Stabbing Israel in the Back Is More Like It

By Arnold Ahlert 

 "In particular, four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers say that the United States has concluded that Israel has recently been granted access to airbases on Iran's northern border. To do what, exactly, is not clear. 'The Israelis have bought an airfield,' a senior administration official told me in early February, 'and the airfield is called Azerbaijan.'"-- Mark Perry, Foreign Policy Magazine, March 28, 2012.

 "Clearly, this is an administration-orchestrated leak. This is not a rogue CIA guy saying I think I'll leak this out. It's just unprecedented to reveal this kind of information about one of your own allies."--America's former UN Ambassador John Bolton, Fox News, March 29, 2012.

 "There should not be a shred of doubt by now: when the chips are down, I have Israel's back,"--Barack Obama speaking at a meeting with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), March 4, 2012.

 Mark Perry is a well-established Israel-basher. John Bolton is a no-nonsense former diplomat with a solid understanding of Middle East dynamics in general, and Iranian ambitions in particular. 

President Barack Obama is a congenital liar running for re-election, who desperately needs Israel to "behave," lest his chances for re-election be imperiled by something as "unseemly" as the Jewish State safe-guarding itself from annihilation.

 An Israeli airbase in Azerbaijan, which sits on Iran's northern border, would provide their nation with a far better chance to take out Iran's nuclear program than an air attack emanating from Israel. It would allow Israeli jets to stay over targets longer without the issue of re-fueling being a major factor. President Obama is well-aware of such a reality.

 This is not the first time the president has attempted to undermine Israel. In February, Secretary of State Leon Panetta "speculated" that Israel might attack Iran as early as April, according to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. Unsurprisingly, both Panetta and the Pentagon declined comment on the report.

 And last Wednesday, a report released by the Congressional Research Service said Iran could recover from a strike and rebuild its centrifuges within six months, implying that a military strike would be futile. "An attack could have considerable regional and global security, political and economic repercussions, not least for the United States, Israel, and their bilateral relationship," the report read. Furthermore, it states that while the president and Congressional leaders have concerns about a nuclear-armed Iran, the American public must trust intelligence assessments that conclude "Iran has not made a decision to build nuclear weapons."

 In politics, there are no coincidences, and anyone with a functioning mind knows this is all about three factors: Obama, Obama and Obama.

First, it is Mr. Obama who is already taking a beating at the polls for high gas prices. No matter how much it is blunted by Saudi Arabian promises to pump more oil to make up for any shortfall, an attack on Iran would cause oil prices to go up. How much is anyone's guess, but the "up" part of the equation is a sure thing. A president running for re-election on a simplistic platform of hiding his record, while pitting one group of Americans against another, knows there is nothing more simplistic than Americans filling up their vehicles and getting a constant reminder of this administration's failed energy policies--over and over again. And that reality persists even if Israel does nothing. An attack on Iran would make high gas prices go even higher. The fact that Americans would blame the president for those higher prices is delicious irony: it was Democrats who hammered George W. Bush for high gas prices, and their own propaganda chicken is coming home to roost.

 Second, Mr. Obama knows that any attack by Israel would force him to do one of two things: join in, or let Israel go it alone. Scenario one alienates the president's anti-war constituency. Scenario two alienates a subset of American Jews who don't mindlessly pull the Democrat lever. Either way the president alienates somebody, thus this can desperately needs to be kicked down the road past the November election.

Third, Mr. Obama's so-called Muslim outreach program goes up in flames. For those Americans who have recoiled in disgust while this administration makes overtures to Taliban thugs and Muslim Brotherhood jihadists-in-sheep's clothing, this is a good thing. For a president hell-bent on demonstrating his "flexibility," aka pie-in-the-sky notions of unilateral disarmament--something his latest open mic gaffe of a conversation with Russian president Dmitry Mevedev seemed to indicate--not so much.

His other open mic gaffe? This exchange with French president Nicolas Sarkozy. "I can't stand him. He's a liar," Sarkozy said of Netanyahu. "You're tired of him; what about me? I have to deal with him every day," Obama replied.

 Unfortunately, Americans have to deal with Barack Obama everyday. And every day it becomes more and more apparent that this is the most anti-Israel president this nation has ever endured. Perhaps the only thing more distressing than that reality is the willful obliviousness of so many Jewish Americans who continue to support him, even as his administration reveals critical information about Israeli military strategies conceived for one reason and one reason only: to insure that nation's own survival.

Mr. Obama is far more interested in his own political survival. And if that survival depends on selling out America's staunchest ally in the Middle East, so be it. The potential of a second Holocaust must be measured against the potential of a second term.

 "So the Obama administration has torqued it up a notch, and now they're going to reveal very sensitive, very important information that will allow Iran to defeat an Israeli attack," Bolton contends. "I think that's what's going on."

Mr. Bolton is absolutely correct.