he must be able to say that he has essentially put this countries credibility on the line as to not allowing Iran to have such weapons, therefore robbing Israel of the justification to attack.

His Administration has been out in force doubting the wisdom of an attack, and doubting the existence of a weapons program. He is chipping away at the propaganda through his surrogates while preserving a political position strongly in support of Israel. Had he intended to fold, that would not have happened.

The beaver

@ Mike C

Thank you for the article - I was doing a search on oil prices and I saw that Businessweek piece and I didn't dig further.



Sadly, IMO we must start thinking about how to resist a sell-out to Israel if it happens. pl


A nuclear armed Iran--if Iran ever decided to make that happen--would be a "hinge" moment. It would end the ability of "liberal interventionalists" to make careers justifying the murder of people in poorer societies for the sake of "progess."

Iran's primary crime is that it is not a client state.

Tim Vincent

"The Iranians know that the aftermath of an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel would be an Iran that resembled a parking lot."

Are you sure, really SURE, that this matters to the obviously crazy mullahs?

And before you all chime in with:
How do you know the Iranian mullahs are crazy (not "rational")?
It doesn't take a chef to know the hamburger is burning.

Mike C

The beaver-

You're welcome. It feels good to put even a little dent in the spin machine.


Tim Vincent

Yes. I am as sure as I am of Frodo's sainthood. Look, if Iran nucs Israel stop by and I will say I am sorry that I was wrong. pl

Pirate Laddie

Grim prospects, indeed. We've come to the point where it's possible that a narcissist has greater scope for action than a sycophant. Among the GOP prospects, only Gingrich has the fundamental serpentine nature needed to allow the Israelis to march into this disaster and the "wish them well" on the trip.
If the Zionists truly believe that Iran's a year or two away from the bomb, they'd be better off skewing the 2012 vote in favor of the GOP, since the "water and wood" providers for Israel are more numerous among their ranks.


Col: All these "it could happen" arguments (Tim Vincent) are just reworkings of the Cheney Doctrine. To wit, "My right to attack you depends on whether I am afraid."

If the President were serious we would be offering the Iranians a real deal: They give up their independent nuclear program in exchange for normalization.

Vali Nasr told our WAC that the Iranians believe that we are asking them to surrender their one negotiating card in exhange for nothing. Once they dismantle even their legal nuclear program, the sanctions won't come off. We will then continue sanctions under the guise of "human rights" or some other phony nonsense.

Sorry to sound so cynical.

Ask anyone in Gaza about how many tears Obama and Hillary shed when the Zionists were murdering their children by the bushel.

The Twisted Genius

Tim Vincent,

The only burning hamburger I smell is the crazy, criminal Likud regime in Israel. They are scheming to start a war that could cause immense harm to a large part of the world. They have nuclear weapons and we have no idea what they are willing to do with them. Even the majority of Israelis are none too keen on the dangerous behavior of their Likud government. The Likudniks are a dangerous threat to the world, but an existential threat only to the existence of Israel as a viable state. Are you sure, really SURE that those crazies won't unleash the Sampson option?

Tim Vincent

Iran nuc'ing Israel would not be good, BUT I'm much more concerned with the potential danger to us from a nuclear Iran.
How many times does they have to say "death to America" before they start believing it?
And all the other behavior of an outlaw state for the past 30 years?
Which brings us back to the presumed "rationality" of the Iranian power structure.

And as a side note re. General Dempsey:
What is it with the constant dress blues?
I always thought that his predecessors were taking the "camouflage behind the desk" look too far, but isn't this overkill the other way?

Yellow Dog

I have a question for the Committee: Are you saying that Obama is not posturing enough for you? That he needs to "put Netanyahu in his place"?

Do you really think that there is a benefit to the USA of indulging in what we in Texas would call a "dick-measuring contest"?

And I would disagree with several of you - Israel is a client-state whether they or we wish to acknowledge it. It is to Netanyahu's domestic political benefit to behave as if Israel is our equal, but it doesn't change the fact. How much military aid did Israel send us last month?

I recommend Larison's piece on this subject today. I don't always agree with him, but he's always worth listening to.


This about sums it up... Obama says his foreign policy successes take line of attack away from GOP rivals...

Obama touts foreign policy to raise campaign cash

..."The other side traditionally seems to feel that the Democrats are somehow weak on defense. They're having a little trouble making that argument this year," Obama told supporters at a $35,800-a-person dinner.

From ending the war in Iraq to ordering the raid that killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, the president said his approach to foreign policy was based on the belief that "there's no contradiction between being tough and strong and protecting the American people, but also abiding by those values that make America great."

Our Panderer in Chief...!


So submit to Israel's extortion? Time to cut all ties with Israel if that is the only option they leave the US.


Is it not possible or likely that the President is using the rope a dope technique?


We going to play the same game with Japan and Brazil? They each have on-going nuclear weapons component research! Or is it just Iran we will go to war with?


Holy Halford Mackinder!

they are deploying politico-mechanico-rhetorical gee-gaws. Bad sign.

History has its cycles, pivots, hinges, wheels, see-saws, rockers ... differentials? ... pistons? what else?

Did Milekowski actually use those words? Does it not seem odd to speak of hinges (so close to unhinged) while brandishing a Spanner of History and threatening to throw it into The Gears of [same]? Or was that the intended subliminable effect.


Here are some rather interesting polls on attacking Iran... http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm


Another very interesting survey on Iran...
February 2012
Israeli Public Opinion Survey

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

January 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad