A crack in the facade?

trumpeldor

If substantiated,a very stupid idea indeed
And the messiah is even not president yet
Let us fasten our seat belts ,forthcoming years will be rough .

Stephen Rothbart

I am more worried over CNN's recent broadcast that Obama is going to 'embrace' his Muslim name in an attempt to show solidarity with the Muslim world.

With Islamic militancy almost unopposed in its ascendancy throughout the Muslim world, ingratiating oneself with Islam is unfortunately choosing to walk down only one side of the street. There is no chance to compromise with them. You are for them 100% or aginst them 100%.

They may be deadly and fascist, but Islamic terrorists are truthful about themselves. They hate Jews and want to kill them, and that includes Israelis and those in the diaspora too, as Mumbai showed us.

Unfortunately, 'embracing' his Muslim side is exactly the wrong message to be sending out to these people, who will use it against us in the free world.

As for the use of a shield, Melanie, what do you want? A pre-emptive strike? A NATO force occupying Israel to defend her?

There is no solution except to force the world to bring Iran, economically to her knees so that most normal Iranians, who make up most of the country, can have an excuse to rid themselves of the loonies that currently control the foreign affairs agendas.

Ronnie

My God! What a non-story; speculative to say the least. As Trumpledor so wisely says, 'And the Messiah is not even President (my caps) yet.'

To follow Melanies logic in the case of a nuclear deterrent, the US umbrella which 'protected' western Europe during the Cold War was actually a waste of time. The strategic basis of NATO was and is therefore a mirage. Indeed, the whole point of having nuclear weapons in a defensive posture is laid to waste by Melanie's few closely argued paragraphs above. Genius!

And...'apocalypticist'! A wonderful tongue-twister, and such a loving partner for 'Islamo-fasci-marxist'. I wonder, are they unrepentant apocalyticists?

The hysteria continues.

Lee Jakeman

The Zionist Blemish, backed by the Great Satan. What a field day the mullahs would have!

Michael B

Once again, inverting Teddy Roosevelt's dictum to "speak softly and carry a big stick." Precisely the opposite is implied and that rarely - if ever - bodes well. It reflects an unnecessary brusqueness, as if to prove an otherwise insubstantial point.

And this: "... there is no guarantee that America would actually come to Israel’s aid with such a strike at any time" is precisely right. Or perhaps those so eager to vaunt and idolize The One, The Messiah's every pronouncement, are not acquainted with post hoc apologetics and rationalizations in the political arena. Shocked, I'm shocked there's gambling ...

Iow, a willful and willfully inane stupidity and incurious quality is being cultivated in the culture at large. The One is not so much to be questioned or doubted and, if He is, the most severe punishments allowed are to be met out as retribution for the perceived offense. The idols of the age are encapsulated, are personified, in The One, and any contrariness is to be dealt with accordingly.

It is, shall we kindly say, getting out of hand.

ConcernedCanadian

Considering the Iranian Predident's prophetic belief in the upcoming end of the world, what would they have to lose by starting a nuclear war. As the 'signs' become more clear, it will be easier for Iran to send the bombs so that Israel is not there to see the end of days.

What Melanie doesn't mention is that even if Iran doesn't use nuclear material against Israel, what's to stop them from making a sale to another group that might target Britain or the States. The possibilities are endless.

And to equate this idea to the European umbrella because Nato was not dealing with suicidal religious fanatics who place no value on their own people.

But this is also unsubstantiated at this point and I refuse to believe that Obama would go down this road, especially since it is so early in the game.

Brian Moshe

This mooted 'deterrant' plan - if it ever achieves fruition - would place the US in the same position in relation to Israel as the UK was in in relation to Belguim in 1914 and the UK and France in relation to Poland in 1939.

In 1914 Germany invaded Belguim in order to send troops into France. The UK had guaranteed Belguim that it would attack any country that violated Belgium's neutrality. In the event we could not deter what happened and the UK found herself plunged into WW1.

In 1939, at a time when Hitler was expanding the frontiers of Germany, the UK and France signed a treaty pledging to defend Poland from attack.

Given the secret agreements of the unexpected August, 1939 Nazi-Soviet peace pact in which Hitler and Stalin agreed to take over and dismember Poland, the UK and France found themselves under internationally recognised treaty pledged to defend a country they simply could not defend.

Hitler didn't care about that treaty and ignored it - believing that as the UK hadn't lifted a finger to stop anything he had done since January 1933, when he came to power, it was rather unlikely it would start doing so now. He mis-calculated on this occasion but with Stalin as his ally he had no need to stop the invasion of Poland.

The UK and France were powerless to do anything - it was impossible to help Poland and that unfortunate country was swallowed up by Germany and the USSR (along previously agreed lines). The UK and France were then forced to declare war on Germany even though neither country was in a position to do anything to help the country that was the cause of that declaration.

If the Obama administration does go ahead with its imbecilic post-apocaplypse plan to say it will attack Iran if Iran attacks Israel then one can assume it will find itself in exactly the same position the UK was in on September 3rd, 1939.

It is quite obvious that Israel will have to defend herself. It staggers me and defies belief that a character like Olmert is leading Israel at such a critical time. It is rumoured that when Olmert offered to give Syria the Golan Heights in the hope of inspiring 'peace' in the region, something Assad (through a third party) was touting as possible, that George W Bush asked Olmert what proof he had that Assad's word could be believed?

Olmert apparently said he hoped he could trust him. A reminder that when Neville Chamberlain was signing worthless pieces of paper with Hitler he felt secure enough to sign guarantees to Poland.

Ronnie

Well, Concerned Canadian, why would Iran bother to start a nuclear war if they believe the world is going to end anyway?

Surely they can just sit around drinking coffee and playing Backgammon, waiting like the rest of us apocalypticists.

Hysteria

Ronnie

actually MPs few paragraphs is a pretty good rebuttal of the theory of the Cold War defence approach as it applies against extreme islamists. But MAD is a reasonable approach if both sides do not want to be destroyed as was the case in the Cold War.

The snag with the current threat is that some of the other side appear to not be at all concerned about their own destruction. Hence a post-facto strike promise is, as Melanie points out, not that clever.

All the above assumes that the leadership in Tehran are in the "We don't care our own fate" camp. If more rational folks are in fact pulling the levers then MAD would be a valid strategy.

Dixon

A bit off topic: Why cant Robert Mugabe be a good fellow and catch cholera!

BOGDAN OF EUNUCHALIA

Brian Moshe says that Britain and France could do absolutely NOTGHING to help invaded Poland. That is the biggest load of bull one could ever read. Even a low ranking officers in the Wermacht's General Staff were perfectly aware that Germany wouldn't stand a chance if France decided to rush for Poland's succor and strike Nazis from behind. If Britain decided to join, the war would be over in a matter of weaks. On the other side, Stalin who has always been a most repulsive coward, wouldn's dare to attack Poland from the East. He deliberately waited more than two weaks (until the 17th September) in order to make sure that Poland was weakened enough to stab that country in the back with the cowardly acquiescence of Poland's both "allies". The reason behind France and Britain's own cowardice and passivity was an enormous and destructive influence that on a public opinion of those both countries their Communists (who at that time were firmly allied with NAZIS) had. Those were Communists and Socialists that managed to demoralise their governments to such an extent that they were unable to mount any military action in order to help Poles. Unfortunately, the same barbaric appeasement is being applied in relation to the conflict between Israel and Islamofascism. Again, those are the Leftist (and some rabid far Rightist as well) sectors of the Western world that oppose any meaningful resistance towards not only Islamofascism itself but the entire resurging totalitarian collectivism (of which Islamofascism is only the most virulent and dangerous strain). The presumption that Obama will be able to contain and control nuclear armed Iran is absolutely ridiculous. It's more; it's insane.

An American

This was one of the more important international concerns that many conservative Americans have been worried about for the past two election years.

If a socialist Democrat won the election...would they continue to offer protection to Israel as the Bush administration has? We doubted it.

Let's hope this information isn't based on fact.

The 'Annointed One' ran on a Iraqi white-flag platform of immediate withdrawal. He has now changed his mind and is giving US withdrawal several more years.

It will be a waiting game for Israel...

I wouldn't want to depend on 'The Messiah' and his Clintonian staff of socialist morons to protect my country.

The new Secretary of State...Clinton's wife, Hillary was extremely generous of her time and efforts for the Palestinian cause during Clinton's time as president than any concern for Israel. Remember her kiss and fond embrace of Arafat's wife...

It doesn't bode well when you see the same cast of losers being lead by an empty suit pretending to be presidential.

Herbert Thornton

So, Barack Obama’s administration will offer Israel a ‘nuclear umbrella’ against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran? And the U.S. will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran? Has that not always been the basis of American policy with respect to its allies?

It is apparently now being argued that such a strategy would be catastrophically stupid in that among other things, it would not protect Israel because America would only attack Iran after a nuclear strike on Israel - and might not do so even then.

That sounds very much like a roundabout way of saying that the primary duty to save Israel rests on the U.S. and not on Israel itself - and that U.S. has the duty to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran if it becomes necessary.

If Israel had no nuclear weapons, that might be understandable, but Israel has nuclear weapons. If Israel really concludes that a pre-emptive strike has to be made on Iran, then surely Israel should shoulder the responsibility for it?

W.B. Harris

The read is interesting, as people speculate what would happen if the U.S. will or does or even worse does nothing about the Middle East problems between Israel and the surrounding Arab Nations.

History is repeating itself with a new twist. As the Middle East explodes, don’t count on the U.S. because someone will come from the European Common Market countries acting even more dynamic than Barrack Hussein Obama could have ever dreamed of accomplishing.

Israel will be promised protection and the whole world will listen in awe as this newer, bigger and better ‘’Messiah’, through his personality will bring about Peace.

Beware people of the third planet from the sun… it won’t last!

Reality will hit as all hell will break loose and those of you who have been too lazy to recognize the prophesy of those willing to send out the warning, will be consumed in the Armageddon that is coming.

barackobama

The only way to end the threat is to destroy permanently Iran's nuclear capacities and replace the present regime with one willing to form an alliance with Israel against its enemies. The reason why President Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and the authors of the successful invasion of Iraq did not do that was not because they didn't think it was a bad idea. It was because everyone in senior positions in the Pentagon and the US Armed forces said it couldn't be done. So the first step is to replace top people in the Pentagon and the US Armed forces with others who believe attacking Iran is practical and won't have any unforeseeable damaging consequences for the US.

Conservative Cabbie

Brian Mohse

An excellent post, and by and large, I agree. However, playing devil's advocate, couldn't it be argued that a better historical equivalent would be the Cold War. America promised to protect western Europe through the auspices of N.A.T.O. from the Soviet Union and any nuclear attacks. Deterrence certainly worked in that instance.

your scenarios only led to war for the aggressor, the example I use would have led to apocalypse just as the current situation would.

Having said that, I'm not convinced that the nuclear deterrent is effective in this situation for some of the reasons mentioned by posters above. Better to prevent a nuclear Iran rather than twiddling one's thumbs and hoping Iran behaves properly.

Conservative Cabbie

If anyone believes that Obama (or his liberal supporters) would be prepared to use the bomb as reaction to an Iranian nuclear attack, they are delusional. No, liberals would want to deal with such an attack through that mighty organ of international justice, the United Nations. Just as the North Vietnamese, the Soviets and the Islamist cabal of terror groups and countries took advantage of the appeasement of the western left, so too would the Iranians.

sean birnie

So it's back to the old cold war doctrine of deterrence known as MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, then.

Only this time it's truly mad, Mullah Assured Destruction.

Does anybody else out there feel like they are living in Alice in Wonderland, written by Franz Kafka and edited by George Orwell?

Fabio P.Barbieri

To be fair, Brian Moshe, Chamberlain issued the guarantee to Poland (and to Romania - which eventually chose Hitler's side) after Hitler had violated the terms of the Munich agreement by invading and dismembering what was left of Czechoslovakia (March 1939). It was the first clear sign that Britain and France had had enough, and if Hitler did not believe that they would go to war to stop him invading Poland, more fool he. This does not however deny that this kind of "guarantee" has a bad history. As it happens, we have an unexpected window of opportunity to bring Iran to her knees, even now, because of the sudden collapse of oil prices, which is making the mullahs squeal. A really severe blockade against all trade, backed by confiscation of all Iranian assets in the West, has a chance of being effective. If that is not done swiftly and mercilessly, however, we certainly do risk atomic war - and Israel risks annihilation.

Austin Barry

Obama's flaccid position, if true, makes it almost inevitable that Israel will attack Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant sooner rather than later. Israel’s position remains precisely that stated by Menachem Begin after the IDF's 1981 raid on Iraq's Osirak nuclear facilty: “Under no circumstances will we allow an enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction against our people.” And, really, for Israel what other position is tenable?

Beth

Perhaps a nuclear war in the Middle East is the price we must pay for years of appeasement of the Jihadists.

At such a point it would be possible to wipe out most of the Muslim nations and bring a new era of peace.

Rddie

Iran is Israel’s mortal enemy/ they are waging what they plan to be a genocidal war. Israel must defend itself now and never rely on the promises of any other country Just as Poland found to its cost in the second world war. If Israel attacks iran’s nuclear plants there will be strong universal condemnation especially from Russia, but the risks to Israel of doing nothing are far too great

Ray Douglas

When the pop star Sting, wrote his song "If the Russians loved their children to" about Nuclear war, it reflected an assumption.An assumption that the Russians would be deterred from launching a nuclear strike, not by our threat of a response as such,but because the Russians shared our western outlook regarding the value of life, particularly of children! The trouble with the Islamic regime in Iran, is that they may not share those same assumptions.That they would be willing, for the sake of Allah, to destroy hated Israel, even if their children, as well as every other Iranian, went up in smoke!I am convinced that most people in the West do not get this, hence the constant bile aimed at Israel!

Lyndon Larouche

You're right barackobama. Get rid of those military wimps in the Pentagon and bring in more people like Doug Feith, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney with their extensive military experience that has worked so well in Iraq.

Ronnie

Brilliant Beth, where is that button?

Tony

I have said all along, it's not what Obama does, that we should be afraid of, it's what he doesn't do that scares the pants off me.
He will attain all of his goals by being a 'not' President...wait and see.

Neuroskeptic

You should charge money for this Melanie - I mean, your ability to turn black objects into white ones is nothing short of magical.

Obama offers to protect Israel with nuclear weapons in response to any form of Iranian attack... and after Melanie's worked her sorcery on it, this makes him soft on Iran!

What next Mel? Puddles on the ground and raindrops in the air is evidence of sunny weather? A black sky full of stars means it's clearly mid-day? Do tell us.

stanley Jerusalem

Neuroskeptic
December 12th, 2008 12:09pm

You should charge money for this Melanie - I mean, your ability to turn black objects into white ones is nothing short of magical.

Obama offers to protect Israel with nuclear weapons in response to any form of Iranian attack...

And pray what would be left of us to defend or is this Obama the Avenger?

EC

Ronnie,

That would turn the whole region into a desert ....

Ronnie

EC, you don't say? But then I thought it was a desert already.

I hope you are not trying to dissuade me from getting right behind Beth Strangelove on this.

Steven

Iran does not recognize Israel and advocates its demise as a state, but that's far from "apocalyptic" rhetoric.

You see, the "Wipe Israel off the Map" line was merely a mistranslation, as many experts have stated.

Just do a search for "Rumor of the Century" by Arash Norouzi for the definitive explanation of how this misquote came about.

EC

Ronnie, the irony hadn't escaped me. Serves me right for nicking one of Pat's lines!

A glass of distilled water?

Edward

Steven, do you think that Israel is currently on any map that the Islamofascist Regime of iran regularly uses?

Israel has already been "wiped off the map" within iran.

All those parades of iranian missles with the "Death to Israel" signage are just rhetoric?

Would a complementary "Death to Iran" and a "wipe Iran off the map" be seen as something to ignore?

Ronnie

EC, I'm sorry for being slow. Now the moment has passed. :-)

Ben

"...The strategic basis of NATO was and is therefore a mirage.."

That is what many people believe. It is inconceivable that the US would risk a nuclear attack on its own cities in order to save some other country. The whole concept of "collective security" was never really believed in by anyone.

KansasGirl

Mark my words, this man will bring America to its' knees.

Michael Birbeck

Neither Iran or Israel should have access to nuclear weapons (although one clearly has).

Both countries are in the thrall of religious zealots and are thus in a way akin to two mad men playing Russian roulette in a pressurised cabin. Either of them shoots and we fellow travellers on this fragile earth will all suffer.

An American

Sean Birnie

I do!

Edward

Michael Birbeck, speaking of a country in thrall of religious zealots, you forgot to include Pakistan with its Western tribal areas in your list.

Simon

More and more people in America, Britain and other countries are sick to death of their governments propping up Israel and spending huge reserves of money in the process - and being called anti-semitic if they refrain from doing so. It is not surprising that many are suspicious of the identity of some of the people inside these governments.

Dixon

Ben
December 12th, 2008 11:45pm
"...The strategic basis of NATO was and is therefore a mirage.."
That is what many people believe. It is inconceivable that the US would risk a nuclear attack on its own cities in order to save some other country. The whole concept of "collective security" was never really believed in by anyone."

That is precisely why Reagan and Thatcher forced through against intense protest the deployment of GLCMs ( Ground Launched Cruise Missiles ) to Greenham Common. So as to de-couple the two theatres ( Europe and North america ).

Indeed, since Xmas 1982 I have believed that there was a "back up" plan in the event of the "glickums" being preemptively eliminated ( by TU26/TU22M Backfire interdictor strikes, most likely ) that would have enabled the US to launch retaliatory attacks that would APPEAR to be from UK soil. These were my thoughts upon witnessing a very peculiar exercise in which three umnistakable, huge B52 bombers, accompanied by two smaller aircraft, flew low over Southampton, Hampshire, from the West, banked in an immemnse arc and returned whence they had come. Such a maneuvre would permit these aircraft to have launched ALCMs ( Air Launched Cruise Missiles ) that would then appear to have been GLCMs launched from UK soil.

Not many people can have seen this exercise. I would love to know if my interpretation is corroborated in subsequent disclosures.

Dixon

A great weekly read is "Flight International". According to reports in which over the past year the US has been steaming ahead in developing bombs that burrow deep underground before detonating. They are also well along with a project to put such non-nuclear "bunker buster" munitions on converted Trident missiles to be launched from submarines and for which the Iranians would have no possibility even of a defence.

It is entirely possible that the reason nothings been done yet is that better tools are being prepared for the job. Much as those damn-buster raids in WW2 were delayed until that famouse bouncing bomb had been developed.

I think talk about "regime change", invasion and "another Iraq" are just red-herrings. The Iranian nuclear project covers numerous, vast sites. Only the most valuable bits in bunkers. Those bunkered bits ( such as centrifuges ) can only function as part of the whole. Most of the rest of which is wide open and a soft target.

We can even give the workers forewarning of an attack so that they may evacuate. So the only blood spilt would be the responsibility of those who insist on a symbolic and quite futile defence. The Russian AA systems they have are just junk, as Israel demponstrated with its roaming freely around in Syrian air-space that was supposedl;y "protected" by the same systems. I mean, Western strike technology against Russian air defences is like comparing a BMW with a Lada, basically. Theres no contest.

Dixon

Not 1982, 1981!