President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top officials have delivered a string of private messages to Israeli leaders warning about the dire consequences of a strike. The U.S. wants Israel to give more time for the effects of sanctions and other measures intended to force Iran to abandon its perceived efforts to build nuclear weapons.
Stepping up the pressure, Mr. Obama spoke by telephone on Thursday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will meet with Israeli military officials in Tel Aviv next week.
The high-stakes planning and diplomacy comes as U.S. officials warn Tehran, including through what administration officials described Friday as direct messages to Iran's leaders, against provocative actions.
It's a dead giveaway as America's favorite hack, Jennifer Rubin, talks to John Bolton's Mustache and she comes away with this:
Meanwhile, he remains deeply troubled about the Obama administration’s approach in the Middle East. In Syria, he argued, “You can’t take [Bashar al-] Assad on unless you’re willing to take on Iran.” He’s convinced that Tehran is willing to invest plenty and see plenty of Syrian blood spilled to keep its surrogate in power. Quoting former secretary of state Al Haig, he said, “We should go to the source.”
Unfortunately, we are doing, it seems, everything to convey weakness to the Iranian regime. He contends, “[The Obama administration] still thinks they can negotiate with Iran over its nuclear weapons system.” In order not to ruffle their feathers, the administration then acts meekly. Referencing the assassination of another Iranian nuclear scientist, Bolton remarked, “Hillary [Clinton] said we had nothing to do with it whatsoever. Traditionally, we say, ‘We don’t comment on alleged intelligence activities.’ Why go out of your way to say ‘Not us’? It’s because they are afraid of retaliation. But when she goes out of her way [to deny U.S. involvement], it reflects fear.”
He contends that the Obama administration acts as if it makes no difference in Iran’s calculations if it sees the United States pulling troops out of Iraq, negotiating with the Taliban or reacting so nervously about the killing of the Iranian scientist. He attributes Obama’s lack of understanding about the implications of our actions to one of two things. “Either they are terribly inexperienced and naive or they just don’t care.” If it’s the latter, they are content with a diminished role for the United States and are banking, after all this time, on sitting down with the Iranians.
Again, what other foreign coutry would be allowed to direct America's foreign policy, Middle East military policy, and economic policy? An Israeli strike on Iran or the Iranian blockade of the Strait of Hormuz would certainly cause oil and gas to skyrocket and in an election year, that price explosion will seriously damage our economy. On the other hand, the country would rally around the President if actual acts of war were committed.
But merely talking up the prospect of war (and that's where the WSJ comes in) raises the price of oil without the accompanying rally. Gas prices have jumped 60 cents in less than a month here in Cincy as oil prices have topped $100 a barrel again. The higher oil goes, the worse the economy gets. And Rupert Murdoch's boys know it. The last thing they want is an actual war...but an oil bubble on talk of war would damage the economy and the President.
It's a solid plan for Obama's opposition, and they are running with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment