Pages: 1 2
Imagine for a moment that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini, at a Martyrs Day rally in Tehran, repeated his longstanding call for both the UK and France to be wiped off the map. Imagine then, that after failing for nearly a decade to persuade Iran to abort its nuclear program through diplomatic overtures and intensifying sanctions, the UK and France began advocating, in response to Khameini’s genocidal threats, preventive military action against Iran’s nuclear installations.
Not only would UK Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy unquestionably garner Barack Obama’s unconditional support, but the US President also would likely agree to do the heavy lifting for them.
How do we know this? Because less than one year ago Obama did just that in Libya. That is, the US led a NATO campaign at the behest of close allies to depose Moammar Qaddafi. And this despite the fact the Libyan dictator posed no threat whatsoever—never mind a mortal one—to either the UK or France. Moreover, Obama was so eager to accommodate American allies that he went to war in Libya without obtaining approval from Congress—arguably a violation of the US Constitution—and in a manner that vastly exceeded the parameters of the coalition’s so-called UN mandate. No amount of “leading from behind” rhetoric can alter this truth.
Yet here is tiny Israel—the US’s most stalwart ally in the world’s most strategically imperative region—having its real existential threat not only shunned by the same Barack Obama, but also publicly undermined by his most senior defense and intelligence officials. Granted Iran is no Libya, but can this alone account for the discrepancy in the way the US president treats his most dependable allies? No. And thus Obama’s inherent bias against the Jewish state should be undeniably confirmed to all. His actions also prove once again that Israel is held to unique, unfair standards, thereby reinforcing the importance of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s assertion that “Israel must have the ability always to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.”
We have two pieces of evidence indicating that Netanyahu’s core Iran policies were rebuffed by Obama during their meeting in Washington. These being: to persuade the US president to articulate clear “red lines,” preferably but not necessarily defined as Iran’s achievement of a “nuclear capability,” an second, in the absence of any willingness to directly engage Iran militarily, a US commitment to indirectly support (at the very least tacitly approve of) an Israeli-led strike. Should this bare-minimum not be met, another hoped for objective was that Obama would set three basic pre-conditions before agreeing to resume fruitless “engagement” of Tehran’s Mullahs: that Iran close its underground Fordow nuclear facility near Qoms, stop enriching uranium, and remove from the country all uranium enriched beyond 3.5 percent.
Pages: 1 2