The shameful spectacle of American politicians trying to outdo each
other in demonstrating their love for Israel played out again last
week. The sparring
began before the Olympic Games in London. Israel asked for a moment
of silence at the opening ceremony to commemorate the 11 Israeli
athletes who were murdered in Munich 40 years ago. President Obama
obligingly endorsed the proposal and Romney followed, even though it
was none of their business, but the British organizers turned it
down. They also refused to provide special protection for Israeli
athletes, arguing that the security was adequate for everyone
involved in the games, which it was.
Preparing to leave for London, Mitt Romney then upped the ante
at the Veterans of Foreign War convention in Reno Nevada on July
24, stating
to tepid applause that “President Obama is fond of lecturing
Israel’s leaders. He was even caught by a microphone deriding
them. He has undermined their position, which was tough enough as it
was. And even at the United Nations, to the enthusiastic applause of
Israel’s enemies, he spoke as if our closest ally in the
Middle East was the problem. The people of Israel deserve better
than what they have received from the leader of the free world. And
the chorus of accusations, threats, and insults at the United
Nations should never again include the voice of the president of the
United States.” Mitt also castigated Russia before going on
to his real target, “There is no greater danger in the world
today than the prospect of the ayatollahs in Tehran possessing
nuclear weapons capability.”
Note that Romney was adopting the neocon and Israeli demand
that Iran should not even have the capability to create a
nuclear weapon even though it already is able to do so, as are a
number of other countries. That means that going to war is already on
the table. Mitt then continued “The same ayatollahs who each
year mark a holiday by leading chants of ‘Death to America’
are not going to be talked out of their pursuit of nuclear weapons. …
A clear line must be drawn: There must be a full suspension of any
enrichment, period.”
Arriving in London, Mitt’s disastrous television interview
regarding his feeling “disconcerted” over the security
preparations for the games may have been partially motivated by the
British failure to accede to Israeli demands for enhanced security.
If so or even if he had some other objective, the comment was
sufficiently boneheaded to do nothing but heighten the perception
that Romney is clueless when it comes to foreign policy. He also
forgot the name of the head of the Labor Party, referring to him as
“Mr. Leader” and referred to looking out the “backside”
of the prime minister’s residence. A backside in British
usage is someone’s buttocks, perhaps a fitting metaphor for
Romney’s overall performance.
With Romney safely diverted by trying to explain himself in London,
President Barack Obama then dropped the bunker buster with a public
signing
ceremony for the United States-Israel Enhanced Security
Cooperation Act while simultaneously leaking a story telling how National Security Adviser Tom Donilon had briefed
Benjamin Netanyahu in detail on plans to attack Iran. In the
signing photo op, Obama could be seen surrounded by Richard Stone,
Sen. Barbara Boxer, Rep. Harold Berman, and Howard
Friedman. Friedman is a former president of the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), while Stone is chairman of the
Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations.
The United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, which originated in
Berman’s office, was reportedly drafted in part by AIPAC. The
bill signed by Obama basically provides Israel with a blank check
drawn on the U.S. taxpayer to maintain its “qualitative military
edge” over all of its neighbors combined. It requires the
White House to prepare an annual report on how that superiority is
being maintained. In criticizing the bill, Rep. Ron Paul
observed, “This bill states that it is the policy of the
United States to ‘reaffirm the enduring commitment of the
United States to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish
state.’ However, according to our Constitution, the policy of
the United States government should be to protect the security of
the United States, not to guarantee the religious, ethnic, or
cultural composition of a foreign country.” Paul voted “no”
and was joined by only one other congressman, John Dingell of
Michigan.
The bill commits the American people to veto resolutions critical of
Israel, to provide such military support “as is necessary,”
to pay for the building of an anti-missile system, to provide
advanced “defense” equipment such as refueling
tankers (which are offensive), to give Israel special munitions (i.e.,
bunker busters, which are also offensive), to forward deploy more U.S.
military equipment to Israel for the Israelis to use, to offer the
Israeli air force more training and facilities in the U.S., to
increase security and advanced technology program cooperation, and to
extend loan guarantees and expand intelligence sharing, including
highly sensitive satellite imagery. The objective is to provide
Israel with the resources and political support to attack Iran, if
it chooses to do so, while tying the U.S. and Israel so closely
together that whatever Benjamin Netanyahu does, the U.S. will have “an
unshakable commitment to Israeli security,” as our president
so aptly put it at the ceremony.
The Act also calls for “an expanded role for Israel within
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including an enhanced
presence at NATO headquarters and exercises.” Israel as part
of NATO, clearly the intent of Congress, would mean that the U.S. and
Europeans would be obligated to come to the aid of a nation that has
initiated a series of regional wars and that is currently expanding
its borders while engaged in hostilities with three of its
neighbors.
Romney, who traveled to Israel on the day after the signing, knew
that Obama had scored big, so he had some catching up to do. His
spokesman back in the States complained, “Unfortunately,
this bill does nothing to address yesterday’s evasiveness from
the White House on whether President Obama recognizes Jerusalem as
the capital of Israel, which raised doubt about the president’s
commitment to our closest ally in the region.” Upon arrival
in Tel Aviv, Romney’s key aide
on the Middle East, Dan Senor, a former AIPAC staffer, stated that
his boss would commit his administration to back
Israel if it were to take military action against Iran, again
stressing that Iran should not even have the capability to develop a
weapon. This position is in sharp contrast to the Obama
administration’s attempts to keep Israel from staging a
unilateral attack that might threaten U.S. military and naval units in
the region. Romney is basically saying that Israel’s
interests in the region trump the interests of the United States and
he would provide a green light for an attack on the Iranians. Senor
also shortened the timeline for military action by adopting the new
Israeli red line, noting that something must be done before Iran is
able to harden its nuclear sites against possible air and naval
assault.
After arriving in Israel, Romney made the obligatory photo-op visit to
Jerusalem’s Western Wall, looking both sorrowful and resolute,
before delivering a speech making the same points about perfidious
Iran and adding a “basic truth” that the U.S. and Israel
will always stand together lest our common enemies be “emboldened.”
Romney repeated Senor’s endorsement of an Israeli unilateral
attack on Iran, saying that he as American president would support
it. And then, with an over-the-top flourish, he called
Iran’s “radical theocracy” the “leading state
sponsor of terrorism and the most destabilizing nation in the world.
We have a solid duty and a moral imperative to deny Iran’s leaders
the means to follow through on their malevolent intentions.” It
was not clear if even the Israelis actually believed any of the
wildly exaggerated rhetoric.
So the upshot is that we will likely have a
war in the Middle East only because Mitt Romney wants to become
president and is willing to sell out every U.S. vital interest to
succeed in that goal. Obama has already walked down that road,
leaving little hope for the rest of us to cling to. Ironically,
while all this bowing, scraping, and pandering was taking place,
another news item appeared that was quickly dropped down the memory
hole by the mainstream media. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz
reported an Associated Press story
that the CIA regards Israel as one of the biggest espionage threats
directed against the United States, that “U.S. national security
officials consider Israel to be, at times, a frustrating ally and a
genuine counterintelligence threat” responsible for the “death
of an important spy in Syria for the CIA,” leading to the
conclusion that “U.S. national secrets are safer from other
Middle Eastern governments than from Israel.” Go figure.
Mitt? Barack? Any comments?
No comments:
Post a Comment