Israel Contemplates: What If America Doesn’t Come Through?

Pages: 1 2

In Israel’s internal debate for and against attacking Iran’s nuclear program, the basic dividing line is between those who put their trust in the United States/international community to take care of the problem and those who do not.

President Shimon Peres—supposed to be a figurehead who keeps out of politics—recently told Israel’s Channel 2 TV that “it’s clear to us that we can’t do it alone…. It’s clear to us we have to proceed together with America. There are questions about coordination and timing, but as serious as the danger is, this time at least we are not alone.”

But what if America were to shy off from attacking Iran, or decide it was not in its interest? Not to worry, said Peres: “I am convinced this is an American interest. I am convinced [President Obama] recognizes the American interest and he isn’t saying this just to keep us happy. I have no doubt about it, after having had talks with him.”

And former Mossad chief Meir Dagan became an international media hit by saying an Israeli attack would be “the stupidest thing I have ever heard.” A few months ago he and some colleagues, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, went so far as to carefully advise the international community how to use sanctions to put a full stop to Iran’s program.

Although Peres is never quiet, Dagan at least has been quiet lately. Is he having second thoughts? One doesn’t know, but there would be good reasons for him to have them.

On Wednesday AP reported that Iran’s Asian oil-buying markets are keeping it economically afloat—and more—despite the sanctions. “When Iran welcomes world leaders to a world gathering [of the Non-Aligned Movement] next week,” AP notes, “few will get a grander reception than India’s prime minister.” That’s because, while

[o]il purchases by India, China and South Korea—which decided this week to resume Iranian imports—have not covered Tehran’s losses…they have given Iran a critical cushion that brings in tens of millions of dollars in revenue each day and means that Iran has dropped only one ranking, to stand as OPEC’s third-largest producer.

The report goes on to say that “The U.S. has pressed hard for Iran’s top customers—China, India, Japan and South Korea—to scale back on crude imports, with some success…. But Washington cannot push its key Asian trading partners too fast or too aggressively and risk economic rifts.”

It then quotes an expert who says: “Despite Western sanctions…China and Japan will remain major importers of Iranian crude oil and so will India.”

So much for sanctions? At least, it seems clear that Israel shouldn’t be putting its life on the line out of a totally unwarranted assumption that they’ll work.

Meanwhile the International Atomic Energy Agency—which is supposed to make sure rogue states don’t develop nuclear weapons—is resuming talks with Iran on Friday. The ostensible goal is to gain access to Parchin, the site 20 miles southeast of Tehran where—according to Western assessments—Iran has been carrying out explosives tests relevant to nuclear weapons.

The problem is that since last November, when the IAEA fingered Parchin as a problematic site, Iran has never granted the agency access to it.

And on Wednesday IAEA director-general Yukiya Amano said he “cannot be too optimistic” about a breakthrough: “We have been making our best efforts in a constructive spirit to work out an agreement between Iran and IAEA, but so far we have not been successful in reaching agreement. I have no indication this will change very soon.”

This at a time when Iran has been upping uranium enrichment to over 20 percent while activating hundreds more centrifuges; the latest U.S. National Intelligence Estimate says “Iran has made surprising, notable progress in the research and development of key components of its military nuclear program”; a senior Israeli official “has said Iran has made significant progress in assembling a nuclear warhead”; and the new NIE further states that Iran has “boosted its efforts to attach a nuclear warhead to ballistic missiles.”

Pages: 1 2

  • Fabio Juliano

    With all due respect, but Shimon Peres must be entering his dotage years. There is no chance Barack Obama is going to launch a strike against Iran. The bottom line is that Obama thinks Ahmadinejad and the mullahs (great name for a band if music were not forbidden under Islam) should have nuclear weapons as a matter of fairness. Bringing up the fact they have repeatedly vowed to destroy Israel as part of their duty to Allah is "Islamophobic" and totally outside the bounds of polite discourse.

  • ★FALCON★

    The American People will never abandon Israel. But Israel can not count on the Muslim usurping the Presidency. Additionally, Israel is right to be concerned when Obama said he has Israel's back – everything that has ever come out of his mouth has been a lie. It's best to believe the exact opposite of what he declares.

    Obama will probably back Iran given his track record and that's a risk Israel must acknowledge.

  • Bert

    After all the long experience in Jewish history it is only Jewish fools that still fail to realize when we are being lied to by crooked politicians like Obama. Chaim Weizmann also never lost faith in Britain even as they were betraying the Jewish to the Nazis. We must choose. We either have faith in G-d or faith in human leaders. We cannot serve two masters.

  • Andrea

    Israel should attack Iran with a Electro Magnetic Pulse EMP Bomb. This will be an "electronic Armageddon"

    In military form, the EMG is a conventional warhead that produces a magnetic pulsed field equal to a small nuclear bomb. EMGs can knock out computers, radios, radars and fry a wide variety of electronic devices. The U.S. version, an EMG warhead equipped Tomahawk cruise missile, was considered by the Clinton administration for "non-lethal" strikes against Serbian radar and command posts. Russian versions vary but two have been openly developed for Speznatz (special forces) operations, a backpack EMG and a grenade sized EMG.

    An EMP bomb is "a bomb that's designed to go above the atmosphere and release huge amounts of energy," some of which in the form of gamma rays. Such a weapon would cripple electronics, but not kill people.

    In less than a billionth of a second, the electrical intensity on Earth's surface would become so hot that microchips would fry, power lines would overload and the electric grid would collapse. Everything with microelectronics in it would stop: your car, your computer, the subway, missile launchers, communications EVERYTHING. There would be no electricity for fridges, lights, telephones, radios, etc.

    Back to the 7th century.

    • Kufar Dawg

      Interesting idea, but does Israel actually possess such technology? Does anyone?

  • Mladen Andrijasevic

    How come Obama's support for the Muslim Brotherhood is taken so lightly in the US? It completely destroyed the remaining trust the Israeli leadership had for the Obama administration.

    Avoiding another Hiroshima while Obama keeps supporting the Muslim Brotherhood

  • Glennd1

    One correction to a common slur that folks like this author like to try and make. Calling for the destruction of Israel as a state and the elimination of Zionism is not the same as calling for the killing of all Jews, and is not a call to genocide. They, along with many other's in the region, have objected since the very beginning to the western imposition of a Jewish state in the region against the wishes of all already living there and Zionism is the cause of retaking Palestine for Jews – so to oppose it is not to oppose Jews per se. It actually originally started as solely a search for a safe homeland anywhere that Jews could emigrate too. People here should know that many Zionists back when this all started did not want to take Palestine by force, ever. Many notable Jews left the movement over this, and really when it became about enforcing ancient land claims versus the legitimate human rights threat to Jews, Zionism becomes something very different. There are many Jews today who still don't identify with the Zionist cause – does that make them anti-semitic?

    Many Zionists today try and conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, and this article represents that kind of thinking. While it is true that the Shi'a madmen in Iran are among the worst of the worst govt in the world, and run a far less enlightened government than Israel's, we still need to portray them accurately. They are not threatening to say, for example, come to the U.S. and kill Jews here or in Europe. I should be clear that I find the mullahs loathsome, and if you actually read about what life has been like for the past 30 yrs there, you really have to be disgusted by it. These guys are madmen – and it's a recent thing, btw. Khomeni just made up his claim to be the Mahdi on Earth, and sought to gain power in this life to bring about the 12th Imam in 1963, but up until that time, Shi'ism specifically cautioned its leaders away from politics and government, claiming only the spiritual/religious sphere of society. What's even sadder for us is that by invading Iraq, we drove the moderate Shi'a who were left, trying to keep a non-political Shi'ism alive in opposition to the Mullahs in Iran, but they were driven into Iran after we sided with the Sunni against them in Iraq, and they have lost substantial influence in the Shi'a world. Yet another unintended consequence of our idiotic invasion of Iraq, but I digress.

    I don't stand with those thugs. But I'm also really struggling to understand why some Israelis think it's in the U.S. interest to stop Iran from acquiring nukes via first strike – or why Israel thinks so either? We already face down North Korea daily and haven't attacked, right? We faced down the Soviets for 40 years without attacking, right? If Iran launched a nuclear attack first, well we should let them know we will decapitate their country, by destroying all government officials and facilities, mulllahs, mosques and military installations without regard to civilian casualties. We'd only have to do it once, and we could say, transmit film of Nagasaki and Hiroshima as reminders? I have no problems with that, but I just don't see what good comes of a pre-emptive attack.

    Think about it, what happens after an Israeli attack? It cannot invade or occupy Iran, and it can't even knock out the government. So all it can do is damage the nuclear capability and perhaps other aspects of Iran's military that would be likely used in retaliation, in a first strike. What happens next? Is that at catalyst for a new Persian-Arab, Sunni-Shi'a alliance against Israel? Would terrorist attacks skyrocket around the world in a sympathetic and intentional response? Would Iran not have the right under international law to strike back at Israel? Do you folks even stop and think about that? A first strike gives Iran the legitimate right to strike back in defense and retaliation – all legitimacy is also lost with a first strike.

    Again, I'd really like to have a conversation here. I'm not a Jew hater, I'm just very opposed to our alliance with Israel because I think it's against our interests. But even if you are the biggest Zionist, you should slow down and really think this through. What is the endgame here? The author kind of misrepresents former Mossad head, Dagan, by only claiming he was advocating sanctions, and that his current silence might somehow signal him changing his mind, but that is absurd. If you read the rest of his commentary, you'll see he poses the same very difficult questions I do about the very foreseeable and deadly consequences of a first strike. He also really questions whether Iran would launch a first strike against Israel – and remember, that's not me saying this, but rather the recent head of the freaking Mossad. How can anyone dismiss what he says as anti-semitic? Answer, you can't, he's actually making sense, you should listen to him.

    • Stern

      YOu've been reading all the usual crap. We know it, no need for you to regurgitate it here. go play with your friends on sites like The Guardian. You'll feel much more at home there, where you can all lie to each other as much as you like, without having to confront reality. Unfortunately for you, we prefer to see life as it really is and we honestly don't need you here.

      • Glennd1

        Stern – I'm actually trying to have a dialog with you, and maybe some other folks here. Can you show me where my reasoning is flawed? In real ways, some of my points have nothing to do with my opposition to Zionism, in the sense of what the likely outcomes may be to such an attack. Or why it's in the U.S. interest to support such a move. Can you at least respond to those points? We aren't going to agree on Zionism, okay, but I don't think this is a good move for the Zionists, where am I wrong? Seriously, can you take a moment and tell me how you think this works out well and is the right approach?

        • Jerry

          I will be glad to answer you. We know Iran has terrorists inside America, or more properly termed devout Muslims. The Islamic religion demands that good little Muslims kill the infidels, plain and simple. Make no mistake Israel is called the 'Little Satan' and America the 'Big Satan.' Basically they want to kill every Christian and Jew on the planet. They even have a saying, 'First comes Saturday then comes Sunday.' If you want to know why we should attack read, 'THE COMING: A TRUE STORY OF HORROR' at

          • Glennd1

            So there are Hezbollah operatives in the U.S. – okay, that's been the case since the '80s. We have spies there too, and oh yeh, we overthrew their govt in the '50s, trained Shah's secret police, the Savak who tortured and oppressed political resistance in horrible ways, armed Saddam Hussein against them in the '90s and these days we are teaming up with Israel to assassinate scientists and military figures within their borders and sabotaging facilities in their country too.

            You can't just present one side of the ledger. And you guys can call that the "Guardian" view of things, but everything I said above is true – it's not in dispute by anyone knowledgeable about the history of the region. Now I also think the Shi'a running Iran are madmen – I went to great lengths above to make all that clear. What you haven't done is present any sort of answer regarding the "end-game". What will be the outcome of an attack on Iran right now? Is there another way to deter them? That's the question I'm asking. Are you suggesting that we not only take out their nuclear capabilities but rather actually invade and occupy them? Lol, you would be quite alone in that position…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "So there are Hezbollah operatives in the U.S. – okay, that's been the case since the '80s. We have spies there too, and oh yeh, we overthrew their govt in the '50s, trained Shah's secret police, the Savak who tortured and oppressed political resistance in horrible ways, armed Saddam Hussein against them in the '90s and these days we are teaming up with Israel to assassinate scientists and military figures within their borders and sabotaging facilities in their country too. "

            What do you know about Islam? Please state the extent that you think my question is relevant to the thread and that will save a lot of time. I will then answer you. North Korea is not a theocracy. The closest comparison to Iran is Pakistan, but they have their aggression faced towards India, and then towards regaining territory in Afghanistan. Plus they are not messianic to the extent that Iran is currently.

            Iran is a huge risk and perhaps should have been neutralized before Iraq was, which would have probably made Saddam think twice about his behavior. However, even that is not ideal.

            Based on results through today, there are no easy answers, but someone has to make the call to deal with global Islamic imperialism. There are at least two active global efforts to expand Islam, Shia and Sunni. They hate each other too, so I think the biggest reasons for trying to play them off one another is that it might have been a peaceful way relatively speaking to bring them in to the modern world and the hope was that we would civilize them as they discovered the benefits.

            Iran's reactions to the war on terror and then the so-called Arab Spring, and specific revelations about the Obama administration have all forced the issues to be taken much more seriously. It appears to the Islamic imperialists that they can easily deceive and manipulate Western politicians and judging by the curve, each president gets easy to manipulate one after the other if you overlook the distinctions between parties.

            This is not considered acceptable to discuss among any liberals and even many mainstream conservatives. I don't know much about the "Tea Party" other than it's now a common pejorative used by liberals.

            There are a lot of seemingly maniacal claims about the threat, but some of them are unfortunately true. Look at Saudi investments in politicians and mosques, The numbers are staggering. So is the narrative. They truly want to destroy all non-Muslim governments, but when they are strong enough they will offer you one last chance to peacefully submit before forcing you to obey Sharia, which might in fact then lead to your immediate death or enslavement. Slaver is alive and well in Saudi Arabia and many other nations following its beliefs. If you think for one moment that anyone in the world can get caught under the wrong circumstances leading to their enslavement, you are simply wrong.

            People have not changed over time. Civilizations change, and this influences the behavior of its members. Know your enemy. To deny you have any is a delusion.

            The only answer is a return to strong hegemony and forcing rational actors through diplomacy to participate. Uncompromising multilateral-ism. We give plenty of liberties to European nations because we are generous, not because they are clients. Liberals who attack the West for its hegemony, calling it "neo-colonialism," are falling in to the traps of propagandists. And it works out great for the enemy and has ever since the end of WWII, and there is a very specific reason for that. Islamic imperialists learned much from the mistakes of the Nazis, and the propaganda of the Soviets and the Nazis. Jihad had been going on for 14 centuries, and it has been active at all times when its objectives for conquest appeared achievable.

            I can't think of what else to add without knowing about your exposure to these claims.

          • Glennd1

            Wow, you are an arrogant man, aren't you? My commentary above should reveal that I'm at least as knowledgeable as you about Islam – but I'll set that aside and focus on your "argument", such as it is.

            Iran is run by a Shi'a sect that split off from traditional Shi'ism in 1963 when Khomeni, a cleric studying Shi's texts in Najaf (in Iraq) claimed to have discovered that he was the Mahdi on earth, and that his job was to bring about the return of the 12th Imam. This represented a huge shift in Shi'a doctrine, which had previously been non-political and saw religion and govt as two separate institutions in society. Khomeni eventually came to power in the '79 revolution against the Shah. He eventually betrayed the liberal elements of the revolution and engaged in the most repressive, inhumane tactics against it's own people. The Hezbollah and IRG, and it's special forces unit Al Quds sponsor terrorist acts against western powers that they believe are exploiting and oppressing Iranias and Muslims in general. They also claim to want to bring on the horrific war that will bring the Mahdi back (he arrives via a well). How much of this did you know, fyi?

            Your first error is to conflate the Iranians designs and actions with that of the Saudi driven political actions and the actions of Muslim Brotherhood entities in the region and globally. While there is overlap. confluence and occasional cooperation, there is by no means a coordinated plot by those three powers to overthrow the U.S. Yes, the Brotherhood engages in civilizational Jihad, and Saudi money funds Madrassa's and we can see what the Islamicization of Europe has wrought. I'm well aware of the history of the Salafists, the MB, Al Qaeda, Hamas and the rest. But here's what you aren't considering:

            1. The threat – We can eliminate Iran as a threat in an afternoon, anytime we choose to. People like to compare Iran to Hitler's Germany, which only betrays the ignorance of the speaker. When Chamberlain made his deal with Hitler, England have 5 divisions to Hitler's 100 divisions. The opposite is true here. Iranian military capability is a nuisance to us.

            2. Iran has not acted against the U.S. in its territory.

            3. All the things I said above are true about U.S. belligerent actions against Iran – you cannot ignore them, they are facts. They inform Iran against us and we have to live with what we've done.

            4. What is the likely outcome of a pre-emptive strike on Iran? The first thing that happens is that 50,000 rockets get fired at Israel. Thousands will die. Terrorist attacks will explode around the globe. And we might just drive that Sunni/Shia, Persian/Arab alliance emerge that you are so concerned about. Without invading Iran, getting rid of its current government and occupying it, what do you propose we do? Let Iran sit wounded? You know they have international law on their side if they launch retaliatory attacks after a first strike, both at the U.S. and Israel, yes? We are no longer the victim if we launch the first strike, we are the aggressor, again in the region. It's questions like this that the recent Mossad director, Dagan brings up when he discusses the Iranian threat and what to do. I'm not alone in this thinking.

            5. Iran is likely to not be suicidal – While I understand that you think they are madmen and will attack, I think that you should look at how Iran acts in the world and has since the Ayatollah took power. It is very rational and not suicidal. And like most religious and despotic regimes, it has to talk lots of smack, but we have to evaluate it, not take it at face value. Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah know that they are done and dead and their entire govt is wiped out if they launch a nuke at Israel – the entire international community will come together to decapitate them.

            My bottom line? You overestimate the threat greatly. We are not the Europeans, they are not getting a real foothold here, and we don't have multi-culti insanity in which we encourage separate cultures to exist here. Most Muslims living in the U.S. came here to escape the fundamentalist madmen. It's also true that there are lots of real Jihadis ready to rock and roll, and I agree wholeheartedly with killing every last one of them. I just don't think going to war with Iran will do anything but draq us into another bloody quagmire, unify opposition against us and empower the MB and Saudis in the region. Let's let them fight it out among themselves just as they are doing in Syria, or as happened in Libya.

            Thanks for the sort of civil dialog.

          • Kufar Dawg

            Yeah, let's all wait to find out if Assminijihad was just kidding about this repeated threats to destroy Israel, and kill millions of Jews, Christians, Druze, Bahais while he's doing it.

            You're insane to think "they are not getting a real foothold here, " either that or you're a lying islamofascist sympathizer/apologist/collaborator. ABSCAM had no problems uncovering corrupt senators willing to accept bribes from faux Arab sheiks and the multi-million dollar business dealings the Clintonistas have had w/islamofascist petrocracies have all the stench of bribery and corruption.

          • Glennd1

            "Insane"? You do realize that if we vaporized Iran and every Iranian in the country, the Saudi threat and the MB threat – the primary Islamist threats in the U.S. and globally – would be unaffected, yes? You seem to think that striking Iran is a strike at the Salafist forces that I do believe are a real threat. I suggest we stop giving Egypt 2 billion a year before we attack Iran, what do you say? How about we stop protecting the Saudi regime and let it collapse? How about we stop propping up the Pakistani military? All these seem like moves that we should make if we are to stop punching ourselves in the face.

            You want more? Let's go back and indict the "unindicted co-conpsirators" from the Holy Land trial. Let's change our immigration/border control policy to not allow Salafists to set up Madrassas here. Let's make it clear that if a person wants Sharia to run society that they are not welcome here, that we consider that point of view to be incompatible with our society. And that's just for starters. I would support doing all those things to combat Islamism, but I can't see how launching a first strike against Iran does anything but open us up to all the problems I listed above. And your answer didn't address any of the very probable consequences of doing that.

            So I'll ask you again. How does attacking Iran end up? Or are you suggesting we attack, overthrow, occupy and then stand up a new government? Because you would be the only person suggesting that. The other thing you fail to acknowledge is that the mortal threat you see is aimed at Israel, not the U.S. Why should we go to war so the Zionists can keep their land? I don't give a crap if Zionists get to keep their little strip of desert. I've said for years that we should let any Jew concerned for their safety come here as Jews live safely and prosperously here. Other than that, their quest for God-given land is no cause we should have ever backed. And when you really boil it down, our defending Israel is exactly about backing Zionism – and all the heinous things that have been done in pursuit of its aims.

            Just sayin'…

    • jemaasjr

      If I had friends in Israel and I thought they wanted my advice, I would advise them to move somewhere else for reasons of personal safety. It could very easily happen that Israel ends up being the canary in the coal mine for the rest of the West. It looks to me like Iran pretty much has nukes or is close to it, I doubt Israel can take them on,and I doubt they will get much support from our current leadership. Once the more traditional Islamic elements (commonly called radical) consolidate power, they are going to be looking outside their borders for new enemies. You combine that with the number of countries and the size of the populations and the gradually developing nuclear threat, and my conclusion is that Israel is unlikely to survive the outcome. Perhaps not soon because the country is a useful enemy, but eventually.

      • Kufar Dawg

        Yeah let's just all surrender to islamofascism.

        • Glennd1

          No, sorry, you are right. Let's start World War III right now, when our economy is in tatters, while our internal politics are hopelessly divided and there is no actual near-term threat at all. Yeah, what a great idea, why didn't I think of that? I mean, our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have been such a success, right? I mean, it's not like we could eliminate Iran whenever we want for the foreseeable future, right? Oh wait, it is. Iran is a nuisance as a military threat. And our doctrine and tactics have become so much more lethal and destructive since the invasion of Iraq – Iran would simply be a cakewalk – any time, land, air or sea. We can have the battle at a time of our choosing, so the question is why now? And what's your endgame? Answer: You don't have an endgame in mind. You haven't even thought it through. You just want to do whatever you think is in support of Israel, but can't even seem to process that many, many Zionist, Israeli, Jews think attacking Iran right now is a really bad idea. You should calm down and go read what Dagan has to say (former head of Mossad). He's no Islamofascist friendly type.

          Sigh, most wars are started out of stupidity, why should this one be any different?

    • Mike Villano

      What you said would be true if there was more than 1 Jewish state in the world but there is not so through the cleaver use of rhetoric you have unwittingly accepted the false premise and calculus of Jew haters and those seeking to destroy Israel.

    • Rothschild

      I have been doing research about this as a half Jew; it seems to me…. but I still have to do more research by interviewing experts (rabbis) and traveling to Israel…. hopefully for a few years, to live a a half Jew studying about a form of Judaism that my Jewish grandfather was part of…but, it seems…. I''m conjecturing though….that Zionism is controversial even in Israel, and even when it was started…in fact, that that may the facts that come out when I finish doing my research about my grandfathers form of Judaism, which was Orthodox called the Sons of Zion, whom were religious Jews.

      As far, as I know so far, no one has ever done historical research into the Sons of Zion.

      It seems to me, that if those that don't want to take the time to understand it from the Jews themselves about Zionism, then they should not debate them, or even fight them over land, and simply renounce violence, and let the Israelis rename the West Bank Israel, and let, perhaps, the Israelis make a city in Israel called Palestine, and let the Palestinians, as long as they are non-violent retain most of their political ways, day to day, as long as it does not bother in any way Israel.

    • Fabio Juliano

      As they kill all six million non-Muslims in Israel, the glorious Palestinian conquerors will make sure to inform their victims that they are being exterminated not because they are Jews but because they are Zionists.

  • Moishe Pupick

    Friday, August 24, 2012 common era

    Decisive victory for Israel will only come through G-d's help; Psalm 20 is about this theme. Some rely upon chariots and some upon horses, but we (The Jewish people worldwide) rely only upon G-d.

  • Ghostwriter

    Here's what Glennd1 doesn't understand. Iran is ruled by Muslim fanatics who want to destroy everyone and everything that isn't like them. They're like the Daleks from the "Doctor Who" tv series,only they're not in salt shaker-like bodies. It's not terribly surprising for them to scream for American deaths. They've been doing for years.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      You're preaching, not teaching. One needs to lay it out clearly and comprehensively to explain.

      It's not easy to understand for the uninitiated Western mind. The problem is that it is so complex you usually have to do it in patient stages if you want to win anyone new to the facts. They are hard to swallow indeed.

    • jemaasjr

      My version of things is that a democracy can not actually move preemptively, and however much we wish to repeat the mistakes the British made with regard to the Nazis, they were unavoidable. The easy proof of that is that we are doing it again with Islam and the Europeans are doing even more than us Americans. Trying to move ahead of the curve on a military level undermines support for the mission and ends up being self defeating.

  • Mike Villano

    The truly frightening thing about President Perez is that he believes what Obama told him.
    It's hard to believe at this point in time there's anyone breathing who doesn't know Obama is lying as soon as he clears his throat and his lips start moving.
    Perez needs a reality check.

  • Mike Villano

    Also whatever sympathy the American people have for Israel is NOT shared by Obama and the career parasite State Department bureaucrats who have cynically hopped in bed with the Arab and Turkish Muslims while appeasing soon-to-be nuclear Iran.
    They are totally poised to throw Israel under the Islamic train.
    But not to fear. Our "Best and Brightest" assure us that this represents American national interest. Betraying not only another ally but our only natural ally in the world's most dangerous really a good thing "because the Arabs have the numbers."
    This cynical calculus is at the root of American foreign policy so you can be when an American taxpayer financed WMD reaches our shores and devastates one of our cities, the sell out cuplrits at the top will never get blamed.
    Even if Romney wins, he will be no match for the career parasitic malignant sellouts at the US State Department.

  • polnick

    Only an idiot would want American troops sent home, and the sales of planes and tanks to Arabs ended. It would result in 100 thousand unemployed veterans and another 10 million heavy weapon workers to become pan handlers and bums. The idea is disastrous. Peaceniks must mind their own business, enjoy their weed, and thank God for creating Middle-Eastern enemies.

  • redwood509

    Remember 1967? A promise was made in 1956 by President D. Eisenhower, the waterways will remain open. President Johnson, may 1967- backed out, suggesting to send a Dutch corsair…did not work too well…Israel took scuds for G H Walker Bush, 1991, in return it got defective Patriot defensive umbrella, useless rockets that never meant to work, dozens injured, killed, to save the "Bush Coalition" shaped by the revolting Secretary Baker! They counted on Jimmy carter with the peace accord, now we have army divisions running in the Sinai. They trusted Bill Clkinton with the phony Oslo Accord, some 1700 Israeli got killed since that signing, plus his blatant attempt to topple Bibi, 1999, sending CNN's Carville and Stan Greenberg (married to a Communist Congresswoman from Conn),to shape a campaign to destory Bibi and elect Cocktail Socialist Ehood Barak. So who should Israel count on? On a member of the "Choom Gang", (Barry's Hawaii hi end marijuana smoking crew, driven by a homosexual provider of the smoking supplies) a doped, queer Muslim and a Communist in training,( thanks to sperm donor Frank Marshal Davis, Communist pornographer) a performing artist playing president who declared in 2008 that Jerusalem is Israel undevided Capital, only to forget about it and call for Israel to retreat to the 1967 lines?

  • redwood509

    Those who saw how Obama ditched Mubarak, a U.S ally, can understand why few can trust on the U.S. leaking the most classified national security of Americans and allies to the media is a standard operating system. While the U.S is applying all the resources available to the federal Government to pursue the small time internet leaker Assange, no one goes after the Obama White House that leaked numerous strategic assets of Israel, plans, positions and tactics. Why anyone would trust Americans prone to betray, seek publicity and attempt to change political direction which does not suit their conviction? The Left gives away the store, remember Obama and Medvediev asking for time…what was it about?