It’s not surprising that the Obama administration is trying to talk Israel out of attacking Iran. The administration — and the top brass — are worried about the possible consequences of Israeli strikes. The Iranians are almost certainly bluffing when they threaten to attack American targets in retaliation for an Israeli strike: They would have nothing to gain and a lot to lose. But concerns about a potentially serious disruption in the oil supply through the Persian Gulf, which could draw the U.S. Navy into action against Iranian forces along the Persian Gulf, are more well-founded.
What is inexplicable is why the Obama administration is going public with the pressure it’s putting on Israel. Sanctions are a powerful vise, and they are having an effect, but they are far more likely to result in an internal regime change (eventually) than in this regime abandoning its nuclear-weapons program. The only thing that is going to stop the Iranians is the fear of a military attack. The U.S. should be helping the Israelis deter Iran’s further nuclear advance by helping them to scare the Iranians into thinking that an attack is coming. Instead, the Obama administration is doing everything possible to telegraph to Iran that we’re terrified of a conflict and are doing everything to prevent it. That’s exactly the same as inviting the Iranians to continue their pursuit of nuclear weapons. If there is an explanation for this, other than incompetence, I would love to know it.
— Mario Loyola is former counsel for foreign and defense policy to the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee.
Obama is today twisting Israeli arms to not do what must be done. He is saving war on Iran for his reelection.
Obama will then present himself as The One who killed Osama, ended the unpopular wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, and took down the Ayatollahs. MSM/Pravda media will portray Obama as tougher than Patton, the man who saved Israel and the new age Abe Lincoln.
Our cancerous DEBT, Big Brother ObamaCare, our self-defeating energy non-policy and the millions without jobs will be spoken of only by Tea Party defeatists too dumb to bow before our Dear Leader.
Cynical is being taken to a new level by Mr. Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"other than incompetence, "
Nope, you nailed it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course Loyola neglects to mention the most obvious answer, that the extreme Israeli Netanyahu led government are to blame for their unwillingness to work with the Obama administration. But that would go against conservative orthodoxy of today where Israel can do no wrong.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"their unwillingness to work with the Obama administration."
Yeah, stupid, extreme Israel just won't lay down and die. They must be racist and islamophobic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePanilnpresume, the only one unwilling to do something is Obama, not any other. The truth is that Israel do not have to help this US administration, particularly when it's president (Obama) is trying to gain time and postpone everything after the elections. He's so afraid of committing any mistake, and he knows he is most than qualified doing this that he prefers to freeze everything till elections. But, there's a light at the end of the tunnel, the fact that Israelis are so used to work on emergency attacks, and give no previous information about, so they do not depend on any US gov't, particularly the Democrat ones.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat would go against tradition is for you to say something accurate about Israel, or Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh, you mean the democratically elected extreme Netanyahu government? The one in power due to that electoral majority thing?
So you're saying the problem is the extreme Israeli electorate?
Well, that's a lot clearer. Why not just say what you mean: it's those pesky Jews that are the problem, refusing to risk their national and personal survival for the American Maximum Leader's pleasure.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is not clear that the threat of an attack will deter Iran. The country itself is not in danger from Israel, only some of its nuclear research facilities. Many of them may be underground and safe from attack. Ahmadinejad and Iran may in fact benefit from an attack if it deters sanctions and rallies Iranians and the Muslim world around the Iranian government.
The main beneficiary of an Israeli attack would seem to be Netanyahu. Starting miscellaneous wars is a great way to get re-elected. Just ask George Bush.
To answer your question, if Obama is going public with the pressure it is a sign that the private pressure is not working. That doesn't reflect well on Netanyahu.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"inexplicable"?
No, not really with this Administration for whom 'the fault isn't in the stars but in the self ...',
to borrow a thought.
Between Valarie Jarrett's childhood in Iran and The President's childhood in Indonesia, we've a White House brain trust that brings immature cultural views to security policy based on flawed rememberences of things past. They're both apologists for things they don't understand but have brushed against when their "hearts were young and gay'.
They are like the 60 yr. old American, that lived in Berlin or Paris in 1968, they can't get Axel Springer or cobblestones off tthe mind.
Only now, it's mired in an anti-Zion, pro Arabist world viscera, that would make John Glubb agitate for more. Imagine Mr. Obama and Ms. Jarrett dancing around a campfire wearing a Shia Keffiyeh and you get the image and the theory of the case since inauguration day.
These two, the President and his advisor Jarrett are Islamo- Irancentric & for them, the die is cast.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"unwillingness to work with the Obama administration"
To do what, exactly? Could you please name the two or three things that Israel is not doing to help Obama keep the bomb out of Iran's hand?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo DrPalin,
You are a bonafide idiot.
To the author:
"If there is an explanation for this, other than incompetence, I would love to know it."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe explanation is "betrayal." Obama and his administration are competently pursuing THEIR goals and priorities - it's just that, unfortunate for US citizens, Obama's goals and priorities are not those that prosper and protect US citizens.
@L K S: Implicit in your post is a resentment over your "lost" homeland. Guess what, you are never going to get it back--this started with the civil rights movement and will not be over until your crowd is out. This is the new America. Get over it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSimple explanation: Obama wants Iran to become nuclear and destroy Israel. Plus it will expedite the fundamental change of America into third world country, as Obama promised.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum hit the mark when he said Obama has a different “theology.” Obama sat in the Rev. Wright’s church for over 20 years. Obama’s actions indicate that he not only heard the Rev. Wright’s anti-Semitic, racist, black liberation theology, but that he took it to heart and firmly shares Rev. Wrights views and beliefs. Obama has shown again and again that he is anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. Obama touted his experiences in a Muslim country as a youth in speeches to Muslim nations in the Middle East.
Obama’s actions speak volumes. His actions indicate that he just flat doesn’t seem to like Jews (except when they donate to his campaign) or Israel and would not mind if the Iranians wiped Israel from the face of the earth. From demanding Israel return to the 67 borders; to letting Palestinians terrorize Israeli’s with impunity; to now trying to get Israel to not take any action to keep Iran from annihilating the Jewish state it is clear Obama isn’t a supporter of Israel.
There is a large dose of incompetence in Obama’s handling of Israel and Iran, but there is an underlying anti-Semitism which also seems to guide his actions. Israel has a reason to fear for its survival—for Obama has and will continue to hang them out to dry. Harsh—you bet, but based upon Obama’s actions it appears to be the case.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama is obviously supporting the Iranian theocracy in every way that he possibly can. He will probably call for punishment of the Israelis even if they do act against the Iranian nuke program.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis administration has a well-established diplomatic record of doing certain things in public while keeping other things well-under the radar. And many of the later have played out well, from hostage rescues to off-ing terrorist leaders. Hyper-partisans such as Loyola will never acknowledge this.
One possibility for a public attempt to restrain Israel is precisely to scare the Iranians by playing the old, "See, even I can't stop my crazy friend here who's hellbent on military action". The Iranians can safely bet the U.S. isn't going to strike unilaterally; but only an Iranian fool would assume the same of Israel. Seeing the U.S. publicly rebuked on this (whether or not it's diplomatic theater) should make the Iranians squirm in their seats a bit.
On the other hand, a purely domestic political scenario to consider is Obama knows that, unlike the Neocon-Right, the overwhelming majority of Americans don't want war with Iran and don't believe they pose an existential threat.
If Israel starts a conflict and gets into trouble, we're obliged to help. Therefore Obama can't be seen as encouraging this or simply looking the other way. He has to at least make a show of trying to prevent it - even if under the hood he's giving Israel the nod.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was, like the author, a little perplexed at the announcement, it does seem to diminish the pressure. You've given a rationale, but then how does it play out after an Israeli strike? Are you suggesting that the White House welcomes an attack but wants deniabilty? How then does it "support" Isreal in the aftermath?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe simple reason is infact Obama sides with his buddies, Iran. just the same way he sides with Hugo Chavez, Castro, Mexico vs. Arizona, environmentalists vs. Oil companies, etc, etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If there is an explanation for this, other than incompetence, I would love to know it."
a -- treachery
b -- arrogance
c -- stupidity
d -- all of the above
I pick "d".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, I think it makes sense. It provides a deniability cover in anticipation of a very, very likely Israeli strike; and very probably will have almost zero effect (one way or the other) on the Iranian regime's calculations. So there might be some marginal good with almost no downside.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse