Dear Readers: A bit of show-prep for the CANTO TALK program this Thursday (7 pm Pacific/9 pm Central), which will be featuring the on-going history of conflict the Western World has had with Persia . This is topical, in light of the increasing appearance that Israel is poised to take-out Iran’s nuclear facilities by any means possible:
The Times of Israel reports today on speculation by an Israeli television commentator that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is likely to order a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear program in October 2012, after ordering early elections in September and prior to U.S. elections in November. The theory is that President Barack Obama, who is thought to be opposed to an Israeli attack, would have a harder time opposing Israel while engaged in a close re-election race.
Interestingly, there was a response within the Democratic National Committee already – New Democratic platform drops some pro-Israel language
To be clear, both platforms preface the above sections with passages stressing America’s commitment to Israel’s security, with the new one declaring, “A strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States not simply because we share strategic interests, but also because we share common values.” What’s different is that there’s nothing in the new one about isolating Hamas, nothing about the status of Jerusalem (as Dunetz notes, Jay Carney has been squirrelly about this at briefings too), nothing about the Palestinians settling in their new state instead of in Israel, i.e. the right of return, and nothing about the 1949 lines. How come?
Three possibilities, none of which are mutually exclusive. One: President Obama is more reluctant than Candidate Obama to draw lines in the sand since he’s actually in charge of U.S. foreign policy now. Why tie his own hands with needless pledges, especially in light of the fluidity of regional politics after the Arab Spring? …
Two: Obama and his brain trust decided months ago that they were going to try to win this election by turning out their base, not by winning over centrists, many of whom are a lost cause after three grueling years of Hopenchange. ..
Three: Could be that Obama’s using the Israel section of the platform to signal his displeasure with Netanyahu for the saber-rattling lately over Iran’s nuclear program.
One of my favorite images related to Obama’s “57 States” statement, underscoring perfectly the President’s likely view of Israel (click here for a review of Obama’s mentor Edward Said of Columbia – an apologist for terrorism, who played a key role in changing the field of Middle East Studies towards an anti-Western and anti-Israel bias.)
Meanwhile, the campaign for the Presidency continues. Barry Casselman of the Prairie Editor shared his thoughts about Mitt Romney in the wake of the Republican National Convention:
The Mitt Romney I heard in Tampa was a man taking charge. That does not guarantee he will win in November, although I think he will, but it does mean that, after all previous jobs and responsibilities, the years of campaigning, the ambition and the preparation, Mitt Romney knows he is ready to take up the toughest job anyone in public life is ever going to have.
Meanwhile, I ask my readers to keep me in their prayers. As the SLOB Democrat, I will be watching the DNC convention prime-time. As Bill Clinton is not having his speech vetted by the DNC, I wonder if a “Two-De-Force” movie premise may be correct!
UPDATE! Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved
he Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot published a startling report Monday detailing a message it says was conveyed by the Obama administration – via two European countries – to Iranian officials. The request: if Israel decides to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, the U.S. will not support it and the Islamic Republic should refrain from retaliating on U.S. military installations in the Persian Gulf.
From the report by the well-connected diplomatic correspondent Shimon Schiffer [translated via hard copy by TheBlaze in Israel]:
The message that the U.S. conveyed to Iran via the most sensitive secret channels is unequivocal: if Israel attacks, we won’t stand behind her and we won’t be drawn into war.
In recent days, senior American administration officials turned to their Iranian counterparts via two countries in Europe which act as a back-channel during times of crisis. They made clear to the Iranians that the U.S. does not intend to be sucked into a campaign if Israel decides to strike unilaterally and without advance coordination [with the U.S.], and they said that they expect from Iran that it will not attack strategic American targets in the Persian Gulf. That means, among other things, Army bases, Navy ships and aircraft carriers sailing in the region.