Obama tries to muzzle Israel / Instead, he should be far more worried about Iran (NEW YORK DAILY NEWS OP-ED) Charles Krauthammer 03/08/12)
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Articles-Index-Top
It’s Lucy and the football, Iran-style. After ostensibly tough talk
about preventing Iran from going nuclear, the Obama administration
acquiesced to yet another round of talks.
This, 14 months after the last group-of-six negotiations collapsed in
Istanbul because of blatant Iranian stalling and unseriousness.
Nonetheless, the new negotiations will be both without precondition
and preceded by yet more talks to decide such trivialities as venue.
These negotiations don’t just gain time for a nuclear program about
whose military intent the IAEA is issuing alarming warnings. They
make it extremely difficult for Israel to do anything about it (while
it still can), lest Israel be universally condemned for having
aborted a diplomatic solution.
If the administration were serious about achievement rather than
appearance, it would have warned that this was the last chance for
Iran to come clean and would have demanded a short timeline. After
all, President Obama insisted on deadlines for the Iraq withdrawal,
the Afghan surge and Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Why leave
these crucial talks open-ended when the nuclear clock is ticking?
This re-engagement comes immediately after Obama’s campaign-year
posturing about Iran’s nukes. Sunday in front of AIPAC, he warned
that “Iran’s leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the
United States.” This just two days after he’d said (to the Atlantic)
of possible U.S. military action, “I don’t bluff.” Yet on Tuesday he
returns to the very engagement policy that he admits had previously
Won’t sanctions make a difference this time, however? Sanctions are
indeed hurting Iran economically. But when Obama’s own director of
national intelligence was asked by the Senate intelligence committee
whether sanctions had any effect on the course of Iran’s nuclear
program, the answer was simple: No. None whatsoever.
Obama garnered much AIPAC applause by saying that his is not a
containment policy but a prevention policy. But what has he
prevented? Keeping a coalition of six together is not success.
Holding talks is not success. Imposing sanctions is not success.
Success is halting and reversing the program. Yet Iran is tripling
its uranium output, moving enrichment facilities under a mountain
near Qom and impeding IAEA inspections of weaponization facilities.
So what is Obama’s real objective? “We’re trying to make the decision
to attack as hard as possible for Israel,” an administration official
told the Washington Post in the most revealing White House admission
since “leading from behind.”
Revealing and shocking. The world’s greatest exporter of terror
(according to the State Department), the killer of Americans in Iraq
and Afghanistan, the self-declared enemy that invented “Death to
America Day” is approaching nuclear capability — and the focus of
U.S. policy is to prevent a democratic ally threatened with
annihilation from pre-empting the threat?
Indeed it is. The new open-ended negotiations with Iran fit well with
this strategy of tying Israel down. As does Obama’s “I have Israel’s
back” reassurance, designed to persuade Israel and its supporters to
pull back and outsource to Obama life-and-death decisions. (©
Copyright 2012 NYDailyNews.com. 03/08/12)
Return to Top
MATERIAL REPRODUCED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY