FarmDad

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/wo...30nuke.html?hp

So let us review. As any reasonable person would have expected, Ahmadinejad and company have spent months stringing Obama along while they continue to enrich uranium. In return for absolutely nothing but the loss of time, the Iranians extracted a concession from Obama that they have the right to use enriched uranium that they produced in violation of international agreements. But wait, there's more. In return for betraying our Eastern European allies, we got absolutely nothing from the Russians but more demands regarding Georgia and Ukraine, as the Russians are refusing to cooperate with stern sanctions against Iran.

Smart diplomacy, anyone?

soccerguy315

Not good. Not good at all.

There is your different strategy... it doesn't work. Nothing is going to work except for military intervention by someone. Is it worth that? I don't know.

fundingfather

The obvious answer is that we have not been nice enough. Perhaps if we can get the world to like us a little more we can make progress diplomatically.

purpleflurp

"Smart diplomacy, anyone?"

Yeah, but look at the bright side--the world's lunatics like America much more now that Obama is at the helm!

FarmDad

For them, what's not to like? Maybe in exchange for concessions, they gave Obama pointers in how to deal with hostile media.

BigG

Attak Iran or develop/refine technology to knock down missiles and detect nuclear devices. Choose one.

Diplomancy has always been a loser for the U.S.

purpleflurp

"Maybe in exchange for concessions, they gave Obama pointers in how to deal with hostile media."

And he seems to be a quick study on that subject!

FarmDad

The Associated Press: Ahmadinejad: Iran's enemies a 'mosquito'

Obama is being played.

Bullet

FarmDad, my sincere hope is that Israel does not see the situation ("Obama is being played") as clearly as you do. My worst nightmare is that they do.

And if they do, does anybody on here really question just how Israel will handle the perception that their country is threatened and America is too weak, or too timid, to do something about it?

churchmusicmom

This is indeed frightening.

I am currently a guest in the home of gracious friends who immigrated here from "Persia" (AKA Iran) years ago. They still have family there and are deeply saddened at what has become of their beloved country.

I cannot imagine.

jablalf

Nope. At this moment it seems like there exists only one possible course of action for Israel, unless the Obama administration drastically changes its approach to "diplomacy."

Also, I'll submit that this isn't a matter of "perception" but rather fact - Iran has spelled out time and time again what it will do once it gets its hands on a nuke and there's no doubt that constitutes a direct threat to Israel's existence. Likewise, the U.S. has proven of late that it's committed more to talk than action.

FarmDad

Israel absolutely sees a nuclear Iran as an existential threat and game changer in their neighborhood, thereby unacceptable. Regarding whether they see Obama as “being played” and as too weak or timid to do something about it, let’s just say that they are smart enough to see the obvious. That said, Netanyahu and Oren have been very generous in their public comments about Obama and the folly that he has been pursuing, and have made a decision at this stage not to challenge or criticize him publicly while making clear their view that it is crucial for the international community to prevent Iran from further enriching uranium and working toward nuclear weapons capability, and that the U.S. should lead the charge. Even the French have been more openly critical of Obama’s unreality on this issue than have the Israelis. And for all of Obama’s reaching out to the Muslim world, don’t think that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and virtually every other Sunni Arab country in the region have been happy with Obama’s weakness and dithering in dealing with Iran.

Israel is not eager to attack Iran because they know it will be difficult and will get ugly, with international repercussions that will go against them if they do it alone. Even the Arab countries who want them to do it if that’s what it takes to stop Iran will pile on furiously. Actually for them, it would be a two-for: stopping Iran and giving them another reason to condemn Israel. The Israelis (and many of our allies) want Obama to start showing stronger leadership in pressuring Iran. It’s hard to know if the Israelis really believe it when they say that crushing sanctions (i.e., preventing Iran from importing gasoline) could succeed in changing Iranian behavior, but that is what they would like Obama to start moving toward. It should be evident to everyone now that the Iranians are not negotiating seriously, and it's time for Obama to turn the corner and turn up the heat. Unfortunately, Obama has already signaled weakness rather than strength to the Russians, who thereby have little incentive to give their cooperation which is essential.

Iran is enriching uranium in violation of UN Security Council resolutions, and is reveling in the fact that Obama has been maneuvered into telling them that it is okay. The trajectory that Obama’s weakness helped set in motion does seem to be U.S. acquiescence to a nuclear Iran which will eventually trigger unilateral Israeli military action which will draw the U.S. in whether we like it or not to prevent Iran from mining the Straits of Hormuz and ruining the world economy. If we had a stronger president, or if Obama would get angry and turn into the BaRock (a la SNL), the alternative would be the U.S. assertively spearheading muscular international sanctions in conjunction with a credible threat of military action led by the U.S. (not Israel) if the sanctions were to fail. Think George H. W. Bush in 1991. If strong leadership were there, most of the world, including the Arab countries, would be behind us.

BigG

Of what value is a UN Security Council resolution? "Obey us or one of us big boys will whack you". If none of the big boys will bleed and die to enforce it , it is just an empty gesture. If some of the "big boys" are winking and nodding (not to say which but neither uses our alphabet) then a resolution is pathetic.

We no longer have the economic clout to make sanctions work. Iran can trade oil to China for all the manufactured goods they need, even those produced in China by nominally American companies.

To repeat a post from another thread; Maybe Israel hasn't whacked Iran already because they know they cannot.

Many people assume assume Israel, with our weapons, can "take" Iran. Iran has been spending its oil revenues on air defense sysems. The Russians have "stolen a march" on us technologically before (anyone remember sputnik and the first man in space?)

When and/or if we or Israel do attack Iran, casualties may be unacceptably high even for a nominally sccessful operation. That may be what is detering President O.

An unsuccessful attack would be a disaster worse than a nuclear Iran. Israel would be toast or at least badly damaged almost immediately.

A nuclear Iran might be content to exist in equilibrium with the unacknowledged but almost certainly nuclear Israel. We and the Soviets threw a lot of rhetoric around but never actually nuked one another.

I would trust our determined development of anti-missile technology much more than our diplomatic prowess, the good will of Iran, Israel's ability to whack Iran or even our ability to whack Iran conventionally.

FarmDad

I don't think that Israel can do it alone. Even assuming that the intelligence of where to attack is there, unlike Osirak and Syria, it would take days of sustained bombing of sites with bunker busters that Israel doesn't have, some boots on the ground, and the capacity to deal with Iranian efforts either preemptively or post-strike to close the Straits of Hormuz.

The U.S., with or without Israel, could do it, and probably with fewer casualties than what we're seeing in Afghanistan in a bad month. The aftermath of an attack is more foreboding than the attack itself (e.g., efforts to cause turmoil in the world oil economy; missile attacks from Lebanon and maybe from Iran itself against Israel; terrorist attacks around the world through proxies, including perhaps Hezbollah sleeper cells in the US and Latin America).

What's deterring Obama may be that, despite his rhetoric, he is willing to accept a nuclear Iran so as not to risk any of the consequences described above, not to mention disappointing his fan club in Norway. Perhaps an understandable position as there are no easy options. The problem is, if we are afraid of the mischief Iran can make now with their conventional capabilities, just think of the mischief and intimidation they will cause in the Mideast once they are a nuclear power.

churchmusicmom

I am thinking also of mischief and intimidation they will cause world wide.