Wikileaks Contradicts Obama Administration on Iran

Pages: 1 2

The answer may well be that both the Obama and Bush Administrations realize that nothing, short of a military attack, will stop Iran from developing deliverable nuclear weapons.  Since both administrations have apparently taken any military option off the table, they seem to have accepted a policy of “containment.”  But containment is not a policy.  It is an admission of failure.  And failure requires a scapegoat.  If Israel does not end the occupation, and Iran does develop nuclear weapons, it will be easy to blame Israel rather than the United States for this game-changing development.

In an op-ed in this past Sunday’s New York Times, Chas Freeman—the anti-Israel zealot whose nomination to become Chair of the National Intelligence Council was withdrawn under pressure—has already tried to cast blame on Israel.  He argues that notwithstanding the clear language of the recently released cables, the Gulf Arabs do not want the United States to attack Iran.  Nor did the cables, according to Freeman, “demonstrate a basis for Arab-Israeli solidarity against Tehran.”  This is patent nonsense, reflecting Freeman’s bias, rather than reality.  He also argues, with typical contempt of history, that the only country that ever says no in the Middle East is Israel, forgetting that Israel has on several occasions offered to end the occupation and accept a two state solution.  Freeman conveniently forgets that when the occupation first began, Israel offered to return the land captured in a defensive war in exchange for peace with its Arab neighbors.  All the Arab states convened in Khartoum and issued their three famous “nos”:  No negotiation, no recognition, no peace.  So much for Freeman’s credibility.

The truth is that the Palestinians have marginalized themselves in the Middle East by rejecting offers that the Arab states have urged them to accept.  Iran is the 800 pound gorilla in the area, and all the other countries in the Middle East recognize that and have a common interest in preventing so irresponsible a regime from working together with North Korea to develop nuclear rockets.

The Wikileaks prove what many of us have been saying for years:  that the United States, as the leader of the free world, must stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons—whatever it takes.  Although an air and rocket attack should remain an absolutely last resort, this military option must remain on the table.  If all else fails and the United States must resort to military action, the Arab world will support such action (at least in private), regardless of whether Israel and the Palestinian Authority finally make peace.

Professor Alan Dershowitz’s latest book is a novel, The Trials of Zion.

Pages: 1 2

  • LibertyLover

    Is there anyone surprised that Obama has lied to us?

    • stephencuz

      This is what surprises me: "…General David Petraeus, Secretary of State Robert Gates and Vice President Joe Biden have all insisted that the continuing occupation has made Arab states less willing to cooperate with the United States in preventing Iran from developing nuclear bombs."
      I at least, held hope that an American General would be beyond reproach. A sad commentary. For shame General, for shame.

      • LibertyLover

        The three individuals you name have to parrot the "Official Line" but Petraeus has enouigh honor that I believe he will hang-up his spurs before long on some pretext in order to get away from the slime in the Whitehouse.

    • Sharon Klaff

      No?!! He never did!

  • ViewPoint

    Early in obam's administration, when in Cairo, he promised the Palestinians a contiguous Palestine and not just Eastern Jerusalem, but Jerusalem as their capitol. On page 261 of his first memoir, obam says he would ultimately side with the Muslims. To side with the Muslims requires fully supporting their primary objective; the destruction of Israel. WikiLeaks didn't expose the truth… it simply validated it.

  • ViewPoint

    Early in obam's administration, when in Cairo, he promised the Palestinians a contiguous Palestine and not just Eastern Jerusalem, but Jerusalem as their capitol. On page 261 of his first memoir, obam says he would ultimately side with the Muslims. To side with the Muslims requires fully supporting their primary objective; the destruction of Israel. WikiLeaks didn't expose the truth… it simply validated it.

    • Sharon Klaff

      Its not for nothing that they call him Abu Hussein!



  • Gamaliel Isaac

    The statement that "There are good reasons for Israel to reach an agreement with the Palestinians leading to a two state solution," is a canard as well. There are already 4 defacto states there (See the article "The Four State Solution" which was published online in the American Thinker.

    • Sharon Klaff

      I don't know about 4 states, but the Mandate of Palastine is already 2 states – Jordan and Israel and certainly any solution must bring Jordan back to the table.

  • WB


    You say “There are good reasons for Israel to reach an agreement with the Palestinians leading to a two state solution…”

    For a long time now you’ve been the poster boy for this social theme, which you certainly must know has no historical or legal basis.

    Instead of presenting yourself as in the opposite camp of J Street, you should be honest and drop the pretense.

    Your goals are the same as those of J Street and the Obama Administration.

    Rabbi Kahane tried to convince you, by historical and legal facts, that you were mistaken. You are just as mistaken today as you were when you were on the bima with him in the famous debate.

    Wake up, Alan. Shivat L’tziyon!

  • Andres de Alamaya

    Mr. Gershowitz, note Gamaliel Isaac's comment since he, too, caught your erroneous assumption. There is no such thing as a two state solution. The only way for Israel to survive is to take control. Create one or several provinces out of the West Bank in which Arab Israelis, loyal to Israel, are allowed to govern, show them how to live better lives than Muslims in all other Muslim states but tightly control education, rid the country (as we should in the free world) of hate preaching Mullahs and deport all undesirable elements.

  • ze-ev ben jehudah

    If Iran becomes a nuclear nation the there will be no restriction on their part
    to take over all the surrounding,Arab,countrys.Iran will then become the most
    powerfull nation in the regio.They will control all the oil productions and at the
    same time make those oil sheyks pennyless and O boy that will be a scenario
    they won'nt like a bit. Israel is the only nation in the midle east who is capable
    to put a stop to Iran's nuclear power madness. So now they are embracing the
    Israelis and if need be they will drop the Palestinian issue like it never existed.
    Imagin the former oil billionairs doing hard labour for their Iranian masters.No
    they'll embrace Israel as the long lost brother,the David who will kill the Goliath
    for them so they can keep sitting on their Yankee dollars and co ca co la.

  • kdy

    The point here is that the Bush administration also lied to the American public….and I voted for Bush>>twice. What a disappointment. We honest citizens have been lied to for years about what our government is doing and why it is doing it. How do we get honest people into governmental posititons…or is that a dicotomy of terms?

    • CanadConserv

      Dershowitz is a Democrat and supported Obama originally, if not now. Sounds to me like he's trying to cover his butt retroactively with that untrue comment about the Bush admin:

      "The same question must be asked of the Bush Administration, which also mislead the public when it came to Iran by releasing the National Security Estimate in November 2007 that falsely concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program."

      In fact, Bush had no choice but to release it, because it would have been leaked. The report was probably purposely written to force Bush against a strike. Or by terribly naive analysts, embarassed about having been wrong about Hussein and WMD (not that he wouldn't have reconstittued them asap anyhow). And the analysts were a bit right, in that iran, apparently, had temporarily suspended the program after the inital resounding victory of American forces over Hussein.

      Finally Patreus, as far as I recall, never said anything about Israel and Iran, only the its conflict with the Palestinians aggravated Muslim anger at American soldiers. That was silly, of course, as if the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents might be fighting less hard if only Israel and the Palestinians came to a peace agreement.

  • Proudscott

    My question is always this: When we know governmnet is corrupt, it lies, it cheats, it steals, it bankrupts, then why do we have such an inclination to make government bigger and to allow it to take over more of our lives?????? Why are people so stupid to think that a corrupt government can somehow manage our personal lives for us?

    • BoogiesDaddy

      Yea! What HE said.

      A side question here, If the Oil rich Saudis want Iran smacked down, why don't THEY do it?

      • coyote3

        We have more reason to attack Iran than anyone else. Iran invaded the United States of America.

        • BoogiesDaddy

          I completely missed that bit of news. I KNOW that Mexico is invading…..Oh you mean the Embassy as U.S. soil?
          That was on Carter's watch. I think that once a quarter century passes the distinction of moral high ground fades a bit in the "world's view".

          With B.O. and his defence / world justice department there is a much better chance that we will attack our CURRENT enemy…You know…..Wal-Mart!

  • anolesman

    The fall of the United States will not come from with-out, it will come from with-in. That is the only way the United States can be defeated………From with-in and it began in January 2008 when Hussain Obama was sworn in as President of this Country.Slowly but surely if it continues on the course he has set it will happen.

    Surely the Dems, liberals and any sane person can see it.

  • Sonya

    National Security Estimate in November 2007, claiming that Iran stopped developing nukes in 2003 was produced by former State employees, liberal opponents of President Bush, in order to prevent him from taking action against Iran. Check your facts.

  • 080

    Mr. Dershowitz: If any of this comes as news to you it merely signifies that you should change your sources of information.

  • SeaMystic

    Impeach Obama or else think Mao, Lenin, Stalin and Mohammed controlling the U.S.A..


  • sam000

    what is changed from Bush to Obama?
    The Foreign policy remains un-changed.


    During BUSH, Obama was directing the BUSH FOREIGN POLICY!?

    • winoceros

      Very cogent.

  • BoogiesDaddy

    We have a foreign policy?

    Since GHW Bush I have wondered about that.

  • Henach

    Why did Obama demand Israeli concessions supposedly to get the Arab states to oppose Iran? Obama knew that the Arab states were strongly opposed to Iran's getting the bomb, so the reasons he gave were not true.

    Obama, with a career as a community organizer, is like a salesman; he is a persuader. But to make the sale, he does not feel obligated to tell the truth; he feels that the end justifies the means. In this case, he wants Israeli concessions for his own reasons; but rather than reveal his own true reasons, he finds it expedient to make up reasons, if they cannot be easily proven to be false. In this case, the WikiLeaks documents showed he lied, but this unmasking came as a complete surprise to him.

  • scum


  • Watchful

    Scum says, " . . . Those who most despise wikileaks are doomed to rely on it. Freakin Hilarious"

    Actually, only hilarious to those whose thought processes begin and end with binary thinking in which events are perceived in terms of dichotomies such as "either/or" , "good/bad" or "black/white" . This is primitive thinking.

    There's an old saying which perhaps you have heard of and which I can only paraphrase, "It's an ill wind indeed that blows NO ONE any good."

  • coyote3

    When are we going to attack Iran? I never could believe the Bush administration's assertion that they abandoned the nuclear program, and I voted for the liberal Bush, albeit while holding my nose. Why would they abandon the program? They invaded the United States of America, and let's see the Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, administrations have come and gone, and no one has answered the invasion. So far Obama has done nothing, he has a little more time (tee hee), but if I were wagering, I would bet he won't attack them. Why would I have any respect for a nation I can invade, without consequences? This is especially true when you consider this in the context of people (well kinda people) who only understand brute force. Mr. President, the United States of America has been invaded, please respond.

    • winoceros

      You're howlin' up the wrong tree. If Iran were ever to be invaded Obama would claim it wasn't us, it was that guy over there. Obsequious is the word I'm thinking of.

      • coyote3

        I am sure you are right, but my point is, where were all these other administrations when we were invaded. Not even neutral "peacenik" nations put up with that kind of stuff.

        • BoogiesDaddy

          Republican Ford was out.
          Democrat Carter was in. = Embassy attacked. hostages taken and kept.
          Republican Reagan in = Hostages released.
          Reagan investigated by Democrats.

  • Piera Prister

    Thanks to WikLeaks' cables and thanks to Stuxnet, president Obama looks like Pinocchio, a naughty boy, a pest who wan't listen to the Speaking Cricket and keeps telling lies, look at his nose, it gets longer and longer.! Finally we can breathe with a great relief! After all Mr. Ahmadinejad now seems wounded , less arrogant and in low spirits, amid his crippled nuclear centrifuges. Well done, hallelujah!

  • sydchaden

    The fact that the Saudis and other Gulf States were concerned over a potential Iranian nuclear capability was generally known years ago. The fact that they were in favor of Israel's taking out that capability was also known. Wikileaks was not the original source of such information. The Bush Administration effectively prevented such a move, and the Obama Administration has focussed more on neutralizing Israel than it has on addressing Iran. Given that Israel has no oil, and Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States do, the US "and its allies" would be more disposed to respond to the threat to them, rather than to any threat to Israel. But, the US "Umbrella", as US security guaranties are termed, is being used to restrain Israel, rather than to address the Iranian threat. The anti-Israeli agenda, rather than an anti-Iranian agenda, appears to be determining US policy and actions.