Monday, March 5, 2012

Glick: Obama is Trying to Delay Israel Long Enough For Their Attack Window to Close

Another very astute analysis of Obama's AIPAC speech from Caroline Glick:

While he didn't pick a fight with Israel on Sunday, his speech did mark a clear attempt to undermine Israel's strategic position in a fundamental - indeed existential - way. As many commentators have noted in recent weeks, Israel and the US have different red lines for the Iranian nuclear program. These divergent red lines owe to the fact that the US has more options for attacking Iran's nuclear installations than Israel. 

From Israel's perspective, Iran's nuclear program will reportedly become unstoppable as soon as the Iranians move a sufficient quantity of enriched uranium and/or centrifuges to the Fordow nuclear installation by Qom. Since Israel reportedly lacks the ability to destroy the facility, Israel's timeline for attacking Iran will likely end within weeks. The US reportedly has the capacity to successfully bomb Fordow and so its timeline for attacking Iran is longer than Israel's.

The reason this is important is because it tells us the true nature of Obama's demand that Israel give more time for sanctions and diplomacy to work. When one recognizes Israel's short timeline for attacking, one realizes that when Obama demands that Israel give several more months for sanctions to work, what he is actually demanding is for Israel to place its survival in his hands. Again, once Iran's nuclear project is immune from an Israeli strike Obama will effectively hold the key to Israel's survival. Israel will be completely at his mercy.

Read the whole thing.  Once again, Obama's AIPAC speech is nothing more than an illusory chest thumping in support of Israel that is worth precisely the paper that it is printed on and doesn't mean what you think it means.  Remember in 2008, the last time he ran for the Presidency, he said he supported an "undivided Jersalem" at AIPAC?  Well that support lasted about a week.

Personally, I was also disturbed by this passage from yesterday's speech:

Already, there is too much loose talk of war.  Over the last few weeks, such talk has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil, which they depend on to fund their nuclear program.  For the sake of Israel's security, America's security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster.

Oil prices?  Really?  That makes me think that Obama is too chicken to attack Iran in an election year because he is worried about what oil prices might do.  The higher they go, the lower his odds of getting re-elected.  One marine logistics and services CEO thinks oil could go up to $440 a barrel in the event of conflict with Iran (essentially a quadrupling in price).  At that level, Obama could kiss his election goodbye.  And it is pretty obvious that given a choice between his re-election and a nuclear Iran, Obama would choose his re-election.

No comments:

Post a Comment