Israel Holds America Hostage

Published in La Nouvelle Republique
(Algeria) on 25 August 2010
by S.I. (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Drue Fergison. Edited by Gillian Palmer.
An American president never breaks with his predecessor’s policies, except in speech. What President Obama awaits is the Iranian renunciation of uranium enrichment, while the Iranian president is caught between a rock and a hard place: Carrying out Obama’s version of Bush’s orders or Bush’s version of Obama’s orders to the letter would endanger the trend that he represents, while adopting extreme positions would contribute to putting Iran in international quarantine.

Another possibility for creating a fait accompli is to get both presidents out of the interminable diplomatic game whose outcome is in Israel’s hands. Israel would launch an attack against Iranian nuclear sites in order to start an international process, an Iranian military reaction against Israel, and the enforcement of defense agreements binding Israel and the United States and, possibly equally, defense agreements binding the Arab countries of the Gulf and the United States. Israel would thus divert international attention from the colonization of the West Bank and from its harsh repression of the people there. Obama is a watered down version of Bush, who does not need to brandish the use of force since that had already been sufficiently done by his predecessor and was taken up by the French Minister of Foreign Affairs (who had spoken of the incontrovertible nature of the military option, in the case where Iran did not agree to what would be its “surrender”).

It is the Iranian president who holds Obama’s destiny, and not the reverse. Obama has reached the moment where he must think of his re-election. He has two years to succeed and two others to devote to his second term.


Un président américain n’entre jamais en rupture avec la politique de son prédécesseur, sauf par le discours. C’est le renoncement iranien à l’enrichissement de l’uranium qui est attendu par le président Obama, tandis que le président iranien est pris entre deux feux : exécuter à la lettre les ordres de Bush version Obama ou Obama version Bush, ce qui mettrait en difficulté le courant qu’il représente, alors qu’adopter des positions extrêmes contribuerait à mettre l’Iran en quarantaine internationale. Une autre possibilité de créer un fait accompli est de sortir les deux présidents de l’interminable jeu diplomatique dont l’issue est entre les mains d’Israël qui lancerait une attaque contre les sites nucléaires iraniens pour engager ainsi un processus international, une réaction militaire iranienne contre Israël et l’entrée en application des accords de défense qui lient Israël et les Etats-Unis et, peut être également, les accords de défense qui lient les pays arabes du Golfe et les Etats-Unis. Israël détournerait alors les attentions internationales de la colonisation de la Cisjordanie et de la dure répression menée contre les populations. Obama est une version de Bush édulcorée, qui n’a pas besoin de brandir l’usage de la force, puisque cela avait été suffisamment fait par son prédécesseur et repris par le ministre français des Affaires étrangères qui avait parlé du caractère incontournable de l’option militaire dans le cas où l’Iran ne signait pas ce qui allait être sa «reddition». C’est le président iranien qui détient la destinée d’Obama et non l’inverse. Obama a atteint le moment où il doit penser à sa réélection. Deux années pour réussir et les deux autres pour les consacrer à son second mandat.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Canada: No, the Fed Was Not ‘Independent’ before Trump

Germany: When Push Comes to Shove, Europe Stands Alone*

Germany: We Should Take Advantage of Trump’s Vacuum*

Germany: Donald Trump’s Failure

Austria: If This Is Madness, There is a Method to It

Topics

Russia: Trump the Multipolarist*

Turkey: Blood and Fury: Killing of Charlie Kirk, Escalating US Political Violence

Thailand: Brazil and the US: Same Crime, Different Fate

Singapore: The Assassination of Charlie Kirk Leaves America at a Turning Point

Germany: When Push Comes to Shove, Europe Stands Alone*

Guatemala: Fanaticism and Intolerance

Venezuela: China: Authoritarianism Unites, Democracy Divides

Israel: Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Bias: Congress Opens Investigation into Wikipedia

Related Articles

Algeria: Trump Plays and Loses

Algeria: The Trump Psychosis

Morocco : Algeria Attempts To Mislead Joe Biden with Fake ‘Facts’

Algeria: Palestine: Lakhdar Brahimi’s Open Letter to Arab Friends to Counter Trump and Netanyahu

Algeria: Pax Americana

1 COMMENT

  1. Israel is losing time for its validation from the Hebrew God. God has not yet lifted the exile from the diasporas. Israel was founded by Zionist David Ben Gurion, rejecting afirmation of faith in God, saying “God had done little to deserve this credit.” This contradiction is a much greater threat to Israel’s continuing even as a Zionist State. Iran, or for that matters, no country is a threat to the Jews as the Gd of universe has assured their survival to the end time. I am a great admirer of the Jews for their gift of genius and invaluable contributions to the welfare of all humanity. I have suggested plausible options for ending current conflict with Palestinians to both President Obama and Simon Peres President of Israel