Obama’s Useless Nuclear Umbrella for Israel
Dec 11th, 2008 | 8 responses
According to Haaretz, the Obama Administration will provide a “nuclear umbrella” to protect Israel:
U.S. President-elect Barack Obama’s administration will offer Israel a “nuclear umbrella” against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, a well-placed American source said earlier this week. The source, who is close to the new administration, said the U.S. will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran.
This is useless for more than one reason:
1) A nuclear strike against Israel could kill almost half of the Jews in the world (as well as many Christian and Muslim Arabs) and would threaten the survival of the Jewish People. Both the State of Israel and the Jewish People are far more interested in survival than revenge.
2) Said “nuclear umbrella” is based on a faulty assumption that Iranian leaders are rational actors and would see a nuclear catastrophe as a deterrent rather than an opportunity to kill Jews and bring the Mahdi (Islamic Messiah).
I advise the Obama administration to concentrate instead on prevention of Iranian nuclear capacity.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
8 Responses to “Obama’s Useless Nuclear Umbrella for Israel”
Joe / Pete,
Why do you continue to let Holly post?
Other than an occasional post on generic political items (very few and far between), her posts and comments are invariably right wing neo-con diatribes. I know you tend to pride yourselves on the moderate stance (see title) of your blog, however Hollys' participation makes a lie of that stance. I for one tend to skip by anything with her byline because I've come to the assumption (I know, I know, you shouldn't assume) that anything she posts about is going to be vile and borderline racists.
Joe / Pete, Holly's posts are a reflection of your site and of you personally, please reflect on what her continued posting says about you.
– Loviatar
P.S.
Notice, I did not reference her ability to comment, that is her right and is solely a reflection of her views. However, her posting is not a right and is a reflection of not only her views, but those of the management.
– L
Hwy Lov do you bitch about all the on the left bloggers that Post here. They far outnumber Holly and push the MV to lean left. Well? Go bitch about them or be a whining hypocrite.
I would think that nuclear deterrent is but one of many strategies that are going to be implemented under a competent administration along with strategic ally building, sanctions and incentives. Its counterproductive to believe that an entire country is nothing but religious fringe with armageddon fetishes and not a nation of functioning laws, commerce and world presence. They are rational actors. Unfortuantely for nuclear response type deterrents to have value, they have to be spoken aloud on the world stage.
What the point of a Doomsday Machine if you don't tell anyone you have it?
We are just so used to Bush bungling that we forget that there are mutlilateral approaches to nuclear disarmament and not just mutually assured destruction.
This site is far from moderate, but diverges almost exclusively because of the left, often far left, statements by people other than Holly, who is not extremist and has self-control, as opposed to the likes of Stickings, for example. And people _dare_ accuse Holly, instead, of constituting a problem?
As for the Obama offer, take a look at it. In exchange for not confronting Iran about its nuclear weapons program (no similar stance is shown yet about Iran's missiles, which can deliver other WMDs and also threaten Israel's existence thereby), the Obama administration proposes instead to be willing to use nuclear weapons (which normally would outrage the anti-nuclear idiots, but these people are transparently hypocritical) in acts more aggressive, in fact, than we have taken in Iraq, a promise no doubt that many, including Obama, know is unlikely that the United States would actually ever do. It's just sound-bites-for-the-losers slick packaging applied to foreign policy and to other nations, not only to chumps here at home.
Who knows — next may be an attempt to Understand [tm] the poor, misunderstood Iranians better.
I don't think you can claim that the Iranian government isn't rational. As noted elsewhere, the Iranians could send missiles to Israel today with the dreaded WMD's on board, but they haven't.
Why not?
I'd suggest that they realize the consequences to such an action and don't want to live with them.
Holly – What evidence do you have that Iran and it's leaders are not rational? It seems to me that they have been very careful in their actions (not necessarily their words) with the outside world. Can you point to something which proves they are irrational actors?
Good question jdledell…
Unfortunately, Holly doesn't reply, either. She just throws matches.
http://www.internationalpoliticalwill.com
I've been told by people who know a lot more about Iran than I that the mullahs are more pragmatic than most people give them credit for. I'd be careful about that sort of broad assertion, if I were you.