« Baiting the bear | Main | A Uniquely French Solution to Libya by Harper »

08 August 2015

Comments

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

jr786

The NYT article has lots of implicit hand wringing about Jewish sensitivity. But the cards are on the table for once.

Obama's hubris can actually serve the country here, if he has the guts to see it through against Aipac and the rest of the Israel Firsters. Would he actually go so far as to force FARA on them?

I don't think too much of pop culture references but this half reminds me of Frodo at Mount Doom. Can it be that the manipulative power of this piss ant little country is about to be broken?

Cee

All,

The crazies will have their way. The Times of Israel is reporting on plans to start assassinating scientists in Iran again.

confusedponderer

Obama could enforce FARA against AIPAC and WINEP, given the extent to which the Israelis have shown to utilise them to further Israeli political goals. That would be politically costly but as far as evidence of collaboration and collusions go, it'spretty much a no brainer. It isn't as if the Izzies, cocksure as they are, are hiding the fact, rather, they're bragging. Time for comeuppance.

Bibi's meddling in US foreign and domestic policies is completely unprecedented.

In a sense, the US needs to reassert their sovereignty over Middle East foreign policy, because as far as the Netanyahoo goes, US policy must conform with Israeli wishes or he unsleashes his 5th collumn in the US, as his rather successful agitation in the US against the Iran deal shows.

It underlines that as far as he is concerned, the US is not fully sovereign. He wants it to remain that thing easily moved, and he is dead set to prove it.

I think, given America's economic leverage over Israel, it should be possible to make the Israelis feel by Shekel that America disapproves? It should be possible for the US to inflict economic pain, so the Izzies come to understand that the actions of their prime ministers have consequences and are not approved of?

The problem is to sell that domestically in the US, since the R's will rail like mad, was would the Israeli firsters anyway.

That said, the rest of the world is quickly losing patience with the Izzies, as underlined by a comment made in parliament by the British foreign minister Phillip Hammond lately:

"The Question we have to ask is what kind of deal would have been welcomed in Tel Aviv. The answer, of course, is that Israel does not want any deal with Iran. It wants a pernanent state of standoff, which I do not believe is in the interests of the region or in our interest."

One can only commend Hammond for his bluntness on this actually rather trivial point. Indeed, Britains and Israel's interests are not identical. Period. Neither are US and Israel interests. For the US to bow to Israeli demands of unrelenting hostility towards Iran, is for the US to act against its own interests.

I think that the Izzies don't see the degree of alienation their mindless political savagery in the US and beyond causes and given the size of his ego, it is exceedingly probable that the Netanyahoo thinks he can spin that away artfully with some more guilt pandering, campaign donations or accusations of rising antisemitism. Hardly.

turcopolier

CP

Obama will not run again. The only penalty he would endure for a phone call to the AG directing FARA registration would be Zionist money for his library. pl

confusedponderer

Well then, what's keeping him? Cowardice?

I mean, essentially Bibi has been telling him for a long time 'Shine my shoes, boy'. Obma must deeply resent that.

Obama sure is rational enough to understand that he has to either stop this now or it will go on fer the forseeable future. It's about preventing Bibi from setting that precedent.

Ursa Maior

If Bibi manages to derail the nuclear deal it will lead to drastic surge in anti semitism / anti israelism as well as a major blow to US soft power. One of the most persistent and strongest conspiracy theory will be proven, namely US legislature being an 'occupied territoy' that is.

b

Recommended


Netanyahu and His Marionettes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/netanyahu-and-his-marione_b_7958146.html

jr786

Well he'd still have the Hollywood money...um. Well, there's still the Wall Street money, right?

Damn.

confusedponderer

Andrew Bacewich writes today:

"Rather than vainly seeking preeminence, U.S. policy could pursue a multilateral approach. Rather than engaging in continuous and futile wars, it could gather its strength and find more productive ways to expend its limited resources. Instead of our problem, the Middle East could become their problem.

The debate over Iran serves as a proxy for a far more fundamental question. The real issue is this: When it comes to the Middle East, will the United States persist in failure or will it try something different?

This deal with Iran is the most prominent indication to date that Obama is serious about embracing the latter. This duck may be lame but he's far from dead.

The White House wants the president's American University speech to be compared to one that President John F. Kennedy made there in 1963 when he proposed limits on nuclear testing. A better comparison just might be to President Ronald Reagan's willingness in the 1980s to reach out to the leader of what Reagan himself called the Evil Empire. His partnership with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev changed history. It's the possibility that Obama might accomplish something similar that has his critics so upset."

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-bacevich-policy-revolution-in-iran-deal-20150806-story.html

Considering that Israel is trying to achieve the same thing - preeminence reginally, and primacy as far as US middle East Policy is concerned - they should take his good advice also.

What they are doing right now with abandon is pissing away goodwill, be it heartfelt or coerced. It will become inrcreasinglyunwilling to placate Israel, since they begin to demand and exact too high a price.

It doesn't need a wizard to figure out that the current brutal armtwisting that AIPAC and Adelson deal out is going to leave scares and bruises. Even if Bibi wins, it may be a pyrrhic victory as he will end up making enemies, all simply because Bibi is so maximalist.

Bibi's hostility against the US is absurd because even the Obama administration is far from hostile to Israel. In fact, they have been remarkably generous and indulgent.

Bibi's problem is that that still isn't enough. Bibi's answer for 3 billion a year in arms, the high end stuff, and an almost guaranteed veto at the UN for two decades or so, and Bibi goes on a political rampage in DC because all that is still not enough? He wants full control of US foreign policy vis a vis Iran on top, after Netanyahu having practically capaigned for Romney against Obma in the last predsidential elections?

Nuts!

Croesus

Donald Rumsfeld's 1963 letter to Robert Kennedy re registering ZOA

http://irmep.org/ila/azcdoj/congress/default.asp

chronology of actions wrt registering ZOA

http://irmep.org/ila/azcdoj/

Croesus

Yossi Alpher (again with Alpher) articulated a key element of the zionist ideology and one of the four factors in what Alpher called David ben Gurion's "grand strategy."

Those four elements are:

1. periphery doctrine
2. nuclear deterrent
3. superpower ally
4. "And the fourth was the ingathering of the exiles. Mass immigration, and here Ben-Gurion radically slashed military budgets. Yigael Yadin, the second chief of staff, resigned in protest and Ben-Gurion said, I need the money to bring hundreds of thousands of holocaust survivors, Moroccan Jews, Iraqi Jews, and give us critical mass."

Important not to misunderestimate the importance of the ingathering, and the actions zionists have carried out, over time, to effect it.

The ingathering doctrine goes back to at least 1933 when Louis Brandeis directed that "all Jews must leave Germany," or 1935, when Vladimir Jabotinsky articulated the doctrine at a conference in Vienna.

False flag events were used to frighten Iraqi Jews into fleeing Iraq (initially to Iran, then) to Israel in the very late 1940s/early 1950s.

Netanyahu used the (possibly false flag) attacks in France recently to urge French Jews to migrate to Israel.

It is not implausible that Netanyahu and diehard zionists are deliberately stirring up anti-Jewish sentiment in USA in order to frighten US Jews to flee to Israel "where they will be safe."

Jack

Sir
IMO, a majority of the American people have chosen Bibi. We could not have this level of intense opposition to a sitting President by agents of a foreign power if they did not believe they have control of the propaganda machinery and the backing of many Americans.

The real question is what happens with Jeb or Hillary in office? Of course the train has left the station with the Europeans. They're likely not to get back on another ME war. But that's not going to deter to our 5th column.

ex-PFC Chuck

An awful lot of both Hollywood and Wall Street money is first and foremost Jewish money.

turcopolier

Jack

Not sure that is true. We will see. pl

Babak Makkinejad

Arab Nationalist expelled the Jews of Iraq.

The Arabs coveted their businesses and their wealth.

It was the old pattern of pillage that the Arab Nationalists found as attractive as any old oriental potentate.

I suppose it could have been worse; like with Kurds & Turks raping Armenian boys and girls back in 1915.

Babak Makkinejad

"Nuts" is when the Vice-Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany comes to Iran and states that unless Iran becomes friends with Israel, she can never have good commercial relations with Iran.

Iranians heard him politely and he left.

walrus

As my Jewish uncle observed on the subject of Israel: "The problem with the Jews is that they always go One step too far".

I believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu has just demonstrated the truth of this. I'm not sure that the destruction of AIPAC's capabilities to influence American foreign policy would necessarily be a bad thing for Israel.

Historically, I think I understand that Jewish minorities, at least in Europe, sought the protection of their local sovereign, and that this may be a matter of habit, America is currently filling this role for Israel.

I wonder if Israel is mentally capable of eschewing this centuries old need for a "protector", along with the Holocaust shtick, and stand on its own Two feet?

alba etie

Jack
IMO , a majority of the MSM has been towing BiBi 's line - but far from the majority of the American people support scutttling the Iranian Nuclear Deal . This is an election year - and the majority of the voters want no more war - or even saber rattling ,,,Stayed tuned this is far from over .

alba etie

Jack
PS
Senator Bernie Sanders is mounting a credible run for the Democratic nomination . Senator Sanders is on record defending the Iranian Deal .

mbrenner

After 6 + years is it really a revelation that Obama is a coward?

Imagine

Bibi has power and is executing it. Israel is already an apartheid rogue nuclear nation that ignores having the most U.N. condemnations; they have NEVER worried seriously about blowback. You have to understand Israel is a fascist state: the opinions of individual people/others simply do not matter, any more than you care what your dog thinks when you chain him up at night. It is an adrenaline-driven survivalist mentality. Bibi has already pissed off this President, but all he needs to do is wait a year for the next, and maintain good relations with our rep to the U.N. and the Speaker of the House. And perhaps SecDefense. No one else is in a position of power to matter. Bibi knows this. Who cares what the rest of America thinks as long as he holds at least 2/3rds of Congress.

ex-PFC Chuck

As a friend of mine says frequently to such questions, "Is the pope Catholic?"

Babak Makkinejad

And why would he stick his neck out?

What would he get from that?

It could rupture the Democratic Party and give the presidency to Republicans - which otherwise would go to Democrats for the next few cycles.

Furthermore, are substantial number of people from his own party standing shoulder-to-shoulder with him - on this Nuclear Iran Deal?

What is the Whip doing to coral all these cats; why is Schumer going against his own president?

And where are the leaders of NATO supporting this deal publicly; labeling a deal for Peace, Justice, International Law and other such things?

Why are they ducking?

The Beaver

Babak

Did Fabius make any demand? or the FM of the UK?

Nothing relevant has been published on Iran diplomacy but the news from France: there was a lot of delays in meeting the Iranian President .

steve

Query- Dershowitz, the lawyer, claims that if the US does not approve this deal and everyone else does, it doesnt really matter that much. Sanctions come down anyway. He claims a lot of other stuff too, but I found this most interesting. Does this ring true? IANAL.

Steve

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

March 2020

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 31        
Blog powered by Typepad