The road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad Tehran

Israel/Palestine
on 26 Comments

Gary Rosenblatt in the Jewish Week on the latest blackmail to the United States from the only democracy in the Middle East:

For now, it appears certain Israel’s next government will have the same prime minister as today, but one more likely to push for settlement expansion than peace talks with the Palestinians, and a continued rocky relationship with the White House.

What could change all of that is if President Obama indicates a willingness to take on Iran militarily in return for Israeli concessions to the Palestinians.

Thanks to Scott McConnell for headline.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

26 Responses

  1. eljay
    January 17, 2013, 11:08 am

    >> What could change all of that is if President Obama indicates a willingness to take on Iran militarily in return for Israeli concessions to the Palestinians.

    Zio-supremacist “reasonableness”: If you agree to help us attack a sanction-weakened, sovereign and non-aggressor nation, we will agree to act – in some undefined measure – less immorally and unjustly toward the people we have terrorized and ethnically cleansed; who we continue to oppress and kill; whose lands we continue to steal and colonize; and whose lives and livelihoods we continue to destroy.

    • Shingo
      January 17, 2013, 9:21 pm

      Zio-supremacist “reasonableness”: If you agree to help us attack a sanction-weakened, sovereign and non-aggressor nation, we will agree to act.

      Correction Eljay,

      Rosenblatt says “could”, which means no promises that they will.

      • eljay
        January 18, 2013, 10:09 am

        >> Correction Eljay,
        >> Rosenblatt says “could”, which means no promises that they will.

        No correction required – I know that “could” doesn’t mean “will”, which is why I included a qualifier in my paraphrasing of his statement:

        we will agree to act – in some undefined measure – …

  2. Chu
    January 17, 2013, 11:52 am

    Rosenblatt’s final sentence is typical of the cowering liberal, whistling zionist battle-melodies from his tiny little perch.

    Is he saying things may be reversed if the US president shows he has a willingness to take on Iran’s military? Were concessions made by the Israeli state after operation Iraqi Freedom? I don’t think so. Who is Rosenblatt trying to fool? His idea is a no-win situation for the United States. This is the character of a soft-pedalling zionist hawk.

    The more extreme, the Israeli parties become, the more extreme the american Zionists will become, as Chuck Schumer and friends must realize that they will have to accept many of Naftali Bennett’s kooky ideas. And that will start the conversation in the US of why we need a clean-break from the ally that demands way too much for it’s neo-colonial enterprise, which the world clearly sees as ever-hungry criminal occupation.

    How long will it take for the US political class and media to realize that Israel needs protection from itself, not the imprisoned Palestinian neighbors? Six decades and going strong. What a record for the sole Jewish state of the world.

    • Shingo
      January 17, 2013, 9:23 pm

      The more extreme, the Israeli parties become, the more extreme the american Zionists will become, as Chuck Schumer and friends must realize that they will have to accept many of Naftali Bennett’s kooky ideas.

      Very true. If you think back to the last election, the Zionist apologists were wringing their hands and on the defensive – but they got over it and readjust their moral position to now consider Bibbi and Lieberman moderates.

      • Chu
        January 18, 2013, 6:05 pm

        I wonder if they do get over it? They must be aware that they are the US guardians for Israel, whether or not they choose to be. There probably needs to be more politicians in the US that have a sense of patriotism to prevent Israel’s insatiable desires, although I don’t see it coming anytime soon.

  3. MHughes976
    January 17, 2013, 12:51 pm

    A few days ago Keith pointed out to me that the sanctions are morally an act of war, which is true enough. Still, current common parlance means, when it mentions ‘war with Iran’, bombs from the sky and boots on the ground. I still feel sure that Obama will not agree to this, at least for the immediate future. His intention must surely be to hail the Iranian election result as a triumph of his sanctions policy, at least if the new Pres uses rhetoric slightly different from Ahmedinejad’s. After the triumph has been claimed there will be a period of temporising and prevaricating. Where else could current policies be leading?

  4. Annie Robbins
    January 17, 2013, 1:46 pm

    they don’t even skip a beat. after obama’s last inauguration netanyahu came over and said the same thing. obama said settlements, net said iran. it’s like a broken record with this constant push push push to attack iran. i’m sick of it.

    as for the finale of Rosenblatt’s article (the blockquote), he’s fooling himself and his readers. if he doesn’t know netanyahu’s government would collapse if he seriously considered a settlement freeze or pushing for 2 states. rosenblatt’s not paying attention. as was pointed out recently by Akiva Eldar link to mondoweiss.net

    Netanyahu also claims to be for a two-state solution but if he had to adopt his own Bar-Ilan speech of ’09 as his platform, his coalition would abandon him.

    these people, bennett, they don’t yammer on about iran, they’re blatantly out about being after the ‘land of israel’. iran won’t stop that. rosenblatt’s fooling himself, completely uninformed, or a propagandist. you decide. but this is total BS

    • Shingo
      January 17, 2013, 9:25 pm

      Good point Annie,

      Bibbi hasn’t made his campaign about Iran either. Rosenblatt’s theory is that by making it about Iran, it will save Bibbi.

  5. James Canning
    January 17, 2013, 2:16 pm

    I think Obama has made clear Iran will need to suspend enriching uranium to 20 percent, and that this issue is not something Netanyahu is obliged to raise. Russia and China also want Iran to stop stockpiling 20 percent uranium.

    Financial Times reports today that there is a bit of noise in Israel today, regarding Obama’s comment that Israel does not know what is in its on best interests.

    • Annie Robbins
      January 17, 2013, 3:23 pm

      Financial Times reports today that there is a bit of noise in Israel today, regarding Obama’s comment that Israel does not know what is in its on best interests.

      yes, i heard goldberg’s article was all the rage in israel today : link to 972mag.com

      “The president seems to view the prime minister as a political coward, an essentially unchallenged leader who nevertheless is unwilling to lead or spend political capital to advance the cause of compromise.”

      As one could expect, the item made the headlines in Israel, and this morning it is the front page story in every paper: Haaretz’s editorial is titled “Listen to Obama.” Yedioth Ahronoth, which is known for going after the Prime Minister personally, has turned Goldberg’s assessment into a direct quote from the president (“Netanyahu is a coward, he is leading Israel to destruction”).

    • Annie Robbins
      January 17, 2013, 3:45 pm

      Russia and China also want Iran to stop stockpiling 20 percent uranium.

      yeah but both of them also support offering sanctions relief. neither of them are making this a demand without offering something in return.

      I think Obama has made clear Iran will need to suspend enriching uranium to 20 percent, and that this issue is not something Netanyahu is obliged to raise.

      what do you mean ‘made it clear’? or else what? and what do you mean netanyahu is not ‘obliged to raise’. he’s not obliged to raise anything if he’s got congress in his pocket. they can do that for him.

  6. James Canning
    January 17, 2013, 2:23 pm

    Should noe observe here that part of Iran’s problem is of Iran’s own making? After the US so foolishly forced Iran to enrich uranium to 20 percent (by blocking Iran’s IAEA application to buy replacement nuclear fuel for the Tehran research reactor), Iran would have been wise to enrich only so much 20% U as was needed to fuel the TRR for perhaps ten years.

    • Annie Robbins
      January 17, 2013, 3:38 pm

      hmm, i am not so sure iran views it’s situation as such. i think there is an awareness of the hypocritical nature of the way israel’s nukes are regarded wrt irans nuclear program, which is not btw a weapons program. i think the US has some explaining to do:

      link to mondoweiss.net

      obama made nuclear nonproliferation a priority and the US was one of the main sponsors of a conference, ‘high-profile talks’ . the later backed out when iran announced their participation. my recollection is that obama didn’t want the tough sanctions and in fact would have vetoed the bill had not congress, with the backing of the lobby of course, voted 100-0 for the sanctions.

      i’m not seeing any morally compelling reason why iran should be required to suspend enriching uranium beyond what’s required in the non proliferation treaty and the US offered no suspension of sanctions, virtually nothing actually, at the p5+1 conferences. there was no barter, just a demand iran back down.

      • American
        January 17, 2013, 4:07 pm

        Contrast the US position on nuclear (assisted by the US) India for instance with the attitude toward Iran. And AIPAC was the father of the India Lobby in helping them get US assistance (which is an interesting story in itself) cause Israel thought they could make an ally out of them and keep them on their side. (which may not last forever).
        This is the hypocrisy that enrages other states….we nuke up everyone, don’t make them even conform to the nuclear inspections and agreements…and then threaten to attack other countries for even thinking about nukes.
        Such total bullshit….no one will convince me that the Iran hysterics are not 99.99% Israeli doing.
        I don’t have time right now to show all the steps from when the US first started helping India go nuclear to where India is right now with their nukes but this will give you an idea what’s gone down.

        US-India nuclear deal: Too early to tell?
        by Fiona Cunningham – 2 August 2010 11:54AM

        Last week The Guardian reported that the UK Government has changed its policy on nuclear commerce with India, and will now supply civil nuclear technology and expertise to India.

        Since the US agreed to do the same in 2005 (obtaining a waiver from Nuclear Suppliers’ Group guidelines prohibiting nuclear transfers to countries which are not members of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty), the world’s nuclear supplier nations have been all to keen to sell their wares. The UK is the latest among civil nuclear suppliers to pave the way to nuclear business with Delhi – following the US, Russia, France, Canada, South Korea and, in the past month, Japan. Australia remains firmly off this list after Kevin Rudd cancelled the Howard Government’s plans to sell uranium to India.

        Nuclear cooperation deals are interesting creatures, motivated as much by politics as economics, and this is certainly the case with India. The Bush Administration argued that the US-India deal would help to bring India into the nonproliferation regime, implicitly questioning the central role played by the NPT in determining who was inside the tent and who was out.

        Critics argued that the US should have extracted more concessions from India. If India was going to get the same access to technology as NPT members, it should have to make the same commitments as a Nuclear Weapon State under the NPT – why should other states stay in the treaty regime if a non-member gets the benefits without the responsibilities?

        A bit like Zhou Enlai’s famous quip that it was too early to tell the impact of the French Revolution two centuries after it occurred, it is still to early to tell the consequences of the US-India nuclear deal for the non-proliferation regime.

        India’s precedent has certainly contributed to the failure of the NSG to agree upon guidelines for the sale of sensitive nuclear technology. It has altered non-Nuclear Weapon States’ hopes for the extent of nuclear cooperation and the prospect of assistance in developing enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. It has emboldened China to pursue plans to build two more power reactors in Pakistan, in violation of NSG guidelines (Pakistan is not an NPT member, nor does it have a waiver like India). It has probably annoyed some countries whose major motivation for signing the NPT was access to peaceful nuclear assistance. So far there is no confirmation that the deal has assisted India’s military nuclear program, but equally, India is no better a non-proliferation citizen for it either.

        The economic consequences are similarly murky. As Dr Charles Ferguson, President of the Federation of American Scientists, noted when he spoke at the Lowy Institute recently, the greatest US winner from the deal has been Boeing, not the nuclear industry, as the deal cleared the way for defence cooperation more broadly. Nuclear commerce still has to jump through a number of painstaking legal hoops.

        This is largely because India and the US have had to agree on terms permitting India to reprocess spent nuclear fuel imported from the US, and because India’s parliament is yet to pass legislative protection for US companies’ civil liability, should an accident occur. So the economic benefit to the US is dependent on the Indian parliament, while French and Russian companies, underwritten by their own governments, can proceed unhindered with their nuclear business in India.

        The jury is certainly still out as to the consequences for the non-proliferation regime of India’s new status. It clearly has not (yet) ‘destroyed’ the non-proliferation regime, as some feared. It has, however, reduced the NPT’s centrality to the regime, which could destroy it, or prompt a more creative, layered regime capable of including NPT outsiders. Or, most likely, the international community will just bumble through.

        The Nuclear Reactions column is supported by the Nuclear Security Project of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, as part of a wider partnership between the NSP and the Lowy Institute.

        2010

        link to fas.org

        According to a Jan. 2001 Department of Defense report, “India probably has a small stockpile of nuclear weapon components and could assemble and deploy a few nuclear weapons within a few days to a week.” A 2001 RAND study by Ashley Tellis asserts that India does not have or seek to deploy a ready nuclear arsenal.

        According to a report in Jane’s Intelligence Review (4), India’s objective is to have a nuclear arsenal that is “strategically active but operationally dormant”, which would allow India to maintain its retaliatory capability “within a matter of hours to weeks, while simultaneously exhibiting restraint.” However, the report also maintains that, in the future, India may face increasing institutional pressure to shift its nuclear arsenal to a fully deployed status.

        Doctrine
        India has a declared nuclear no-first-use policy and is in the process of developing a nuclear doctrine based on “credible minimum deterrence.” In August 1999, the Indian government released a draft of the doctrine which asserts that nuclear weapons are solely for deterrence and that India will pursue a policy of “retaliation only.” The document also maintains that India “will not be the first to initiate a nuclear first strike, but will respond with punitive retaliation should deterrence fail” and that decisions to authorize the use of nuclear weapons would be made by the Prime Minister or his ‘designated successor(s).’”

        According to the NRDC, despite the escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan in 2001-2002, India remains committed to its nuclear no-first-use policy. But an Indian foreign ministry official told Defense News in 2000 that a “‘no-first-strike’ policy does not mean India will not have a first-strike capability.”

        India has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) or the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). India is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and four of its 13 nuclear reactors are subject to IAEA safeguards.

      • Bumblebye
        January 17, 2013, 5:52 pm

        Annie, this might interest you:
        link to craigmurray.org.uk
        An award for Iran intelligence that refused to be “fixed around the policy”.

      • gingershot
        January 19, 2013, 11:07 pm

        Given a award for the 2007 NIE on Iran which stopped the Cheney/Bush plans to attack Iran before the end of their 2nd term. Bush admitted it in his memoirs. Pretty amazing…

        ====
        In that role, Dr. Fingar oversaw preparation of the landmark 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran, in which all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded with “high confidence” that Iran had halted its nuclear weapon design and weaponization work in 2003. The Estimate’s key judgments were declassified and made public, and have been revalidated every year since.

    • Shingo
      January 17, 2013, 9:28 pm

      Should noe observe here that part of Iran’s problem is of Iran’s own making?

      No, because the US had already imposed sanctions before Iran even begin enriching to 20%. The Obama administration has stated that they want Iran to stop ALL enrichment, so even 3.5% would have been unacceptable.

  7. James Canning
    January 17, 2013, 2:34 pm

    Annie – - Blunders get made by both “sides”.
    Shouldn’t one ask why the US so stupidly blocked Iran’s appelication to buy replacment nuclear fuel?

    • Annie Robbins
      January 17, 2013, 3:39 pm

      james, do you have a link? what year are you referencing?

    • Shingo
      January 17, 2013, 9:32 pm

      You are right James,

      The US did so believuibg that Iran didn’t have the ability to enrich higher. The WH press secretary made a quip during a press conference at the time that Iran couldn’t do it.

      [on a side not, this also adds to the lie that Iran were on their way to making nukes when all along, the US didn't even believe Iran could enrich high enough]

      Anyway, the US thought they had Iran over a barrel, so Iran enriched to 20%.

  8. Avi_G.
    January 17, 2013, 3:40 pm

    What could change all of that is if President Obama indicates a willingness to take on Iran militarily in return for Israeli concessions to the Palestinians.

    Dream on. Dream on.

    Israeli precedents shows that Israel will ‘promise’ to sit with the Palestinian negotiations team AFTER the US attacks Iran.

    And then Israel will go ahead and do everything within its power to sabotage said talks.

    But in a perfect world, and when I write “perfect” I mean in a world where countries respect their promises, what you propose is possible.

    Who knows, perhaps the integrity-rich British will finally honor their Mandate-era promises to the Palestinians.

    Anything is possible if one is willing to suspend one’s disbelief.

  9. American
    January 17, 2013, 3:41 pm

    ”What could change all of that is if President Obama indicates a willingness to take on Iran militarily in return for Israeli concessions to the Palestinians.”

    Well that backmail is typical……..but I don’t think it’s gonna fly.
    O isn’t going to attack Iran ‘for the Palestines’ for one thing.
    And I think O is totally over Israel and knows they would live up to any concessions anyway…they never have lived up to their word on anything in the past.

  10. Hostage
    January 17, 2013, 8:11 pm

    The road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad Tehran

    President Obama should follow the example set by President G.H.W. Bush under similar circumstances and suggest that Netanyahu and the Zionist regime be overthrown.

    Has everyone in Jerusalem forgotten what happened when Sadaam Hussein tried to condition Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait to “an immediate and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab lands in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon”?

    Then why should the US government allow the Zionists to condition the immediate and unconditional withdrawal from the occupied Arabs territories inline with a host of General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, and our own Mitchell-Rudmann Report, to be tied to irrelevant demands about Tehran? Lets deal with first things first and run the Zionists out of Palestine.

  11. atime forpeace
    January 17, 2013, 8:36 pm

    I can not wait for this sh_t to reach it’s natural progression, it may not be pretty for some, but noone will deserve it more than these zionist rascals. There will probably be collateral damage from these zios shenanigans but there is no hope that the U.S Government will ever nip this in the bud they do not have the spine, therefore it will progress to it’s natural end.

  12. Stogumber
    January 18, 2013, 5:18 am

    But that’s quite an interesting development.
    You see, neoconservative rhetoric is basically anti-appeasement. We were told that “the West” mustn’t appease Saddam or Ahmadinejad, the same way the West had initially appeased Hitler (in order not to make things worse).
    And this new rhetoric implies that the West needs to appease Netanyahu (in order not to make things worse).
    And “appeasement” is not really popular, not even with the American Right.

Leave a Reply