Ha'aretz is reporting that the Obama administration is taking an "unprecedented move" by preparing Democratic congressional leaders for the upcoming clash with the Netanyahu government over establishing a Palestinian state. As Obama's recent trip to Turkey has shown he views the two-state solution as a centerpiece to his overall strategy to US policy in the Middle East. Evidently he is now seeing the new Israeli government as an impediment to this, rather than a partner. He also knows Israel will have some strong advocates in Washington. Aluf Benn explains this strategy is meant to cut the Israel lobby off at the knees, "The preemptive briefing is meant to foil the
possibility that Netanyahu may try to bypass the administration by
rallying support in Congress."
It may be too late as the battle lines of the upcoming throw down are coming into focus. In the Israeli corner, neocon Elliott Abrams tries to bring the Netanyahu line to the masses today by arguing for Israel's illegal West Bank settlements in his Washington Post oped "The Settlement Freeze Fallacy." Abrams says:
Settlement activity is not diminishing the territory of a future
Palestinian entity. In fact, the emphasis on a "settlement freeze"
draws attention from the progress that's needed to lay the foundation
for full Palestinian self-rule — building a thriving economy, fighting
terrorism through reliable security forces and establishing the rule of
law. A "settlement freeze" would not help Palestinians face today's
problems or prepare for tomorrow's challenges. The demand for a freeze
would have only one quick effect: to create immediate tension between
the United States and Israel's new government. That may be precisely
why some propose it, but it is also why the Obama administration should
reject it.
That in a nutshell is the Netanyahu proposal – continue Israeli colonization of the West Bank while outsourcing Israeli security needs to a Palestinian police force and throwing the Palestinians some economic crumbs. This is what's paternalistically referred to as "[laying] the foundation
for full Palestinian self-rule." But interestingly enough, Abrams doesn't seem to think this is convincing enough for American audiences, so his real argument against a settlement freeze echos the Ha'aretz article – Obama should reject this demand because it will only create tension between Israel and the US.
In the Obama corner, the indefatigable Roger Cohen brings it again today in his article "Israel Cries Wolf." The article focuses primarily on the Israeli propaganda campaign against the Iranian nuclear program, and Cohen tears apart the recent Netanyahu interview with "his faithful stenographer Jeffrey Goldberg" as the latest chapter in this effort. After disposing of Netanyahu's bluster, Cohen puts the Israeli fear mongering in a broader perspective:
What’s going on here? Israel, as it has for nearly two decades, is
trying to lock in American support and avoid any disadvantageous change
in the Middle Eastern balance of power, now overwhelmingly tilted in
Jerusalem’s favor, by portraying Iran as a monstrous pariah state bent
on imminent nuclear war.A semblance of power balance is often
the precondition for peace. Iran was left out of the Madrid and Oslo
processes, with disastrous results. But that’s a discussion for another
day.What’s critical right now is that Obama view Netanyahu’s
fear-mongering with an appropriate skepticism, rein him in, and pursue
his regime-recognizing opening toward Tehran. The president should read
Trita Parsi’s excellent “Treacherous Alliance” as preparation.The
core strategic shift of Obama’s presidency has been away from the
with-us-or-against-us rhetoric of the war on terror toward a
rapprochement with the Muslim world as the basis for isolating
terrorists.
Cohen ends with a striking statement – "Israeli hegemony is proving a kind of slavery. Passage to the Promised
Land involves rethinking the Middle East, starting in Iran."
The Obama administration seems to understand that the nature of the US's prior uncritical support of Israel is no longer in its national interest. Cohen understands this also and is helping lead the charge. But as Abrams shows, the lobby is not going to go down without a fight. The first test is going to be whether Obama is willing to use the leverage he has to end the Israeli colonization of the West Bank. Israel will not stop unless it's forced, and Obama is in the strongest position to do this. Round One is getting ready to start.
This will divide the parties in the congress. We will have Democrats vs Democrats and Republicans vs Republicans and could provide some needed separation. Personally, I suspect that Carlos Fuentes had it right when he said that America has the most cleverly designed one-party system in the world. Could be great for our democracy or could be devastating. Hold on to your seats.
Alert!
A good German man, Hermann Dierke, is being castigated and excoriated in Germany for supporting the Palestinian cause.
You can show your support for Dierke, a life-long campaigner against racism, by signing a petition supporting Dierke.
Thank you.
What exactly is Obama's position? Other than doing a stepinfetchit routine for AIPAC during the elections, he hsan't really said much. Anything less than cleaning up corruption in the U.S., holding Israel and her supporters accountable for their actions, making sure that Palestinians receive justice at the hands of ISRAELIS, making sure that Americans are cleared of any further financial or military support of Israel, and forcing Israel to repay debts to America out of Israeli pockets, is just wasting time. My guess is that Obama is all scripted talk on this issue as well. Next story.
BTW, this latest Mondoweiss post is excellent and I'll be linking to it shortly.
I had the distinct impression, listening to Obama's speech in Prague on nuclear disarmament, that he is getting ready to confront Israel over its nuclear weapons, as doing so is the only realistic way of persuading Iran to drop its nuclear weapons program.
And I read Anne Applebaum's criticism of that speech as being ultimately motivated by the fear of what it would mean to Israel (even though neither she nor Obama explicitly addressed the matter.)
As Philip repeatedly reminds us, slavery split the parties in the 1850's.
I feel something is going to hit the fan…
Grant Smith: Why Steve Rosen is suing AIPAC
The Samson Gambit
April 08, 2009 [A must read IMVHO] via Antiwar.com
and this:
M.J. Rosenberg: Ha'aretz: Obama Telling Congress "I'm Taking on Netanyahu"
Hmmm… I'm not sure how much all of this is just normal political bluster and posturing — hey I wouldn't even be surprised if it was a Setup? But this could really turn out to be an important Test for Obama — I just hope he knows what he's doing — otherwise he could come out of this looking really weak.
This could be a real test of how strong the Lobby really is within our Government.
Abrams: "Settlement activity is not diminishing the territory of a future Palestinian entity."
What the hell is he talking about? "Settlement activity" is ipso facto diminishing Palestinian territory. That's why it's called "settlement activity."
Abrams is basically attempting to hypnotize: Look into my eyes, look into my eyes…night is day…up is down…right is left…
Either the man is completely insane, or the Israel lobby has been able to get away with this insane nonsense for so long that it now actually believes in its own hypnotic powers over the idiots running Washington. I mean, this is an insult to gnat's intelligence.
Interestingly, the Roger Cohen editorial seems to be available only from the global edition of the Times.
Abrams is essentially arguing (1) Let the thief keep his stolen goods since he has them, and (2)
to object would be to "needlessly" cause friction between Obamarama and Israel. Why does Abrams
have an opinion column in the MSM?
It's a set-up. Look at the way the Glickster is painting Obama, as an "appeaser of child killers." When the ordinary Likud (never mind the mad ultra-Right) start firing, Obama will run for cover (maybe under Clinton's skirts, if she still has any).
If Obama is smart, he'll portray opposition to a Palestinian state as detrimental to the war on terror, and infer that those who are dragging their feet are themselves harmful to the war on terror. That way, any talk enabling child killers can be laid at their feet. But to do this, he must make it clear that the Occupation is a bur under the saddle of Islamic extremists and clearly a major motivator of wider Middle East terrorism, including that against US troops.
In many ways, those opposing Palestinian statehood have the blood of American troops on their hands. That's really not very patriotic of them. Why do they hate America so much?
The Haaretz article was wonderful.
informative article… thanks phil..
hey rowan , who the f**k is the glickster? i am apparently not of the cognoscenti>
The article was posted by Adam.
Todd wrote:
"My guess is that Obama is all scripted talk on this issue as well."
A good guess. After all if you take one step back from all this it's kind of hilarious: Here's the U.S., not only a subsidizer of Israel but then also supposedly a mediator of its conflict with the Palestinians, saying "we believe a two-state solution is possible" all the while almost in precisely opposite words Israel is saying "we don't."
So it sure looks like the same old desperate sham that the U.S. has hid behind for so many years now: It simply *has* to say that it believes a two-state solution is possible or else it would have to admit it's just simply funding the permanent stealing of Palestinian land.
But of course all the settlements have been a deliberate attempt to accomplish all that.
And now that it *has* accomplished all that—there's no way Israel could ever agree to displacing the 500,000 or so settlers—even *Israel* doesn't care about using the "two-state" fig leaf anymore.
In essence then what Obama can seem to be saying is "gee, now I've got to force Israel to continue to go along with the sham of working towards a two-state solution otherwise boy will I ever be in the terrible position of supporting a permanent ethnic cleansing operation."
"Damnit, Israel," Obama can seem to be saying, "don't you understand that we've got to have *some* pretext to continue supporting you?"
And if you listen with a careful ear to what Netanyahu is saying, especially through his puppets in the U.S., his response quite clearly is "well we now want you to move to a different pretext that pretends to be interested in something else we will both call a 'solution,' and by the way keep the checks coming."
It can only seem a matter of time before Netanyahu's position wins I think and the U.S. indeed will *have* to shift its pretext. Either that or cut off aid to Israel and since that's unthinkable shifting the pretext will be the only thing to do. For now though it's just another interminable new "peace process" that will take the heat off for Obama for another three or four years of more Israeli settlement expansions.
"…In essence then what Obama can seem to be saying is "gee, now I've got to force Israel to continue to go along with the sham of working towards a two-state solution otherwise boy will I ever be in the terrible position of supporting a permanent ethnic cleansing operation."
"Damnit, Israel," Obama can seem to be saying, "don't you understand that we've got to have *some* pretext to continue supporting you?"
Although, I'm not really sure you can this stuff back into the bag. The farce is over don't you think?
Although, I'm not really sure you can stuff this back into the bag. The farce is over don't you think?
the Glickster is Caroline Glick — Glickster the Trickster, aka the Wicked Witch of the West.
thanks for the correction witty… kudos adam…
"Although, I'm not really sure you can stuff this back into the bag. The farce is over don't you think?"
Who's going to stop it? I don't think the people carrying out the farce care if it is clear for all to see, as long as they get what they want. Isn't this the standard operating procedure of the elites on issues such as immigration, taxation, affirmative action, Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Vietnam and illegal or unethical financial or political dealings of all sorts that go against the best interests of the nation?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it will take more than a couple of luke-warm, semi-establisment, lefty Jews galavanting around Gaza and the OTs, documenting what every sensible person already knows, to change things.
Or, just a thought — maybe you're right — maybe there is something behind exposing the farce of I/P peace deal, that by salvaging it in the publics view could be used as leverage behind the scenes by our Congressional leaders to push Obama to act on Iran? Because, ultimately that's what The Lobby wants — getting Congress to get Obama to OK an attack on Iran. Didn't work with Bush — now its Obama's turn.
Piecing these two recent Haaretz articles together — this is what jumped out at me [plus look at the dates]:
Haaretz [by Aluf Benn 04/08/09]
You gotta laugh at that last bit…
However, this is old news — as it looks like Congress has already told Obama that there's no way they're gonna go against their friend Bibi, CYA Barak, and his 'interesting' pick Lieberman:
Haaretz [by Natasha Mozgovaya 04/02/09]
I mean — this should be the news! And the I/P issue [although extremely important to me] is really small fry when you compare to what would be an almighty f**k-up should the US or Israel give the OK to attack Iran.
What will the arab tyrannies do if either the USA or Israel or both attack Iran? Although they love
the status quo as it stems the rise of Persia & they can use Israel as a scapecoat in the same way
old medieval european nobility did, to stay power, it's hard to not imagine that the arab in the street would watch such antics without suddenly resolute fury. The Samson Option dragging
Uncle Sam down willingly, along with the old man of Europe, and, I guess, the final crusades from all sides, equipped with cell phones.
Off topic, but not off topic…
This is what's really beginning to bug me… The honesty and agenda of those Congress members that were on our side when it came to Iraq — but might well turn on us and and align themselves with 'The Lobby' when it comes to Iran?
I'll give you an example:
Like Rep. Jan Schakowsky [Nb: Obama's and Rahms rumored pick for his IL Senate seat!]
In March 2003 she was openly against a premptive war against Iraq:
So, now with all the Iran war rhetoric out there at the moment — where does Rep. Jan Schakowsky stand on attacking Iran? And, for that matter where do many of our Democratic politicans stand on the issue of a 'premptive' attack on Iran? — I'm sure 'all' of their constituents would like to know, not just a select few!
Rep. Jan Schakowsky was recently a speaker at an Iran Briefing. Are any of her views public — No? Why?
Oh yeah — those last two links are DEAD?
I don't believe Obama is ready to go against the Likudniks in Washington yet. A premature confrontation might easily cause not only defeat , but more problems later on.
He can use the Iran-question as a focus to consolidate his powerbase, this is possible when NIE no longer is sabotaged, and Cheney is more or less out of the loop. After winning this battle he can go after the colonies on the west bank, but a smart move would be to use the Quartet-platform, and not Hillary. She can't .be trusted-
Dag, I see your point, but I don't see a reason to spend political energy tring to fix Israel. The situation in Israel is a black hole that sucks up money, time and lives. I saw many Norweigians serving in the UN in the Golan, so it must be tiring to you, also. Believe it or not, I even saw Fijians serving in the area. What sense does it make for the world to spend so much time and energy on a rigged contest? At some point someone has to solve the problem by taking care of the Israelis and their supporters abroad, or just forget about it.
It's hard to believe we could ever disengage from Israel and take a balanced stance in the Middle East. I just read yesterday of a successful test of the Arrow II, Israel's anti-ballistic missile system, with new X-band radar in the Negev provided by the United States and their engineers and military working hand in glove with ours. I remember reading that Israel had so much authority over our spy satellites they could walk into a US operations office and summarily redesignate the the satellite (a big job) to their own purposes. US technicians didn't object, fearing that to do so would end their careers. Former Air Force Lt. Colonel Karen U. Kwiatkowsk once complained that Israeli Generals would walk into Dog Feith's office without signing-in and read the classified documents and/or correspondence on his desk.
"…confront Israel over its nuclear weapons, as doing so is the only realistic way of persuading Iran to drop its nuclear weapons program."
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IRAN HAS A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM.
There is significant evidence that Iran does NOT have a nuclear weapons program.
Please, people, can we possibly refrain from incorporating the lies into our own communications?!
"Settlement activity is not diminishing the territory of a future Palestinian entity."
This is classic up is downism at its very best.
And did everyone else notice the language he uses? Not "state", but "entity".
"What’s critical right now is that Obama view Netanyahu’s fear-mongering with an appropriate skepticism…"
Given Obama's pronouncements, sans evidence, about the grave danger Iran poses, including his explicity statements, also sans evidence, that Iran actually has a nuclear weapons program, I don't see much hope for that. Obama appears to have already drunk an entire pitcher of the "Iran as nuclear threat" Kooaid.
I'm behind on this…
Has Obama actually said that Iran was aiming for a nuclear weapons program? Especially, when he knows via the NIE they haven't made up their minds yet… Now, I know he's said he's concerned about their nuclear program — but has he actually raged about an existing Iranian nuclear bomb project…?
Now Hillary… whole different scene — I have no problem believing she would throw out the "nuclear bomb" terror crap at every opportunity possibly she could.
at every opportunity she possibly could. dylexia or early alzheimers.
"Has Obama actually said that Iran was aiming for a nuclear weapons program?"
No, he has not said they are AIMING at a nuclear weapons program, he has referred to Iran's nuclear weapons program exactly as if he believes such a program exists and is underway as we speak.
There is no evidence even that Iran is aiming at a nuclear weapons program.
During his speech in Prague:
"The United States would continue to develop a missile defence system until Iran abandoned its nuclear ambitions, he said. 'As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven, he said.
"'Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbours and our allies.'"
This is not quite explicit, but very close.
November, 2008:
""Iran's development of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable."
February, 2009:
"…the Obama administration has made it clear that it believes there is no question that Tehran is seeking the bomb.
"In his news conference this week, President Obama went so far as to describe Iran's 'development of a nuclear weapon'
I have heard Obama refer to "Iran's nuclear weapons program" more than once. It's like Iraq, 2001-2003 revisited.
PS I object to any portrayal of Iran as a threat. There is no evidence that Iran is a threat to anyone, even if it WERE developing or pursuing nuclear weapons. On the other hand, Iran most certainly has been under an increasing threat from the U.S. and Israel, and that threat is not letting up significantly. Is it any wonder it wants to work on its defense capabilities under the circumstances?
The U.S. and several other major powers announced today that they are inviting Iran to participate in direct talks on its nuclear activities. US and allies to invite Iran for talks on nuclear row.
Ahmadinejad seems to have provisionally accepted the offer. U.S. to Join Iran Nuclear Talks; Ahmadinejad Seeks ‘Sincerity’ .
I see a deal shaping up that includes Iranian support against the Taliban in Afghanistan, some kind of commitments over Iraq and Iran's nuclear programs. But I don't think a deal works without bringing Israel's nuclear programs under the nonproliferation regime, at the least.
Shirin"
I know most of his speeches have been written by AIPAC, but I didn't realize he has come out explicitly that Iran has an 'existing' bomb program…
Also, we have to remember — it's not only Iran that wants to go "nuclear." I can't find the news articles, but I remember Saudi Arabia and Qatar have made some noises aswell — and I think some other Arab states?
Iran wants to become a/or the regional power broker in the region, I don't think there's any doubt about that — is there? Whether it has to go totally nuclear to get to that position remains to be seen. Also, it goes without saying that Israel DOES NOT want to lose it's most favored nation status in the region.
Somebody else posted this link — but I think the guy makes some important points that often gets left out of the debate that is usually always dominated by the threat of Israel being wiped off the map crap. The article lays out what's really at stake for Israel… shame this won't get out there on the MSM.
Huffingtonpost: 'Netanyahu and threat of bombing Iran – the bluff that never stops giving?'
by Trita Parsi
…and also realizing we have to also include the regional dynamics of Saudia Arabia, Iraq, etc to 'try' and get a better picture of what's going on.
It's times like this I miss not being back at school.
Another notion is that President Obama's public references to an Iranian nuclear weapons program are part of building 'cover' for a more rational US-interest-focused policy. He has to throw some bones to keep the colonial Zionists from frothing, as well as try to keep the most 'bargaining chips' he can before we actually sit down to talk. There is absolutely zero chance that he is unaware of the contents of the last NIE and every recent IAEA report on Iran, as opposed to the blatant lies that get hocked up in our less-than-useless MSM. Remember we have General James Jones as National Security Adviser, not a half-wit like Condoleeza Rice or a colonial Zionist like Stephen Hadley. See Gordon Prather for real analysis of nuclear proliferation issues.
Sand,
There is no evidence whatsoever that Iran "wants to go nuclear" in the sense of having nuclear weapons, and there is significant evidence that it has no such plans or intentions. In fact, Khomeni was very clear that having nuclear weapons would violate Islamic principles.
The most likely explanation for Iran's nuclear activities is that their primary and immediate intention is to develop nuclear power. This makes perfect sense for three reasons: 1) The ability to use nuclear power for most domestic needs allows them to export more of the oil their economy depends on, 2) it is a good preparation for the future when the oil supply begins to dwindle, and 3) as the oil supply runs out a well-developed nuclear power capability could put them in a position to sell power to neighboring states.
I would not discount the possibility, or even the likelihood that, given the ability to produce nuclear fuel, they would be in a good position to divert to the production of weapons grade uranium fairly quickly if they felt the need. That is just one more reason to ramp down all the threats against Iran, and make an ally of them. The main thing that has prevented that so far is the hostile and bellicose position of the U.S. and Israel. Iran has made numerous overtures over the years.
"I know most of his speeches have been written by AIPAC…"
Even assuming you mean that figuratively, that is quite a stretch.
Me: "I know most of his speeches have been written by AIPAC…"
Even assuming you mean that figuratively, that is quite a stretch.
If you don't think AIPAC doesn't have any influence on what comes out of the WH or on Democratic foreign policy, especially when it comes to Israel and Iran then sorry you are living in cuckoo land.
Also… "…Khomeni was very clear that having nuclear weapons would violate Islamic principles… Like 'that' should convince me.
But…I would not discount the possibilityand I would not discount the possibility either.
However, I agree that it could be argued that Iran does need alternative forms of energy for their domestic needs, and nuclear power 'might' fit that bill — although I believe the environmental consequences are horrendous.
I don't appreciate your sarcasm. In fact, Khomeini's statement that nuclear weapons are unIslamic is very convincing if you understand anything at all about sincerely religious Muslims, especially of the extreme sort such as Khomeini. If nothing else having made such a statement he would lose enormous credibility if he violated what he himself said were Islamic principles.
Nuclear power "might" fit that bill? Nuclear power would fit that bill for Iran as nothing else would. As for the environmental consequences being horrendous, not more horrendous than oil or coal, and probably less so.
I believe that Iran will not engage in nuclear weapons development unless it continues to feel increasingly threatened by the U.S. and Israel. The Israeli leaders, contrary to the image of them in the West, are not nihilistic lunatics, they are reasonable, competent people whose desire is to see their country progress. Iran has not attacked or invaded another country in nearly 300 years, and shows no signs of breaking that streak. The U.S. always creates its own enemies.
PS As I said, I do not appreciate your sarcasm. Of course AIPAC influences policy, and saying they wrote most of Obama's speeches is quite a stretch.
"I don't appreciate your sarcasm…" Think of it as a cultural exchange — get used to it — :-)
"…not more horrendous than oil or coal, and probably less so. debatable especially when looking at the radioactive consequences.
"The Israeli leaders??? …are not nihilistic lunatics, they are reasonable, competent people…" Ok.
good god – it's Holy Thursday
Sand, I do not find deliberate rudeness to be a cultural matter worthy of exchanging. It is a completely unnecessary impediment to good communication.
Ooops – did I really say the Israel leaders?! What was I thinking? Of course, I meant Iranian leaders, though I have to say as loony as some of them are, I do not think the Israel leaders are nihilists either. They suffer from a different kind of pathology.
In response to my previous post Sand wrote:
"Although, I'm not really sure you can this stuff back into the bag. The [two-state/peace process] farce is over don't you think?"
Not quite, or at least we haven't quite moved on from that one to the new farce that Netanyahu would prefer of chanting no longer about a "two-state" solution but instead some vague other one supposedly concerned with building the Palestinian "economy" and "culture" whilst his settlements just keep expanding.
Think about it: The present farce, which has served for so long, really only needs two absolutely minimal pre-conditions to continue:
First, the Israelis at least *saying* that they are in favor of some two-state solution that the Palestinians would agree to. And second at least some Palestinian body with some minimal authority saying that they believe that Israel means that and that they will thus participate in the sham of continuing talks to that end.
Firstly, you'll notice that even though Netanyahu definitely is encouraging Obama to embrace his new vaguer farce he hasn't quite burnt his bridge allowing Obama the old one, saying that he will indeed continue with the two-state "peace process."
And secondly there's still the Palestinian Authority under Abbas saying that yes they still want to continue the process.
To my mind then while both legs of this stool are wobbly it's impossible to say when one or the other will collapse entirely.
Indeed I suspect that Obama will get Netanyahu to minimally go along with the current pretext for a good while at least. After all Netanyahu will note that he can still wander around telling everyone that peace process or no he'll never evacuate anywhere near the settlements to actually reach a viable peace, and so given that all Obama wants is him saying of course he'll attend talks, well what's the harm? Why pick an unnecessary fight?
To me at least the big unknown is the Palestinian Authority. Essentially it's been both directly bribed by the U.S. and the Euros to continue to play along with the farce, and that's only counting the official overt money given to it to give to its constituents. God knows how much money the CIA and the Euros too and maybe the Mossad as well has stuffed into Zurich bank accounts for Abbas and the PA leadership to keep them bought off. But the PA constituents in the West Bank seems to have agreed to be bought off too so far, even if their hearts are really with Hamas.
So to me it's really like wondering when some huge rotted tree will come down: A storm tomorrow could do it, or maybe even a zephyr, or it still could be awhile you just never know. And it has been standing rotted for a good long time so it could still be in place for another couple of years. And if U.S. Presidents and Congress can still pretend in the face of a map of the West bank and its settlements and its 500,000 Israeli settlers that a two-state solution is possible, what *can't* they further pretend about? Again, all they are looking for is some minimum cover so they can deny they are essentially supporting and funding the permanent stealing of Palestinian land and the ethnic cleansing of same as well. Doesn't take much in the face of broad U.S. apathy on the issue.
And as re Iran it's interesting: I noted too that despite the last NIE the Obama people, including Obama himself and Hillary just immediately started talking like of course Iran has a nuke bomb program. And then I read something and damnit I forgot where quoting some Obama or Hillary insider I think responding to this same issue saying that indeed yes, the Obama Admin. has just essentially accepted that Iran does have a nuke program. No real reason given, no citation to any new/post-NIE information, nothing. Just a notation that that's what the Obama people have accepted for whatever reason.
Maybe it's just that they've reasoned that it doesn't matter; even if Iran doesn't have a nuke bomb program once Iran has mastered the fuel cycle actually making a bomb is relatively easy and could be done at any time and all the while the Iranians can work on their missile delivery systems under the guise of them being for conventional weapons. And indeed as I've read it seems that this is exactly the point the Obama people and the Euros are pushing at: Trying to get Iran to accept *Russian* nuke fuel rather than make their own, or indeed do anything other than master that fuel cycle.
It's also interesting thinking about how this is going to play into the Israel situation. The Iranians I think have clearly said that no way no how are they going to not master the fuel cycle and so Obama's choice will be to attack or to accept it with some fig leaf of "inspections" or etc. And from there since I don't think Obama will choose war I suspect that Netanyahu will use this to say "well now you've 'betrayed' our security you simply can't do so further on the West Bank with settlements" and try to push Obama onto his new farcical position. (Again, away from any forseeable two-state solution onto some other incredibly vague one.)
That would be a biggie because, in essence, it would be saying to the U.S. to proceed further even if the Palestinian leg of the present farce collapses because I don't think even Abbas and PA would stand for it. But while I think eventually it *will* collapse and the U.S. will indeed sign on to a new farce, I have no idea of when it will happen.
In short, as has been the pattern over there, I think we're going to in essence see nothing really happening for long periods of time other that the relentless creep of more settlements, with potential changes to that status quo only appearing with the periodic occurrence of some violence such as determined intifadas and/or etc. that are inevitable, but whose exact nature and timing simply aren't predictable.
Certainly I think Israel is relatively happy with that status quo: Not only the election of Netanyahu shows this I believe but then also note his rejection-by-silence of the Arab League's recent statement that its big Abdullah offer is soon going to be off the table. So far as I can tell there's not a dozen people in all of Israel who care about same.
Thank you for your astute analysis, Sin Nombre. Your lay of the land seems to me correct–anyone disagree? If so, where in what Sin Nombre says?
Shirin: I assure you it was not deliberate rudeness, again something you 'may' have to get used to. I will also add I don't suffer fools gladly, and hiding behind religion to try and make a case, win argument, or even discussion will not fly — sorry!