Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Obama on the Middle East

The transcript of President Obama's interview on al-Arabiya Television (Dubai)is at the latter's site and I will mirror it here, below.

Just a few quick observations. Obama emphasized respect for the Muslim world, affirmed that the United States is not its enemy, and that, on the contrary, Washington has a stake in the well-being and prosperity of the Muslim world. He underlined that he has Muslim relatives and had lived in the largest Muslim country, Indonesia, as a child. So he established some strong connections.

He also implicitly condemned the rhetoric of "Islamic fascism" used by the Bush administration and Republican politicians more generally from September of 2006. He made a firm distinction between violent groups like al-Qaeda, which he said existed in every religion, and other movements. (I take it he was saying not all fundamentalists are terrorists.) He reaffirmed his commitment to withdrawing from Iraq and to closing the prison camp at Guantanamo and ending the use of torture techniques such as waterboarding.

Obama said he thought al-Qaeda is pretty nervous about his having become president, and condemned them as a group that just destroys things without building anything or making anyone's life better. The implication is that Obama is not a polarizing figure in the Muslim world, and since al-Qaeda is all about polarization and sowing massive conflict, its task just got a lot harder-- helping explain the organization's vehement attacks on Obama.
Cont'd (click below or on "comments")

Obama praised the 2002 peace plan offered by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, which proposed a comprehensive peace between Israel and the Arab League states based on an Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders. He affirmed that a Palestinian state is still feasible that is "contiguous." He meant that it would be contiguous in the West Bank. The only way you get a contiguous state in the West Bank is frankly by moving Israeli settlements, which I think is highly unlikely, especially if Binyamin Netanyahu of the Likud Party becomes prime minister. You would also have to undo the division of the West Bank into cantons by Israeli superhighways and checkpoints. You'd have to get the Israelis to give up control of the water, land and borders of the West Bank.

Obama still has said very little about the Gaza War or the issue of the Israeli government's callous disregard for civilian life in that operation, an omission that rankles in the Muslim world and which contrasts even to Israeli politicians such as Meretz figure Shulamit Aloni.

I fear I think 60 Minutes was more realistic in concluding that the 2-state solution is dead. Netanyahu has vowed to expand Israeli colonies on the West Bank if he gets in.

Obama seemed well informed about some of the realities of the Middle East. But he for some odd reason just has a blind spot when it comes to Iran. He said:

"Iran has acted in ways that's not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past."

So, Iran has not threatened to do anything practical to Israel. Its leaders have prayed for it to collapse the way the Soviet Union did, and generally talk insultingly about it, but that is different from threatening to invade with tanks or something. Iran's leaders consistently deny that they are seeking a nuclear weapon, maintaining they only want peaceful nuclear power plants. (They may be lying, but you have to acknowledge what they say, at least). When Bush said that Iran had vowed to get a nuclear bomb, we laughed at him. And the main thing American politicians seem to mean when they accuse Iran of supporting terrorism is that it backs the Lebanese Hizbullah Party, which hasn't done anything that qualifies as international terrorism for a decade at least. (Being a national liberation movement and working against the Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory was not terrorism in international law.) At least, Obama put the 'support of terrorism' clause in the past tense (was he thinking of the 1980s and early 1990s?) and avoided the odd rhetoric of Condi Rice, who branded Iran the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world; wouldn't that be al-Qaeda?

At least Obama reaffirmed his willingness to talk to Iran, in contrast to Bush.

The video is at YouTube-- Part I:



and Part II:



Here is the full transcript:

Q: Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity, we really appreciate it.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much.

Q: Sir, you just met with your personal envoy to the Middle East, Senator Mitchell. Obviously, his first task is to consolidate the cease-fire. But beyond that you've been saying that you want to pursue actively and aggressively peacemaking between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Tell us a little bit about how do you see your personal role, because, you know, if the President of the United States is not involved, nothing happens – as the history of peace making shows. Will you be proposing ideas, pitching proposals, parameters, as one of your predecessors did? Or just urging the parties to come up with their own resolutions, as your immediate predecessor did?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the most important thing is for the United States to get engaged right away. And George Mitchell is somebody of enormous stature. He is one of the few people who have international experience brokering peace deals.

And so what I told him is start by listening, because all too often the
United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues --and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen. He's going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response.

Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what's best for them. They're going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that instead, it's time to return to the negotiating table.

And it's going to be difficult, it's going to take time. I don't want to prejudge many of these issues, and I want to make sure that expectations are not raised so that we think that this is going to be resolved in a few months. But if we start the steady progress on these issues, I'm absolutely confident that the United States -- working in tandem with the European Union, with Russia, with all the Arab states in the region -- I'm absolutely certain that we can make significant progress.

Q: You've been saying essentially that we should not look at these issues -- like the Palestinian-Israeli track and separation from the border region -- you've been talking about a kind of holistic approach to the region. Are we expecting a different paradigm in the sense that in the past one of the critiques -- at least from the Arab side, the Muslim side -- is that everything the Americans always tested with the Israelis, if it works. Now there is an Arab peace plan, there is a regional aspect to it. And you've indicated that. Would there be any shift, a paradigm shift?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, here's what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia --

Q: Right.

THE PRESIDENT: I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage --

Q: Absolutely.

THE PRESIDENT: -- to put forward something that is as significant as that.
I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace.

I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what's happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan.

These things are interrelated. And what I've said, and I think Hillary Clinton has expressed this in her confirmation, is that if we are looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress.

Now, Israel is a strong ally of the United States. They will not stop being a strong ally of the United States. And I will continue to believe that Israel's security is paramount. But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side.

And so what we want to do is to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years. And I think if we do that, then there's a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs.

Q: I want to ask you about the broader Muslim world, but let me – one final thing about the Palestinian-Israeli theater. There are many Palestinians and Israelis who are very frustrated now with the current conditions and they are losing hope, they are disillusioned, and they believe that time is running out on the two-state solution because – mainly because of the settlement activities in Palestinian-occupied territories.

Will it still be possible to see a Palestinian state -- and you know the contours of it -- within the first Obama administration?

THE PRESIDENT: I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state -- I'm not going to put a time frame on it -- that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life.

And, look, I think anybody who has studied the region recognizes that the situation for the ordinary Palestinian in many cases has not improved. And the bottom line in all these talks and all these conversations is, is a child in the Palestinian Territories going to be better off? Do they have a future for themselves? And is the child in Israel going to feel confident about his or her safety and security? And if we can keep our focus on making their lives better and look forward, and not simply think about all the conflicts and tragedies of the past, then I think that we have an opportunity to make real progress.

Obama praised Saudi King Abdullah for his Middle East peace plan

But it is not going to be easy, and that's why we've got George Mitchell going there. This is somebody with extraordinary patience as well as extraordinary skill, and that's what's going to be necessary.

Q: Absolutely. Let me take a broader look at the whole region. You are planning to address the Muslim world in your first 100 days from a Muslim capital. And everybody is speculating about the capital. (Laughter) If you have anything further, that would be great. How concerned are you -- because, let me tell you, honestly, when I see certain things about America -- in some parts, I don't want to exaggerate -- there is a demonization of America.

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.

Q: It's become like a new religion, and like a new religion it has new converts -- like a new religion has its own high priests.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q: It's only a religious text.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q: And in the last -- since 9/11 and because of Iraq, that alienation is wider between the Americans and -- and in generations past, the United States was held high. It was the only Western power with no colonial legacy.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q: How concerned are you and -- because people sense that you have a different political discourse. And I think, judging by (inaudible) and
Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden and all these, you know -- a chorus --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I noticed this. They seem nervous.

Q: They seem very nervous, exactly. Now, tell me why they should be more nervous?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that when you look at the rhetoric that they've been using against me before I even took office --

Q: I know, I know.

THE PRESIDENT: -- what that tells me is that their ideas are bankrupt. There's no actions that they've taken that say a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education because of them, or has better health care because of them.

In my inauguration speech, I spoke about: You will be judged on what you've built, not what you've destroyed. And what they've been doing is destroying things. And over time, I think the Muslim world has recognized that that path is leading no place, except more death and destruction.

Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.

Q: The largest one.

THE PRESIDENT: The largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith -- and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers -- regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams.

And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. Andthat I think is going to be an important task.

But ultimately, people are going to judge me not by my words but by my actions and my administration's actions. And I think that what you will see over the next several years is that I'm not going to agree with everything that some Muslim leader may say, or what's on a television station in the Arab world -- but I think that what you'll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity. I want to make sure that I'm speaking to them, as well.

Q: Tell me, time is running out, any decision on from where you will be visiting the Muslim world?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm not going to break the news right here.

Q: Afghanistan?

THE PRESIDENT: But maybe next time. But it is something that is going to be important. I want people to recognize, though, that we are going to be making a series of initiatives. Sending George Mitchell to the Middle East is fulfilling my campaign promise that we're not going to wait until the end of my administration to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace, we're going to start now. It may take a long time to do, but we're going to do it now.

We're going to follow through on our commitment for me to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital. We are going to follow through on many of my commitments to do a more effective job of reaching out, listening, as well as speaking to the Muslim world.

And you're going to see me following through with dealing with a drawdown of troops in Iraq, so that Iraqis can start taking more responsibility. And finally, I think you've already seen a commitment, in terms of closing Guantanamo, and making clear that even as we are decisive in going after terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians, that we're going to do so on our terms, and we're going to do so respecting the rule of law that I think makes America great.

Q: President Bush framed the war on terror conceptually in a way that was very broad, "war on terror," and used sometimes certain terminology that the many people -- Islamic fascism. You've always framed it in a different way, specifically against one group called al Qaeda and their collaborators. And is this one way of --

THE PRESIDENT: I think that you're making a very important point. And that is that the language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations -- whether Muslim or any other faith in the past -- that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name.

And so you will I think see our administration be very clear in
distinguishing between organizations like al Qaeda -- that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it -- and people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop. We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down.

But to the broader Muslim world what we are going to be offering is a hand of friendship.

Q: Can I end with a question on Iran and Iraq then quickly?

THE PRESIDENT: It's up to the team --

MR. GIBBS: You have 30 seconds. (Laughter)

Q: Will the United States ever live with a nuclear Iran? And if not, how far are you going in the direction of preventing it?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I said during the campaign that it is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran.

Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that's not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past -- none of these things have been helpful.

But I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress. And we will over the next several months be laying out our general framework and approach. And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.

Q: Shall we leave Iraq next interview, or just --

MR. GIBBS: Yes, let's -- we're past, and I got to get him back to dinner with his wife.

Q: Sir, I really appreciate it.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much.

Q: Thanks a lot.

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate it.

Q: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you


18 Comments:

At 6:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Many thanks for your excelent posting.
President Obama's talk to the Arab/Muslin world is good news and it makes me feel safter.

 
At 6:59 AM, Blogger easyplankin said...

You are awfully easy to impress. Everything Obama has said is the same as W would have said, but worse, because Obama states that Israel is paramount. Did you get that word? Paramount. There is no stronger word in the English language for obeisance by an American President to another country.

And did you miss the fact that Clinton just totally walked back Obama's commitment to negotiating, stating baldly that she would not negotiate with Iran until it stopped enriching uranium, which is dictating, not listening, which is an ultimatum, which is a prelude to war.

Oh, and the one state solution means ethnic cleansing, apartheid, genocide of some evil blend of the three.

 
At 7:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

8 years ago Bush said he wants a separate Palestinian state. I heard it with my own ears and felt joyous.

Words mean NOTHING. Actions mean everything. I have no faith in Obama's words. I want to see action. I want to see behavior.

 
At 7:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Juan,

I posted the Al Arabiya interview video here and the image and sound quality are excellent.

Eric

 
At 9:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it is easy to see why Obama has a blind spot regarding Iran, given his unflinching support for Israel and his alignment with their interests as opposed to the interests of the United States.

Israel is committing crimes every. It owns two concentration camps whose residents are collectively punished, tortured and murdered at Israel's whim.

What was once a contentious point of debate - invading another country's borders and killing people - is par for the course in Pakistan.

With no clear goals, the War of Terror continues under a new president, who may be more sympathetic to muslims, but no less dangerous.

 
At 10:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I shouldn't be so cynical, but actions speak louder than words. Sadly, Obama has already shown that he is continuing the Bush policy of bomb first, ask questions later (drone attacks in Pakistan). And didn’t Robert gates say recently that we probably wouldn’t leave Iraq anytime soon, and after 16 months we may take a look at a possible timeline? All Obama has done is shift some of the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. I doubt he will end any war that Bush started, and he will probably start a few of his own. I hope I am wrong about Obama. I hope he’s not just a puppet continuing the neocon agenda as outlined in the PNAC document. But, regardless, get blog Mr. Cole. Keep up the good work.

 
At 11:42 AM, Blogger Peripheral Visionary said...

Obama may be willing to talk to "the Muslim world", but I worry that that could result in a severely misguided attempt to reach compromises with the fundamentalists, which would be a serious mistake.

I find it interesting that there is such a strong antipathy toward the "Islamic fascism" terminology; I note that Choueiri associates fundamentalists with fascist ideologies, and I consider him to be the best source on Islamic fundamentalism (especially as his writings are prior to the heavy politicization of the subject that would follow 9/11.) In any event, attempts to negotiate with the fundamentalists would be very likely to have the same result as the extremely misguided attempts to negotiate with the fascists; Benazir Bhutto struck a deal with the fundamentalists in the 1990's, and what thanks did she get from them?

I am reminded of a fascinating finding with respect to psychopaths; psychologists had made an attempt to work with psychopaths using conventional therapy, but found something surprising, that therapy actually made psychopaths worse. It only gave them further opportunities to manipulate others; and misguided "talks" with dishonest and manipulative parties can have the same result.

If Obama genuinely wants to have a more open dialog with the "Muslim" world I have no problem with that; but he should be very careful not to confuse the fundamentalists for mainstream Muslims, as the fundamentalists are ever ready to position themselves as the voice of all Muslims.

 
At 12:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello,
I salute you Juan Cole, You are a brave man and I have always admired your work.
If what you say is true, about firing Hellfire missiles from drones into sovereign nations territory a nation that has not attacked us(US) and that this, for various reasons obvious and not so obvious both legal and moral and that these acts are war crimes I believe you.
If all that is reported in the news that Mr. Obama oked these attacks and I have not seen a report refuting this fact, then Mr Obama has committed War Crimes.
This within 4 days of being pseuedo sworn in to be our 44th president.
How can it be possible for an Obama Administration to bring those who have committed such egregious acts against humanity in the very recent past if he himself is a War Criminal?

WoW! Are there any parrallels in history to this?
Stalin condemns Hitler for War Crimes?

 
At 12:43 PM, Blogger qunfuz said...

Anonymous says Obama may not bomb Muslim countries, we'll have to wait and see. But he already has done. The empire under his brief watch has already murdered tens of civilians in Pakistan.

Obama should be in prison.

If any of you Americans really want things to change, you must take the lead and stop waiting for the political class to change. They won't change until you do. Start by boycotting Israeli products, talking to your neighbours, colleagues and church groups. Tell your representatives you won't vote for them until they, for instance, condemn Israeli war crimes. Such popular action will do a million times more good for relations with the Muslim world than the smarmy smooth talk of Emperor Obama.

And your military bases in the Muslim world don't protect America, they protect nasty regimes from their own people and increase the people's hatred for America. How would you feel if Bush had abolished elections, and relied on huge Chinese military bases in Florida, New York and California to protect him from your wrath?

 
At 2:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was bothered to see that Mr. President used the same ol' political savy talk to not skirt the issue of huge settlements (with 280,000 jews) in Westbank.

I think the problem is large enough that you need to address it directly instead of just hinting with words such as 'contiguous'.

Also more and more an implicit condition for peace talks is to have someone on the Palestinan side who will be willing to talk about (agree to?) Israeli demands. It seems to me that that someone is required to be a lameduck and a yes-man (Abu Mazen?!). Any credible Palestinian would not tolerate the land-grab currently going on in the Westbank as was higlighted in the 60 minute piece.

For the readers of this blog who might have missed Charlie Rose interview with Jimmy Carter. Its worth watching too. The video should be up in a couple of days at
http://www.charlierose.com/

 
At 2:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right on the money werkshop. The nuclear enrichment issue has become a urinating contest between the United States and Iran and it's absolutely out of the question that the Iranian leadership is going to submit.

Enrichment is more than technology, there's a large element of national pride and an insistence upon global respect involved. Many Western (especially American) commentators refuse to see or acknowledge that fact in those terms. After all the threats and sanctions and high-handed attitude the United States does not have enough to offer the Iranians to persuade them now. Handing over the keys to Ft Knox wouldn't change Iranian minds at this point. If the Americans are going to insist that Iran forego nuclear enrichment before any constructive talks can occur then it's a dead issue. It's never going to happen. This is all political theatre. Obama and Hil are merely continuing to follow stage direction and scripting from israel but they're dressing it up in pretend-new, pretend-conciliatory language.

However, one way to look at Mr Obama's Most-Not-Excellent Adventure in Afganistan is it gives him an excuse not to go to war with Iran. When he gets his orders from tel aviv to vanquish the Persians he can legitimately beg off by claiming the American military is stretched too thin due to the fighting in Af'stan. Another, more depressing way to look at it is a slow, gradual troop and matériel build-up in Afghanistan puts sufficient U.S. assets in place for the precise purpose of attacking Iran.

.

 
At 3:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In one speech, OBAMA has countered most of the US failings in the Muslim world. Obama is no fool - he knows you cannot war against ALL Muslims. He did the smart thing and isolated AL Qaidah and affiliates and put THEM on the defensive. Yes, we all hope he walks the walk but he has spoken words that have not been in actually) HUNDREDS of years.

 
At 5:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The gentleman on Al Arabiya described Pres. Obama as "authentic". I heard the entire thing and I would agree. It was reassuring to know that we have a president who speaks for the American people without the need to assert his presumed authority. I liked the tone of it. A very good start.

 
At 8:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/us/politics/28policy.html?ref=world

January 28, 2009

Aides Say Obama's Afghan Aims Elevate War
By HELENE COOPER and THOM SHANKER

President Obama intends to adopt a tougher line toward President Hamid Karzai and focus more on waging war.

[This is Obama, just as it was Bush.]

 
At 8:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/01/bushamas-surge-in-afghanistan-rely-on.html

January 28, 2009

Bushama's surge in Afghanistan: rely on criminal warlords

"President Obama intends to adopt a tougher line toward Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, as part of a new American approach to Afghanistan that will put more emphasis on waging war than on development, senior administration officials said Tuesday... They said that the Obama administration would work with provincial leaders as an alternative to the central government, and that it would leave economic development and nation-building increasingly to European allies, so that American forces could focus on the fight against insurgents."

* http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/us/politics/28policy.html

-- As'ad AbuKhalil

 
At 7:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama is making public relations not politics. What he said is the mere continuation of Bush foreign policy. He changed only rhetoric not the goals. Tehran is right when he says: we are especting facts.
Roedrick Lodi
Italy

 
At 3:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re Obama on al Arabiya:

1. Others have noted that the President said "Israeli security is paramout". I understand that it is politically non-negotiable here, but why 'paramount'? Why isn't security for Palestinians a paramount US concern, as for Israelis? Are we somehow still in denial about the impact of israel's occupation and indiscriminate (in the face of civilians) use of heavy weapons on our ME policy options?

2. Obama promised to work for a Palesinian State that is 'contiguous". That needs clarifying. I see three definitions, that are quite different.
a. touching; in contact.
b. in close proximity without touching; near.
c. adjacent in time: contiguous events.

3. The final (scripted?) question was whether Obama can live with "nuclear Iran".

How can a journalist encourage talk about the POTENTIAL for a nuclear Iran IN THE FUTURE, with no mention of an ACTUAL NUCLEAR ISRAEL. That's who is credibly threatening a massive attack, to blow Iran's gas-enrichment plants, scattering radiological poison downwind and into water and crops for hundreds, even thousands of miles?

The truly boggling thing is that yet another US President is being pressed to negotiate on Israel's behalf, or to act militarily as Israel's proxy.

It's not a surgical strike on a single unfinished Osarik that is in ops planning. It's the blasting of facilities processing uranium stocks that are in pressurized gas form.

The ME nuclear arms race began at Dimona, and is underway in some covert fashion in Arabia, Turkey and probably Egypt. Those countries believe that their security is paramount too.

Iran is ahead of their closest competitors, thanks to decades of US and Russian aid. The Shah's stated nuclear power goal was larger than Iran's today, and also was enabled a deniable path to A-weapons.

Arabia and it's Gulf allies may want Iran stopped, but that won't stop their longstanding imperative to aquire a 'nuclear deterrant.'

 
At 5:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama does not have a "blind spot" when it comes to Iran. In actuality he knows exactly what he is doing, and that is maintaining the illusion of Iran as an "other" that is a threat to "democracy" in the Middle East. After all, they need to maintain some form of realpolitik in justifying their opposition to Iranian influence in the region.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home