The Provocation in the Med
From the Associated Press:
JERUSALEM — Iran said Tuesday it would send a blockade-busting ship carrying aid and pro-Palestinian activists to Gaza, fueling concern in Israel, where commandos were training for another possible confrontation at sea.
There is no argument--none--that humanitarian supplies need to be delivered to Gaza by sea. Not when Israel has just loosened the blockade, permitting a wider array of materials to enter Gaza by land. Iran is instead engaging in a naked provocation. No doubt Teheran is happy enough to place pressure on Tel Aviv, but surely the mullah's principal target is Washington. President Obama has so far dedicated his administration to apologizing for American policy in the Middle East, pursuing utterly ineffectual diplomatic efforts to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and placing increasing pressures on Israel. Now the mullahs have devised a neat probe. Just how far, they want to discover, will the Obama administration permit them to go?
Secretary of State Clinton should call an immediate press conference, reading a statement of forthright support for Israel, and stating, unambiguously, that the United States will refuse to tolerate this Iranian provocation. And then--what I hope is already happening--the Sixth Fleet should dispose of its forces so as to prove that we mean it.
- Comment (5)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Re: The Provocation in the Med
From Haaretz, Peter:
Up until recently, I have largely supported Obama's not-so-exciting Middle East policy. I have seen for us three main objectives: gain control of the Iraq situation, prevent a war with Iran while doing so, and contain the spread of Islamic terror in the region. By this metric, I give Obama a solid B+. BUT: the peril here is that succeeding at these three vital tasks puts us in a position where we must almost immediately pivot to a new set of objectives, centered around preventing a hegemonic nuclear Iran from dictating events against our interests in the region. As you hint, it is still eminently possible for the administration to accomplish this pivot. And what a sensation if they chose to do so! I fear they won't...but it's a big opportunity for Hillary! to shine, so who knows.
Re: The Provocation in the Med
My response when I read that item in Haaretz? Relief.
May '10
Re: The Provocation in the Med
Shoulda woulda coulda, as the racing columnist for the Sun-Times would say. The fact is we have an administration staffed entirely by people who aren't fond of Israel, or even Britain.
While the Obama presidency is an unmitigated long-reaching disaster domestically, most of the foreign implications can be easily corrected. "Well, we were in the clutch of a crazy person; happens every 30 years or so; you understand." The big problem that can't be patched up with a wink and a nod later is the Iranian acquisition of a nuke.
May '10
Re: The Provocation in the Med
I'm confused as to all the hullabuloo about the Truman Strike Group going through the Suez Canal. They're relieving the Eisenhower. Navy.mil calls it a "routine rotation." Navy calls an aircraft carrier 100,000 tons of diplomacy. From what I understand, Iran should really be concerned if strike groups suddenly leave the Gulf. That's when they are planning to engage.
May '10
Re: The Provocation in the Med
James, is it possible that Al-Quds Al-Arabi is a unreliable news source? Would they have cause to misinform? I just don't see why that many ships would be going toward the Red Sea. The Truman would only have 4 to 5 normally. Would it be possible that the balance of the 12 would be going in the other direction to join the 6th, and they would just lie about it? I would think the 6th would need destroyers or cruisers to engage with Iran in the Med. I didn't think they had the firepower, otherwise. But if ships were coming from the Red Sea to the Med, they'd most likely be Pacific-based ships. The Truman and Eisenhower (I think) are Norfolk based. It would be pretty serious to put pac ships in the Med - that hasn't been done since the Cold War. Is this act by Iran warrant this type of aggression on the part of the US?