Comments on: White House Not Backing Off Biden’s Suggestion That U.S. Wouldn’t Interfere With Israeli Attack On Iran

By: COLINDALE London

COLINDALE London — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:22:32 +0000

Iran’s response to an unprovoked attack, will be to close the Straits of Homuz meaning the price of oil globally will double or quadruple; stock markets around the world will crash; Iranian cells in the US and Europe will activate; Iran will fire long-range missiles at Israel; Israel will retaliate with a nuclear strike and the entire Middle East will be contaminated including the UAE, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The subsequent consequences are anybody’s guess – but the world will never be the same again and every family, everywhere, will have to bear the cost of scarce oil, sky-high prices and falling investment values.
Then add to this scenario the massive loss of life and the radiation sickness..
All this because one man indulged in rhetoric! I wonder what the attitude of the international community will be to the party who initiates this frightening new conflict?

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:27:54 +0000

I think Argoth hit it right on the head. I listened to the interview in real-time and that was the message I got from Biden’s comments (including part that’s never quoted, to the effect that Israel has to make its decision and we have to make ours). What I heard in that part of the interview was:
1) Obviously we cannot tell another nation, any nation, what to do to protect their national security. (What? You wanted him to say the US controls Israel’s actions and everything that nation does should be laid at our doorstep? I don’t think so.)
2) We are not going to give pre-approval to an Israeli decision to attack Iran …… and, in fact, we may not give our approval after the fact if they do make such a decision.

I thought those were intelligent, nuanced, careful statements that put the US on middle ground (where mediators can function best) … only to discover later that the press has *decided* it meant something else entirely. It’s a shame: that was a wide-ranging interview with lots of topics covered and lots of information … but the only thing 90% of readers will hear about is this (IMO) mis-interpreted/over-interpreted comment and his “No” when asked if Palin had been a victim of nasty media. Why not save some of the space telling people what to think and use it to give full quotes in context? Just a suggestion, NYT and many, many others.

Obama and, much more frequently, Biden are also subject to mistreatment, mischaracterization, and undeserved negative spin on things they say. Only difference is, they don’t complain – they just keep forging ahead trying to solve all the quite hideous problems facing our country. Thank God!! It’s good to know some competent, honest, and intelligent grown-ups are on the job.

By: Jane

Jane — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:59:09 +0000

Maybe Biden was pointing out the obvious:Israel is not our puppet. Nor is Palestine. In fact, the leverage we have with each side is probably rapidly decreasing.

On the whole tho, sounds like a high stakes game of good cop, bad cop.

By: Argoth

Argoth — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:35:47 +0000

I get the feeling from that statement that there are two sides. One: The US does and can not dictate what another country does. This helps refute those that say we are in Israels back pocket. Two: If Israel does something like that, it is their problem and they will have to deal with it accordingly. I think that helps keep them from doing anything rash with the expectation that the US will stand behind them.

By: kgb999

kgb999 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:56:34 +0000

IMO establishing this meme seems to be a coordinated media effort. I don’t see any result of this other than to strengthen the ruling regime in Iran. The question is: who benefits from strengthening the status quo by giving the Iranian hard liners a clear external threat to rally around?

By: sgwhiteinfla

sgwhiteinfla — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:41:24 +0000

Its not that the administration has their hands tied. If you notice when George S brought up not allowing Israel to fly over Iraq to attack Iran Biden wouldn’t commit to that. Basically what he is saying is that the US can’t tell Israel directly not to attack Iran. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t incentives that WE can do to stop it from happening. And just by the way, had Biden said anything other than what he said yesterday the NeoCons would be apoplectic today saying that the Obama/Biden administration wouldn’t allow Israel to protect itself and THAT would have been a major gaffe. The rest of this is bullsh*t speculation most likely only amplified because two sh*tty overseas papers also has articles up claiming that Saudi Arabia would support an Israeli attack on Iran which is probably total bullsh*t.

By: foster

foster — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:35:52 +0000

As usual some members of the chattering class, and the twitterers go into ” there’s goes Joe Biden in garrulous mode “. Both Obama and Biden are batting this straight down the line. What else could Biden have said? We spend lots of time over-analysing and parsing to the point that if Biden said ” I need to go to the bathroom” the gang that cannot talk straight would endlessly analyse the sentence. FYI: he is taking a leak.

By: COLINDALE London

COLINDALE London — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:35:14 +0000

A U.S decision to allow its proxy to attack Iran could well prove to be the start of WWIII and the worst foreign policy error of the 21st century. Once those ICBMs are fired from Israel, with or without nuclear warheads, then, arguably, everyone living today will suffer the consequences.
From Alaska to Mexico and from London to Oman and Karachi – the world will have years to reflect on our stupidity and the arrogance of our elected representatives.

By: mike from Arlington

mike from Arlington — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:33:45 +0000

Here’s the problem though. Biden has foot in mouth disease and who knows if it was intentional to come out that aggressive and blunt. I suppose now that it’s out there the admin had its hands tied. Back away from the statement and you sound like you don’t think Isreal has a right to defend its self. At least Mullen was on the same day pointing to the fact this would completely destabilize the region if Israel went on the offensive. Of course, the alternative of Iran having a nuclear weapon would be a bit destabilizing also, to say the least.

By: sgwhiteinfla

sgwhiteinfla — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:27:34 +0000

sorry, I meant to bold the last paragraph too

Obama remarked that he did not think it was his place to “determine for the Israelis what their security needs are.”

By: sgwhiteinfla

sgwhiteinfla — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:26:17 +0000

Greg

Thats what I was going off too. How is what Biden said any different from what President Obama said in this Jerusalem Post article? http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212390277&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I understand very clearly that Israel considers Iran an existential threat, and given some of the statements that have been made by [Iranian] President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, you can understand why,” Obama said in an interview with Newsweek, which was published on its Web site and will appear in print in the magazine’s May 25 issue.

With respect to concerns Israel might carry out an air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, the US president said that since Israel is “right there in the range” of Iranian missiles, “their calculation of costs and benefits are going to be more acute.”

Obama remarked that he did not think it was his place to “determine for the Israelis what their security needs are.”

Sounds pretty much the same as what Biden said yesterday if you ask me.

By: Benton Fraser

Benton Fraser — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:23:12 +0000

I believe this represents a well-placed, fully intentional, decidedly ambiguously shot across Iran’s bow by the administration. In the aftermath of Ayatollah Crackpot’s brutal repression of Iranian protesters, this has got to be causing the miserable old buzzard some serious intestinal gas.

By: mike from Arlington

mike from Arlington — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:21:25 +0000

Now that I’m doing some searching maybe Obama was referring to Palestinian rockets and Israels right to defend herself against them.

By: mike from Arlington

mike from Arlington — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:12:29 +0000

I agree with sgwhiteinfla. I’m pretty certain Obama has said on numerous occasions that not only does Isreal have the right to defend herself but also Iran must be prevented from acquiring a nuclear weapon. You can connect the dots if you want. Having said that, if Israel is planning to attack on a hunch and ends up being wrong, well then, where does that leave us? Especially since the Israeli’s would be using Iraqi air space to fly over. Also, how would all those pro-western green movement people feel about being bombed? Would it set us back another couple decades back into the depths of un-trustworthiness once again?

By: Greg

Greg — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:09:52 +0000

sg — link? I was going off the ABC transcript. did you see that? thoughts?