U.N. Stand and The Obi-wan Alliance

by Gayle Plato
According to the U.N. agreed ‘watchdog’ of nuclear proliferation and concern, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran just tipped its hand and told on itself.  There is a second uranium enrichment facility.  
 
“Iran knew exactly what it was doing in sending this letter to the IAEA ahead of the P-5+1 talks on Oct. 1. In revealing the extent of its nuclear denial and deception campaign, Iran is only adding to the uncertainty surrounding Western and Israeli intelligence on the Iranian nuclear program. The more wrong Iran can make the intelligence of its adversaries appear, the more it hopes to be able to deter an attack.”
 
Many blog/news sites are speculating that the United States knew all along, the French, and England all in a united effort,  came out to announce the strong stance, and warn Iran.  Well I have a theory.  I DO NOT believe the U.S. was originally involved in this decision;  I think the UK and France, Israeli awareness and pressure coming on strong, was a concerted effort to force Obama’s team to step up. 
 
POTUS’ team has been openly kow-towing to Russia, snuggling with Venezuela, and reducing support of Europe  (aka the shields coming down in Poland).  I submit that the Mossad  ALWAYS has the best intelligence, and went DIRECTLY to key European allies, but more importantly coordinated with the member NOT at the table right now–Germany.
 
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, has long suspected Obama’s team not a real friend.  She all but announced that the USA better cough up her gold or else she’s going to get chilly real fast.  Europeans are very skeptical of Obama’s loyalty. Huge amounts of money are moving around Italy and Switzerland with NO true investigation; the Secret Service has let go potential counterfeiters time and again.  WHY?
 
Obama’s foreign policy seems clear- revamp how we play ball and drop European alliances for a New Leftist World Order.
 
I submit that the USA was NOT in this last play: Obama was TOLD by our allies, with Obi-wan mind control style, ” You will stand tall with us and rebuke Iran; you will stand up to Russia and all of Asia to stop nuclear movement.” The Obi-wan Alliance may have just saved the day.
 
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, speaks during the United Nations General Assembly September 23,

STAN HONDA/AFP/Getty Images

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks during the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 23

  

Ahmadinejad is not the threat; the Iranian religious zealots who pull his puppet strings are the Evil with the switches on the nuclear time bomb. Everyone knows that Ahmadinejad is a tool. But Iranian power is coordinating with North Korea, Venezuela, and Russia.  But then, so it seems are we in the new POTUS brain trust.
 
We know that relations are frigid with China, and now Japan’s new leaders won their election due in part to promising to NOT BUY anymore American dollars. The world economy is on the verge of implosion; the vast amounts of dollars being printed and pumped into the world economy is like a dirty bomb going off.  All of Europe is being poisoned with the amateur, inept fiscal plans of a few geeks and crazy lefty idiots in D.C. Our allies have had it and this is going to be the line in the sand.  It’s as if the Europeans collectively said- “Hey USA, step up, grow up, and be a part of the solution or soon become part of the problem. We do not trust this POTUS team.”
 
 

“Not only can Russia completely destroy the effectiveness of a U.S.-led sanctions regime, but it can provide Iran with critical weapons systems that could seriously complicate an attack against Iran down the road.”

(http://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical_diary/20090924_mutual_commitment_postpone_commitment_u_n)


Comments

  1. Ms. Plato, Several months ago you told us that your expertise was in education. Now you presume to be an expert on geo-politics. Your “theory” is that the US was ignorant of the Qom facility, that we learned about it from Israel, and that Britain and France (of all countries) forced Obama to be strong. But according to the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/world/middleeast/26intel.html?th&emc=th), the US learned about this facility during the Bush administration – yet apparently President Bush had so little evidence of what was actually going on there that not even he went public with the news. The Times also reports that the timing of Iran’s self-reporting to the UN about the facility was triggered by its realization that the facility was compromised by western intelligence agencies, and that they self reported in order to get their “no big deal” side of the story out in order to preempt the west’s version. That’s why the US, Britain and France worked so quickly to put the evidence together for the UN, Russia and China (a la Kennedy’s presentation of evidence to the UN during the Cuban Missile Crisis) – so that the Iranian story wouldn’t be the only one out there. It also seems clear that the US, UK and France were continuing to collect information on the facility up until the time that Iran knew that we were on to them. The full story will come out in due course, but your “theories” seem to show the world as you wish it were instead of how it really is. Indeed, the image of Obama laying out the evidence and standing firm like Kennedy did years ago – well – I’ll bet you wished that Bush had done it instead. Fortunately, he was smart enough not to.

  2. Rightwoman Gayle says

    So you’re
    a) referencing the NYT. OKAY…

    b) taking at face value that the key issue is the facility, knowing of it, timing.

    c) Still on Bush

    Bush is not the President! I understand that Woodrow Wilson might have started a lot of the ideas we’ve now– is this all HIS FAULT? Maybe this is all George Washington’s fault for taking the first gig a few years ago?

    Okay, if that’s all the point, that means that President Obama’s Administration knew all of this too–hmm– and yet they’ve put all negotiations on the table and openly embrace hostile dictators coordinating nuclear development? My point is not the info coming out; it’s the Administration being slapped internationally for not addressing the truth. Did you not LISTEN to BiBi?

    Sir or Madam, I don’t need to be Weatherman to know which way the wind blows. I’m not an expert at this; it’s an opinion on a blog.

    But, my six year old would get this…Obama’s team looks weak, Sarkozy all but spanked Mr. Obama, in public statements. It’s not the info, it’s the pointed side step of late; our allies are being relegated.

  3. Ms. Plato, Yes, my source is a NY Times news story – not an editorial. I rely on it as a widely read newspaper of record. I don’t know if you’re one of those people who believes that even the news department of a paper like the NY Times is hopelessly biased against Obama and against conservatives. Your first comment suggests you may be, but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt on that.

    By BiBi I guess you mean Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel. The man has very little credibility to me as an American. Netanyahu’s total focus is on what he perceives to be in the best national interest of Israel. He certainly doesn’t have the best interests of the United States in mind. His vision of what’s best for Israel and my vision of what’s best for the US are not at all the same. During the Wye negotiations several years ago during the Clinton Administration, Netanyahu blindsided everyone at the last minute by trying to force the US to free Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard as a condition to reaching an interim agreement with the Palestinians. Clinton’s rebuff was fully supported by our national security leaders (the military and the CIA) who were furious that the leader of Israel would have so little respect for our laws and the security of the classified information that Pollard was passing onto them. Netanyahu’s vision of the best interest of the State of Israel is for the US to continue to prop up the Israeli military and economy with whatever financial support they require and to continue to support its apartheid policies in the West Bank with uncritical diplomatic support. In my view that’s not good for Israel and it’s certainly not good for the United States.

    President Obama’s focus is and must be on what is in the best national interest of the United States. Hopefully he’s not going to let himself be distracted by an ideologue like BiBi, who has what he perceives to be his own interests in mind, not ours.

  4. Gayle Rightwoman says

    Free T- Thank you for that well-written response. Very thoughtful, and exactly why we conservatives who know that Israel matters, and are truly worried that Progressive liberal anti-Semites are taking over the educational and political power centers.

    I do not imply you are anti-semitic. I do note that the complaint of Netanyahu being pushy in negotiations seems totally off point regarding his deeply relevant need to protect his people from desperate despots, holding nukes, pointed at his homeland.

    You are still not arguing the point of the piece I wrote, and you’d lose a high school debate for going off the message.

    You’ve also clearly tipped your hand. Your personal statement about why you dislike Benjamin Netanyahu is exactly why many of us are highly concerned.

    The point is NOT what’s in Qom, it is what Europe and other world allies feel might be happening.

    Obama is restructuring the alliances. Look for my next post on exactly this point.

  5. PS Here’s an interesting article by NY Times columnist Roger Cohen exploring our limited options in the Iranian nuclear crisis. Cohan advocates a dialog with Iran that seeks to manage it within the broader framework of issues between Iran and its relations with the world and, for that matter, with its own people:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/opinion/28iht-edcohen.html?th&emc=th
    It’s true that such nuance may try the patience of some of your readers – especially when we still have two other “feel good” options espoused by the other nuclear power in the region: sanctions and a military strike. But even if Obama dropped “The Bomb” on Tehran you’d probably say he only did so because BiBi (the polished little brother of slain Entebbe military hero Jonathan Netanyahu) shamed the President into standing up and behaving “like a man.” There’s simply no way that Obama can do anything “right” in your world.

  6. Ms. Plato,

    I’m glad you recognize (however reluctantly and suspiciously) that not everyone who criticizes Prime Minister Netanyahu or his view of the world is an anti-semite or a “self-hater.” I’m neither. Only in the US is debate so consistently chilled by such innuendoes (ironically enough in a country that turned away refugees from the Holocaust right before World War II – our need to atone for that helped cause the pendulum to begin swinging to the opposite extreme – with equally un-American implications). Hopefully the emergence of groups such as K-Street (the alternative pro-Israel lobby) will have the effect of revitalizing debate in this country and focusing on how to achieve true security for the people in the region – a lasting security based on justice and cooperation, not force.

  7. “You are still not arguing the point of the piece I wrote, and you’d lose a high school debate for going off the message.”

    Gayle, I am curious, how does one argue with what you wrote? You give nothing to substantiate your claims and rely entirely on assertions which you seems to have no special knowledge of.

  8. Well I am more concerned with the fact that spell check and me missed the cow-tow for kow-tow.. changed it. Todd, there are about 400 articles out right now asserting much of what I said, and I substantiated reasons why Germany might be unhappy and therefore standing with other Western European countries. I will add these as sources that could have been at the listed. I’ll grant that point:

    This TIME article is interesting as it impies Germany doesn’t want to go for sanction, implying they are soft on Iran… hmmm
    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1924846,00.html

    This ariticle is great about how Western Europeans will play a role with POTUS administration: “Germany is currently segueing from the weakness of the post-World War II era to the strength of reunification. Because of this evolution, the balance of power in Europe is shifting. In 2009, an increasingly independent and assertive Berlin is looking to develop a foreign policy to match its ambitions.”
    http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090203_part_2_obama_administration_and_europe

    Just today, Debka has a great piece about the allies and concerns about sanctions. While many articles imply softness, to make POTUS seem hard.. I suspect the allies may be saying this is not enough and a stand must be taken beyond a sanction. http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=6290

    The this very important piece: http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1405
    But the best basic article of Germany is this in the JPOST. All talks are centered in Germany right now and have been for months. Note too that we are negotiating Gitmo detainees go there. Also, latest intel states Al-Qaeda is focused on Berlin as they are trying to pressure a gov’t just at election time, to pull out of Afganistan. The last article:
    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1251804473651

    ENJOY– Google search it too as I did and read more than just these. I stand by my points. Thanks for reading and the good challenge.

  9. Yes, it’s interesting that the Germans appear to have the dimmest view of Iran’s weapons development yet are the least likely of our Western European allies to support strong sanctions. The Roger Cohen opinion piece cited above states: “A senior German Foreign Ministry official last week told an American Council on Germany delegation: “The efficiency of sanctions is not really discussed because if you do, you are left with only two options — a military strike or living with a nuclear Iran — and nobody wants to go there. So the answer is: Let’s impose further sanctions! It’s a dishonest debate.”>> It might be relevant that Germany is one of Iran’s three large trading partners (along with Russia and China).

    Without the cooperation of Russia and China sanctions do seem like they’re going to be porous at best. Perhaps the bottom line of the “dishonest debate” over sanctions is to head off military action by Israel or someone else. But this only pushes the solution of the problem out in time, and without effecive sanctions time is on Iran’s side.

    Opening up the subject of reapproachment with Iran is a major third rail in this country – even among members of the Obama administration. But we’ve never really considered it – really and seriously. President Reagan’s Iran/Contra deal and birthday cake notwithstanding.

    But if we reworked our strategic relationship with Communist China from one on the brink of war to one of guarded competition, well, look what happened after Nixon “opened up” China in 1976. China is hardly a liberal oasis but it’s opened itself to lots of outside influences and over time it seems very possible that the Chinse people will finally demand that the rationalization of their economy be completed and even extended to their system of government. Absent what Nixon did – and he caught a lot of resistance for it back then – China might still resemble North Korea more than it resembles Vietnam today (another country that got its act together once we stopped trying to force them to do things our way). For a recent thoughtful exposition of this view (in addition to the same view expressed by Roger Cohen), see:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/opinion/29leverett.html?th=&adxnnl=1&emc=th&adxnnlx=1254240188-HXPCB/p9PB18wpLzTkO+Lg

    I personally would be very very careful dealing with Iran, but it seems pretty clear that what we’ve been doing for the past 30 years isn’t working very well. Iran is continuing to base its defenses on weapons development and stirring up trouble elsewhere in the region (e.g., in Lebanon and in its support for Hamas). I’m wondering if we gave them something to lose whether we might be able to accomplish many of our legitimate objectives without turning to the unpredictable consequences and costs of our only other option – which is war.

  10. I might add that the issue of how to resolve Iranian and American differences over the dispute between the Palestinians and Israel will be far harder to sort out than the dispute between the China and the US over Taiwan. My only hope is that it isn’t as important to Iran is it is to us and that they’ll give a little if they’re not feeling threatened elsewhere. Just another reason why the the Israeli-Palestinian conflict needs to be resolved sooner rather than later on the basis of justice and cooperation, not just for the good of the parties but in order to avoid a much larger conflagration.

  11. FT Great points, even though we’re different sides– your blue dog was peeking outta the fence your team sits upon though 🙂 It’s unfortunate that all the way back to Bush 41 we were vacillating with Iran and now we’re here.

  12. Freethinker says

    Thanks Gayle, but I must say we’re on the same side, just different views on how to protect it. We’re both Americans and we both want what’s best for our country and our children. PS I’ve never seen the movie Klute 🙂

Leave a Reply