Monday, January 23, 2012

Israel to Give Obama 12 Hours Notice on Attacking Iran’

Israeli officials told visiting USS Chief Joint of Staffs Martin Dempsey that it would give President Barack Obama no more than 12 hours notice if and when it attacks Iran, The London Times reported Sunday.

The Netanyahu government also will not coordinate with the United States an attack on the Islamic Republic, according to the report, the latest in a number of suposed scenarios concerning cooperation or lack of it between Jerusalem and Washington.

It is left to speculation whether the rumors are based on facts or are leaked by officials to mask the possibility of secret military coordination.

The London Times said its sources explained that that Israel fears that President Obama would try to torpedo an Israel attack if more notice were given because he is concerned that Iran will respond by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, sparking a rise in the price of oil that could cripple Western economies. If the attack were to occur in the next 10 months, it would put President Obama in a tight spot on the eve of his bid for re-election.

President Shimon Peres told Dempsey, "I am sure that in this fight [against Iran] we will emerge victorious. It is a fight that does not belong exclusively to the United States or Israel, but a global struggle to create a safe world for all peoples.”

Dempsey, on his first official visit to Israel, was wined and dined by Defense MinisterEhud Barak and IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gants, who went so far as to arrange an IDF orchestra rendition of song made famous by Frank Sinatra, one of Dempsey’s favorite singers.

Dempsey tried to play down the postponement of what was billed as the largest-ever joint military drill between the Israeli and American armies, involving thousands of U.S. Army soldiers.

Published reasons for the delay have ranged from budgetary constraints, logistical problems to a signal from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that he distrusts President Obama’s commitment to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.


Some may not agree with Mr. Netanyahu's stance. However, I see a man who is doing all that he can, within his power, in protecting his citizens at any cost, unlike other world leaders, who sits on their ass and does nothing but take long vacations and golf expeditions.  Netanyahu is a true leader and should be commended for his strength, courage, wisdom and intelligence. 

I honestly believe that Israel is under no obligation to inform the United States of anything. Why even inform the Obama administration at all? Did Obama inform our own Congress after he ordered an unauthorized attack on Libya? No, he did not, until after the fact, So, how dare he even expect some kind of alert from Israel?  Amongst other underhanded activities.

No, this is a mistake on Israel's part. I wouldn't let anyone know what I was doing. For one thing, Obama cannot be trusted, he would warn Iran, Saudi Arabia or any anti-Israel nations and would, more than likely. join forces with them and try to obliterate Israel from the map.  This is just my opinion folks.

35 comments:

Silverfiddle said...

It's hard for some sitting here in the cushy confines of the United States to understand what it means to be surrounded by enemies in a very bad part of the world.

What helps out Israel here is that Saudi Arabia is all for them attacking Iran. Indeed, Israel will have to coordinate with Saudi for flyover rights, which the press is saying has already been granted.

Always On Watch said...

If the attack were to occur in the next 10 months, it would put President Obama in a tight spot on the eve of his bid for re-election.

All Obama cares about is himself and grabbing more power.

Meanwhile, the Middle East is about to explode. Iran is poking, poking, poking -- and not striking Iran will be perceived as weakness, thus leading to more poking.

dmarks said...

"...he would warn Iran, Saudi Arabia or any anti-Israel nations and would..."

Actually, I understand that Saudi Arabia wants Iran's nuclear war program stopped. And though Saudi Arabia is hostile toward Israel and anti-semitic, it doesn't fear Israel. It does fear Iran, and with good reason.

Also read this story about a planned military invasion of Saudi Arabia by Iran.

Magpie said...

Saudi Arabia is one of America’s closest allies in the strategic hedge against Iran. Has been so for decades.

It is also one of the most despotic regimes in the world and incidentally where all but one of the 9/11 hijackers hailed from.

Only because the first is true, and because of all the oil, is the second bit overlooked.

The Saudi leadership has been urging the US to war with Iran since at least the Bush administration. Even Saudi Arabia wouldn’t warn Iran if they knew Israel was going to strike. They’d pull up chairs and watch. That’s what they WANT to happen.

Oh and a historical note…. Israel once destroyed an Iraqi nuclear facility in 1981. Iran had previously attempted and failed to destroy it.
At the time, most condemned the Israeli action, including the Republican administration of the day. US media called Israel’s attack “state-sponsored terrorism”. Conservative paragon Margaret Thatcher condemned it. The US ambassador to the UN condemned it.

In the intervening years this attack has been made retroactively righteous however, because Saddam Hussein – who was always an A-grade scumbag – ceased to be a de facto partner of the US.

Those are the facts.

This dark speculation about Obama is pure fantasy.

dmarks said...

Magpie: "It is also one of the most despotic regimes in the world and incidentally where all but one of the 9/11 hijackers hailed from."

The first point is important. The second is meaningless. These men were, to put it mildly, on the outs in a big way with the Saudi government.

These men were "from" Afghanistan. The country that approved their training, and their terrorist actions against us.

Jersey McJones said...

"Netanyahu is a true leader and should be commended for his strength, courage, wisdom and intelligence."

LOL! Netanyahu is just an American neocon in Tel Aviv.

"I honestly believe that Israel is under no obligation to inform the United States of anything."

Really? So the countless billions in aid, the weapons and jets, the years and years of often unilateral support - that means nothing, huh?

"Why even inform the Obama administration at all?"

Because the bloodthirsty neocons could start a serious war and we need to know.

"Did Obama inform our own Congress after he ordered an unauthorized attack on Libya?"

Yes, he did, in accordance with the War Powers Act.

"For one thing, Obama cannot be trusted, he would warn Iran, Saudi Arabia or any anti-Israel nations and would, more than likely. join forces with them and try to obliterate Israel from the map."

That is the single stupidest thing you've ever written, Leticia. You truly have Obama Derangement Syndrome.

JMJ

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

Jersey said: "LOL! Netanyahu is just an American neocon in Tel Aviv."

Wrong on both counts. He was born in Tel Aviv, so he is 100% Israeli He's also not a "neocon", having always been a traditional conservative. (which torpedos the idea of a "neocon".... which is often, as here, used without meaning as a vague insult to any disliked conservative).

Try again.

By the way, here is an interesting quotation from Barry Rubin on the missuse of the "neocon"/"neoconservative" label:

"First, 'neo-conservative' is a codeword for Jewish. As antisemites did with big business moguls in the nineteenth century and Communist leaders in the twentieth, the trick here is to take all those involved in some aspect of public life and single out those who are Jewish. The implication made is that this is a Jewish-led movement conducted not in the interests of all the, in this case, American people, but to the benefit of Jews, and in this case Israel.""

This unfortunate insult doesn't only come from the Left. I've seen some extreme Ron Paul followers desparage as "neocon" anyone who who supports the rights of Israelis to live.

Jersey McJones said...

dmarks,

You never cease to amaze. Somehow you combine willful ignorance with sleazy underhandedness in a way always belies your motives.

You either don't know anything whatsoever about Netanyahu, or you are lying. Netanyahu is quite American. Everyone who knows anything about Bibi, knows that. He is also Israeli.

And then that sleazy, sleazy, sleazy attempt at calling me anti-semitic. Wow. Really?

Amazing.

In every sense of the term, Bibi is an original neocon, espousing all the same panoply of neocon positions, in international affairs, economic, trade, social policy, church/state matters, etc.

Sometimes you're such a little schmuck. Do you really think I argue on your level?

JMJ

dmarks said...

Jersey said: "You never cease to amaze. Somehow you combine willful ignorance with sleazy underhandedness in a way always belies your motives."

The latter part is a sort of vague meaningless insult. But as for the first part: tell me ONE time I expressed any willful ignorance. Just ONE. You won't be able to.

"You either don't know anything whatsoever about Netanyahu"

You started off making a false claim about Netanyahu. At best he is a former American citizen. Not a current one. He was born in Israel, not the US,

"Who was And then that sleazy, sleazy, sleazy attempt at calling me anti-semitic. Wow. Really?"

No, I know you are not antisemitic. But the careless use of the "neocon" insult is rooted in antisemitism. They blazed the path, and you followed. If had bothered to research the term before you used it, you would know this. Now you are a little more informed. You aren't guilty of antisemitism that I know of, but you are "guilty as charged" with using terms as insults without even bothering to think about what they mean.

"In every sense of the term, Bibi is an original neocon, espousing all the same panoply of neocon positions, in international affairs, economic, trade, social policy, church/state matters, etc."

In no sense of the term he is a "neocon". He is not part of that cabal of formerly liberal mostly Jewish intellectuals. What he espouses is traditional conservativism. You are continuing with using it as a mere insult for "conservative you do not like".

"Sometimes you're such a little schmuck. Do you really think I argue on your level?"

Not really. Your lack of research and willful insistence on things that are flat-out wrong, dragging down your messages with meaningless insults like "neocon" and "shmuck" prove you aren't ready for prime time. But if you did some more research into things you might rise that high some day.

Grow up: research things and stop using silly insults. Then you might be able to catch up with the rest of us.

I did nothing sleazy. I insist only on the facts. "Shmuck" insults? Now that's sleazy.

Leticia said...

Silver, I know that Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States, but I just can't shake the feeling that they would turn on Israel if it benefited them somehow.

I stand corrected, thank you. I had no idea that Saudi Arabia did grant permission. I missed that somehow.

AOW, I am very concerned of how volatile things are escalating in the Middle-East. Because it will have an impact on everyone.

dmarks, thanks, Silver clarified that bit of information that I somehow missed. And I am glad that I was sorely mistaken.

Magpie, for the most part I will agree with your assessment, except the part of Obama. I don't trust him and I believe he would turn on Israel. I could be mistaken, and I hope that will be the case.

Jersey, glad I was able to make you laugh, however, my sentiments about Netanyahu stand. And just because the US gave, helped and supported Israel does not give anyone the right to dictate what is best for their nation. If I borrowed money from a friend (which I would never do) that does not give them the right to dictate what I should do with, same thing applies here.

And I have already been corrected about Saudi Arabia, which I still have some apprehension over their loyalties towards the US and Israel.

Obama has made it quite obvious his distaste for Israel and his blatant disrespect of Netanyahu.

dmarks said...

By the way, here is a factual definition of neoconservativism. One which has nothing to do with Netanyahu:

"In the early 1970s, Socialist Michael Harrington was one of the first to use "neoconservative" in its modern meaning. He characterized neoconservatives as former leftists – whom he derided as "socialists for Nixon" – who had moved significantly to the right. These people tended to remain supporters of social democracy, but distinguished themselves by allying with the Nixon administration over foreign policy, especially by their support for the Vietnam War and opposition to the Soviet Union. They still supported the welfare state, but not necessarily in its contemporary form."

There you have it, in its proper form. There's only a slight overlap with the views of the people like Netanyahu and Cheney who are tarred as "neocons" for antisemitic reasons or reasons of mere carelessness and ignorance (your group). That's the opposition to the USSR.

Teresa said...

Netanyahu acts more like an American than Obama. Iran needs to be stopped but war may not be the only or best option at this point in time. The time is not that far off, though. If I was the prime minister of Israel I wouldn't give the Obama regime any warning before attacking Iran. Obama has already revealed his hand, in who he perceives to be friends and enemies. He is the upside-down, backwards, immoral president.

Liberalmann said...

Love to see Jersey pwn DumbMarks.

Leticia said...

Teresa, yes! Absolutely agree with you on this. Netanyahu is a true leader in every sense of the word.

dmarks said...

LiberalDude: Still waiting.

Magpie said...

dmarks: “These men were, to put it mildly, on the outs in a big way with the Saudi government.”

Yes. I happen to know that, dmarks. Very well. Thank you.

It’s not meaningless.
In the weeks after 9/11 many Americans would have gone along with ANY action against Saudi Arabia had the US government so much as pointed a finger in their direction… BUT, Saudi Arabia is a regional supporter of American interests .That’s my point, which I’m sure you understood.

One of your side’s pathetic excuses for a candidate just accused another of speaking ‘French’. During the 2009 flu crisis a lot of people upped their hatred, latent or otherwise, of Mexicans.

Julian Assange is Australian. Do you have any idea how many US blog posts I saw saying Australia should be held accountable for what he did? Or rather funnily, Sweden. That’s exactly how a lot of people think. Group responsibility if they happen to be foreign, and especially if they are Muslim.

They think ‘oh they’re Muslims…. therefore they’re plotting day and night, all one big united happy band of villains, to destroy Israel’…
Or
‘oh Obama is having secret communications with the Iranian government? – that’s because Obama is secretly a Muslim and he’s in cahoots with them to destroy Israel’…

Why on Earth would Obama want to destroy Israel?
‘um… because I don’t like him… I prefer a macho man with a cowboy hat who talks about how great we are and bombs the crap out of people like a real man‘…. is what it comes down to.

Silverfiddle said...

I have to partially back up Magpie on one of his principle points: We have been fighting Saudi Arabia's battles, and Chalabi and the Iranians suckered us into Iraq.

We need to be more circumspect in our actions. They are using us.

Leticia said...

Magpie, Saudi Arabia is using the U.S. to purchase their oil and we, unfortunately, need it. I don't know what would have happened if Obama would have acquiesced to the Keystone Pipeline.

Obama has never been more obvious than for his distaste of Israel and her people.

I believe he is a "Muslim" granted he hasn't actually come out with that little proclamation, but Jews are the enemy.

Israel must defend itself regardless of whom their would-be attackers may be.

I am pro-Israel and I believe in defending them.

dmarks said...

fMagpie said: "Yes. I happen to know that, dmarks. Very well. Thank you. It’s not meaningless."

Yet, you failed to show anything relevant at it. You mentioned many people pointing fingers at the Saudis for weeks after 9/11. Yet nothing came of it. Nor did the cowboy bombing thing you mentioned come about either.

"Saudi Arabia is a regional supporter of American interests .That’s my point, which I’m sure you understood."

I'm not even sure that is a good point. Stability/etc in the Middle East is in the interest of everyone, not just the Americans.


"One of your side’s pathetic excuses for a candidate just accused another of speaking ‘French’."

Actually, he's not a bad candidate. Unlike the current President's ideas, most of Newt's are in the public interest. He'd be an improvement, I think.

"Julian Assange is Australian. Do you have any idea how many US blog posts I saw saying Australia should be held accountable for what he did?"

First I'd heard of it. Nothing came of this, either. You can find nuts who say anything, like the loons who claim George W. Bush did not really win the election in November 2000, or that Obama was really born in Kenya. But saner heads always prevail.

dmarks said...

Silver said: "I have to partially back up Magpie on one of his principle points: We have been fighting Saudi Arabia's battles, and Chalabi and the Iranians suckered us into Iraq."

No, Chilabi did not force Saddam Hussein to keep stockpiling WMD that should have been declared and turned over a decade before. Nor did Chalabi force Saddam to participate in and promote global terrorism. Nor did he force Saddam to attack innocent American peacekeepers hundreds of times. Nor did he force Saddam Hussein to keep threatening to invade and destroy neighboring nations.

Without Chalabi, there were plenty of valid reasons to retaliate against Saddam's aggression in 2003.

Magpie said...

Leticia,

“Israel must defend itself regardless of whom their would-be attackers may be.”
Any country should. Israel are very good at it.

“I believe he is a "Muslim" granted he hasn't actually come out with that little proclamation, but Jews are the enemy.”
That is a staple piece of propaganda from the fringe Right and it has no basis in fact.

dmarks,

You are being very disingenuous.

“You mentioned many people pointing fingers at the Saudis for weeks after 9/11”
No I said the US government didn’t.

“Nor did the cowboy bombing thing you mentioned come about either.”
Again I didn’t say that either. You’ve moved those words into a part of my argument where they weren’t.

“I'm not even sure that is a good point. Stability/etc in the Middle East is in the interest of everyone, not just the Americans.”
At what point did I ever say stability in the Middle East is bad?
I might ask you how war is good for stability.

“(regarding Assange) First I'd heard of it…
You probably haven’t heard my neighbour’s dog bark either, but I can assure you she does.

Nothing came of this, either.”
And no nothing came of it and I did not say anything would. I was talking bloggers - not the Pentagon. Even your man Newt might hesitate to do something to Australia in that circumstance.

I said people think in group responsibility when it comes to foreigners and especially Muslims. “People” this time, not necessarily governments…
No, actually, let me clarify that so you don’t reinvent what I say again…
People who are ignorant, jingoistic and prejudiced often despise nationalities by association. Do you, dmarks, disagree with that?

dmarks said...

Magpie said: "You are being very disingenuous."

That accusation is... ingenuous. I was being sincere, truthful, and factual.

"No I said the US government didn’t."

If it is not meaningless, then what is it? What relevant does the "fingering pointing at Saudi Arabia" have to do with anything at all? Hell, it was hardly relevant back then, even.

"I might ask you how war is good for stability."

The ending if war is. The Iraq was is over now. It had been going on for decades. Saddam Hussein during this period attacked 5 or so of his neighbors, and especially his own people, slaughtering tens of thousands per year at time. This was certainly not peace. Is this the "stability" you speak of?

The so-called "anti-war" movement which pushed to to protect Saddam Hussein in 2003 was really anything but anti-war when you look at the status quo they were arguing passionately before

"You probably haven’t heard my neighbour’s dog bark either, but I can assure you she does."

The Assange thing probably lacks relevance like the Saudi finger pointing, because hardly anyone did it, those who did it did it briefly, no one here did it, and it didn't matter anyway.

Sort of like your dog's bark.

"Even your man Newt might hesitate to do something to Australia in that circumstance."

That's so obtuse I won't even begin to guess what that is.

"I said people think in group responsibility when it comes to foreigners and especially Muslims."

That's a simple an unintellectual way to look at things. I dare say "lazy", because there's always are large diversity of opinions on these issues.

"No, actually, let me clarify that so you don’t reinvent what I say again…"

It would be a first for me, since I did not it before. The unclarity in your statements is not my problem, and you can't blame me for reading what you said.

Ducky's here said...

Does Israel have any pilots who have flown live into a hazard?

This might be different than bombing unarmed civilians.

They ain't got the muscle.

Ducky's here said...

Anway, this whole Iran thing is about Saudi Arabia. No way the Wahabis are going to stand by and let Shiites become the dominant power.

dmarks said...

Ducky said: "This might be different than bombing unarmed civilians."

The Israeli pilots have never bombed unarmed civilians, but they have flown into hazard before of course.

Ducky's here said...

There you have it, in its proper form.

------------
It's proper form is Richard "Psycho" Perle, William "the dumb smirk" Kristol, Eliot "Big House" Abrams, John "Mad Dog" Bolton, Dick "Skeletor" Cheney, Donald "Shock and Awe" Rumsfeld, Paul "Curveball" Wolfowitz and the other deranged morons who developed The Project for the New American Century which you're living now.

The estimable Michael Harrington only had half the story. PNAC was formed in 1997. Go study it, you'll love it. These punks were all wearing kneepads for Nuttyyahoo. He was their home boy.

dmarks said...

The 'PNAC' is a document of entirely mythical impact. The left likes to bring it up for nutty conspiracy theories. But it just doesn't fly in the real world.

The right wing equivalent is blaming "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky for all of President Obama's actions.

"These punks were all wearing kneepads for Nuttyyahoo. He was their home boy."

Yes, all controlled by a Jew. In this, the PNAC is just the "Elders of Zion" antisemitic conspiracy nonsense with a few words changed.

No, Jersey's no antisemite. But you sure are.

Magpie said...

dmarks,

Strangely I DO blame you for misrepresenting what I said.

I’ll come back to what I (actually) said before you started being disingenuous, and playing boring word games:

Saudi Arabia are not in unity with Iran (do you dispute this?) and would cheerfully watch Israel strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Their regime would use Israel the way they use you. It’s not a nice government.

And Obama is not an Israel hating tyrant, nor is he a Muslim.

Furthermore there is a historical precedent for Israel attacking a hostile nation’s nuclear facility - and your conservative heroes were not in the least bit supportive at the time.

This righteousness the Right claims over support for Israel is just one more manipulative sham, and selective history.

They’ve got nothing to offer you, the American people, so they create a continuous myth in progress that they have the guts to protect you and that their opponents do not. And because many conservatives are obsessed with displays of pyrotechnic destruction as proof of strength, they lap it up.

Ducky's here said...

I criticized Israel, dmarks. Aren't you going to play the antisemite card ad hominem?

PNAC was a blueprint for the asinine invasion of Iraq which failed completely. Just project American power and all would be well. Just convince the proles we invaded to protect your freedoms?

Utterly the pure stinky cheese.

MK said...

"Did Obama inform our own Congress after he ordered an unauthorized attack on Libya? No, he did not...."

And to add to that he didn't ask for authorization from Congress either. George Bush did for both wars, but he's the one dubbed the fascist, bushitler, shredding the constitution etc. Go figure.

Leticia said...

MK, precisely correct. Israel is under zero obligation to answer to Obama and his pathetic and useless administration.

dmarks said...

"I criticized Israel, dmarks. Aren't you going to play the antisemite card ad hominem?"

It's not an ad hominem. It fits people like you who criticize the Israelis for existing or for daring to fight back.

You are similar to that FreeThinke guy at Silverfiddle's blog who thinks that it isn't antisemitism unless you really kill a large number of Jews. And he loves to bash.. er "criticize" the Israelis also.

"PNAC was a blueprint for the asinine invasion of Iraq which failed completely."

Nothing is further from the truth. PNAC had nothing to do with the retaliation against the terrorists in Iraq... an operation that was quite successful. an operation that more than most anything was about good vs evil. And good won.

"Just project American power and all would be well. Just convince the proles we invaded to protect your freedoms?"

"Proles" is a silly concept. Try again. use some clarity.

"Utterly the pure stinky cheese."

What is stinky is that you can't find it in your to speak anything true about the Iraq aituation. You probably hate the Iraqis in a similar fashion to how you hate the Jews *cough* Israelis.

As for Iraq and their freedoms, just look at the facts. The death toll there is a fraction of what it was when the terrorists regime ran the place for decades. The country is an actual democracy. It rebuilds after the devastation Saddam wrought. And it threatens no one.

Nothing to do with the PNAC. Just the fact that in the post-9/11 world, it made no sense to let one of the worlds major terrorist kingpins keep attacking us.

The final hole in the silly PNAC theories is that Bush and Cheney and the rest gave Saddam Hussein a very long time to comply with cease fire agreements and stop the aggression. Saddam refused. Large scale military retaliation was a last ditch effort to stop a major problem.

Leticia said...

dmarks, funny, well not really, that people (liberals) continue to criticize and condemn Israel who are only doing what they can to protect their land and their way of life. Wonder how they would feel if it was their country that was surrounded by their enemies on all sides and worse, the nation that is supposed to be their ally turned on them.

Israel has every right to defend themselves by any means necessary.

dmarks said...

Leticia: One of the many symptoms of their antisemitism is the hyper criticism of Israel. They hold Israel to a standard they hold no other nation to. Along the way, they quote groups specifically devoted to exterminating Jews.

And their "criticism" of Israel ranges from criticizing them for fighting back when attacked, entirely fabricated claims of Israel attacking civilians (usually sourced from explicitly anti-Jewish organizations) to outright questioning their right to live at all.

Rare is the actual legitimate criticism, such as of Israel's tax and tariff policies, whether or not they give diplomatic recognition to Kosovo, and the like.

You know, the things people usually criticize nations for unless they are blind with bigotry and hate.