The Obama administration’s misguided MIddle East diplomacy seems if anything to have hastened the coming war between Iran and/or its proxies with Israel. So in any event one would conclude from Caroline Glick’s Jerusalem Post column “Time to plan for war.” Glick’s weekly column frequently draws on intelligence information that is not otherwise publicly available; this column draws on publicly available information regarding American diplomacy to analyze the likely effects on Israel. Glick writes, for example:
On Wednesday the US joined the other four permanent members of the Security Council in signing a statement calling for a nuclear-free Middle East and urging Israel, Pakistan and India to accede to the NPT as non-nuclear states. Following the US’s lead, on Thursday Yukiya Amano, the new Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency wrote a letter to IAEA member states asking for their suggestions for how to convince Israel to sign the NPT.
So as Iran — an NPT signatory — makes a mockery of the treaty by building nuclear weapons in contempt of its treaty obligations, the US has actively supported Iran’s bid to use the NPT review conference as yet another UN forum for bashing Israel.
Glick observes that the United States “has now joined the ranks of fools who claim that nuclear weapons in the hands of states like the US and Israel are as problematic as nuclear weapons in the hands of states like Iran and North Korea.” Obama’s begging-to-shake-hands policy towards Iran works in tandem with his hostility toward Israel to make it clear that Obama will do nothing to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Rather than correct his abysmal failures, Glick notes, Obama seeks to hide them by minimizing the seriousness of the threat.
Glick then traces the contours of Iran’s preparation for fighting a four-front war with Israel. She argues that the side that initiates the conflict will be the side that controls the battle space. And she suggests that the Obama administration may refuse to resupply Israel with vital weapons systems in the course of the war. Israel’s preparations must in any event take account of this possibility.
In light of her analysis, Glick recommends that Israel launch a preemptive strike against Hezbollah’s missiles and missile launchers, Syria’s missiles, artillery and launchers, and Hamas’s missiles and launchers, while vaguely implying that Israel may deal with Iran’s nuclear program through covert operations on the ground. Glick’s column leaves many open questions and much room for argument, but not because it fails to account for the nature of the risks Israel confronts, including the challenges posed by the Obama administration.
In the video above, PJTV’s Bill Whittle interviews General Paul Vallely (US Army, ret.) regarding Iran’s preparations for war. Whittle’s interview is a good companion to Glick’s column. Drawing on his own sources, General Vallely asserts that Iran is providing Hezbollah with chemical weapons for probable use with previously emplaced Scud missiles. General Vallely further discusses Iran’s preparation of Hezbollah’s forces for a preemptive or retaliatory attack on Israel.
The Obama administration’s pathetic approach to the problems raised by Iran leaves one mystified. Obama could not make himself appear weaker or more contemptible in the eyes of Ahmadinejad and the mullahs. He has emboldened them. It is a scenario that cannot produce a happy ending.