Maine Owl

The Israel card in the Democratic show

Much has been made about how the ABC News moderators in the Clinton-Obama Pennsylvania debate last night, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, did a terrible job while drilling Obama on his over-rehashed response to his pastor's remarks and his "bitterness" comments. Atrios goes as far as to say Gibson Stephanopoulos were "gang raping democracy."

Okay, fine, I suppose that's what these guys are about. Atrios has it just about right, Gibson's "heart bleeds for the capital gains earnings of $200,000+ earners, and Snuffleupagus is a Sean Hannity sock puppet."

But here is something from the debate that largely has been ignored in liberal commentary: a virtual declaration by Obama (Clinton concurring) that Iran is an enemy state against whom the U.S. will be willing, in the manner NATO, to go to the mat to defend Israel after an undefined Iranian "attack":

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, let's stay in the region. Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option. Those weapons, if they got them, would probably pose the greatest threat to Israel. During the Cold War, it was the United States policy to extend deterrence to our NATO allies. An attack on Great Britain would be treated as if it were an attack on the United States. Should it be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians, and that has to be one of our top priorities. And I will make it one of our top priorities when I'm president of the United States.

I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons. I believe that that includes direct talks with the Iranians where we are laying out very clearly for them, here are the issues that we find unacceptable, not only development of nuclear weapons but also funding terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as their anti-Israel rhetoric and threats towards Israel. I believe that we can offer them carrots and sticks, but we've got to directly engage and make absolutely clear to them what our posture is.

Now, my belief is that they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons, and that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?

SENATOR OBAMA: As I've said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we -- one whose security we consider paramount, and that -- that would be an act of aggression that we -- that I would -- that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.

Evidently, there is Cold War nostalgia for 1946, when the U.S. had a nuclear monopoly. Except this time it's a furtive assumption that it is only Israel that has a right to defense. No one seems to think it worth mentioning that Israel itself possesses an advanced nuclear arsenal. It's shrouded in secrecy, but it is thought that Israel maintains a full-blown nuclear triad of sea, land, and air-launched nuclear weapons.

Obviously Iran's point of view on this is irrelevant, oh, unless you are Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who in his December 5, 2006 confirmation hearing offered some analysis that seems to be far beyond the capability of the Democratic candidates. While Obama competes with Clinton and the Republicans on who can be most reactionary against Iran, Gates had what I found a very thoughtful response to a question about the bad-ass Iranians:

U.S. SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): The president of Iran has publicly disavowed the existence of the Holocaust, has publicly stated that he would like to wipe Israel off the map. Do you think he's kidding?

GATES: No, I don't think he's kidding, but I think there are, in fact, higher powers in Iran than he, than the president. And I think that, while they are certainly pressing, in my opinion, for nuclear capability, I think that they would see it in the first instance as a deterrent. They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons: Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf.

Wow, there Gates stated, without the "ambiguity" in which Israel so dearly loves to couch its arsenal, that Iran may actually face a threat from an Israeli-American axis to wipe it "off the map."

Wouldn't it be grand if the Democrats could discuss world affairs from a balanced perspective and without the pro-Israel assumptions?