Did Obama promise Israel arms deal in exchange for delaying Iran strike after US elections?

posted at 1:55 pm on March 8, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Am I the only one who thinks that the only thing wrong with this deal is the timing, assuming Maariv’s account is accurate?

The US offered to give Israel advanced weaponry — including bunker-busting bombs and refueling planes — in exchange for Israel’s agreement not to attack Iranian nuclear sites, Israeli newspaper Maariv reported Thursday.

President Obama reportedly made the offer during Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington this week.

Under the proposed deal, Israel would not attack Iran until 2013, after US elections in November this year. The newspaper cited unnamed Western diplomatic and intelligence sources.

Strengthening Israeli defenses? Check. Sending a strong message to Iran about the potential consequences of developing a nuclear weapon? Check. Putting personal political ambition ahead of national security and diplomatic priorities to an American ally? Er …

It’s interesting that this report comes from an Israeli media source.  Again assuming that this is accurate, it’s likely a leak from people involved in this negotiation who find this notion offensive, whom are most likely to be the Israelis and not the Americans.  If it’s true, it’s not just offensive, it’s indefensible, and it would undermine whatever domestic political gain Obama may have achieved with his tough talk on Iran at the AIPAC conference last weekend.  After all, it’s hard to take that seriously if Obama thinks his re-election bid is more significant than the threat of nuclear-armed radical mullahs intent on wiping Israel off the face of the map.

I’d expect the usual round of denials, and in this case I’d hope that they’re true.  But if nothing else, this serves as a useful message to Iran that the US is making some sort of preparations for military action, even if the Obama administration doesn’t sound particularly apt at negotiating them. (via Daniel Foster)

Update: As a few commenters remind us, having the Obama administration attempt to bargain around election dates isn’t exactly unprecedentedReuters reports that an Israeli official calls the Maariv story “unrealistic”:

Israel has asked the United States for advanced “bunker-buster” bombs and refueling planes that could improve its ability to attack Iran’s underground nuclear sites, an Israeli official said on Thursday.

“Such a request was made” around the time of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington this week, the official said, confirming media reports.

But the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the issue, played down as “unrealistic” reports that the United States would condition supplying the hardware on Israel promising not to attack Iran this year.

That’s not an explicit denial.  The White House denies any conversation about bunker busters took place, however:

President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not discuss in their meetings this week an Israeli request for advanced U.S. military technology that could be used against Iran, the White House said on Thursday.

“In meetings the president had there was no such agreement proposed or reached,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters. Obama and Netanyahu meet in the Oval office for two hours on Monday and then had lunch together.

We have two separate reports that the conversation did take place, and one denial. Stay tuned.


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

Don’t the One’s promises come with expiration dates…

txmomof6 on March 8, 2012 at 1:56 PM

When the chips are down…

Shy Guy on March 8, 2012 at 1:56 PM

If the elections were explicitly cited as the reason for the delay, shouldn’t that be sufficient cause for impeachment?

MadisonConservative on March 8, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Ed, you are forgetting Samantha Power and Valeria Jarrett, Both of whom are anti-Semitic individuals who believe that the best thing that could happen for world peace would be if Israel ceased to exist. Since in their opinion Israel’s existence is the impetus of all Islamic aggression.

SWalker on March 8, 2012 at 1:59 PM

That agreement is not worth the paper it may or may not be written on. There’s no way I take Obama’s word if I’m Bibi. I’m sure after the election, if Obama wins, there will be some unfortunate development that will prevent Obama from providing the promised weapons to Israel.

Aplombed on March 8, 2012 at 1:59 PM

After all, it’s hard to take that seriously if Obama thinks his re-election bid is more significant than the threat of nuclear-armed radical mullahs intent on wiping Israel off the face of the map.

Who’s to say he doesn’t want both?

Kataklysmic on March 8, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Don’t do anything which I am against, and for which I am utterly unprepared. Check.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 8, 2012 at 2:00 PM

“Me, I, and me” again and again.

This is not a man, nor a mensch, just a power-hungry narcissist.

If Israel falls for it, she’s a culprit in his game.

Schadenfreude on March 8, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Ed, you are forgetting Samantha Power and Valeria Jarrett, Both of whom are anti-Semitic individuals who believe that the best thing that could happen for world peace would be if Israel ceased to exist. Since in their opinion Israel’s existence is the impetus of all Islamic aggression.

SWalker on March 8, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Has Obama ever spent more than five minutes around someone who wasn’t anti-semitic?

Kataklysmic on March 8, 2012 at 2:00 PM

What’s wrong?, looks like a great deal….take it
-lsm

cmsinaz on March 8, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Down is Up & Up is Down — and he wouldn’t try to stop a pipeline – oh ..

wheels on March 8, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Obama publically broadcasts his time tables repeatedly. Iraq, Afganistan and now Iran. How’s that working out for us so far?

compass and chain on March 8, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Thanks Ed. My apologies for the sarc earlier. I still think the reason this won’t be widely covered is due to Rueters comming out with there own unnamed source claimming not true.

AlexJ on March 8, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Obowma is only as good as his word…

… Oh, wait!

/

Seven Percent Solution on March 8, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Susan rice, diplomacy is the way to go

Idiot

cmsinaz on March 8, 2012 at 2:03 PM

“their”

AlexJ on March 8, 2012 at 2:03 PM

And once he was elected that promised arms deal would most likely turn out to somehow have expired…

The Taqiyya President

Antivenin on March 8, 2012 at 2:04 PM

But Bibi and Baracka are such good friends…this will never see the light of day on the legacy media.

d1carter on March 8, 2012 at 2:04 PM

I would be interested to know if the promised weapons will be delivered before the election…or after. If after, I would assume this means nothing and an Israeli house being built somewhere and some manufactured outrage by Palestinians would be the convenient excuse not to deliver them.

sharrukin on March 8, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Thanks Ed. My apologies for the sarc earlier. I still think the reason this won’t be widely covered is due to Rueters comming out with there own unnamed source claimming not true.

AlexJ on March 8, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Fox and Meghan Kelly are all over this like stink on a monkey and Carney the clown is denying all of it.

JPeterman on March 8, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Yet another issue that should dominate the news, but sadly, nothing will come of it.

Just like Fast & Furious, Solyndra, etc.

John Deaux on March 8, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Obama publically broadcasts his time tables repeatedly. Iraq, Afganistan and now Iran. How’s that working out for us so far?

compass and chain on March 8, 2012 at 2:01 PM

“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action.”

Seven Percent Solution on March 8, 2012 at 2:06 PM

But Bibi and Baracka are such good friends…this will never see the light of day on the legacy media.

d1carter on March 8, 2012 at 2:04 PM

The Fifth Column Treasonous Media has done nothing but provide Barack Obama with support and cover, they will never ever give coverage to what basically amounts to Obama asking Israel to commit suicide for his political benefit.

SWalker on March 8, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Obama does not want any “disruption” that would mess up his re-election plans and would curtail his campaigning, golf, and parties. Israel will do whatever it needs to do to protect it’s country, with or without Obama’s help.

Amazingoly on March 8, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Don’t listen to him Bibi.

vcferlita on March 8, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Dear O, just declare yourself dictator/king/ruler-of-all/etc.. already, I and many others are tired of excuses.

nobar on March 8, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Chris Matthews will blast Netyanahu and accuse him of “interfering” into our politics.

But not a single word of criticism agains Obama (if this report is true, of course).

He’s really gotten ridiculous.

Yes, gotten. He wasn’t all this absurd before. Occasionally he made some sense. Now? He’s just a joke.

SteveMG on March 8, 2012 at 2:08 PM

I’d still like to know if, in fact, this story is true. The White house is denying it, but who knows. It would make much more sense to let Israel take out Iran’s nuke facilities than to have the US involved. Let Israel acquire what ammo they need, and step back. The US can offer opinion, but a nuclear Iran poses the biggest threat to Israel.

JetBoy on March 8, 2012 at 2:09 PM

On Monday, in calling for airstrikes on Syria, Senator John McCain reprised much the same role he played one year ago at the outset of the Libyan war. Last April, during a highly publicized visit to the cradle of the Libyan rebellion in Benghazi, Senator McCain called for increased American military support for the Libyan rebels. The senator famously described the rebels as his “heroes.” Never mind that these “heroes” had been caught on video committing horrific atrocities, nor that one of their commanders had openly acknowledged his ties to al-Qaeda. At the time, such details were of no greater interest to the mainstream American media than they were to Senator McCain or to the Obama administration.

But video evidence emerging out of Syria suggests that “infiltration” is not the right word.

At least three such videos depict anti-Assad forces or demonstrators posing unabashedly with al-Qaeda’s black flag — the same flag that was hoisted in Libya, but, in that case, only after the rebellion had triumphed.

The flag features the shahada, or Islamic declaration of faith, “there is no god but God [Allah] and Muhammad is his messenger,” plus a circle that is said to represent Muhammad’s seal. It was first made famous by the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s al-Qaeda in Iraq. …

In any case, there is abundant corroborating evidence of al-Qaeda involvement in the rebellion. This evidence includes the recent appearance in Syria of lieutenants of the Libyan jihadist leader Belhadj and the statements of Sheikh Louay al-Zouabi, a self-avowed admirer of al-Qaeda who claims to have issued the fatwa that sparked the Syrian rebellion.

VorDaj on March 8, 2012 at 2:09 PM

In other words, SCoaMF will let Israel defend itself when he allows the Keystone Pipeline to happen.

Look, suckers! On my other hand. Rush Limbaugh!

MNHawk on March 8, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Yes. All Executive decisions will be on hold until after the election. The ‘voting present’ tendencies of the President continue to put this country and the world in danger.

I hope we have time to save this great nation.

uhangtight on March 8, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Fox and Meghan Kelly are all over this like stink on a monkey and Carney the clown is denying all of it.

JPeterman on March 8, 2012 at 2:06 PM

The delicious part is that if the sources are indeed Israeli as Ed postulates, Team Obama isn’t going to be able to intimidate the whistleblowers with a poke in the chest in the senate shower room. These are people who have to send their kids to school with automatic weapons. If they want to tell the tale, they’re going to tell it.

Kataklysmic on March 8, 2012 at 2:11 PM

MadisonConservative on March 8, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Anything is sufficient cause for impeachment. Impeachment is a political process.

NotCoach on March 8, 2012 at 2:11 PM

“Putting personal political ambition ahead of national security and diplomatic priorities to an American ally? Er …”

“Nope…

… No potential political campaign commercial here! Did I tell you I like trees?” – Mittens

Seven Percent Solution on March 8, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Could also be a little false trail of bread crumbs.
1. Obama doesn’t want to initiate military action.
2. Obama would suffer politically if Israel initiates and the effort falters because Obama refuses to support.
3. Obama would gain politically if israel initiates, the U.S. assists, and the mission is a success. Talk about a victory lap.
4. In order for #3 to be of re-election benefit, it has to happen before Nov.
I think a deal has already been struck with Bibi.

a capella on March 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM

The only thing dumber than this would be if the Israelis buy into it. If they go for this, Obama is still going to screw them, just after the election — and possibly after the Iranian nuclear attack.

clippermiami on March 8, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Thanks Ed. My apologies for the sarc earlier. I still think the reason this won’t be widely covered is due to Rueters comming out with there own unnamed source claimming not true.

AlexJ on March 8, 2012 at 2:02 PM

I am not sure. Kelly on FOXNEWS is still running with it and has Bolton on in a few minutes

KBird on March 8, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Bibi could agree,take the deal and still attack.Then he could say O does this kind of stuff all of the time.What would the MSM say then?

docflash on March 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Obummer speak with forked tongue.

Philly on March 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM

once again the Obama administration show’s it’s utter contempt and disdain for the Israelis. this makes it clearer than day that the sole goal of Obama has been to delay sanctions and military options against Iran until they safely have developed nuclear weapons. Obama knows very well that by the time 2013 rolls around Iran will have several nukes, and then it will be pointless to have those weapon platforms. He is effectively denying Israel the weapons needed to strike at the nuke reactors. At the same time he is putting his political campaign above the worry of a nuclear war. I firmly believe that this was the point all along, due to Obamas hatred for Jews and the people he surrounds himself with, Valerie Jarret is an Iranian with a deep seated hatred for Israel, and Samanatha Power his top advisor, once advocated for invading Israel to force them to give up their territories. Not to mention best buddy Rashid Khalidi, rev Wright etc..

golembythehudson on March 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM

As we get closer to the election the pace of Constitution shredding will slow down a bit to avoid unnecessary notice. If he’s re-elected they are buying a new turbo-powered shredder.

clippermiami on March 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM

The only thing dumber than this would be if the Israelis buy into it. If they go for this, Obama is still going to screw them, just after the election — and possibly after the Iranian nuclear attack.

clippermiami on March 8, 2012 at 2:13 PM

I hope Bibi recognizes this and takes appropriate action, like attacking Iran at the worst possible time for Obama if it could coincide with the best possible time for Israel.

The Rogue Tomato on March 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Strengthening Israeli defenses? Check. Sending a strong message to Iran about the potential consequences of developing a nuclear weapon? Check.

Letting Iran know that nobody is going to strike until after the US elections, thus showing them our playbook again? Check.

Un-frigging-believable.

NapaConservative on March 8, 2012 at 2:16 PM

He asked Solyndra not to announce layoffs until after the election.

Akzed on March 8, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Has there been a Presidency more committed to Payola than this administration?
Pay to Play is Obama’s creed. This report fits perfectly with Pay to Play.

This President also has a pattern of gearing all his decisions to one goal, his re-election. Telling the Israelis to withhold protecting their country because it’s in the best interest of Obama is just the sort of meglomania I’ve come to expect from our Fearless Leader.

richardb on March 8, 2012 at 2:21 PM

He’s really gotten ridiculous.

Yes, gotten. He wasn’t all this absurd before. Occasionally he made some sense. Now? He’s just a joke.

SteveMG on March 8, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Now imagine four more lame duck years with this POS.

NapaConservative on March 8, 2012 at 2:22 PM

He asked Solyndra not to announce layoffs until after the election.

Akzed on March 8, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Yup, consistency of practice.

SWalker on March 8, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Dear Mr. President:

So if China invades, are we not to go to war just to salvage your bleak re-election prospects?

Just checking if we heard you correctly.

Sincerely,

The United States Armed Forces

Turtle317 on March 8, 2012 at 2:25 PM

3. Obama would gain politically if israel initiates, the U.S. assists, and the mission is a success. Talk about a victory lap.

a capella on March 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM

But, how jazzed are voters really going to be when gas prices to go to $7 overnight? It would certainly temper his victory lap and might be a net-negative for him in terms of his electoral fortunes.

The Count on March 8, 2012 at 2:25 PM

if Obama thinks his re-election bid is more significant than the threat of nuclear-armed radical mullahs intent on wiping Israel off the face of the map

If? Really?

But don’t worry Israel, Barry/Baraka has your back . . . at least until November 7th . . . .

AZCoyote on March 8, 2012 at 2:25 PM

What’s better than watching Bibi sit down next to Baraka and give him a stern lecture? Did you see President Taqiyya’s face when Bibi mentioned the mullah’s nickname for us, great satan? His panicked faced conveyed his anxiety over the possibility that the folks may come to see the religion of peace for what it really is.

Man v. mouse!

Nemesis of Jihad on March 8, 2012 at 2:26 PM

maybe it was true…. then it is in the best interest of israel to get this out…. then israel says, “give it to us now to demonstrate this was not part of the deal?” hmmmmmmm

Dr. Demento on March 8, 2012 at 2:27 PM

But, how jazzed are voters really going to be when gas prices to go to $7 overnight? It would certainly temper his victory lap and might be a net-negative for him in terms of his electoral fortunes.

The Count on March 8, 2012 at 2:25 PM

This jazzed?

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — It might be one of the biggest issues in the upcoming presidential election. Last night, CBS News exit polls found 77 percent of those voting in seven Super Tuesday states say rising gas prices were the most important factor in their vote.

JPeterman on March 8, 2012 at 2:30 PM

As an American, I am jealous.

It must be satisfying to have a leader like Netanyahu, a man who loves his country.

Nemesis of Jihad on March 8, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Timing ? The one and the press invent their own timing .
The story gets legs and poof it will be gone !
Squirrel !

Lucano on March 8, 2012 at 2:31 PM

With the way Obama handles problems, I expect the promise to
expire before any help is given to Israel.

I also expect him to be on vacation (and playing golf) if the Israel/Iran starts to heat up… as he is with all the other problems that the President should be taking care of.

GarryK on March 8, 2012 at 2:31 PM

We have to get this clown, Obamba, out of the WH – period. We should be assisting Israel take down Iran instead of putting road blocks in their path. I’m sick and tired of hearing this idiot make excuses and lying about everything he’s causing. Yes, I’ll call this president and idiot and a liar.

rjulio on March 8, 2012 at 2:31 PM

[unspeakable remark deleted]

kunegetikos on March 8, 2012 at 2:32 PM

I used to be outraged by some of the things this president has done. Now, I’m not surprised by anything he does…he just plain doesn’t care what protocol is, what the rules are, what the consequences of his actions are, or about anyone but himself. He’s a snob, just like Santorum said. He may not be a snob because he wants kids to go to college, but he’s a snob nonetheless.

scalleywag on March 8, 2012 at 2:33 PM

The other angle with this story is it helps give Obama cover in case the Israelis attack Iran. Then his majesty will claim he’s not at fault! The Israelis attacked against his wishes and they are driving gas prices to $10/gallon.

Not my fault!

richardb on March 8, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Yes, I’ll call this president and idiot and a liar.

rjulio on March 8, 2012 at 2:31 PM

I wish he was an idiot and a liar, but sadly he isn’t. What he is, is a Marxist implementing the Cloward-Pivens Strategy to break the United States financially in order to bring about the social unrest necessary to foment a Marxist revolution.

SWalker on March 8, 2012 at 2:36 PM

we got your back…..except we may have to have a few stipulations, if you know what I mean…

ted c on March 8, 2012 at 2:40 PM

If Team Obama thought for a moment that it would serve to get Obama re-elected, I am sure they’d give active consideration to giving a few nukes to Iran.

Farfetched?

The only priority Obama has is getting re-elected.

Period.

What ever it takes.

coldwarrior on March 8, 2012 at 2:41 PM

If this is accurate, what I find indefensible is that this doesn’t really hurt Obama anyway if Israel initiated an air strike before the election. Let’s say this transpired in August, will Romney (assuming he’s the nominee), come out and chastise Obama for assisting Israel? Of course not. The left might not like it, but independents and conservatives can’t be critical. The population as a whole will likely support it, and the left will vote for Obama regardless. So Obama’s political advantage of waiting is…what? Am I totally off base here?

Erich66 on March 8, 2012 at 2:45 PM

So a US president can trade weapons for a political favor from Israel? I dont expect Bibi to sell Israels safety that cheaply.

ldbgcoleman on March 8, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Nah! This is the most transparent group in the history of the world! Never would they do something like that!

KOOLAID2 on March 8, 2012 at 2:49 PM

If Israelis had any famous Jewish brains left they should be trumpeting, not just leaking, this deal and demanding that said weapons be supplied within 2-3 months. It is an absolute win-win for them. If the weapons are not supplied, Obama will look like the lying POS he actually is, and chances go up for Israel to have a much friendlier POTUS. In the unlikely case the weapons are actually supplied, Israel should thank the US profusely, flip Mullah-O the bird, and proceed to use them on Iran within a week of reception.

Archivarix on March 8, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Let’s see. This has been a banner week for Obama’s foreign policy.

First we had the meeting with Bibi where Obama essentially was lecturing that Israel should not attack anybody,

Then we have the Secretary of Defense telling a Senate hearing that they would first get international permission for any military action before bothering to tell Congress.

Now we find out that arms deals are tied to the political ambitions of Obama.

Yeah, I’m going to sleep well tonight knowing such stellar people are in charge of my family’s future.

Happy Nomad on March 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM

If this is accurate, what I find indefensible is that this doesn’t really hurt Obama anyway if Israel initiated an air strike before the election. Let’s say this transpired in August, will Romney (assuming he’s the nominee), come out and chastise Obama for assisting Israel? Of course not. The left might not like it, but independents and conservatives can’t be critical. The population as a whole will likely support it, and the left will vote for Obama regardless. So Obama’s political advantage of waiting is…what? Am I totally off base here?

Erich66 on March 8, 2012 at 2:45 PM

You assume good faith on Obama’s part that he is actually going to deliver the weapons as promised.

Obama is likely to criticize Israel for the strike and he probably doesn’t want that on record until after he has been re-elected.

sharrukin on March 8, 2012 at 2:54 PM

I’m hoping Israel pulls off a successful attack on Iran at the worst possible election-strategic time for little Bammie. Then we rid ourselves of two great evils at one stroke. Thanks Israel.

slickwillie2001 on March 8, 2012 at 2:55 PM

So Obama’s political advantage of waiting is…what? Am I totally off base here?

Erich66 on March 8, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Yes, you are totally off base, the price of gasoline. An Israeli strike on Iran will send the price of gasoline right through the roof. $7.00 to $10.00 a gallon gasoline will kill any hope of Obama getting reelected. Obama knows this and he is willing to sacrifice Israel to prevent that happening.

SWalker on March 8, 2012 at 2:57 PM

But, how jazzed are voters really going to be when gas prices to go to $7 overnight? It would certainly temper his victory lap and might be a net-negative for him in terms of his electoral fortunes.

The Count on March 8, 2012 at 2:25 PM

The beauty of my scenario is that if israel initiates the action, they will be blamed for the increase. Obama claims he can’t be held responsible but was simply fulfilling his role as a world leader in helping an ally. Israel gets PR hammered for the increase in oil prices and Obama basks in the glory of a major foreign policy triumph which benefits the whole world.

a capella on March 8, 2012 at 2:57 PM

The original source of this story I saw was early yesterday Israel time at Haaretz, and the paragraph spoke of the source as an American official.

saus on March 8, 2012 at 3:02 PM

You assume good faith on Obama’s part that he is actually going to deliver the weapons as promised.

Obama is likely to criticize Israel for the strike and he probably doesn’t want that on record until after he has been re-elected.

sharrukin on March 8, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Ok, I see your point, and it really is the only thing that makes sense. Helping Israel shouldn’t hurt him politically, criticism obviously would; he can’t be critical if he’s selling them arms, so not only is this politically motivated, but he doesn’t mean it anyway, and it’s a tactic designed solely for delay. This gets worse by the second.

Mea culpa for assuming good faith. I should have known better.

Erich66 on March 8, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Come on… are we really that lame at parsing these statements? Just read the damn things.

Here’s the key portion of Carney’s quote:

In meetings the president had…

Did he contradict anything said by the Israeli sources? No, he explicitly did NOT.

Does everyone think these things are only broached with the President himself? In a formal meeting in the Oval Office? Which may or may not be recorded? Come on, folks. Can we get a comment here from someone in the diplomatic service, or the military or intelligence communities?

Carney didn’t say it didn’t happen (though he probably would if he had to – lies are fine in the “national interest” in D.C. – defined, as usual, by whoever is speaking at the time). He only said it didn’t happen in a meeting with the President.

Which leaves what? Every possible meeting, conversation or message involving any living persons NOT the President of the United States. That’s a lot of people.

IndieDogg on March 8, 2012 at 3:15 PM


if Obama thinks his re-election bid is more significant than the threat of nuclear-armed radical mullahs intent on wiping Israel off the face of the map.

As far as Obama is concerned, his re-election bid is the most significant thing to happen since World War II; the resurrection of Christ; the fall of Troy; the asteroid strike that wiped out the dinosaurs

Capt. Ed: It seems I am having trouble coming up with any event that Obama would consider more significant than his re-election.

Mutnodjmet on March 8, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Yes, you are totally off base, the price of gasoline. An Israeli strike on Iran will send the price of gasoline right through the roof. $7.00 to $10.00 a gallon gasoline will kill any hope of Obama getting reelected. Obama knows this and he is willing to sacrifice Israel to prevent that happening.

SWalker on March 8, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Interesting point, but will a dumbed-down electorate actually blame Obama for high gas prices if Israel initiates this? Surely the MSM and the administration will spin it that way.

Erich66 on March 8, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Interesting point, but will a dumbed-down electorate actually blame Obama for high gas prices if Israel initiates this? Surely the MSM and the administration will spin it that way.

Erich66 on March 8, 2012 at 3:18 PM

The electorate votes with their wallet, remember “It’s the economy Stupid”???

SWalker on March 8, 2012 at 3:23 PM

The electorate votes with their wallet, remember “It’s the economy Stupid”???

SWalker on March 8, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Of course I do. But this isn’t a case of being hurt in the wallet for some complex reason. If the cause is an air strike by Israel, one that even Republicans would support, again would the public actually blame Obama? Maybe you’re right, but I’m not so sure.

Erich66 on March 8, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Israel has asked the United States for advanced “bunker-buster” bombs and refueling planes that could improve its ability to attack Iran’s underground nuclear sites, an Israeli official said on Thursday.
“Such a request was made” around the time of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington this week, the official said, confirming media reports.
But the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the issue, played down as “unrealistic” reports that the United States would condition supplying the hardware on Israel promising not to attack Iran this year.

A lot depends on the timing of WHEN Israel would get the bunker-busting bombs and refueling planes.

If Obama said that Israel could get the bombs and planes in 2013 if Israel didn’t attack Iran earlier, Bibi might want to wait, since Israel would be more vulnerable if it attacked Iran earlier with less effective weaponry.

But if Obama said Israel could get the bombs and planes in 2012 if Israel promised not to attack Iran until 2013, Bibi could make his own decision once he has the bombs, based on how far he (Bibi) thinks Iran has advanced in its nuclear weapons development. Netanyahu could then break his word (with Obama) and attack Iran if he believes Israel is in danger, and he couldn’t care less about Obama, who has been hectoring him about Jewish settlements–Bibi would be much happier with a different President and John Bolton as Secretary of State.

How much do Bammie and Bibi trust each other?

Steve Z on March 8, 2012 at 3:35 PM

I’m hoping Israel pulls off a successful attack on Iran at the worst possible election-strategic time for little Bammie. Then we rid ourselves of two great evils at one stroke. Thanks Israel.

slickwillie2001 on March 8, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Happy Halloween to Mahmoud and Barack–the perfect witching hour!

Steve Z on March 8, 2012 at 3:37 PM

sure bet? Obama scheduled attack for October, benefits later

mathewsjw on March 8, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Bibi should agree to anything SCOAMF wants. You name it, Mr. President and we will abide by the agreement.

Then just attack Iran once Israel has secured the bunker-busters.

How do you say, “Face it, Mr. Obama. You f**ked up. You trusted us! in Hebrew?

Rixon on March 8, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Has Obama ever spent more than five minutes around someone who wasn’t anti-semitic?

Kataklysmic on March 8, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Well, Obama did spend two hours with Netanyahu and had lunch with him. So, there’s one.

Bitter Clinger on March 8, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Yes, you are totally off base, the price of gasoline. An Israeli strike on Iran will send the price of gasoline right through the roof. $7.00 to $10.00 a gallon gasoline will kill any hope of Obama getting reelected. Obama knows this and he is willing to sacrifice Israel to prevent that happening.

SWalker on March 8, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Gas prices are heading through the roof anyway. And Obama has no plans to do anything about that.

Bitter Clinger on March 8, 2012 at 3:44 PM

For Democrats, Obama re-election>Israel’s survival.

Christien on March 8, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Re: negotiations around election dates. Don’t forget the debt ceiling deal.

How do you say, “Face it, Mr. Obama. You f**ked up. You trusted us! in Hebrew?

Rixon on March 8, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Schmuck.

nukemhill on March 8, 2012 at 3:46 PM

If this is accurate, what I find indefensible is that this doesn’t really hurt Obama anyway if Israel initiated an air strike before the election. Let’s say this transpired in August, will Romney (assuming he’s the nominee), come out and chastise Obama for assisting Israel? Of course not. The left might not like it, but independents and conservatives can’t be critical. The population as a whole will likely support it, and the left will vote for Obama regardless. So Obama’s political advantage of waiting is…what? Am I totally off base here?

Erich66 on March 8, 2012 at 2:45 PM

That’s assuming the strike goes off well, accomplishes its goal, and doesn’t spark off a larger war and/or terrorists acts against the U.S. I can understand why he wouldn’t want the take the chance of Americans being reminded about Obama’s very weak and indecisive nature, particularly on foreign policy /defense, right before an election.

Monkeytoe on March 8, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Best I can tell, this came from Debka. I don’t find it credible.

J.E. Dyer on March 8, 2012 at 4:13 PM

In the meantime Iran makes a few of the smaller nukes and gives the to Hezbollah and Hamas. What the he!!.

jeanie on March 8, 2012 at 4:17 PM

The boycott of Iranian oil that the US and Europe arranged doesn’t start until July 1, so when that kicks in, if successful, the price of oil will jump significantly, like $15-20/bbl. That, put together with summer driving season and we are looking at $6 even if Israel doesn’t attack.

slickwillie2001 on March 8, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Luckily, in last week’s clash of titans, Netanyahu’s superior intellect quickly dismissed Obama’s attempts at being slick. If looks could talk, Obama knew he was being toyed-with and that was especially tough for him to take.

Netanyahu, on the other hand, had better look out for a screw-job from our islamic-loving pretender. He holds grudges, and would think little of screwing Israel to get even with Bibi.

dockywocky on March 8, 2012 at 4:29 PM

He’ll deliver the weapons as soon as he gets the okay from Jeremiah Wright.

ardenenoch on March 8, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Yeah… like they would believe that.
-

RalphyBoy on March 8, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Of course Barry’s people are TALKING about it. And they will continue to talk……right up to the election. And here you thought only the North Koreans and Iranians knew the “art of the stall”.

GarandFan on March 8, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Did Obama promise Israel arms deal in exchange for delaying Iran strike after US elections?

Israel asks U.S. for arms that could aid Iran strike

We all know Øbama will promise that. Øbama will promise anything to get him past November 2012. And we also know Øbama will put the knife in Israel’s back after/if they allow him to get a second term.

So obvious only a child could know it.

petefrt on March 8, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Obama apparently believes that Iran dropping a nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv would hurt his reelection chances less than Israel attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. Obama may want to consider the impact of Iran detonating a nuclear weapon in an American city after it has been smuggled into the United States from Mexico.

Colony14 on March 9, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2