Obama and Israel
People, don't think I am being lazy about working, but, as I was in transit, it was more practical for me this past week to hitchhike with my guru, Jeffrey Goldberg, on the subject of the Iranian nuclear crisis who, again, picked up a ride with Amos Yadlin, ex-head of the Israeli military intelligence and one of the pilots who attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.
The deal is as follows: There are these "war games," with feverish speculations as to whether Israel will attack the Iranian nuclear installations in the imminent future. We do not know if this sense of urgency now is more "urgent," or if it is a bluff of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister Ehud Barak. We know Obama and many people, but many people, up to the President of Israel Shimon Peres, do not want action in the short term, during the unfolding of the American elections or as an isolated launch. The official American line is that Netanyahu and Barak need to have faith in Obama and his guarantees that Iran will not be able to cross a "red line" and make a bomb. But the power of persuasion of the great presidential orator is increasingly failing.
Up to now, Obama has not convinced the Israelis and the conservative Arab regimes who fear that the Shiite Iranian regime will adopt preventive military measures. And here comes Yadlin's proposal; Obama needs to travel to express his firm disposition in a speech to the Israeli Parliament, leaving it clear that stopping an Iranian bomb is vital for U.S. national security.
Obama is busy with the re-election campaign. It would be still better for him. It would be a good use of his time, combining what is useful with what is necessary — a bold gesture during the campaign. Obama would be able to extend his visit to other vital U.S. allies in the region, such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia. There is nothing more presidential than preparing for war, but at the same time preventing it from happening when it is not convenient or on terms that interest Obama.
The deal is as follows: There are these "war games," with feverish speculations as to whether Israel will attack the Iranian nuclear installations in the imminent future. We do not know if this sense of urgency now is more "urgent," or if it is a bluff of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister Ehud Barak. We know Obama and many people, but many people, up to the President of Israel Shimon Peres, do not want action in the short term, during the unfolding of the American elections or as an isolated launch. The official American line is that Netanyahu and Barak need to have faith in Obama and his guarantees that Iran will not be able to cross a "red line" and make a bomb. But the power of persuasion of the great presidential orator is increasingly failing.
Up to now, Obama has not convinced the Israelis and the conservative Arab regimes who fear that the Shiite Iranian regime will adopt preventive military measures. And here comes Yadlin's proposal; Obama needs to travel to express his firm disposition in a speech to the Israeli Parliament, leaving it clear that stopping an Iranian bomb is vital for U.S. national security.
Obama is busy with the re-election campaign. It would be still better for him. It would be a good use of his time, combining what is useful with what is necessary — a bold gesture during the campaign. Obama would be able to extend his visit to other vital U.S. allies in the region, such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia. There is nothing more presidential than preparing for war, but at the same time preventing it from happening when it is not convenient or on terms that interest Obama.
Next article![]( "For Republicans, Canada Is a Convenient Truth")
