Sunday, November 28, 2010

3 a.m Call "Iran Has Nukes Aimed At Washington" President Obama Or Palin To Take It?

We learn via the Wikileaks documents and the world-wide comments on them that The Obama administration was warned, according to Haaretz, by Israel's Defence Minister Ehud Barak in 2009 that Iran's developing nuclear weapons capability had to be neutered by the end of 2010 at the latest. After that the proposed mission would be non-viable for "collateral damage" reason. Further, Haaretz reported " Meanwhile, another cable shows that a 2009 claim by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Iran was months away from achieving military nuclear capability was dismissed by the Americans as a ploy"


Similarly The Saudi King suggested a surgical strike on Iran to prevent that country developing nuclear weapons and further destabilising the whole region.


We learn also that Iran has received advanced missiles from North Korea which they are attempting to modify to be able to at least reach Europe with a nuclear warhead.


In the 2008 election Hillary Clinton presented a devastating advertisement which was simplicity itself in its blunt question which went right to the point about Obama suitability to be president. It stated, in effect, "It's three a.m. and the emergency call comes through to the White House-who do you want to be the one to pick up the phone Obama or Clinton?"


The point Clinton's campaign made that the matter was one of experience-which of course Clinton had in abundance.It now seems clear the point should have been "Who has the strength of will, of purpose to defend America's interests firmly, forthrightly and quickly?


This question is now raised as regards President Obama or a potential President Palin. We have seen how the potential opportunity for a surgical strike against Iran has been frittered away-even though called for by Israel and Saudi Arabia. We have seen the result of President Obama's reaching out to the Muslim world in a new diplomacy. We have seen the result of the administration standing idly by whilst the Iranian election was  protested and the protesters beaten.


We have seen the administrations lack of action as North Korea continues to develop its nuclear weapons  capacity, sells arms to Iran, and attacks South Korea.The action taken against Iran and North Korea have been sanctions which Iran at least laughs off.


We see the Obama administration commit to a time frame to pull out of Afghanistan-signaling to the enemy exactly how long they have to hold out until the field is literally clear for them.The same for the suffering people of Iraq who will be left to totally fend for themselves when the last American soldier leaves. (which McCain said could be a thousand  years if it was up to him).


We have seen Israel, America's staunchest ally under pressure from Washington to make a quick settlement which would bring Obama a foreign policy triumph to counter the disaster he has achieved at home as reflected in the mid-term "shellacking".


That is the proven record of this administration which Clinton so soundly warned against. What then of a putative Palin administration? Could anyone think that in all the instances above, where firm action, not words or sanctions, was required that Palin would not have acted firmly and surely to protect and advance America's interests? She would have taken Israel's part and signalled that negotiations for a just peace would ensure there were two in Israel's corner not just Israel and a stand apart America.


Due to the action, or rather inaction of the Obama administration, it seems sadly true that a three a.m. call to President Palin would be to deal with the nuclear threat which the previous Obama administration had allowed to develop.We can be assured that she would deal with it firmly and if  the phrase can be used, in a manly fashion.We can only hope that things have not got to the point by 2012 where the situation is unsalvageable and America has to face a humiliating back down.

No comments :