He Ru Follow us: Make a7 your Homepage
      Free Daily Israel Report

      Arutz 7 Most Read Stories

      Blogs

      Radio

      Op-Ed: The Paradox of Obama's Visit to Israel

      Published: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:11 PM
      Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, a huge invasion is unnecessary to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.


      President Barack Hussein Obama's dangerous complacency and compromise with Iran has afflicted U.S. foreign policy for too long, causing incalculable damage to Israel's security and American interests in the region.

      The truth speaks for itself: diplomacy does not work with states who sponsor and are purveyors of global terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

      Only one result is certain: it gives the Iranians breathing space and time to continue their illicit program to achieve nuclear capability.  In real sense, endless diplomatic talks and lifting off of sanctions—will not bring the long-awaited message of peace and security in the Middle East.

      However, even worse, Obama's unprecedented betrayals make no sense at all.

      Obama has selected the least qualified anti-Israel nominee for secretary of defense in a half century and forced out General James Mattis because the superb combatant commander took the Iranian threat seriously.

      This self-flagellating nonsense seems deeply rooted on Obama's strange combination of extreme narcissism, Marxism and his Muslim upbringing.

      It appeared innocuous at first, but the steady influence of Muslim Brotherhood-led Team Obama in every nook and corner of the Arab Spring led to the Benghazi-Gate cover up- and that is very difficult to ignore.

      Obama is self-obsessed in reaching a diplomatic nuclear breakthrough with Iran, an ill-contrived concession that the mullah-led regime has denied. Behind the scenes, however, Obama's secret nuclear deal with Iran garnered a rebuke from the ruling ayatollah.

      The diplomatic snub will certainly bring more repercussions, one way or another. This is upsetting at least to Obama, forcing him reluctantly to go for an 'urgent' visit to Israel.

      Despite the onerous political and diplomatic fiascos in his first term, the narcissistic U.S. president should not be taken lightly. Why is that?

      A great deal of extreme narcissists are embittered, vindictive, detached from reality and cannot accept responsibility. Perhaps, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is fully prepared to effectively deal with an egocentric president, knowing full well that Obama can spin a conversation so quickly that it keeps you off balance and  you cannot challenge him.

      Will it work? Egocentric demands upon the time and patience of others will be borne, but he will try to avoid fights when Israel is at its strongest moments. In short, what is good for Israel will be good for Obama's image, particularly at a time when the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, it is said, politely asked him to return the coveted peace prize.

       While there is no question that diplomacy has to be the preferred path, Obama believes that there is still time for a diplomatic deal with Iran- and that illusion is dangerous nonsense.

      Containing a nuclear armed Iran implies a de facto recognition. Since there is no absolute guarantee that Iran will not pursue nuclear weapons in the future, Israel's security becomes more untenable. This policy of containment is irresponsible. for it would only create a dangerous nuclear standoff that is enormously costly and unpredictable .

      In any case, it is clear that Obama's misguided and feckless foreign policy is to blame.

      It is inconceivable therefore, that despite western efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the Washington foreign policy establishment still wants to talk more when direct negotiation is not possible. It is the height of absurdity, that despite his alleged show of support, Obama is undermining Israel's military capabilities instead of Iran's - the country which represents a clear and present danger to Israel's existence and the national interest of the U.S.

      Unfortunately, Iran is playing a dangerous catch- 22 diplomacy along with its mentor, North Korea. The problems with these two rogue states  seem insurmountable, but in reality are not -  if the U.S. changes its strategic course.  

      Enough time has been wasted on restraint and it seems that Israel is, indeed, determined to strike Iran when the time comes to fulfill its duty to defend itself. Moreover, Israel's restraint is in keeping with its desire not to cast itself unnecessarily as an aggressor . And for that matter, Israel does not need any Western assistance to attack Iran.


      In any event, it is better for Israel to act like a fool than to be caught off guard by a nuclear detonation over Tel Aviv.
      In any event, it is better for Israel to act like a fool  than to be caught off guard by a nuclear detonation over Tel Aviv. At this stage of the nuclear brinkmanship, there is no doubt that a positive outcome is only possible if Israel takes out the nuclear facilities in Iran.

      Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, a huge invasion is unnecessary to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.

      It will be a tremendous success, however, if Syria and Hizbullah in Lebanon is dealt with permanently first. Whichever comes first is moot and academic since it is only a matter of time and opportunity.

      Mindful of the almost complete destruction of Iranian military assets in Sudan and Gaza during the Operation Pillar of Defense, Hizbullah does not want to ignite a direct confrontation with Israel - for fear of wiping out  thousands of smuggled Iranian-made missiles and chemical weapons inside Lebanon; at the time when Tehran is talking the talk and duping the West.

      But know this: Israel, as the only undeclared nuclear armed state in the Middle East, can - theoretically - also be unpredictable. Once again, it is highly possible that a civilization-altering development may  again stun the world into disbelief and mute Israel's enemies, sending a brief shockwave across the Middle East.

      Yet despite the importance of this development, the mainstream media would be the last to cover the story after it happened. As former Military Intelligence Chief Brigadier-General (Res.) Amos Yadlin said at the AIPAC convention in Washington, a military action against the Iranian nuclear program "is not a war. It is a one-night operation."

      Israeli officials also said Netanyahu would look for reassurances that the U.S. would prevent Syria's extensive stocks of chemical weapons - nicknamed "Arms R' Us" by Israeli intelligence - from falling into the hands of al-Qaeda or Hizbullah.

      Incessant, anti-Semitic rhetoric and condemnation surely would follow, but consider what a one nighttime operation will do for regional peace and stabilizing oil prices about which the world's economy is so sensitive.

      In the past, western media outlets enjoyed a monopoly on outrageous bashing of Israel. This time the information war is in Israel's favor in dealing with distorted information in almost all social media networks, including you tube.

      Although the consequence of an imminent war with Iran is highly predictable, it will be difficult at first to accept, let alone believe, that Israel's high technological advantage makes success possible. Perhaps, it may be the main reason why Washington has been dilly-dallying around  with regard to support of its staunch ally, Israel.

      Israel knows this: the US will not act beyond what it perceives as its own national interests. And if Iran miscalculates the extent of Israeli resolve, the geo-political outcome is awfully predictable.

      In the end, Israel's technological or military innovation could easily shift the balance of power back heavily into America’s favor by altering the equation of the Iran nuclear game.

      Something has to be done.