Obama’s Betrayal of Israel


Pages: 1 2

Israelis, according to Ledeen, get the picture, and in a recent poll, only 4% of Israelis said that they thought President Obama’s policies were supportive of Israel. In other words, 96% considered Obama unfriendly towards Israel.

There are two ways to implement the destruction of Israel; one is to enable Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and tie Israel’s hands by preventing it from striking Iran preemptively while there is still time.  Obama, it seems, is doing all that he can to make sure Iran gets the time it needs to produce a nuclear bomb.  The useless 5+1 talks with Iran certainly bought time for Iran, and the U.S. sanctions imposed against Iran have had some impact on the Iranian economy, but didn’t halt Iran’s race towards a nuclear weapon.  Obama is as well aware of these facts just as FDR knew of the gas chambers in Auschwitz. Another way of undermining Israel is by fostering a terror-prone Palestinian State.

In a recent interview on Israel’s Arutz Sheva, former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Zalman Shoval said that Israeli and U.S. interests diverged when it came to Iran. “We need to get used to the fact that, as usual, we are alone.” A diplomat, Shoval was careful not to point a finger at Obama but the implications of Obama’s policies are clear. Shoval did however compare the current situation with the days before the Six Day War, when Israel received no support from the Johnson Administration, and was told point-blank by President Johnson that if Israel took the initiative and attacked Egypt, it would have to suffer the consequences, despite the fact that Egypt had committed an act of war by closing off the Straits of Tiran.

The difference today, as compared to 1967, is that Israel’s enemy – Iran – might use a nuclear weapon that could incinerate a sizeable portion of Israel.

According to Shoval, the U.S. knows that it must prevent Iran from going nuclear – not to save Israel, of course, but to save its strategic position in the world, and in the Middle East in particular.  Eventually, Shoval said, the U.S. will act, but by the time they do it may be too late. The U.S., he added, wants to put off the confrontation with Iran for a year or two, but every delay gives the Iran another advantage. Obama, as Shoval sees it, is much more interested in being reelected than dealing with the Iranian threat. And, should he be reelected, his domestic concerns, i.e. the economy, will trump national security issues such as Iran.

The Iranian-based Press TV reported on September 11, 2012 that “The U.S. rebuffed Israel over Iran ‘red lines’.”  Prime Minister Netanyahu had called for the U.S. to declare “red lines” over Tehran’s nuclear program on Sunday (9/9/12), warning that in the absence of such a statement Iranian officials would not take seriously Washington’s implied threat of military action. “The sooner we establish one, the greater the chances that there won’t be a need for other types of action,” he told Canada’s CBC News.  Asked on Sunday (9/9/12) whether the administration would set out red lines or deadlines, Hillary Clinton, the U.S. Secretary of State replied on Bloomberg Radio that “We are not setting deadlines.”

In an entry in Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long’s dairy on October 3, 1940, he noted that President Roosevelt (FDR) supported his policy of encouraging U.S. consulates to “postpone, and postpone and postpone” the granting of visas to European Jews. This is reminiscent of Obama’s policy of postponing action against Iran.  The results may be the same, the betrayal of Israel’s Jews.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • Matt

    Not enforcing red lines is why Hizbullah has 70,000 rockets including Scud/M-600 missiles. Not having red lines allowed Iran to build up its strategic deterrent/confidence in Lebanon and in the gulf.

    In my humble opinion the reason the US is dragging it's feet in relation on Syria and in a way tactile supporting Assad remaining in power and Leon Panetta's wish for the Syrian Arab Army to largely remain intact. Is they fear that once Assad falls and his security forces are deconstructed it opens up the flank on the Syrian/Lebanon border to the IDF.

    Hizbullah and Iran are not fighting to save Assad they are fighting to save that flank. This flank on the Syrian/Lebanon border allows the IDF mechanized columns to bypass south of the Litani to gain access to the Be'eka Valley and northern Lebanon where the longer range rockets Hizbullah has to use against Israel are located and attack Hizbullah forces from behind north of the Litani. While other mechanized units enter Lebanon south of the Litani.

  • Matt

    The US in my humble opinion believes if IDF can use that flank and limit the damage to the home front by the Hizbullah missiles, then Israel is more likely to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities. A similar reason Dempsey's comment in relation to not wanting to be complicit in a strike on Iran, via denying early warning via X band radar and BMD via Aegis. To increase the cost on Israel if they seek to remove the nuclear threat, on the home front.

    That has been the Obama Administrations strategy to increase the cost on Israel to force the Israeli State to abandon their military option.

    That is why there has been constant leaks about an Israel strike how it will occur, via the Administration. An example was the making public of the Israel use of merchant ships that had been used in the Persian Gulf, along the Iranian coast and docked in Iranian ports. What was not made public was that the Israeli's would use these merchant vessels to covertly via commandos, use limpet mines on the Iranian Navy and limit their ability to close the Straits of Hormuz. It was possible for Israel to put most of the Iranian Navy at the bottom of the gulf. While modules of the attack plan for Iran included the Straits of Hormuz and the sinking of the Iranian Navy via merchant ships ( the US leaked, Israel merchant ships) using commando's and limpet mines, putting the navy at the bottom of the gulf. Was in the US interest, to protect the 5th Fleet and energy security. It was also to increase the damage and fiscal cost on the Islamic Republic.

  • Matt

    The US knew of that plan and made the merchant ships public to increase the cost, by placing themselves in the middle and the Straits of Hormuz at risk of closer. The other leak was of the use of an air path and use of Saudi airspace into the southern sector of Iran a few years ago. There are no nuclear facilities in that sector the IAF was using it to strike Iranian ports and vessels to keep the Straits of Hormuz open. After that leak the Saudi had to issue a retraction that their air space would not be used. That place the oil fields at risk of Iranian counter strikes.To protect the Saudi oil fields from an Iranian attack counter attack, the Israel had an elaborate plan to use F-15,16 bodies from the bone yard and paint them in Israel colors and dump them in the Nefud desert.

    There is also the issue of Wikileaks and the outing of all the Arab oil produces privately supporting a strike either by the US or Israel. Which I personally found hard to believe that the DOD left a unstable intelligence analysis with access to classified information in Iraq. And the fact the data could be transferred to Wikileaks without the NSA being aware, when they even monitor phone calls and other electronic communication of service personnel from Iraq.

    All of these leaks has increased the ramifications of an Israel strike from a contained conflict to a possible regional war. All of these leaks has placed the Israel Government under enormous pressure in regards to attacking against the Iranian nuclear program. Which is what the Obama Administration had intended too do. That is why there is increased hostility between the US and Israel, much it being played out in public via the media.

  • Matt

    The US even went as far as leaking via the media to the Iranians that an Israel strike would take place on a new moon when illumination is minimal.

    A key reason that OP Orchard resulted in no response was because Hizbullah had been deconstructed during the 2006 war in 2007 they simply did not have the capability to respond. This shows the importance Iran place on Hizbullah in relation to the defense of their nuclear program and the strategic confidence/deterrent it provides the Iranian push to build a nuclear weapon.

    Now the US and Iranian red line building a bomb, another red line will be crossed before then in which Iran believed they have the strategic confidence/deterrent to move ahead to the red line both the US and Iran share in relation to building a nuclear weapon. Without being attacked, by either the US or more importantly Israel.

    It is the period between (the strategic deterrent/confidence) that allows Iran to go decide to pass the red line that both US and Iran share building a nuclear weapon, that is the key concern.

    That I think the US fail to understand or do not care or are hoping would prevent them from fulfilling their promise to Israel to strike Iran and prevent Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. The point in which Israel would have to say to the US that the cost on the home front is too high for the US to strike the Iranian nuclear program.

    So that makes a US promise on the red line to act in the future, useless in stopping Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. This brings about the issue of windows of opportunity for Israel to act and the issue of the international community, led by the US for Israel to wait. Wait until the cost is too high.

  • Matt

    You also have the issue of the strategic deterrent and confidence the Iranians are building up in the gulf to target US forces. And whether the US would be willing to accept the cost in relation to a military operations against Iran to prevent a nuclear weapon. Even US reports show that Iran is far more capable now at inflicting heavier losses on the US than in the past.

    Placing a heavy burden and cost on the State of Israel is a way out for the US and a saving face exercise. In that the US seen not to have back down in a conflict with Iran and not allowed Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and did not break their promise to use force to Israel. It was solely an Israeli decision.

    The other issue is once they had obtained a nuclear weapon and gained the strategic deterrence that it provides them, will they feel free to unleash the level of deterrence on Israel that allowed them to obtain it, in relation to Hizbullah in the first place. If the cost of a Hizbullah attack is enough to deter a strike on Iran due to the level of damage on Israel that will be inflicted. And the period of calm is broken by the other side the cost is going to be very high on Israel. And Israel will not have a choice.

    It is clear the nuclear program is their key concern an they have not used Hizbullah to aid Assad against Israel due to the need of Hizbullah deterrence to a strike on the nuclear program. They need Hizbullah to deter a strike. When they have a bomb they will not.

    The potential of a preemptive strike via Hizbullah rises. In which case Israel could be facing 150,000 to 200,000 rockets, a force structure including not just Hizbullah militia but also Iranian soldiers inside Lebanon.

    In relation to the Iranian nuclear program and the threat it poses to Israel and comments about Israel ability to stop Iran from conducting another Holocaust and the time lines that are mentioned in delaying the nuclear program. This is a key argument used by those that want to prevent an Israel strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities. Including most recently by Dempsey.

  • Matt

    Without the strategic confidence/deterrent that Hizbullah provides, Iran will not move forward and build a bomb. It takes Hizbullah around 6 years to develop a significant level of strategic confidence/deterrent that Iran find comfort in from an Israeli or US attack. This was seen after OP Orchard in 2007 on the Syrian reactor.

    That means that the deconstruction of Hizbullah regardless of a direct strike on the nuclear program would delay the final push to build a nuclear device by 6 years. While a direct strike on the program by around 4 years.

    Now combining the fiscal costs to both rebuild Hizbullah (also the winning of hearts and minds of the Lebanese people to rebuild civilian infrastructure) and funding the rebuilding of the nuclear program, that is a delay of 10 years before Iran would be at the current level of development in relation to a nuclear weapon.

    Sanctions as far as I was concerned was very much a day after a strike proposal, the state of the Iranian economy at present and it ability to fund these requirements under the sanctions regime, adds further time. If pre-sanctions it took 6 years to rebuild Hizbullah it will take double that time 12 years under the sanctions regime. If it takes 4 years to rebuild the nuclear program it will take 8 years under sanctions.

    So combining the costs and time frames you are looking at a delay of 20 years. This is aside from the use of covert actions, which for 7 years from 2005 to 2012 prevented a nuclear weapon, at the onset of the restart of the program after a strike. The Iranian nuclear bomb can be delayed indefinitely.

    All of these costs, rebuilding the nuclear program, damage to other assets, rebuild of the Lebanese terror infrastructure (and civilian) while dealing with the domestic economic situation inside the Islamic Republic, makes the possibility of regime change highly likely. The survival of the regime itself vs its nuclear and resistance goals.

    It is at that point Iran will either see the futility of their policies and seek a deal, or the regime will fall. It is also at that point that the US and other world powers involved in negotiations with Iran. Must decide if they seek a deal that would preserve the current regime at that point in time or refuse a deal and allow regime change to occur.

    Regardless of time lines, the different clocks of the US and Israel of a strike, who performs the strike, certain issues remain clear, Hizbullah will attack Israel regardless in response, the nuclear program will be delayed. And the time frame of that delay is significant and an Iranian nuclear bomb is not inevitable. As people are being led to believe.

    I trusted the US, we bent over backwards in relation to compromises on Iran when a quick strike like Opera or Orchard was possible in 2005, regardless of the US soldiers acting as human shields when Iran could not strike Israel, when Hizbullah had a much smaller arsenal and we ended up having a war with them in 2006 anyway. All the covert action to delay the program to keep the window of opportunity open to strike, to allow the US to leave with honor from Iraq, the 5 year plan to win the Afghan war and be out or in over watch by the end of 2013.

    Then when they no longer have use for you they spit in your face and betray you and smile while they do it, like arrogant pigs. Dempsey I don't want to be complicit, No X Band radar, no Aegis BMD. Jim Jones we have nothing to apologize for, to Israel in relation to Iran and the bomb. All the leaks about Israel's plans, the US increasing the cost on the home front, trying to bring down the Israel Government, using Psy-Ops against the Israel people to create self-doubt and a self fulfilling prophecy, making a contained conflict into a regional war, placing the US in the middle, adding an extra year to the 5 year Afghan plan, trying to keep Assad in power, all to increase the cost on Israel to prevent them from striking Iran and preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

    What sort of ally and friend is that, people should take a good look, all those that follow the US position and travel to Israel to tell them not to act, that it is not in Israel interest, it is Israel today that has been betrayed, tomorrow it may well be you.

    These comments are my personal opinion and do not represent the views of any state.

    • Rothschild

      I have been doing extensive research recently in my Jewish side of my family as a Catholic half Jew.

      From my perspective, from most of my relatives that came over from Russia around 1906 and/or lived here prior to that, that once they came over, and perhaps most Jews; they became secular Jews.

      They were ultra rich; yet I think their biggest contribution to their opposition to Hitler, was a comment they may have had once they became aware of the Holocaust in Germany…such as, “what a shame”…. then they went to the golf course, and played some tennis.

      So my point being looking to US Jews for insight into how to deal with the Middle East problem is useless….for me…if it was me rather then my relatives; around in the 30s… the Holocaust might not have happened, because I would have been active in fighting Hitlerism in the US, and in Germany, using pacifist tactics, and liberalism.

      I think the only way for the Israelis too “non-violently” deal with the Middle East militant terrorists is to evict the Palestinians from the West bank, and Gaza, and retrain their military forces to be non-violent; because, that would be the easiest way to fight terrorism successfully in the West Bank, and Gaza….it would also practically help the Jews around the world, when they are confronted with violence.

      And, the Israelis certainly need to redefine Zionism; so that they are religious Zionists for security purposes…externally and internally… and, and they also need to make their country, more liberally democratic, rather then conservative…because a majority of the Jews around the world are liberal pacifists; though, most don't know they are pacifists, simply, by a gift from God.

  • Rothschild

    In my research, into my ancestors that are Jewish; I seem to of found that the Zionists…. at the period around the 30s….,despised not only half Jews like myself; but also the Jews from the Holocaust, that they considered to be a type of half man (half Jewish).

    Why were the Jewish Zionist politicians not more active in opposing Hitler? Was it cowardice? Where they projecting their own feelings of cowardice in themselves, onto the half man, half Jew?

    —————————————————————————

    Yiddish and Hebrew—End of a Feud?

    ——————————————————
    http://haruth.com/YiddishHebrew.html

    …..But those who opposed Yiddish on "rational" grounds (however valid or invalid) constituted a minority.  For most, the struggle against Yiddish was rooted in a hatred of anything that was connected with the "Diaspora," considered to be marked by self-deprecation and cringing submission to non-Jews, a culture that was thoroughly second-rate, lacking in any estimable qualities, counterfeit and meretricious.

    This image of the Diaspora was for a long time central to Zionism.  As the American historian Howard Sachar notes in his A History of Zionism (vol.  I, l986, p. 718), the dominant Zionist image of the overseas Jewish community was one of "half men, or at least an inferior breed of half Jews."  The original Israeli reaction to the Holocaust was also shaped by this image.  The millions of victims were considered cowardly, as one Israeli scholar put it, "inferior human beings that went like lambs to the slaughter."  (Dina Porat, The Blue and the Yellow Stars of David, Cambridge, Mass, l990, p. 239)

  • Matt

    Lets be clear about one thing the MI6 Chief stated that Six had help prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Iran would have obtained a nuclear warhead in 2009, C says 2008 but it was 09 covert action by a number foreign intelligence agencies helped delay that.

    The key message in all of this is that Iran had the strategic deterrent/confidence (US soldiers as human shields in Iraq) to pass the red line that both the US and Iran share during that period of time, without being attacked.

    It was only covert actions that prevented Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, they possessed the Mens Rea. Once Iran again possess that level of strategic confidence/deterrent Actus Reus, they will pass the red line.

    Window of opportunity, zone of immunity, different capabilities of Israel and the USA to deconstruct the nuclear program vs Iranian strategic/confidence deterrent, to the level they possessed previously during that period from 2005 to 2009 Actus Reus. That is what Iran are using the P5+1 negotiations for to achieve that level.

    That is my red line, wait for what, wait till when, before then.

    • Rothschild

      I, personally, think this is more dangerous then the Cuban missile crisis; because, Iran is a unstable county, and/or could become a unstable country by any number of scenarios in the future….Also, Iran would build the bomb…and give bombs (mini suitcase nukes) to Black September like terrorists around the world; and they would use the media to scare the world.

      I think Israel would be perfectly justified in closing down the Iranian nuclear threat; because it is threat that has apocalyptic implications.

  • Matt

    Unlike the blind mice that red line was what was established in 2005 when Qum was discovered and Israel agreed to hold off on the military option in 2005, an wait for another window of opportunity until US forces were out of Iraq and Afghanistan 2013. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/

    Strategic confidence/deterrent is my red line before then, none of this random.

  • Reggie

    Blah blah blah. Nobody is believing you lies anymore. This is not 1930's germany. This terrorist netanyahu said Iran was on the verge of nuclear weapons in 1992! So who is the liar?

    And then you cite neocon michael ledeen as a credible source? HAHAHAHAHAHA ! Nonsense. He was one of the liars that lied America into war with Iraq. These criminals need to be arrested. Not given a forum to deceive the american people into war.

  • Ghostwriter

    Reggie,you are an anti-semitic louse!

  • dannyjeffrey44

    It is a devious and twisted plan but Obama wants Israel to attack Iran, and Netanyahu knows that it is a bated trap but he has no choice. He must do it and he must do it before our elections. http://www.freedomrings1776.com/2012/09/obama-act