On March 12, Charles Krauthammer posted a 763-word “essay” entitled: “Obama vs. Israel.” Before I analyze his essay, I want to restate one of my basic positions:
There is a way for Iran to legally pursue a nuclear arsenal. This is something no one in the media is bothering to mention. When I informed the Ron Paul campaign about this loophole, they didn’t respond. The loophole, which was built into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty itself, states (in Article X, point 1):
Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.
Translation? All Iran has to do is put into writing that it has decided extraordinary events have transpired which make it unviable for them to remain bound by the treaty. I highlighted twice above to show that this decision is not subject to review. Of course, who could dispute Iran’s contention that it feels threatened by the economic sanctions (acts of war, actually) and all the loose talk coming from US presidential candidates about how we will not permit Iran to have a nuclear weapon, even if military force must be used to prevent that?
I would love to hear some reporter during a televised debate ask for a response to my article X contention from Obama and any of his GOP wannabe opponents. But, somehow I think that’s not going to happen.
Now, on to Krauthammer’s essay
I will quote sections of this essay followed by my comments:
QUOTE:
After ostensibly tough talk about preventing Iran from going nuclear, the Obama administration acquiesced this week to yet another round of talks with the mullahs.
COMMENT:
This is no small gain, that Obama ventured into this tough talk arena. As for “yet another round of talks,” it might seem that Iran is stalling but perhaps we are too. Maybe top-secret “eyes only” intel came to Obama’s attention that the sanctions are proving to be so detrimental to support for the mullahs, that time is exactly what is needed for them to be most effective.
QUOTE:
These negotiations don't just gain time for a nuclear program about whose military intent the International Atomic Energy Agency is issuing alarming warnings. They make it extremely difficult for Israel to do anything about it (while it still can), lest Israel be universally condemned for having aborted a diplomatic solution.
COMMENT:
About that military intent: The IAEA has expressed concerns. That’s true enough. However, it hasn’t issued any “alarming warnings.” All it has said so far is that IAEA hasn’t been given enough cooperation from the Iranians to make draw any conclusions or issue any “alarming warnings.”
About that military intent: The IAEA has expressed concerns. That’s true enough. However, it hasn’t issued any “alarming warnings.” All it has said so far is that IAEA hasn’t been given enough cooperation from the Iranians to make draw any conclusions or issue any “alarming warnings.”
As for making it difficult for Israel to act: Come on, Charles. Israel will do exactly what it pleases when it pleases, international opinion be damned. Even Netanyahu has recently claimed that Israel’s fate is in its own hands. Fine! If they feel threatened, they will do whatever they wish. Of course the Zionists would love the US to do its dirty work, but only because it would be cheaper, more efficient, and would deflect world censure away from Israel.
QUOTE:
If the administration were serious about achievement rather than appearance, it would have warned that this was the last chance for Iran to come clean and would have demanded a short timeline.
COMMENT:
As I said above, maybe our intel is showing current conditions in Iran deteriorating so badly, we want as much time as possible so as disrupt Iranian national unity. Maybe the mullahs were surprised that Obama didn’t demand a short timeline. Maybe Obama knows something Krauthammer doesn’t.
QUOTE:
… when Obama's own director of national intelligence was asked by the Senate intelligence committee whether sanctions had any effect on the course of Iran's nuclear program, the answer was simple: No. None whatsoever.
COMMENT:
Ah, perhaps the Senate committee was asking the wrong question. Maybe this would have been more pertinent: “Are sanctions having any discernible divisive effect on Iranian society, such as might create political pressure on the mullahs to focus on butter instead of [nuclear] guns?” Don’t forget, though: Anything the Senate committee asks would only be answered by Obama’s intel director at his discretion. That is, he might demand: “I will answer that question in closed session, but only with a provision that no public statements be made.”
Anything said by that director publicly must be analyzed knowing that his filters were on.
QUOTE:
So what is Obama's real objective? "We're trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel," an administration official told The Post in the most revealing White House admission since "leading from behind."
COMMENT:
Hmm…couple of points here:
· Why shouldn’t we make Israel’s decision to attack “as hard as possible,” knowing that Israel will attack with or without us if it becomes convinced its survival depends on it?
· I don’t put much credence in unnamed “administration officials” being quoted in mainstream media.
QUOTE:
The world's greatest exporter of terror (according to the State Department), the systematic killer of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, the self-declared enemy that invented "Death to America Day" is approaching nuclear capability -- and the focus of U.S. policy is to prevent a democratic ally threatened with annihilation from preempting the threat?
COMMENT:
Wow, Chas really outdid himself this time. But I’ll try my level best to undo him. Here goes:
As for “the world’s greatest exporter of terror,” a lot of people would give the US itself that distinction.
“Systematic killer?” Makes it sound like the Iranians have got a concentration camp thing going – US soldiers enter and never leave. Maybe (just maybe) Iran seeks to oppose US adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, when our forces go in, we’re saving the world for democracy. When others don’t buy that and seek to oppose us, we call them “killers.”
“self-declared enemy?” Sure, I can see why the Iranians are mad at us. We overthrew their government back in 1953 because we wanted a better oil deal. That brought in the Shah, which gave rise to mullahs, and the rest is history.
As for “democratic ally?” Israel is a theocracy, not a democracy. And it is not an ally – no ally would have sunk the USS Liberty or spied on us as did Jonathan Pollard. Israel will be the first to admit that it has no “allies” – certainly no friends – though it does maintain marriages of convenience. That’s about it.
As for “the focus of U.S. policy is to prevent [Israel] from preempting the threat?” I’ll just re-quote that Obama admin official cited above by Krauthammer himself: "We're trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel." That doesn’t say anything about preventing Israel from doing anything.
If we really wanted to prevent Israel from attacking Iran, we could do so – militarily even, if this was felt to be necessary.
QUOTE:
And then [Obama] pursues policies… meant, as his own official admitted, to stop Israel from exercising precisely that sovereign right to self-protection.
COMMENT:
Again, that official admitted no such thing. He said “we’re trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel.” Krauthammer is either illiterate, or forgets what he wrote earlier in the same article, or is a liar. I think he’s a liar.
QUOTE:
Obama wants to get past Nov. 6 without any untoward action that might threaten his re-election.
COMMENT:
How would a US attack on Iran threaten Obama’s re-election? In fact, I believe Obama will attack around Labor Day – insisting that the US go it alone. This will be a quick strike without the use of any US ground troops. And it will serve to silence his GOP opponent – I mean, what’s he gonna say?
QUOTE:
For Israel, however, the stakes are somewhat higher: the very existence of a vibrant nation and its 6 million Jews.
COMMENT:
According to Wikipedia: “The State of Israel has a population of approximately 7,836,300 inhabitants as of December 2011. 75.3% of them are Jewish.” I point this out to show exactly where Krauthammer is coming from – he only cares about the Jews and not the other 1.5M citizens of Israel. I’m convinced that, should he venture down the streets of any Israeli city, he would be totally blind to any non-Jew within his field of vision. For Charles Krauthammer, they simply don’t exist.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“I still think this can’t be his real name. I mean, come on – a Krauthammer is ‘one who hammers Krauts’ – kraut being a derogatory term for a German. I don’t see how such a virtual lobbyist for Israel is actually paid to publish in US newspapers – for he isn’t any kind of journalist. Nor any kind of an American.”
No comments:
Post a Comment