creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Patrick Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
22 Apr 2014
Nationalism, Not NATO, Is Our Great Ally

With Vladimir Putin having bloodlessly annexed Crimea and hinting that his army might cross the border to … Read More.

18 Apr 2014
NED's Chickens Come Home to Roost

When Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Empire an "evil empire," the phrase reflected his conviction that while … Read More.

15 Apr 2014
The End of Ideology?

On our TV talk shows and op-ed pages, and in our think tanks here, there is rising alarm over events abroad. … Read More.

Will Bibi Break Obama?

Comment

The prime minister of Israel is angry with Barack Obama and is coming here to force a hardening of U.S. policy toward Iran.

"Bibi" Netanyahu had his anger on display at a meeting in Israel with Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

McCain emerged saying he had never seen an Israeli prime minister "that unhappy." "He was angry," said McCain. "I've never seen U.S.-Israel relations at this point."

"The Israelis are unnerved," said Graham. "They think the administration is sending the wrong signal, and so do I."

What has so enraged Netanyahu? The Obama policy of tightening sanctions on Iran while holding out the opportunity for Tehran to negotiate and provide guarantees that its nuclear program is not aimed at an atomic bomb.

The U.S. intelligence community unanimously believes that Iran is some time away, perhaps years, from being able to produce a nuclear weapon and has not made the command decision to build one.

Israel retorts that Iran is entering a "zone of immunity," when Israel will lack the ability to attack and abort Iran's nuclear program, as new nuclear sites are being moved underground. Netanyahu's government is also angry at what it sees as U.S. leaders' distancing themselves from Israel.

When that fifth Iranian nuclear scientist was assassinated and Tehran accused America and Israel of complicity, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounced the murder, leaving Israel as prime suspect.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta leaked to columnist David Ignatius that Israel might strike Iran in April, May or June, leaving no doubt as to who wants a war, while ex-CIA Director Michael Hayden openly disparages Israel's capacity to cripple Iran's nuclear sites: "They only have the ability to make this worse."

Adm. William Fallon, who headed U.S. Central Command, has been categorical: "No one I am aware of thinks that there is a positive outcome from a military strike" on Iran.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey has called Iran a "rational actor" and told the Israelis that for them to attack Iran now would be "premature," "destabilizing" and imprudent.

Netanyahu said that Dempsey's remarks "served Iran" and the general was "unwilling to aid Israel."

Like Panetta, U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has said he does not believe that Iran has decided to build a bomb, while National Security Adviser Tom Donilon spent three days in Israel, reportedly arguing against an Israeli attack.

"The Israelis are fuming over what they perceive as deliberate attempts by the Obama administration to undermine the deterrent effect of the Jewish state's threat to use force against Iran by publicly questioning the timing and utility of such strikes." So write Jay Solomon and Carol Lee of The Wall Street Journal.

Netanyahu is coming to Washington, the Journal writers add, to demand that Obama spell out the "red lines" Iran will not be allowed to cross without triggering a U.S.

attack.

What Netanyahu wants is a U.S. ultimatum to Iran.

White House sources say that when Obama meets Netanyahu Tuesday, he will reject the prime minister's demands.

But the pressure to shorten the timetable for war is intense and growing.

Obama will speak Sunday to the annual assembly of the Israeli lobby AIPAC. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney, all more hawkish than the president, have also been invited to address the conclave.

Three dozen senators have signed on to a resolution declaring it a U.S. "vital national interest" that Iran not possess even a "nuclear weapons capability."

S.R. 380 reads like a resolution crafted as a casus belli, a cause for war. For South Korea, Brazil and Japan all have a "nuclear weapons capability," as all have the industrial proficiency and technical know-how to build an atomic bomb, should they chose to do so.

The resolution demands that Iran halt all uranium production and end its ballistic missile program, and declares "unacceptable" any U.S. policy of containment of an Iran that is capable of building a bomb, even if Iran has decided not to build a bomb.

Containment succeeded with a Soviet Empire with 10,000 nuclear weapons, but is apparently inadequate for dealing with an Iran that has no atom bombs, only the potential to build one.

S.R. 380 points directly toward a U.S. war on Iran.

Who wants that war? Netanyahu, his government, and his allies in U.S. politics and the press, and in a Congress that gave him 29 standing ovations the last time he spoke there.

Who does not want a war?

The White House, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, the intelligence community, the antiwar left and Old Right, and millions of Americans who believe a U.S. war on Iran could ignite a sectarian and regional war that could prove catastrophic for the Middle East, the world economy and the United States of America.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?" To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM



Comments

8 Comments | Post Comment
Suicide of a Superpower
That pretty much sums it up. And yet we continue to count the ways.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Morbid
Fri Mar 2, 2012 6:22 AM
While the serious Republican candidates are all eager to start this war, President Obama deems it advantageous to let his people leak that he would rather not be dragged into it. Republican primary voters seem disinclined to reward such a stance but once war starts and its effects hit us, even they may see things differently. Our most valuable ally may want to wait until our elections are over before getting us into more trouble.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Peter Ungar
Fri Mar 2, 2012 8:36 AM
Right as always, Pat. Keep up the good work.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Chris
Fri Mar 2, 2012 10:41 AM
Remarkable, the Neo Cons are using the same recipe that they came up with for war with Iraq and the dumb American public falls for it a second time.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Mannstein
Fri Mar 2, 2012 7:19 PM
Remember the ship the USS Liberty and the US service men aboard who were killed by an Israeli air force attack on this American vessel during the 1967 war. How many more American sons and daughters will die for the folly of war? Even one more is too many. Ron Paul for sanity.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Soothsayer
Sat Mar 3, 2012 11:08 AM
If one of the Adelson beneficiaries replaces Obama, America will have its first REPUBLIKUD administration.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Charles
Sun Mar 4, 2012 10:34 AM
If one of the Adelson beneficiaries replaces Obama, America will have its first REPUBLIKUD administration.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Charles
Sun Mar 4, 2012 10:34 AM
One question we never hear is why they don't already have a nuke. What's so hard about it? Their leaders never condemn their religious compatriots when they blow themselves up while blowing up other faiths. That needs to be cleared up on their part before we agree to be peaceful with them. We want to hear loud and clear from their leaders that any Muslim who blows up anything, particularly another person's religion, is criticized in public. It must be spoken of as a disgrace for any Muslim to attack another religion in that way. Also, they must speak of the terrorist as a fool who has a totally wrong concept of religion. Certainly, people like those September 11 terrorists went straight to Hell, and unless the leadership of these countries starts speaking like this, they are too inferior and undeveloped to consult with or interact with so the Israelies are correct. Also, it would take at least a decade of the Muslim leaders ralking like this to convince the world they were improving or to even consider they should be let anywhere near nuclear material.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Mike Hayne
Sun Mar 4, 2012 3:19 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Pat Buchanan
Apr. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
30 31 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Ray Hanania
Ray HananiaUpdated 24 Apr 2014
Froma Harrop
Froma HarropUpdated 24 Apr 2014
R. Emmett Tyrrell
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.Updated 24 Apr 2014

22 Apr 2014 Nationalism, Not NATO, Is Our Great Ally

18 Sep 2007 No Laughing Matter in Russia

4 Sep 2012 Last Recourse of Failed Presidents