Monday, April 02, 2012

With Friends Like These ...

Although President Obama insists that "I have Israel's back," blogger Michael Molovinsky thinks the President might just be be sticking a knife or two in it.

Israel has been granted access to airbases in Azerbaijan, on Iran's northern border.

This is a game-changer, making it easier for Israel to launch an airstrike against Iran's looming nuclear threat, But this, along with other U.S. leaks to the media, reveal that the Obama administration is doing everything it can to stop Israel, making sure that Iran knows what we know.

51 comments:

Anonymous said...

Let em do each other in, we're fine as long as the wind is not blowing our way here in the USA, USA, USA!

Bernie O'Hare said...

Without question, a nuclear Iran is a threat to US national security. We're nuts if we do not do what we can to stop this.

Anonymous said...

Good plan, Anon 10:44.


Sheer genius, that.

I'm surprised 0-bama has not made you a Recess Appointment ...

... or has he?

COUNTING OBAMA CZARS

Bernie O'Hare said...

11:01, 10:44 was being sarcastic. Please stick to the topic - Israel.

CT said...

I'm hardly an International Relations expert, but even if a containment policy towards Iran is folly, that doesn't necessarily make a war with them wise. In the context of next month's scheduled diplomatic talks with Iran, the Azeri base deal is more useful as open knowledge than as a cocked gun under the table. Put the gun on the table and let them see it.

Anonymous said...

The way I see it ...

I was on topic commenting on the wisdom of Anon 10:44's foreign policy with respect to Iran and Israel.

How can you be so sure I was not being sarcastic, too, and am actually behind the smartest and greatest President in the history of the United States 110% as well as preparing to vote two or three times, if necessary, to help Obama get re-elected?

STILL COUNTING OBAMA CZARS

Bernie O'Hare said...

Fair points to both of you.

Anonymous said...

If we are indeed in the last days. Fear not God's people will win. Interesting there is a Barack (last name) who is millitary chief of Israel And a Barack (first name) who is the Commander in Chief of the U.S... The Barack in the Bible was mentioned as a sneaky character that the Jews of his time could not trust. Do we have a similiar set of circumstances.

Dennis Pearson
P.S. I am Cuban bound soon. I am following the steps of Pope Bendedict to Cuba

Anonymous said...

The Azerbaijanis have a keen grasp of the evil and terror that exist among the Shia, waiting to lay out Israel and everyone else to make way for the new caliphate. Obama plays golf and does March Madness brackets. We elected a rank amateur whose lofty friends are proudly antisemitic. Israel should not expect help from Obama's America. Thank God for Azerbaijan. They are friends to all who value freedom in the world.

Anonymous said...

There is an interesting unquestioned notion that Israeli interests are inter-changeable with US interests. I'm not sure I buy that. US interests are US interests and might overlap with Israeli interests, however, there are points where they might necessarily part. US interests in the region are largely economic (oil prices, investors, etc), while Israeli interests are geared toward its survival as a state. While our cooperation makes sense, what happens when US interests no longer coincide with Israeli interests.

Of course, my premise that US interests are economic can easily be challenged, but then I need to ask if the US is justified in supporting another country for religious reasons. I understand the humanitarian reasons to support statehood post-World War II and why those reasons persist to a degree today, but I need to know why there is a presumption that any critique of policies questioning Israel are in fact anti-semetic or pro-terrorist.

I know Dennis will throw his Biblical reasons, but I'm not convinced US foreign policy should be driven by the Old Testament. Nor am I convinced that folks who state that they want peace in the region and seek a common ground through negotiations are automatically anti-semetic.

Just as conservatives and liberals don't have all the answers, I'm not sure we can trust that anybody in this region necessarily has all the answers. I want to see the continued statehood of Israel. I want to see enduring peace. Why must we pin all fault/credence on one side or the other?

Anonymous said...

Moloninsky is a militant Zionist. We do have Israel's back and have since 1948 but they do not get to dictate US foreign policy. If they want a war with Iran so be it. At this point in time the idea that we can have a "Pax Americana" should have died in the rice paddies of Vietnam.

However, we still have plenty of block heads and chicken hawks willing to go to war over every issue. As long as I get my tax cuts back home.

Bring back the draft and see how fast all these armchair generals will want to send all our sons and daughters to police the world.
Want a history lesson read of the rise and fall of the British Empire. Trying to force other cultures to do as you say not as you do has never worked, never will.

And you don't need a Czar to tell you that!

Anonymous said...

"Why must we pin all fault/credence on one side or the other?"

So many quotes, so little time. So hard to know where to start ... but this is as a fine place a place as any, perhaps, to only just begin :

NEW YORK TIMES
"Wipe Israel 'Off The Map' Iranian Says"
Oct 27, 2005

"Referring to comments by AYATOLLAH RUHOLLAH KHOMEINI, the leader of the ISLAMIC REVOLUTION, (Iran's new President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad said, "As the Imam said, ISRAEL MUST BE WIPED OFF THE MAP."

Anonymous said...

You are gonna love Shariya Law, Anon 2:35.

The fundamental Islamists are working hard to bring it to you.

Stay patient.

Anonymous said...

Of course we need to "stop" Israel.

What kind of rabid nutcase wants unprovoked war to break out in the middle east again?

(I really hope the blog owner doesn't delete this post. )

Anonymous said...

Without question, a nuclear Iran is a threat to US national security. We're nuts if we do not do what we can to stop this.

Iran is no more a threat than Pakistan. Or Russia for that matter. Thinking otherwise means you buy into the simplistic propaganda the right wing wants you to buy into.

(Please don't poof this post.)

Bernie O'Hare said...

If you make personal attacks, you will be deleted. If you dance on someone's grave like Geeting, you will be deleted.

A nuclear Iran is unquestionably a threat to US National security. It has ICBMs that could reach US shores, is unstable and friendly to terrorist organizations. In addition, a nuclear Iran will mean that other countries like Saudi Arabia will have to go nuclear, creating more instability in a region that is already a powderkeg.

In the final analysis, it is for our own security that we should encourage Israel to do what it needs to do.

Incidentally, Pakistan and Russia are both very real threats. Any other view ignores reality.

Anonymous said...

Comparing Iran's Shiites with a nuke to Pakistan and Russia is beyond naive. This is what passes for foreign policy gravitas right now. God help us.

Lighthouse said...

I would hope that cooler heads prevail. We have a long history in Iran--who was actually an ally of the US before Israel was even a modern country. We even helped with their initial "peace time" nuclear technology. Things changed in 1979, and US support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, etc, etc....now adversaries.

Is a nuclear Iran an issue to be dealt with? Absolutely. The GWBush team had plans gamed out for a potential strike. But, cooler heads have thus prevailed, and our own intelligence does not back up the need to "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" (sung to the Beach Boys Barbara Ann) at this moment. The administration has been increasing the diplomatic squeeze, but those that kiss the ring of AIPAC don't want to wait because Netanyahu doesn't want to wait. US foreign policy should be US foreign policy, not anyone else's.

Giving diplomacy a chance, with the "big stick" being visible in the backdrop, is following your head instead of your cojones. A strike from Israel or Azerbaijan would be the match-on-gas for a potentially regional conflict with global energy consequences. And by regional, I mean other world powers too, not just the US throwing its weight around the middle east. Azerbaijan is a former Soviet republic and is one small state between Iran and Russia. Think Putin will just be watching, especially if Iran struck back? Couple that with the hit on the economy with oil prices. Even the national debt that seems to threaten to shut down the govt every few months--you want to add yet another war on?

In 2005 we were told Iran was "within five years" of a bomb. Here we are in 2012 and our intelligence says they are nowhere near there.

There are enough extremists in that part of the world who have a very different world view than the US, that we don't need to make matters worse in the name of "protecting us".

I like 2:35's comment: "Bring back the draft and see how fast all these armchair generals will want to send all our sons and daughters to police the world" --- sometimes you have act militarily, but now is not the time.

Lighthouse said...

and since Israel is often described as "our allY" in that region, don't forget that Turkey is our NATO ally, and they oppose a strike.

The Huntress said...

Good for you Lighthouse...AIPAC holds too much sway as a lobbying group, let's not forget the J street moderate Jewish voices that are aligned with the cooler heads in Washington. AIPAC speaks louder because they have the most CASH. The oil squeeze is on Iran, let's see how Obama's latest turn of the vice affects the negotiations.

michael molovinsky said...

@anon 2:35, nobody ever said that allies have identical interests, be it israel or britain. the issue of this post is that the obama administration sabotaged an israeli strategic initiative.

Bill said...

Letting Iran know by telegraphing these movements would make sense in order to get them to stand down.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Bill, Is Iran standing down? They are unstable. This is a terrible blunder and with one of our strongest allies and has an impact on our own national security.

Anonymous said...

Hussein Obama has his hand on the Chicken Switch.
He also doesn't want to upset his Muslim Brothers.

DDW said...

the blame for this mess goes all the way back to another accidental president - harry truman

Anonymous said...

Excerpt from the Road to 2012 by Dennis Pearson

As Proverbs Chapter 24: Verses 3-4 says: " Wisdom builds the house, good judgment makes it secure, knowledge furnished the rooms with all the precious and pleasant things that wealth can buy..." In light of the emerging but troubled European Community Trading Block, which may exclude the United States, NAFTA is an attempt by the United States to build a bridge with its North American neighbors. A Bridge that some say ought to include South American nations as well... An economic Manifest Destiny so to speak... With APEC, the Americas may well build a bridge across the Pacific Ocean to link the Americas with Asia... With GATT, APEC would build a bridge to the European Community... “

The President upon reading the statement shook is head in a way his handlers knew expressed concern. Obama said to Joe Biden: “He knew this in 2003 when he had no portfolio in government to learn this…. Woe we got to box this guy in. If this was a basketball game I would play the old Box and 1 zone against him.”

As it occurred the rest of the debates were canceled as well as the election of 2012.

Strange as it may seem, many Americans including Kennethsson had mysteriously disappeared, as did many citizens of the world. A confused and beleaguered Obama said this was some sort of mystery, tribulation or act of God he could not understand.

As this story was written the Armies of the world that include European Union troops sent by European Union President Tony Blair are headed toward a place in the Middle East with the intent of confronting an individual who is said to have descended to the Earth from the clouds. Obama spoke in his initial campaign for President about change we can believe in. However, the change that the person who descends from the sky with a great host of believers will bring to the world changes that we can believe in.

Barack Obama, who arrived on the world political scene with great popularity, can only be troubled by the new development. Some say that his drive to become Emperor of the United States and perhaps the world has been stymied by this new development. He must make a critical decision in regard to committing U.S. troops. Will he ally himself with the armies of the world as authorized by the United Nations Security Council resolution? Or will he be on the side of the Kingdom of God, which is coming down to Earth through this man who is descending to earth from a cloud? …. As it was stated in Isaiah 24:21-22 ... "... it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.
Barack, the orator , now needs to make a decision. On who's side will he stand. He can't count on the host to free him from this judgment like the multitude freed Barabass from the cross in his day ... Will he stand up for Jesus a man born without Adam's sin , died without Adam's sin, and in doing so gave us all the opportunity to receive forgiveness of our sin trough his grace ... Or will he stand up for the Anti-Christ ...

Observers at the scene are somewhat confounded at what is happening … some reports suggest the mysterious reappearance of Obama’s Presidential Opponent Dennis Kennethsson in the ranks of the forces supporting the One who descended from the clouds … What is for certain, these same observers say that something climatic is about to occur in the Valley of Armageddon. The government of man has proven itself to be utterly corrupt ... And it has failed as predicted ... No superman arrived on the scene to solve all the world's problems nor bring the world peace...

Dennis Pearson

Anonymous said...

There's a big difference between friends and allies. Israel is no friend. It is an ally.

And Turkey will always publicly oppose Israel. Privately, they likely can't wait for Iran to be knocked back. They hate the mullahs as much as Israel does.

Anonymous said...

I am putting all my trust in the Muslim Brotherhood.

And Obama, who is sending them so much foreign aid (read, US taxpayer money).

Together, they will do the right thing.

Don't worry, be happy.

Anonymous said...

"let's see how Obama's latest turn of the vice" blah blah blah

yeah, just like the last one ...

... and the one before that ...

... and and and

I am betting on the Fundamentalists and their boys in the Muslim Brotherhood.

Anonymous said...

"Israel is no friend"

THAT probably goes without saying, just from reading the overwhelming majority of comments here ...

ALLAHU AKBAR

Anonymous said...

What everyone seems to be missing here is that Iran is run by a madman. Soon this madman will have a nuclear weapon. Who doubts the madman will use it? I'm not one to bet on the predictability of madmen.

Scott Armstrong

Craig Updegrove said...

Obama and I hope the rest of us, don't want to be dragged into another war. If Israel does attack, that is a big game changer. Israel for decades have played the poor loner for the longest time in this region. But because of the US-backed military, the tables are turned.

Did we attack Russia when they created their nuclear capabilities? Where do you think Iran is getting this technology from? Them! I think that we need to push restraint on Israel while putting our boot on Iran's throat.

If war broke loose, we'd be soon paying $10 a gallon. That whole region would destabilize.

Also, I am not on board with us backing Israel vs. Palestine. They fought for the land. They divided the land, but now Israel is taking it back. I see Palestinians as an animal in a cage. You poke them too much, they will fight back.

Because our strong alliance with Israel, we are backing them with everything they do, which is not necessarily the best interest for us!

Anonymous said...

There goes another one comparing the Russians to the mullahs.

Bill Coker said...

9:27 PM

North Korea is run by the apparently mad young son of a mad man and they HAVE nuclear weapons and rockets to deliver. What do we do there?

Anonymous said...

the only jews nobama cares about are the rich ones who donate to his socialist cause

Anonymous said...

It has ICBMs that could reach US shores

Not, it does not. Please stop with the misinformation. IT's this kind of grandstanding that got us into Iraq.

Anonymous said...

Comparing Iran's Shiites with a nuke to Pakistan and Russia is beyond naive. This is what passes for foreign policy gravitas right now. God help us.

Because Iran is willing to be completely eradicated from the earth? I think not. More grandstanding.

Anonymous said...

@anon 2:35, nobody ever said that allies have identical interests, be it israel or britain. the issue of this post is that the obama administration sabotaged an israeli strategic initiative.

Israel has no initiative without US consent. It is beyond naive to think that Israeli actions can be executed unilaterally.

Anonymous said...

North Korea is run by the apparently mad young son of a mad man and they HAVE nuclear weapons and rockets to deliver. What do we do there?


Nothing. No oil there.

michael molovinsky said...

@anon 10:05, i congratulate you on your lack of ego, I'd hate to know so much, yet comment anonymously. IMHO, Israel by policy is always prepared to act unilaterally. that's not say it doesn't prefer assistance.

Anonymous said...

My anonymity has nothing to do with anything.

Of course Israel is "prepared" to act unilaterally however any sentient human beings know that action by Israel is action by the US by proxy.

Blind loyalty to rught-wing Israelis in an election year is a naive position. It is a position many have however.

michael molovinsky said...

@10:27, israeli action in recent years with hamas in gaza and hezbollah in lebanon have nothing to do with united states

Bernie O'Hare said...

10:02, I certainly agree there should be no misinformation. If you check out ISSS, you'll see Iran could be ready now. It does depend on what kind of help it is getting. And there are news accounts like this one.

But if you think about, all Iran needs is an old scud and a fishing boat. It could launch a missile strike at the US right now. This is not misinformation. This is reality.

By the way, I never bought into the WMDs. But I do consider Iran a threat.

Lighthouse said...

From your ISSS link:

“Logic and the history of Iran’s evolutionary missile and space-launcher development efforts suggest that Tehran would develop and field an intermediate-range missile before embarking on a programme to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the American East Coast, 9,000km away. It is thus reasonable to conclude that a notional Iranian ICBM, based on Nodong and Scud technologies, is more than a decade away from development.”


From your other link:

“The missile claim came as the former US defence secretary Robert Gates... warned about the dangers of a war with Iran, telling CNN that ''if Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us anything in recent history, it is the unpredictability of war and that these things are easier to get into than to get out of''.”

michael molovinsky said...

although @10:27 is totally wrong about israel being a proxy warrior for united states, hamas and hezbollah are in fact armed by iran (and syria). although lighthouse has raised the notion that united states should not be drawn into attacking iran for israel's sake, that was not the topic of my post, or this subsequent post by bernie. again, the blog premise was that united states was actively sabotaging israel in developing their options against iran.

Anonymous said...

"Iran could launch a missile attack on the US right now."

O'Hare, I know you are caught up in the Republican hyperbole of an election year but really!

Iran or Persia is a modern nation. It may have a few whack jobs in its Ayatollahs but overall it does not wish to commit national suicide. While I agree that it would not assist terrorists, so would a hundred other nations, so lets start the draft now. The point of state sponsored terrorism is to claim you aren't involved.

If Iran wanted to launch an ICBM against the US it would be game over and despite the Ayatollahs desire for 72 virgins the military wouldn't do it and stage a coup. They are living large in a shit-hole part of the world. You think everybody over there is a zealot? That is the same as saying everyone here is an Obama man because he is in charge.

If Iran launches on Israel it got one shot at best, Tel Aviv. That would also assure the decimation of Iran and probably Syria. The Israelis would have a green light to launch on any and all enemies and probably would. Despite the unrest in Syria, you think they want to be martyrs for Iran.

Anything is possible but you guys are just going nuts over this because of irresponsible Presidential politics. Also the Israeli Prime Minister is being denounced in Israel by the Israeli Knesset for trying to warmonger.

So the Israelis can tell him he's nuts but I as an American can't.

Sorry, we have and will continue to keep Israel on the map for over fifty years but no more needless political wars. One was more than enough.

Bernie O'Hare said...

I disagree. Iran is more than capable of launching a strike and could easily orchestrate one thru a terrorist organization. There is been ample evidence of it doing just that. I also think it is unstable, as evidenced by its brutal repression of its own populace.

But the main point of my post is Obama's betrayal. Not only has he leaked information in a way that hurts Israel, he has allowed Iran to know what we know. That is very foolish, and this observation has nothing to do with Fox news or ideology. It has everything to do with US national security.

Anonymous said...

If you honestly think that going to war with Iran today is protecting the National Security, I am damn glad you or the other Republohawks aren't in command. By November if Mitttens Romney is still playing this violin, Obama wins even with a bad economy.

We were told Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction", we were told, "do we want to wait for the mushroom cloud", we were told "don't worry about going to war and a tax cut the oil we take from Iraq will more than make up for the cost".

So where is the oil? We will all have flying cars before we see one benefit from that war. It was a political war for political reasons. I don't doubt the concerns of the Israelis but it doesn't always coincide with the US.

You must think the rest of the world lives in a vacuum like the other Republohawks if you think anything Obama said"tipped anyone off". All these countries share intelligence.

Hell, the Europeans depend on Iranian oil and will feed them all the Intelligence they want. They are in more immediate danger, yet somehow they aren't clamoring for war.

Enough with the nonsense bullshit political war powers act, wars.

Bring back the draft and demand a declaration of war before armed conflict, then lets see how much war we want.

Get a grip people. Leave the Zionist propaganda to the Zionists, even other Israelis disagree with their own Prime Minister.

Bernie you have to stop suckling on the Dent position paper tit.

Lighthouse said...

Jerusalem Post provides fodder for both sides of this:

"A possible military confrontation with Iran may be postponed until 2013, senior defense officials said in recent weeks amid growing signs that the West’s economic crackdown on Iran is bearing fruit."
...

"Intelligence officials in Israel and the US have voiced confidence that they would know if Iran decides to move to the stage of manufacturing a nuclear weapon. Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan recently said that if Iran was, for example, to begin enriching uranium to 90-percent levels and was not stopped, then Israel would need to use military force to stop it."
...

"Israel, led by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, argues that – due to Iran’s move into a so-called immunity zone, or point when its facilities will be fortified and protected – an Israeli strike might not be viable for much longer, and therefore one might be needed even before high-grade enrichment begins."

Anonymous said...

During World War 2, the Muslims in the Middle East wanted to become an allie of Nazi Germany...Hitler wanted no part of this. Even he didn't trust them.

Anonymous said...

Muslims and Nazis, "Oh My!"