Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Source: Obama to nuke Iran if Iran nukes Israel

posted at 3:52 pm on December 11, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

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?


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

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.

Yet another indicator that Obama just doesn’t understand our national security doctrine.

flipflop on December 11, 2008 at 3:55 PM

This is going to put a crimp in the talking to them thingy.

fogw on December 11, 2008 at 3:56 PM

Why? Because he doesn’t want to take any preemptive action to end the Iranian nuke weapons program. Better let Tel Aviv to be wiped out, then looko like a big man and nuke Tehran. Result? Twice as many nukes go off, and twice as many deaths. Brilliant!

Not to mention the fact that Iran’s nukes could end up in containers in western harbors if we let them accumulate them.

Akzed on December 11, 2008 at 3:56 PM

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

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

What “strings” are attached to this so called “umbrella”? Let your most populated cities go up in flames then we’ll dither about the response in the House and Senate? Another Holocost.

If I were Bibi, I would tell Barry Hussien, “No thanks, we’ll handle it ourselves”.

Kuffar on December 11, 2008 at 3:58 PM

All we need do is put our missle defense systems in Israel so that Iran cannot do a successful first strike against Israel. Then Israel can retaliate themselves. If the Israelis are all wiped out, a counterstrike against Iran by the US may make the US feel better but the Israelis will all be dead.

Maybe keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons in the first place shoule be considered as well.

KW64 on December 11, 2008 at 3:58 PM

The Precedent-Elect is more likely to nuke Israel.

progressoverpeace on December 11, 2008 at 3:59 PM

Like you said, Allah, this is all based on the belief that Iran’s leadership cares about MAD. If they think their goal on earth is to destroy Israel for Allah, what do they care if Israel retaliates while it’s being destroyed?

amerpundit on December 11, 2008 at 3:59 PM

And what is the point of an American response, after Israel’s cities are destroyed in an Iranian nuclear strike?”

For a nuclear deterrent to be credible, the potential target has to believe you have the will to use it. Otherwise, the deterrent is useless and you might as well not have them to being with.

alex342 on December 11, 2008 at 3:59 PM

progressoverpeace on December 11, 2008 at 3:59 PM

Stupid.

alex342 on December 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM

The Precedent-Elect is more likely to nuke Israel.

progressoverpeace on December 11, 2008 at 3:59 PM

He’ll nuke his eye out

LimeyGeek on December 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM

This is just warmongering. Obama was right the first time when he said Iran is a tiny country. They can’t compete with our CIA, FBI and miltary might.

lodge on December 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Olbermann is an idiot. Leave a comment on this petiton site to FIRE KEITH OLBERMANN!!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/fire-keith-olbermann

afotia on December 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Stupid.

alex342 on December 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Really? Ask Samantha Power.

progressoverpeace on December 11, 2008 at 4:01 PM

Seriously, who ever wins Israels new elections in the next few months, I hope they don’t get sucked up in this “HOPEANDCHANGE” nonsense.

It would take more than one nuke to destroy Israel, but why take the chance. Israel, please don’t let some Washington bureaucrat decide between life and death of 10’s of thousands of Israelis and even 10’s of thousands Palestinians.

Lance Murdock on December 11, 2008 at 4:02 PM

We’re screwed and so is Israel.

jencab on December 11, 2008 at 4:03 PM

Wonderful..after Iran commits genocide and kills a few million Jews, BHO says he will send out the nukes. There is no deterence here because the mullahs think that a few million dead Jews are worth any price, even 10 or 20 million dead muslims. As we all know, the mullah love killing muslims

Not only that, but I am quite sure Barak would never launch a nuke. He is merely spreading BS. He will send blankets and water the Jews that survive and the media here will call him compassionate. Israel needs to strike as soon as necessary to stop the mullahs. Bush has totally surrendered on this issue. Condi Rice has been a total disaster at State

georgealbert on December 11, 2008 at 4:03 PM

Not to mention the fact that Iran’s nukes could end up in containers in western harbors if we let them accumulate them.

Akzed on December 11, 2008 at 3:56 PM

bingo!! EMP over NYC.

right4life on December 11, 2008 at 4:03 PM

The Precedent-Elect is more likely to nuke Israel.

progressoverpeace on December 11, 2008 at 3:59 PM

Can we leave the peanut gallery responses to other threads, or better yet other blog sites.

Lance Murdock on December 11, 2008 at 4:03 PM

Gee….Maybe I’m being short sided here, but why can’t Israel defend itself with the United States having its back? I mean, why should Israel have to wait for the United States to respond after they (Israel) have suffered losses? Will the President of the Office of President-Elect (POPE) allow permit the Israelis to be rocketed and mortared on a daily basis with no response?

Ben Shapiro has a point.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 11, 2008 at 4:03 PM

I’m sure that will make Israel feel all warm and fuzzy.

Maxx on December 11, 2008 at 4:05 PM

Isn’t PEBO basically comprising Israel’s national sovereignty with this offer?

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 11, 2008 at 4:06 PM

Yawn… don’t rattle that saber if ya ain’t gonna use it.

abobo on December 11, 2008 at 4:06 PM

they have surrender in the face of Iranian nukes and putting faith in the terror regime in Iran. A faith that is based on the belief that the threat of destruction will somehow jar sense into the mullahs.

rob verdi on December 11, 2008 at 4:07 PM

And, as I said earlier…

this will PROOVE the Mullah’s correct, that America is run by the Zionists.

Also, MAD only works with a reasonable enemy. If the enemy truly believes they will WIN, by a Nuclear Exchange (becaue the hidden Imam shows, and they thus Autowin)…

Romeo13 on December 11, 2008 at 4:07 PM

“Barack Obama’s foreign policy is dangerous and naive”

–Hillary Clinton

This is a case in point. The threat of “mutually assured destruction” works against a non-suicidal enemy with lots of nuclear weapons, who won’t accept tens of millions of casualties to “win” a war.

But for a suicidal enemy with a few nuclear weapons (like Iran under Ahmanutjob), defensive missiles, like those we intend to deploy in Poland and the Czech Republic, are a better deterrent. You take out their nukes WITHOUT starting an all-out nuclear war, then blackmail them into submission.

Besides, if Obama nuked Iran as retaliation for an attack against Israel, nuclear fallout would poison our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as part of an unstable southern Russia. Now ain’t THAT a brilliant idea!

Obama is bound and determined to make McCain look like a genius.

Steve Z on December 11, 2008 at 4:08 PM

Ummm… maybe I’m alone but I assumed all along that we’d blow the daylights out of Iran or anyone who attacked Israel.

Maybe this is Obama’s ridiculous way of saying “don’t even think about it.”

Oink on December 11, 2008 at 4:08 PM

Obama is bound and determined to make McCain look like a genius.

Steve Z on December 11, 2008 at 4:08 PM

Also, isn’t he handing Dinnerjacket and the Mullahs an invitation to Holocaust 2.0 served on a golden platter?

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 11, 2008 at 4:09 PM

I doubt Barry would order a nuclear strike on anyone, for any reason whatsoever. Michelle O. on the other hand…

tyrfing on December 11, 2008 at 4:09 PM

How is PEBO going to cover this up when he addresses the world from a Muslim Country / City?

Or is that smoke he’s blowing up Iraq’s A$$.

PappaMac on December 11, 2008 at 4:09 PM

It just occured to me that The Big O might try to create a diversion so we’ll quit watching The Blago Show. Nothing like the threat of a nuclear war to divert our attention from a political scandal.

Oink on December 11, 2008 at 4:09 PM

Terrific, we’ll now have a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The Arabs won’t like this (the Persian Bomb) development. Unless Obama promises to extend the nuclear umbrella to the Arab world? Just joking now (I think).

Anyway, what could possibly happen with all that nuclear material being processed in an arms race? I’m sure the safeguards will be fine.

This isn’t exclusively – or for me, predominantly – about Israel. This is about the balance of power in the Middle East and the power relations among those nations.

SteveMG on December 11, 2008 at 4:10 PM

Many of the advisors to The Obama™ have a decidely anti-Israel mindset so I seriously doubt that this is credible.

Pardon me if I think that this is just more cr*pola from The Obama™. This will turn out to be just like what he did with NAFTA during the campaign. He hasn’t a clue how to deal with the Iranian problem so he just tosses this on the table. Meantime, one of his sycophants tells the Iranians its just talk for the “rubes” in America.

My guess is the Israelis are not impressed.

johnsteele on December 11, 2008 at 4:11 PM

1)Scandal erupts, surrounding Democrat president in a sea of a thousand blooming swamp cabbage.

2)Democrat president(-elect) unleashes awesome power of U.S. military.

Does this ring any bells???

This would be the biggest “Wag the Dog” in U.S. history and a major overreaction. If he has made such a threat he has broken the first rule of international relations – Do not ever make a threat you can not fulfill.

Nuking Iran would be the wrong choice. It would spark a cascading series of mutual defense agreement that would put us quickly at war with Russia. At last check they have enough ICBMs left to inflict serious destruction on the U.S. population, should we find ourselves in a shooting war.

Very reckless. Not a surprise to me, but very reckless. This president needs to be chaperoned.

bryanmyrick on December 11, 2008 at 4:12 PM

Mr. President. Iran has just deployed a nuclear bomb and it appears that it is headed toward Israel.

“Present!” or

“This is not the Iran that I knew”

PappaMac on December 11, 2008 at 4:14 PM

nuclear fallout would poison our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as part of an unstable southern Russia

To be fair, high yield, low kiloton tactical nukes detonated 1 mile in the air don’t have real problems with fallout.

The big (inefficient) boys that go boom in, on or near the ground throw a lot of crap into the air….but even the dangers of that is overhyped.

LimeyGeek on December 11, 2008 at 4:14 PM

In other words, the U.S. gives the green light for Iran to build nukes. Just don’t go sending nukes over to Israel on Iranian-labeled rockets or planes.

Meanwhile, Iran can intimidate all the countries in the region and sell nukes to other countries, thanks to Obama’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on Iranian nukes.

albill on December 11, 2008 at 4:15 PM

Meanwhile………….According to IRNA (Pravda Persia)……

Larijani slams governments ignoring Israeli crimes

Maintaining that the era of US unilateralism has been over, Majlis speaker noted, “We should know the situation better and do not think that the conditions have changed with coming to power of Obama.” Addressing the westerners, he also said: “It is shameful for you to witness the crimes committed by Israel in Gaza while you are claiming to be advocates of human rights.”

Said the country that hangs children and homosexuals.

Also…..

Obama incapable of fundamental change, suggests US analyst

Barack Obama’s foreign policy regarding the Middle East will have no “fundamental difference” with his predecessor George W. Bush even though the president-elect has promised hope and change, a senior analyst with the most powerful private organisation to influence US foreign policy said.

She said Obama will continue the policies of Bush in bringing US allies in the Middle East closer to each other.

“The war on terror aimed at introducing a common enemy (terrorism) for Arab governments and Israel so that they can become allies in the future. In this case, US goals of guaranteeing access to oil and preserving Israel’s security will be materialised,” she argued.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 11, 2008 at 4:16 PM

Hey, give Obama credit. He just promised Iran they’d be EXTRA dead instead of plain ol’ regular dead.

It’s the same logic that stems from some guns and bullets being “weapons of unusual lethality”. There’s nothing worse than being dead…except being unusually dead.

MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 4:17 PM

Livni should take the Blago approach…..”F&*k you!!! What are you going to give me?”

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 11, 2008 at 4:18 PM

And who believes Obama?

tarpon on December 11, 2008 at 4:18 PM

Umbrella or no umbrella. If Iran gets nukes what other countries will feel compelled to acquire their own?

It reminds me of the following Adobe Shockwave clip. (Language)
http://coldhardflash.com/video/06-endofworld.swf

diogenes on December 11, 2008 at 4:20 PM

And who believes Obama?

tarpon on December 11, 2008 at 4:18 PM

53%..

the_nile on December 11, 2008 at 4:20 PM

Might be time for a pre-emptive strike on Chicago.

DeweyWins on December 11, 2008 at 4:20 PM

This is the Idiot’s way to let Iran have nukes.

In His infinite wisdom, he must have determined that the mullah’s will be highly deterred with the Mutual Assured Destruction strategy that was used with Russia in the cold war. The mullah’s are noted, of course, for their clear rational thinking when it comes to the destruction of Israel.

Gee, I wonder if the Israelis will go for it. Since it’s coming from On High, they will probably completely disarm in 2009, right?

notagool on December 11, 2008 at 4:20 PM

And who believes Obama?

tarpon on December 11, 2008 at 4:18 PM

Well there’s … uh, of course there is … uh, well don’t forget … of course there’s Michelle O … I’ll get back to you on this.

johnsteele on December 11, 2008 at 4:21 PM

Lance Murdock on December 11, 2008 at 4:03 PM

I know it wasn’t directed at you, but I thought you might have had an opinion on my (senior advisor) Samantha Power question, as it related to my post that offended you so much. Or maybe BHO is closer to Khalidi’s thoughts on that? Or Ayers, perhaps?

If you thought my comment was so stupid then you might be able to explain how this all jives?

progressoverpeace on December 11, 2008 at 4:21 PM

Don’t be surprised if we read about the Saudis offering the Pakistanis a few billion for nuclear technology.

Pakistan needs money; the Saudis (will now) need a bomb.

It’s a match made in, dare I say, heaven.

If Iran gets a weapon, the nuclear bazar will be open for business.

SteveMG on December 11, 2008 at 4:21 PM

To me this seems like nothing more than an excuse to back down from dealing firmly with Iran. It is based on the assumption they have (or will soon have) a nuclear weapon and, rather than confronting them, about it, simply to present them with another weak-kneed “threat”.

Does anyone think that they will take this statement any more seriously than the one that went something like this: “We will not permit Iran to have a nuclear weapon”?

Blaise on December 11, 2008 at 4:22 PM

iran nukes israel
we nuke iran
russia nukes us
we nuke russia

Cardiganfox on December 11, 2008 at 4:23 PM

LimeyGeek on December 11, 2008 at 3:57 PM

You can ask the Israelis to get a new snapshot if they have to take care of business.

theotherKate on December 11, 2008 at 4:24 PM

iran nukes israel
we nuke iran
russia nukes us
we nuke russia

Cardiganfox on December 11, 2008 at 4:23 PM

This guy gets it. Someone in the Office of the President-elect needs to think before shooting their mouth off. This is what the combination of massive ego and inexperience will produce.

bryanmyrick on December 11, 2008 at 4:25 PM

The ego of The Black Caesar leads me to believe that he would propose such nonsense but Iran won’t take him seriously nor would he follow through.

grdred944 on December 11, 2008 at 4:28 PM

bingo!! EMP over NYC.

right4life on December 11, 2008 at 4:03 PM

I understand that the EMP radius is pretty small at zero altitude (Not that that will held New Yorkers).

Count to 10 on December 11, 2008 at 4:30 PM

You can ask the Israelis to get a new snapshot if they have to take care of business.

theotherKate on December 11, 2008 at 4:24 PM

I want digital, hi-def, hi-framerate video of Tehran getting vaporized.

Gloves off with these monkeys. Time for some extinction.

LimeyGeek on December 11, 2008 at 4:30 PM

iran nukes israel
we nuke iran
russia nukes us
we nuke russia

Cardiganfox on December 11, 2008 at 4:23 PM

Would Russia Putin really commit suicide to revenge Iran?

Count to 10 on December 11, 2008 at 4:31 PM

Count to 10 on December 11, 2008 at 4:30 PM

Actually, detonation needs to occur quite high for the necessary ionization to take place. EMP is an atmospheric phenomenon, not part of the nuclear explosion.

In theory, a big boom at the right altitude could EMP the entire US and then some.

LimeyGeek on December 11, 2008 at 4:33 PM

We will destroy them…after they destroy our allies, yeah, that helps.
Like a cop hiding behind a billboard…a nuclear speed trap.

right2bright on December 11, 2008 at 4:33 PM

This is the Idiot’s way to let Iran have nukes.

notagool on December 11, 2008 at 4:20 PM

Frightful idea.
Of course, we know that any nuke would be delivered to Israel by Hesballa, not on a missile, but in a truck or boat.

Count to 10 on December 11, 2008 at 4:35 PM

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm

LimeyGeek on December 11, 2008 at 4:36 PM

Count to 10 on December 11, 2008 at 4:31 PM

Would Obama really commit suicide to avenge Israel? Say tomorrow Russia comes out and says “United States nukes Iran, we nuke United States.” what then?

Cardiganfox on December 11, 2008 at 4:36 PM

Actually, detonation needs to occur quite high for the necessary ionization to take place. EMP is an atmospheric phenomenon, not part of the nuclear explosion.

In theory, a big boom at the right altitude could EMP the entire US and then some.

LimeyGeek on December 11, 2008 at 4:33 PM

I’m getting my information second hand from a friend that took a class on the subject. I thought there was still some EMP for a ground burst, though. I think a space-burst gives you the largest radius, but I don’t really know the mechanics of what causes the wave.

Count to 10 on December 11, 2008 at 4:39 PM

Why is Obama even worried about such a “Tiny” country anyway?

Now excuse me, I have to finish my Bomb Shelter planning.

PappaMac on December 11, 2008 at 4:39 PM

lol…this is the funniest thing Ive heard all day. Iran is hardly going to be cowed into submission by the assurance that any nuclear strike on Israel by them will result in a Nuclear retaliation from the US.

Seriously if Iran ever did attack Israel with a nuclear weapon Israel would turn Iran into a radioactive car park faster than it would take Obama to issue a statement that both sides should exercise restraint.

Dreadnought223 on December 11, 2008 at 4:42 PM

Lance Murdock on December 11, 2008 at 4:03 PM

Okay, I’ll spell it all out for you. BHO telling Israel that he wants to put them under our nuclear umbrella (that he will nuke Iran if they nuke Israel) means that Iran is gong to be allowed to get nukes and BHO doesn’t want Israel to trya nd stop that. So, BHO is clearly stating that he thinks that Iran should have nukes.

Secondly, his threat to nuke Iran is a joke, at best, as the Precedent-Elect is more interested in getting rid of our nuke arsenal. We all know that he wouldn’t nuke Iran, especially not after Israel is gone and there is nothing to save by nuking Iran.

Put together, this means that BHO is green-lighting Iran to get nukes and drop them on Israel (by any reasonable person’s reading).

Now, we have the Precedent-Elect’s friends and senior advisors, most of whom think that Israel is a big pain causing tons of problems with the arab/persian/muslim world. They also tend to think that Israel commits war crimes every third day, unlike Iran, a nation most of them don’t really mind – including the Precedent-Elect, as he meant when he said that Iran was a tiny country. Further, Samantha Power has no problem invading and occupying Israel, and has said so, explicitly, to force the birth of a Palestinian state (which would be committed to obliterating Israel).

Put that all together and tell me how my comment was anything but a reasonable analysis. BHO isn’t offering Iran up for a nuke hit with his umbrella. He’s offering Israel up for one.

progressoverpeace on December 11, 2008 at 4:43 PM

Count to 10 on December 11, 2008 at 4:39 PM

There is a special localized EMP effect for ground burst (or low altitude detonation in general), but its range is so limited that anything it would affect has likely been blasted away – a few kilometers from ground zero.

LimeyGeek on December 11, 2008 at 4:43 PM

Would Obama really commit suicide to avenge Israel? Say tomorrow Russia comes out and says “United States nukes Iran, we nuke United States.” what then?

Cardiganfox on December 11, 2008 at 4:36 PM

I’m not sure where this line of reasoning goes. It is suicide to nuke the US or Russia. Up to that point, there is still a bit of a game of chicken to be played.

Count to 10 on December 11, 2008 at 4:43 PM

Consider the pathos of the Iranian mullocracy. If they “launch”, do they REALLY care if Odopey responds with “underwhelming” force? Their whole mission is to bring about the return of the 12th imam. This guy continues to show how blindly elitist he really is. What kind of dope plays all his cards for his enemies to see? La cabeza de mierda.

HomeoftheBrave on December 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM

There is a special localized EMP effect for ground burst (or low altitude detonation in general), but its range is so limited that anything it would affect has likely been blasted away – a few kilometers from ground zero.

LimeyGeek on December 11, 2008 at 4:43 PM

That’s what I thought. Hard to notice that your watch stopped working when your retinas are no longer sending visual stimuli to your brain.

Count to 10 on December 11, 2008 at 4:45 PM

progressoverpeace on December 11, 2008 at 4:21 PM

When you say Obama is more likely going to nuke Israel rather than confront Iran, it demeans your other arguments on this subject. It quite obvious from other posts you are no Obama fan and I don’t blame you, neither am I. Just because we aren’t Obama fans doesn’t mean posting what you think is ‘funny’ actually contributes any intellectual discussion to this tread. It just lowers the seriousness of the situation.

On to Ms. Powers. Yes I believe she is extremely dangerous. Her positions on the ME and on Israel are very disconcerting to me. Her views are completely naive and dangerous. She believes that if Palestinians just got want they wanted their would be peace. But she also believes that Israel itself was a mistake and should be dismantle. Not in I’m going to nuke you way, but in a more nuance way.

That is why I am very worry over the next few months. With Obama at the helm, the new dovish Israel lobbying group JStreet will get more influence than it deserves. Powers and others like her truly believe that the Iranians won’t try to nuke Israel. They have a fundamental belief that if their skin is not white they can’t be a bad person. So if Iran uses its nuclear weapons against Israel, people like Powers will not want to go to war for Israel, b/c she believes like so many leftists that Israel is source of all the worlds problems.

Saddest part would be when the UN would condemn Israel for letting so many Palestinians die in a nuclear attack.

Lance Murdock on December 11, 2008 at 4:45 PM

Here’s the change… He’s going to nuke them, but he’s going to feel really bad about it.

Chuck Schick on December 11, 2008 at 4:46 PM

Saddest part would be when the UN would condemn Israel for letting so many Palestinians die in a nuclear attack.

Lance Murdock on December 11, 2008 at 4:45 PM

That’s true. I believe they did that back in Gulf War I when Israel was accused of shooting Saddam’s missiles down over the West Bank to hit the Palestinians.

I understand how you saw my original comment as too flip for the discussion, but I do believe what I wrote (with the “more likely” qualifier, of course). Wholeheartedly. I spend a good deal of time in Israel and it is more than a theoretical point to me.

In the end, though, Israel’s security and defense are Israel’s responsibility, and no one else’s.

progressoverpeace on December 11, 2008 at 4:52 PM

Saddest part would be when the UN would condemn Israel for letting so many Palestinians die in a nuclear attack.

Lance Murdock on December 11, 2008 at 4:45 PM

Shades of “save the holy land from the zionists–by making it uninhabitable by anyone for decades/centuries.”

Count to 10 on December 11, 2008 at 4:53 PM

Guys with a glass jaw need to keep their mouth shut. If a nuke goes off, no government will confess complicity so then what do you do? Islamofascist criminals are a lot craftier than the Chicago machine “blagos” BHO is used to.

Mark30339 on December 11, 2008 at 4:56 PM

Iran is dominated by Mahdis, Twelvers, a Global Suicide Cult, why the **** doesn’t Barry know stuff like this?

You don’t get a jumper off a ledge by threatening to push him, a suicide-by-cop intendee won’t stop his fake-saber-rattling charge with warnings of the cops intention to shoot.

Barry is living in a pathetic kindergarten dreamworld where ignorance is more than bliss, it’s a presidential governing strategy.

Maquis on December 11, 2008 at 4:58 PM

Perhaps we need to hold something to ransom that they do care about, like Mecca.

LimeyGeek on December 11, 2008 at 5:00 PM

For those working the Russia-Iran angle…..

Their ties are getting deeper.

Iran urges Russian focus on human tragedy in Gaza

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 11, 2008 at 5:00 PM

Barry is living in a pathetic kindergarten dreamworld where ignorance is more than bliss, it’s a presidential governing strategy.

Maquis on December 11, 2008 at 4:58 PM

Nope. Socialist utopia.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 11, 2008 at 5:01 PM

Perhaps we need to hold something to ransom that they do care about, like Mecca.

LimeyGeek on December 11, 2008 at 5:00 PM

If Israel is nuked into oblivion, and its forces wipe out Iran with a nuclear counterstrike, would they also nuke Mecca?
I’m not sure they are that, well, spiteful.

Count to 10 on December 11, 2008 at 5:04 PM

Another good one from IRNA (Pravda Persia)

British involvement in Iraq war “shameful and disastrous”

Seumas Milne, from the Guardian, said on Thursday that the Iraq war was in clear violation of international laws.

Money quote at the end.

Referring to the challenges faced by Obama, Seumas suggested that he deliver on Iraq, negotiate in Afghanistan and engage with Iran.

“Only in this case, Obama will start to justify the global hopes that have been invested in him. If not, he will lay the ground for a new phase of conflict with the rest of the world.

Heh.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 11, 2008 at 5:05 PM

Two words: Samson Option

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 11, 2008 at 5:06 PM

Why? Because he doesn’t want to take any preemptive action to end the Iranian nuke weapons program.

Akzed on December 11, 2008 at 3:56 PM

What “preemptive action”? Another invasion and ground war? Because that’s what it would take to verify our success.

Pass.

paul006 on December 11, 2008 at 5:13 PM

Perhaps we need to hold something to ransom that they do care about, like Mecca.

LimeyGeek on December 11, 2008 at 5:00 PM

RACIST TANCREDO!!!

omnipotent on December 11, 2008 at 5:13 PM

Iran now, hunh? That is one ****ing COLOSSAL bus!

SlimyBill on December 11, 2008 at 5:13 PM

Let’s just skip the middle man and bomb now.

indythinker on December 11, 2008 at 5:13 PM

Yet another indicator that Obama just doesn’t understand our national security doctrine.

flipflop on December 11, 2008 at 3:55 PM

With respect to Iran?

Good.

SlimyBill on December 11, 2008 at 5:14 PM

Two points:

1. He’s trying so hard to win favor of Jewish voters that he’s ready to go to war, unilaterally, if Israel is attacked – I find that hard to believe since it’s a well-known fact that all members of the DNC are yellow-belied cowards; and,

2. Let’s see if the has the balls to say this in whatever muslim country he’s going to make his speech. About what, who knows.

madmonkphotog on December 11, 2008 at 5:15 PM

Israel will bomb Iran 20 days……19…18….17.

They’ll need/trust Bush to back them up in the initial fortnight more than Barry Hussein, the black dove.

Also, the American sheeple will be preoccupied with their holidays, so less negative PR to worry about. (Our MSM will ask “Why is Israel launching a PRE-EMPTIVE strike against a PEACEFUL country and starting World War 3?”)

omnipotent on December 11, 2008 at 5:18 PM

in 20 days….

D’oh, PIMF

omnipotent on December 11, 2008 at 5:22 PM

I tend to agree with Illinois First Lady Blago’s comments at a recent meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council in Chicago when she was asked for her impressions on how Mrs. Clinton would manage the unstable environment that exists between Iran and Israel.

“What the f&^k does this f*&$ing c^$t know about foreign f&*king policy? If she can’t control her c*%k-sucking husband’s p$ick, how can she control Iran or Israel?”

grdred944 on December 11, 2008 at 5:29 PM

This is going to put a crimp in the talking to them thingy.

fogw on December 11, 2008 at 3:56 PM

On the contrary, if/when he does decide to talk to them, he’ll be backing himself up with a commitment to American military involvement already on the table.

Despite what some might think about the Iranians, they won’t attack Israel if they don’t think they will survive it – and Obama is getting ready to promise them that they won’t.

This is part of talking to them. If McCain/Palin had done this, you guys would be cheering. See where this goes before you reflexively criticize it.

Big S on December 11, 2008 at 5:34 PM

Ok when I saw this I laughed my head off. There is !!!ABSOLUTELY NO FREAKIN’ WAY!!! Obambi is going to nuke Iran. Even if the whole Middle East unzipped its pants and took a collective whiz on Israel, I just can’t see it happening. This is the guy who’s been running (for all practical purposes) as the AIPAC’s worst nightmare.

It might be funny to see, guys, but don’t confuse it for anything other than more posturing.

Ryan Gandy on December 11, 2008 at 5:35 PM

Big S on December 11, 2008 at 5:34 PM

Its mind-numbingly stupid to equivocate Obama with McCain, for the reason I mentioned above as well as many others.

Ryan Gandy on December 11, 2008 at 5:39 PM

Put that all together and tell me how my comment was anything but a reasonable analysis. BHO isn’t offering Iran up for a nuke hit with his umbrella. He’s offering Israel up for one.

progressoverpeace on December 11, 2008 at 4:43 PM

Bingo. You win the prize.

The Idiot could care less about Israel, and he doesn’t want to get tangled up with Iran’s quest for nukes.

That’s why he’s the Idiot (well, there are many reasons, but that’s a big one).

notagool on December 11, 2008 at 5:41 PM

an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran…

No one should get too excited about barry being a supporter of Israel. This is a smoke screen. I guarantee this is a two sided sword. He will warn everyone that the first to use nuclear weapons will have the US retaliate against them and he will tell the arabs that the US will stay nuetral in any conflict. Then when the arabs are overwhelming the Israelis, they will have a nuclear retaliation hanging over their heads if they get to the point where they have to decide to use a nuke or cease to exist. This is what old joe biden was warning about.

peacenprosperity on December 11, 2008 at 5:45 PM

It might be funny to see, guys, but don’t confuse it for anything other than more posturing.

Ryan Gandy on December 11, 2008 at 5:35 PM

It’s very worrisome to see that in spite of the literally thousands of things Obama must be having to deal with at the same time, he chose to push Israel’s back up further against the wall with this public diplomatic initiative. I assumed he would grant amnesty first, or pay reparations, or nationalize the health care industry, etc. But he chose to pressure Israel, and announce a major speech in a Muslim country. This is a warning shot across Israel’s bow imo, and the danger level just rose dramatically.

JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 5:47 PM

Then when the arabs are overwhelming the Israelis, they will have a nuclear retaliation hanging over their heads if they get to the point where they have to decide to use a nuke or cease to exist. This is what old joe biden was warning about.

peacenprosperity on December 11, 2008 at 5:45 PM

Yes, yes, yes. I said before that Biden’s warning was to American JEWS. He told them to vote for Obama, but to “trust” Obama when things looked like they were going wrong. This is very serious for Israel. For the vast majority of American Jews, they will get what they deserve. I tried to explain that to my family. They basically told me to piss off.

JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 5:49 PM

Does any of this remind you of the president in “24″ a couple seasons ago? The incompetence at the highest levels, in over his head, etc. Alas, if we have a real-life Jack Bauer, he’s hamstrung.

hoosiermama on December 11, 2008 at 5:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.