Source: Obama to nuke Iran if Iran nukes Israel

posted at 3:52 pm on December 11, 2008 by Allahpundit

I didn’t get it when Krauthammer proposed it, I didn’t get it when Hillary proposed it, I don’t get it now.

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama’s administration will offer Israel a “nuclear umbrella” against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, a well-placed American source said earlier this week. The source, who is close to the new administration, said the U.S. will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran…

A senior Bush administration source said that the proposal for an American nuclear umbrella for Israel was ridiculous and lacked credibility. “Who will convince the citizen in Kansas that the U.S. needs to get mixed up in a nuclear war because Haifa was bombed? And what is the point of an American response, after Israel’s cities are destroyed in an Iranian nuclear strike?”

The current debate is taking place in light of the Military Intelligence assessment that Iran has passed beyond the point of no return, and has mastered the technology of uranium enrichment. The decision to proceed toward the development of nuclear arms is now purely a matter for Iran’s leaders to decide. Intelligence assessments, however, suggest that the Iranians are trying to first accumulate larger quantities of fissile material, and this offers a window of opportunity for a last-ditch diplomatic effort to prevent an Iranian bomb.

I made this point in the posts linked up top: How is this policy preferable to helping Israel boost its second-strike capabilities? It already has enough firepower to “completely and utterly obliterate” Iran. Outfit its submarines with nuclear CBMs, upgrade its defensive anti-ballistic missile systems, and and let it take care of business. The “umbrella” route only really makes sense for countries with no weapons, to deter regional nuclear powers from bullying them and to deter those under the umbrella from being spooked into building nukes of their own. That’s why Hillary’s idea to extend the policy to Saudi Arabia makes a certain perverse sense — or would, if you could find an American eager to jump into a nuclear war to defend Riyadh. The umbrella policy could, I guess, in theory be an incentive to get Israel to give up its own weapons and set a “non-nuclear” standard for the Middle East, but given the vicissitudes of American politics and, as Richard Fernandez says, the fact that there’s no reason to believe the west would act to nuke Iran when it wasn’t willing to stop Iran from getting nukes in the first place, the Israelis would be insane to agree to that.

All of this is premised upon the assumption that assured destruction would be enough to deter Iran from trying to decapitate Israel in the first place. Obama’s a lot more confident of that than I am. In case you’re curious about our new secretary of state’s thoughts on the subject, here’s a clip of her rambling on about it from Olbermann’s show in April. Skip ahead to 5:35. Exit question one: Is The One prepared to bring Arab countries under the umbrella too? If not, how will that affect the image he’s trying to build as an honest broker between Israel and Muslims? Exit question two: He’s said repeatedly that Iranian nukes are “unacceptable,” but of course Bush has been saying that for years and did nothing to stop them. Doesn’t this policy signal that The One’s preparing to accept the fact of Iranian nukes after all?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

My first thought is Joe Biden gaffing in October about how BO is going to make a decision that looks bad to everyone and he’s going to need their support…blah blah blah. Wonder if this is what he’s refering to?

teffertoes on December 11, 2008 at 6:00 PM

It’s kinda like the Sheriff saying, I’ll hang you if you shoot the Widow Woman.

I’d rather he take the Doc Holiday approach. . “I’m your Huckleberry.”

- The Cat

MirCat on December 11, 2008 at 6:05 PM

Another trial balloon from yet another unnamed well placed source.

The Obama campaign launches more trial balloons than Lawrence Welk’s bubble machine launched ‘champagne’ bubbles.

Skandia Recluse on December 11, 2008 at 6:05 PM

Of course it makes no sense if the goal is to deter Iran. And the Israeli officials quoted were quick to point that out and reject it – which everybody knew in advance they would. So why offer it if it does nothing to either militarily or politically reassure the Israelis? Which isn’t really the point anyway.

This is an old trick in American-Israeli diplomacy although it hasn’t really been tried since Baker pulled it off elegantly during Gulf War I. Seemingly grandiose guarantees that are militarily useless – at that time it was the Patriots – but that nonetheless diplomatically box in Israel.

So in this case a preemptive Israel strike against Iranian nuclear facilities was an “overreaction” that “destabilized the region” and “created anti-American resentment” – because, you see, Obama had already guaranteed their protection so what were they worried about?

It’s a replay of last week’s trick where Obama announced that he’s open for talks with Tehran but that “threats against Israel are unacceptable”: why is Israel so worried about US-Iranian negotiations, the Brzezinskis and the Mearsheimers will ask, when Obama publicly committed to protecting their interests in negotiations?

Although don’t underestimate the possibility that it is a prerequisit to getting Israel to let the IAEA verify their nuclear facilities. A report urging Obama to do *exactly* this came out from one of the lefty fp thinktanks a little over a week ago and France is relaunching efforts for a global nuke ban.

omriceren on December 11, 2008 at 6:09 PM

Forgive me if I am plowing already tilled soil. It seems to me the rationale behind this would be to make clear to any aggressor against Israel that even a successful preemptive first strike would be disastrous in the long run, and also would give His Holiness some window-dressing justification to call for Israeli reductions in defense capabilities and other concessions.

I don’t think Israel would, or should, buy into this philosophy; I’m just spit-ballin’ why in the world this would make any sense from a practical standpoint.

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 6:10 PM

The umbrella policy could, I guess, in theory be an incentive to get Israel to give up its own weapons and set a “non-nuclear” standard for the Middle East, but given the vicissitudes of American politics and, as Richard Fernandez says, the fact that there’s no reason to believe the west would act to nuke Iran when it wasn’t willing to stop Iran from getting nukes in the first place, the Israelis would be insane to agree to that.

Nuclear disarmament is our glorious goal, comrade. And whether Israel will disarm or not is dependent on how deeply her own insane leftists have undermined the backbone of the nation. (Or, alternately, how much Samantha Power’s threat of forceful occupation scares the hell out of ‘em.)

Doesn’t this policy signal that The One’s preparing to accept the fact of Iranian nukes after all?

Preparing? He’s already surrendered in advance.

Nichevo on December 11, 2008 at 6:15 PM

Sorta kinda off-topic:

Bush’s placement of American support personnel with the latest deployment of missile defense hardware in Israel will in the future either be seen as a prescient stroke of pure genius or a catastrophic mistake of epic proportions.

Only the tides of time will tell.

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 6:20 PM

Riiight…death threts should work well to deter suicidal islamists.

kcewa on December 11, 2008 at 6:21 PM

I’m sure Israel will see this in the same light as the alies defeating the Nazis after they had already killed 6 million Jews.

Oh, wait. Omama’s church doesn’t believe in the holocaust does it?

kcewa on December 11, 2008 at 6:25 PM

Riiight…death threts should work well to deter suicidal islamists.

kcewa on December 11, 2008 at 6:21 PM

It’s like saying, “I’m going to kill you if you kill me.”

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 11, 2008 at 6:25 PM

Riiight…death threts should work well to deter suicidal islamists.

kcewa on December 11, 2008 at 6:21 PM

So true. Most of our responses to the Jihadi threat are predicated on the perpetrators being sane.

This is a fatal flaw.

When our responses to Militant Islam take into account the fact that the basic tenets of Islam are incompatible with modern Western standards of behavior, and to civilization itself, then we will be closer to a more effective, sensible approach to this existential threat.

Our fathers and grandfathers knew that the brainwashed forces of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany had to be defeated completely.

Until our current generations make the connection, we are at grave peril.

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 6:32 PM

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 6:32 PM

We on the right say this and gnash our teeth uselessly after every terrorist attack anywhere. When will our politicians listen? That’s why I was rather disappointed that they managed to prevent an Islamist attack in Brussels today; it will take a massacre of our useless fat ass politicians for them to call in the strikes. We civilians are all just cannon-fodder meanwhile.

Fortunata on December 11, 2008 at 6:41 PM

We on the right say this and gnash our teeth uselessly after every terrorist attack anywhere. When will our politicians listen?

Only when it becomes politically expedient to do so.

That’s why I was rather disappointed that they managed to prevent an Islamist attack in Brussels today; it will take a massacre of our useless fat ass politicians for them to call in the strikes. We civilians are all just cannon-fodder meanwhile.

Fortunata on December 11, 2008 at 6:41 PM

This sounds like you are disappointed in not being cannon-fodder.

I understand your point, but I strenuously disagree. We can defeat this threat without “a massacre of our useless fat ass politicians.”

Maybe an electoral massacre is in order, whaddayathink?

Perspective, dude.

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 6:59 PM

Yeah, Obama will push the button…don’t count on it Israel…but then it won’t matter, it will be too late for you.
How about a…”If you threatened Israel, we take you out, now sit down and shut up”

right2bright on December 11, 2008 at 7:20 PM

Riiight…death threts should work well to deter suicidal islamists.

kcewa on December 11, 2008 at 6:21 PM

Wellll, the leaders never commit suicide…just ask Kadafi what he thinks about stepping on the wrong toes…

right2bright on December 11, 2008 at 7:21 PM

So, this is an effort to prevent Israel from preventing Iran from getting nukes?

Count to 10 on December 11, 2008 at 7:23 PM

My first thought is Joe Biden gaffing in October about how BO is going to make a decision that looks bad to everyone and he’s going to need their support…blah blah blah. Wonder if this is what he’s refering to?

teffertoes on December 11, 2008 at 6:00 PM

You give Biden and Obama WAAAAAY too much credit. He was talking about the international crisis of whether to get the White House china from Italy or, well, China.

SouthernGent on December 11, 2008 at 7:23 PM

So, this is an effort to prevent Israel from preventing Iran from getting nukes?

Count to 10 on December 11, 2008 at 7:23 PM

Would you put it past Himself?

He is, after all, the Tamer of the Oceans, and the Healer of the World (writ large).

Why the hell not?

Savior of the Universe is just a smile away.

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 7:32 PM

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 7:32 PM

Nothing like selling out the future to whitewash the present.

Count to 10 on December 11, 2008 at 7:36 PM

Israel has learned, the hard way, not to depend on “others” for its security. In addition, Obama has changed his mind so many times that anything he says today can be, and probably will be, changed tomorrow, if he thinks it’s to his benefit. Israel has never (publicly) admitted to having nukes, but I’m certain that Iran knows that any use of such weapons will find their cities converted to radioactive parking lots before the dust settles in Israel.

With the price of oil projected to remain low for the foreseeable future (at least through 2009) the Iranians (and the Venezuelans) have serious economic problems to worry about. Only question is if the leaders of Iran will try to divert attention of their restive population by launching a “foreign adventure”.

kenprice on December 11, 2008 at 7:37 PM

Words, just words.

SouthernGent on December 11, 2008 at 7:42 PM

kenprice on December 11, 2008 at 7:37 PM

Honestly, I don’t think I want to try and predict what Iran will do if someone takes out their nukes.

Count to 10 on December 11, 2008 at 7:46 PM

Time to go back and re-learn my old “Rush–2112″ references.

Zowie.

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 7:49 PM

Count to 10 on December 11, 2008 at 7:36 PM

Yes.

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 7:50 PM

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 6:59 PM

Hillbilly, the (foiled) attack was because 27 fat ass useless EU politicians were in Brussels today. Imagine the difference in response if 27 ordinary citizens were blown up, as opposed to our wonderful politicians. That’s what I mean about being –unwilling — cannon fodder.

Fortunata on December 11, 2008 at 7:58 PM

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 6:59 PM

Hillbilly, the (foiled) attack was because 27 fat ass useless EU politicians were in Brussels today. Imagine the difference in response if 27 ordinary citizens were blown up, as opposed to our wonderful politicians. That’s what I mean about being –unwilling — cannon fodder.

Fortunata on December 11, 2008 at 7:58 PM

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 8:04 PM

Fortunata,

Either you believe in a thing or you do not.

Do you hope for failure?

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 8:25 PM

To shorten a long, struggling theme:

This wasn’t in the playbook.

Really.

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 8:28 PM

As you do not let monkeys play with hand grenades, so you do not let retrograde fatalistic theocratic maniacs play with apocalyptic science.

profitsbeard on December 11, 2008 at 8:39 PM

Assured destruction is no deterrent to a culture based on martyrdom.

crosspatch on December 11, 2008 at 8:44 PM

It is a mistake to assume Iran will act as a member of the brotherhood of the civilized nations of the world.

The Jihadi Movement in Europe must be moved against; otherwise it will be perceived as ineffective at least, and a fantastic failure at best(worst).

Wake the Hell Up, Europa! You still have greatness in you.

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 8:45 PM

Do you hope for failure?

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 8:25 PM

Sigh. I believe that having 27 prominent politicians being blown up would precipitate a response that 27 civilian deaths could never do. So, yes, if you call that “failure”, I do. We wouldn’t miss the politicians, only their junket-stuffed staff would shed tears for them. Now will you stop being obtuse?

Fortunata on December 11, 2008 at 8:45 PM

Aengus, you are a bigot.

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 8:48 PM

whoops, that was supposed to be a quote, not strike-through.

Fortunata on December 11, 2008 at 8:48 PM

As you do not let monkeys play with hand grenades, so you do not let retrograde fatalistic theocratic maniacs play with apocalyptic science.

profitsbeard on December 11, 2008 at 8:39 PM

Yeah, but…..

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 8:51 PM

I see that most of you see through me, and the rest are confused. I apologize ahead of time for those of you who “get it” and for the rest: You know who you are. I hate these kind of games, but when you have everyone and their brother ten times smarter than you, whaddayagonnado??

Fun is how I describe the chance to knock down the common perceptions.

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 9:04 PM

Aengus, you are a bigot.

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 8:48 PM

I apoligize for this, for I knew ahead of time it was not true, but I was thirsty for a reasonable dissent, and was thusly denied.

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 9:07 PM

Guess we will have to wait and see. Israel shouldn’t trust The One. I don’t think they do.

sheebe on December 11, 2008 at 9:50 PM

Aengus, you are a bigot.

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 8:48 PM

I apoligize for this, for I knew ahead of time it was not true, but I was thirsty for a reasonable dissent, and was thusly denied.

Thank you, Aengus, for making me think.

Your perspective always has an affect on me, just not the desired one.

Here I come again on my own…………………

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 9:56 PM

No blinkey herey.

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 9:58 PM

No blinkey boom boom.

Never mind.

hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 10:02 PM

I’m sure the Israelis will rest well knowing they will be duly avenged post-annihilation…

swash_plate on December 11, 2008 at 10:31 PM

How can you promise to blow up another country with the same nuclear weapons you have promised your left wing base that you are committed to getting rid of (nuclear disarmament).

Am I wrong or has Mr. Hope and Change not said on many occasions that he will be working towards world peace through
total nuclear disarmament.

You can’t promise nuclear destruction of a rogue country and
nuclear disarmament at the same time……logically.

Baxter Greene on December 11, 2008 at 10:35 PM

I think its important to know where one stands. Quite frankly the Israeli’s have been takeing seriously thr threat of Muslim extremists but they extremists from a terrorist organization or a recognized government. We on the other hand have not. Iran can have nukes. But this keeps them in check. Even if they do manage to nuke Israel if they actually seriously entertained the thought of wiping Israel off the map. Then with or w/out Israeli nuclear capabailites the same will be true of Iran.

Besides who cares if we nuke Iran. They’re responsible for the deaths of our troops in the war that was not their business. For the blood they’ve spilled in this war and the blood shed in the past I certainly don’t object to letting Tehran glow.

Rattl3r on December 11, 2008 at 10:41 PM

Israel must not be nuked – period!

Any reply to such an attack would not remove the euphoria of victory that Islam would feel if Israel were to be removed from existence, and the Israelis would still be dead.

Prevention is Israel’s only option.

OldEnglish on December 12, 2008 at 3:00 AM

Let’s face it, we do need some modern hi-def nuke footage – all those old grainy test films don’t do the nukeage justice.

LimeyGeek on December 11, 2008 at 3:57 PM

Dude! IMAX!

With 50k watts of Surround Sound.

soundingboard on December 12, 2008 at 3:04 AM

problem is Iran wants to be Nuked to bring about their Hidden Imam messiah. if you beleive they really beleive in the theology they claim to beleive in.

jp on December 11, 2008 at 3:57 PM

Problem is, the folks with the power over the BUTTON believes these things.

Benjamin9 on December 12, 2008 at 5:13 AM

The trouble is that a wussy Obama Administration won’t be true to its commitments, so an Obama umbrella is worthless. The radical jihadists probably already know it.

Phil Byler on December 12, 2008 at 7:00 AM

So, after the one sends Tehran up in a mushroom cloud what is his mentor of 20 years going to say?

The same as he always says…

God DAMN AMERIKKKA.

James on December 12, 2008 at 7:25 AM

Somebody’s dreaming. I find this extremely hard to believe. I can see Obama dispatching Hillary to talk to ACHmed Imanuttajob after he nukes Israel, but that’s about all I can see.

abcurtis on December 12, 2008 at 7:48 AM

The small print

… but only if the blast center is within Isreal’s 1949 boundaries…

Paul Murphy on December 12, 2008 at 11:51 AM

How can one NOT ‘get’ it?

It’s about deterrence, not hoping to actually use the nukes against Iran. Here’s to hoping that the mullas in Iran have as much sense as the Russians did when considering “mutually assured destruction” back in the cold war days.

If this is all that’s left after a rather neutered effort by an impotent united nations to stop Iran from getting nukes, well, this is what we’re left with. Period. What are you going to do, let them extort Israel out of existence with a nuclear threat?

Get a grip Israel haters. It no longer matters that it WAS arab land before 1948. They are there NOW. Unless you want to take a chunk of the USA or Canada, or even Mexico and establish a ‘new’ Israel, at your expense btw, just shut the hell up and stare down the real enemy here, that being the towel bearing religious freaks running the militant factions of the arab world that not only want ISRAEL gone, but ALL the rest of the world on bended knee to radical islam as well.

Open your goddamned eyes already.

Spiritk9 on December 12, 2008 at 1:17 PM

The small print

… but only if the blast center is within Isreal’s 1949 boundaries…

Paul Murphy on December 12, 2008 at 11:51 AM

Ha! I don’t put it past BO.

How can one NOT ‘get’ it?
Spiritk9 on December 12, 2008 at 1:17 PM

I do. Islam seeks total domination. There is no moderate Islam. There is only Islam. If we let them, they will either kill us all, or submerge us in dhimmitude, like the Europeans.
It’s time to take a stand. And I’m standing with my finger on the trigger.

Badger40 on December 12, 2008 at 2:11 PM

Assured destruction is no deterrent to a culture based on martyrdom.

crosspatch on December 11, 2008 at 8:44 PM

The whole problem with the idea in the first place – even IF Obama didn’t already promise to neuter our nukes.

You can’t threaten the Mad Mullahs and their Minions with M.A.D.! They’re already brainwashed to be ready for a horde of virgins when they die!

Dark-Star on December 12, 2008 at 2:14 PM

I don’t think President Daintypants would actually nuke Iran, and if he didn’t, his failure would make future threats of assured destruction ineffectual.

I wouldn’t nuke Iran in retaliation, either. I would nuke Tehran as a preventive measure, as an example for others, and as an inexpensive means of clearing the ground for the construction of my mausoleum.

Kralizec on December 13, 2008 at 2:35 AM

Comment pages: 1 2