Obama’s October Non-Surprise


Absolutely in line with what I predicted her just five days ago (this news is step one of what I expect to be a three-step process), Iran has agreed to direct “talks” with the Obama administration. I call BS on this. This is nothing other than an Iranian attempt to bolster Obama’s re-election chances. It is a cynical, dirty game being played by both Obama and Iran — the same Iran whose “Green Revolution” died when Obama refused to say even a single word in favor of the pro-Western reformers who gathered in the tens of thousands against Iranian repression and corruption.

As for this being bogus, the New York Times notes that “There is still a chance the initiative could fall through, even if Mr. Obama is re-elected. Iran has a long history of using the promise of diplomacy to ease international pressure on it.” Of course. In fact, this could even be counterproductive: “Even if the two sides sit down, American officials worry that Iran could prolong the negotiations to try to forestall military action and enable it to complete critical elements of its nuclear program, particularly at underground sites.”

Israel isn’t happy, either, reports the Times. Nor should it be happy at such a cynical and counterproductive maneuver.

Finally: Curious, isn’t it, that this “agreement” comes just in time for Monday’s presidential debate on foreign policy? Methinks it is an attempt to distract attention from the growing scandal related to Obama’s handling of matters in Libya, so that Iran, instead of Libya, draws most of the questions from a compliant Bob Schieffer.

(One last note: I’m not always a big NYT fan, to say the least, but this particular story is solid throughout. That’s no surprise: It was co-written by one of the NYT’s best, my old college friend and colleague Mark Landler.)

October 21, 2012 | 10 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

10 Comments / 10 Comments

  1. @ Dionissis mitropoulos

    On second thoughts it should have read “What if Israel were constantly threatening to wipe THEM from the map?”

  2. @ Jerry G:
    Jerry G Said:

    You might not have noticed it but the whole world already hates Israel

    Of course i have. That’s why i talked about Israel’s demonization.

    Jerry G Said:

    even though Israel has done nothing since its creation but defend itself against obliteration from the Arab world

    That’s why i said that this international Jew-hate is bogus and unjustified.

    Jerry G Said:

    An Israeli strike against Iran would of course bring instant condemnation from the world but secret thanks from so many nations threatened by Iran.

    I am in favor of an Israeli strike. Israel has the right to defend herself even if the international community thinks otherwise, and even if there were no other nations threatened by a nuclear Iran.

    My response to Bob was that Israel should not commit unnecessary genocide by wiping off the map ALL the Iranian population, as Bob suggested, since all that is required is a strike on the nuclear facilities.

    And i appealed to Bob’s concern for Israel, by saying to him that gratuitous genocide will bestow on Israel a moral blemish that the already anti-Semitic international community will be quick to exploit, only that this time they would be justified. And i asked Bob if that’s what he really wanted, i.e. having Israel act in an immoral way (by annihilating Iran) that, additionally, will bring even more international hostility, even from formerly pro-Israel persons.

    Obviously, if an eventuality arises that Israel can defend herself only by annihilating all of the Iranian population, then Israel will have every right to do it. But this is not the case right now. All Israel needs to do is take out the nuclear program.

  3. @ dionissis mitropoulos:
    You might not have noticed it but the whole world already hates Israel even though Israel has done nothing since its creation but defend itself against obliteration from the Arab world. An Israeli strike against Iran would of course bring instant condemnation from the world but secret thanks from so many nations threatened by Iran.

  4. Sam Goldblatt Said:

    The last thing they want is trouble.

    Well, if that’s how the Iran regime feels, it certainly doesn’t act accordingly (pursuing a nuclear weaponization program, perpetrating and facilitating terrorism etc.)
    Sam Goldblatt Said:

    Israel is much better off doing nothing.

    If Iran gets the bomb, other Arabic states will, so as to counter the Iranian threat against them.
    A Middle East full of nukes cannot be good for Israel. Sooner or later an Islamist regime will decide to go straight to Heaven by nuking Israel (or hand the bomb to terrorists to the same effect).

    Sam Goldblatt Said:

    Even if Iran went nuclear which at this point is highly doubtful – they’d have zero incentive to launch one.

    Iran is certainly going for the bomb. If it did not, there would be no reason for not allowing inspections to its facilities. One of the reasons they need the nukes is so as to be able to invade neighboring oil fields in order to make up for Iran’s gloomy economic and demographic future. If they do so, the international community will attack them in order to prevent Iran’s controlling of the oil supply. In such a case, the Iranian regime will be bound to collapse. What if the mullahs decide to go for a glorious death by nuking Israel?
    Sam Goldblatt Said:

    The mullahs are not suicide bombers.

    May be, may be not. But the apocalyptic bluster of Ahmadinejad surely points to the latter.
    Can the Israelis sleep in peace when such a regime is a nuclear state?

  5. @ Bob:
    Bob Said:

    “What if Israel were to wipe THEM from the map?”

    You would have the whole world hating Israel for a good reason.
    Up to now, all the demonisation of Israel has been bogus, no moral or factual truth in it.
    Violating the principle of proportionality by unnecessarily killing civilians, whereas all that is required is the destruction of the nuclear facilities, will give the international community the long-sought silver bullet to morally degrade Israel.
    Do you really want Israel to act in a way that invites justified hate?

  6. Israel is much better off doing nothing. They’re in the strongest position they’ve ever been in. Even if Iran went nuclear which at this point is highly doubtful – they’d have zero incentive to launch one. The mullahs are not suicide bombers. They’re like old Jews playing shuffleboard in Miami. The last thing they want is trouble.

  7. Don’t underestimate the Iranians. The vast majority of Americans do not want another War. In the U.S. “The Peace Candidate” always wins. In 1940, FDR vowed he’d never get us in a War. In 1968, Nixon had “A Plan” to end The Vietnam War.

  8. There may be one thing the Iranian leadership has not thought through. The media has worked over time to undercut any type of military option America may have had to deal with the Iranian threat with one bit of false reporting on this after another. On the other hand, the media is also heavily in the tank for Obama as well and will do every thing they can to cover for him both now and if he is reelected.

    If a military confrontation between Iran and the US should come to pass and the media is forced to choose between supporting Mr. Obama or undermining the US military operation, they are going to choose to undermine the military operation, however, there will be some hesitation on the part of the media to do so. As such, Mr. Obama may have about a two month windoow of opportunity or so to successfully complete a military operation agaisnt Iran. A Republican be it Mitt Romney or someone else will not have this window of opportunity that Mr. Obama or a Democrat will have. As such, a Democrat may be the best person to have in office should America and Iran be in a shooting war.

    With that said there are at least two majorproblems with this. 1.) Democrats are much more likely to shirk their responsibilities to defend America should military action be necessary, placing to much faith in diplomacy where it is not warranted. As such, even though the media would be more likely to grant Mr. Obama the leeway to use the military agaisnt Iran than they would allow Mitt Romney it seems unlikely that Mr. Obama would actually use the military against Iran until it is much much to late for a military action to be effective. A Republican who is not blinded by ideology with regards to diplomacy will be much more likely to act sooner to use the military before American lives are placed in even more danger. 2.)For a country as powerful and well supported as Iran is, it will require a military action of more than two months for America to eliminate its nuclear capabilities or its conventional capabilities and American military and civilan casualties will be massive. As such, in my opinion, the potential advantages to having Mr. Obama in office should an active military confrontation between America and Iran occurr do not outweigh the risks.

    The general premise that the moderator will be compliant to the interests of Mr. Obama is very likely spot on. Mr. Romney and his debate preparation team should be prepared for this. I’m not sure I will ever understand why Republicans agree to debate formats where the moderator/referree is in the tank for their opponents.

    Finally, the best solution for the Iranian crisis is for America to completely get out of the way. Israeli pilots and military forces are better trained, better led, and have superior technology than their American counterparts. Furthermore, from continuing military operations around the world in the “war on terror” America’s military personnel and military equipment on all levels are worn down to the point where even basic national defense is problematic at best. Furthermore the nation is bankrupt and lacks either the funds or sufficient trained personnel to address these issues in a the near to mid term. Additionally, the American government has been infilitrated at all levels by Iranian and pro-Iranian operatives. As such, any information Israel supplies to America will be instantly relayed to the Iranians and their allies. Also, America intellegence agencies are staffed by incompetent boobs who would not even understand good intellegence if it smacked them upside the head. Since the Israelis are in the best position to handle this threat and since Iran is an enemy of America as well the best approach is for America to get out of Israel’s way while Israel deals with this problem. Its in our best interest that Israel succeed and this is the best way to ensure the elimination of Iran’s nuclear program as well its other military capabilities in the most expedient and successful manner possible.

  9. I hope the voters can see through this obvious ploy cooked up to save Obama’s reelection chances. No one in their right mind could think that negotiations are going to stop these mad mullahs from obtaining nuclear weapons. This also goes to show that Iran wants Obama to get reelected enough that they would play along with this pre-election charade.

  10. What use to the world is Iran? Endless threats. Bomb Blasts of civilians. Nothing of any worth for thousands of years.

    What worthwhile thing has Iran ever given the rest of Humanity?

    “What if Israel were to wipe THEM from the map?”
    Nuclear weapons can just as easily wipe out Iran’s 70 million as it can wipe out Israel’s 7 million.

    Would the rest of the world miss them and their state sponsored terror in every non shiite muslim country in the world? I do not think so.

    We are constantly reminded that there are 1.6 billion muslims in the world. Well, let me remind you that there are more that 5 billion NON muslims and we are heartily sick of Muslim antics.

    From Thailand to Tower Hamlets to Europe to India to Russia we are sick to death of Islam.

    And when the oil runs out and they no longer have the finance to corrupt our politicians, our university professors, our journalists etc…..they will have to account to the rest of humanity for their behaviour.