18 thoughts on “The Democrats And The Next Holocaust”
Obama’s position on striking Iran is in accord with the Israeli military brass, the head of the Mossad, Netanyahu’s military chief of staff, most Israeli politicians, and, maybe most importantly, the vast majority of the Israeli public whose lives are on the line. Should all those people be able to sleep at night?
Simon’s position seems to be that either you put US foreign policy and military might at Netanyahu’s disposal, or you’re responsible for a holocaust.
Of course BHO knows Israel’s problems better than the Israelis. /sarc
at Netanyahu’s disposal
Typical verbal ju jitsu.
Netanyahu deserves at least a shred of courtesy and respect which anyone decent in the WH would give, but not our [one term] president.
Does Obama deserve any courtesy or respect from Netanyahu?
That’s an interesting question Jim. Given the importance of the US to Israel’s protection, Obama will get respect whether he deserves it or not.
The office of president deserves respect. In that regard, unlike most people that have to earn respect, he actually has to earn disrespect. He’s earned mine.
You can treat your enemies with tact and forcefulness at the same time. Bibi should do that – not that Obama deserves tact, but because the office does, and because tact scores PR points.
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”
-Edmund Burke
Bob, I believe that you are missing the point. Certainly there are objections among some Mossad personnel (largely retired ones), some military (whose job it is to be skeptical, wouldn’t you agree?), and of course the civlian population (who strangely enough, gave overwhelming support to Netenyahu’s party in the last set of elections, not too long ago, despite the fact that his position re: Iran is hardly new), this is necessary and proper in a democracy. But BHO has dismissed any serious suggestion that he provide the Israelis with a credible set of assurances that Iranian possession of nuclear weapons (an threat to the very existence of Israel) will not occur. Gaseous promises (and we all know how reliable Obama’s promises are) might be fine for minor issues, but given the gravity of the situation, something more concrete is necessary.
Israel is not asking (nor do I think that given this administration’s unreliability, the would accept) an American offer of resources to deal with Iran, but they are asking for a set of Red Lines, steps that the Iranians could NOT take without triggering a material response. That Obama refuses to even address that issue speaks volumes about the fundamentally unserious nature of his position.
Israel is facing an exinstential theat, they will do what they need to do unless we give them reason to believe that they do not have to do it.
Jim,
As usual, you are spouting nonsense. Roger isn’t suggesting that the US intervene, only that it provide a set of clear conditions under which the Iranians would face consequences. Obama doesn’t want to do this (some good reasons some bad ones), but if he chooses not to, there are consequences as a result….
Scott
BHO has dismissed any serious suggestion that he provide the Israelis with a credible set of assurances that Iranian possession of nuclear weapons (an threat to the very existence of Israel) will not occur.
they are asking for a set of Red Lines, steps that the Iranians could NOT take without triggering a material response. That Obama refuses to even address that issue…
Again, the charge is false. Obama is clear about the US Red Line: an Iranian bomb. Netanyahu wants a fuzzier, more imminent, and more dangerous Red Line: the “capability” to build a nuclear bomb (over some unspecified period of time). You could argue that we’re over Netanyahu’s Red Line already.
Roger isn’t suggesting that the US intervene, only that it provide a set of clear conditions under which the Iranians would face consequences.
It would be folly to do so and then fail to follow through. Since the conditions Simon wants the US to set have arguably already been met, he is in fact suggesting the US intervene.
And, to state the obvious, a difference of opinion on the proper placement of the Red Line is no basis for smearing the Democratic party as pro-holocaust, particularly when that difference exists in the Israeli military and intelligence establishment as well.
Waiting until Iran gets the bomb isn’t a good way to prevent them from getting the bomb. And then what? Obama isn’t going to do anything after the fact.
Obama is clear about the US Red Line: an Iranian bomb.
I see no evidence of this alleged “red line”. He does say that it would suck if Iran had nuclear weapons, and that there are military options, but no grounds for when those options would be employed. And what’s going to happen, if Iran crosses that line? There’s not much point to having red lines, that by their nature, mean your response is extremely limited because you gave the potential foe too much advantage.
I note in your linked story, that Obama claims he doesn’t bluff. I don’t know why any potential foe would take him seriously, especially once they have nuclear weapons.
Obama has a record of bluffing, telling people he is bluffing, and then telling people not to call his bluff. I know, it doesn’t make any sense to me either.
Obama says that an Iranian nuke is ‘unacceptable’, but in the event that the Iranians simply deny that they have one (remember, they don’t necessarily have to detonate one the moment it is built), just how do we prove that it exists? More to the point, even if we believe that Obama is genuine in his desire to prevent the Iranians from obtaining a bomb (and there are many, myself included, that do not believe this), what does he do once he finds out that they have built one? Things become far, far, far more dangerous once we have determined to take a bomb away from someone who already has one than when you are simply trying to prevent someone from getting one in the first place.
For a small country like Israel, which really only has a limited number of population centers (it is often described as ‘a three bomb country’), once the Iranians acquire a bomb (or two, or three…) it is too late. Even one bomb detonated in say, Tel Aviv, would kill a substantial proportion of the population, destroy a very significant fraction of the economy (much of it beyond reconstitution), and likely lead to the eventual end of the country. Retaliation against Iran (a far larger country, with a comparatively larger population) with any proportionality would not bring back the dead. The Israelis have direct and clear experience with the failure of deterrence, risking their very existence on its effectiveness with an enemy that has sworn to anhiliate them is simply not in the cards. Netenyahu’s argument is essentially tha Iran should not be permitted to posess a nuclear infrastructure (i.e. a bomb factory), as acquiring one would give the Iranians the ability not only to destroy Israel, but to deter (on the part of the US or any other power) effective restraints on their behavior in a broad range of scenarios. In this sense, the Iranians are close to, if not across, that Red Line, which is precisely why Obama doesn’t want to define it.
Obviously reasonable people can differ on just how close Iran is to a bomb, or just what can (or should) be done about it, but once they get there, it will be far too late to do anything about it. Already you see people like Bill Keller at the NYT (no link, sorry) editorializing that perhaps we can live with a nuclear Iran, and he is hardly the only one. Like it or not, the Democratic party has made ugly accomodations with many members of the left that are actively and openly hostile to the existence of the state of Israel. That is their right, of course, but when you ignore the danger of states like Iran (which make no attempt to hide their desire to eliminate Israel from the map), you are in fact putting yourself in the same unsavory company as Neville Chamberlin and the appeasers of the 30s who made Hitler’s rise possible. You may not find that an appealing label, but if the shoe fits….
Scott,
You said “Gaseous promises (and we all know how reliable Obama’s promises are) might be fine for minor issues, but given the gravity of the situation, something more concrete is necessary.”
There is no question that providing bunker-busters to the Israelis (they are buying them, by the way….this isn’t charity) is a positive thing, but the deal for those bunker-busters began during the Bush Administration and has been delayed by Obama for several years. That said, I believe that you are missing my point regarding Obama’s assurances to the Israelis regarding the Iranians and their nuclear program. If israel is compelled to deal with Iran, they will. What they expect from us (as a friend and an ally, as well as a fellow member of that nebulous ‘international community’ that liberals so love…grin) is a simple set of clear metrics by which Iranian behavior can be assessed as a foundation for juding policy, i.e. “Red Lines”
If Obama says ‘I support the continued existence of Israel’, that is very nice, but if that translates as an Israel that lives under the shadow of a nuclear bomb posessed by a mortal enemy, that is not so fine. An Iran with a nuclear infrastructure represents an intolerable threat to Israel, a small country that could not simply ‘absorb’ a few nukes without having its very existence imperilled. Any politician (not only Obama, but certainly his credibility in the Middle East, particularly in Israel, is not particularly good) twists words for a living, so any guarntees that the Israelis are likely to value are those with a minimum of ambiguity, and a maximum of clarity and substance. Obama, whether out of a desire to preserve maximum flexiibility or a disinclination to provide real assurances (or likely some combination of the two), has declined to offer much that is not ambiguous and almost completely lacks clarity. The Israelis don’t find this sufficient, and quite frankly, I don’t blame them.
Now this may not bother you, but there are consequences of this sort of pettifogging that should. Absent some set of clear, bright, Red Lines the Israelis may feel that they must act on their schedule, not ours, and that deferring to our feelings on how best to handle the situation is not suitable for them. If we wish the Israelis to restrain themselves and defer to our (putatively superior) wisdom in this matter, we have to be willing to address their concerns, and we have not done so. This process is referred to as ‘diplomacy’, and it has been noticeably absent from our dealings with Israel since Obama came into office.
Bottom line: unless the Israelis have some reasonable expectation that Iran will not be allowed to get not only a bomb, but the infrastructure to build bombs, it will likely take steps on its own to ensure that this doesn’t happen. That choice will not end well for any of us, even if it is wildly successful in achieving its objectives, so if we want to avoid that end state, we had best find some way to deal with their concerns.
Remember that Iran has two nuclear delivery systems:
1. Missiles (range – um, that I do not know)
2. Hezbollah (range – global)
Alan,
Their missiles have a maximum effective (as opposed to advertised) range of about 2500 km, though they are working hard to improve this. Note that they have a satellite program, so potentially they could build something with a much longer ranger, though this isn’t the case yet.
Mentioning Hezbollah is interesting. They could deliver a bomb, but they aren’t the most reliable crowd, and I wouldn’t bet that the Iranians would trust them with such a precious resource. On the other hand, the Quds boys do have similar capabilities, and they are (for obvious reasons) far more trustworthy.
Finally, while missiles are faster and have fewer uncertainties than planting the bomb, building a bomb that can handle the stress of a missile launch and atmospheric entry is challenging. A ‘plantable’ bomb is far, far easier to build, and would likely be a first step.
Obama’s position on striking Iran is in accord with the Israeli military brass, the head of the Mossad, Netanyahu’s military chief of staff, most Israeli politicians, and, maybe most importantly, the vast majority of the Israeli public whose lives are on the line. Should all those people be able to sleep at night?
Simon’s position seems to be that either you put US foreign policy and military might at Netanyahu’s disposal, or you’re responsible for a holocaust.
Of course BHO knows Israel’s problems better than the Israelis. /sarc
at Netanyahu’s disposal
Typical verbal ju jitsu.
Netanyahu deserves at least a shred of courtesy and respect which anyone decent in the WH would give, but not our [one term] president.
Does Obama deserve any courtesy or respect from Netanyahu?
That’s an interesting question Jim. Given the importance of the US to Israel’s protection, Obama will get respect whether he deserves it or not.
The office of president deserves respect. In that regard, unlike most people that have to earn respect, he actually has to earn disrespect. He’s earned mine.
You can treat your enemies with tact and forcefulness at the same time. Bibi should do that – not that Obama deserves tact, but because the office does, and because tact scores PR points.
Bob, I believe that you are missing the point. Certainly there are objections among some Mossad personnel (largely retired ones), some military (whose job it is to be skeptical, wouldn’t you agree?), and of course the civlian population (who strangely enough, gave overwhelming support to Netenyahu’s party in the last set of elections, not too long ago, despite the fact that his position re: Iran is hardly new), this is necessary and proper in a democracy. But BHO has dismissed any serious suggestion that he provide the Israelis with a credible set of assurances that Iranian possession of nuclear weapons (an threat to the very existence of Israel) will not occur. Gaseous promises (and we all know how reliable Obama’s promises are) might be fine for minor issues, but given the gravity of the situation, something more concrete is necessary.
Israel is not asking (nor do I think that given this administration’s unreliability, the would accept) an American offer of resources to deal with Iran, but they are asking for a set of Red Lines, steps that the Iranians could NOT take without triggering a material response. That Obama refuses to even address that issue speaks volumes about the fundamentally unserious nature of his position.
Israel is facing an exinstential theat, they will do what they need to do unless we give them reason to believe that they do not have to do it.
Jim,
As usual, you are spouting nonsense. Roger isn’t suggesting that the US intervene, only that it provide a set of clear conditions under which the Iranians would face consequences. Obama doesn’t want to do this (some good reasons some bad ones), but if he chooses not to, there are consequences as a result….
Scott
BHO has dismissed any serious suggestion that he provide the Israelis with a credible set of assurances that Iranian possession of nuclear weapons (an threat to the very existence of Israel) will not occur.
That is false.
they are asking for a set of Red Lines, steps that the Iranians could NOT take without triggering a material response. That Obama refuses to even address that issue…
Again, the charge is false. Obama is clear about the US Red Line: an Iranian bomb. Netanyahu wants a fuzzier, more imminent, and more dangerous Red Line: the “capability” to build a nuclear bomb (over some unspecified period of time). You could argue that we’re over Netanyahu’s Red Line already.
Roger isn’t suggesting that the US intervene, only that it provide a set of clear conditions under which the Iranians would face consequences.
It would be folly to do so and then fail to follow through. Since the conditions Simon wants the US to set have arguably already been met, he is in fact suggesting the US intervene.
And, to state the obvious, a difference of opinion on the proper placement of the Red Line is no basis for smearing the Democratic party as pro-holocaust, particularly when that difference exists in the Israeli military and intelligence establishment as well.
Waiting until Iran gets the bomb isn’t a good way to prevent them from getting the bomb. And then what? Obama isn’t going to do anything after the fact.
Obama is clear about the US Red Line: an Iranian bomb.
I see no evidence of this alleged “red line”. He does say that it would suck if Iran had nuclear weapons, and that there are military options, but no grounds for when those options would be employed. And what’s going to happen, if Iran crosses that line? There’s not much point to having red lines, that by their nature, mean your response is extremely limited because you gave the potential foe too much advantage.
I note in your linked story, that Obama claims he doesn’t bluff. I don’t know why any potential foe would take him seriously, especially once they have nuclear weapons.
Obama has a record of bluffing, telling people he is bluffing, and then telling people not to call his bluff. I know, it doesn’t make any sense to me either.
Obama says that an Iranian nuke is ‘unacceptable’, but in the event that the Iranians simply deny that they have one (remember, they don’t necessarily have to detonate one the moment it is built), just how do we prove that it exists? More to the point, even if we believe that Obama is genuine in his desire to prevent the Iranians from obtaining a bomb (and there are many, myself included, that do not believe this), what does he do once he finds out that they have built one? Things become far, far, far more dangerous once we have determined to take a bomb away from someone who already has one than when you are simply trying to prevent someone from getting one in the first place.
For a small country like Israel, which really only has a limited number of population centers (it is often described as ‘a three bomb country’), once the Iranians acquire a bomb (or two, or three…) it is too late. Even one bomb detonated in say, Tel Aviv, would kill a substantial proportion of the population, destroy a very significant fraction of the economy (much of it beyond reconstitution), and likely lead to the eventual end of the country. Retaliation against Iran (a far larger country, with a comparatively larger population) with any proportionality would not bring back the dead. The Israelis have direct and clear experience with the failure of deterrence, risking their very existence on its effectiveness with an enemy that has sworn to anhiliate them is simply not in the cards. Netenyahu’s argument is essentially tha Iran should not be permitted to posess a nuclear infrastructure (i.e. a bomb factory), as acquiring one would give the Iranians the ability not only to destroy Israel, but to deter (on the part of the US or any other power) effective restraints on their behavior in a broad range of scenarios. In this sense, the Iranians are close to, if not across, that Red Line, which is precisely why Obama doesn’t want to define it.
Obviously reasonable people can differ on just how close Iran is to a bomb, or just what can (or should) be done about it, but once they get there, it will be far too late to do anything about it. Already you see people like Bill Keller at the NYT (no link, sorry) editorializing that perhaps we can live with a nuclear Iran, and he is hardly the only one. Like it or not, the Democratic party has made ugly accomodations with many members of the left that are actively and openly hostile to the existence of the state of Israel. That is their right, of course, but when you ignore the danger of states like Iran (which make no attempt to hide their desire to eliminate Israel from the map), you are in fact putting yourself in the same unsavory company as Neville Chamberlin and the appeasers of the 30s who made Hitler’s rise possible. You may not find that an appealing label, but if the shoe fits….
Scott,
You said “Gaseous promises (and we all know how reliable Obama’s promises are) might be fine for minor issues, but given the gravity of the situation, something more concrete is necessary.”
Something more concrete, like, say, the bunker busters described in the following link?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/world/us-quietly-supplies-israel-with-bunker-busting-bombs.html?_r=1
I appreciate the thoughtful tone. I’d give you a longer answer, but I’m actually pretty worked up about this: http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=44453#comments (And Jim gets mentioned too.)
Bob,
There is no question that providing bunker-busters to the Israelis (they are buying them, by the way….this isn’t charity) is a positive thing, but the deal for those bunker-busters began during the Bush Administration and has been delayed by Obama for several years. That said, I believe that you are missing my point regarding Obama’s assurances to the Israelis regarding the Iranians and their nuclear program. If israel is compelled to deal with Iran, they will. What they expect from us (as a friend and an ally, as well as a fellow member of that nebulous ‘international community’ that liberals so love…grin) is a simple set of clear metrics by which Iranian behavior can be assessed as a foundation for juding policy, i.e. “Red Lines”
If Obama says ‘I support the continued existence of Israel’, that is very nice, but if that translates as an Israel that lives under the shadow of a nuclear bomb posessed by a mortal enemy, that is not so fine. An Iran with a nuclear infrastructure represents an intolerable threat to Israel, a small country that could not simply ‘absorb’ a few nukes without having its very existence imperilled. Any politician (not only Obama, but certainly his credibility in the Middle East, particularly in Israel, is not particularly good) twists words for a living, so any guarntees that the Israelis are likely to value are those with a minimum of ambiguity, and a maximum of clarity and substance. Obama, whether out of a desire to preserve maximum flexiibility or a disinclination to provide real assurances (or likely some combination of the two), has declined to offer much that is not ambiguous and almost completely lacks clarity. The Israelis don’t find this sufficient, and quite frankly, I don’t blame them.
Now this may not bother you, but there are consequences of this sort of pettifogging that should. Absent some set of clear, bright, Red Lines the Israelis may feel that they must act on their schedule, not ours, and that deferring to our feelings on how best to handle the situation is not suitable for them. If we wish the Israelis to restrain themselves and defer to our (putatively superior) wisdom in this matter, we have to be willing to address their concerns, and we have not done so. This process is referred to as ‘diplomacy’, and it has been noticeably absent from our dealings with Israel since Obama came into office.
Bottom line: unless the Israelis have some reasonable expectation that Iran will not be allowed to get not only a bomb, but the infrastructure to build bombs, it will likely take steps on its own to ensure that this doesn’t happen. That choice will not end well for any of us, even if it is wildly successful in achieving its objectives, so if we want to avoid that end state, we had best find some way to deal with their concerns.
Remember that Iran has two nuclear delivery systems:
1. Missiles (range – um, that I do not know)
2. Hezbollah (range – global)
Alan,
Their missiles have a maximum effective (as opposed to advertised) range of about 2500 km, though they are working hard to improve this. Note that they have a satellite program, so potentially they could build something with a much longer ranger, though this isn’t the case yet.
Mentioning Hezbollah is interesting. They could deliver a bomb, but they aren’t the most reliable crowd, and I wouldn’t bet that the Iranians would trust them with such a precious resource. On the other hand, the Quds boys do have similar capabilities, and they are (for obvious reasons) far more trustworthy.
Finally, while missiles are faster and have fewer uncertainties than planting the bomb, building a bomb that can handle the stress of a missile launch and atmospheric entry is challenging. A ‘plantable’ bomb is far, far easier to build, and would likely be a first step.