Israel National News claims:
The Bethlehem-based news agency Ma’an has cited a Kuwaiti newspaper report Saturday, that US President Barack Obama thwarted an Israeli military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.
Following Obama’s threat, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was reportedly forced to abort the planned Iran attack.
This lede sounds a bit like telephone tag, but this is what Giuliani was getting at last month and why the press erupted so angrily against him. If this report is true, who at this late stage in Mr. Obama’s administration who’s been paying the slightest bit of attention to his actions would be at all surprised by it?
A profoundly pertinent and very well put statement that. Why is it that Obama is so mad at Bibi but so dismissive of the dangers posed by ISIS (or a nuclear Iran)? But back to the subject, Whose idea was this? Jimmy Carter’s former National Security Adviser.
I am of the opinion that this was a yet another toothless bluff by Obama, and that Bibi should have gone ahead with the airstrike. Had Obama ordered the shooting down of an ally’s aircraft, there is no way the administration could have covered it up, and it would have gotten Americans, the majority Congress and our other allies up in arms against the president.
Senator Hits Back at Obama: Israel Ties Greater Than One Person
Speaking at an event in New York hosted by leading American Jewish community figure Dr. Joseph Frager Thursday, Ayotte stated that the speech could not come at a more appropriate – and crucial – time.
“This is a very important time for us to hear from the prime minister,” she said.
Members of Congress “are concerned” over signs that negotiations between world powers, led by the US, and Iran would end with an “insufficient” agreement, she continued.
On Tuesday, Netanyahu himself voiced similar concerns over the pending deal – triggering a response from both Secretary of State John Kerry and National Security Adviser Susan Rice.
“To my regret, the information which has reached me in recent days greatly strengthens our concerns regarding the agreement being formulated between the major powers and Iran,” Netanyahu told reporters during a tour of the IDF’s Southern Command headquarters.
“This agreement, if indeed it is signed, will allow Iran to become a nuclear threshold state. That is, with the consent of the major powers, Iran – which openly declares its intention to destroy the State of Israel – will receive a license to develop the production of bombs.
“Let us not forget Iran has said that they want to annihilate Israel from the face of the earth, and they have also called the United States the ‘Great Satan’,” she added, imploring Congressmen “on both sides of the aisle” to listen to the Israeli PM and work together to “protect the world” from Iran.
She also noted that “Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism,” which has “continued to make efforts for regional domination” by funding, training and supporting Shia Islamist proxies in countries like Yemen and Syria.
Yet Iran’s role in supporting global terrorism “doesn’t seem to be on the table for these negotiations,” Ayotte lamented, calling for that to change.
Neither has anything been done to address the fact that Iran has been actively developing its nuclear-capably Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBMs) program during the negotiations, Ayotte pointed out.
“This has to be a real agreement,” she stressed, “one the world can count on, one that Israel can count on, one that the United States can count on – not one that sounds good on paper but doesn’t end the threat of an Iran with a nuclear weapon.”
Turning back to the President’s negative response to the invitation to Netanyahu – which has gone from frosty to outright hostile – Ayotte declared that the US-Israel alliance “extends beyond any one person.”
Standing with the Muslims against the Jews.
Netanyahu cannot be allowed to assume that the United States will automatically have his back if he takes it upon himself to go to war with Iran. No foreign leader should be allowed to believe that they’re in a position to commit the United States to a potentially disastrous conflict because they’ve concluded that it’s in their own nation’s best interest to do so.
Does anyone want to deny that?
Netanyahu’s recent maneuvering is not in Israel’s best interests. The United States has always been a friend to Israel. We’ve always been ready and willing to assist in Israel’s defense. Our expectation has been that Israel’s leaders will not unilaterally act in a fashion that could unnecessarily turn that commitment into a serious threat to our own national interests. Is honoring that simple, unspoken understanding too much to ask of him?
Netanyahu suddenly seems to be engaging in undeclared political warfare against the leader of the nation that’s always been Israel’s best friend. Perhaps it has to do with the upcoming Israeli elections. It’s much to the advantage of hard-liners in Israel that the election be seen as involving an immediate, existential threat, to which their own policies and leadership are the only possible answer. This particular news story—the source of which is a claim made in a Kuwaiti newspaper—is clearly being used as political ammunition.
@Greg: Is it a surprise to anyone that Obozo supports the Muslims over the Israeli’s?
In the words of the late great Spock this scenario is very unlikely and illogical. Read conservative blog: http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2015/03/01/why-obama-order-to-shoot-down-israeli-jets-most-likely-untrue/
Iran has a habit of playing one side against another.
Its official press has falsified many stories – like how it sent up a hundred missiles (photoshopped) or that a German head of state (Helmut Schmidt) denied the Holocaust ever happened – to name just a couple.
Most recently (Feb 25th) models of US ships in the Gulf were obliterated by Iranian missiles.
Some of the statements to the press by Iran along with these phony photos:
It is our mission, Adm. Ali Fadavi said, to blow the entire US naval presence out of the Persian Gulf. “Either you vanquish the enemy, or he will destroy you. Our goal is to devastate the enemy on the waves of the Persian Gulf.”
Acting IRGC Navy Commander Adm. Ali-Reza Tongsari envisaged a coordinated attack on the American carrier ending in its seizure and the unfurling of the Islamic Republic’s flag high over its decks. This would signify Islamic Iran’s victory over the strongest military force in the world and death to the reputation of the world’s only superpower.
Gen. Mohammad Nazerig, commander of the Iranian naval marine special forces, got down to tactics. The US aircraft carrier and its escort vessels must be blasted in a coordinated assault that also hits their supply ports in Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, he said.
Too bad this is all in Pharsi so Obama and Kerry and Harf and Psaki are ignorant of it (skipped the meetings, got the 1 paragraph summary) because these rabble rousers in Iran are rousing the people of Iran into a frenzy of hatred toward the USA.
“Wiping out the American Navy in the Persian Gulf in the space of a few hours,” was the object of the exercise.
These are Obama’s ”partners” he prefers over the Israelis.
I guess a liar recognizes a fellow liar and has fellow feelings.
The truth of the story strikes me as highly questionable to begin with.
That said, I have no doubt that the Obama administration would strongly discourage Netanyahu from launching a surprise attack against Iran while we’re attempting to convince them to put their nuclear weapons development program on hold, and trying to avoid involvement in a two-front ground war centered on Iraq. The failure of either of those efforts could ultimately prove disastrous.
I’m relatively sure that’s not even possible for Iran.
Israel wouldn’t have to worry about Americans intercepting their planes. To do so they would have to be ordered by Obama and he would probably be on a golf course or or a fund raiser and be out of touch.
That ain’t gonna happen.
What makes you think it can happen as a result of military action? That might only create a context where their development is delayed, and where actually using them the moment they’re available becomes far more likely.
Gullible Greggie; FA’s answer to Neville Chamberlain.
and Barack Obama
Shooting down Jews is having Iran’s back, Greg.
Weasel Zippers: Code Pink Claims Dems Boycotting Netanyahu Speech Will Lead To “Demise” Of Israel, Or Something…
Why does Code Pink and Obama so hate Israel? Is it because of all the Jews?
If we rule out negotiating with Iran, what have we got left?
What satisfactory plan have we got to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons that doesn’t depend on negotiation?
What is left?
When do you intend to start exploding nuclear bombs?
Isn’t that really the only future you are counting on?
One of the things (besides harsh sanctions that prevent an Iran from moving forward with developing nuke bombs) that (apparently) has been done is subterfuge.
We have heard about Iranian computers involved with nuclear program being infiltrated by worms or viruses so that the enrichment past a certain point fails.
We have also heard about small explosions on site of a few of Iran’s nuclear enrichment plants.
We have seen top researchers kidnapped or defecting out of Iran.
We have heard that Iran found ”spies” in the forms of small birds and other animals.
George in #15 puts forward a classic ”False Dilemma” fallacy.
There are always other ways.
@Nanny G #16:
“We have heard that Iran found ”spies” in the forms of small birds and other animals.”
Oh, now THERE’S a real solution! We have a fleet of hummingbirds that will sabotage the detonator circuits of each Iranian bomb, rendering them all duds. Or perhaps circuit-wiring-eating rodents, like Boris and Natasha’s Metal-Munching Moon Mice from the Rocky & Bullwinkle Show. Or what was that movie that had cockroaches mounted with video transmitters?
Bibi Netanyahu wouldn’t have his underwear in such a tight knot if he was only concerned about his reelection. Iran IS working patiently to make nuclear weapons, stalling the US… PLAYING the US with the understanding that if the US can be placated, so goes the rest of the “free” world, and Iran eventually gets to build its nukes WITH OUR HELP.
If you bury your head in the myth that a bit of computer hacking, some defections and a WHOLE lot of wishful thinking that cockroaches with hand-grenades strapped to their backs are really going to stop Iran from it’s age-old campaign to eradicate the Jews once and for all, You’re in for a rude awakening.
The drop in the price of crude might take a bite out of weapon-development budgets in the region, but it won’t stop Iran’s bomb-building. Even Obama knows that Iran will get the bomb sooner or later. He’s just trying to buy the world a few more years before the inevitable nuclear holocaust that will follow Iran’s entry into the fraternity of nuclear nations. He’s hoping, LAMELY, that a regime-change in Iran MIGHT put a less-hard-liner into the leadership and so stop what WE cannot stop.
“”False Dilemma” fallacy…
There are always other ways.”
False dilemma my hind quarters!
Iran is already way too close, and all of those other ways aren’t working out nearly well enough to matter at this point. It’s our own fault that we’re down to the wire, and our choices are all bad ones. WE either start the BIG war now, we let ISRAEL start it now, we wait for Iran to start it when they get good and ready to, or we pray for a way-too-long-shot “Hail-Mary” Band-Aid from the president who you really hope fails anyway. The GOP is just afraid to give Obama the thumbs-up on this one because WHEN it doesn’t work (and the GOP knows it won’t), they don’t want to get blamed for having had a hand in the failure.
The GOP is playing this one as a “Win-Win” scenario, except that once the bombs start flying, we all lose.
right. The best way, in my opinion to deal with Iran is to tell Israel that they can stop the nuclear program in Iran any way they wish. And it would be stopped. We wouldn’t have to say a word.
I’m not so sure Israel or the United States actually have the means to blow out Iran’s nuclear program like a candle. A couple of years ago I thought we’d attained that capability or were near to it with the newest generation of bunker busters, and half-expected an airstrike in the near future. Since that hasn’t happened, I’ve begun to wonder if the Iranian program installations might be so deeply buried, hardened, and/or secretly dispersed that there’s nothing we could count on seriously damaging.
That would change the entire equation regarding military intervention. A ground war against Iran would be an extremely serious undertaking, and we wouldn’t have a clue what to do with the place if we were successful. (As with Iraq, we would have just eliminated one regional force that could hold another in check—in this case, ISIS, which Iran is presently engaging on the battlefield.) There’s also the disturbing possibility of a two-front ground war centered on Iraq, or the entire Middle East blowing up. Meanwhile, once we had our hands full, there would be Vladimir Putin and the lunatics in North Korea…
they both do. Any underground facility has to have support from the outside. That support can end immediately.
You are correct in which option you think is “best”. Sadly, what is “best” in this case isn’t nearly good enough.
You don’t have what you think you have in your #20. At this point, you cannot be assured that all of the mega-tonnage you can bring to bear will be enough. We don’t know what they’ve dug, how deep, how well-provisioned, how many and on and on. With so many undefined variables in play, we know next to nothing beyond the fact that Iran has a program.
Care to rest our future at the feet of so many unknowns?
Can’t remember when, some years ago I read a very detailed account of what they had underground. I’m sure it has continued to be expanded and armoured. But I’m also reliatively sure that intelligence has continued and they probably have a photograph of everything underground. Consider that the right kind of bunker busters (and I’m sure we have some that you and I have likely never heard of) will do one heck of a lot of damage and even if it won’t penetrate to the bottom levels, I’m sure they will shut down much of the support levels. Even if it doesn’t ‘destroy them’ it will certainly extend the time to get back into full operation. With all the extensive info on their underground sites on line, just think of all that is known that is secret to us peons. It’s mostly a matter of will power. I hope.
“Can’t remember when, some years ago I read a very detailed account of what they had underground. I’m sure it has continued to be expanded and armoured. But I’m also reliatively sure that intelligence has continued and they probably have a photograph of everything underground.”
Oh-Oh-Oh! Like all of the remarkably accurate intelligence that Colin Powell trotted out in support of the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction?
Boy, I’m sure reassured NOW!
It astonishes me how gullible and accepting you are of military hear-say when it supports your fantasies, but how skeptical you are of scientists when their reports don’t jive with your religious beliefs.
Are your politics the ONLY filter you apply?
If you are wrong about how fragile Iran’s fortifications protecting their nuclear programs really are, and you try unsuccessfully to end those programs, your hand will be shown, and there will be no putting the genie back into the bottle.
You’d be gambling with a whole lot more than just a few Iranian scientists’ lives. You’d be risking World peace, as both the Russians and the Chinese back Iran, and Putin is just itching for an excuse to prove to the World how much more
courageousinsane he is than Obama. And YOU’D happily give him the chance.
Which has now turned out to be 100% accurate. It took ISIS to find it after they took over regions in Iraq. As we well know, most of this has been known all along, just the the liberal press has made desperate attempts to keep it all a secret to make it appear as if Bush didn’t know what he was doing. Turns out, he was right.
Congrats on your selection of a new sign off, it fits you well.
I don’t know of any military ‘hear-say’ that I have used. And certainly don’t know of any scientists reports that I have disqualified. Certainly everyone knows of the testing of the bunker busters that will stop activities on bomb development, even if it doesn’t completely destroy the facilities.
I guess you talking about scientific evidence of global warming. That’t the only non-scientific-scientific evidence of anything that I don’t believe.
“Which has now turned out to be 100% accurate. It took ISIS to find it”
I had not heard. Thanks for the heads-up. Please direct me to news coverage of ISIS’s recovery of nuclear bomb technology, as their hands would certainly be the wrong ones for that to fall into.