WSJ Dances Around “Unasked Question”
Last week, we posted an article titled, “The Unasked Question–Russia’s Role” and looking at the evidence from a trained analysts’-style perspective, we concluded ‘president Obama’ either wants Israel to strike Iran or is using this threat, plus the Russian subs off the East Coast as a threat to those in Washington to push through the HealthScare Bill or they will pull the trigger.
Today the Wall Street Journal dances their way around some of the same issues. What is their conclusion?
Thus, unlike Israel’s air strike against Iraq’s reactor in 1981 or Syria’s in 2007, both of which were planned in the utmost secrecy, the Israelis have gone out of their way to advertise their fears, purposes and capabilities. They have sent warships through the Suez Canal in broad daylight and conducted widely publicized air-combat exercises at long range. They have also been unusually forthcoming in their briefings with reporters, expressing confidence at every turn that Israel can get the job done.
The problem, however, is that the administration isn’t taking the bait, and one has to wonder why. Perhaps it thinks its diplomacy will work, or that it has the luxury of time, or that it can talk the Israelis out of attacking. Alternatively, it might actually want Israel to attack without inviting the perception that it has colluded with it. Or maybe it isn’t really paying attention.
But Israel is paying attention. And the longer the U.S. delays playing hardball with Iran, the sooner Israel is likely to strike. A report published today by the Bipartisan Policy Center, and signed by Democrat Chuck Robb, Republican Dan Coats, and retired Gen. Charles Ward, notes that by next year Iran will “be able to produce a weapon’s worth of highly enriched uranium . . . in less than two months.” No less critical in determining Israel’s timetable is the anticipated delivery to Iran of Russian S-300 anti-aircraft batteries: Israel will almost certainly strike before those deliveries are made, no matter whether an Iranian bomb is two months or two years away.
Such a strike may well be in Israel’s best interests, though that depends entirely on whether the strike succeeds. It is certainly in America’s supreme interest that Iran not acquire a genuine nuclear capability, whether of the actual or break-out variety. That goes also for the Middle East generally, which doesn’t need the nuclear arms race an Iranian capability would inevitably provoke.
Then again, it is not in the U.S. interest that Israel be the instrument of Iran’s disarmament. For starters, its ability to do so is iffy: Israeli strategists are quietly putting it about that even a successful attack may have to be repeated a few years down the road as Iran reconstitutes its capacity. For another thing, Iran could respond to such a strike not only against Israel itself, but also U.S targets in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.
But most importantly, it is an abdication of a superpower’s responsibility to outsource matters of war and peace to another state, however closely allied. President Obama has now ceded the driver’s seat on Iran policy to Prime Minister Netanyahu. He would do better to take the wheel again, keeping in mind that Iran is beyond the reach of his eloquence, and keeping in mind, too, that very useful Roman adage, Si vis pacem, para bellum. [If you wish for peace, prepare for war.]
What should we make of this article? Well, the global elites have had WWIII on their planning board since Albert Pike drafted all three WWs. Bible prophecy points to this as the end times, Muslims are waiting for it as well. So, as we were suggesting in our own article, it would seem we have a ‘president’ not on the side of the American people and fully ready to threaten us with nuclear weapons if we don’t concede to his (and his masters) demands. But this is as close as a mainstream media outlet can get to saying what we have said. Thank God that liberty is still alive and well even IF out of the mainstream!!