I’m one of those people who believes very powerful sanctions are needed against Iran lest it gain control of a nuclear arsenal. They already have serious delivery systems, have sponsored proxy armies in Hizbullah and Hamas, and have voiced aggressive intentions against Israel. If sanctions are not brought about soon and as severe as possible, Israel may have to bomb Iran and face some harsh consequences. Iran may be distant, but it has 10 times the population of Israel, can develop sophisticated arms capabilities, is still ahead of Israel in the missile vs. anti-missile contest, controls two dangerous proxy armies that sit on Israel’s borders, and has shown in the past that it will execute terrorist activities against large Jewish targets in other countries as they did in Argentina.
The consequences of an attack have consistently left me apprehensive about the great risk involved for Israel. With Obama coming to power in the US, the notion of an attack became remote because he was clear that he intended to talk the Iranians down. The events of the past two weeks, with the probable theft of the election by the present Iranian government as backed by the imams and the mini-revolt that has followed, change the dynamic regarding the US.
First of all, Obama looks weak, indecisive and unsupportive of natural democratic rights of Iranian citizens. Second, as the current government proceeds to squash opponents and eventually to retain power, his assertions about talking to them being a sufficient method of achieving a compromise on the nuclear arms program appears weaker and weaker as a strategy. If anything, it preempts any such talks because it makes clear that there is nobody with whom to talk.
This, in some strange way, re-opens the door for a possible Israeli attack. After all, it will be hard to contest the Israeli claim that the current government is dangerous and cannot be approached diplomatically. Still, the dangers are so great that I cannot imagine such an attack and the implications for Israel. I cannot imagine any Israeli leader actually approving such an attack since it would surely be a suicide mission for many of Israel’s pilots.
To make the situation even more complicated, I saw an article in MEForum that truly captures the dangerous intentions emanating from Iran. The article effectively highlights how the language coming from Iran’s leadership over time addresses Israel from a genocidal perspective. Looking at this list, one can only imagine how the world viewed Hitler as somebody who could be talked down even as he was outlining precisely what he intended to do.
Timeline of Statements by Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders (2000-2008)
Dec. 15, 2000 Khamane’i
Iran’s position, first expressed by the imam, and stated several times by those responsible, is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the regionJan. 15, 2001 Khamane’i
“the perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region” translated by journalist Kasra Naji: “mission of IRI is to erase Israel from the map of the region.”Dec. 14, 2001 Rafsanjani
“If one day … the Islamic world will be equipped with weapons available to Israel now … the employment of even one atomic bomb inside Israel will wipe it off the face of the earth but would only do damage to the Islamic world.”Sept. 22, 2003 Banner on Shihab 3 missile (photo)
“Israel must be uprooted and wiped from history.”Oct. 2005 Iranian regime
Iranian publishers display English edition of Protocols of Zion at a Frankfurt book fairApr. 2005 Ayatollah Nouri-Hamedani
“One should fight the Jews and vanquish them so that the conditions for the advent of the Hidden Imam will be met.”Oct. 26, 2005 Ahmadinejad
“Our dear Imam [Khomeini] ordered that this Jerusalem occupying regime must be erased from the page of time. This was a very wise statement.” “Soon this stain of disgrace will be cleaned from the garment of the world of Islam, and this is attainable.”Oct. 27, 2005 Ahmadinejad
“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.” Any Islamic leader “who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world.”Oct. 30, 2005 Hossein Shariatmadari
“We will be satisfied with nothing less than the complete obliteration of the Zionist regime from the political map of the world.”Apr. 14, 2006 Ahmadinejad
“Israel heading towards annihilation.” “a dried, rotten tree that will collapse with a single storm.”June 9, 2006 Mohammad Ali Ramin
“Among the Jews, there have always been those who killed God’s prophets. … it was said that they were the source for such deadly diseases as the plague and typhus. This is because the Jews are very filthy people. For a time, people also said that they poisoned water wells belonging to the Christians and thus killed them.”Oct. 22, 2006 Resalat (Tehran)
“Great war is ahead of us, perhaps tomorrow, or in a few months, or even a few years. The nation of Muslims must prepare for the great war, so as to completely wipe out the Zionist dream, and remove this cancerous growth.”Nov. 2006 Banner on bus at military rally
“Israel should be wiped off the face of the world!”Dec. 2006 Ahmadinejad
“the Zionist regime will be wiped out, and humanity will be liberated” — freed, that is, from the “acquisitive and invasive” minority.Sept. 2007 Ahmadinejad
“brutal Zionists”
“Zionist regime”
“Palestine and Iraq will be liberated from the domination of the occupiers, and the people of America and Europe will be free of the pressure exerted by the Zionists.”Oct. 4, 2007 Shariatmadari
“Death to America and death to Israel are not only words written on paper, but … a symbolic approach that reflects the desire of all the Muslim nations.”Feb. 5, 2008 Ahmadinejad
“A people falsified, invented. [Israel] will not last, they must leave the territory.”Feb. 12, 2008 Ahmad Jannati
“[We have] bigger crowds, slogans more enthusiastic, ‘Islamic Republic of Iran’ regime getting better and better.”
“The blind enemies should see that the wish of these people is the death and destruction of America and Israel.”Feb. 18, 2008 Mohammad Ali Jaafari
“In the near future, we will witness the destruction of the cancerous microbe Israel by the strong and capable hands of … Hezbollah.”Feb. 18, 2008 Manoucher Mottaki
“even after 60 years, the Zionist regime has neither gained any legitimacy nor played any role in this region.”Feb. 23, 2008 Yahya Rahim Safavi
“with God’s help, the time has come for the Zionist’s regime death sentence. … the death of this unclean regime will arrive soon following the revolt of the Muslims.”Feb. 23, 2008 Haddad Adel
“The countdown has begun for the destruction of the Zionist regime.”Feb. 20, 2008 Ahmadinejad
“they [the global powers] have created a black and filthy microbe called the Zionist regime.”Mar. 14, 2008 Ahmadinejad
“the Zionist regime is on its way out [destructible].”Apr. 17, 2008 Ahmadinejad
“The region and the world are prepared for great changes and for being cleansed of Satanic enemies” [referring to the Great Satan (USA) and Little Satan (Israel)]May 13, 2008 Ahmadinejad
“global arrogance established the Zionist regime.” “[which is] a stinking corpse”May 13, 2008 Mohammad-Reza Khabbaz, member of the central committee of National Trust reformist party
“Creation of Israel only served the purpose of creating a cancerous tumor in the body of Islamic society.”June 13, 2008 Ahmadinejad
“terrorist and criminal state … backed by foreign powers … regime to be swept away by Palestinians.”June 14, 2008 Ahmadinejad
“Israel’s days are numbered … peoples of region know there is the narrowest opportunity to annihilate this false regime.”July 2, 2008 Ahmadinejad
“Thanks to God, your wish will soon be realized, and this germ of corruption will be wiped off the face of the world.”July 24, 2008 Esfandiar Rahim Masha’i
“Israel is a cancerous tumor.”
“Israel will soon disappear.”Sept. 23, 2008 Ahmadinejad
“The Zionists are the eternal enemy of ‘the dignity, integrity, and rights of the American and European people.”“Although they are few in number, the Zionists have been dominating an important portion of the financial and monetary centers as well as the political decision-making centers of some European countries and the United States in a deceitful, complex and furtive manner.”
“Even some presidential or premier nominees in some big countries have to visit these people, take part in their gatherings, swear allegiance and commitment to their interests in order to attain financial or media support.”
Even “the great people of America and various nations of Europe” are caught in the clutches of Jewish power.
They “need to obey the demands and wishes of a small number of acquisitive and invasive people. These nations are spending their dignity and resources on the crimes and occupations and the threats of the Zionist network against their will.”
“Today … the Zionist regime is on a definite slope to collapse. There is no way for it to get out of the cesspool created by itself and its supporters.”
Sept. 25, 2008 Ahmadinejad
“Zionism … is the root cause of insecurity and wars. … What commitment forces the U.S. government to victimize itself in support of a regime that is basically a criminal one?”Nov. 26, 2008 Ahmadinejad
“Iran will support Hamas until the destruction of Israel.”Dec. 25, 2008 Ahmadinejad
“If Christ was on Earth today, undoubtedly he would hoist the banner of justice and love for humanity to oppose warmongers, occupiers, terrorists, and bullies the world over.” [Iran hangs nine individuals before 12/24/08 bringing the yearly total to 244.]Dec. 30, 2008 Ahmadinejad
“the real Holocaust is now taking place in Gaza Strip and Palestine.”Source: Genocide Prevention Now World Situation Room of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem, and Genocide Prevention Program of the Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine. Published with the permission of Genocide Prevention Now website. An expanded version of this paper and timeline will be posted on the Genocide Prevention Now website.
This is a complex situation, but one that nobody should take lightly.
Aaron, thanks for reminding me why it was wise to cancel my Harper’s subscription after many, many years.
The Left’s disappointment with Barack is that they actually think the guy can change the world, as does he. And maybe he can, but ironically it won’t be with the vision the Left has of how he can change the world. But on the economy, it has become obvious that the Administration has either not done enough or that at least some of what it has done is not working. Paul Krugman wrote an editorial yesterday warning that if Obama doesn’t get his team to take some new drastic steps, the economy is in for a very severe period from which it will be quite difficult to extricate ourselves.
Ken Silverstein published a biting and critical article of Obama in the latest issue of Harper’s. Here’s the link. Give it a read if you got time. Here’s the synopsis.
http://is.gd/1m9k3
The gist? That Obama, like Herbert Hoover, took office with high expectations a certain amount of political naivete. His ‘community organizer’ experience causes him to hesitate to make enemies and cause disagreements with anyone. Obama lacks clear policy vision, and moving without concrete direction is going to bring any type of recovery or resolution to a deafening halt. He’s too much of a nice guy, and leaders – like FDR, who was mentioned extensively as a cunning politician whose New Deal were simply HOOVER’S ideas expanded – leaders, especially Presidents, need to know how to show muscle.
The article bears a certain level of truth. Our President isn’t sure which card to play on Iran, and we’re watching him Check when it’s his turn to raise. The emptiness of his rhetoric was revealed during the election protests. When he finally did make a statement in favor of Mousavi, I wonder: who was it for? The Iranian students, or friends and foes in Washington?
We’ve gotten used to US as the world’s policeman. Clearly, lines were stepped over during the Bush years, but I’m apprehensive about Obama’s decision making skills, or lack thereof, as his time continues. What’s it going to take for this guy to show some fucking guts?
This is Shmuel: “With Obama coming to power in the US, the notion of an attack became remote because he was clear that he intended to talk the Iranians down.†That’s a hell of an assertion. Intending to “talk (them) down†is demonstrative of arrogance, naivety and a non-understanding of the mentality of the Middle East.”
Yes Shuel, you are exactly right, and this is Obama’s problem, and why he’s gonna mess things up really bad.
Shmuel: “And did the notion of an Israeli attack become remote because of his intentions to engage the Iranians in dialog (something he’ll probably do after the rebel youth are all quelled).”
What’s your point?
First Shmuel says:
“Or just stay anonymous and you don’t have to be a man.”
Then he proceeds:
“Nice reduction of everything to a contest.”
😆
And I stand by mine. Nice reduction of everything to a contest. Again – projecting unfounded assumptions of motivation. It’d be nice to see links to all the times you admitted you may have been mistaken, as well.
Coming from a commenter who would like to challenge items like Rahm Emanuel’s support of Israel, or who believes the President is suffering when in fact it is support for Israel that has dropped from 69% to 49% in a recent survey of Americans, or who believes that Iran policy is as consequential for Obama as, say, health care, the budget, the economy or Guantanamo or who believes that his own anonymity is kosher while mine is not or who believes that a penis-size competition is in place here, I think your criticism in general is flattering.
I stand by the post as written. Your comments have missed the mark entirely and my assumptions are on target.
If you can take that as flattery … Lucy in the sky with diamonds.
😆
Shmuel, you’re a hoot.
But thanks for the flattery. Krauthammer. Will. Very nice.
Really? Ram Emmanuel is a supporter of Israel?
No consequences? What’s your time table? Losing the next election will be quite the consequence. Losing the house or senate will be quite the consequence. Losing an invaluable ally and one of the few countries engaged in the War on Terror would be a consequence. War in the middle east will be quite the consequence. Being walked all over by foreign leaders who think you’re weak will be quite the consequence.
NPR and MSNBC: It’s not the site they love. It’s the disdain. Here’s an idea – if you’re gonna put it all out there and give us your opinions like Krauthamer, Will, Cohen, and ALL the others – put on a sack, write your name instead of the silly term you use that seems an attempt to lend legitimacy to your claims and at the end of your pieces write your credentials in smaller font and italics. Or just stay anonymous and you don’t have to be a man.
But he hasn’t threatened Israel directly or indirectly. He doesn’t need to. All he has to do is voice displeasure and the message is clear.
Like I said, that’s a threat.
How is Rahm Emmanuel a supporter of Israel? It’s lost on me. If he’s a supporter, Israel doesn’t need enemies.
“Except when it comes to Israel.” Just as you said.
And you know why, Ephraim?
Because the US has as much leverage over the US as it needs and the Israelis know it and the Americans know it.
And the interesting part of this is that it puts Walt & Mearsheimer’s thesis in the trash where we’ve said it belongs all along. It appears that a leading US politician can do whatever he likes to Israel and will suffer no harm of any sort.
But he hasn’t threatened Israel directly or indirectly. He doesn’t need to. All he has to do is voice displeasure and the message is clear. In fact, on the day he begins to threaten, his leverage will diminish because then Israel can do a cost analysis and determine whether they should be afraid or not.
As for Rahm Emanuel, the issue with him is that by putting a supporter of Israel at the head of this discussion, he’s indicating that everybody is on board and there’s no way for the Israelis to get around this obstacle.
And Shmuel, NPR and MSNBC are clamoring for my services. They love anonymous bloggers on Jewish sites…
No threats? What do you call this:
“He is going to talk to everybody and everybody will understand what is in their interest and do as expected…’speak softly and carry a big stick.'”
I don’t know where you come from, but from where I come from, that’s a threat. It’s just an implied threat, not a naked one, that’s all. All you are really saying is that Obama is being subtle rather than obvious and that, like a good boss, he’s having his goons like Rahm “Kapo di Tutti Kappi” Eammanuel do his threatening for him. I mean, Obama’s from Chicago after all. This is how things are done. Make ’em an offer they can’t refuse, right?
But anyway, upon what do you base your assumption that Obama has a stick and is willing to use it, Middle? Everything I have seen and heard indicates precisely the opposite.
Except when it comes to Israel, of course.
We have to respect the great Islamic republic of Iran and bow to the Guardian of the two Shrines, but by G-d, when those damn kikes get out of line, we’ll show ’em who’s boss, by G-d we will.
You’ve made a few big assumptions here:
1. Obama will allow his papers to be released.
2. Obama will consider using his stick.
3. My tone is contentious. It’s critical, not to be mistaken with the former. That’s a common error. If you grow tiresome of critical comments then perhaps you’d be better off on NPR or MSNBC, where your cowboy comments would be accepted with glee.
Shmuel, your supercilious tone is tiresome, not to mention silly.
My assumptions about “Israel’s actions or lack thereof …due to Obama’s intent to ‘talk (them) down’†are perfectly legitimate. They are not superficial in any way and I would in fact be willing to bet money that my assumptions are correct.
I wrote, and then explained further in my comments to you, that Israel was responding to Obama’s wishes. I wasn’t specific as to why, and purposely did not mention the tactics used by Obama to press Israel. That was an absolutely legitimate claim to make in a post. It was relatively neutral and provably accurate in the results.
However, if you want more depth, I’m happy to oblige.
I’m not sure that he threatened Israel at all, which is why I didn’t write that he did. He had his lieutenants go out there and inform Israel publicly that it should not attack Iran. No threats were made. When Rahm Emanuel did it, for example, he stated that resolving the Iran issue ran through the settlements. That is not a threat, but it indicates a shift in policy and approach to the Middle East.
Then Obama met with Bibi. We don’t know what was said, but body language does not indicate that Netantyahu walked away crushed or fearful or angry or anything but smiling. At the end of the meeting, we had Obama tell the world that he expected some major change by the end of the year with Iran and Bibi telling the world that he had a good meeting with Obama, that they agree about many things and that diplomacy would be the approach to Iran by the Americans and he was fine with that.
Subsequently, you had commentators with contacts in the Israeli government comment that Israel wasn’t planning to attack Iran and the Israeli FM stating publicly that Israel wasn’t planning to attack.
That’s what we know. That is all provable.
At this point, I may guess anything further that makes sense even if you believe it’s superficial until Obama opens his presidential library and we get access to all his papers. In the meantime, we have to rely on assumptions based on what we do know.
My belief is that Obama did NOT threaten Bibi in any way. Obama didn’t need to. Obama merely reiterated his belief to Bibi that diplomacy as conducted by a US gov’t with his new approach to the Middle East would have a different result with the Iranians than the previous Administration’s efforts with their cowboy approach. He told Bibi that he recognized that Israel felt threatened and that if he was unable to earn the confidence of the Iranians and “talk them down” in time, then Israel could re-open the discussion about attacking Iran.
In part, my conclusion stems from an interview with Obama on NPR where he was asked many questions about how the US would respond if Israel didn’t stop settlement construction. He responded that he hoped the Israelis would come to the right conclusions on their own and that he had not yet “said what I would do” if they didn’t meet his demands. In other words, even as he met with Netanyahu, there were no threats made about the settlements. Since the settlements had been linked to Iran by Emanuel, it makes sense that no threats were made about Iran either. Anyway, that’s not Obama’s approach. He is going to talk to everybody and everybody will understand what is in their interest and do as expected…”speak softly and carry a big stick.”
My criticism has nothing to do with support for Obama but stems from the assumption that Israel’s actions or lack thereof are due to Obama’s intent to “talk (them) down”. Likewise, “one must conclude that he was prevailing upon Netanyahu that he could talk the Iranians into giving up their plans – a naive belief.” Agreed that the belief is naive but one musn’t necessarily come to that conclusion. Bibi held off on attacking Iran, yes. That we “must” come to the conclusion that we understand why he did so simply because of Obama’s naive stance is dangerous – the entire game of conclusions, especially with something so complex as foreign relations, is dangerous when it is seen superficially. All we know is that Obama used his pressure with Bibi. We don’t know what was said behind closed doors – though we can speculate that withholding weapons sales, withholding vetos and other sanctions may have been threatened.
Supporters of the President in deed do not take criticism of him lightly. I hope that you might take some time in the future before jumping to the conclusion that a discussion is reaction to criticsm of Obama, no matter how deserving of it he is.
Well, Lieberman could be lying to put Iran off its guard. Stranger things have happened.
Shmuel:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1081024.html
That was early April, a short while after Netanyahu met Obama. This line is repeated in early June and the article includes a reminder that after Netanyahu visited Obama, he strongly indicated that Israel would wait while Obama tried his approach.
…
I’m not sure why you’re disputing something so obvious. Is it that I implied something about Obama with which you disagree? I have the impression that Obama believed (he’s been disabused of this belief in the past couple of weeks, in my opinion) that he could sweep into some form of magical negotiations with the Iranians that would make them reconsider their nuke arms plans. It was, at best, pie in the sky. However, the Israelis were warned and told repeatedly not to take steps. After Netanyahu met with Obama, it became clear that at the very least Netanyahu was imposed upon to do nothing at least for several months. Since Obama was doing the asserting, one must conclude that he was prevailing upon Netanyahu that he could talk the Iranians into giving up their plans – a naive belief.
I apologize if I came out swinging, I recently had an Obama supporter come after me quite unpleasantly because I criticized Obama.
can anyone read the tea leaves on this?
Deputy Mossad chief resigns, fourth to quit under director Meir Dagan (Haaretz)
Dan Raviv’s prediction that Israel won’t attack for the period of May ’09 to Jan 1, ’10, does not support your assertion. At best, it holds for the very near future, but not as a matter of policy for the long run. You have failed to demonstrate support for your assertion that, “With Obama coming to power in the US, the notion of an attack became remote because he was clear that he intended to talk the Iranians down.†Demands by the administration are also not support in this regard.
It would have been easier to simply say that your interpretation of Obama’s willingness to engage the Iranians would prevent such Israeli actions.
Assuming to understand one’s motives after reading an inquiry and offering “edification” are both presumptuous and condescending, not in keeping with the spirit of accurate analysis and commentary and prevent, rather than promote, dialog.
I was hoping for better from the provider of policy analysis on Jewlicious.
This Iranian government doesn’t even want to talk to their own people about a minor shift from one regime member to another.
Obama doesn’t seem to vet people well. They were never going to listen to anyone. They’ve reached the power hungry dictator stage.
It does make the nuclear problem even more so, which is a huge threat to all of Israel. I never thought I’d wish for Reagan. He would have “stayed neutral” while baring his teeth quietly just right… and that would have helped the protest movement. Now it’s up to the people of the world to lend the pressure & support. We need to keep making noise, media coverage or not.
Obama’s sissy act with Iran has some interesting facts about it. It looks like he’s trying to grease Iran’s palm with a huge increase in humanitarian aid. Or maybe he as showing good faith. Either way, come on, enough is enough, these folks don’t want to talk with the US.
“The U.S. exported $96 million in goods to Iran from January through April, according to an Associated Press analysis of U.S. government trade data compiled by the World Institute for Strategic Economic Research in Holyoke, Mass. U.S. exports to Iran totaled $51 million during the same period in 2008 and $27 million over those months in 2007.
Soybeans, wheat and medical supplies — all considered humanitarian items exempt from U.S. trade sanctions — are among the top exports this year.”
Shmuel,
It’s common sense but since you didn’t feel like using Google, I did it for you.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/18/world/worldwatch/entry5023488.shtml
And also for your edification:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1085466.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/08/world/fg-biden-israel-iran8
Obama said he intended to talk to the Iranians, true.
That doesn’t mean that he had any intention of “talking them down” from their nuclear ambitions (even if such a thing were possible, which it is not). His cowardly and defeatist remarks about how the Iranians have legitimate nuclear ambitions show that, before any talks have started, he has completely resigned himself to the fact that the Persians are going to go nuclear and there is no way to stop them. Imanutjob must have been creaming his jeans.
Sanctions? Dream on, Middle. So long as Russia and China say no, nothing will happen. And everybody makes too much money doing business with the mullahs for it to stop. Sanctions will never happen.
Tom: yeah, schooled is the right word. Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “atomic wedgie”.
THERE IS NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF ELECTION FRAUD IN IRAN. Every claim about election rigging has a rational counter-claim.
THINK: Why would the regime resort to fraud when Mousavi is very much a regime supporter?
Get the FACTS at IranAffairs.com
“Intending to “talk (them) down†is demonstrative of arrogance, naivety and a non-understanding of the mentality of the Middle East.”
Precisely.
Will real sanctions still work? I hope so. How feasible is a real boycott of Iran? I’m skeptical.
In any case, it’s a whole new mess over there now, and we’ve yet to know how it will play out with regards to the nuclear issue.
One can imagine the glee Ahmadinejad must’ve felt in demanding an “apology” from Obama yesterday. The mullahs have thoroughly schooled the new president. Now the question is, can he learn from this very public humiliation of his policy?
There is, or should be, no choice now but to resolutely oppose the regime and press for its isolation. I’m fearful Obama has such an invincible belief in his charismatic powers that he won’t be able to change course.
“With Obama coming to power in the US, the notion of an attack became remote because he was clear that he intended to talk the Iranians down.” That’s a hell of an assertion. Intending to “talk (them) down” is demonstrative of arrogance, naivety and a non-understanding of the mentality of the Middle East. And did the notion of an Israeli attack become remote because of his intentions to engage the Iranians in dialog (something he’ll probably do after the rebel youth are all quelled). I know that Bolton’s assessment was far from that. Who supported your assessment that the “notion of an attack became remote”? I’m interested to know.
Thank you for bringing attention to this! Too many people are convinced that diplomacy will work, and in this case that is just naive. You can’t rationalize with the irrational. And Ahmadinejad scares the living daylights out of me.