Biden on Israel/Iran
Israel Air Force F-15s (wikimedia)
Over the weekend, Joe Biden made some news with these remarks on the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran:
BIDEN: Look, Israel can determine for itself — it’s a sovereign nation — what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Whether we agree or not?
BIDEN: Whether we agree or not. They’re entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that’s going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed. What we believe is in the national interest of the United States, which we, coincidentally, believe is also in the interest of Israel and the whole world. And so there are separate issues. If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice.
This is being read by some, including Marc Lynch, as a “green light” for an Israeli attack. Like Robert Farley I think the most straightforward reading of what Biden said is rather different, he’s trying to distance the United States from any possible Israeli military action by making it clear that what Israel does or doesn’t do is decided in Israel rather than in Washington.
The main problem with this, I think, is that probably nobody’s going to believe it. Already you see many Americans taking Biden’s statement that the U.S. doesn’t control Israeli policy to “really” mean that the U.S. is encouraging Israel to attack.
60 Responses to “Biden on Israel/Iran”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 6th, 2009 at 11:29 am
We should all send “get well soon” cards to Hillary.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Biden’s first name needs to be changed to “STFU” and he should be addressed by his new full name frequently.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:44 am
no, i think biden said something very useful.
look, we have other allies, and allies with whom we have healthier relationships. and what biden said about israel is true about all of the other allies that we have: they are sovereign nations, their interests sometimes diverge from ours, and they take their own foreign policy decisions.
if we had a normal, healthy relationship with israel, biden’s assertion would have been greeted with yawns.
and i think biden’s assertion here signals that obama wants to move our relationship with israel back towards a healthier model.
look: israel is a foreign country. it’s not the 51st state, or even the 52nd. sure, lots of americans have friends and relations there. sure, it plays an important role in the middle east.
but it is not joined at the hip with america. it is not always our friend. its interests are not always our own. and the sooner this fact can be reflected in our foreign policy, the better.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Anybody who believes Biden’s statement was a “green light” for Israel to attach Iran must also believe that Israel is simply a pawn of the US.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Relative to Iran, attached is a couple of news articles that should give the mad Mullahs in Iran some pause. IMHO, any such attack will be made with nuclear equipped submarine launched cruise missiles. However, forcing the mad Mullahs to consider an air attack in addition will have the effect of diverting their attention.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443726415&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443717400&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
July 6th, 2009 at 11:48 am
The Obama administration’s default setting is to respect sovereignty/don’t offend or criticize.
See Iran and its government crackdown after the rigged eleciton. Same goes for Israel. Honduras, they did criticize, but that was along with everyone else and Honduras isn’t a major player.
Biden should have said if Israel attacks Iran, we’ll cut off foreign aid. It’s within our sovereign right to do that.
I do think Israel will attack, which is unfortunate b/c that will just strengthen the Iranian regime as people rally in reaction.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Israel is not a sovereign country at all, nor an “ally”. It is a client state which could not last a year without massive US aid. The scandal is that we will neither cut it loose nor force it to act in OUR interests like a proper client state.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
SLC,
Haven’t we done this before? The Israelis aren’t dumb enough to use nukes – the resulting sanctions would be the end of Israel. Not to mention what Iran might do in retaliation for a nuclear attack.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Biden is an AIPAC whore, pure and simple. Israel jerks us around because whores like Biden, Pelosi, Reid, and (yes) Obama haven’t got the balls to use the $ billions we give Israel every year as a lever.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
LaBonne:
Israel is not a sovereign country at all, nor an “ally”. It is a client state which could not last a year without massive US aid. The scandal is that we will neither cut it loose nor force it to act in OUR interests like a proper client state.
Guys like LaBonne make me sympathize (or empathize?) with Israel. Israel may not survive but they’d take everyone else down with them, including the oil market and the global economy. But cavalier, devil-may-care tough talkers like LaBonne don’t really care.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
The physical geography and the realities of plane range combine to show that Israel cannot attack Iran without material assistance from the United States. I know Israel did a mock mission awhile back over the same range but in reality that was over the open waters of the Med where issues of transit rights and national sovreignity did not come into play.
I put up the relevant map here: http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/06/trace-bombing-route-from-israel-to-iran.html
Anthony Cordesman and Abdullah Foukan put out a recent very detailed study called: Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Development Facilities
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090316_israelistrikeiran.pdf
It has a very detailed examination of the air attack and defense capabilities of both Israel and Iran as well of the latter’s ballistic missile capabilities, really a valuable resource all on its own. But more important are their conclusions.
Even this overstates the case. A look at the map above shows that the attack route requires crossing more than ‘a small portion of Iraq’, instead we are talking large numbers of planes flying just north of Mosul and Irbil through what has been known as “The Northern Fly-Zone” since 1992. The chances of this scale of attack with strike bombers and refueling tankers transiting American controlled air-space without being detected going in are in my opinion zero and even less so on the way out after the bombing run. And as Cordesman and Foukan imply this is particularly true for the refueling capability, the idea that Israeli refueling tankers can just fly in circles over Iraqi air space waiting for the strike force to exit Iran without someone noticing is absurd.
And yes there was a fantasy published in the UK Sunday Times asserting that Saudi Arabia had green lighted Israel for overfly rights. Not only is this implausible on its face and with the only cited source being John Bolton it totally ignores the refueling angle. Views differ on the capability of the Iranian Air Force but I don’t think they would have any problem taking on some KC-135 tankers. Nor do I see the Saudi Air Force vigorously protecting Israeli airplanes from Iranian counter-attack. And no one involved would have any shred of plausible deniability, allowing or facilitating an Israeli strike on Iran is pace Biden an act of war by the facilitator. Or will be taken as such by the Iranians.
An Israeli attack on Iran is just another Neo-Con fantasy backed by an understanding of military logistics kind of at the Sgt. Slaughter or Stratego level.
If someone can explain to me exactly how this works using real planes and real missiles and real geo-politics and real logistics I will be happy to listen. But I am a map freak and my map reading says “impossible”.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Same with kafka.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
I like Farley’s interpretation and I hope it’s correct and it’s plausible, but damn I wish Biden hadn’t said this at all. Talk about pundit-fodder.
GHWB, Quayle, Cheney, Palin, Biden… a disturbing number of VPs or VP candidates have known personality problems. This is apparently intended to make the president(or -ial candidate) look good by comparison and might provide a bit of assassination deterrence, but has the unfortunate side effect of putting a nut, moron or crazy uncle next in line of succession. Has it always been like this?
July 6th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
To the Washington foreign policy establishment, of which Foreign Policy magazine is a fully-chartered member, the concept that the world doesn’t revolve around America’s actions is outside decent discourse.
So when Joe Biden says “We don’t control what Israel does,” their response is “Huh? What could that possibly mean? He must be signaling something. Let’s see, everything not forbidden by us is required by us, because nothing happens without us, so therefore, Biden is supporting an Israeli strike on Iran.”
July 6th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Not to mention, Israel doesn’t have submarine-based missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Oh, poor, poor Poptarts. It would be just so unbearably “tough” to do anything at all to get a state that we heavily subsidize do stop doing everything in its power to damage our interests. Get out the smelling salts.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
If my Jewish mother said something like what Biden said concerning potential Israeli actions about anything I was potentially gonna do, I would certainly not take it as a green light. In fact, I’d take it as a major, major red light.
How is it that Biden speaks Jewish-mother-ese and even potentially in the supposedly Jewish state they may or may not understand what is said?
July 6th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Re Joe from Lowell
Not to mention, Israel doesn’t have submarine-based missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.
According to an article in last weeks’ Jerusalem Post, they do have such a capability.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Re Joe from Lowell
Here is an excerpt from the Jerusalem Post article.
In the event of a conflict with Iran, and if Israel decided to involve its three Dolphin-class submarines – which according to foreign reports can fire nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and serve as a second-strike platform – the quickest route would be to send them through the Suez Canal.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
If Israel decides to overfly Iraq, we won’t stop them – even if the foreign-policy professionals think that a strike on Iran will be bad for the US.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Oh, poor, poor Poptarts. It would be just so unbearably “tough” to do anything at all to get a state that we heavily subsidize do stop doing everything in its power to damage our interests. Get out the smelling salts.
Whatever. Your paranoid cynicism is too easy.
How is it that Biden speaks Jewish-mother-ese and even potentially in the supposedly Jewish state they may or may not understand what is said?
DAS may be right.
Last spring, when President George W. Bush was in office, Israeli officials approached the White House seeking bunker-busting bombs, refueling ability for its military aircraft, and overflight rights over Iraq necessary to strike Natanz. Mr. Bush deflected those requests.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/world/middleeast/06policy.html?_r=1&ref=world
If Neocon Bush did, then Obama probably would too. The thing is Israel is loco. They almost nuked Egypt in ‘73 and they don’t care what the world thinks regarding Gaza or invading Lebanon.
How does the fact that Bush deflected those requests square with LeBonne’s narrative? They don’t he’s full of it.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Well my longer post is waiting moderation. But as to the subs reported in the JP
One the Jerusalem Post is a Murdoch rag devoted to spreading the Neo-Con/Likudnik line. It is not on these matters particularly reliable.
Second it is not clear that Egypt would allow those Dolphin Subs to transit the Suez nor is it clear where they would refuel on the long trip to the Persian Gulf.
Three the cruise missiles they are supposedly equipped to carry have a range of 72 kilometers or 48 miles and could not reach any of the key nuclear sites. Moreover they are an adaptation of a Popeye surface to air missile which is either directed by TV or by infrared signature. Which works fine if you are targeting a ship but maybe not so good when you are trying to take out an underground presumedly air-conditioned facility. Meaning that even if they could get within range there is no way to get them on target, particularly when that target is over a mountain range.
An effective sub-borne threat is a pure fantasy. And in the quote above “refueling ability” doesn’t mean supply the IDF with more tankers, it means actively using U.S. facilities.
I urge anyone taking this issue seriously to examine the following map from Cordesman and Toukan http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090316_israelistrikeiran.pdf
Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Development Facilities (Mar 2009)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fjW71B3WLTQ/SlI4Sv5Au6I/AAAAAAAAAQs/3gHUDZn9X8E/s1600-h/Bomb+Routes.jpg
Israel cannot bomb Iran without direct material support from the U.S. Period.
July 6th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
DAS may be right. – Poptarts
OTOH, after I wrote what I wrote, it occurred to me that the statement could also be parsed as a sort of veiled threat against Iran along the lines of the old “insurance racket” — “if you don’t pay me to ‘protect’ you, I can’t guarantee what might happen to you”.
Actually, Biden’s words here might be f-ing brilliant: at the same time give a big, zaftig Jewish-mother message to Israel “don’t you dare think about attacking Iran” and also give a message to Iran “well, if you don’t do what we want you to do … well, we can’t control what Israel does”. Come to think of it, given that it’s Joe Biden who said this, perhaps I’m reading too much into things and Joe Biden, intending his usual gaffe-speak, said something completely, f-ing brilliant by accident!
July 6th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
The thing is Israel is loco [...] they don’t care what the world thinks regarding Gaza or invading Lebanon. – Poptarts
Would this be the same world that didn’t care about the persecution of Jews for well over a thousand years ending up with almost half of the world’s Jewish population getting killed in the Holocaust? Nu? Why should we care what the world thinks regarding Israel’s actions? ( / Zionist rhetoric ).
July 6th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
DAS:
Come to think of it, given that it’s Joe Biden who said this, perhaps I’m reading too much into things and Joe Biden, intending his usual gaffe-speak, said something completely, f-ing brilliant by accident!
At first I thought he should have said “if Israel attacks Iran we’ll stop all foreign aid” but now agree with DAS. It was a brilliantly crazy mixed message for crazy Israel and crazy Iran.
July 6th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Re Bruce Webb
1. The Jerusalem Post is not owned by Rupert Murdock so here Mr. Webb is full of crap.
2. As to whether the INF has the capability of deploying nuclear based cruise missiles, there is a book published some 7 years ago by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace which claims that this capability was being developed at that time. That was 7 years ago!
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/cra0532.htm
Here’s the punch line from the book. Note that the missile in question, with a range of 900 miles was tested 9 years ago. One can only imagine that the capability is now!
Israel’s nuclear-capable, sea-launched cruise missiles were tested in May 2000, the book said, and might have a range of more than 900 miles. With three submarines, Israel could “have a deployment at sea of one nuclear-armed submarine at all times,” the book said.
July 6th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
This refrain that Israel is a sovereign state is just the sort of think that those who want a US blank cheque for Israel want US pols to say. Its an expression wheeled out for Israel as routine. If German politicians said they were going to attack Turkey there´d be none of this claptrap.
The point is that Israel is objectively dependent on the US, but many in US politics dont want us to use that dependence the way we do with many other countries, i.e. force them to avoid doing things that cause us real problems.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Given his previous statements about Russia having no right to invade Georgia, I see Joe’s sudden embrace of the ’sovereign state’ argument amusing, but also troubling. I’d have expected crap like this from a Bushie, not ever from the current administration.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
otto,
Really? I’ve been listening to “those who want a US blank cheque for Israel” for years, and I haven’t heard them say this before.
I would expect such people to say “Blah blah blah Iran blah blah all options are on the table blah blah nuclear program.”
“Well, Israel is a sovereign state, they can do what they want,” isn’t even supportive of Israel’s grievance. I think Biden is giving the Israelis the cold shoulder in oh-so-delicate diplomat-speak.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias: This is being read by some, including Marc Lynch, as a “green light” for an Israeli attack. Like Robert Farley I think the most straightforward reading of what Biden said is rather different, he’s trying to distance the United States from any possible Israeli military action by making it clear that what Israel does or doesn’t do is decided in Israel rather than in Washington. [...]
July 6th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
I don’t see anything particularly specific about that quote. Its an acknowledgment of simple fact. What isn’t answered, would be what if any sanctions Israel would face if they went their own way on this.
And I’m not entirely sure that it is in our best interest to broadcast the fact that we are putting a leash on Israel if they don’t toe our line. I don’t think the Obama administration has the credibility to threaten military action against the Iranians, in order to exert leverage in any negotiations. But Israel is a credible threat to the Iranian program, and the US can use its leverage over Israel as a bargaining chip. Play ball, and we will muzzle those crazy Isrealis kind of thing. An extra bit of leverage.
It really depends on what the private communication between the US and Israel is, and I don’t see that its in the interests to let the Iranians know.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Well it turns out that rather than the J Post formally being owned by right leaning R Murdoch it was owned by a different right wing (former) billionaire Conrad Black, Lord Hollinger. A distinction without a difference.
I’ll track down the book reference tomorrow but note that the operative words are ‘might’ and ‘could’ and that the assumption that advances in range are somehow automatic ignores the limitations of physics.
These are aging coastal submarines whose tubes can host at most 4 cruise missiles at a time. The notion that they can show up undetected in the Persian Gulf (a shallow body of water) and effectively strike Natanz in the center of Iran needs more backing than a NZ link to some old Carnegie sponsored study.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
I will admit to being completely baffled by the reception Biden’s fairly anodyne, question-dodging answer is receiving, but there’s no longer any denying that it is, indeed, being seen as a green light for Israel.
The White House is starting to push back and clarify, but it had better make things loud and clear, because that’s the last message they want to be sending, given how they’re trying to manage their foreign policy in the region.
This whole thing is bizarre.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
It should be noted that while Bush refused Israel’s request to allow them to attack Iran and also beat about the Bush – as it were – in terms of the US attacking Iran, there is no doubt that Dick Cheney was VERY intent on starting a war with Iran and that he encouraged Israel to do so.
Obama clearly doesn’t have much enthusiasm for a war with Iran, but he has several problems:
1) His “foreign policy” in this regard is a total loss. He’s done nothing to address the Iran issue six months into his term, despite having said it would be a high priority. Also, his approach is completely devoid of content. First, he waits for the Iran election to be over, which is irrelevant to dealing with Iran on the nuclear issue. Second, he continues to make “Bush Lite” statements about Iran being a “threat” despite the total absence of ANY evidence that Iran either HAS a nuclear weapons program or ever HAD a nuclear weapons program, not to mention what possible threat Iran would be to the US or Europe or even Israel if they HAD a nuclear weapons program, given the disparity in capabilities.
2) Israel is his major problem. He is in no position to do anything about Israel without hurting his re-election chances. Without threatening to cut off foreign aid or abstaining from vetoing UN resolutions, he has no leverage at all over Israel. He’s already been rebuffed by Israel on the settlements issue.
This statement by Biden clearly was an attempt to mollify Israel over Iran. It has been suggested by some observers that Obama would like to make progress on the Palestinian issue with Israel by, in essence, trading a hard line on settlements for a hard line on Iran. In other words, taking a hard line with Iran to mollify Israel in exchange for Israel easing up on settlements and moving forward with some sort of Palestinian peace agreements.
3) Again, Iran has no nuclear weapons program. For the next three and a half years, if Iran does not clearly intend to build and deploy nuclear weapons, both Obama and Israel are going to look pretty stupid by the end of that time. The entire issue will be clearly exposed as a scam by both Israel and the US military-industrial and oil complex, the same way the Iraq WMD scam was exposed. So unless both Israel and the US want to look stupid, they need to start something with Iran.
4) Israel has a small amount of downside to attacking Iran on its own. Whereas there is NO chance that the US will stand aside and let Israel take on Iran alone, Israel can and will be seen as the instigator of another Mid-East war if they attack Iran unilaterally. They would much prefer the US do it. This is why Dick Cheney had to arrange for another $30 billion in US foreign aid to Israel over the next ten years – and Israel still balked.
But when push comes to shove, Israel has everything to gain and not much to lose by starting a war with Iran. Pissing off the US isn’t likely to lead to their foreign aid being cut off, nor is it likely to lead to the US condemning Israel in the UN. And dragging the US into taking out – or at least damaging – its major opponent in the Mid-East would be a major win for Israel – or so they think.
As for HOW Israel would attack Iran, this is a completely meaningless red herring. It is completely irrelevant whether an Israeli attack could have any meaningful impact on Iran’s nuclear program, let alone Iran itself, short of nuking Tehran, which Israel will not do. All Israel has to do is START a conflict, then let the US get dragged into it, which would be fairly easy to do. Obama is not going to allow Iran to retaliate against US assets in the region and not press forward with further retaliations by the US. All Israel has to do is get Iran to launch any significant attack against a US asset in the region, and the US will enter the war, pressed on by a war-mongering Congress owned by the military-industrial complex.
So all these “studies” that show Israel, or even the US, can’t stop Iran’s nuclear energy program, are irrelevant. The goal is to start a war for the usual purposes of starting a war – to make money. There IS NO Iranian nuclear weapons program to be stopped in the first place, and both Israel and Obama know that.
Any discussion that doesn’t recognize that fact is moot and stupid.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Here’s Condi Rice using the Israel-is-a-sovereign-country line as part of indicating that the US won’t prevent them from attacking Iran. This expression ‘has form’, and it’s not a good one.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1009504.html
July 7th, 2009 at 7:31 am
Re Bruce Webb
1. The operative term is that the Jerusalem Post used to be owned by Mr. Black. Mr. Black also owned the Chicago Sun Times which was not known as a neo-con patsy. The current positions of the Jerusalem Post now lean toward the center-right rather then the far right in Israel. In fact, the move towards the center began before Mr. Black was forced to sell the paper when a far right editor was replaced by the current centrist editor.
2. I would agree that the Carnegie report, being 9 years old, is out of date. Does Mr. Webb mean to imply that Israeli capabilities have deteriorated since that time?
July 7th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
My friends, I think you are wrong. In his interview, Joe Biden embraced the view of Bush administration (and even went further).
You have to remember that this declaration of the VP was a reaction to the paper of John Bolton in the W. Post : “Time for an Israeli Strike?”.
Europeans and the Gulf States are still closer to Jerusalem, to the point where they are almost common cause on this issue.
Europeans will put pressure on Obama for that during the session of the UN General Assembly to be held in September – and not indefinitely – the USA are forced to open the red envelope of “crippling sanctions directed against Tehran, and other measures … ” if no tangible progress would be obtained during discussions with the mollahs.
Europeans also ensure that the military annex is effectively in the report of the International Agency for Atomic Energy, which must also be made public in September.
Faced with this hardening of attitudes, as well as news from the Middle East – those made public, and others – referring to the passage of submarines by the Israeli strategic Suez Canal, and authorization of overflight, guaranteed by Saudi Arabia to the Hebrew state, demonstrating the formation of an advanced military alliance between the Arab countries and Israel, the White House could not stay away.
Rather than saying to Khamenei : “hurry, reach an agreement with us, otherwise we will send you the GIs’”, which equates to negotiate with an olive branch in one hand and a grenade in the other, the U.S. government told the mollahs : “hurry up, you hear us, because Israel is a sovereign nation, can determine for itself what is in his interest, and what they decide to do in relation to the Iran”
The Vice President closed the parable, since in the same interview, he launched “The ball is in their camp (the Iranians). If they choose to accept the terms of the P-5 [five members permanent Security Council],…”.
And if they did not, well, the United States can not dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and can not do if they feel threatened by another country.
George Stephanopoulos has asked three times the same question to Vice-President, because he did not believe his ears on the new license the U.S. administration had given Israel to strike Iranian facilities,.
It is also on the case returned to precisely what the position of the Bush administration. We have recordings of Condoleezza Rice saying, word for word a year ago that, what Biden said Sunday.
But the administration Obama is careful to exceed that of what Bush had conceded : interviewed by Stephanopoulos on whether the U.S. would allow Israel to overfly Iraq, Joe Biden refused to answer.
It is very important on a tactical level, but less than before. Unless, before the King Abdullah 1st of Saudi Arabia has allowed the bombers with the blue Star of David to use its airspace.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
SLC I believe in working from positive evidence.
Cordesman also lays out the case for an Israeli ballistic missile attack. If someone would like to engage this very recent study (Mar 09) and supplement it with timely argumentation and links to show that Israel could successfully launch such an attack on Israel without U.S. assistance then fine. But I don’t see anyone doing that.
Most of the chatter on this has been using the word “bomb” which has a different meaning than “missile” which in turn has a different connotation that trying to launch a cruise missile attack from a Dolphin Sub or an series of Eitan UAVs (topic of a similar thread on AB). I have not yet seen a sincere effort to address the logistical issue of bombing Iran with Israel’s current fleet of F-16s, F-15s and its very limited fleet of KC-135 Tankers.
Cordesman supplies most of the relevant material, let anyone who likes run with it, but every push back I have seen (Saudi green light, Eitan drones) has seem to come out of some cartoon version of politico-military reality.
And I don’t care who owns or owned what paper. When you see a report that claims to have anonymous access to material in a briefing by the Mossad (not a notriously loose lipped group) to Netanyahu, claims subsequently denied by government, and has as its sole named source John Bolton, you need to back off.
Unless you want to get beaned by another Curveball and wake up in a war in Iran.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Hey, when Sarah Palin trotted out the same thing as Joe Biden, when she was interviewed by Charlie Gibson last year, did you not scathingly accuse her of being STUPID?! Or am I being plain stupid for thinking you have hypocritical double standards!
July 7th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
From today’s Best Of The Web (and obviously Yglesias opinion isn’t consistent because he just didn’t like Palin? Nah, he’s just stupid).
Matthew Yglesias, who when he was young drew much praise for his thoughtful and fair-minded commentary, wrote a blog post titled “Palin: If Israel Wants to Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran, That’s Okay With Me”:
Palin reiterated her absurd view that the President of the United States shouldn’t “second-guess” Israeli policy under any circumstances.
Palin is okay at repeating various “pro-Israel” buzzwords, but she can’t run away from the fact that her underlying position on this topic is stupid.
So when Biden said the same thing, did Yglesias call it “absurd” and “stupid”? Well, is the pope Italian? Here’s what he wrote yesterday:
This is being read by some . . . as a “green light” for an Israeli attack. . . . I think the most straightforward reading of what Biden said is rather different, he’s trying to distance the United States from any possible Israeli military action by making it clear that what Israel does or doesn’t do is decided in Israel rather than in Washington.
The main problem with this, I think, is that probably nobody’s going to believe it. Already you see many Americans taking Biden’s statement that the U.S. doesn’t control Israeli policy to “really” mean that the U.S. is encouraging Israel to attack.
When Palin says it, it’s stupid. When Biden says it, he gets graded on a curve: The problem is that other people are too stupid to understand the deep subtlety of Biden’s thinking.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
‘As goes Israel so goes the West’ and that includes all you fat bellied, armchair hypocritical leftards, who are blind in one eye and have your thumb stuck in the other.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
It’s a sovereign nation so really after withdrawing it is their right to do so. What Biden said is technically factual and people may choose to read farther into it. Here is a video with Obama’s response to Biden.
<a href=”It’s a sovereign nation so really after withdrawing it is their right to do so. What Biden said is technically factual and people may choose to read farther into it. Here is a video with Obama’s response to Biden. Video
July 7th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Here’s the link again:
video
July 7th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Matthew Yglesias, who when he was young drew much praise for his thoughtful and fair-minded commentary, wrote a blog post titled “Palin: If Israel Wants to Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran, That’s Okay With Me”:
Palin reiterated her absurd view that the President of the United States shouldn’t “second-guess” Israeli policy under any circumstances.
Palin is okay at repeating various “pro-Israel” buzzwords, but she can’t run away from the fact that her underlying position on this topic is stupid.
So when Biden said the same thing, did Yglesias call it “absurd” and “stupid”? Well, is the pope Italian? Here’s what he wrote yesterday:
This is being read by some . . . as a “green light” for an Israeli attack. . . . I think the most straightforward reading of what Biden said is rather different, he’s trying to distance the United States from any possible Israeli military action by making it clear that what Israel does or doesn’t do is decided in Israel rather than in Washington.
The main problem with this, I think, is that probably nobody’s going to believe it. Already you see many Americans taking Biden’s statement that the U.S. doesn’t control Israeli policy to “really” mean that the U.S. is encouraging Israel to attack.
When Palin says it, it’s stupid. When Biden says it, he gets graded on a curve: The problem is that other people are too stupid to understand the deep subtlety of Biden’s thinking.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
You gonna apologize to Sarah Palin now that your man Biden has echoed her position, or does this also make Biden “stupid”?
July 7th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Re Bruce Webb
1. Now that Mr. has been shown to be full of shit relative to the ownership of the Jerusalem Post, he proceeds to move the goal posts. Nice try but no cigar.\
2. I have not read Mr. Cordesmans’ article. However, if he is talking about an Israeli attack with ballistic missiles, he’s crazy. Ballistic missiles are not accurate enough to destroy Irans’ nuclear capability, unless they were armed with hi-capacity hydrogen bombs. I have seen no evidence that Israel has such weapons. I am talking about cruise missiles which are far more accurate because they are guided to their targets. If missiles are used, they will be cruise missiles fired from submarines.
3. Again, does Mr. Webb or Mr. Cordesman agree with the Carnegie Institute that Israel had the capability of firing submarine based cruise missiles in 2000? Do they claim that the capability has somehow gotten lost in the interim?
July 7th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Matthew Here is the link to your post last year when you called Palin stupid for being to the first to say this. Of course, most of the comments to that post were spam links for Viagra. I guess Best of the Web has raised your profile.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:58 am
You sir are a complete and utter moron. Last September when Governor Palin said virtually the same thing that VP Biden stated she was ridiculed by you and others for her remarks. More to the point you accused her of being basically in Israel’s hip pocket. Now the VP has stated virtually the same thing Governor Palin did and yet he is not in Israel’s hip pocket? He gets no recriminations for making virtually the same remarks that Governor Palin made in September. Please come out of your liberal hole in the ground and start inhaling some fresh air instead of that recycled garbage you have been breathing.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:43 am
[...] it “absurd” and “stupid”? Well, is the pope Italian? Here’s what he wrote yesterday: This is being read by some . . . as a “green light” for an Israeli attack. . . . I [...]
July 8th, 2009 at 7:45 am
Yglesias, you have finally been exposed as the transparent hypocrite you are:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124699072588807121.html
How do you answer to this?
July 8th, 2009 at 8:43 am
No wonder that liberals are so easy to beat in debates if people like Matt are the best they have to offer.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Matt?…Hello?…Matt? Come out, come out wherever you are.
Did you decide it was easier to sleep in this morning rather than face the obvious evidence of your blatant hypocricy?
You either owe Palin (and your readers…all 12 of them) an apology, or you need to rewrite your love letter to Biden and label him as “stupid”…I believe that is the exact term you used to describe Palin, right?
July 8th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Hypocrisy much?
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/09/palin_if_israel_wants_to_bomb_bomb_bomb_bomb_bomb_iraq_thats_okay_by_me.php
July 8th, 2009 at 10:34 am
As NRO pointed out, since Biden’s position Yglesias now defends is the same one for which he blindly condemned Palin in her ABC interview with Gibson, it merely proves the usual Dem bigotry, that those who support the depraved fascist-communist traitor obamanation (www.obamanation.com) and his lawless, racist, fascist-communist (e.g. beSottedmayor) party of death and depravity, the religious left (e.g. Reid imposing his party’s glaring antiChristian bigotry via a Hindu priest on the Senate), are depraved hypocritical psychos no rational person could take seriously beyond guarding against their proven dangerous megalomania (e.g. Obama’s joining of fellow fascist-communist OAS & UN and boyfriend Chavez in lawless pursuit of overthrowing Honduras’s constitutional government, lying about them having a ‘coup’) and homicide (e.g. Roe v Wade/Doe v Bolton & partial birth infanticide) in his racist love affair with Klan Parenthood he’s delighted to help butcher millions more of those damned nigger babies (www.blackgenocide.org) than the Klan Yglesias thereby proves he loves and supports ever dreamed of!
July 8th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Oops. Instead of the NRO it was the WSJ referred to by NRO.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:34 am
So, when Palin said the same thing back in September, you labeled her an idiot. When Biden says this, it’s savvy maneuvering. Hypocrisy on your part, plain and simple.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124699072588807121.html
HA! – YGLESIAS IS PATHETIC.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Mr. Yglesias look in the mirror and repeat…Hypocrite. Refer to your previous post regarding Palin on the very same subject. It is ok for a democrat to take this position but not ok for a republican?
July 8th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Yglesias, why are you hiding from your double-talk. Come on, it doesn’t take that long to come up with some unconvincing, defensive bs.
Here let me help you.
Palin’s comments are different from Biden’s because [insert parsed nitpicky minutiae here] and thus I was justified in my Palin Derangement Syndrome and my Biden apologia because [insert convoluted, tortured hypocrisy here].
Oh, and if you could also do the same for Obama’s failing Bush-esque pro-Wall Street crony corporate socialism, that would be great as well.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
To the WSJ-referencing (apparent) newcomers:
1. Matt apparently never reads his comments anymore. Egregious typos, screenshots-gone-horribly-wrong, and sentences that are missing entire phrases often go uncorrected indefinitely, even though commenters point them out clearly and immediately.
2. Taranto apparently didn’t read the earlier post that Yglesias was obviously referring to, where he spelled out what was absurd about Palin’s remark about “second-guessing”.
There’s a world of difference between saying that a sovereign nation has a sovereign right to act militarily (this statement is basically a tautology, after all), and saying that the United States should not question the wisdom of their decisions, or try to stop them from acting. Biden neither said nor implied these things.
You can make an argument that what he said meant the same thing, but only by deleting out most of the information from both statements and pretending that they both said “Israel can do what they want to”. And if you live in a 2-bit world, I’m sure you’ll do that.
Anyway, I just thought you should know that you can’t really expect that Matt will even notice you came by, much less respond to your ill-informed “arguments”.