Nov
20
No, not Sarah Palin’s which were very reasonable in my book, but Obama’s lilling off the peace process by insisting on settlements being part of the debate. Charles Krauthammer via The Corner:
Apart from what anybody thinks about the virtue of settlement, the ideological import of it, look at the historical fact. For 16 years, in the absence of a freeze of settlements, there were negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. In fact, a year ago Abbas, the leader of the Palestinians, was deep in negotiations with the Israeli prime minister at a time when there was an increase in settlements.
So it was Obama who comes in. He calls for a settlement freeze. The Palestinians, of course, endorse it, and then say that unless Israel imposes a freeze, that there won’t be any negotiations.
This was a self-inflicted wound on the part of the administration, completely unnecessary, and that’s what has stopped the negotiations.
More genius foreign policy.
Oct
2
Are The Iran Talks Going Well?
Filed Under American Politics, Foreign Policy | 1 Comment
The West seem to have got some concessions out of Iran following their talks yesterday:
Iran agreed on Thursday in talks with the United States and other major powers to open its newly revealed uranium enrichment plant near Qum to international inspection in the next two weeks and to send most of its openly declared enriched uranium outside Iran to be turned into fuel for a small reactor that produces medical isotopes, senior American and other Western officials said.
However, as even the American negotiators admit, this may well be a “hollow” promise:
If Iran has secret stockpiles of enriched uranium, however, the accomplishment would be hollow, a senior American official conceded.
I’m no student of the Vietnam war, but I wonder if Iran will play these ongoing talks like the North Vietnamese did the Paris talks. There, they made vague promises as a way of assessing America’s convictions. As America sought compromises and made promises as part of the negotiating process, North Vietnam were able to assess America’s lack of conviction, both politically and domestically, for an all out win. America’s problems in negotiating with Iran are made worse by the international nature of the negotiations. Europe, Russia and China are all going o have to see things in the same way America does, and for Russia and China, any desire for punitive actions against Iran are reluctant at best. So as Iran offer concessions, there is the risk of a wedge being driven in between the long-term negotiating partners.
They got more out of these one-day talks than I thought they might but I think that most parties realise that Iran are playing a game here. They are the most potent Middle-Eastern country right now, they’re not going to give that up easily, and bowing down to international pressure will most surely weaken them in the eyes of fellow Middle-Eastern countries. However, by giving up something, Iran may well have bought themselves some time against Israeli attack; the west will pressure Israel not to attack Iran as Iran are giving up concessions.
One final question. should Iran’s support for terrorist organisations be on the table?
Sep
20
Get In Their Faces
Filed Under American Politics, Foreign Policy | 26 Comments
That was Barack Obama’s rallying call to his supporters. Now one of his very earliest supporters and a person Obama turned to for foreign policy advice, particularly through the primary and general election campaign, has taken that message to heart.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, has suggested that if Israel tries to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, America should not only intervene by refusing Israel access to Iraq’s airspace, they should actually intervene by confronting Israel’s aircraft physically with aircraft of their own over the skies of Iraq. From an interview in The Daily Beast:
How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?
We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?What if they fly over anyway?
Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse. [Israeli jet fighters and torpedo boats attacked the USS Liberty in international waters, off the Sinai Peninsula, during the Six-Day War in 1967. Israel later claimed the ship was the object of friendly fire.]
Wow! Obama may want to remove Brzezinski from his speed dial. Brzezinski is not part of the Obama administration, there is no suggestion that Obama still seeks foreign policy guidance from him, and I am in no way suggesting that Obama would do anything this crazy.
But the contemplation of such an act proves, and I am still recovering from this revelation, that there are people to the left of Obama still. And that’s a scary thought.
In a recent survey, Israel ranked third as the country Americans were most willing to support militarily (behind Britain and Canada), and the contemplation of taking military action against Israel would probably not even register in most Americans consciousness.
The repercussions of such a (hopefully) hypothetical confrontation are intriguing though. I don’t think Israel would face down this threat. I suspect that they’d return to Israeli airspace without a shot being fired. But with the hawkish Israeli’s, one just doesn’t know. But what this would do, is end any short or medium term hope of any kind of resolution of the problems in the Middle East. America could no longer serve as a mediator and would lose all credibility with Israelis.
Brzezinski is considered a foreign policy expert. I can not think of a more disastrous foreign policy move for America than this in the current Middle-East centric climate.
Aug
9
Obama’s Achilles Heel
Filed Under American Politics, Foreign Policy, Polling | 6 Comments
By Original Tony
As I have said before in several of my posts both here and in The Spectator, Israel is a nation that is key to the survival of mankind and the West in particular. It is one of the tiniest nations on Earth and yet it has had empires fall at its feet for centuries. It has cast hooks into the jaws of the powerful and famous and brought all of them down that have been her enemy.
Is this an omen for Obama? He courts the Jews in the USA because of their enormous wealth and political power but he seems to have forgotten that the land of the Jews is Israel and not the USA (I say this as a heart thing…perhaps a spiritual thing). He seems to not notice his domestic policies are supported at home (by the Jewish community) while his foreign policies (In Israel) are not. There seems to be a disconnect here.
The Bible says that Jerusalem will be a stumbling block to all nations (words written long before some trans-jordanians calling themselves Palestinians wanted it as their capital) but it appears this warning has fallen on deaf, secular ears and blind secular eyes in the White house. It’s business as usual pushing and bullying Israelis into giving up their ancient homeland and all the while this happens Obama is pulling the carpet from under his own feet.
If Hillary could capitalise on getting Jewish support in 2012 it may well be her getting the title of the most powerful woman on earth.
Have a read of the following by Dick Morris and Eilen McGann after the break:
Jul
28
Israeli Strike Imminent?
Filed Under American Politics, Foreign Policy | 34 Comments
By Original Tony
This is a very short post but it comes from something that caught my eye.
If I am not mistaken, Obama gave the Iranian administration ‘until the end of the year’ to enter into dialogue with the USA over it’s nuclear programme and other topics of mutual interest.
Now, with Gates in Israel, that deadline has been reduced to the end of September.
Has this reduced timescale been brought about by Obama’s frustration with Dinnermejacket, or a change of heart to help the rebellion going on in Iran or more likely, the German intelligence report that Iran’s purification process for plutonium has been concluded and as a result the Iranians could make a bomb ‘within weeks’.
Or, is the belligerent Netanyahu giving the US administration a middle finger and planning a strike on Iran’s facilities with or without ‘The One’s’ approval?
Should we expect WW3 to start in 9 weeks time?
Jun
10
Eternal Bias
Filed Under American Politics, Foreign Policy | 20 Comments
By Original Tony
It appears Obama’s focus on the removal of Jewish settlements from the Biblical heartland of Israel ignores a glaring fact that barely any Jews continue to live in Arab lands. There has been an ethnic cleansing of this race of people for nearly 100 years and yet not a jot or tittle is mentioned in the MSM.
Despite this, the almost frenzied assault by the Obama administration continues with the gross delusion that A) the ‘Palestinian’ land actually belongs to the Arabs that drifted into that area from nearby countries and mandates B) the ownership of the land is supported by the UN, whereas it’s still a disputed territory and C) that it’s take-over by a leaderless mass of fringe terrorists will bring peace to Israel.
The delusion continues with Obama thinking that the settlement of this question will make dinner-me-jacket recognize Israel and end his rush to a nuclear bomb. This is a gross example of kindergarten politics and I personally hope that Netanyahu sticks his middle finger in the air long enough to break Israel’s alliance with the USA.
Link: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/arab_ethnic_cleansing.html
Jun
7
(Our) Israel on Obama’s Speech
Filed Under American Politics, Foreign Policy | 8 Comments
By Israel
I missed President Obama’s speech as it was given, as for a change l actually did some work at work instead of loafing. So l watched a repeat of it on C-Span.
While l actually liked the speech itself l didn’t think it was a historic one, like his one on race before the election. It was a nice touch to mention Keith Ellison and Jefferson, whose views on religion are widely known and the general emphasis of the speech in regards to the US view of Islam today, the war against extremism, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, nuclear proliferation, women’s rights and democracy were also interesting.
I saw the reports on the web from US sites, with commentary from the likes of Andrew Sullivan, Talkingpointsmemo and Cabbie’s favourite Daily Kos. I watched the enthusiastic reactions from Olbermann and Maddow as well as the predictable fear mongering from Fox. Some of the commentary posted by Sullivan intrigued me especially in regards to two comments l read:
An African-American President with Muslim roots stands before the Muslim world and defends the right of Jews to a nation of their own in their ancestral homeland, and then denounces in vociferous terms the evil of Holocaust denial, and right-wing Israelis go forth and complain that the President is unsympathetic to the housing needs of settlers. Incredible, just incredible.
and:
“I challenge any Arab leader to go to the U.S. or the West and quote the Bible like Obama quoted the Quran.”
So, okay, there were two sides where people thought that parts of the speech were impressive, but there was also the predictable cries from both sides that the president was either advancing the cause of Muslims from his secret Muslim hideaway in the bowels of the White House or he was and agent of the state of Israel and his ’secret’ backers in AIPAC were writing his speeches in order to keep promoting the causes of Israeli aggression. Read more
May
19
Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic has a piece up about Israel’s suicidal tendencies. It’s not that piece I’m necessarily interested in but a line he quotes from Jackson Diehl:
Contrary to what it would like Iran and the rest of the world to believe, Israel would not attack Tehran’s nuclear facilities without U.S. consent. Militarily, it would be next to impossible; politically, it would be suicidal to flout the United States on a matter of such strategic importance.
Would it be political suicide? I wonder.
A poll reported in The Jerusalem Post might dispute that. It suggests that the Israeli people do not see this current administration as being particularly pro-Israel giving Netanyahu some leverage to act independently of a feet dragging White House.
Only 31 percent of Israelis consider the views of American president Barack Obama’s administration pro-Israel, according to a Smith Research poll released Sunday
Besides the 31% who labeled Obama pro-Israel, 14% considered him pro-Palestinian and 40% felt he was neutral.
Compare those figures to Israeli perceptions of the Bush administration:
Obama’s numbers contrast sharply with those of his predecessor, George W. Bush, whose administration, according to the poll, was considered pro-Israel by 88% of the respondents. Seven percent said Bush was neutral and just 2% labeled him pro-Palestinian.
If the Israeli people don’t feel that Obama is a friend to Israel, they’re not likely to be punitive towards Netanyahu should he reject American proposals or objections to an Israeli attack on Iran.
May
11
Barack Obama and the Middle East. Playing the Long Game.
Filed Under American Politics, Foreign Policy | 5 Comments
Haaretz have details of a new poll which reports that Barack Obama’s popularity in the Middle East outstrips that of America.
Ipsos said its poll, conducted in March, involved 7,000 adults in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan. Of those surveyed, 33 percent had a favorable view of the United States, 43 percent had a negative view, 14 percent were neutral and 10 percent said they did not know, Ipsos said.
In contrast, Obama received favorable ratings averaging 48 percent in the region as a whole. Approval ran as high as 58 percent in Jordan and was lowest among Egyptians, who gave Obama favorable ratings of 35 percent, Ipsos said.
Haaretz suggests that Obama’s higher favourable ratings will in time make America itself more popular. That’s very possible, and certainly seems to be the strategy. His using of personal capital and soft power is certainly a contrast to the previous administration. However, it can only be a strategy for the long term. Changing perceptions does not happen overnight and any long term strategy runs the risk of being impeded by short term bumps in the road. The war in Afghanistan, the Israel-Iran cold war, Iran’s nuclear ambitions and up-coming election and the current conflagration in the Swat Valley will all push and pull on the soft power strategy.
Whether Obama’s relationship with the Middle East will be regarded as appeasement or engagement will be decided in the court of partisan politics but the poll is certainly indicative of the possibilities and is a tentative endorsement of his strategy so far.