If don't think there was any doubt whose side Obama was on in the Middle East, but this, if true, is amazing. Maybe this is why Obama is so against Netanyahu speaking to Congress tomorrow. Nothing else makes sense. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/191966#!
A news agency I've never heard of citing a newspaper I've never heard of crediting Barak Obama with outrageous behavior. This happens about 20 times a day. Thank God for the internet or we'd have no idea how terrible a president we have.
TT How can you say that BO doesn't have the balls to do that? Remember he drew a red line oh and he shot OBL
I'll grant you that it seems out of character for our mollusk of a President. But, it's one of those things that is so "out there" that it just might be true. They'd have to fly over Iraqi airspace that we control to attack Iran, so they'd definitely have to alert us first. We may never know the truth on this one. It's not in Israel's interest to admit they were planning an attack. And, probably not in BO's interest to admit he treatened to shoot them down either.
I have since read that Saudi Arabia is willing to let them fly over their airspace to attack Iran, so maybe they could avoid U.S. controlled air space. Oh, and WH is denying these reports for what that's worth.
That pretty much sums up some of the right leaning posters on this board and the conservative blogosphere. I'm curious, who thinks an Israeli bombing of Iran is a good thing in the current context of our middle east policy?
While Israel bombing unilaterally would obviously be detrimental to Middle Eastern stability, I cannot blame them for acting alone given how inept Obama has been at leading. The fact that he thinks a treaty with Iran is a viable solution shows how naive and incompetent that Obama truly is. Israel is facing an existential treat from a nuclear Iran and they understand that time is of the essence.
Israel bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities would clearly not be helpful to our so called Middle East Policy - if you believe BHO really has one. The bombing would set off another Middle East war that might draw in some of the major outside powers. However, if you are Israel and you see the US negotiating with Iran and Iran about to have a nuke(s) that they have promised they will use on you, at some point, you will have no choice but to attack in advance of being hit.
Israelis are in a tough, tough situation. All their natural enemies surround them. They should do whatever is in their best interests for survival (including preemptive strikes). As an ally, the US should stand by their side also.
You don't even know the details of the treaty and yet have made up your mind already? Israel needs to understand that they don't exist without US support. The US does not exist to protect Israel. They are a very important ally of ours but this willingness to give them the keys to our foreign policy is scary.
When do we let our allies drive our foreign policy? That's a sterling example of how irrational some have become in this debate. I don't think the US should EVER let any single ally dictate our foreign policy. At this moment in time, stemming the growth of Islamic extremism is more important than the Iran nuclear issue. If we can stem Iran's growth in this area for 10 years while we deal with the higher priority topic then that's a win, IMHO. Any escalation by Israel in this nuclear discussion has the potential to ignite a Middle East powder keg, moreso than it already is. Losing support from moderate Muslims or other countries in our fight against ISIS would be tragic.
I know Iran's history of supporting terrorism coupled with their hatred of the US and Israel. And I know how Obama's decisions in the region have turned out. Not a promising combination.
Israel was founded by terrorsts. Ben Gurion was the leader of a terrorist group and so was Begin. Now they don't like it. Me either, but they are the ones who chose to re locate to a very bad neighborhood and mix it with the locals. I don't have a dog in this fight and resent that the US President is compelled to get involved. The Tail has been wagging the Dog for a long time over there and if the Dog threatens the Tail, I have no problem with it.
Were there any countries, similar to Israel, who opposed the appeasement by the English PM, Chamberlain, prior to WWII? Maybe Israel is trying to avert disaster for not only itself? Recent messages as well as their history since 1980, reportedly, coming from hard liners in Iran are hardly worthy of the USA trusting Iran to do anything they say they would do. However Kerry is infamous for his trusting of the enemies of the USA over what is best for it. Hopefully the next PotUS will be able to fix the course of the USA back where it needs to be before it is irreparably harmed by the current group of appeasers.
Chamberlain's appeasement saved England; in the year he bought the Brits were able to rearm and ready themselves for what they saw as a probable inevitability. If the US can broker a deal, fine. If the iranians violate it they can be dealt with then. Almost everybody in the neighborhood is against Iran-----Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. The Sunnis don't care for them at all and the area is attempting to destroy the Iranian economy by flooding the oil markets. Maybe that works. Maybe not. Somebody may have to attack Iran if they do build nukes and don't moderate their behavior. No need to do it this week. And when are people going to find another analogy besides Munich? The left will always have their Viet Nam analogy, which is near total bs and I would like to see both of these wooley mammoths retired. As for the next president correcting anything, they are almost all lacking in any foreign policy experience, just like the current jerkoff. Except Hillary Let's Get Rid of Quadaffi and Save Libya, who has chewing gum stuck to the underside of her brain and is otherwise disabled.
I don't have all the answers Huisache. Obama/Kerry throwing up their hands saying the previous X amount of years haven't worked to obtain an agreement then giving in completely or near completely in response certainly in my mind does not appear to be a winning strategy. (Cuba and Iran) Maybe the risks will pay off and Kerry will be seen as some super diplomat. Let us be clear that the Kerry/Obama duo should be held responsible, in name at least, if this blows up in our collective faces.(Israel specifically, Russian influences in Cuba, etc, etc)
Agreed. Put it on them. Of course, don't concurrently push for and support processes that undercut the strategy too.