The left insists that Obama is Israel’s best friend. This is much like the abusive husband who claims that he really loves his wife even as he beats her to a bloody pulp.
Keep in mind that the left also tells us that Barack Hussein Obama is an economic genius. Those twenty-five million people out of work, the sixteen trillion-dollar debt, and the recession are, y’know, the new norm.
And, let’s not forget, even four years into Obamanomics, that it’s Bush’s fault.
Of course, the left also had faith in the five-year plans of the Soviet Union which brought famine and disease to forty to fifty million Ukranians, and they cheered Mao’s cultural revolution even as sixty to eighty million Chinese were murdered.
We can always count on the left to be absolutely wrong about, well, everything.
If, G-d forbid, Iran nuked Israel and six million Jews were reduced to ash, Seraphic Secret guarantees the left would sigh with regret, but point out that Israel only has itself to blame.
Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal published this common-sense opinion piece.
The U.S. is harder on its ally than on Iran’s nuclear program.
Barack Obama is fond of insisting that he “has Israel’s back.” Maybe he should mention that to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
In remarks to journalists in London quoted by the Guardian, General Martin Dempsey warned that any Israeli attack on Iran would “clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran’s nuclear programs.” He also said economic sanctions on Iran were having an effect and needed more time to work, but that the good they were doing “could be undone if [Iran] was attacked prematurely.”
And to underscore the firmness of his opposition to an Israeli strike, the Chairman added that “I don’t want to be complicit if they choose to do it.”
We don’t know what exactly Gen. Dempsey thinks American non-complicity might entail in the event of a strike. Should the Administration refuse to resupply Israel with jets and bombs, or condemn an Israeli strike at the U.N.? Nor do we know if the General was conducting freelance diplomacy or sending a signal from an Administration that feels the same way but doesn’t want to say so during a political season.
Whatever the case, the remarks were counterproductive and oddly timed, with this week’s report by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran’s nuclear programs haven’t been slowed in the least by U.S. or international sanctions. In fact, they are accelerating.
Iran has now installed 2,140 centrifuges at its underground Fordo facility near the city of Qom. Its stockpile of uranium enriched to 20%—or 87% of the enrichment needed to reach bomb-grade levels—has grown from effectively zero to some 200 kilograms in a year. Only 50 more kilograms of 20% uranium are needed to produce a bomb, and that’s saying nothing of Iran’s additional large stockpiles of reactor-grade uranium that can also be enriched to higher levels of purity.
Administration officials have also repeatedly told the media that they aren’t entirely sure if Iran really intends to build a bomb. We’ll grant that ultimate intentions are usually unknowable, especially in closed societies such as Iran’s.
Yet as the IAEA noted, “the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.” These activities, by the way, “continued after 2003,” according to the report. This puts paid for the umpteenth time the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that misleadingly claimed the contrary.
No wonder the Israelis are upset—at the U.S. Administration. It’s one thing to hear from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he wants to wipe you off the map: At least it has the ring of honesty. It’s quite another to hear from President Obama that he has your back, even as his Administration tries to sell to the public a make-believe world in which Iran’s nuclear intentions are potentially peaceful, sanctions are working and diplomacy hasn’t failed after three and half years.
The irony for the Administration is that its head-in-the-sand performance is why many Israeli decision-makers believe they had better strike sooner than later. Not only is there waning confidence that Mr. Obama is prepared to take military action on his own, but there’s also a fear that a re-elected President Obama will take a much harsher line on an Israeli attack than he would before the first Tuesday in November.
If Gen. Dempsey or Administration officials really wanted to avert an Israeli strike, they would seek to reassure Jerusalem that the U.S. is under no illusions about the mullahs’ nuclear goals—or about their proximity to achieving them. They’re doing the opposite.
Since coming to office, Obama Administration policy toward Israel has alternated between animus and incompetence. We don’t know what motivated Gen. Dempsey’s outburst, but a President who really had Israel’s back would publicly contradict it.
WSJ article here.
Ariel Chaim Avrech, ZT'L, May His Righteous Memory be a Blessing.
3 Comments
I learned long ago with politicians you have to watch what they do not what they say
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Any Jew that trusts Obama to have Israel’s back are delusional. He’s much more likely to stab them in the back.
Forget pallin’ around with terrorist Ayers and his despicable wife. All you have to do is look at the lovable trio of Khalidi, Wright and Farrakhan. Three classic Jew haters and and pals of Obama.
I want Shumer or Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz to spend some time hangin’ with those three and see if they can honestly say Obama is Israel’s BFF.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
I don’t want to be complicit if they choose to do it.”
Extremely disturbing language. Analogous to an American chief of staff saying, in 1936, at the time of Nazi Germany’s move into the Rhineland, that he didn’t want to be complicit if France and Britain chose to do anything about it militarily.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
1