-
Up From Totalitarianism
April 19, 2013 | 20 comments
-
Obama and Israel Reconfigured
April 1, 2013 | 34 comments
-
Reflections on Timbuktu
January 30, 2013 | 7 comments
-
The Blackmailer’s Paradox
January 16, 2013 | 85 comments
-
Right of Revolution?
December 20, 2012 | 84 comments
Another Perspective
A Clash of Rights
There’s a way for the U.S. and Israel to see eye-to-eye on Iran.
The current disagreements between the United States and Israel over how best to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons bring to mind an old Jewish joke:
In a small town in 19th century Russia, two men brought their complaints to the local Rabbi. After listening to the first man, the Rabbi said, “You are right.” After listening to the second man, the Rabbi said, “You are right.”
When both men had left, the Rabbi’s wife, who had been listening impatiently in the next room, approached her husband. “What kind of judge are you?” she asked. “They both can’t be right.”
After pondering his wife’s words, the Rabbi replied, “You know something — you’re also right.”
America is certainly right in cautioning Israel against striking Iran’s nuclear facilities, warning that such a strike would have unpredictable consequences that could destabilize the entire Middle East. But Israel is also right in saying that however destabilizing such a strike might be, a nuclear-armed Iran would be even more destabilizing.
Similarly, America is right to point out that the international community (i.e. the U.S. and Western Europe) is now united as never before against Iran, and that the current round of sanctions should be given a chance to work. But Israel is also right in saying that by the time the sanctions take effect, Iran’s progress toward acquiring nuclear weapons may well be irreversible.
How can this clash of rights be resolved?
I think the only way out is a grand compromise, whereby Israel pledges not to strike Iran for an agreed-upon period of time and allow the sanctions to do their work, and America pledges to join Israel in a military strike against Iran if, after the agreed-upon period, the sanctions fail to achieve their purpose.
Several senior American officials, including National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, have recently visited Israel, and while their discussions are a closely-held secret (the Israeli press is full of rumors that are not to be taken seriously), I suspect that they and their Israeli counterparts were hammering out the details of such a compromise.
Obviously, neither the United States nor Israel will be entirely happy with whatever deal is reached, but at least America will gain time to let the sanctions work (and who knows? — perhaps the combined impact of devastating sanctions and the overthrow of the pro-Tehran Assad regime in Syria will provoke regime-change in Iran), while Israel will gain the assurance that if it does ultimately decide to strike Iran, it won’t be alone.
Hopefully, a draft agreement will be ready by March 5, when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is due to arrive in Washington. He and President Obama will have to overcome a huge gulf of mistrust and mutual contempt to arrive at an understanding (and it certainly did not help matters when the Obama administration recently announced its intention to lobby Congress to restore UNESCO’s funding, despite that organization’s decision to admit “Palestine” as a member-state), but as the great Dr. Johnson observed, “The prospect of being hanged concentrates the mind wonderfully.” For Obama no less than Netanyahu, a nuclear-armed Iran would amount to a political hanging.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (100) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Joseph Shattan
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/27/a-clash-of-rights
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
John786| 2.27.12 @ 7:19AM
I don't think the sanctions will have any impact on the Iranian nuclear programme. Only meaningful negotiations under the NPT are likely to produce an agreement. A policy of humiliating the Iranians is not likely to bear fruit. The Iranians have had all the knowledge to weaponise for thirty years. They haven't done so. An attack doesn't bear thinking about: hence why it hasn't happened. Unfortunately we appear to be sleep walking into a unesccessary war with the Shia homeland.
Bobloblaw| 2.27.12 @ 8:10AM
""Only meaningful negotiations under the NPT are likely to produce an agreement""
Just like the agreements we've had with North Korea. So successful.
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.27.12 @ 9:01AM
Just like the Agreements that Great Britain and Soviet Russia had with Hitler.
If I'm Israel, and the CHOICES are: Unpredictable consequences that could destabilize the entire Middle East. or Being "Wiped off the Face of the Earth"?
Hmmmmm.
Wait. I'm thinking.
I know. Why doesn't Mr. Shatten go over to Israel, with everyone in his Family (Grandchildren, especially) and set up House their, until the Sanctions can do their job?
How do they put it?
Put up or SHUT UP.
John786| 2.27.12 @ 9:52AM
Don't confuse apples with oranges. Or books with holy books. The consequences can be unpredictable.
Al Adab| 2.27.12 @ 10:14AM
Natanz delenda est.
All the wishful thinking in the universe will avail nothing. Reality is not always as we wish it, but it must be faced.
John786| 2.27.12 @ 10:47AM
Haji al Adab,
Very Latin of you today. As a muslim of the Sunni Variety I would strongly caution against an adventure with Shia homeworld. They are a very tenacious and unpredictable enemy. like the rapturers and their ilk they are prone to end times eschatology. The dividend from this attack will be very poor. As a person of very modest means I do worry about the cost of unnecessary essentials such as gasoline. Nevertheless we monotheists are a deeply fatalistic people : it has been said by the less sympathetic that this is character flaw. If it happens it happens. But the consequences for iran's enemies are by no means certain. I sense no fear from the Shia.
TrueBlue | 2.27.12 @ 12:45PM
You just said it yourself, they are " like the rapturers and their ilk they are prone to end times eschatology." With a nuke they can bring about those end times, and given their mentality that the deaths of their own people is alright so long as they destroy the enemies of Islam in the process, they have no reason not to use them. Ahmacrazyguy is NOT in charge in Iran, the Ayatollah is, and he is the guy that has no issue directing other Shia muslims to commit suicide by bombing, or any other means, to achieve their goals.
Their lack of fear only proves the point even more. A man who doesn't fear death has no way to be stopped except by force, generally death since he'll just get up and try again after he is healed/released.
John786| 2.27.12 @ 2:13PM
I agree that the Shia like the christains share a strong millennial leanings. However, it is the context in the Iranian case that will either bring out or suppress these tendencies. the Iranians since the Islamic revolution have been pretty rational :even under tremendous provocations. saddam fired countless chemical weapons- the Iranians did not respond in kind. Theve had the means too build nuclear weapons for thirty years. They have not done so. But an attack will make it inevitable that they will equip themselves with any means for defence. The US by contrast has been acting as an uber irrational power invading and destroying for fifty years. It is a utopian power that believes in using power to bring about change. It's policies in the ME can only be understood and make sense only in the context of christain eschatology. With an attack against the Shia homeworld we may have two end time philosophies at each other throat. Humanity will surely be the loser. Better to give the Iranians full rights under the NPT. So that we can all move on.
Occam's Tool| 2.27.12 @ 12:52PM
John786: They will, like you, get their asses kicked. Free men always win against slaves. Rape any children today?
John786| 2.27.12 @ 1:45PM
Mr tool box short of a spanner,
A war with the Iranians will mean all our asses being kicked. Your continues islamophobia is very tiresome. But i suppose racism is your way of releasing all kinds of Freudian inadequacies. The people of NZ don't deserve you.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.27.12 @ 2:30PM
Nor do the people of this nation deserve YOU, John, you good willing dhimmi. Since when can Iran defeat this nation militarily?
You surrender monkeys would be really amusing if you weren't so dangerous to the rest of us.
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.27.12 @ 3:22PM
Go to James Bowmnas' Article.
John786| 2.27.12 @ 5:18PM
Sorry. A slight technical issue. Being a Muslim I can't be a dhimmi. Sorry. Please carry on. As you were.
Al Adab| 2.27.12 @ 2:42PM
John:
Too many of our citizens find it difficult to understand the situation and the distinction vis Sunni and Shia which as you note is a part of the equation. Your comments make sense in that regard. Sadly we cannot expect this Iranian regime to act rationally as they seem to wish to hasten the Imam. As an amillenialist I hold a different perspective but understand the perspective of the regime.
Interestingly the regime is holding an Iranian Christiam minister under penalty of death and it is possible they intend to use this issue as a negotiating ploy or pawn dealing with sanctions. Historically sanctions have never worked even though they cause huge harm to civilian populations see Napoleon, WWI, etc.
With limited options available time begins to run short. This is an issue which could have been dealt with under less threatening conditions several years ago, but the prior US administration was overly committed to Iraq and Afghanistan and chose not to engage directly the Iranian nuclear situation.
The immediate impact on pump prices can be greatly assuaged by keeping and refining domestic production for domestic use. Does the US have any vested interest in pump prices in China or India for example? Time to look after our own.
John786| 2.27.12 @ 5:09PM
Haji,
We have different world views especially vis a vis Iran. I believe that only sincere dialogue can solve our problems. I do not see Iran as an irrational actor. It is a nation given the right context has the ability to evolve (: not so the narrow gulf states). War will bring misery all round. And it's stated aim of destroying iran's nuclear capability will not be achieved. So what is the point. Unless this is an irrational policy.......
John666| 2.27.12 @ 2:50PM
Don't confuse pomegranates with diseased pig dung droppings. Or defenseless innocent children with sexually mature free women. Or the infidel koran with the The Holy Bible. Or baal with The Lord God Almighty. The consequences will be fatal.
John786| 2.27.12 @ 5:22PM
Im not into hocus pocus prophesy. But. 666. Definitely somes you up.
John120lessthan786| 2.27.12 @ 5:51PM
Don't confuse vomiting "Baalu Akbar" a some of 786 times or a some of 666 times with being rewarded by going sumwhere even remotely paradisiacal such as sum place where the virgins are 9 year old boys.
John786| 2.27.12 @ 6:25PM
Ahh. my personal electronic stalker. Absolutely fantastic. How do I take care of you. You poor thing. Unloved in this infinite electronic ether. Ahh.
John786less120| 2.27.12 @ 9:14PM
Don't confuse your personal words such as "aah" and "fantastic" and "you poor thing" and "I take care of you" "aah" for defenseless and innocent children with your personal electronic posts in the ether. The consequences will be such as the consequences you will face for your worship of baal.
Sean| 2.27.12 @ 8:41AM
They haven't broken the NPT. Under the NPT they have the right to enrich Uranium as long as it is no t weapons grade. There has been no evidence that they have enriched Uranium to weapons grade. The problem is that once a country starts enriching Uranium is becomes very easy to go to weapons grade if they determine that is what they want to do.
Iran has signed the treaty other countries like Israel haven't. Iran can withdraw from the treaty after 3 months notice or if in war.
Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 10:23AM
After what we did to Iran, who can blame them for hating us.
Shah Reza Pahlavi was a heavy-handed modernizer and ironically, the sort of womanizer you guys rage against. Reza probably had as many mistresses as Clinton did.
Tim the Enchanter| 2.27.12 @ 4:33PM
Just for yucks, how many DID Clinton have?
Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 5:10PM
Don't know, and don't care; point is: who is going to pay for your next war?
De Debil| 2.27.12 @ 6:12PM
Alan wid dat blue dress on de Brooks,
De budget be such dat over 70 de percent of dat is de unconstitutional federal spending on de specific welfare so der be much available from dat for de constitutional common defense true dat.
I be de sock it to you one dat boy be de true,
- de debil
Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 6:17PM
Debil? do you mean to write DEBIT?
De Debil| 2.27.12 @ 9:23PM
Wat be true is dat your ledger will be de balanced true and dat all de debt incurred will be de paid true. By you in de blue dress dat be true.
I be de sock it to you one dat boy be de true,
-de debil
Nock| 2.27.12 @ 12:21PM
“Not seldom it has seemed as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States…NeoCons are simply selfish and uninstructed radicals and progressives, wishing to pour cement all over the country and make the world safe for democracy, well beyond the dreams of Wilson.” Russell Kirk, founder of Modern American Conservatism
nister| 2.27.12 @ 7:27AM
Israel could put but one deep penetrating bomb on an F-16. The F-16 would need to sortie with external fuel tanks for the 1,000 mile trip. Aerial refuel will be required.
No wonder they want the US to strike for them.
Bobloblaw| 2.27.12 @ 8:06AM
Youre assuming they fly from Israel to attack Iran. Dont assume that.
nister| 2.27.12 @ 8:55AM
Yes, I'm assuming that the strike originates from Israel. It's almost as certain that Iran will crater every runway the Israelis hope to return to.
Al Adab| 2.27.12 @ 10:18AM
As I recall, the US has several air bases in Afghanistan. Why should we rely on someone else to do our dirty work (ie the necessary work for world stability and peace) when we are more than capable. Remember NATO? Aircraft are long range. Remember Libya? What is all the fretting about?
Con Chef (NB) | 2.27.12 @ 10:44AM
There have also been rumblings that the Saudis have already given Israel tacit permission for overflight, should such a strike occurr. I HIGHLY doubt that the Iranian Air Force, with their aging aircraft & piss poorly trained pilots, would make it through Israel's air defense network.
nister| 2.27.12 @ 11:06AM
Israel doesn't border Saudi Arabia. They would have to violate Egyptian or Jordanian airspace to reach SA.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.27.12 @ 12:10PM
You don't think that King Abdullah wouldn't get on the same page as his buddies in Riyadh?
Occam's Tool| 2.27.12 @ 12:54PM
They will cheerfully fly over Jordan, as they did with Osirak.
Al Adab| 2.27.12 @ 2:47PM
nister,
Actually they share a portion of the east fork of the Red Sea below Sinai, the gulf of Eliat, (remember Lawrence of Arabia and Aquaba?) with Saudi Arabia. Overflight of SA to reach Iran is circuitous in any event and another hundred miles is not significant.
Frankly SA is almost as likely as Israel to want the Iranian program controlled. Still, why should the US expect others to do its dirty work?
Occam's Tool| 2.27.12 @ 12:53PM
Gee, nister, so nice you know so much. The Israelis are ready to strike, and can do it. Political blowback is the major problem---but the Iranians are feebs.
nister| 2.28.12 @ 7:31AM
Gee, Tool..seems I don't know as much as you. Do you know when they strike, as well?
nathan| 2.27.12 @ 7:56AM
Are economic actions like embargos considered acts of war? Go look at the wreck of the Arizona and decide for yourself.
The question here is what exactly would any attack accomplish besides closing the straits (don't think for a moment that the Iranians can't close the six miles that constitute the straits and keep them closed) and wreck the world's economy for the next 3-5 years. What really would it accomplish? There are no weapons out there, short of nukes, that can get to those facilities buried that deep. Disrupt for a year, yes. But at the end of the year with basically a united country behind them, now what? They will unquestionably get the weapons then.
And please folks, we lost in Iraq, never had any chance of winning in Iraq or Afghanistan, and Iran is what six times larger than Iraq? We don't have a prayer, a prayer! of winning a ground war there. Don't think for a moment we would be welcomed as "liberators". We won't be. We'll lose there too.
So again, any of you, all of you, tell the class what a strike accomplishes. Because besides blowing away everyone's 401's, besides driving up the unemployment rate in this country to maybe as high as 20? percent, driving gas prices to maybe as high as 7/8 a gallon? What does it do? Does it really improve anyone's security Israel's included?
Really?
Tell us, any of you what that strike does that makes the world a better place. We're all listening.
Bobloblaw| 2.27.12 @ 8:09AM
Who says we need to be libarators or fight a ground war??? Simply destroy their infrastructure.
Iran without nuclear weapons is a better world than Iran with nuclear weapons.....can you hear that???
nister| 2.27.12 @ 8:57AM
Israel without nukes is a better world than Israel with nukes.
bob alou| 2.27.12 @ 9:57AM
You wouldn't say that if you lived in Israel.
Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 10:42AM
"You wouldn't say that if you lived in Israel."
DUH! Wish you'd go fight for Israel, bob alou- you could take some bullets meant for someone else. BTW, I detest you all for wasting the last decade...
so SCREW YOU.
Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 11:03AM
A decade and $3 trillion you wasted;
hope OWS trashes your convention next summer as you DESERVE to have it ruined.
Tim the Enchanter| 2.27.12 @ 4:37PM
Still replying to yourself, I see.
nister| 2.27.12 @ 11:09AM
I wouldn't live in Israel. any more than I'd live in Iran. Both disgust me.
Occam's Tool| 2.27.12 @ 12:54PM
Why?
Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 5:11PM
"numbatdog"? that's an interesting handle.
Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 5:13PM
"Why?"
Why? Why should he want to?
Ron Lewenberg | 2.28.12 @ 8:16PM
Israel has only tacitly threatened to use nukes in two cases and only in 1973. They did so warning the Arabs of repercussions if the Arab armies were to invade their heartland and try to make good on the claims of turning the Mediterranean red with Jewish blood. (The opening scene of Sum of All Fear is considered fictional in so far as a bomb was lost. Two mechanized brigades were holding 8 divisions in the Golan heights. Had the southern unit not held for as long as they did and made the Syrians pay such a heavy price before they were overrun, the results would have been ugly.) The second occurred soon thereafter, when the Soviets threatened to invade Israel to save Syria.
Israel is hardly a nuclear threat and it is no more of threat to the US than the UK or France are. On the other hand, the mullahs in Tehran have threatned to nuke Israel and have explicitly called for the destruction of the US and Israel. They are also killing American troops by proxy in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Israel may or may not be able to take out Iran's nuclear program. Either way, they would be protecting the United States too.
http://nycright.blogspot.com/2.....-city.html
numbatdog| 2.27.12 @ 8:27AM
Nathan, here's a sad fact. Ignoring a growing threat does not make it go away. It just defers military action and makes it more destructive than it need have been.
Talking to Iran did not start last week. The Europeans & UN have been "negotiating" for almost 10 years with little success. The USA is having equally little success. Sanctions are meaningless as someone will always buy a cheap tanker full of crude under the table. Only the people will suffer - never the government.
Secondly, neither you or I know what the Israeli's have planned but I doubt they will be fighting yesterdays war again. They will not leak their real plan to the unreliable Obama regime till it's underway.
Finally, America needs to get up off it's knees, stop bowing to aggressors and tyrants and stand by it's values and those who share them.
Nock| 2.27.12 @ 12:22PM
“Not seldom it has seemed as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States…NeoCons are simply selfish and uninstructed radicals and progressives, wishing to pour cement all over the country and make the world safe for democracy, well beyond the dreams of Wilson.” Russell Kirk, founder of Modern American Conservatism
Ron Lewenberg | 2.28.12 @ 8:18PM
Tel Aviv is the capital of no country. Kirk was snarky and ignorant and blinded by ideology, a combination that is a contravention to his conservatism and spoke to his old age.
In so far as Iran has called for the destruction of the US, such a comment is TREASON.
Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 6:19PM
Numbatdog is as good as Possum Dearie
Sean| 2.27.12 @ 8:45AM
I would say that we could defeat any country easily in a ground war. The difficult part is then subjugating the country to our will. If you look at history the only way to accomplish that is through mass violence against the civilian population. We are not willing to do that.
Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 6:20PM
Nor fork out another $3 trillion.
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.27.12 @ 9:18AM
First of all...Who said anything about a Ground War. If we learned nothing else from the RAPIST - Bill Clinton - we learned that you can Win without Boots on the ground.
We also learned that Fat Girls need luvin too. B.J.s ain't sex. You're never really alone. And that you'd better make sure the B*tch does her Laundry right after you finish not having sex.
We never did find out what "IS" means, though.
Why don't YOU go live in Israel, with your family? If I'm Israel, I don't give a Flying Fck, what a dipsh*t like you, says. In fact, I'd attack just to Piss you off.
"Does it really improve anybody's security?"
It's sure as Hell better than doing NOTHING.
You're worried about your 401K.
They're worried about their LIVES, and the lives of their CHILDREN.
Why don't you go back inside and finish reading your RON PAUL Newsletter Collection?
nathan| 2.27.12 @ 9:44AM
The President of the United States is the President of the United States, not the leader of the state of Israel. His first and foremost obligation is to the 350 million people here, not to the five million people there. Look at the oath he takes, to uphold and defend what? The Constitution of the United States. I don't see Israel mentioned there do you sir? If you do please cite the section of the oath that mentions Israel or alludes to it and says the the President is obligated to put 350 million Americans at risk on behalf of the state of Israel or any country for that matter?
Numbatdog says we've been talking to them for 10 years. The thing is, they've had the ability to either create a weapon or buy one for at least five or more? Anyone want to speculate why they haven't? Because everyone agrees RIGHT TODAY they don't have one even though three four years ago they could have had one. Theories?
Why by they way if they are hell bent on destroying every Jew in sight are there 25,000 Jews in Iran? Eight synogogues in Tehran alone? Jews are in the legislature? In the government? A weird sort of fanaticism isn't it?
Again, if you all want to engage in another war you can't win/won't win, if you all want to go off and let the Israelis drag you around by the nose and play Stephen Decatur to them, play your own version of "dhimmitude" to Bibi, hey if that makes you happy go for it. I just prefer a more rational foreign policy where America comes first and where a FOREIGN country doesn't dictate to Americans. How so very strange.
Occam's Tool| 2.27.12 @ 12:56PM
Yup. I keep foregetting what a Democratic country Iran is. Sorry, Nathan.
Asswipe.
nathan| 2.27.12 @ 1:33PM
Well they were a democratic country in 1953 before we went and without any justification whatever engineered a coup against their prime minister (Mossedegh) and and installed a kleptomaniac, human rights abusing bungling incompetent that we kept in power for what three decades? You are aware that engineering coups against countries that haven't attacked you, harmed you in any way is an act of war right? Oh by the way, do you know that to put the "shah" (what a noble title for a thug) in power, we used criminals, street thugs to intimidate the people of Tehran? You know all this right? That we took a perfectly harmless country and screwed it up. And used gangs, criminals to install what amounted to a criminal to be their leader. WOW I mean talk about democratic values! Talk about American exceptionalism! Talk about adhering to the principles that made us great!
And then because they don't like the Taliban any more than we do (you, who are SO much more knowledgeable than me you know all this right?) after they joined with us in going after the Taliban and supported us against them, your heroes, Bush and Cheney threw them totally under the bus in what may be the worst foreign policy speech in the last 50 years by calling them out as part of the "axis of evil"?
And it helped right that we backed Saddam against them in a fight that cost them what half a million people? But wait, how could we possibly back Saddam? I mean didn't your boys Bush/Cheney consider him consummately evil? I mean we did spend how many years in Iraq? We did do an embargo against THAT country that cost the lives of how many civilians? 100,000 and Albright was oh so casual about it?
And after all this, we wonder why Iran doesn't love us? How bloody unreasonable of them. I mean I just don't get it. Try explaining this to the class since you OBVIOUSLY know so much more than I do. I mean honestly here, after all we've done for them since 1953.
Throw whatever insults you want at me, I don't care. But look at the history and tell me why we should be feel the victims here. Or maybe just maybe we approach this with a little humility knowing for the most part we aren't the injured party here. Maybe.
Nick| 2.28.12 @ 12:11AM
Spoken like a true marxist sympathizer, nathan.
You win the 2012 Useful Idiot award. Congratulations.
Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 10:29AM
I'm tired of your demonizing of Shiites and Arabs. This is not Sept. 12th, 2001, you have not had the progress in ten 1/2 years to justify another war anyway.
And you will not admit America supported the bungler Reza Pahlavi and his SAVAK torturers.
McCandles| 2.27.12 @ 10:44AM
would you demonize the KKK? If so, please explain why. Then you will have your answer as to why we sometimes demonize those who follow Sharia law.
Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 5:16PM
"would you demonize the KKK"
There are statues of confderate generals and many other Confederate monuments. Tear them down and THEN you can go into the symbols of dictatorship in foreign lands.
Why was the Confederacy more democratic than Iran? if so- say so. If not, then all monuments to the Confederacy ought to be destroyed.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.27.12 @ 12:11PM
You're such a good little willing dhimmi, Brooks.
Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 5:18PM
No one is going to want to pay for another one of your drawn-out wars in the Mideast.
Teaghan| 2.27.12 @ 8:22AM
obama hates Israel and B. Netanyahu. I don't see any agreement coming down the pike and if I were BB I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of obama's mouth. I would consider my country as being on it's own.
Von Mises Jr.| 2.27.12 @ 8:56AM
The feeling is mutual with Bibi and the Jewish state. The Jewish people have been persecuted because of their success in education and business. Read Sowell on "Race and Culture," "Conquests and Culture," "Economics and Politics of Race;" or any of his books or articles on Affirmative Action worldwide. The Jewish people have been despised because of their superior performance.
If I had to guess, I would surmise that he will take matters into his own hands if he sees Obama's re-eclection as probable. Then he will not only have a short window of opportunity to stop Iran, but to help defeat this regime.
Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 10:36AM
Let's see, you wasted a decade and $3 trillion with the Cheney administration; now you want another war without raising taxes. Just blunderful.
Von Mises Jr.| 2.27.12 @ 11:40AM
Alan, you have such a limited view. Conservatives did not line up behind either Bushes like liberals lick the boots of their messiahs.
But Obama just wasted $5 trillion and on the way to $6 trillion by end of first term, and we have Afghanistan military going to war with American troops in the last week, Iraq unraveling, nobody knows which Muslim terrorist groups are really in charge in Libya and Egypt, and Iran is boiling over. And you want to talk about Cheney.
Ignorance is bliss!
Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 5:21PM
"and we have Afghanistan military going to war with American troops in the last week, Iraq unraveling"
You cannot hold Obama any more culpable for Bush's wars than you could blame Nixon for LBJ's war.
Von Mises Jr.| 2.28.12 @ 10:20AM
Brooksie, in your job sweeping floors (or whatever), do you blame the last employee who left years ago for dirt under the desks?
Can you explain what is going on in Libya and Egypt, or is that a delayed action to Bush?
Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 6:24PM
But you guys don't say how you are going to convince the public to cough up another few trillion smackers.
RJ| 2.27.12 @ 8:29AM
Dead Jews from Iran's handy work is not something Bibi wants on his watch. He knows Obama loves muslims, hates his people. He's got one sales pitch to make: Want to be re-elected Obama...help me!
My bet is Obama won't come into this game until Israel has just about lost everything, is crippled beyond imagination. Problem is, there are far tool many ignorant Americans who would agree to such a point of view and desire.
Malignant narcissists are running America...
Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 6:26PM
We'll do this:
drop you over Iran, as the pilot (played by Slim Pickens) was dropped on top of the Bomb in Dr. Strangelove over Russia.
You can hoot 'n' holler on your way down to ground zero.
VBMax| 2.27.12 @ 9:00AM
It's naive to think that Obama would do anything militarily against Iran. He's in agreement with that regime as evidenced by his support of the Mullahs during Iran's green revolution a couple of years ago.
Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 6:29PM
A guy who supports gay marriage is a tool of mullahs? Obama has nothing in common with the Ayatollah.
Shah Shah
Ayatollah so,
Ayatollah so.
jaytrain| 2.27.12 @ 9:13AM
There is absolutely no reason for Bibi to trust Obama . Notwithstanding the abundant evidence of his contempt of Israel for the last three years , on any other issue , any issue , Obama's assurance commitment or whatever is utterly worthless . He is a man utterly lacking in personal or moral integrity . If Israel were destroyed as the mullahs have promised , Obama would not lose a minute's sleep . And his running dog lackeys in the media amd the academy would be right beside him with the Blame Israel chorus . Bibi and Israel must do what they must do
Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 6:31PM
We'll drop you over Iran, as the pilot (played by Slim Pickens) was dropped on top of the Bomb over Russia, in Dr. Strangelove, .
You can hoot 'n' holler on your way down to ground zero.
Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel | 2.27.12 @ 9:21AM
I think that Netanyahu knows that Obama can't be trusted. I think that he has Obama's number. After all, Obama is highly favorable to the Muslim and rapidly increasing population, culture. His Administration has appointed a number of Muslims. His first Official foreign policy speech was to Muslims. He engineered the "Arab Spring" which has been a colossal failure, only helping to spread radical Islam. He fails to this day to acknowledge that the Fort Hood terrorist massacre was Jihad inspired. Also, Obama continues to allow Muslim training camps inside our US borders.
Netanyahu knows that if Obama treats America the way he has, that Obama is always ready and willing to sell Israel, short.
WeMustResist| 2.27.12 @ 10:08AM
You cannot compromise with your enemies. Either they kill you or you kill them. Iran has declared its enmity many times. Iran's actions speak louder than words. They want to kill every Jew and they want all humans to submit to Islam. Sanctions are a way of giving the enemy more time to arm himself. Are we going to arm ourselves better in the same time? Of course not - we are already as well armed as we can hope to be.
JFGalt| 2.27.12 @ 12:40PM
How is all this the US's problem? This seems like an Israeli problem not American. It's as if everyone over there is hellbent on setting off Armaggedon. While I see what Israel gets from the US, I don't really see what the US gets from Israel. Shouldn't there be a quid pro quo here? And I'm not talking about Jew/Christian matters here but just between the states of Israel and the US. I'm tired of people here that throw the anti-semite card out when they can't honestly answer a question - What do the people of the US get from its relationship with Israel?
Occam's Tool| 2.27.12 @ 12:57PM
It becomes our problem because our European trading partners (our NATO allies) are within range of these nukes, Mr. Galt. They also live on Iranian oil.
Grow UP.
JFGalt| 2.27.12 @ 1:56PM
But we don't. It seems like its Europe's problem then - not ours. For once let those snobs in Europe clean up their own mess. Trade with Asia - they are the ones that have the money. It still doesn't answer the question as to why we need to keep bailing Israel out.
There are some benefits to what you say but is it worth it. We can operate our own HUMINT in Israel as we already do in order to check the veracity of what we get from MOSSAD. We are constantly finding their spies deep in our country. Their trade is too small and mostly subsidized by the aid we give them. As to the rest, they don't seem to be enough to justify putting our country on line continuously for things that we could do just as well here. Besides most of those that they develop come from secrets that MOSSAD agents steal from the US. Their scientists are educated in American universities. We get most of our generic drugs from elsewhere. The only people in the US using hydroponics are marajuana growers. They do have some great criminals involved in Internet crime. There is a huge pharmacutical creation over there in Ecstacy and other drugs. Try again with original benefits that have real worth to a country of our size. Will someone say if it comes down to the fact that Israeli money greases the skids so well in the US congress that it buys them whatever they want just like corporate America does.
Burke| 2.27.12 @ 9:20PM
Apparently ebery one else's troubles is our troubles. Oh, de troubles we've seen. Gots to help everybody wid dey troubles. Here, take my son for your troubles. Take me dollah bill.
Ron Lewenberg | 2.28.12 @ 8:50PM
"How is all this the US's problem?"
Iran has threatened to destroy "The Great Satan", the US. It has been killing Americans since 1979, including hundreds in Iraq and Afghanistan through the use of adviser-trained proxies and in some cases actual Iranian-trained Shiite terrorists in Iraq.
Occam's Tool| 2.27.12 @ 1:02PM
We get a tremendous amount of human intelligence from Israel. We get a friendly population that welcomes our ships to dock at Haifa. We get an ally that can do some military extension work for us. We get a supporter in the UN (they never vote against us on anything that doesn't directly impact them). We get a great trade relationship. We get research that saved our Congresswoman's life.
We get access to some of the best software programmers and theoretical scientists in the world. We get a huge amount of our generic drugs from Israel. Ever check to see if your generics are made by TEVA?
Our weapons get improved thanks to Israeli upgrades. Our farmers get better hydroponic techniques. Our anti-terrorist forces get to learn from the best in the world. They publish the greatest number of scientific papers per capita in the world, outstripping the US. They also win more than their fair share of real Nobels, working with the US in some cases.
What do we get out of NATO? And Israel doesn't need our troops.
Herb Tarlek| 2.27.12 @ 9:53PM
We pay for everything we get from Israel just like everybody else.
Those in favor of another war in Asia are running in to two main problems. Problem number one is clear differences in the interests of the US versus Israel on this issue. In the past it has been portrayed that the two countries' interests were identical but this is no longer a credible argument.
The second problem is finance for this war as been discussed. The argument that it will be a quick air attack is difficult to sell given at minimum the likely effects on the oil markets for an indeterminate period. It is not possible to exclude the chance of a ground war due to the fog of war. Also, the chance of a meaningful delay or removal of the Iranian program from an air attack is small. You cannot verify your results conclusively from the air. And have you considered that Iran may already have a weapon, and your attack would serve as a gold plated invitation for it to be used. I suspect they have already obtained a Soviet block weapon.
Generally it is wise not to start wars with those who have less to lose than you.
In summary I have read no convincing argument that such attack would serve the interests of the US. This cat is out of the bag & there is nothing that can be done. Just like North Korea.
Bill| 2.27.12 @ 3:00PM
Barack Obama hates Jews and Isreal.
Nick| 2.28.12 @ 12:13AM
"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."
- Written by Bill, in the Time for Newt to Do the Honorable Thing thread:
http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403
You're a moron and a racist, Bill.
GO AWAY!
Oldefarte| 2.27.12 @ 4:03PM
ALERT, ALERT, ALERT! The following explains possibly the source of some/all of these Paulistas commentaries here concerning the useage of ISRAEL FIRSTER etc and the anti-Israel/Jewish remarks. Could it be that ''''''MEDIA MATTERS''''''is possibly paying these people to blog/comment on thsi conservative site??????:
'.....
'....Dershowitz Declares War on Soros-Financed Media Matters Site
Monday, February 27, 2012 07:45 AM
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz says he’s declaring war on the left-wing, George Soros-financed website Media Matters for America over its depiction of Israel. And Dershowitz says he’s going to make it into a re-election issue for President Barack Obama.
The information comes amid recent news, according to WND, that White House staffers held regular meetings and even a weekly conference call with Media Matters on campaign strategy.
Dershowitz is particularly angry with Media Matters' coverage of Israel, especially rhetoric from Media Matters Action Network senior fellow M.J. Rosenberg, who is known for his extreme anti-Israel views.
The site uses the phrase “Israel Firster,” implying those who support the Jewish state put Israel’s needs before those of the United States.
“Not only will [the Media Matters controversy] be an election matter, I will personally make it an election matter,” said Dershowitz.
“I will speak to every Jewish group that invites me, and I think it’s fair to say I speak to more Jewish groups than probably any other person in the world. I spoke to over a million Jews over the years,” Dershowitz said. “You know, just last Thursday I spoke to 1,200; just in the next weeks alone I’ll be speaking — and in the past weeks — to thousands of American Jews. And believe me, I will not let them ignore this issue.”
Dershowitz spoke Sunday on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio.
“I don’t know whether President Obama has any idea that Media Matters has turned the corner against Israel in this way,” Dershowitz said. “I can tell you this: He will know very shortly because I am beginning a serious campaign on this issue and I will not let it drop until and unless Rosenberg is fired from Media Matters, or Media Matters changes its policy or the White House disassociates itself from Media Matters.”....'
Pete| 2.27.12 @ 9:16PM
Too little too late. Dershowitz should have understood Obama's relationship with Farakkan before the 2008 election, and he should have understood the schooling Obama had at an early age. In other words he should have ALWAYS known Obama was anti-Israel.
Oldefarte| 2.27.12 @ 10:10PM
True, but that's besides the point of my above......the 'Israel Firster' brand has been used on this site extensively by one blogger and is probably telling as to who/what this person is/isn't and who is behind the comments coming from same. I'll let you figure out the rest!!!!
Naturalborn Texicanette| 2.27.12 @ 6:19PM
What people don't consider is that the well being of the U.S. is tied to the well being of Israel.
Period.
As long as the United States is a friend of Israel, we will be blessed. But not according to the gospel of obummer. He IS a muslim and he wants the U.S. to become his own little kingdom.
America's future is tied to how we treat Israel. Past presidents have been well aware of this. If the U.S. abandons Israel....we are toast.
And I don't care if you label me an "Israel firster."
Won't bother me at all........
At least I'm not an Obummer firster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Herb Tarlek| 2.27.12 @ 9:56PM
Bible stories haven't worked out so well as a guide to our foreign policy in Asia for the last decade.
Oldefarte| 2.27.12 @ 10:14PM
If you frequesnt this site much, you know exactly which blogger often accuses everyone [or the supporters of Israel here] of being an' Israel Firster'. This blogger is the only one that does so, and possibly same is affiliated with this Media Matters organization and not simply a Paulista!!!!!
Burke| 2.28.12 @ 2:07PM
No, you are not an obummer first, you are a psycho who thinks obama is a muslim. You belong in a ward somewhere shot full of Lithium.
Terry, Eilat - Israel| 2.29.12 @ 3:24AM
Sorry, the Obama administration has zero credibility. Obama cannot be trusted, he's a liar & a con man.
Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 3.1.12 @ 2:30AM
Israel or the United States striking Iran is on behalf of Saudi Arabia. Israel has 300 nuclear warheads. So what if Iran gets one? The Mullah's are fundamentalist yes but they are also the champions of Shia worldwide and they are not suicidal. It must be remembered that the Persians had an Empire and a Civilization long before Islam and that their civilization would come to an end if they hit Israel with a nuclear weapon. Therefore this would be for Saudi Arabia who's crown prince was quoted on Wikileaks as saying to the United States "now is the time to cut the head off the snake" and he was talking about Iran. I don't see how striking Iran for Saudi Arabia can be justified at all. Saudi Arabia is an authoritarian monarchy (of Divine Right) and the biggest exporter of Wahhabist/Salafist terrorism throughout the entire world. There is no freedom for minority religions in Saudi Arabia like there is in Iran. Also if Assad goes in Syria the result will be the ethnic cleansing of all minority religious sects including Christians, Shia/Alawites, Druze and others. There is no reason for us to interfere in Syria's Civil War but there is much evidence that we are doing just that.