Image 01 Image 03

Which should Israel fear most – Obama’s temper or Iran’s nukes?

Which should Israel fear most – Obama’s temper or Iran’s nukes?

Bibi Netanyahu is just the messenger of the reality of a dangerous nuke deal.

The now-open conflict between the Obama administration and Bibi Netanyahu has little to do with Obama’s hurt feelings or a breach of protocol, though it is portrayed that way by the White House, many Democrats, and increasingly, weak-kneed supporters of Israel who worry that getting Barack Obama angry would be the worst thing of all.

Think about that — major pro-Israel advocates are scared to death of Barack Obama’s temper and feelings, rather than terms of what is emerging as a disastrous deal that puts Israel in mortal danger and elevates the Mullah-regime to near-superpower status.

When even the Washington Post Editorial Board comes out against the emerging deal and the way in which Obama plans to implement it, one has to wonder why we are so scared of Obama’s personal pique.

In particular, Democrats have a choice, but it’s not Bibi versus Barack:

Some Democrats, like John Lewis, are boycotting a Netanyahu appearance because they perceive an insult to Obama.

Seriously, Iran is about to go nuke, as it develops nuclear capable missiles and intercontinental ballistic missiles, and John Lewis, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats are worried about Obama’s alleged hurt feelings and pride?

Democrats have a choice, but it’s not Bibi versus Barack. It’s Barack versus the best interests of the American people

Obama’s goal of normalizing the Mullah-regime was obvious back in the summer of 2009, when he stayed silent as Iranians rose up in the streets demanding freedom and true democracy. When Obama finally did speak up, it was tepid.

For whatever his reason, Obama has a soft spot for the Mullah-regime, as detailed in an exhaustive analysis at Mosaic Magazine, Obama’s Secret Iran Strategy:

How eager is the president to see Iran break through its isolation and become a very successful regional power? Very eager. A year ago, Benjamin Rhodes, deputy national-security adviser for strategic communication and a key member of the president’s inner circle, shared some good news with a friendly group of Democratic-party activists. The November 2013 nuclear agreement between Tehran and the “P5+1”—the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany—represented, he said, not only “the best opportunity we’ve had to resolve the Iranian [nuclear] issue,” but “probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy.” For the administration, Rhodes emphasized, “this is healthcare . . . , just to put it in context.” Unaware that he was being recorded, he then confided to his guests that Obama was planning to keep Congress in the dark and out of the picture: “We’re already kind of thinking through, how do we structure a deal so we don’t necessarily require legislative action right away.”

The Mosaic article is a must read for anyone who thinks the strengthening of Iran’s position in the world and the recognition of its “right” to enrich uranium and otherwise build a nuclear infrastructure is just happening by coincidence, rather than a matter of U.S. policy.

Professor Jeffrey Herf has a good summary of the larger point made by the Mosaic article,
Wishful thinking and the path to trash talk:

Last week, I examined the profane language used by a member of President Obama’s foreign policy team to describe the Prime Minister of Israel.

As the official who went on the public record the statement was not publicly and personally rebuked by the President, and the official was neither publicly named, shamed or fired, it is logical to conclude that it reflected sentiments the President holds but would not publicly express himself. In other words, the President was using his unnamed aide as a mouthpiece. The White House press corps was satisfied with some disavowals from the Secretary of State and a White House staffer. I argued that the deeper cause of the anger at Netanyahu was his challenge to Obama’s political judgment concerning the Iranian nuclear issue….

So rather than acknowledge that the President’s policy towards Iran rests on a set of illusions and that Iran is not reciprocating his good will and concessions, the Obama White House has taken the low road, first with the disgusting gutter-language interview in November and now with indignation about a speech by Netanyahu to Congress. Accusations that those who disagree with Obama are destroying the hopes for peace and that the “Israel lobby” in the United States is — once again? — pushing the United States into war may once again find their way into public discussion in the coming weeks and months.

Netanyahu promises to do everything the bad emerging deal:

I don’t underestimate the damage Obama can do to Israel — starting with the U.N., where there already have been anonymous leaked threats to allow a Palestinian Security Council proposal forcing Israel back to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines.

But everything is relative. There is no greater danger to Israel than the Iranian nuclear program. The rest can be muddled through, even though two years is a long time.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Israel has to understand that Barack Obama is their enemy just as much as Hamas or Hezbollah. Which is understandable when you realize he was nursed like a viper all those years in the bosom of Reverend Wright’s church where hatred of the Jews was preached year after year. Or when you consider that the vile Anti-Semite Al Sharpton of Hymietown and “Diamond Merchant” fame is considered a valuable advisor and mentor.

We can only hope that the Republican Congress will join together with any Democrats who are friends and allies of Israel to block any attempts by Obama to harm Israel. That is what this address is really about. It is a shot across Obama’s bow.

The question is will the Congress have the stones to stand up for Israel when Obama moves to facilitate its destruction.

    LukeHandCool in reply to Trooper York. | February 8, 2015 at 2:49 pm

    “What in the hell are you talking about?! I’m the one who called New York City, ‘Hymietown.'”

    —An angry Jessie Jackson

    userpen in reply to Trooper York. | February 8, 2015 at 3:04 pm

    Yes Barack Obama is their enemy…and all the rest of the white house and all of his advisors and his cabinet and his followers and as many others as he can pull under his slimy umbrella.

Lewis, Pelosi, Obama – all three have different reasons (though one in common) for wanting Iran as a superpower: Lewis, because he’s an ignorant man; Pelosi, because she’s an ignorant woman, and she’s nuts; and Obama, because he’s an ignorant man, he’s nuts and is bent on supporting fascism wherever it may be. Especially in America.

Based on the last 6 year’s experience, Israel would be better off as an enemy of the US right now.

So sad and so true.

>>For whatever his reason, Obama has a soft spot for the Mullah-regime,<<

We're still at the "whatever his reason" stage? Disappointing.

“one has to wonder why we are so scared of Obama’s personal pique.”

After 6 years, you have to ask that? Because in his personal pique there is literally nothing, no matter how illegal or unwise, he won’t do. Sign illegal deals with Iran is nothing.

— Give the Iranians warning of any possible Israeli strike.

— Hand over IFF code generators so their Air Force can get through our defenses — or Israel’s.

— Given the number of senior officers he has replaced up until now, it might even be possible for him to turn over weapons tech.

The sky’s the limit when Hussein gets p*ssed.

If Bibi would just swallow his pride and ego and come out in support of Islamic terrorism, he might find a good deal of sympathy and understanding from President Obama.

But Bibi is just so stubborn …

I would put nothing past the Jug Eared Jesus. Giving vital info to the Iranians is the least of it.

When the historians review the deeds of this administration 100 years from now it will quite a shock to the cultists who worship at his feet.

His administration is a clear and present danger to all of us but especially to people he despises:Christians and Jews.

“Which should Israel fear most – Obama’s temper or Iran’s nukes?”

I dunno that Barracula has much of a temper.

He’s done incalculable damage to America and Israel in cold blood, so getting him mad seems to hold little downside. Besides, if he wants to pretend he’s mad, he just makes crap up. So you might as well give him something real to work with when you need to.

Now, Iranian nukes could and would ruin the day for a whole lot of people, and in lots of places. And what Pres. ScamWOW never has comprehended is that Iran’s leaders are not anything like Western…even Soviet…thinkers. The Nazis and the Soviets were mass killers, but of other people. When you got right down to it, they themselves preferred to live. The Muslim death-cult simply doesn’t much care, and if it ushers in the new Islamic heaven on earth, they’re good. If they get nukes, they will use nukes.

Once upon a time it was “Truth, Justice and the American Way” it is “Narrative, Social Justice and The Chicago Way.” Reverend Wright was correct unknowingly…after decades of unchecked Progressive propaganda and infiltration… the chickens are coming home to roost.

Iranian Valerie Jarrett is directing foreign policy at the WH.


Barack Hussein Obama, not feeling well and concerned about his mortality, consults a psychic about the date of his demise.

Closing her eyes and silently reaching into the realm of the future, the psychic finds the answer:

“You will die on an Israeli holiday.”

“What date will that be?” Obama asks nervously.

“It doesn’t matter, “replied the psychic,

“When you die, it’ll be an Israeli holiday.”

Hussein is an anti-Semite. Is there any doubt? When will American Jews finally have enough — when the muzzies start terrorizing their neighborhoods as they are currently doing in Europe?

Hussein is doing more to eradicate Israel than Farrakhan or Wright could have ever hoped for. Nobody is calling him out! This isn’t about politics anymore. He’s an anti-Semite.

    jayjerome66 in reply to JerryB. | February 8, 2015 at 11:03 pm

    Anti Israel, not antiSemetic.
    He’s appointed more then 30 Jews to positions of importance in his administration. Two of his most important advisors, Emanuel and Axelrod, were Jewish. So is Elena Kagan, who was Obama’s Solicitor General before he nominated her to the Supreme Court.

David R. Graham | February 8, 2015 at 7:09 pm

Neither. Israelis — nay, anyone — should not take counsel of their fears.

Obama would be a big threat, but his Democratic colleagues in Congress and out would step in to dissuade his vile instincts. And being the girly-man he is, he wouldn’t dare get them mad at him.

I still wonder where the “P5+1” gets authority to supersede at least four UNSC Resolutions which all forbid Iran from enriching uranium at all? Isn’t Obama supposed to be some big UN-lovin’ guy?

And no international treaty has the force of law in the US without ratification. The next President can repudiate it, just like he can reverse Executive Orders, “memos,” and the like.

MouseTheLuckyDog | February 8, 2015 at 11:20 pm

Isreal is dealing with “Obama’s calm”, is his temper really any worse?