Friday, April 20, 2012


The media report that President Obama plans on visiting the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum on Monday, during which visit he will explain the Administration's strategy to prevent and respond to mass atrocities in the world.

I applaud the President for taking the time from his busy schedule to visit the Museum.  It shows his respect for those who perished in the Holocaust and his commitment to helping preserve their memory.  I also applaud the Administration for developing and explaining a strategy to prevent future atrocities.  It demonstrates that preventing mass murder is a high priority of the United States. 

The Administration should be commended.  However, I could not help but note a bit of irony in the President's making a visit at this time. The irony arises from the fact that the Administration has not been doing all it could to peacefully prevent another effort at the mass murder of Jewish people.  Indeed, the Administration has been undercutting Israel's efforts to prevent Iran from carrying out a nuclear annihilation of the Jewish people without having to resort to military action. 

All but the most naive believe that Iran is working on developing a nuclear weapon.  Iran's leaders have stated repeatedly that they would like to see Israel (read that seven million Jews) annihilated.  The last guy who said he wanted to eliminate Jews was not taken all that seriously for a long time.  Turns out he was dead serious. 

Israel is not taking any chances this time.  It will not permit another tyrant whose stated intention is to destroy the Jewish people from gaining the means to do so. It will not allow a nuclear Iran as long as the current Iranian leadership is in control.  The best way to prevent Iran from proceeding with its nuclear development plans without having to resort to military action is to impose the absolute strongest sanctions possible while backing it up with the most credible threat of immediate military action. 

The idea that Israel might attack at anytime to stop Iran's development of nuclear arms is essential to getting the Iranians to negotiate seriously.  Yet, the Obama Administration seems in the last few months to have been more intent on undermining the credibility of Israel's threat to mount an attack than on actually persuading the Iranians to change course.

Yes, the Administration has said that sanctions will not be reduced simply because Iran showed up at the most recent meeting of the P5+1 (the U.S., China, the U.K., Russia, German, and France). However, weeks and days prior to that meeting the Administration leaked documents with the apparent purpose to show that an Israeli strike would not be effective and, therefore, should not be commenced. 

Other recent leaks revolved around the possibility of the Iranians speeding up their development if they feel an attack is imminent, although I know of no evidence that suggests that they have been slouching off in the absence of such a threat. 

Still other leaks implied that Israel's threatened strike would drag the U.S. into a war, ignoring the fact that if Israel does not act and the Iranians continue on their current course, the U.S. might have to take the lead on an attack, and further ignoring the fact that if Iran develops nuclear capability, the U.S. will most likely be involved in conflicts that make a deterrent strike seem like kindergarten playground activities. 

Then there was the report by Mark Perry in Foreign Policy magazine in which a U.S. intelligence officer is quoted as saying that the U.S. is "not happy" about the fact that Israel may have obtained use of a base in Azerbaijan that would make an attack on Iran easier, thereby making it much more credible that it might just attack. 

Say what?  The Administration is unhappy that Israel might have it easier if it decides that stopping Iran from getting nuclear arms and thereby possibly preventing the nuclear destruction of the Jewish nation necessitates a preemptive strike?  Or the Administration is unhappy that the increased credibility of a possibly effective strike, combined with strong sanctions, might convince the Iranians not to proceed and thereby might avert military confrontation or a nuclear Iran?

And then there is the five week break between the recent meeting of the P5+1 and Iran.  By holding out the possibility of progress, but by taking such a long break, the U.S. and its partners seem to be deliberately boxing Israel into a corner:  act with a meeting pending and you are to blame for not exhausting peaceful means to prevent a nuclear Iran.

Exactly what  progress was made at the meeting that justified a five week break that makes an Israeli strike more difficult?  What did the the P5+1 get?

 Perhaps Iran agreed to slow down or stop its activities?  Nope.  Perhaps it was presented with a proposal that it needs time to consider?  Nope. 

Apparently what amounted to progress in the talks and what justifies a break during which Iran can go right on with its development work is the fact that it did not bring up any other subjects and agreed to continue talking about its nuclear program.  Whew.  That kind of progress is understandably exhausting and surely necessitates a five week break during which Israel is put in a box. 

While the President should be commended for visiting the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and for having a strategy to prevent future mass atrocities, he would do well to remove any resulting irony by reversing Administration policies and actions that undermine Israel's ability to prevent a very real threat of the nuclear annihilation of the only Jewish nation on earth.


One group that must surely be interested in the Administration's strategy to prevent mass atrocities must be the Syrian dissenters who are fighting for their lives against the tyrannical Bashar Assad.  Reports are that 11,000 Syrians have been slaughtered by Assad's mass atrocities.  My guess is the Syrians are anxiously waiting to hear when they might be included in the President's strategy. 


  1. Like your random thought.

    You and I aren’t in the know of what the US is REALLY PLANNING TO do in IRAN.

  2. The only question is why anyone would consider him intelligent enough to be our president. If your points are valid, they most certainly are, he must be plain dumb. The most effective sanction would be a big loss for him in Nov., with his treatment of our allies as a major reason.

  3. irony or tragedy or US head in the sand? Very difficult to find my candidate this year.

  4. Outstanding commentary. Wemust not think that achmandinajad won't push the button to obtain his goal of another holocaust.

  5. Excellent commentary! As a lifelong Democrat, I am disappointed with the President on this matter. I am afraid his naivete and make-nice idealism have gotten in the way of realism when it comes to Iranian intentions and practices. Why reduce the perceived threat represented by Israel to Iranian intentions and behavior?

  6. I agree with you--our only true and consistent friend in the Middle East has been Israel; and now our president throws them under the bus. Sad to think that Bush was more loyal to Israel than Obama.