Israel gave serious thought this spring to launching a military strike
on Iran’s nuclear sites but was told by President George W Bush that he
would not support it and did not expect to revise that view for the
rest of his presidency, senior European diplomatic sources have told
the Guardian.
Here is the story, from The Guardian. I hope you all have given this matter some thought…
Obama would have us out of Iraq and basically out of the question. The Israelis have to ask permission with us in the middle right now. Weird, huh?
BoscoH: Stop being ridiculous, the Israelis would have to ask permission whether we were in Iraq or not.
Tyler: How does it feel to write a NYT column making a very astute point (that people should vote based on foreign policy), only to see it generally disregarded by major media pundits? It makes you slightly more Caplanish, doesn’t it? Admit it.
Amazing, if true. This could be the one thing GWB got right. Obviously I don’t believe it.
I know we have to have to base these sort of evaluations on the givens we have available, and in that respect I can see why people (myself included to an extent) would see McCain as trigger-happy. That said, I’m not sure any of us (that is, those who don’t have any sources beyond the media/web) have enough reliable info to deduce, with any confidence, what either candidate would do in a situation like this. Besides that, we are ALSO in the dark to the particulars of the scenario. How advanced IS Iran’s nuke program… does anyone really know (links?)? How bellicose are the Israelis (with regard to this, at least, we have access to their previous ‘security’ actions)? Etc.
To my own perceptions, I’m not sure that the candidates are taking positions at all distinct from those any other fellow party member would take at this point in time – and this is what makes having to vote on the issue of nat’l security so difficult (if you actually do bother voting, which would be odd).
Obama has already shown a willingness to take extreme stances to win political support. In Chicago he joined a militant, racist church to prove that he was “black” enough to a doubting south side Chicago constituency.
Obama seems more likely to do something stupid to prove to America that he is “tough” enough.
Obama is a Zelig, he’s not a man with a core identity. Four years of Obama and we get to suffer through his search for identity and meaning. It’s like grad school, but with consequences.
Do you truly have no fear of the Shahab-6 missile?
You know, the one that can strike in the heart of NATO, possibly as far as London? Do you truly believe those lovely gentleman at the Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group are interested only in building crop dusters out of North Korean components? The Iranian launch test earlier this year was no great shakes but they are continuing to work on the two-stage program, it seems.
Or perhaps you believe they are busy working the Shahab into a sweet satellite launch vehicle, surely for the sole purpose of placing birds to better broadcast Islamic TV. I don’t care how you feel about the current Iraq situation, you must evaluate the Shahab question independently.
And if we won’t do it, I would certainly hope the Israelis will. The Tate is a nice place, worth preserving.
They didn’t have our permission to bomb the Iraqi Osirak reactor in the early 80s, but they went ahead and bombed it anyway. Saddam was our guy back then too, just “a little rough around the edges.”
Obama vs Old Bomber: Why Obama is not such a no brainer (to me).
Will is a double-edged sword. The bay of pigs was he result of too much groupthink.
Wiki: “The CIA’s near certainty that the Cuban people would rise up and join them was based on the agency’s extremely weak presence on the ground in Cuba.”
Sound familiar?
Learning from this, Kennedy successfully got missiles out of Cuba…by a red hair.
Sometimes Democrats want to signal tough. It would take a strong will to stand up to the not insignificant interests calling for an attack. Sometimes a strong will leads the agencies to fix the facts around the narrative, sometimes a strong will allows a leader to find the truth amidst the twaddle of the yes-men.
I give Obama maybe a 60-40 on this one. And I’m not 100% certain Iran isn’t a threat, although I am certain I don’t want a war with them. But, does having a strong will in the White House who is smart enough not to blow his wad make war less likely?
Statements about what we shouldn’t do are easy, who has an answer about what we should? I strongly oppose any more military intervention by anybody anywhere in the Middle East. Enough damage has been done. However, how DO we deal with Mr. Ahm-a-nut-job from Iran potentially having control over nuclear weapons? If he says that Israel is a stinking corpse, can we blame the Israelis for taking him at his word? I’m not saying that any preemptive strike is justified, I’m just saying that it is likely a dangerous situation regardless, and I’m waiting around for a libertarian to make a positive declarative statement about what would be a good way to diffuse a potential Iranian threat, instead of only talking about what shouldn’t be done.
Grad school has consequences, 3 years lost, I know myself even less and have learned to hate everyone even more.
Bummer. Sounds like you picked either the wrong program or the wrong school for you. (Or, as Tyler said in another context, you’re just not too bright.)
“You miss the point. Isreal asked because we have common objectives. When they have disagreements with Bush, they have to take that seriously — because action will have consequences. If Obama chose not to support an Iseali attack, I expect their response would be, “So what?” Posted by: SheetWise at Sep 26, 2008 5:30:35 AM”
WINNER
It is very likely that the election won’t determine IF the Israeli’s strike, but WHEN. An Obama victory will have them striking before inauguration, while a McCain victory might have them waiting as they’ll perceive him as indifferent or even helpful.
I trust neither, both are basically puppets….Obama foreign policy is strongly influenced by Zbignew Zbrezinski…the guy who encouraged China to support Pol Pot and embellishes long wars with Russia
McCain foreign policy is strongly influenced by Henry Kissinger …the guy who supported using 9/11 as anexcuse to invade Iraq, a guy who supports Wolfowitz doctrine, policy of premptive war and bombed. The guy who was started off heading the 9/11 commission but quit when families confronted him with being paid so much money by the saudis. Why did he quit? he refuses to talk about it!
Both advisors were strongly in favor of the long running isolationist policies of blockading and limiting trade with Iraq. They are both happy to kill children if it increases the “balance of power” in their paranoid estimates. If you “free trade” hypcrites support either foreing policy team then we know your real interests do not lie in advocating free trade.
Both have been lifetime employees of David Rockefeller and his various foundations, trusts etc.. read their books
Honestly, I don’t know what they would do. But neither do you.
Well, I do know this- the Israelis take their relationship with America very seriously. So even if they did choose to ignore American wishes in the matter, it wouldn’t be with an idiotic “so what?”. Imagining that serious decisions are made in that sort of cavalier, flippant manner is genuine proof of a failure to seriously think about the matter, or read those who do.
Comments on this entry are closed.