Last week we ran David Bromwich‘s argument that Obama had so painted himself into the corner on his Iran rhetoric that he may have to go to war:
Has Obama then put off a war in the fall by committing us to war in the spring?… We are at a moment when a president with an ounce of invention could move the consensus in this country, and legitimate a stance of containment rather than imminent war.
Well here are two Israel lobbyists affirming Bromwich’s point. Martin Indyk says that we’ll have to go to war next year. “Speaking during a panel discussion Sunday on the CBS program Face the Nation, Indyk said: ‘I’m afraid that 2013 is going to be a year in which we’re going to have a military confrontation with Iran.'”
Indyk expressed confidence that whichever president is elected will attack Iran in 2013, saying that even though “Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon” such a war could at best be put off another six months.
Indyk also sought to downplay the recent split between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying the difference “isn’t that great” and that when push comes to shove Obama will follow through on his “commitment” with the war.
This reflects yesterday’s claim by Ambassador Susan Rice that there is “no daylight” between Obama and Netanyahu
And Jeffrey Goldberg, who likes to say that he’s never come out for war on Iran (no, he keeps tiptoeing up to the line then dancing back with a smirk on his face; two years back he wrote very hopefully that Israel was going to attack Iran by spring 2011), echoes Indyk at his blog. He’s telling Bromwich and the rest of us, Obama is not allowed to contain Iran.
Obama understands that his presidency will be judged a failure if Iran goes nuclear. He has gone on record many times promising the American people, and the world, that Iran will not get a bomb. If Iran succeeds, he will have failed, catastrophically. His legacy will be shattered, his credibility will be destroyed, and he will bequeath to his party a reputation for weakness and fecklessness that will not be shed for a generation. For these reasons alone, Obama knows he cannot let Iran go nuclear.
This is absurd. Politicians change their minds all the time. Obama could decide on containment. As Bill Keller has decided on containment.
After immersing myself in the expert thinking on both sides, I think that, forced to choose, I would swallow hard and take the risks of a nuclear Iran over the gamble of a pre-emptive war. My view may be colored by a bit of post-Iraq syndrome.
“This is absurd.”
I agree. I think that very few Americans would be disappointed if the US didn’t attack Iran. Israel-only-ers like Goldberg, maybe.
he keeps tiptoeing up to the line then dancing back with a smirk on his face
ha! perfect description of goldberg on iran.
LOL!!!! does indyk think people believe this crap?
Oh noes, the Israel Firsters are going after Obama.
Now that they can’t threaten him with re-election sabotage, they will try to threaten his ego.
Granted, even I submit that Obama’s ego is on pretty massive levels. But that’s precisely why he won’t succumb to them; he isn’t so insecure as to seek validation among people who he so clearly know have an agenda.
Obama’s place in the history books will be dependent upon his policies for America, as he knows. It won’t be dependent upon what wars he launched on behalf for Israel, as Goldberg seems to suggest(I wonder if he believes even that, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he did).
Still, the more important point to draw from these comments is that the lobby is gearing up for more confrontation with Obama after the election.
We won’t get war, but they will want those now-notorious red lines.
Will Obama submit?
The answer is that post-election win, he will have a lot less reasons to. 2nd term presidents always mellow. Clinton and Bush both pushed for a 2SS (even if it was mostly half-heartedly).
Obama already tried that from the beginning and probably won’t try again.
Instead he’ll make sure that America heals completely.
Remember, Obama has had an economy in the toilet for his entire first term. He wants a real legacy and that comes after the recovery by 2014~ish.
He won’t sabotage that by plunging the world into a massive Iranian conflagration and thereby destroying any chance of a decent legacy.
Goldberg probably doens’t get that the health of the American economy is more important for the American people and a pro-American president.
But that’s the price you pay when you see Israel’s interests as far more important than America’s. Even if that includes pushing a war which would crash the American economy just because it’s what Israel wants.
I tend to agree with those who are less optimistic than Philip and others on this site, that the public is waking up about Israel and the plight of the Palestinians.
As if to prove me wrong are two letters to the editor in today’s Newsday, a paper that simply would not have such printed such sharp words in the past.
“If the Israelis want war with Iran, let them fight it. If Israel thinks it can attack with impunity a nation of 80 million people and not suffer serious consequences, then let them learn the hard way.”
“Tel Aviv’s national interest is not necessarily identical to Washington’s. Yet Israel manages to sway U.S. foreign policy in ways inimical to long-term peace and stability in the Middle East. . . . In truth, the existential danger to Israel lies in its obstinate refusal to allow a viable, contiguous and soverign Palestinian state.”
How is it that the “legacy” of all those neocon con-job pundits was not tarnished by their claims over the years which were demonstrably untrue? Is it only presidents whose feet can be held to the fire? Or is it only those who hesitate to accept the Israeli ukase (any Israeli ukase, but this time on Iran) who can be threatened and demeaned?
Are you better off today? Than before Bush#2 and his beautiful little wars? Another decade older and deeper in debt? Did the neoconmen help the USA by giving timely good advice? Have they changed their spots? (Does the leopard change his spots?)