Why Obama Just Might Fight Iran

Finally dann doch some „Hope and Change“? Walter Russell Mead jedenfalls argumentiert, dass eben jene Überzeugungen Obamas, die einem Präventivschlag eigentlich im Wege stünden, letztlich doch zu einem Schlag gegen das iranische Atomwaffenprogramm führen könnten:

In my view, Iran and this president are headed toward a confrontation in which President Obama will either have to give up all hope on the issues he cares most about, or risk the use of force to stop Iran.

Michael J. Totten nimmt diesen Gedanken auf:

The president [Obama, Mr. Mo] is not likely to go to war with Iran for Israel’s sake. He’s even less likely to go to war with Iran on behalf of the Middle East’s Sunni Arabs. He’s not even all that likely to go to war with Iran to protect American interests in the Levant and the Persian Gulf. He just might, though, as Mead says, go to war to protect what he values most and hopes to accomplish as president.

Obama is often described as a cold-blooded “realist,” but in some ways he’s a Wilsonian. He’s a different kind of Wilsonian from President George W. Bush, but he is one nonetheless. “In many ways a classic example of the Wilsonian school of American foreign policy,” Mead writes, “President Obama believes that American security can best be safeguarded by the construction of a liberal and orderly world,” like a loose and less centralized European Union on a planet-wide scale. And yet, as Mead points out, “Iran’s success means the complete, utter and historic destruction of everything President Obama wants to build.”

He’s right. If Iran emerges as a nuclear-armed terrorist-sponsoring hegemon over the world’s primary energy fields, Obama’s neo-Wilsonian project — which is already a long-shot, at best, as it is — will stand no chance at all for the duration of his tenure and most likely beyond. His domestic American agenda will go sideways, as well, if he loses a re-election bid in 2012 for sending the Middle East and the stability of the world’s energy economy into a tailspin.

Tottens abschließende Einschätzung:

American presidents, like all leaders everywhere, are forced to choose between bad and worse options. And it’s not always clear which option is which. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s likely Obama will use the military power at his disposal to prevent Iran from going nuclear, but it’s not unthinkable that he’ll surprise everyone — for good or for ill — if he feels those who destroyed Carter are on the verge of scalping him, too.

Krauthammer & Kristol discusses the effectiveness of recent UNSC Iran sanctions, and the Administration’s perspective on them

Via Foreign Policy Initiative.

Besuch in Künstlerwerkstatt

Zwei Artisten der Maschinenbautechnik  bekommen wohlwollend gestimmten Besuch:

„Es macht Ihnen doch nichts aus, wenn wir weiterarbeiten, während wir uns unterhalten?“

Quelle: Summers

White House seeks to soften Iran sanctions

Cleverer Schachzug, schließlich sollte man nicht gleich zu Beginn der Verhandlungen sein ganzes Pulver verschießen:

The Obama administration is pressing Congress to provide an exemption from Iran sanctions to companies based in „cooperating countries,“ a move that likely would exempt Chinese and Russian concerns from penalties meant to discourage investment in Iran.

The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act is in a House-Senate conference committee and is expected to reach President Obama’s desk by Memorial Day. [Weiterlesen…]

Wer merkt es zuerst?

Angesichts der öffentlichen Verkündigung einer ranghohen Vertreterin der Vereinigten Staaten, dass selbige die iranische Bombe nicht mittels militärischer Gewalt, ja nicht einmal mittels unilateralen oder von einer „Koalition der Willigen“ getragenen Sanktionen zu verhindern gedenken, bleibt zu fragen: wann werden deutsche Medien darauf aufmerksam machen, dass es sich beim Gerede von der „unakzeptablen“ iranischen Bombe der Obama-Regierung um eine Lüge handelt, die nun auch von Vertretern dieser Regierung offen eingestanden wird. Und wird vielleicht auch jemand darauf hinweisen, dass der Freifahrtschein, der der „Islamischen Republik“ damit de facto ausgestellt wird,  nicht nur selbst, sondern gerade dann von einer unfassbaren Dummheit zeugt, wenn man der militärischen Option ablehnend gegenübersteht?

US gives up military option, non-UN sanctions against Iran

Hopenchange:

US deputy defense secretary Michele Flournoy said Wednesday, April 21: „The US has ruled out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program any time soon.“ This is the first time a senior administration official has publicly admitted that America has dropped its military option against Iran. Instead, said Flournoy, the US is hoping that „negotiations and United Nations sanctions will prevent the Middle East nation from developing nuclear weapons.“ Weiterlesen…

When Armageddon lives next door

Der israelische Historiker Benny Morris über die iranische Bombe, Israel und Barack Obama:

I take it personally: Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wants to murder me, my family and my people. Day in, day out, he announces the imminent demise of the „Zionist regime,“ by which he means Israel. And day in, day out, his scientists and technicians are advancing toward the atomic weaponry that will enable him to bring this about.

The Jews of Europe (and Poles, Russians, Czechs, the French, etc.) should likewise have taken personally Adolf Hitler’s threats and his serial defiance of the international community from 1933 to 1939. But he was allowed, by the major powers and the League of Nations, to flex his muscles, rearm, remilitarize the Rhineland and then gobble up neighboring countries. Had he been stopped before the invasion of Poland and the start of World War II, the lives of many millions, Jews and Gentiles, would have been saved. But he wasn’t.

And it doesn’t look like Ahmadinejad will be either. [Weiterlesen…]

Mal wieder ein Brief

Ahmadinedschad hat offenbar einen Brief an US-Präsident Obama verfasst:

Ahmadinejad mentioned the letter in an interview on Iranian television Tuesday, as reported by the Iranian IRNA news agency.

“I have written a letter to Obama which will be published soon,” Ahmadinejad said.

“Obama has only one way to remain in power and be successful,“ he said. „This way is Iran. Obama should start cooperation with Iran in practice.”

Was heißt hier eigentlich „should start“? Ansonsten gibt sich Ahmadinedschad versöhnungsbereit:

Iran doesn’t need the U.S. „to do anything for us to come out of isolation,“ he said, „Rather we want to help you come out of isolation.”

Trägt Obamas Politik Früchte? Es sieht so aus, lesen sich Ahmadinedschads weitere Worte doch, als seien sie aus einer von Obamas zahllosen Reden abgeschrieben:

The „nuclear issue is actually an excuse,“ he continued. The „U.S. has two options. Either to continue this wrong policy, or to cooperate with Iran. Cooperation is of course better for both of us.”

Obama Pours Fuel On The Fire

Michael Rubin über Obamas Iran-Politik, die besorgniserregend zu nennen ein Euphemismus wäre:

Containment and deterrence are both easier said than done. To treat containment or deterrence simply as a rhetorical alternative to military action without making the preparations to conduct military strikes is not only irresponsible, but can also encourage Iranian aggression.

Any containment against a nuclear Iran would require more than a single battle group or air base. The United States and its allies would have to ring Iran with bases and pre-positioned military equipment. The cost involved would be tens of billions of dollars. While Obama and his surrogates are willing to talk about containment, the president appears unwilling to acknowledge the necessity to back up engagement with force. And yet, the history of containment shows that adversaries always test resolve. Should the Islamic Republic acquire nuclear weapons, it may feel itself immune from the consequences of the actions of its conventional, irregular, or proxy forces. Should Obama ignore violations of U.S. redlines, it would embolden Iranian aggression. Under such circumstances, military action would become not a possibility, but a probability. [Weiterlesen…]

Obama und „Atomwaffen in den Händen von Terroristen“

Während sich angesichts der Tatsache, dass die Obama-Regierung einen nuklear bewaffneten Iran nicht verhindern wird, Resignation breit macht, verkündet Obama Folgendes:

US-Präsident Barack Obama hat am Vorabend des Washingtoner Gipfeltreffens zur nuklearen Sicherheit eindringlich die Gefahr beschrieben, die droht, wenn Atomwaffen in die Hände von Terroristen fallen. Falls al-Qaida-Terroristen in deren Besitz kämen, würden sie „keine Hemmungen haben, sie auch zu benutzen“, sagte Obama am Sonntag. „Die größte Einzelbedrohung für die Sicherheit der USA, sowohl kurzfristig als auch mittel- und langfristig, geht von der Möglichkeit aus, dass Terrororganisationen Atomwaffen erlangen“, sagte er. „Wenn es jemals eine Detonation in New York, London oder Johannesburg geben sollte, wären die Konsequenzen für Wirtschaft, Politik und Sicherheit verheerend.“

Einmal ganz davon abgesehen, dass ein nuklear bewaffneter Iran die Möglichkeit, dass Terroristen Atomwaffe „in die Hände fallen“ nicht nur zusätzlich erhöht, sondern bereits selbst wahr werden lässt: es wäre interessant gewesen, was Obama über jene Detonation in Tel Aviv denkt, auf die seine Außenpolitik hinausläuft.

Crossposted auf Zeitung für Schland.

Iran to complain to UN over Obama nuclear ‚threat‘

Manche Dinge sind so verrückt, dass man sie gar nicht ausdenken könnte:

Iran will lodge a complaint with the United Nations about what it sees as US President Barack Obama’s threat to attack it with nuclear weapons, the Foreign Ministry said on Sunday.

Obama made clear last week that Iran and North Korea were excluded from new limits on the use of US atomic weapons – something Tehran interpreted as a threat from a long-standing adversary to attack it with nuclear bombs.

„The recent statement by the US president… implicitly intimidates the Iranian nation with the deployment of nuclear arms,“ Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a televised meeting with military and security officials.

„This statement is very strange and the world should not ignore it since in the 21st century, which is the era of support for human rights and campaigning against terrorism, the head of a country is threatening to use nuclear war.“ [Weiterlesen…]

Friede den Mullahs, Krieg den Juden

Seiner Vision einer atomwaffenfreien Welt, die der Europäer im Weißen Haus vor gut einem Jahr in Prag verkündete, folgt die Umsetzung: Die iranische Atombombe wird von Obamas Regierung beinahe aktiv gefördert, während Israel Testfeld jener Vision werden soll:

US Refuses Visas to all Israeli Nuclear Scientists

In a new and ridiculous policy, the US is denying Israeli scientists who work at the Dimona reactor site an opportunity to refresh their knowedge. Weiterlesen…

Update:

„Obama und Medwedew machen Druck“

SPIEGEL-Leser wissen mehr als es zu wissen gibt:

Für Iran wird im Streit um sein Atomprogramm die Luft immer dünner: Russland und die USA demonstrieren gemeinsam eine harte Haltung und der Uno-Sicherheitsrat diskutiert intensiv über Strafmaßnahmen. Teheran zeigte sich dennoch hart. Der iranische Armeechef drohte den USA. [Weiterlesen…]

Traurig aber wahr: das ist ernst gemeint und nennt sich wahrhaftig „Journalismus“.

Schwache Demokratie, starke Diktatur

Alle spielen immer nur ihre Rolle; Obama macht den besseren servilen Europäer, und weiß vermutlich gar nicht mehr, was er noch machen soll, um die menschenverachtenden Regime dieser Welt davon zu überzeugen, daß er es wirklich freundlich und voll kooperativ meint. Das Iranische Regime spielt auch weiter: vermutlich bekommen seine Protagonisten umgehend psychosomatische Beschwerden, wenn an die ersehnte Vernichtung von Israel nicht alle 24 Stunden öffentlich erinnert wird.  Darüber hinaus quittieren sie jedes naiv aufmunternde Nicken, das man Ihnen aus dem Westen schenkt, mit einem reflexhaften Ausspucken ins Gesicht des Gegenübers. Aber wieso sollten sie Obama auch ernst nehmen?

Ahmedinejad: „Who thought the US was beatable? Over thirty years ago, everyone said the US army was invincible,“ he went on to say. The Iranian chief executive further reiterated that nobody thought that Israel would be conquerable. „But, the equations have changed these days. The Zionist regime of Israel was defeated by a small group in south Lebanon and Gaza,“ he added. via Press TV

Der Innenminister: Iranian Interior Minister Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar insists blames the United States and the Israeli regime for heightening the level of terrorist activities in the world. „Iran has taken off the ugly masks of the United States and Israel since the 1979 Islamic revolution,“ he further explained. „We are very proud of this,“ the Iranian minister concluded. via Press TV

Der Verteidigungsminister: Iran’s Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi has lashed out at the United States for its dual-based nuclear policies. „The US is working on a new generation of nuclear bombs. It also defends Israel that has tens of nuclear warheads but it opposes Iran’s peaceful use of nuclear energy. This shows a double-standard in their nuclear policies,“ ISNA quoted Vahidi as saying on Wednesday. The Iranian minister also rejected the possibility of a military strike against Iran’s nuclear sites by Israel or the United States. „The Zionist regime of Israel is too weak to attack Iran,“ he added. „No trace of Israel will remain if the Zionist regime declares a war on Iran,“ he warned. via Press TV

Obama Accepts a Nuclear Iran

Angesichts der Iran-„Politik“ der Obama-Regierung gelangt Greg Sheridan für The Australian ebenso wie das Wall Street Journal zu diesem Resultat. Auch wenn Wahlversprechen dazu prädestiniert sind, gebrochen zu werden – es dürfte schwierig sein, ein gebrochenes Wahlversprechen eines amerikanischen Präsidenten zu finden, das weitreichendere und fatalere Folgen haben dürfte.

Former Def. Minister: Israel Will Attack Iran by Nov.

Auch wenn solche Meldungen von Natur aus höchst spekulativ sind und in ähnlicher Form seit längerer Zeit zu vernehmen sind – momentan arbeitet die Obama-Regierung zweifelsfrei mit Hochdruck daran, Israel zu eben jenem Verteidigungsschlag zu zwingen:

Israel will be compelled to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities by this November unless the U.S. and its allies enact “crippling sanctions that will undermine the regime in Tehran,” former deputy defense minister Brig. Gen. Ephraim Sneh said on Wednesday in Tel Aviv.

The sanctions currently being discussed with Russia, China, and other major powers at the United Nations are likely to be a slightly-enhanced version of the U.N. sanctions already in place, which have had no impact on the Iranian regime.

And despite unanimous passage of the Iran Petroleum Sanctions Act in January, the Obama administration continues to resist efforts by Congress to impose mandatory sanctions on companies selling refined petroleum products to Iran. [Weiterlesen…]

To only say Iranian nukes are unacceptable is to accept them

Bill Kristol in der Washington Post:

In March 1936, Hitler occupied the Rhineland. The French prime minister, Leon Blum, denounced the act as „unacceptable.“ But France, Britain and the rest of the world accepted it. Years later, the French political thinker Raymond Aron commented, „To say that something is unacceptable was to say that one accepted it.“

In March 2010, as Iran moved ahead with its nuclear weapons program, the American secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, speaking at the policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last week, said no fewer than four times in one paragraph that a nuclear-armed Iran would be „unacceptable.“ It would be unacceptable simply, „unacceptable to the United States,“ „unacceptable to Israel“ and „unacceptable to the region and the international community.“ [Weiterlesen…]

‚Obama resigned to nuclear Iran‘

John Boltons Einschätzung:

“I very much worry the Obama administration is willing to accept a nuclear Iran, that’s why there’s this extraordinary pressure on Israel not to attack in Iran,” Bolton told Army Radio.

The former envoy claimed that this pressure was the focus of last week’s meetings in Washington between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyhau and US officials, including President Barack Obama.

Bolton said that the Obama administration had embraced the view, prevalent in Europe, that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the key to the resolution of all other conflicts throughout the Middle East, including the Iranian conflict.

He added that the rift in US-Israel relations stemmed from a fundamental difference in the understanding of the Middle East and Israel’s role in the Middle East, and is not really about east Jerusalem at all.

Bolton said that the treatment Netanyahu received during his visit „should tell the people of Israel how difficult it’s going to be dealing with Washington for the next couple of years.“

Appeasing the Mullahs (Folge …)

Stephen F. Hayes im Weekly Standard:

After 15 months of pleading with the mullahs and entreating our allies for help, Barack Obama’s Iran policy is such a dismal failure that administration flacks are left to tout as a breakthrough Chinese participation in a phone call to discuss watered-down U.N. sanctions that few believe will work.

And Iran’s enrichment proceeds apace. […]

In private, the Obama administration has repeatedly warned Israel against a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Isolating Israel in this way sends the same message publicly; it says, in effect, “You think we overreacted to a housing spat in Jerusalem? Try bombing Iran.”Obama officials are loath to talk about Israel, Iran, and the bomb in public. They offer platitudes, and they focus obsessively on diplomacy that virtually no one thinks will prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Ultimately, of course, it doesn’t matter whether China participates in a conference call about weak U.N. sanctions that will have a negligible effect on Iran’s behavior. And containment, the de facto policy on Iran today, will become the acknowledged Obama administration approach to Iran.

Which means, of course, that Iran will have the bomb.

Dilemma des Appeasements

Zum letztjähirgen persischen Neujahrfests (Nouruz) vor knapp einem Jahr ist US-Präsident Obama bekanntermaßen öffentlich vor der „Islamischen Republik“ auf die Knie gegangen – und steht angesichts des vollständigen Scheiterns seiner Iran-Politik nun vor einem selbstverschuldeten Dilemma. Wie wäre es damit, Teheran einen erneuten „Neuanfang“ vorzuschlagen?

Prepare for war with Iran — in case Israel strikes

Auch wenn Anne Applebaums Einschätzung Obamas in der Washington Post ein wenig zu wohlwollend erscheint, weist sie doch zu recht darauf hin, dass die Politik der Obama-Regierung unvermeidlich auf jenen Krieg hinausläuft, den sie doch unter allen Umständen vermeiden will:

[E]ven if Obama does not bomb Iran, that doesn’t mean that no one else will. At the moment, when Washington is consumed by health care and the implications of Massachusetts, it may seem as if Obama’s most important legacy, positive or negative, will be domestic. In the future, we might not consider any of this important at all. The defining moment of his presidency may well come at 2 a.m. some day when he picks up the phone and is told that the Israeli prime minister is on the line: Israel has just carried out a raid on Iranian nuclear sites. What then?

Almost Literally Irresponsible

US-General David Petraeus hat seiner Zeit mit Recht darauf verwiesen, dass es „almost literally irresponsible“ wäre, wenn die USA über die Möglichkeit eines Militärschlages gegen das iranische Atomprogramm nicht  zumindest nachdächten. Angesichts dieser in Widerspruch zur Appeasement-Politik der Obama-Regierung stehenden Worte vermag es nicht zu überraschen, dass Obamas Außenministerin Hillary Clinton der „Islamischen Republik“ in einem Interview mit Al Jazeera nun ein für alle mal einen Freifahrtsschein ausgestellt hat:

MEMRI-Kurzmeldungen

Bei 99% wird Obama bestimmt ganz böse
Ahmadinejad: We Have the Ability to Enrich Uranium to over 80%

Und bei 100% sagt er nichts mehr
Iranian Atomic Energy Chief: Our IAEA Membership Permits Us To Enrich Uranium To 100%

Weh’ dem, der solche Freunde hat (Rafsanjani u. Larijani)
Islamic Jihad Leader: Iran Is Palestinians‘ Only Bulwark

Diktatoren fühlen sich immer eingekreist…
Rafsanjani: NATO Forces On Iran’s Border Endanger Iran

Richtig getroffen!

Cartoon In Saudi Daily: Iran Enriches Uranium Faster Than Obama Can Formulate Sanctions

Source (via MEMRI): ‚Okaz, Saudi Arabia, 11. Februar 2010

Obama, der Iran und Israel

Jonathan Tobin berichet für contentions über die „Strategie“ der Obama-Regierung im Umgang mit dem iranischen Atomwaffenprogramm, die einer Duldung der iranischen Bombe gleichkommt:

Barack Obama’s friends at the New York Times give us an insight into the president’s strategy for rallying the world behind his Iran policy. In an op-ed by David Sanger that is given the always misleading label of “news analysis” and published in the paper’s news section, we learn that Obama has a three-pronged approach to Iran: first, win international support for tough sanctions; second, win over the Chinese; and third, stop Israel from attacking Iran.

But despite the Times’s puffery, this is nothing but a three-way path to total failure. Failure, that is, if the goal is to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear device, as seems certain unless something drastic happens. [Weiterlesen…]

Jennifer Rubin stellt zudem, ebenfalls für die contentions, heraus, dass die Obama-Regierung eher daran interessiert ist, Israel von der Selbstverteidigung abzuhalten, als die iranische Bombe zu verhindern:

“This is about driving them back to negotiations,” said one senior official, “because the real goal here is to avoid war.” (emphasis added)

You see the goal is not to prevent Iran from going nuclear but rather to avoid war. So the Obami’s main obsession is now to deter Israel (which cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran) from acting. (”Top officials — from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, to the national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones — have visited Israel to argue that they should give sanctions time.”) But of course, we know that the chances of sanctions working are virtually nonexistent. So we are merely giving the mullahs, not sanctions, just more time.

Es verdichten sich demnach die Anzeichen darauf, dass die Obama-Regierung die iranische Bombe nicht nur nicht mit allen Mitteln – also gegebenenfalls der Anwendung militärischer Gewalt – verhindern wird, sondern ganz im Gegenteil auch noch jenes Land, das als einziges gewillt ist, den Wahnsinn zu stoppen, daran hindern wird.