Nobel for Obama rules out U.S. strike on Iran

[bemildred]

In giving the Nobel Peace Prize to U.S. President Barack Obama, the members of the Nobel committee effectively closed the lid on the American military option in Iran. The prestigious award ties the president's hands; even if he had planned to order a U.S. military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities in the event that diplomatic negotiations failed, now he will have to forsake this option. It is clear that someone who has just been crowned a champion of world peace cannot take military action against a state that did not attack his country. We may also regretfully conclude that the Nobel Peace Prize is Iran's secure ticket to nuclear arms. If there was still a chance that an American military action could end the Iranian nuclear project, now the members of the Nobel committee have sentenced that project to life.

The Norwegian decision should force policy makers in Jerusalem to acknowledge that the likelihood that Iran will acquire nuclear arms in the near future has grown considerably. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, convinced that he returned from Washington with a U.S. promise to prevent Iran from going nuclear, must now accept the loss of the American military option. And the chances of a successful Israeli strike against the Iranian facilities have always been low. The natural conclusion is that Israel must prepare for a new Middle East in which it is no longer perceived as holding nuclear hegemony.

The first important step is to stop scaremongering. Statements claiming that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons means Israel's certain annihilation are damaging and unnecessary; if the true assessment is that Iran will use such weapons against Israel, the best thing Israelis can do is to start packing. Attempts to convince the public that it is necessary, and possible, to defend ourselves against nuclear weapons are tantamount to deception. Nuclear shelters cannot be built for everyone in the country, and the talk about hiding in the tunnels of Haifa's Carmelit railway or the basements of the New Tel Aviv Central Bus Station are pure fantasy. Relying on an antimissile system such as the Arrow is also wrong, because no such system can provide hermetic defense, and if just two nuclear missiles get through the price would be unbearable. So what to do? If Israel indeed has nuclear weapons, we should approach the new Nobel laureate and agree on Israel losing its nuclear ambiguity and becoming a full-fledged member of the nuclear club. Obama's toleration of the end of Israeli ambiguity will spare us international pressure and the sanctions the U.S. administration is legally obliged to apply to a country crossing the nuclear threshold.

An Israeli declaration that it possesses nuclear weapons, if it does, would completely change the regional rules of the game. It would enable the introduction of a reliable early warning system between Israel and Iran, when Iran acquires nuclear weapons of its own. Policy makers in Tehran understand only too well the meaning of Israel realizing its military option, and the meaning of American backup for Israeli warnings.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1120979.html

[sharp_stick]

1. Of course

because as I've said before when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize you are in effect signing a contract forever moving your entire foreign policy decision making apparatus to a small conference room in Oslo Norway.

:sarcasm: because there are people here that really are a bit too dense to figure it out if it's not put in smiley form.

Anybody that thinks awarding a prize on the President will tie his hands in any way are either too stupid to be given any credibility or disingenuous enough that they can be ignored along with Faux Noise going forward.

[JuniperLea]

2. +1

No wonder world leaders today want the citizenry poor, ignorant, and ill... I'd have to be suffering one hell of a fever to believe that nonsense. But many will believe, oh yes they will. Idiots.

[bemildred]

3. It is true that he overstates his case there.

I noticed that when I first read it. He does hedge himself about with conditions. I would have put it that it gives Obama political cover if he chooses not to go to war with Iran, and also that it will make it harder to make a case for war against Iran, if Iran doesn't attack anyone first. But I would agree that those obstacles might easily be overcome were Iran to do something stupid.

[bemildred]

4. China Lauds Ties With Iran

BEIJING – China praised its growing energy and trade ties with Iran in remarks that further diminished hopes that China will support efforts by the U.S. and its allies to line up sanctions over Iran's nuclear program.

"The Sino-Iran relationship has witnessed rapid development, as the two countries' leaders have had frequent exchanges, and cooperation in trade and energy has widened and deepened," China's Premier Wen Jiabao said Thursday in a meeting with visiting Iranian Vice President Reza Rahimi, according to the state-controlled Xinhua news agency. Mr. Rahimi is in Beijing along with the heads of Russia and Central Asian countries who are members of the regional Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Mr. Wen said that China "would continue playing a constructive role in seeking a peaceful solution" to Iran's nuclear issue, according to Xinhua.

The comments come a day after Russia, which like China can veto sanctions proposed through the United Nations Security Council, also pushed back on any possible sanctions during meetings between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125560022256987089.html