Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal reported that President Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and other top US officials delivered a string of messages to Israeli leaders warning them of “dire consequences” if Israel undertakes a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program.
In terms of covert action to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the Stuxnet computer worm and the assassination of several Iranian nuclear scientists have been whispered about in recent months. It is tempting to hope the Obama administration is either helping behind the scenes or respecting Israel’s right to address its own urgent security needs. But given the Obama administration’s foot-dragging on even passing economic sanctions, and the administration’s warning of Israel not to attempt a strike in self-defense, I am dubious that the administration under Obama is helping Israel in any way.
It is possible that more is going on than we realize. But by all appearances, this administration is doing worse than zero to help an ally facing a potentially existential threat: it is warning that ally to not dare attempt a preventive strike.
I believe that Israeli leaders would only contemplate a military operation against Iran if they felt it were the only option to ensure Israel’s survival (a last resort). To me, then, for this administration to be warning them about “dire consequences” (as the WSJ reported) if they strike, is tantamount to threatening with “dire consequences” a friend who is under siege and doing his best to deal with the situation nonviolently, but who may be forced to act in self-defense.
I think as a matter of conscience, it is vital that voters realize Israel is in a precarious position, and re-electing this president in 2012 would be, at best, an unknown and therefore an extreme risk to the security of Israel and of the world as a whole (and that is giving every benefit of the doubt), at worst, an irresponsibly blind and security-undermining move at a time when Israel stands alone.
Please see Wall Street Journal article: