My colleague Alessandra called this long ago: Obama's Middle East foreign policy debacles would induce the Saudis and Israelis to work more and more closely, even flat out openly, against Iran. A common fear of a regional nuclear hegemon makes strange bedfellows? Desperate times call for desperate measures.
There's also this observation (my emphasis in boldface):
Obama came into office convinced that U.S. influence in the Middle East, as well as regional stability, revolved around one problem: the plight of the Palestinians. Resolving their conflict with Israel was the president’s top foreign policy from his first day in office. His belief that the U.S. was too close to Israel and that by establishing more daylight between the two allies, he could help broker an end to the long war between Jews and Arabs. To accomplish that goal, he picked fights with Israel, undermined its diplomatic position, and did his best to pressure the Israelis into making concessions that would please the Palestinians. The failure of this policy was foreordained since the Palestinians are still unable to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn.
But the events of the past six years have also shown that his focus on the Palestinians as the source of the problem was a disastrous mistake. The Arab spring, civil war in Syria, the rise of ISIS, and the Iranian nuclear threat proved that the Palestinians had little or nothing to do with the most serious problems in the region. Indeed, by forcing Israel and the Saudis to cooperate against Iran with little attention being paid to the dead end peace process with the Palestinians, Obama has effectively debunked the core idea at the heart of his foreign policy.
You know, over the course of watching this entire absurdity happen, I've said more than once - granted, more as a curse than a prayer - God help us all.
So when I looked up the Pope's annual Urbi et Orbi Easter message, I couldn't help smiling just a little bitterly when I read this part of it:
"At the same time, in hope we entrust to the merciful Lord the framework recently agreed to in Lausanne, that it may be a definitive step toward a more secure and fraternal world."
Good luck with that! Really, good luck with that.
Well, if we're going to be reduced to prayer, there's probably nobody better credentialed to offer one to the Almighty than the Pope, aka the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God.
Still, I can't resist quoting that old line: "Trust in God ... and keep your powder dry."
Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll try to offset my pessimism and bitterness with sweet, sweet chocolate bunnies and cream-filled eggs. When I'm in a sugar coma, I'm sure Iran will be the least of my worries.
Call the deal what it is with a headline of "Obama’s Iran deal falls far short of his own goals." So, yeah, even by his own stated standards. Compare and contrast.
By the way, I was being sarcastic in the post title. Nowadays I can never tell if people understand what sarcasm is.
Oh, and the Onion nailed it 2 whole years ago.
I ended up wanting to excerpt too much, so let me suggest that you read the whole thing as a jumping off point for analysis. More off-the-cuff nonsense after the fold.
You know, when the Saudi ambassador calls you out in the New York Times, that's probably not a good sign, hmmmm?
And yet rather than challenging the Syrian and Iranian governments, some of our Western partners have refused to take much-needed action against them. The West has allowed one regime to survive and the other to continue its program for uranium enrichment, with all the consequent dangers of weaponization.
It's obvious who's living in a perilous fantasyland and who's living in grim reality. Here's a piece of Netanyahu's speech.
Israel will never acquiesce to nuclear arms in the hands of a rogue regime that repeatedly promises to wipe us off the map. Against such a threat, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself. I want there to be no confusion on this point: Israel will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone. Yet in standing alone, Israel will know that we will be defending many, many others.
Such clarity is rare indeed nowadays. I can only wish our own wretched leadership were capable of it. (Video of Netanyahu's entire speech here.)
The Russian "deal" is a fiasco. This related point is obvious, but it still needs saying:
We cannot imagine a worse signal to send to Iran as it continues its push for a nuclear weapon.
Naw, really?
#BibiBomb was the new thing on Twitter earlier today as social media users responded to Netanyahu's speech - with visual aid! - at the UN. Here's a look at #BibiBomb and commentary, but if you haven't heard the speech itself, you should. Transcript here. I thought it was a good, solid speech of clarity and conviction, delivered with characteristic Netanyahu flair. Personally one of my favorite moments was this:
"Shockingly, some people have begun to peddle the absurd notion that a nuclear-armed Iran would actually stabilize the Middle East. (pause) Yeah, right."
Sometimes you need soaring rhetoric. Sometimes you need to deflate idiocy in no uncertain terms. As usual when I listen to one of his speeches, I think: now here's an orator. Anyhoo, full video at C-SPAN or just see it on YouTube here. You'll know exactly when in the speech the hashtag #BibiBomb sprang into life on Twitter. The deliberate simplicity made it extremely effective. Bonus: Netanyahu quotes the great scholar Bernard Lewis!
Former national security adviser Stephen Hadley has a pretty long article considering the pros and cons of several possible approaches. In Hadley's words,
The purpose of this article is not to advocate a particular course of action, but to contribute to the public debate by setting out the full range of plausible approaches to resolving the confrontation between the international community and the Iranian regime over its nuclear program -- a program that virtually the entire international community believes is a vehicle for achieving an advanced nuclear-weapons capability if not a nuclear bomb itself. Eight options are described below -- from negotiations through use of force to containment -- along with potential benefits and costs in each case.
These should be viewed as a set of "nested" options that could lead sequentially from one to another. They should be seen not in two dimensions, with the task being to pick one of the options from among the list, but in three, as a family of options through which the policy of the United States and the international community could move over time depending on the success or failure of prior options -- and the choices made by the Iranian regime.
Aaaaaand this is when you realize that sometimes all options have their downsides and that sometimes all options are bad, though some are worse than others. The last option - acquiescing to a nuclear Iran under the delusion of being able to "contain" it - is unthinkable. I don't care how many eggheads argue that a nuclear Iran could "make the Middle East more stable." (What have you been smoking, eggheads?) Do you really think a nuclear Iran would be a rational actor? The mere thought is almost enough to make you miss the "good old days" of the Cold War. Oh, I do love the understated disadvantage of this option: "Israel might not accept this outcome." You don't say!
Then DAYUM. Really? I don't even know what to say about this. Well, its thesis has the distinction of being something I've not heard actually advocated so far in the many ongoing debates, discussions, and various freakings-out about Iran, Israel, and ramifications for regional (in)stability. No, I'm not saying that I back it.
The quote of the day comes from Netanyahu's appearance on "Meet the Press":
"President Obama has said that he is determined to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. If you're determined to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, it means you'll act before they get nuclear weapons."
Red lines, anyone? Because you and I both know that Iran's plowing ahead - a fact admitted even by the IAEA. And Obama's policy is incoherent about Iranian nukes.
As for Netanyahu's appearance, I watched it and was struck again by his ability to communicate with both clarity and substance (remember this?) especially as compared to the endless and increasingly obvious BS-spinning of all the other talking heads. It was a nice touch later when he used a sports analogy to describe Iran's nuclear ambitions, as football season has just kicked off:
"You know, they're in the last 20 yards. And you can't let them cross that goal line. You can't let them score a touchdown. Because that would have unbelievable consequences, grievous consequences, for the peace and security of us all, of the world, really."
This is one of the worst headlines I've ever read: "White House declines Netanyahu request to meet with Obama." Oh, it's not like Bibi's got anything pressing to discuss, right? Pfffft. Now late in the day the media says that Obama and Netanyahu spoke on the phone for an hour and that there had been no actual dissing of Bibi. Somehow it all feels like playing catch-up. Leading from behind again, are we?
Anyway, you're trying to tell me that in the same timeframe, virtually the same day, the American diplomatic missions in Cairo and Benghazi got attacked - actually, physically stormed - by frenzied mobs, and here the President is publicly having issues with the leader of Israel? The same leader who's dreadfully (and, let's face it, understandably) frustrated by the current approach to a hostile Iran's nuclear ambitions? The optics of all this is just horrendous, both the initial breaking of the news and then the weird backpedaling that followed. I want to slam my head on my desk. (I would, but the desk has too many books on it so there's not enough space. I suppose I could slam my head on one of the stacks of books on said desk?)
Meanwhile, we're getting idiotic headlines like this from the Los Angeles Times: "Israeli leader ratchets up feud with US over Iran." Really? It's all Netanyahu's fault? That's a tendentious, BS headline, and you know it. This also has a tendentious headline, though some of the content in the actual piece might be worth a glance.
It's late and I'm tired and I'm frankly not only a little unhappy about having the quality of leadership that we do right now in the reality of a dangerous world. The whole "Arab Spring"/Egyptian revolution business has blown up in our faces, the liberal reformers got shafted, and the entire neighborhood's gotten a whole lot more perilous. I'm going to bed before anything else happens. Maybe tomorrow I'll be able to comment more clearly. I'll just close with this: Ultimately and overall, the Canadians are probably going to prove themselves totally ahead of the curve.
So just who didn't know this? The New York Times seems to be breathlessly reporting something everybody knows:
As Iran starts a critical round of talks over its nuclear program, its negotiating team may be less interested in reaching a comprehensive settlement than in buying time and establishing the legitimacy of its enrichment program, Iranian officials and analysts said.
That is because though Iran finds itself under increased financial pressure from tightening sanctions, officials here argue that their fundamental approach has essentially worked. In continually pushing forward the nuclear activities — increasing enrichment and building a bunker mountain enrichment facility — Iran has in effect forced the West to accept a program it insists is for peaceful purposes. Iranians say their carefully crafted policy has helped move the goal posts in their favor by making enrichment a reality that the West has been unable to stop — and may now be willing, however grudgingly, to accept.
Well, duh.
It's a huge coalition and national consensus. Krauthammer thinks it echoes 1967:
By creating the largest coalition in nearly three decades, Netanyahu is establishing the political premise for a preemptive strike, should it come to that. The new government commands an astonishing 94 Knesset seats out of 120, described by one Israeli columnist as a “hundred tons of solid concrete.”
The wall-to-wall coalition demonstrates Israel’s political readiness to attack, if necessary. (Its military readiness is not in doubt.)
... Those counseling Israeli submission, resignation, or just endless patience can no longer dismiss Israel’s tough stance as the work of irredeemable right-wingers. Not with a government now representing 78 percent of the country.
Netanyahu forfeited September elections that would have given him four more years in power. He chose instead to form a national coalition that guarantees 18 months of stability — 18 months during which, if the world does not act to stop Iran, Israel will.
And it will not be the work of one man, one party, or one ideological faction. As in 1967, it will be the work of a nation.
Does he have a point? Here are other related thoughts and more thoughts. So apparently Bibi is no longer quite "the loneliest man in the world"? He did recently express impatience (and, perhaps more piquantly, skepticism) about current Iranian sanctions. There's this from a while back (2009); I said then that I thought Netanyahu wasn't kidding, and I'm more convinced of that now than ever. Remember his words about Iran during his spectacular address to Congress last spring: "The nightmare of nuclear terrorism ... if we don't stop it, it's coming" and, crucially, "Israel always reserves the right to defend itself." Consider this too: Other regional players, even if they're opposed to Israel in general, are not exactly rushing to Iran's side either? Still, here's one sobering post-strike scenario. Argue, then, about whether the potential price of action is less horrifying than the actual price of inaction.
(You'll also notice that I'm not really going to talk about the possible "October Surprise" side effects of an Israeli strike. This is really about Israel and Iran, not American campaign-year politics. Things of importance do happen in the world that are not primarily about the increasingly facepalm-worthy Obama and Romney campaigns and their silly PR memes-du-jour. Our leadership class is a joke. Will someone school these clowns, please?)
