'Sparks fly' over US policy on Iran at meeting between Netanyahu and US envoy

'Sparks fly' over US policy on Iran at meeting between Netanyahu and US envoy

www.jpost.com

Tensions between the Israeli and United States governments reached fever pitch over the issue of Iran’s nuclear program in a recent high-level meeting between the prime minister and the American ambassador, Yedioth Ahronoth reported on Friday.

Last week Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened a closed-door meeting with visiting Congressman and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers and American Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro. Netanyahu opened the discussion by lambasting the Obama administration for what he considered its ineffectual policy vis à vis Iran

(visit the link for the full news article)

Israel is aiming for a pre-election attack and Obama, if ever, must wait until after elections like everything else; yet, I wonder would his approval be higher if war broke out now and he requested the US military assist with this or lower?

Recalling from a source posted a few weeks ago, Netanyahu said that Obama had basically until UN's next meeting end of September to tell Iran time has run out or Israel will attack. It's Obama's last chance. and....

As much as ATS dislikes Obama, he has prevented and Israeli/Iranian and potentially US war over the last 4 years.

www.jpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by CALGARIAN


I would have to ask if you are certain it was Obama that prevented a wart with Iran? I'm not challenging your assertion, just trying to understand how such a thing can be attributed to him?

I am aware of the general idea that Obama is less influenced by Israeli interests... but that's all vague media talk and PR... what, of substance, has Obama done to prevent a war with Iran?

Originally posted by CALGARIAN


Israel is aiming for a pre-election attack and Obama, if ever, must wait until after elections like everything else; yet, I wonder would his approval be higher if war broke out now and he requested the US military assist with this or lower?

Far, far lower.

The American people know that the US cannot afford another war, especially not one as Israel's puppet.

They might not be willing to scream about it, but I think the people have a little more sense than simply rushing into another war at the behest of Israel. Most people think that if Israel is so scared, they should do something about it themselves - that starts with dialogue, something Israel often refuses to do. If they're not willing to stand up for themselves in a diplomatic way to try to resolve these issues then why should anyone else bother to be their bully?

It amazes me that so few people ask themselves why the US funds Israel, and does their dirty work in the world too, what does the US get out of this arrangement? It makes no sense, unless you consider that there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes that we are not aware of.

reply to post by Maxmars


He hasn't caved into Israel pressure like some of his predecessors?

What do people expect him to do at this point?

This war has been in the making long before Obama even considered a POTUS run. I'm more surprised that it didn't happen before Bush left office and it still hasn't happened.

And you know what?

I don't want it and I'm sure plenty of others don't. I would rather see the UN arrest all of the Israeli officials and drag their asses in chains to the Hague. They are war criminals of the highest order.

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by Maxmars

 

He hasn't caved into Israel pressure like some of his predecessors?

What do people expect him to do at this point?

This war has been in the making long before Obama even considered a POTUS run. I'm more surprised that it didn't happen before Bush left office and it still hasn't happened.

And you know what?

I don't want it and I'm sure plenty of others don't. I would rather see the UN arrest all of the Israeli officials and drag their asses in chains to the Hague. They are war criminals of the highest order.

Caved in how though? We've yet to fight a war for Israel that I am aware of... unless you contend that the Iraq/Afghanistan wars are for the benefit of Israel.

I don't argue that Israel can and has applied pressure to those candidates who were beholden to 1) the Christian Right-wing base looking to fulfill "prophetically declared roles." or 2) Politically created media celebrities. But that hardly seems to equate to saying others 'caved in' without specifying to what.

Disaffection for Israeli government officials and their policies aside, I don't want war either... but if anyone could be said to be responsible for the animosity between Iran and the US it seems unreasonable to discount our instigation of a coup in Iran, toppling a democratically established government. I think that such action would engender an enduring adversarial relationship between us.

The idea that Israel is allegedly itching to go to war - a war where American soldiers will die - is not new, no. But the idea that somehow President Obama "did something" to keep it from happening is a characterization that bears no place in an unbiased dialog.

Originally posted by Maxmars

I am aware of the general idea that Obama is less influenced by Israeli interests... but that's all vague media talk and PR... what, of substance, has Obama done to prevent a war with Iran?

Not giving him the green light. It's up to Obama not the Joint Chief of Staff to give this?

reply to post by CALGARIAN


Actually it's up to Congress. I haven't got a fix on whether Congress as a whole is for or against military engagement with Iran. It has always confused me that politicians, in particular, can endorse things like assassination strikes with drones inside foreign countries, unilateral renditions and such; and then proclaim that they are "for peace."

I don't attribute too much blame to our President, but that does not indemnify him from those things he has done. In the end, someone else is doing the deciding - it would appear.

Let's not forget how the Israeli's spy ring was listening in on conversations.
The video's are great and show how they may not be our friends.

whatreallyhappened.com...

reply to post by CALGARIAN
Obama's approval rating would be way lower if he opted to give in to the rhetoric coming from Israel regarding Iran and act on it preemptively. America is wary of what-if wars, and we still have a sour taste from the last two, one of which is still wastefully ongoing.

Now if they could just get Iran to become unrestrained enough to make the first move (or false flag occurs) in this, a military response would be more justified and supported, pre or post elections. But despite sanctions, strong military presence and daily threats against them, Iran's actions (or lack thereof) seem to indicate that they have no desire for conflict.

So then,

I have suspicion that even into a second term, Obama will not easily get involved militarily, no matter how many times a week he is warned about Iran. I think he's about as tired as hearing from them day in and day out as the rest of us.

It's also helpful that our nation's top military officer (Gen. Dempsey) also recognizes that action against Iran at this point in time wouldn't be smart.

Israel: The nation that cried bomb.

reply to post by CALGARIAN


President Obama is in a sticky situation to be honest, because he feels quite sure America has had enough of him, and he wont win in November anyway as things are, that is fact, but he needs to be steady on Iran with Russia & China backing Iran, the USA cannot win.
Also is Obama had let Israel attack Iran 3 years ago there would be no need to attack Iran because they would have backed down from it's nuclear project, as it is it is 3 years too late.
However folks, IF, yes IF Obama say help Israel to bomb Iran say Oct then I feel he could win another term in office as being seen strong, rather than weak as he has been since getting in office.
One way or another if he sits it out he has lost office, if however he fights Iran, and Russia & China do come in, we may all need to change our under clothes.

Originally posted by Maxmars


Actually it's up to Congress.

Did it go to congress? It hasn't.

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by CALGARIAN

 

I would have to ask if you are certain it was Obama that prevented a wart with Iran? I'm not challenging your assertion, just trying to understand how such a thing can be attributed to him?

I am aware of the general idea that Obama is less influenced by Israeli interests... but that's all vague media talk and PR... what, of substance, has Obama done to prevent a war with Iran?

And if McCain had won the election? Where do you think we would be? Myself, I have no doubt that we would already be at war for the sake of Israel.

And if it comes in any form, under Obama's last days or Romney's first days, the American people are not going to like it very much in that we are currently leaving Afganistan with our tail between our hind legs and the same would happen if we sent troops into Iran. They are different folks there and they won't just be using AK-47s and improvised explosives. That really would be WWIII. And who in their right minds want that?

reply to post by Aliensun


"What if" is a game for philosophers and theologians. What if the Shah had never been installed by the CIA? Perhaps they wouldn't have tagged us their 'Great Satan'.

Evidently this thread has a political purpose... too bad.

reply to post by CALGARIAN

Israel is aiming for a pre-election attack and Obama, if ever, must wait until after elections like everything else;

Israel is clearly getting desperate and going into panic mode. Your article is a state example of that.

We have seen all sorts of things happen in political debates, harsh words and judgements being made. But to the point of yelling and having a fierce discussion in front of other representatives? I think it shows how volatile the whole discussion theme is.

One thing that really bothers me is the question of when a supposed US-led/backed attack on Iran will happen. Since when are the elections a part of policy decisions? Aren't we supposed to stand for truth and good decisions, for the sake of the states and nation?

It appears that President's in our day are more concerned about being in Office for 8 years than to actually make the right decisions.

I'm not saying it will happen, but you just have to ask yourself the possibility, what if what Israel says is true and Iran is preparing to attack Israel or other nations? This whole thing of waiting for elections, waiting for elections, waiting for elections, could backfire in a very nasty way... Just because a President wanted more years in his political belt...

I wonder would his approval be higher if war broke out now and he requested the US military assist with this or lower?

In my opinion, it depends more on how it is played to the public. Fear is a very powerful motivation force. People never want war, but they are afraid to die or lose what they have.

If the threat is played in the same magnitude that WW2 was, it's possible he could gain support and not lose it.

However, people are more aware of unnecessary wars today, than what they were in the 30's and 40's.

Netanyahu said that Obama had basically until UN's next meeting end of September to tell Iran time has run out or Israel will attack. It's Obama's last chance.

After reading the article you posted, I noticed a related article:

PM to 'speak the truth' on Iran in UN speech

“In Tehran today, the representatives of 120 countries heard a blood libel against the State of Israel and were silent. This silence must stop,” Netanyahu said.

“Therefore, I will go to the UN General Assembly and, in a clear voice, tell the nations of the world the truth about Iran’s terrorist regime, which constitutes the greatest threat to world peace.”

I wonder what kind of evidence, or proof, does Netanyahu have that will convince other nations that Iran is the biggest world threat.

I'm rather curious, because most speech's - from both sides - have been based in vague opinions, historical remarks and subjective interpretations.

As much as ATS dislikes Obama, he has prevented and Israeli/Iranian and potentially US war over the last 4 years.

The real question is:

Has Obama stopped a war with Iran, or delayed to the point it will be inevitable and even more fierce?

It was only this year around June/July that Iran started to feel the full extent of sanctions. That's in the last year of his Presidency.

reply to post by Maxmars


I agree, Its had to say without some direct proof that obama has prevented war with iran. Im sure if people searched the internet long enough they could find a few articles here and there concerning this.

but imo, the warhawks in washington are always clucking. And we havent entered direct war with Iran even though the rhetoric has been huge. I would like to hope that obama did stay some what true to his platform by at least not initiating a new full scale war. I think it was about impossible for obama to pull out of the middle eastern wars as his election platform stated. So, hopefully he has been working on preventing new ones from starting!

No one, absolutely NO ONE, wants war in this stage of our progress and evolution, with the ruination of precious human lives and properties.

There is much to live for, compared to the times of our ancestors.

BUT, in the face of agression, are we to kneel down and grovel before the aggressors today, just because billions had been spent and lives lost previously, that we want no part of those anymore to defend peace and freedom to exist as free humans?

If so, enjoy the collar chains, not only for oneself, but one's future innocent generations, relatives and friends as well.

Originally posted by GarrusVasNormandy

“Therefore, I will go to the UN General Assembly and, in a clear voice, tell the nations of the world the truth about Iran’s terrorist regime, which constitutes the greatest threat to world peace.”

I wonder what kind of evidence, or proof, does Netanyahu have that will convince other nations that Iran is the biggest world threat.

I'm rather curious, because most speech's - from both sides - have been based in vague opinions, historical remarks and subjective interpretations.

This is it. The last UN speech, where the world is watching, before they go into Iran just like Iraq.

I think the following is pretty clear:

1) Obama and Netanyahu don't like each other...especially not after Obama's famous "snubbing" incidents.

2) Israel is going in to Iran soon, with or without America help - but if the U.S. does not offer any direct military assistance (at least AWAC's support, mid-air refueling, etc.) then it will have serious repercussions for U.S./Israel relations (which, I know, some would say would be a good thing).

What is not so clear to me is:

1) If Iran's nuclear technology development is only for civilian purposes, why are they burying it so deep underground...and why is this development under military control?

Canada, for example, has very robust and highly developed civilian nuclear technology facilities and reactors. As far as I know, not one of them is buried underground.

2) Why do they think that burying facilities like this underground is a good strategy, in terms of protecting their hardware, and their output? Even if you do not have the weaponry needed to blast all the way through the rock to the production facility...all you have to do is seriously cave in all of the entrances and exits to the facility. If they can't get their enriched uranium out, what good will it be to them?

You would just have to fly back every now and again, every time they clear away the debris, or build new entrances, to make sure they can never put their enriched uranium to use.

Not long ago I read a report indicating that Israel was under the assumption that a strike upon Iran's nuclear plant would spark a war lasting not longer than 30 days and cause around 500 Israeli deaths. I find this assumption to be, for lack of a better word, insane. Where on earth are they coming up with these numbers?

www.telegraph.co.uk...

As for congress vs. presidential powers in such instances. Congress has the power to declare war where the president has the power to order the military anywhere, even if war is not declared. So the president could, if he so chose, give military aid to Israel without congressional approval, moreover congress could declare war without presidential approval.