And you have to add that Obama has received much more financial support than McCain…

In the present situation any Democratic candidate with less credentials, less financial support and worse oratory than Obama wouldn´t have any problem, but the truth is many Americans don´t feel represented by Obama. Yes, a good guy, but…McCain at least sounds more like their next door neighbor and, of course, more like Commander in Chief not just of the US Army but also Commander in Chief of NATO, ANZUS and the Korean and Japanese Alliances.

Posted by: Enrique | July 22nd, 2008 at 6:02 am | Report this comment

There have been many reports of people fainting at rallies for Senator Obama. I have seen this myself on several occasions. For most white Americans, Obama represents the first time they have seen or heard an African man speak to them. Many white Americans are transfixed by Obama because for the first time in their lives they are encountering a leader who speaks the TRUTH and who puts the TRUTH FIRST. That is power and it explains the appeal and power of Obama.

http://truthfirstnow.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth First | July 22nd, 2008 at 6:45 am | Report this comment

McCain’s exceptional bravery as a POW probably makes him one of the most personally meritorious candidates ever to contest the Presidency. But it’s worth remembering that the voters don’t always assume that the candidates with the strongest military record will make the best Commander in Chief.

In fact, in most recent elections, the reverse has been the case. Bush-Kerry (2004), Bush-Gore (2000), Clinton-Dole (1996), Clinton-Bush senior (1992), Reagan-Carter (1980) - all went to the candidate with inferior (or no) military experience.

Also, on a lighter note, McCain is the shorter, balder candidate; on past form, these are big handicaps too.

Posted by: David Wilkins | July 22nd, 2008 at 6:54 am | Report this comment

On the question of deterring a nuclear Iran being the most sensible solution, Gideon’s point is well taken…. from the *geopolitical* point of view of the USA.

However, from the *political-political* American point of view, what matters is whether Israel is willing to live with a nuclear Iran.

The Israelis seem rather immune to the charms of Obama and Gideon’s article would do little to change that. The Israelis are not known for sitting on their hands when displeased.

Posted by: David Seaton | July 22nd, 2008 at 7:07 am | Report this comment

Right David,

McCain is shorter, balder, older, has much less financial support, belong to the Republican Party, his oratory is worse…how could a candidate like him have any, any, chance to win the Elections?

Posted by: Enrique | July 22nd, 2008 at 7:49 am | Report this comment

There have been enough statements from John McCain’s fellow POWs and from those assigned to guard him and there exists sufficient first person evidence to make a sentence like “McCain’s exceptional bravery as a POW…“ too suspect to be taken at face value if not totally discredited.

But I would agree with most people that accuracy has no place in a political campaign, only rains on the parade.

Posted by: Paskalis | July 22nd, 2008 at 8:27 am | Report this comment

It is an established, undisputed fact that McCain endured the most terrible conditions for several years longer than he needed to because of his refusal to be released earlier than other pilots who had been shot down before him. Given his father’s role as a senior admiral (C-in-C of all US forces in the Pacific, in fact) he knew that if he agreed to such an early release it would be exploited for propaganda purposes by the enemy and damage the morale of his fellow prisoners. Read McCain’s book, ‘Faith of my Fathers’ for an insight.

Posted by: David Wilkins | July 22nd, 2008 at 9:03 am | Report this comment

You state there are two options open to Iran once they get the bomb: risk Armageddon, or pass them to terrorists. How about a third consequence - creating a nuclear arms race in the middle east, which a) could start a nuclear war in its own right or b) could mean terrorists getting the bomb anyway. Or the fourth option, whereby Iran effectively controls the whole gulf region - which country will stand up to Iran once it has the bomb?

“Calmer heads around Mr Obama…” are these the same calmer heads that served in previous Democratic administrations? The ones who advised on putting a cruise missile into a chemical factory in Sudan or bombing tents in Afghanistan? Yep, you’re right. They certainly kept things calm. Until Sept 11.

“One of the great lessons …since 1945….is that nuclear deterrence has worked.” And one of the great lessons of the 1930s is that when dictators preach genocide, they mean it. Since 1945 we have not had anyone preaching genocide with their hands on the nuclear trigger. Do you really want to find out what happens when we do?

Posted by: AYC | July 22nd, 2008 at 9:10 am | Report this comment

While, I can think of no greater source for the truth about an individual than his autobiography, McCain’s “exceptional bravery as a POW” cannot be said to be “undisputed”. It is well disputed by sources I’ve mentioned, as well as many others, and by some of John McCain’s own statements.

Posted by: Paskalis | July 22nd, 2008 at 9:48 am | Report this comment

AYC–And Israel–well advanced in its nuclear arms–has not set off a regional arms race? Saudi Arabia and Egypt are arguably further down this road than Iran could hope to be for still a long time.

We need to stop the fear mongering. This issue needs new leadership. Obama–nor any any other man or woman alone–can provide it until Israel renders a new vision of itself in this world.

Just read Jeremy Salt’s book, “The Unmaking of the Middle East”. He looks back at decisions taken three and four decades ago. A worthy read, even discounting for the unabashed bias of a then-young journalists who has witnessed many of the nightmares on-the-ground.

Posted by: wcm | July 22nd, 2008 at 9:55 am | Report this comment

A very good article and I have caught myself, several times, thinking what Mr. Rachman says here (that Obama will act sensibly and in the interests of the US and the world in general).

Then I remembered that the recent American presidents have all been compromised and venal politicians who got surrounded by advisors from The Lobby and ended up advocating rightwing Zionist interests above the American ones.

Obama is already well on that trajectory and I suspect will be another puppet to his advisors and financiers.

For another sad case of a politician ignorant of a topic regurgitating the nosense that his advisors put in his mouth, look at Gordon Brown and his ill-considered speech at the Knesset.
He never knew much about the Middle East (remember how he pronounced “Sunni” as Son-eye?) and has been made a sucker by the same cabal that surrounded, and ultimately destroyed, Blair.

P

Posted by: Pacifist | July 22nd, 2008 at 10:35 am | Report this comment

“One of the great lessons of international relations since 1945 is that nuclear deterrence has worked. ”

Israel will not tolerate a risk that a nation that glorifies, practices and encourages martyrdom of their own youngsters (in killing of civilians) will respect “deterrence”. You take your chances with YOUR nation, Mr. Rachman, if you want to. Think about it.

Posted by: Asher Pat | July 22nd, 2008 at 10:54 am | Report this comment

Gideon–This is a surprisingly unambiguous endorsement, no? In a vote today, I would conclude likewise, but Obama has yet to regain my full confidence since the Jeremiah Wright mess unfolded. He is in his stride when the talk if of high-and-mighty principles, but he needs to demonstrate that he can rise above the rabble of partisan politics, political debts and his wife.

On the other hand, you pay McCain an undeserved–and taken-for-granted–compliment when you suggest his superiour foreign-policy credentials. “…decades of experience in foreign affairs.” Given his political career, one could replace the FA term with “economics”, but to his credit even he denies this.

What foreign policy decisions has McCain played a decisive role in forming? Which ones have been widely judged “right” or “successful”?

Foreign policy is a field deemed to merit massive investments in academic funding and amongst the most rigorous standards of training. In the US, one has Johns Hopkins, Princeton, Harvard’s K School, Georgetwon, Fletcher and Stanford, not to mention the once venerable War College. I am unaware that McCain even took a night lecture at any of these institutions.

Remember that his plane crashed and he suffered the humiliation of being a POW; this misfortune (honourable as it was) is something less than a story that Hollywood would touch until he would walk into the White House (as was the case with Kennedy’s PT 109 story).

Remember that he returned then to Phoenix a bit of a forgotten man and joined his then-future wife’s father’s firm as a PR guy (in Phoenix, I suspect the local Jaycees then laughed louder at the jokes of local car salesmen). His political career emerged from his father-in-law’s backing.

Sitting on committees gives one passive experience. His judgments appear to have been shaped more by domestic debates than by an understanding of treaties, border histories, political/legal cultures, or economics. He does not deserve to be cast as the more experienced internationalist.

Turning to the larger issue, I think it fair to note that the shift observed in commentary on Iran in recent weeks is strictly amongst “Western” pundits and officials, including Bush. Iran stands consistent on its positions vis-à-vis its sovereign rights, which are largely justified. They are not putting on a new face to win friends. Pragmatism and reason are finally finding voice in Washington and Tel Aviv. Hopefully, it is again on the rise here in Paris.

btw–Has anyone seen Tony lately? Is he still on payroll? Where are he and Cheri and the kids vacationing this summer? Does either John or Barack have his mobile number? Have they asked for it?

Posted by: wcm | July 22nd, 2008 at 10:56 am | Report this comment

Asher… What you want is nuclear dominance not nuclear deterrence.

The only nuclear proliferator in the Middle East is Israel not Iran and all those expressions of concern about Iran’s nuclear programme are simply a way of justifying aggression (or fooling the American to attack again (a la Iraq) on the whim of the Israeli rightwing.

P

Posted by: Pacifist | July 22nd, 2008 at 11:04 am | Report this comment

>>Asher. Israel needs to take chances just as its neighbours do when threatened. This history is far from simple and clear. As Jeremy Salt writes in the book I mention above, the 1967 war was not a defensive one, as has long been claimed and questionably accepted in respected corridors. He cites recently released archives that show troubling complicity between Tel Aviv and Washington at that time.

Whatever exceptionalism may have been deserved when Israel was a nascent state does not apply in today’s world where it is an economic/financial, military, police and nuclear power. Accountability and risk go hand in hand.

American taxpayers should take a close look at how much of their commonwealth has been expropriated to support your fears. Let it also be noted that the US, UK and other NATO allies can count deaths of their young men and women put in harm’s way–arguably most often on Israel’s behalf–far more numerous than observed for Israeli soldiers or police.

Posted by: wcm | July 22nd, 2008 at 11:14 am | Report this comment

David Seaton: “The Israelis are not known for sitting on their hands when displeased.”

Sometimes the only thing to do to a dog that runs after a car is to let it catch the car!
The Israelis looked for a fight with the Hezbollah, because they thought it would be easy, and they found it in 2006. Now they have seen what happened, they are quietly exchanging prisoners and corpses with Hezbollah. Before too long, they will hand back the Sheba farms too.

If they are itching for war against Iran, as much as they say they do, then they will start one too. It would be stupid of them to do so but sometimes, no matter how many times you tell a kid that fire is hot, they have to burn their fingers before the lesson is learned.

Best,

P

Posted by: Pacifist | July 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 am | Report this comment

@pacifist, @wcm

you can bring a lot of innuendoes and demagogic arguments. I’ll say it again in a different way:

you can’t criticise a condemned person (Israel) for trying to conceal a gun (nuclear weapons) to be able to attack his stated and eager executioner (Muslim countries). There are ZERO muslims in the world (although I know two moslems (not muslims) that are an exception) that accept the right of Israel to exist, with hundred times more in population and a hundred times bigger territory - and you want to tell me that the situation will be balanced when Iran will have the Bomb? Look for Rafsanjani (i think) that said yrs ago: Iran can take 10 million of dead but the Zionist entity cant”

Now if both of you have any sense of fairness, you will either:
(a) agree that deterrence is not relevant here; or (b) admit that you are yearning for the defeat and destruction of Israel as a state wih a Jewish majority.

I will not chide you if you admit (b) above, it is a fair position, but not admitting any of (a) or (b) above is just not logically consistent and a plain lie.

In any case, YOU take such chances with YOUR nations, we will not.

Posted by: Asher Pat | July 22nd, 2008 at 11:57 am | Report this comment

I am shocked - shocked! - to learn that Pacifist and wcm are “yearning for the defeat and the destruction of Israel…”

Ok, I always had my doubts about wcm, but pacifist seemed less the raging madman for some reason, maybe it was the moniker..

Posted by: Paskalis | July 22nd, 2008 at 12:09 pm | Report this comment

If Obama gets in (not a certainty) he will have to face Iran. I see no way out of this confrontation. As for the US in the world and the wars: there needs to be a concerted effort to develop a non-US global hegemon to take on the security burden. That will be the only path to security and peace in the 21st century.

Posted by: Bob Macdonald | July 22nd, 2008 at 12:16 pm | Report this comment

“But it cannot really offset Mr McCain’s record as a military veteran and his decades of experience in foreign affairs.”

Generally I find Mr. Rachman’s comments regarding USA politics to be off-base. This commentary is better. Regarding the contention made by some (usually right-wing spinners of lies and inaccuracies) cited above from the commentary, all one has to do is listen to Senator McCain describe his policy proposals on virtually any topic to dispel this quotation entirely. Mr. McCain’s dogged repetition that “the surge is working” or that “we will stay until we win” belie utter non-thinking in regard to foreign policy. The USA presence in Iraq is a foreign military occupation of sovereign territory. The invasion and current occupation are imperialism at its worse. That the temporary increase in troops modestly reduced violence is not proven by a long shot. More likely the modest reduction in otherwise completely unacceptable violence came from a change in attitude on the part of certain Sunnis greased by USA bribes to co-operate.

The only reason the USA electorate shows “support” for Senator McCain’s “greater experience in foreign affairs” is because the average USA voter makes virtually no attempt to obtain facts. It reflects the lies and misrepresentations that are constantly disseminated through television news ort other programs or much worse through AM radio right-wing idiots. Those are primary sources of information otherwise characterized as deliberate propaganda to the average voter who pays any attention to issues at all.

Senators Obama and McCain have policy positions that are somewhat close on some topics because both politically have to pander to the prejudices of the average misinformed USA voter. For no other reason.

Posted by: Wendell Murray | July 22nd, 2008 at 12:22 pm | Report this comment

Dear Asher,

I have had this discussion with other extremist Zionists every week of the past year, on this very forum.

Their tiresome tactic is to:

1-) Exaggerate the threat (let’s face it the Iranian bomb, resides in the same place as the Iraqi nukes did - solely in the propaganda of the warmongers).

2-) Use the exaggerated and non-existent threats to claim exemption for Israel on non-proliferation and a host of other international treaties (such as the Geneva Conventions’ prohibitions on communal punishment against civilians) and the 60 UN resolutions that Israel is ignoring.

3-) Use the power of the Zionist Lobby and their influence in the media in the US and the rest of the West to drag those countries into Israel’s wars of domination and expansion.

To be fair, the tactic has been successful, chiefly due to the ignorance of the American general public and the corruption of their politicians but please don’t try this nonsense on people who originate from the Middle East or those who have taken the trouble to familiarise themselves with it. It is insulting.

Thank you.

P

Posted by: Pacifist | July 22nd, 2008 at 12:23 pm | Report this comment

Your observations are worthless because no-one, not even Obama himself, can possibly have any idea what he would be like as President.

Some facts:

1. He was a law lecturer at Chicago for over 10 years - he did NOT get tenure and left. The typical fate of a mediocre academic.

2. The next 10 years he was counsel at a law firm NOT a partner. In fact NOT even making associate. He bailed out of the Law.

2. He is just a 3-year junior senator. This career move to politician is a well trod path by which the second rate try and make it to the top table.

Failure in politics would probably have led him to journalism as his next port of call .

You are just another journalist joining in with the lovefest for Obama - who you correctly recognise as one of your own.

Oh and by, you can try and paint McCain as a warmonger but you should learn to tell the difference between a warrior and a warmonger.

Posted by: Brussels Resident | July 22nd, 2008 at 12:32 pm | Report this comment

Paskalis: Get off the propaganda soapbox that anyone who dares to call a spade a spade in regard to gross Israeli hypocrisy and the craven willingness of virtually all national USA politicians to pander to the Israeli lobby is somehow an “enemy” of Israel. A garbage argument that is offensive to anyone who cares upon the truth.

Professors Walt and Mearsheimer were accurate in their analysis of the Israeli lobby’s activity and its utterly nocent impact on the interests of the USA citizenry.

The only comparable influence of a similar, small group is that exerted by anti-Castro Cuban expatriates in regard to policy towards Cuba. Their votes and political influence on voting in Florida can be decisive in Presidential elections. Not the case with the small number of diehard Israeli supporters in the USA whether Jews or not. Financial support from American Jewish diehard supporters of Israel plays a significant role however.

The level of hypocrisy of the USA government and of the Israeli government in regard to nuclear power or even nuclear weapons development in Iran is about as high as it can be. The USA has a massive arsenal of such weapons vastly in excess of the collection of weapons in all other countries combined. Israel has who knows how many weapons and how many deliverable by missile anywhere in the Middle East, not mention the world. I do not have any way of evaluating the reasonableness of Iranian politicians who would have control over any deployment of weapons that might eventually be developed.

But I do know too much about the members of the Bush Administration, primarily the two at the top, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney, and their already proven willingness to attack, not to mention threaten, other countries for no good reason. They have control over all the USA nuclear arsenal. Not a calming thought.

Posted by: Wendell Murray | July 22nd, 2008 at 12:44 pm | Report this comment

AIPAC/Likudite/Neocon Zionism is without merit–often beneath contempt–in my opinion. This debate brings out the worst in all sides because it is rooted in a belief by these Zionists in a fundamental exceptionalism. Conditioned to stand aside as a matter of politeness, exhaustion with the subject has put me clearly off sides with most who speak FOR Israel today. I am close enough to Israel to know that Asher/AYC and the more balanced RCS are Likudite voices.

Israel is. This is not a question for me. In 1947, had I been alive and in a position where anyone may care what I thought, I would have worked hard to moderate hardline Zionist voices then.

Israel as a religious state is not an option for me, even if it is justified as such by the existence of religious states like Saudi Arabia or Iran. The Jewish legacy is one of enlightenment and humanism, and it should have led others into a 21st century. It did not, because of those who have betrayed it and commanded its leadership since the late 1970s, with the exception of the assassinated Rabin.

I favour a one state solution from the Jordan to the Gaza with equal rights for all within, but this is a mad delusion so long as fear holds the minds of characters such as those listed above over reason and vision.

I do not support Iran’s Shi’a fundamentalism, nor am I one who would cry upon reading a headline announcing a coup d’état in Riyadh or Kuwait City or even Dubai.

Nonetheless, this debate is wearing on me and I will admit I need to find good reason to read anything written under a Jewish surname from the US or Israel. Many with such surnames who have shared my life’s journey confess likewise. We still share our concerns and are on the same page. To have had the dreams, education, experiences and responsibilities which we have each had, it is difficult to comprehend how this geopolitical situation came to pass under the watch of our generation.

Call me anti-Zionist/Neocon/Likudite/American or whatever, but never anti-Semitic.

Posted by: wcm | July 22nd, 2008 at 12:45 pm | Report this comment

I don’t think it is absolutely right with respect to Iran to choose between the nuclear state and the US invasion. Too early for that.

It looks like Iran is developing those nukes exactly to save it’s oil reserves and political elites from takeover by US. Definitely not to destroy Israel, which is just kind of a loud nationalistic rethoric.

So if the takover threat was not so strong Iran would probably go much better with the external pressure by rather neutral mediators. EU, Russia and China are all hardly happy with the perspective of getting another nuclear state in the Middle East. But they are all as well unhappy with the perspective of a large scale military and ideological conflict with the Muslim world. The problem is that none of the mediators could give Iran the formal guarantees for non-invasion.

Posted by: Andrei, Russia | July 22nd, 2008 at 12:49 pm | Report this comment

So far the Iowa futures market (winner take all) shows Obama at 63%, McCain and 37%, and Obama consistently above 60% since end May. http://tinyurl.com/2e83nl

Clearly, surge working (or maybe bribes working–and why not! better than the breakdown of public order)or not, the Iraq invasion and occupation have been disastrous.

Obama = “Time for a change”
McCain= “More of the same” (And bombs away!)

Hence Obama’s foreign policy experience, or anti Bushite foreign policy experience (although Bush seems to be moving towards more diplomacy towards Iran), is superior. No contest.

Posted by: Mary Cunningham | July 22nd, 2008 at 12:54 pm | Report this comment

GR,

But what if the polls said the American people wanted to bomb Iran (or Mexico for that reason)?

Given Sen. Obama’s feeble record and even weaker dedication to much of anything, who is to say that he would not just read the poll and attack?

If you want a commander in chief who sits back and reads the polls on Real Clear Politics all day, then why not have campaign for the guys from RCP, rather than a Chicago machine hack like Obama?

JBP

Posted by: John Powers | July 22nd, 2008 at 12:58 pm | Report this comment

Commander in chief, huh! Looks like a smokescreen to me.
How can anybody believe that the same people who twice elected Bush Jr., will now vote a black man into office.
It may hurt, but you gotta face reality: America is still deeply rascist (meaning that race is in important criteria in judging people).
One cannot blame Mr. Rachman for not addressing the issue (he is a foreign affairs sepcialist), but everyone is tip-toeing around the issue afraid to mention the R-word.

… and dear Brussels Resident,
thanks for the info. Just for comparison, how about if you pls provide some similar facts about Ronald Reagan & Bush Jr. Nothing like a good laugh!

M

Posted by: Martin | July 22nd, 2008 at 1:01 pm | Report this comment

Where did the last italics came from?

Anyway, Asher & posters like him use the rhetorical technique of a false choice. (Israel survival versus bombing–choose one, any combination or all –Iran, Syria, Jordan/Palestine/Lebanon.) Donald Rumsfeld was not averse to it as when he asked Iraqis to choose between an American invasion and subsequent breakdown of public order (”Stuff happens”) and Saddam Hussein.

The responce, of course, is to refuse the choice as did one wag who when asked to choose between Tony Blair and Wm Hague said he prefered Kate Moss.

Posted by: Mary Cunningham | July 22nd, 2008 at 1:05 pm | Report this comment

wcm, it sounds more like you encourage exceptionalism because your hopes for Israel have been compromised believing that “The Jewish legacy is one of enlightenment and humanism,and it should have led others into a 21st century”.

How is that not a double standard? How can such an idealism hold in an area as brutal and opinionated as the Middle East? Israel still holds on to the ideals of its past although Israelis like all humans arent immune to bitterness and hatred.

Posted by: Felix Drost | July 22nd, 2008 at 1:08 pm | Report this comment

@Andrei

“It looks like Iran is developing those nukes exactly to save it’s oil reserves and political elites from takeover by US. Definitely not to destroy Israel, which is just kind of a loud nationalistic rethoric.â€

Your country, never since WWII (which you probably have not experienced) in a real danger, decimated Chechnya with no Chechen ever stating that he wants to destroy Russia and kick the Russians out of it, please apply the same logic to the Iran/Israel situation: a nation that happily sends its children to deliberately kill civilians of another nation, who states openly that it want to terminate this other nation and who openly admit building the key components of a nuclear weapon and delivery systems.

You can take such risk for YOUR nation that this is “a loud nationalistic retoric” (even though your nation completely ignored the world’s protests and did what it thought was right…), if you want to. Luckily for you, there isn’t an existential threat and enemy for your nation, but don’t philosophize nonsenses on the account of other nations’ security.

@WCM,

“Call me anti-Zionist/Neocon/Likudite/American or whatever, but never anti-Semitic.”

I did not call you an anti-semite, but hey, the “thief’s hat is burning†as they say…

But thank you for admitting that you wish for Israel to disappear as a state with a Jewish majority. I hope that from now-on, you will have the dignity and integrity to open each of your posts with a disclaimer:

“Disclaimer statement: I believe that Israel has no right to exist and I support anything that will bring Israel down, therefore I have no right to criticise any of Israel’s actions to avert its destruction.â€

Posted by: Asher Pat | July 22nd, 2008 at 1:22 pm | Report this comment

For the Israelis McCain is a known quantity and in such a militaristic country as Israel has become, I’m sure its leaders feel more comfortable with a person like McCain that was a professional naval aviator. However, they also must be aware that John McCain is difficult to push around and that Obama, when push comes to shove is given to pandering. In Jerusalem they must be doing some fine calculation on these points, especially since Obama has “qualified” his position on an “undivided Jerusalem”.

I would imagine that everything would depend on might not permit them to attack Iran at their pleasure. If the Israelis think that, then I imagine that Barack Obama won’t finally make it to the White House.

Posted by: David Seaton | July 22nd, 2008 at 1:26 pm | Report this comment

Vagaries of the computer. For:
I would imagine that everything would depend on might not permit them to attack Iran at their pleasure. If the Israelis think that, then I imagine that Barack Obama won’t finally make it to the White House.

Please read
I would imagine that everything would depend on their thinking that president Obama might not permit them to attack Iran at their pleasure. If the Israelis think that, then I imagine that Barack Obama won’t finally make it to the White House.

So sorry!

Posted by: David Seaton | July 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm | Report this comment

>>Bob MacDonald wrote: “If Obama gets in (not a certainty) he will have to face Iran. I see no way out of this confrontation. As for the US in the world and the wars: there needs to be a concerted effort to develop a non-US global hegemon to take on the security burden. That will be the only path to security and peace in the 21st century.”

This line of reasoning is taking hold amongst many “centred” Americans, but it is flawed.

1) The Iran issue as defined by public statements in the US and Israeli (and Lobby-fed) media is one of national/international security in the context of bombs and Islamists’ takeovers. Manipulation. Lies. Whatever. The real issue is economic at many levels. What will an Iran that is free to join the global economy become? It is well and long understood that the ruling Islamic party believes it can follow the Chinese path into riches. Dubai and King Abdullah are partly on board with this plan, even if they’re not so comfortable holding hands with the country’s current political leadership. A robust Iran nestled strategically between its friends in India, Russia and Turkey has not been factored into Washington’s ME plan. Israel, on the other hadn, is of two minds, as it could be a strategic partner, as it once was, if it could back off of its decades’ long neo-Zionist plank.

Obama does not need to fear Iran; he could help foster what seems to be an inevitable transformation, and carve out a new role for the US.

2) Your words “concentrated effort” implies buy in for the current US policy from its allies in Europe, the ME and Asia. Again, its economics. The US is less and less the source of economic joy and contentment that it once was. Its foreign policies are, in fact, a source of pain for most of us. Until there is admission of error, and some reasonable marking to market of long-term US asset values, allies will remain hesitant if not outright unwilling to ante up to support what has been a loosing hand of historic measure. You shouldn’t ask us to.

If Obama demonstrates truly new leadership, it will be on the back of clear accountability and rethinking of its strategic place in the world. Not in his speeches.

Posted by: wcm | July 22nd, 2008 at 1:34 pm | Report this comment

@Mary Cunnigham

You probably think that you are witty and charming. You probably live in a small cottage in the home counties and have invited your friends to tea today in the peaceful English garden.

Good for you. We live surrounded by 600 million people who want to destroy us and will stop at nothing, including deception and lies (search for “Al Dura incidentâ€) to weaken us to the point when they can push us into the sea. From your comfortable garden chair make choices for yourself, not for us.

Posted by: Asher Pat | July 22nd, 2008 at 1:35 pm | Report this comment

Hi Asher,

I omitted to say this in my first post to you but seeing your post to WCM, I have to add that the final part of the tactics deployed by the rightwing Zionists is to accuse anybody who disagrees with them (explicitly or implicitly) of being genocidal anti-Semites.

In fact your post to Anderi and WCM is a text-book example of the tactics I described.

Many thanks for your practical demonstration of a generic Likudnik post.

My best wishes to you.

P

Posted by: Pacifist | July 22nd, 2008 at 1:35 pm | Report this comment

@Pacifist,

please present your arguments in a logical, argumentative way. Please do not hide behind “oh you guys have all the same arguments, therefore must be wrong”.

Facts, logic, rationale pls. I am willing to listen, perhaps you will persuade me.

Posted by: Asher Pat | July 22nd, 2008 at 1:46 pm | Report this comment

In my senior classes I had students from Israel who were uniformly bright, well-traveled and knowledgeable about the world. If any one of them did not posses a special talent in some field or other, he escapes my memory.

I was alarmed and dismayed - I choose the words deliberately - to realize that, without exception, they saw Israel’s very existence under a daily and constant threat of extinction and that, more, they considered every Jew everywhere in the world had a loaded gun pointed at his head, literally. This is the nuclear-powered Israel with one of the word’s best armies, that has access to the world’s latest military technology, that is aligned with the most powerful nation in history and that is constantly expanding its borders. This is a religious-ethnic group that is highly, if not overly, represented at the summit of imperial power.

I realized that Israelis, that many Jews all over the world, were subject to the same mental manipulation as anyone else.

We cannot bridge the gap between what we think are the incredible ravings of extremist fanatics and what they believe to be the conspiratorial and lethal intentions of the outside world.

And if that doesn’t worry you, the opening week sales of tickets to the latest Batman movie should.

Posted by: Paskalis | July 22nd, 2008 at 1:50 pm | Report this comment

“Many thanks for your practical demonstration of a generic Likudnik post.” And many thanks for your post as well Pacifist - entirely typical, as well as being entirely off the point of the discussion, as usual.

It’s clear that your desire is the destruction of Israel. Us “Likudniks” merely want to live without the threat of terror, annihilation or another holocaust. Sadly all these threats are well and truly with us today.

Posted by: AYC | July 22nd, 2008 at 1:52 pm | Report this comment

Paskalis: “I realized that Israelis, that many Jews all over the world, were subject to the same mental manipulation as anyone else.” A bright boy like you Mathios must have realised at some point in your life that there really is no smoke without fire, that perception is reality and that just because I am paranoid it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get me. Thousands of years of persecution leads to the development of highly attuned antennae.

Posted by: AYC | July 22nd, 2008 at 1:56 pm | Report this comment

Well, AP, there is the usual amount of paranoia to your posts I’ve come to expect in right wing US and Israel apologists..

It’s great to pump up your heroism but how heroic was it to bomb all those civilians in southern Lebanon?

And last time I looked life in Israel was pretty nice. I don’t live in the “peaceful English countryside” I live in London, where life is also pretty nice, if hectic, and this being the season for terrorist incidents–funny how the IRA always struck at Christmas while the Islamist like summer, could be the latter have a penchant for blowing up planes–I am not so sure how peaceful everything is.

I do , however, set great store by the futures market and the state of the economy when there are elections and these should not leave McCain supporters with much joy, foreign policy experience or none, he is set to lose. Unless–what was the old saw–Obama is found in bed with a dead woman or McCain with a live boy.

Posted by: Mary Cunningham | July 22nd, 2008 at 1:56 pm | Report this comment

@WCM

“If you are Israeli and want an Israeli state populated only by Jews, then your screams and cries are certainly not helpful in buildign a workforce.”

The left-wingers age-old debate-tactics: when confronted with logic, duck and send an unelated innuendo.

@Paskalis

“We cannot bridge the gap between what we think are the incredible ravings of extremist fanatics and what they believe to be the conspiratorial and lethal intentions of the outside world.”

The above statement comes naturally with an aromatic cup of hot chocolate in one hand from a warm chair in downtown Manhattan. Stay there for your own sake and dont forget to take your vitamin pills. We will survive.

Posted by: Asher Pat | July 22nd, 2008 at 2:04 pm | Report this comment

Perception and reality are two different universes, AYC. I refer you to the emperor’s clothes.

Mythical clichés aside, there is often smoke where there is no fire. “Smoke and mirrors” being the best ubiquitous example, the best tool of the trade of deception.

But thanks for the “bright boy” stuff, especially the “boy” part.

Posted by: Paskalis | July 22nd, 2008 at 2:06 pm | Report this comment

AYC and Asher Pat: there was no need to prove my point so quickly. You should have made me work for it.

Posted by: Paskalis | July 22nd, 2008 at 2:11 pm | Report this comment

Paskalis,

Interesting post, hopefully your sample is not representative.

However, my old prof. used to advise “Watch what they do, don’t listen to what they say.” In this case you need to watch migration. If non-Israeli Jews are more frightened of the outside world than the threat vs. Israel they will emigrate to Israel. If Israeli’s really are fearful of the state of affairs inside their nuclear stronghold then the opposite will happen. American Jews seem to be staying put, no big migration from the US. Migration figures from Israel are difficult to obtain but there doesn’t seem to be any widespread fleeing of the country. Also property prices are in the country are extremely bouyant, another tell. The settlement of the West Bank also continues apace. Nothing to indicate an existential threat.

Thus I must assume the stance of AP & Co. is rhetoric, aimed at the expansion of Israel’s territory in Palestine and the furtherment of the country’s self interest. Nothing unusual in this, normal behaviour in fact, but we don’t need to believe it.

Posted by: Mary Cunningham | July 22nd, 2008 at 2:13 pm | Report this comment

Asher Pat,

Somehow I don’t think your contrast of the nice safe life in downtown Manhattan with the tough life in, say, Tel Aviv was too apt. How soon you forget all those lives lost in nice, safe downtown Manhattan.

You need to rethink your approach.

Posted by: Mary Cunningham | July 22nd, 2008 at 2:18 pm | Report this comment

“Perception and reality are two different universes, AYC. I refer you to the emperor’s clothes.” Nice riposte, however that was one man’s perception and everyone else’s reality. This time you’re talking the perception of millions of people, versus the smoke and mirrors of the Iranians and other assorted enemies.
If I reasonably perceive through your actions that you are about to attack me, I have the right to defend myself. If I reasonably perceive that your attack is racist, then that is the reality. If, through my reading of a variety of media, I reasonably perceive that the President of Iran has threatened to destroy Israel, that is also reality.

And the lessons of the 1930s cannot be ignored.

Posted by: AYC | July 22nd, 2008 at 2:20 pm | Report this comment

@Mary

“If Israeli’s really are fearful of the state of affairs inside their nuclear stronghold then the opposite will happen.”

At least you try some logic, but it is flawed:

Premise: Under existential threats, people flee;
Observation: people arnt fleeing Israel;
Conclusion: there is no existential threat.

Corollary - Israel and its supporters are warmongering cos there is no real threat.

Well, some people, unlike Chamberlain in 1936 stay put and fight. Besides, do you have a “home county” or a “shire” for 6 million Jews between Bath and Andover? Perhaps we will chose to live in peace with millions of Muslims in Birmingham then.

Posted by: Asher Pat | July 22nd, 2008 at 2:31 pm | Report this comment

You may not like Chamberlain for whatever reason, Asher Pat, but Churchill certainly did. He praised post-Munich Chamberlain to the sky. I think it might be a perception-reality thing.

Posted by: Paskalis | July 22nd, 2008 at 2:37 pm | Report this comment

Well, AP, you might thrill to the thought of a fight to the death but generally any nationality when faced with an “existential” threat will leave if they can. And thought there were only 4.5 million Jews in Israel. AP, do you really live there? Or are you the one in some nice, safe place in Manhattan?

Posted by: Mary Cunningham | July 22nd, 2008 at 2:45 pm | Report this comment

GR:The two candidates’ positions on other foreign policy issues are closer than they would care to acknowledge. Both aim to increase America’s commitment in Afghanistan

Yep …and there he (Obama) is wrong….but he has Iran and Iraq right …

Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | July 22nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm | Report this comment

Is this the time to point out that the so-called “Star of David” that is the symbol on the proud Israeli flag does not have Jewish roots, that its origins are in Medieval Europe and in the occult?

Should we say that the founders of the modern state hotly debated the use of the “star” as opposed to the Menorah which is an ancient Jewish symbol?

Would it be a digression to point out that the crescent moon and star, the symbols of Islam, have their roots in the Roman empire of the East and in the ancient city of Byzantium, not Muslim at all?

And as for the cross, well, “nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more, say no more.”

Posted by: Paskalis | July 22nd, 2008 at 2:55 pm | Report this comment

@Paskalis, @Pacifist, @Mary,

thank you for opening my eyes.

Now I understand, since Churchill praised Chamberlain, Masada is a Zionist myth and there are only 4.5 milion Jews in Israel - there is only one logical outcome - Iran with a nuclear weapon is no threat to Israel, all the wars that Israel fought were a result of unmitigated aggression of a colonial power against poor and simple peace-loving natives. If only Israel stops its intrasengent militarism, its elimination will be almost painless.

Posted by: Asher Pat | July 22nd, 2008 at 2:58 pm | Report this comment

Hi Mary Cunningham,

” AP, do you really live there? Or are you the one in some nice, safe place in Manhattan?”

It is well known that the second most important thing for diaspora Jews is that Jews should remain in Israel.

However, the most important thing for them is that they shouldn’t be asked to go and live in Israel, themselves.

Best,

P

Posted by: Pacifist | July 22nd, 2008 at 3:04 pm | Report this comment

AP, I was off by a million, you were off by 600,000.

According to the CIA factbook, there are 7.1 million inhabitants of Israel (including the Jewish settlers of the West bank and East Jerusalem) and 76% are Jewish which gives a figure of 5,400,000 Jews, none of whom seem to be migrating much. No need to throw a hissy fit! Shouldn’t argue about facts.

Posted by: Mary Cunningham | July 22nd, 2008 at 3:24 pm | Report this comment

Jews know from painful experience that security is taken, not given. When a nation repeatedly says they are going to destroy you, and then goes about a massive weapons programme to do that, what do you think is the right response? WWII taught the world a lesson: you can’t negotiate with a country that is hell bent on war and extermination. You have to take them out before they can start putting their plans in place.

If you do not wish to see war, then you must put all your efforts into creating a new international entity to act as the global hegemon. All else on here is just Euro-waffle and cowardice.

Posted by: Bob Macdonald | July 22nd, 2008 at 3:29 pm | Report this comment

After reading the above comments, many of them acrimonious, as seems to be inevitable when Israel is under discussion, I would like to offer a couple of simplistic, if not ultra-trite thoughts of my own, as a self-proclaimed non-expert on the Middle East or any place else for that matter.

I understand that there are some 4.5 million people living in Israel (up from the 3 million who were there on my last visit, almost fifty years ago - but East Jerusalem and the West Bank were in Jordan then, of course, and Gaza, a place from which my own family name, originally Algazi, may derive, was part of Egypt).

I also understand that most of these 4.5 million people are Jews, but that many are Muslims, Christians, Druze, Samaritans and miscellaneous. I also gather that there are Likudniks, Labor, Religious, Communist and a dozen or two other parties in Israel ranging from doctrinaire, old line Zionists to ultra- orthodox groups who (along with the Iranians) believe that Israel is an illegitimate state that has no right to exist. Even among Jews only, Israelis come in a great variety of colors, sizes, features, cultural backgrounds and language speakers.

What do all of these diverse people have in common? Perhaps not a great deal, except for one thing: They will all die if Iran gets the bomb. Well, maybe not definitely, but just likely or even perhaps. Is this a risk worth taking?

Posted by: algasema | July 22nd, 2008 at 3:30 pm | Report this comment

@Paskalis

“Yes, Asher Pat, that’s exactly how you sound to us.”

Thank for confirming even if indirectly (but also on behalf of Mary and Pacifist!), that you wish for “elimination” of Israel, as I ironically wrote in my previous post.

If you are a honest person, at least you shud have the dignity and integrity to open each of your posts and indeed each of your arguments about this issue with a disclaimer:

“I believe that Israel has no right to exist and I support anything that will bring it down, therefore I have no right to criticise any of Israel’s actions to avert its destruction.â€

I wish you all long and peaceful lifeб people. But it will be a life of intellectual misery, for every morning when you wake up and look in the mirror, you will have to face another day of Israel’s existence as a successful, free and democratic state - and on the background of Israel, there will be backward, poor and despotic Arab countries gritting teeth in the bile of their impotent hatred and envy. And you, the despisable self hating Westeners, will grow older and grayer in your misplaced views.

God bless America, the most rational of nations, I have to go.

Posted by: Asher Pat | July 22nd, 2008 at 3:33 pm | Report this comment

Obama goes to Isreal and the West Bank tomorrow ..Israel needs to end this occupation …

HaAretz..”The United States security coordinator for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, retired general James Jones, is preparing an extremely critical report of Israel’s policies in the territories and its attitude toward the Palestinian Authority’s security services.

A few copies of the report’s executive summary (or, according to some sources, a draft of it) have been given to senior Bush Administration officials, and it is reportedly arousing considerable discomfort. In recent weeks, the administration has been debating whether to allow Jones to publish his full report, or whether to tell him to shelve it and make do with the summary, given the approaching end of President George Bush’s term.” HaAretz

I want to see Gilad and Marwan freed before the summer ends…

Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | July 22nd, 2008 at 3:34 pm | Report this comment

Pacifist: “It is well known that the second most important thing for diaspora Jews is that Jews should remain in Israel.” How are the Iranian ex-pats doing, P? Fancy going back to Tehran this week, I hear they’re stoning some adulterers and prostitutes. The mark of a truly liberal regime and one I’m sure we could trust with nuclear weapons.

Posted by: AYC | July 22nd, 2008 at 3:38 pm | Report this comment

Dear Bob MacDonald,

There are two things wrong with what you say.

- firstly, as explained ad infinitum and ad nauseam (most recently to Algasema who didn’t read or ignored it as it suited his self-imposed isolation from facts), Iran has made no threats to destroy Israel nor does Iran have the wherewithal to do so.

- secondly, where is the “massive weapons programme” that you accuse Iran of having? In fact, Iran has the lowest per capita military spending in the region and a tiny, poorly equipped airforce and navy.

Facts are hard things to deal with especially when you can use ignorance as a dark, comfortable womb to protect you from realities you don’t want to face.

Posted by: Pacifist | July 22nd, 2008 at 3:48 pm | Report this comment

Just to add one or two further points, I am totally opposed to the West Bank settlements, the blockade of Gaza, the Likud party and AIPAC. I cannot discuss Israel even with some of my own family and friends without fear of being ostracised here in New York. I do not think of myself as an apologist for Israel.

But I believe in the value of human life. Whether the Iranian leaders do also is, at best, questionable, especially since at least some of them do not seem to flinch at the thought that millions of their own people might die in a nuclear holocaust (a word which they might be willing to spell with a small “h”, but definitely not with a large one.)

Of course, there are those who think that all the Iranian talk of exterminating Israel is only that. But, for a long time, many people did not take Mein Kampf seriously either.

Posted by: algasema | July 22nd, 2008 at 4:00 pm | Report this comment

The rhetorical tricks AP plays. Question Israel’s proclivity to bomb/invade its neighbours at will and he immediately assumes you seek its annihilation. And all the harkening back to Munich. Makes you wonder what proponents of pre-emptive war (aka aggression) did prior to 1938!

Anyway, algasema at least use the right numbers. The CIA factbook is a wealth of information. Here is the page on Israel. Total population (including the West Bank settlers and those in East Jerusalem) is 7,112,000.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html

It would also be nice if you could use a historical example other than Munich, but one step at a time.

Posted by: Mary Cunningham | July 22nd, 2008 at 4:14 pm | Report this comment

I stand corrected on Israel’s population numbers by Mary Cunningham. Therefore, if Iran gets the bomb, nearly twice as many people might die as I originally thought. Thank you for pointing this out.

In response to Pacifist, if we had some real assurance that Iran would never use the bomb, I would say let them have it (the bomb, that is). War should always be the ultimate last resort, not the foundation of our policy, as it has been with McCheney, McCain and until recently it seems, McBush.

Unfortunately, we need a bit more assurance of Iran’s peaceful intentions than merely a few pejorative comments by Pacifist.

Posted by: algasema | July 22nd, 2008 at 4:39 pm | Report this comment

Algasema: “But, for a long time, many people did not take Mein Kampf seriously either.”

OK then… let me see….the US has been making threats to bomb Iran (almost certainly using nukes)for quite a while now. This is evidenced by president Bush’s statement that “all options are on the table” in response to would you attack Iran using uclear weapons. It is also evidenced by McCain’s notorious “bomb bomb…Iran” and Hillary Clintion’s promise of “annihilating Iran” whilst giving AIPAC memebers the full-on treatment that Bill Clinton would have appreciated from the most promising intern.

Given the above, and given your espousal of first-strike, pre-emptive war, I assume you would be sympathetic (or at least well-understand the reasons) if Iran bought, stole, begged and borrowed all the nukes she could get and hit the major US population centres with it? Am I right?

It seems that you think USrael should bomb Iran so shouldn’t Iranians, if they have an ounce of intelligence, follow your advice and pre-empt?

Best wishes,

P

Posted by: Pacifist | July 22nd, 2008 at 4:45 pm | Report this comment

Now that Asher Pat (perhaps an Irishman) has left the room, those closer to the source than some of us here in Europe can enlighten on the topic of this thread: Gideon’s endorsement of Obama for (global) Commander-in-Chief. Premature? Politically motivated? Deserved? (I still want to have reason to think so.)

It’s been a tough and tiresome afternoon here!

Posted by: wcm | July 22nd, 2008 at 4:57 pm | Report this comment

>>Pacifist. You really should also keep your eye on the French when looking at possible attack scenarios. (Sarko made the UAE bases top priority before he let Cecilia leave and got the mobile number for Carla.)

It is strange to be grateful to the military establishments in Paris and Washington for keeping the ammo under close watch. Such are the strange times we live in.

Posted by: wcm | July 22nd, 2008 at 5:02 pm | Report this comment

Hi WCM,

Do you think Sarkozy wants to “do a Blair” and follow America into Iran, the way the UK went into Iraq in the wake of America?

Best,

P

Posted by: Pacifist | July 22nd, 2008 at 5:24 pm | Report this comment

Pacifist, can a regime which treats its minorities so appallingly really aspire to be the regional hegemon? How are the Baha’i these days? The Zoroastrians? the Sunnis? Hung from a crane in a public square, or is that saved for under 18s only? Why don’t you volunteer for your President’s army of martyrs? You could then take the fight directly to the Likudnik Zionist scum instead of spending your time trash-talking here.

Posted by: AYC | July 22nd, 2008 at 5:27 pm | Report this comment

Pacifist, I am against US saber rattling, US power oil-driven power politics in the Middle east, the Iraq war, military hegemony and all the other evils of the Bush administration as much as you seem to be.

But I am also against genocide. If you can convince the rest of us that Iran harbors no such intention toward Israel’s population (and let’s not quibble about what “genocide” means - here I define it simply as the mass extermination of millions of people), then we will have nothing to argue about.

Posted by: algasema | July 22nd, 2008 at 5:31 pm | Report this comment

What is it with this “bomb bomb” thing? A reporter began to ask Senator McCain about hypotheticals related to Iran and he made a joke about how everyone wants to know about that popular song (tune of the Beach Boys Barbara Ann). IT WAS A JOKE - get over it. No intellectually honest person could think that his statement insinuated that he was so eager to bomb Iran that he was singing at the prospect.

Posted by: MSF | July 22nd, 2008 at 6:12 pm | Report this comment

Paskalis,

It is impossible for P to convince algasema, because it is impossible for P to know. Like the rest of us, including sanguine Gideon Rachman, he cannot possibly pierce into a dictator’s head.

That is the danger of allowing nuclear weapons in the hands of unaccountable centralised regimes. What institutional mechanisms are in place that would ensure the safety of such an arsenal? Or are we to trust the firing of neurons within a single head or two?

Posted by: RCS | July 22nd, 2008 at 6:28 pm | Report this comment

A presidential candidate of the country that invaded and destroyed Iran’s neighbour, that supported Iraq’s vicious war against Iran, that fired missals that destroyed a scheduled Iranian airliner killing hundreds of innocent men women and children and whose ally threatens to attack Iran with nuclear weapons, makes a funny-funny about bombing them to smithereens and the Iranians aren’t laughing. Guess they don’t have a sense of humour, Muslims and all.

Wait a minute! What if that “wipe off the map” stuff was a joke, right back? What if they’re party-guys,too, really keen on a knee-slapper? Why aren’t we laughing?

Posted by: Paskalis | July 22nd, 2008 at 6:35 pm | Report this comment

It is impossible for us to know most things, RCS, including whether or not a meteor will strike the earth tomorrow. That’s why we rely on the evidence, the best available evidence not the “liar-liar pants on fire” stuff.

Posted by: Paskalis | July 22nd, 2008 at 6:48 pm | Report this comment

Great piece, Gideon! I agree completely. John “Bomb Iran” McCain is a shallow thinker too much under the influence of the radical interventionists who have inflicted such tremedous damage on the Middle East (and the US, economically). McCain seems to lack any clear understanding of the strategic situation in the Middle East. In particular, he seems unable to comprehend that without Iranian help, the achieving of even minimal stability in Afghanistan will be impossible.

Posted by: James Canning | July 22nd, 2008 at 7:11 pm | Report this comment

Brussels Resident,
I am not sure if the news traveled over there, but here in the US it is widely known that Mr. Obama was a lecturer (or adjunct professor, depending on university) and hence not eligible for tenure. He had a standing offer from the University of Chicago for a tenure track position. This came out during the kerfuffle with the Clinton campaign about the “professor†term. As per his law career, he graduated from Harvard (magna cum laude) in 1991and joined the Illinois Senate in 1997 (widely known and checkable facts). Not exactly 10 years, and not a lot of time to make partner (especially when doing other things as well).

Posted by: Michael Johnson | July 22nd, 2008 at 7:21 pm | Report this comment

Is it not ironic that all this talk by the two candidates is directed against a country, Iran, that has never attacked another nation in its living history? The Iranian response to the American sponsored assasination of Mossadegh, installation and support of the brutal regime of the Shah was to hold people hostage. Unseemly as it was, not a single person died or was harmed during that hostage crisis. In turn, we in the US supported explicity supported Saddam and armed him during the Iran-Iraq war. We shot down their civilian aircraft in 1992 and said “oh! sorry”. Now we are aiming to destroy their nuclear infrastructure, which by all accounts is within the rights of any sovereign country.

And all this talk from nations like US, UK and France that hold an extensive arsenal of nuclear weapons. Before holding Iran accountable, does anyone dare question why Israel is allowed to possess nuclear weapons? Are they not in violation of International laws ?

What a bloody travesty?

Posted by: Chaitra Nailadi | July 22nd, 2008 at 7:41 pm | Report this comment

>>Salut, Pacifist!

In his first hours as president, sarkozy issued a statement of support for US policy and expressed vague plans to bring France fully into NATO. No small detail the latter.

Since then he has certainnly advanced the NATO agenda and France’s military is now a core participant. Full integration is in process.

Several months ago, Sarkozy visited Abu Dhabi and agreed development/expansion of nearby French air bases and installations. He then made his well covered speech to the Knesset wherein pledged that France would not just support Israel in an hour of need, but take an assertive role in assuring Israel’s sovereignty and role in the region.

These have all been very well scripted steps. Much better implemented than Tony Blair’s best-mate-of-George’s-dog routine.

Clearly, le Monde and Figaro are on side to an embarrassing extent, as is well discussed. Nonetheless, they have covered this line of development. Marianne has been a more critical journal. I’m not as current since a few months on Jeune Afrique, but I would be surprised if they are not onto it, even with Béchir Ben Yahmed in retirement (he still writes the leaders).

Sarkozy wants to play with the Neocons, who, as I’ve often noted, supported his candidacy (Richard Perle lived here during most of the campaign). However, he wants to own his script and is setting up scenarios where he/France will lead/initiate, but never appear subordinate to US direction. He sees the weakness in the US at the moment, but views the region and the Muslim world through Israeli lens. He also wants to be Mr Europe, so his next act is worth watching.

He has had a good couple of weeks, as Gideon has observed in a piece I agree (re: your other post under that thread) is a bit fluff. I suspect Gideon has a locket with Sarko’s photo around his cat’s neck!

Posted by: wcm | July 22nd, 2008 at 9:41 pm | Report this comment

Is Mary Cunningham the famous Mary Cunningham of yore or another? The post by Mr. Rachman is about Senator McCain’s and Senator Obama’s relative policy positions in the minds of the USA electorate particularly in regard to USA foreign policy. Not about Israel or its neighbors although there is indirect relevance to that. It would be helpful if commentators stayed on topic.

Posted by: Wendell Murray | July 22nd, 2008 at 10:08 pm | Report this comment

Pacifist and Paskalis, Ahmedinejad has repeatedly denied the Holocaust and said that Israel should be wiped off the map. Am I making this up, and if not, do these statements have no meaning? Also. one or another of the Iranian governing Mullahs has reportedly said that Israel is a “one bomb state” and it would be worth getting rid of it even if millions of Iranians died in retaliation. Am I making this up too?

Kindly advise.

Posted by: algasema | July 22nd, 2008 at 10:53 pm | Report this comment

@algasema,

“Pacifist and Paskalis, Ahmedinejad has [repeatedly denied the Holocaust and] said that Israel should be wiped off the map.”

If Pacifist supports the above, which I believe he admitted, even if indirectly above, then his alias is a cinical misnomer, a lop-sided and an unfair “pacifist” is he…

Posted by: Asher Pat | July 22nd, 2008 at 11:22 pm | Report this comment

algasema,

Ahmedinejad didn´t deny anything: he just held an international convention to study the Holocaust, and there will be more seminars about that historical fact and the Soviets. Some of the assistants were Jews like Naturei Karta. The British historian David Irving wasn´t allow to assist as he was under arrest in Austria.

Anyway most is rethoric as Israel is used by Nationalists the same way Gibraltar was used in Spain under Franco or the Falkland/Malvinas islands by Galtieri in Argentina.

There are many territorial disputesss around the World used for Nationalists but oftenly hidden when the relationship of nations in dispute is good: Yinlong/Tarabarov island between China and Russia, just recently solved; Southern Kuryl islands, which are not a problem for the common development of the Sakhalin oilfields; Guyana Esequiva, between Venezuela and Guyana, which is not a problem for the participation of Guyana in Petrocaribe; Sinai Peninsula was in dispute between Israel and Egypt but finally was the problem was solved; Golan heights, still in dispute but with a possible agreement in the future in exchange for the recognition of Israel by Syria and promotion of Trade between Syria, Lebanon, Israel and the European Union; Crimean Peninsula, between Ukraine and Russia, overwhelmengly Russian speaking…

Posted by: Enrique | July 22nd, 2008 at 11:39 pm | Report this comment

With all due respect, Enrique, what a lot of irrelevancy. None of this has anything to do with the threat of wiping another country and its people off the map. And the Iranian international conference was not to “study” the Holocaust, it was to “study” whether it took place. That that amounts to the same thing as denial is something that nobody can deny.

Posted by: algasema | July 22nd, 2008 at 11:59 pm | Report this comment

“wiping” is rethoric…and ridiculous as Israel has around 200 nuclear heads and the support of the US, UK and French Armies…a Defense Budget 120 times larger than Iran. Just Israel´s Defense Budget is $9 billion while Iran´s is $7 billion, even if probably after the oil boom Iran will have a similar Defense Budget…but with a more backward Army.

Posted by: Enrique | July 23rd, 2008 at 12:15 am | Report this comment

Add that Iran has not invaded any nation during the last centuries while Israel has invaded and attacked Lebanon a couple of times and the US has invaded SIX nations during the last 30 years, two just during the last decade.

So, if we have to be afraid of anybody, it should be the US which has broken the International Order as Hitler did in 1939…

Posted by: Enrique | July 23rd, 2008 at 12:18 am | Report this comment