Offering Israel something they have
I thought this was interesting.
Notice that this came from "an unnamed American source close to Obama," so it's something they definitely want out there.
Israel has the nukes, so this is all about positioning. Reassuring Israel? Trying to tell Iran there's no wiggle?
I think it's groundwork more than literal, but I'm not sure of the goal. (However, I think it's another sign that the Obama administration is looking to make a hard run at the mideast.)
President-elect Barack Obama plans to offer Israel a strategic pact designed to fend off any nuclear attack on the Jewish state by Iran, an Israeli newspaper reported on Thursday.
Quoting an unnamed American source close to Obama, Haaretz daily said Obama's administration would pledge under the proposed "nuclear umbrella" to respond to any Iranian nuclear strike against Israel with a U.S. retaliation in kind.....
The latitude for unilateral Israeli action might be limited by a U.S. nuclear umbrella. Similar Cold War treaties -- NATO in Europe, the nuclear umbrella over Japan -- defended U.S. allies while obliging them to get Washington's nod for military moves.
Notice that this came from "an unnamed American source close to Obama," so it's something they definitely want out there.
Israel has the nukes, so this is all about positioning. Reassuring Israel? Trying to tell Iran there's no wiggle?
I think it's groundwork more than literal, but I'm not sure of the goal. (However, I think it's another sign that the Obama administration is looking to make a hard run at the mideast.)
posted by mikevotes at
7:41 AM
8 Comments:
I think that suggestion or something like it has been made before. It's hard to imagine what it will take for Israel to ever feel secure.
By
Anonymous, at 8:43 AM
Yeah, but it's an empty gesture, Israel could level Iran with its own nukes.
This is more about diplomacy.
By
mikevotes, at 10:48 AM
I think you're right about Obama making a run at the Mideast. Expect to see a few trial balloons.
By
Anonymous, at 11:52 AM
Again, I thik that's the whole point of appointing Clinton rather than someone with deeper experience in long negotiations.
I think they're going to try to capitalize on the "change" moment and move quickly.
Unfortunately, it looks like it's going to fall right into the Israeli's Feb elections and a more hardline Likud.
By
mikevotes, at 2:04 PM
Might not be a bad thing if Likud get in. It might put some daylight between US and Israeli policies. Wouldn't that be a change.
By
Anonymous, at 2:18 PM
I'm not fully sure how all the moving parts fit together yet. Have to wait and see.
By
mikevotes, at 2:26 PM
I'm not sure either. I do believe change in the Mideast would mean change across the board.
By
Anonymous, at 3:08 PM
The Jews have been in a state of amped insecurity since the reign of King Zedekiah. Moses and Abraham were their "calm" period. I don't know what can dispel or contain that internalized malady.
Still, this is the most skilfull overture imaginable. Four birds, one stone. It gets everything moving, and opens up the possiblity of a nuclear Iran.
By
MarcLord, at 6:05 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home