Skip to main content

View Diary: WOW: Obama Admin. Rejects Visa Request for Israeli Knesset Member Due to Ties w/ Jewish Terror Group (241 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Wonderful to see some recognition of reality (88+ / 0-)

    As an American Jew, I'm embarrassed by the association with the scheisskopfen now in power in Israel.  It is not the country that it was in my childhood; it's more of a Milosovic-era Srbja with kippot.

    Netanyahu is currently trying hard to bring down Obama. He is closely affiliated with Adelson and friends.  He's probably planning an October Surprise, like an attack on Iran, to try to force Obama to act.  So Obama will either be seen as anti-Israel or will get involved in another costly losing war.  Ben Ari should not be allowed to come here to recruit supporters.

    •  While I can't accept the Milosovic-era parallel (43+ / 0-)

      I do agree with you about the extreme rightward shift in Israel and the distress it has caused me and many of my fellow associates/friends both here and Israel.

      I'm "THE" Troubadour," and not "Troubadour" without the article. We're different people here at DK :)

      by David Harris Gershon on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 08:59:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  N interesting notion (7+ / 0-)

      About Netanyahu.  I wonder though if Israel attacks that will take the pressure off since Israel will have handled it.  

      Great that Obama has moved.  Kudos to Israel for its own actions against Kach in the past.   A shame to robing people espousing ear crimes into government though. Stunning teally

      •  I don't think it will be "handled" in one strike (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ivorybill, Cedwyn, Onomastic, Nag, BYw, Matt Z

        If something does happen, it will not end soon.  There will most definitely be blowback politically here if it happens in October...it would remain to be seen exactly what effect it would have on the electorate.

        I like lemurs -6.50, -4.82

        by roadbear on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 11:31:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I wasn't clear (0+ / 0-)

          I should have written "Israel will appear to have handled it in the minds of the American low information voter so Obama won't be yelled at by anyone to do anything"  or "since the Obama can throw up his hands and dodge the pressure after that"

          •  The result of such a bombing campaign (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oldhippie

            will be massive retaliation on the part of Iran.

            That will mean a lot more pressure, not less.

            Bombing Iran is far more dangerous than Iran getting The Bomb.

            by JesseCW on Sat Feb 25, 2012 at 02:50:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Would it? (0+ / 0-)

              see my comment below, but I could imagine Khamanei using it for domestic purposes and not provoking a wider war by retaliating except by proxies (who may not comply if rumors of movements away from Iran and toward Egypt are to be believed.  The Syria situation does make that calculation somewhat trickier.)

              In any event the case for US intervention is basically nil.

      •  Airstrikes will not "handle" anything. (14+ / 0-)

        Any major attack on Iran by Israel will ignite a regional war that will likely drive energy costs so high as to cause widespread hunger around the world.

        Fear is your only God.

        by JesseCW on Sat Feb 25, 2012 at 06:03:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We don't know what the mullahs will do (0+ / 0-)

          an attack could be followed with the same thing that followed the attack on the Osirak reactor in 1981 -- which BTW Israel was totally justified in carrying out. That is, nothing at all would follow.

          Or Iran could invade a neighbor. It really doesn't have the capability of sending a large army to Israel -- its Navy couldn't even rescue Iranians from the Somali pirates. But an Iranian intervention in support of the Taliban in Afghanistan could be a disaster for the US. That is reason #1 why the US needs to get out of Afghanistan, and fast.

      •  Israel can't handle it (9+ / 0-)

        I follow proliferation topics pretty closely, and Israel simply doesn't have the military capabilities to "handle" Iranian nuclear enrichment with overt violence.

        The range to the enrichment facilities, and the weight of the bombs involved (GBU penetrators) make it logistically difficult for anyone operating from Israeli airbases who doesn't have access to heavy bombers. And the defences in place require that either a large escort be sent or heavy losses be taken into account.

        At "best" an Israeli strike would have to hope to force the US's hand by entrenching Iran and making them go all out for a nuclear weapon^ and make military action the only way out for the US as well.

        ^this is not intended to have an opinion on if Iran is currently attempting to produce enriched uranium for military purposes.

        It is better to be making the news than taking it; to be an actor rather than a critic. - WSC

        by Solarian on Sat Feb 25, 2012 at 06:56:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's interesting (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          susanWAstate, Matt Z, Little Flower

          if they can't handle it, perhaps they should leave well enough alone until they can handle it.

          It is time to #Occupy Media.

          by lunachickie on Sat Feb 25, 2012 at 08:41:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sadly I don't think "handling it" is the point (0+ / 0-)

            There are three outcomes of the strike that RW Israeli's might be in favor of:

            1) A strike, while condemned (and that may be muted: Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states aren't thrilled with Iran's nuclear program), would be likely to harden Iranian policy in favor of a standoff instead of negotiation.

            2) A strike, even if condemned, is likely to slow down production, by a few years, of enriched uranium above 5%.^

            3) A strike, and the US response, would cause an impact on the US Presidential elections. Sadly.

            ^again, to be careful, this isn't equal to bombs although it is closer than I personally feel comfortable with from a state that has tossed out the IAEA.

            It is better to be making the news than taking it; to be an actor rather than a critic. - WSC

            by Solarian on Sat Feb 25, 2012 at 10:23:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  The problem is, it isn't "well enough" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            volleyboy1, RedPencil

            The President of Iran has clearly stated that he wants to eliminate Israel. If the President of Mexico were to say that, and produce atomic bombs, I can guarantee you there would be a US invasion pronto.

        •  It's bluster (6+ / 0-)

          Israel could wreck a lot of stuff along Iran's Gulf coast but it is plainly impossible for Israel to do more than superficial damage to the key nuclear sites.

          Not to mention that nations bent on launching sneak attacks rarely spend 18 months threatening the intended target. This bluster is aimed at increasing tensions and pressure ... probably on Iran and the Obama administration both.

          This visa denial would seem to indicate the Obama administration is quite willing to call Bibi's bluffs.

          •  Caffine (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Quicklund, JesseCW

            I hope so.

            It is better to be making the news than taking it; to be an actor rather than a critic. - WSC

            by Solarian on Sat Feb 25, 2012 at 10:24:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah (6+ / 0-)

            but this also assumes there are "key nuclear sites" in Iran which are truly a threat to anything or anyone other than those who would violate their sovereignty.

            I'm simply not believing a lot of the "media coverage" on this--it's not like we haven't known of them to bullshit us before. The whole thing smacks of "War on Iraq". And we all know how that turned out, so....

            It is time to #Occupy Media.

            by lunachickie on Sat Feb 25, 2012 at 10:30:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Big difference (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              charliehall2

              In Iraq, inspectors were saying that they doubted Bush's claims and wanted more inspections.  Here, there's a pretty clearly demonstrated nuclear program of come kind that can be weaponized.  Here, the inspectors seem to be providing the evidence that there's a program, rather than the  US administration.

              •  Any nuclear program *can be* weaponized. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TheMomCat, lunachickie

                Here, there's no credible evidence at all from anyone that Iran is seeking to weaponize their nuclear program.

                We know Iran has a nuclear program.  That's not a secret.  To anyone.

                The IAEA is pissed that Iran won't sign on to the additional protocol, and pissed that Iran won't come clean about activities decades old.  

                They're not making a case that they have any evidence of a nuclear weapons program within the last decade, though.

                Bombing Iran is far more dangerous than Iran getting The Bomb.

                by JesseCW on Sat Feb 25, 2012 at 02:42:36 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  not strictly true (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  charliehall2, highacidity

                  some designs are mroe difficult than others.  Also, we know that Iran was wokring on weaponizing in the past, even if they apparently stopped before 2007.  

                  But broadly yes, there is no concrete evidence that they are weaponizing.  ON the other hand, if they were weaponizing, it isn't clear we would have any evidence until they test, frankly.  Leaves the world in somethign of a black box.  I'd hope that Iran would take a lesson from Hussein's experience and realize that if they aren't weaponizing they are far, far better off letting the inspectors run around where ever they want and trumpet to the world that nothing is going on.  Playing games that invite a miscalculation is foolhardy in the extreme, unless the Ayatollahs want to consolidate domesitc support by provoking a bombing attack from Israel, which would probably suit their domestic purposes quite nicely. I more than half way suspect that this is what is goign on here.

                  A dangerous game all the way around

                  •  Absolutely true. If you're enriching fuel, (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    TheMomCat, charliehall2, lunachickie

                    you can weaponize it if you put the effort in.

                    If you've got nuclear power and you're not enriching fuel, you're a nation of idiots which has willingly sacrificed energy security.

                    Iran would be governed by fools if they let American inspectors have free reign of their nation in order to compile target lists, the way that Saddam did.

                    Saddam didn't kick the inspectors out.  He didn't stop them from performing inspections.  They did their work, we determined Saddam had no WMD, and then we attacked.

                    There was no black box.  

                    You're arguing Bush's big lie version of history.  I don't know why.

                    Bombing Iran is far more dangerous than Iran getting The Bomb.

                    by JesseCW on Sat Feb 25, 2012 at 04:27:14 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And there is no reason to enrich like this (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      volleyboy1

                      except....

                    •  Ummm (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      highacidity

                      Iraq did not give access to weapons inspectors from 1998 to 2002, only for nuclear sites.  

                      And, of course, perhaps you don't realize this, but

                      1) the US doesn't need on the ground inspectors to figure out targest

                      2) the IAEA and other inspectors aren't US officials.  

                      Other than that, brilliant.

                      •  Ok. So, you're sticking with that. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        lunachickie

                        Saddam didn't let the inspectors in.  We had no idea what he had.

                        Uh-huh.

                        I didn't say IAEA inspectors were US officials.  Granted, I don't think your strawman was built intentionally in this case, you just had a hard time keeping up.

                        What I said was that Americans on the inspection teams provided our government with target lists.

                        1) the US doesn't need on the ground inspectors to figure out targest
                        Have you ever actually looked at satellite images?  Eyes on the ground are a huge asset when it comes to deciding which civilian sites to destroy in the course of destroying all of a nations modern infrastructure, and they're a huge asset in determining where non-prohibited weapons are being stored, ect.

                        Bombing Iran is far more dangerous than Iran getting The Bomb.

                        by JesseCW on Sun Feb 26, 2012 at 06:06:57 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  They just want war (0+ / 0-)

                          that's all...

                          It is time to #Occupy Media.

                          by lunachickie on Sun Feb 26, 2012 at 08:14:48 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  DIstort all you like (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          highacidity

                          Fact of the matter is that for many many years, Hussein was uncooperative with the inspections regime and deliberately choose a strategy of not allowing the international community know just where it stood vis a vis these waepons.  That strategy created enough uncertainty that Bush was easily able to exploit it.  Yes, the inspectors had a pretty good idea what Hussein didn't have though there were still significant uncertainties as towards others.  By the time Hussein realized what was coming and let the inspectors in, the momentum was already underway.

                          As for Iran, sure they can play cat and mouse and the net result is that now momentum is again building for war precisely because of the uncooperativeness and lack of openness of Iran.  So, Iran wants to risk war, then so be it, but Khamanei has to know precisely that he is risking war by being cagey.  That's just how the world works.  If you create uncertainty in people's minds, then god knows what they'll do.  Not maybe rational, but utterly predictable.  

                          If Iran is really only looking for peaceful civilian power, then they should absolutely open the doors wide and let all the inspectors see absolutely everything to prove their intentions are good.  Do that and all this "they're building a bomb!" hair on fire stuff will be unable to gain traction.  I'm afraid that this business of this paranoia that the IAEA is going to send in its black UN helicopters once th inspections are done is much lower risk than the very high risk Iran faces now from it's intentional creation of uncertainty.

                          The only interpretation I see is that given civil unrest, Khamanei wants Israeli air strikes to shore up his own position.

                          •  The only way for Iran to avoid risking war (0+ / 0-)

                            is for Iran to surrender completely and invite an occupation.

                            To argue that we savagely attacked and slaughtered the people of Iraq because "Saddam was coy with inspectors" is laughably detached from reality.

                            Bombing Iran is far more dangerous than Iran getting The Bomb.

                            by JesseCW on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 06:47:38 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  I look at the civilian sat-int all the time (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Quicklund

                          and I don't see why the US would need boots on the ground to destroy Iranian infrastructure.  I could probably figure that out with enough time and google earth.

                          non-prohibited weapons? conventional weapons have nada to do with this discussion. There are a few kinds of targets IF you favor a military attack:

                          Breeder reactors (preferably prior to completion)

                          Uranium enrichment facilities (centrifuges and their electrical supplies)

                          Weapon R&D facilities (if you believe that weaponization research is ongoing)

                          Your belief that IAEA inspectors are somehow just targeting assistants for US airstrikes falls down when we know where the above locations are. What those inspectors could do is help difuse the situation by building confidence that Iran isn't diverting U235 for military use.

                          The best way forward is for the international community to believe that Iran is in compliance. Their rhetoric (for domestic consumption?) doesn't help. Charliehall2 keeps harping on about this, although he's taking it to far by evidently believing everything Iranian leaders say. But when that rhetoric is mixed with obdurate refusal to allow inspections?

                          Get a face-saving concession, maybe limit the countries who can supply inspectors, maybe linking US sanctions to inspections, whatever, and let them in.

                          Unless what Iran is hoping for is a strike that plays up nationalist sentiment at a time when neighboring states are having massive pro-democracy protests.

                          It is better to be making the news than taking it; to be an actor rather than a critic. - WSC

                          by Solarian on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 10:24:01 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  Saddam did kick the inspectors out (0+ / 0-)

                      He let them return in later 2002 under mounting American military deployments. But yes, they were reporting zero results NLT Jan 2003.

                  •  there is no credible evidence (0+ / 0-)

                    regarding Iran's "weapons program". That's obvious to anyone paying attention.

                    This is just like the run-up to Iraq and nobody's buying it this time.

                    It is time to #Occupy Media.

                    by lunachickie on Sun Feb 26, 2012 at 08:16:18 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  I think it indicates that the Obama (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT, TheMomCat

            administration does not want war at this time and is willing to engage in some push back.

            I don't think we're at "calling Bibi's bluff" yet though.  

            We'll see how that goes.  A public deceleration that we will defend Iraqi Air-Space from any unsanctioned military incursion would go a long way.

            Bombing Iran is far more dangerous than Iran getting The Bomb.

            by JesseCW on Sat Feb 25, 2012 at 02:39:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  we will not make that declaration (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              volleyboy1

              and for the US to shoot down an Israeli aircraft would result in President Romney or President Santorum.

              •  You are right (0+ / 0-)

                It would do ore than "go a long way". It would declare a de facto end to the US-Israel alliance. Such a declaration would also have to include the Iraqi government to ask for that protection.

                But from Iran's POV... any Israeli attack that overflies Iraq will be seen by Iran as a joint US/Israeli attack. They know Israel's planes cannot reach Iran w/o tacit approval from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the US, or some combination.

                Israel can't sneak through Saudi airspace. Saudis fly AWACS and F-15s. Will SA go to war against a Muslim nation in alliance with Israel? Sounds unrealistic to me.

                So that leaves Iraq. Would the patchwork Iraqi government want Iran in a vengeful mood? Boy I bet some Iraqi leaders do and other very much do not. But there is no functional Iraqi air force yet. The US is still responsible for defending Iraqi airspace, IIRC.

                From Iran's POV, that means and Israeli attack is a US attack. That in turn adds to the conclusion Israel's talk is bluster.

            •  I meant, media and blog should call Israel's bluff (0+ / 0-)

              You, me.

              Diaries and news stories keep appearing and they take Israel's threats to attack at face value.  The writers eaither cheer the idea of an attack or rail against it. Hardly anyone responds by mocking Israel's inflated threats.

              Want to stop this threat nonsense? Move the Overton Window so that Israel's military does not have the reputation of miracle workers.

              Don't panic; mock.

    •  I'd say it's more like a GWBush era USA n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sfbob

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site