Obama's True Agenda For the Middle East Revealed

To Calm Israel, White House

Offers Ways to Restrain Iran

By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT
The Obama administration is taking steps it hopes will force Iran to reconsider almost stalemated nuclear negotiations - and forestall an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

So begins the lead article in the Labor Day edition of the New York Times, and part of that article is a repeat of the litany we've all become used to in the White House attempts to explain just how President Obama "has Israel's back" in the face of an Iran rapidly developing the capability to create nuclear weaponry and repeatedly stating it's deep desire to "wipe Israel off the face of the Earth."

Diplomacy will do the trick, we were told at first. When we caught on to the futility of that approach, it was "sanctions" that were heralded as the way to go; and when the initial sanctions failed utterly to stop the mullahs, we and the Israelis were told that even stricter ones would be applied and finally do the job. They have failed as well, but not to worry; maybe Iran is only pursuing peaceful uses of nuclear energy after all; and, well, the US will run a bunch of naval exercises in the Persian Gulf, and that'll scare those loonies into behaving.

Don't forget, too, that Israel doesn't have the military capacity to destroy Iran's nuclear development facilities, as it once did with those of Iraq and Syria, so the best a unilateral strike could hope for would be a delay of Iran's progress by, at most, a few years.

The United States, it's true, does have new-type bunker buster bombs which could get at the Iranians' buried labs and enrichment installations, plus the capability to deliver them; but Obama won't, and Israel can't have any to use themselves. On top of that, the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs made it plain in the past few days that, should Israel find itself with no other option but to take military action and hope for the best, he won't "be complicit" in that.

So, where does that leave the Jewish State vis à vis an implacable enemy sworn to destroy it and a powerful ally which simply will not commit to using the force that, as it's becoming painfully clear, is the only way to stop the Iranian maniacs?

Perhaps inadvertently, the same New York Times article, reporters Sanger and Schmitt, reveal Obama's true plans in a brief but frightening remark:

The administration is also racing to complete, in the next several months, a new radar system in Qatar that would combine with radars already in place in Israel and Turkey to form a broad arc of antimissile coverage, according to military officials. The message to Iran would be that even if it developed a nuclear weapon and mounted it atop its growing fleet of missiles, it could be countered by antimissile systems.  [Emphasis added.]

And there you have it -- Obama's strategy revealed. He will not stop Iran's development of nuclear-tipped missiles -- although we have the power to do so, especially in a joint effort with Israel, or even in by a unilateral Israeli strike covertly supplied and supported by the US.  Instead, Obama will rely on an antimissile defense system to counter the incomings from the Islamic Republic of Iran, whether aimed at Israel or others among Iran's enemies in the region (we've already been threatened with military retaliation should the US act against Syria).

The bipartisan (Netanyahu-Likud/Barak-Labor) leadership of Israel is, and must be, concerned first of all with the survival of their nation; and with their strongest and most powerful ally refusing to make any commitment to do what is actually necessary to stop Iran, their options look grim, indeed. They could strike unilaterally before the US elections in the hope that they would, at least, be able to damage although not destroy the Iranians' nuclear programs. They might hope that such an act would force Obama's hand in getting the US to help out, for his own political needs at  home. They could wait out November and hope for a Romney win, which, together with a pro-Israel Congress, would immensely improve the chances for effective action by the US in defending American and Israeli interests against a nuclear Iran.

Nothing on the table appears promising so long as Obama is in office and remains weak of spine and short of love for the State of Israel. The best that those of us who understand America's interests in the region and support the survival of Israel can do is to wait and watch, and be sure to help elect Romney/Ryan and a Republican Congress come November.

To Calm Israel, White House

Offers Ways to Restrain Iran

By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT

The Obama administration is taking steps it hopes will force Iran to reconsider almost stalemated nuclear negotiations - and forestall an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

So begins the lead article in the Labor Day edition of the New York Times, and part of that article is a repeat of the litany we've all become used to in the White House attempts to explain just how President Obama "has Israel's back" in the face of an Iran rapidly developing the capability to create nuclear weaponry and repeatedly stating it's deep desire to "wipe Israel off the face of the Earth."

Diplomacy will do the trick, we were told at first. When we caught on to the futility of that approach, it was "sanctions" that were heralded as the way to go; and when the initial sanctions failed utterly to stop the mullahs, we and the Israelis were told that even stricter ones would be applied and finally do the job. They have failed as well, but not to worry; maybe Iran is only pursuing peaceful uses of nuclear energy after all; and, well, the US will run a bunch of naval exercises in the Persian Gulf, and that'll scare those loonies into behaving.

Don't forget, too, that Israel doesn't have the military capacity to destroy Iran's nuclear development facilities, as it once did with those of Iraq and Syria, so the best a unilateral strike could hope for would be a delay of Iran's progress by, at most, a few years.

The United States, it's true, does have new-type bunker buster bombs which could get at the Iranians' buried labs and enrichment installations, plus the capability to deliver them; but Obama won't, and Israel can't have any to use themselves. On top of that, the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs made it plain in the past few days that, should Israel find itself with no other option but to take military action and hope for the best, he won't "be complicit" in that.

So, where does that leave the Jewish State vis à vis an implacable enemy sworn to destroy it and a powerful ally which simply will not commit to using the force that, as it's becoming painfully clear, is the only way to stop the Iranian maniacs?

Perhaps inadvertently, the same New York Times article, reporters Sanger and Schmitt, reveal Obama's true plans in a brief but frightening remark:

The administration is also racing to complete, in the next several months, a new radar system in Qatar that would combine with radars already in place in Israel and Turkey to form a broad arc of antimissile coverage, according to military officials. The message to Iran would be that even if it developed a nuclear weapon and mounted it atop its growing fleet of missiles, it could be countered by antimissile systems.  [Emphasis added.]

And there you have it -- Obama's strategy revealed. He will not stop Iran's development of nuclear-tipped missiles -- although we have the power to do so, especially in a joint effort with Israel, or even in by a unilateral Israeli strike covertly supplied and supported by the US.  Instead, Obama will rely on an antimissile defense system to counter the incomings from the Islamic Republic of Iran, whether aimed at Israel or others among Iran's enemies in the region (we've already been threatened with military retaliation should the US act against Syria).

The bipartisan (Netanyahu-Likud/Barak-Labor) leadership of Israel is, and must be, concerned first of all with the survival of their nation; and with their strongest and most powerful ally refusing to make any commitment to do what is actually necessary to stop Iran, their options look grim, indeed. They could strike unilaterally before the US elections in the hope that they would, at least, be able to damage although not destroy the Iranians' nuclear programs. They might hope that such an act would force Obama's hand in getting the US to help out, for his own political needs at  home. They could wait out November and hope for a Romney win, which, together with a pro-Israel Congress, would immensely improve the chances for effective action by the US in defending American and Israeli interests against a nuclear Iran.

Nothing on the table appears promising so long as Obama is in office and remains weak of spine and short of love for the State of Israel. The best that those of us who understand America's interests in the region and support the survival of Israel can do is to wait and watch, and be sure to help elect Romney/Ryan and a Republican Congress come November.

RECENT VIDEOS