Good Article on the Complexities of FoPo.

[elysiantraveller]

Iran, Israel, and Washington (http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/19/obama-vs-netanyahu-vs-ahmadinejad/?hpt=hp_t1)

Pretty good timeline piece showing just how hard pursuing an agenda can be and how all sides contribute to a mess.

[boxcar]

Iran, Israel, and Washington (http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/19/obama-vs-netanyahu-vs-ahmadinejad/?hpt=hp_t1)

Pretty good timeline piece showing just how hard pursuing an agenda can be and how all sides contribute to a mess.

I love this historical perspective -- not only historical but entirely biblical:

Netanyahu’s brother-in-law Hagai Ben-Artzi even went so far as to accuse Obama on Israeli radio of being an anti-Semite. “When there is an anti-Semitic president in the United States, it is a test for us and we have to say: we will not concede,” he said. “We are a nation dating back 4,000 years, and you in a year or two will be long forgotten. Who will remember you? But Jerusalem will dwell on forever.”

And I would bet that the brother-in-law hangs on every word of the OT prophets about as much as BO does on the text of the U.S. Constitution. But nonetheless, little does he know how biblically accurate his sentiments are. Jerusalem and, therefore, the Jews will never be destroyed. Too bad BO doesn't have this kind of perspective.

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

I love this historical perspective -- not only historical but entirely biblical:

Netanyahu’s brother-in-law Hagai Ben-Artzi even went so far as to accuse Obama on Israeli radio of being an anti-Semite. “When there is an anti-Semitic president in the United States, it is a test for us and we have to say: we will not concede,” he said. “We are a nation dating back 4,000 years, and you in a year or two will be long forgotten. Who will remember you? But Jerusalem will dwell on forever.”

The problem, and why I personally think our relationship with Israel needs to be re-evaluated, is that they are actively trying to maneuver us into a armed conflict we DO NOT want to have.

As we go... so do they.

Thats why the 1967 border's comment that people bang on Obama doesn't bother me all that much. Our allies, especially those isolated on the periphery like Israel, South Korea, and Taiwan, need to tow big brother's line.

There are ways to negotiate this with the three countries but people have to talk otherwise its just three ships passing in the night...

[boxcar]

The problem, and why I personally think our relationship with Israel needs to be re-evaluated, is that they are actively trying to maneuver us into a armed conflict we DO NOT want to have.

As we go... so do they.

Thats why the 1967 border's comment that people bang on Obama doesn't bother me all that much. Our allies, especially those isolated on the periphery like Israel, South Korea, and Taiwan, need to tow big brother's line.

There are ways to negotiate this with the three countries but people have to talk otherwise its just three ships passing in the night...

And you derogatorily called me an "idealist" on another thread? :lol:

The problem here is that Iran doesn't want to talk. They want to destroy Israel.

Boxcar

[LottaKash]

The problem here is that Iran doesn't want to talk. They want to destroy Israel.

Boxcar

That is the bottom line here.....They don't want to talk...period....They want want they want, and nothing is going to change that, imo...

best,

[elysiantraveller]

And you derogatorily called me an "idealist" on another thread? :lol:

The problem here is that Iran doesn't want to talk. They want to destroy Israel.

Boxcar

No one involved wants a open conflict less than Iran does.

Israel does want a armed conflict.

And we want to negotiate.

I'm a much larger of American's choosing their own foreign policy agenda than having a 2nd rate ally try to undermine and influence it on their own.

[TJDave]

The current Israeli government fears U.S. rapprochement with Iran more than any Iranian nuclear capability.

[elysiantraveller]

The current Israeli government fears U.S. rapprochement with Iran more than any Iranian nuclear capability.

Exactly, they have played it well for the most part.

If they can have the United States enter into war with Iran it means three things:

1) Relations stay poor.
2) Iran becames disarmed.
3) Israel can have a open season on Iran's proxies.

I completely understand why they want to have their big friend fight a battle for them. As a American, however, I certainly don't like it.

[TJDave]

It's Israel who will eventually forge an alliance with Iran. I doubt we would think that a good idea. ;)

[boxcar]

No one involved wants a open conflict less than Iran does.

So, you believe Iran is spouting empty rhetoric? Good. Using that, logic then, why would anything have to done diplomatically? Let's just call Iran's bluff.

Israel does want a armed conflict.

Now you're sounding like an escaped funny farm loon. Tiny little Israel wants to risk starting a global conflict? I wasn't aware they had this national death wish. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And we want to negotiate.

No! Obama wants to dictate to Israel.

I'm a much larger of American's choosing their own foreign policy agenda than having a 2nd rate ally try to undermine and influence it on their own.

Who are our first rate allies? U.K, who Obama has insulted royally more than once? Or are our first rate allies those to whom BO bowed down?

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

So, you believe Iran is spouting empty rhetoric? Good. Using that, logic then, why would anything have to done diplomatically? Let's just call Iran's bluff.

Now you're sounding like an escaped funny farm loon. Tiny little Israel wants to risk starting a global conflict? I wasn't aware they had this national death wish. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No! Obama wants to dictate to Israel.

Who are our first rate allies? U.K, who Obama has insulted royally more than once? Or are our first rate allies those to whom BO bowed down?

Boxcar

It took 9 replies to turn this into Obama bashing... thats a record.

1)
We are calling Iran's bluff. Assuming no military intervention they will aquire weapons and all will just settle down.

2)
Yes poor little Israel. The country that spends more in its military percentage wise than any other country on the planet. Poor little Israel that has mandatory military service. Poor little Israel that is the only nuclear armed state in the region. That poor little Israel.

Also if you wouldn't be so dense you would understand by the article in the OP that Israel has been consistently trying to urge the United States into a armed conflict.

Thats why I posted this in the first place. It showed that no side is innocent in these affairs and all three parties are responsible for why we are at this point.

Things are never as easy as they seem. Unless you ardently want a military conflict with Iran I don't see how you can find Israel completely innocent in these dealings.

[TJDave]

Israel has been consistently trying to urge the United States into a armed conflict.


I can't believe that this is anything more than posturing. Obama ain't gonna attack Iran, regardless of anything our SOS or SOD says. Israel is just trying to leverage our influence.

[boxcar]

It took 9 replies to turn this into Obama bashing... thats a record.

1)
We are calling Iran's bluff. Assuming no military intervention they will aquire weapons and all will just settle down.

See, you are an idealist. :lol:

I didn't bash Obama. I stated a FACT! He insists that Israel withdraw to its pre '67 borders. End of story. (But, also, it ain't happening.)

2)
Yes poor little Israel. The country that spends more in its military percentage wise than any other country on the planet. Poor little Israel that has mandatory military service. Poor little Israel that is the only nuclear armed state in the region. That poor little Israel.

Go find Israel on a map and point to out to us who all their friends are in the 'hood. Then after you do that, list for us all the friends Israel has in the world. Then after that, point to all the times Israel has threatened to annihilate one of its Arab/Muslim neighbors.

Also if you wouldn't be so dense you would understand by the article in the OP that Israel has been consistently trying to urge the United States into a armed conflict.

You should be the last one on this forum to talk about someone else's denseness (real or perceived). From what you have written, I don't perceive that you're a serious candidate for Mensa Society membership. :rolleyes:

Take your remark about Iran above. In another thread at another time when we were discussing that START Treaty, you clearly said that you didn't trust Iran. But now you do -- because after they have armed themselves with nukes, they're going to undergo this miraculous attitude transformation and just "settle down" all by themselves? So which is it, "Sunshine"? Do you trust or mistrust Iran?

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

I can't believe that this is anything more than posturing. Obama ain't gonna attack Iran, regardless of anything our SOS or SOD says. Israel is just trying to leverage our influence.

Its posturing so long as it doesn't create the result but to think the Israeli's wouldn't want us fighting the Iranians is silly. Even the Saudi's want us to attack them per wiki-leaks.

Iran has asserted that sanctions constitute an act of war (they have a good case) and have suggested attempting to close the Straits of Hormuz in response (another act of war). They can't and won't do that of course and will ultimately back down from this stance.

The problem though is how and where does the situation escalate. Iran can do a lot of damage through its proxies and, if it was me, choose that route.

We'll see but this is big league brinksmanship going on.

[elysiantraveller]

I didn't bash Obama. I stated a FACT! He insists that Israel withdraw to its pre '67 borders. End of story. (But, also, it ain't happening.)

Go find Israel on a map and point to out to us who all their friends are in the 'hood. Then after you do that, list for us all the friends Israel has in the world. Then after that, point to all the times Israel has threatened to annihilate one of its Arab/Muslim neighbors.

Take your remark about Iran above. In another thread at another time when we were discussing that START Treaty, you clearly said that you didn't trust Iran. But now you do -- because after they have armed themselves with nukes, they're going to undergo this miraculous attitude transformation and just "settle down" all by themselves? So which is it, "Sunshine"? Do you trust or mistrust Iran?

You are trying to turn a factual discussion about how foreign policy is made into another platform for your opinions.

Here might be a approach: (In this order)

1) Israeli settlement freeze in exchange for proxy cease-fire.
2) Iranians may continue weapons program under direct IAEA, UN, and US surveillance; proxies must honor cease fire. Iran must formally recognize state of Israel. Lack of compliance results in removal by force.
3) 5 year peace process talks with sanctions/embargoes removed as a formalized agreement is made between palestinians and Israeli's. Iran must keep proxies in line.
4) Once Iran goes nuclear: Immediate military agreement between the United States/ Israel/ anyone else in region that wants in.

A path somewhat like that seems reasonable. Israel would be the hardest sell in that arrangement though.

[TJDave]

Its posturing so long as it doesn't create the result but to think the Israeli's wouldn't want us fighting the Iranians is silly. Even the Saudi's want us to attack them per wiki-leaks.


Of course the Saudi's want us to attack. We'd have to defend their ass when Iraq and Iran buddy-up so they'd rather it be now than later.

Israel and Iran are natural allies. They were in the past and will be again.

[elysiantraveller]

Interesting development yesterday/last night. Panetta stating the Israeli's are contemplating a military strike in the next few months on Iran.

It's an attempt to get some blow-back on Israel and get the United States some room to maneuver and exercise its policy. Especially, since Iran has been tacitly compliant, allowing a new round of inspections after the newest sanctions.

Iran gives in a little, now the U.S. must generate pressure on the Israeli's.

[TJDave]

now the U.S. must generate pressure on the Israeli's.

You read this as pressure on Israel?

This lends credence to a probable attack and that the U.S. were powerless to stop it. I would think Iran is the one being pressured.

I believe that despite the saber rattling the Israeli consensus is not to attack. Matter of fact, I don't believe it was ever a credible option.

[elysiantraveller]

You read this as pressure on Israel?

This lends credence to a probable attack and that the U.S. were powerless to stop it. I would think Iran is the one being pressured.

I believe that despite the saber rattling the Israeli consensus is not to attack. Matter of fact, I don't believe it was ever a credible option.

The goal of this release was to get our proxy in line. The Iranian's have softened with these new round of sanctions. By releasing statements like these it weakens Israel's position in the court of public opinion and strengthens ours.

This new round of sanctions has had some success so by doing this the military threat to Iran becomes diminished furthering compliance.

Thats how it see it. Statements like these aren't made without real calculation into their effects.

[TJDave]

Statements like these aren't made without real calculation into their effects.

If this were an attempt to restrain then I would expect blowback from the Israeli press and AIPAC. So far, nothing.

Not even from the Republican party and its candidates...

Israel's proxy. ;)

[elysiantraveller]

Iran: Any attack against our country will result in a retaliation against American interests. (Translation: Get your proxy in line)

Israel: A pre-emptive strike is beneficial.

United States: <No statement yet> Probably going to begin exerting more overt pressure on Israel.

[TJDave]

United States: <No statement yet> Probably going to begin exerting more overt pressure on Israel.

Obama? In an election year?

Idonthinkso.

[elysiantraveller]

Obama? In an election year?

Idonthinkso.

We'll see... he has limited courses of action at this point.

A victory for his agenda requires more pressure on Israel.

A victory for his election in November requires him to keep this game going as long as possible.

I think you'll see some pressure in the next coming weeks/months (until the GOP race is over, basically) then it will stop until the election.

[rastajenk]

Obama? In an election year?

Idonthinkso.Why not, if it satisfies part of his base. Which it would.

[TJDave]

Why not, if it satisfies part of his base. Which it would.

A part of his base that will vote for him anyway. They have no where else to turn.