Israellycool » Iran Down Under Punditry in the Middle East Tue, 04 Aug 2015 11:10:48 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Freudian Slip Of The Day? Sun, 19 Apr 2015 14:37:51 +0000 A blogger has screenshotted a still from Israel’s Channel 2 last night, which labels Barack Obama “President of Iran.”

obama president of iran gaffe

Given his recent words and actions, I am not 100% sure this was a Freudian slip as much as an editorial choice.

]]> 9
It’s Official. The United Nations Hates Women. Tue, 14 Apr 2015 20:28:28 +0000 you-suck-un

So I made a poster.

Click for full size, share, take it to your local print shop, put it on a billboard.

]]> 0
#TBT: Obama On Iran In 2012 Thu, 09 Apr 2015 12:47:27 +0000 On Tuesday, US President Barack Obama discussed the “deal” with Iran (and I use the term loosely, since no one can actually agree on what the supposed agreement is) in an interview with NPR. Incredible assertions by the State Department that Obama misspoke notwithstanding, Obama plainly admitted in this interview that, even assuming that Iran adheres to all of its terms, the “deal” really does not do more than delay Iran’s ability to obtain a nuclear weapon by 13-15 years, and that at that time “the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.” At the same time, the White House is insisting that the only alternative to this “deal” is to do nothing, and allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon even sooner.

I was reminded today of the very different position that Obama took on these issues in March of 2012, when he still had an election ahead of him, and when he was attempting to forestall a potential Israeli military strike. In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama insisted that containment of a nuclear Iran was not an option, that he was seeking a permanent solution to the nuclear issue, not a temporary fix, and that, if diplomacy failed to achieve those objectives, US military action was “on the table.”

Here are some quotes.

Obama in the AtlanticOn the permanency of the outcome:

GOLDBERG: Do you think Israel could cause damage to itself in America by preempting the Iranian nuclear program militarily?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I don’t know how it plays in America. I think we in the United States instinctively sympathize with Israel, and I think political support for Israel is bipartisan and powerful. . . . In that context, our argument is going to be that it is important for us to see if we can solve this thing permanently, as opposed to temporarily.

On containment of a nuclear Iran:

 GOLDBERG: Let me flip this entirely around and ask: Why is containment not your policy? In the sense that we contained the Soviet Union, North Korea —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: It’s for the reason I described — because you’re talking about the most volatile region in the world. It will not be tolerable to a number of states in that region for Iran to have a nuclear weapon and them not to have a nuclear weapon. Iran is known to sponsor terrorist organizations, so the threat of proliferation becomes that much more severe. . . .

GOLDBERG: What I’m getting at specifically is, let’s assume there’s a Hezbollah attack on Israel. Israel responds into Lebanon. Iran goes on some kind of a nuclear alert, and then one-two-three —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: The potential for escalation in those circumstances is profoundly dangerous, and in addition to just the potential human costs of a nuclear escalation like that in the Middle East, just imagine what would happen in terms of the world economy. The possibilities of the sort of energy disruptions that we’ve never seen before occurring, and the world economy basically coming to a halt, would be pretty profound. So when I say this is in the U.S. interest, I’m not saying this is something we’d like to solve. I’m saying this is something we have to solve.

On the US military option:

GOLDBERG: Go back to this language, ‘All options on the table.’ You’ve probably said it 50 or 100 times. And a lot of people believe it, but the two main intended audiences, the supreme leader of Iran and the prime minister of Israel, you could argue, don’t entirely trust this. The impression we get is that the Israeli government thinks this is a vague expression that’s been used for so many years. Is there some ramping-up of the rhetoric you’re going to give them?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think the Israeli people understand it, I think the American people understand it, and I think the Iranians understand it. It means a political component that involves isolating Iran; it means an economic component that involves unprecedented and crippling sanctions; it means a diplomatic component in which we have been able to strengthen the coalition that presents Iran with various options through the P-5 plus 1 and ensures that the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] is robust in evaluating Iran’s military program; and it includes a military component. And I think people understand that.

. . . .

GOLDBERG: One of the aspects of this is the question of whether it’s plausible that Barack Obama would ever use military power to stop Iran. The Republicans are trying to make this an issue — and not only the Republicans — saying that this man, by his disposition, by his character, by his party, by his center-left outlook, is not going to do that.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Look, if people want to say about me that I have a profound preference for peace over war, that every time I order young men and women into a combat theater and then see the consequences on some of them, if they’re lucky enough to come back, that this weighs on me — I make no apologies for that. Because anybody who is sitting in my chair who isn’t mindful of the costs of war shouldn’t be here, because it’s serious business. These aren’t video games that we’re playing here.

Now, having said that, I think it’s fair to say that the last three years, I’ve shown myself pretty clearly willing, when I believe it is in the core national interest of the United States, to direct military actions, even when they entail enormous risks. And obviously, the bin Laden operation is the most dramatic, but al-Qaeda was on its [knees] well before we took out bin Laden because of our activities and my direction.

In Afghanistan, we’ve made very tough decisions because we felt it was very important, in order for an effective transition out of Afghanistan to take place, for us to be pushing back against the Taliban’s momentum.

So aside from the usual politics, I don’t think this is an argument that has a lot of legs. And by the way, it’s not an argument that the American people buy. They may have complaints about high unemployment still, and that the recovery needs to move faster, but you don’t hear a lot of them arguing somehow that I hesitate to make decisions as commander in chief when necessary.

Sounds a lot like, “You can keep your health plan. Period.”

]]> 1
A Few Questions About The Iran “Deal” Wed, 08 Apr 2015 04:42:07 +0000 Prime Minister Netanyahu has some questions about the framework agreement between Iran and the P5+1. Here they are, via Ofir Gendelman, the Arabic-language spokesman of the Prime Minister’s Office.

]]> 2
Barry Got Back By Sir Enrich A Lot Tue, 07 Apr 2015 06:46:47 +0000 obamaSung to the tune of Baby Got Back by Sir Mix A Lot *

Oh, my, god. Barry, look at the size of their bomb.
It is so big. [scoff]

I hate big bombs and I can not lie
It’s a nuke you can’t deny
That when a mullah walks in with a big fat lie
And yellow cake in your face
You get sprung, wanna pull out your tough
‘Cause you notice that we’re all stuffed
Deep in Natanz they’re enriching
We’re screwed and you can’t stop bitching
Oh Barry, I wanna shake you
Not take your picture
My homeboys tried to warn me
And that cliche you made makes you sound so corny

Barry got back!

* based on this report

]]> 4
Obama Promises To Stand By Israel? Mon, 06 Apr 2015 13:00:32 +0000 US President Barack Obama has been busy defending the purported nuclear deal that he is making with Iran. My favorite “As-a-Jew” anti-Semite John Yarmuth has even been giving Obama advice on how to sell it to the American public (though they might both be better served by first figuring out how to sell it to the Iranians). In an interview with the New York Times’s Thomas Friedman, President Obama responded to Israeli criticism of the terms:

What I would say to [Israel] is that not only am I absolutely committed to making sure that they maintain their qualitative military edge, and that they can deter any potential future attacks, but what I’m willing to do is to make the kinds of commitments that would give everybody in the neighborhood, including Iran, a clarity that if Israel were to be attacked by any state, that we would stand by them.

Prime Minister Netanyahu with President Obama

Prime Minister Netanyahu with President Obama

We might be willing to believe this statement. Well, we might, in an alternate reality in which “standing by” a country that is under attack meant the same thing as “imposing an arms embargo” on a country that is under attack. Because that is exactly what happened the last time Israel was attacked, last summer. At the height of rocket attacks from Gaza, the US President imposed a de facto arms embargo on Israel. In August, the Wall Street Journal reported that

[At the end of July US] officials learned that, in addition to asking for tank shells and other munitions, Israel had submitted a request through military-to-military channels for a large number of Hellfire missiles, according to Israeli and American officials.

The Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency, or DSCA, was about to release an initial batch of the Hellfires, according to Israeli and congressional officials. It was immediately put on hold by the Pentagon, and top officials at the White House instructed the DSCA, the U.S. military’s European Command and other agencies to consult with policy makers at the White House and the State Department before approving any additional requests.

Obama has made it clear that he supports Israeli defense only if Israel is defending itself in the exact way that he thinks is best, such as with Iron Dome. Anyone who was paying attention last summer, however, knows that Iron Dome did not make life under rocket attack tenable. Secretary of State John Kerry has made clear that he shares this position with Obama.

As I wrote in November, it is painfully obvious by now that Obama is willing to misrepresent himself in order to push through policy initiatives that are his priority. He lied to the American public to pass the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”). He’s made it clear that an accord with Iran is just as important to him as healthcare reform. In light of his actions with respect to Israel last summer, how can the President possibly think that anyone would believe him now when he says that he will guarantee Israel’s protection?

]]> 5
Zion Mike Presents…The Gift Fri, 03 Apr 2015 06:56:57 +0000 cartoon obama iran

]]> 1
Joe’s World: Rouhani’s Yearning Mon, 30 Mar 2015 05:09:54 +0000 Rouhani Nuke

Note: You may reprint this cartoon provided you link back to this source.

]]> 1
Death To America? Oh, That’s Nothing Wed, 25 Mar 2015 06:53:25 +0000 When the Ayatollah Khamenei fervently chants, “Death to America,” to a roaring crowd, what is his intent?

Oh. You thought he actually meant he wished death to America?

Well, you’re right. But he only SAID it to a domestic POLITICAL audience.

So that’s okay then. Right?

Benjamin Netanyahu, on the other hand, said, “There will be no Palestinian State on my watch,” to a domestic POLITICAL audience.

Which is totally not okay.

Got it?

Actually, no. I’m very confused.

Especially, since it seems to me that what Khamenei said is much, much worse than what Bibi said. Bibi did not wish death to the Arabs, for instance. Not to a domestic political audience and not to anyone at all.

Mohammad Zoabi with the PM in his residence in Jerusalem

Mohammad Zoabi with the PM in his residence in Jerusalem

But forget about that for a moment.

For years, the pro-Israel crowd has waved the proof of Iran’s desire to wipe out both Israel and the U.S. to the world, taking great pains to translate speeches such as the one Khameinei delivered over the weekend in which the crowd wished for the death of America and Khameinei loudly and proudly agreed.

Of course, no one ever listens to us when we tell them that the Iranians (and by extension, Muslim terrorists, including the late Yasser Arafat), say one thing in English for Western consumption, and another thing in Persian or Arabic for the folks at home, or among themselves.

arafat ayatollah

Arafat and Ayatollah Khomeini

When we say these things, our sources are discredited. We’re told, for instance, that Palestinian Media Watch, an NGO that translates Palestinian and Arab media into English, has a name that gives away its agenda, by making it sound as if the PA and Arabs were little children not to be trusted, who needed to be watched over carefully by Big Brother. We’re told that just because we see MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute, as an aboveboard source for what terrorists say in their own tongue to their own people, doesn’t mean they see it that way.

Just another org with an agenda, they respond. Clearly an org that doesn’t want peace, since they focus on translating all the speeches and TV talk shows that serve to work against peaceful negotiations between the West and Iran, Israel and the Arabs.

So now, by some miracle, the truth of what the Ayatollah Khamenei said to his people has made it into the mainstream media. And the reaction?

Truth As Lie

A twisted answer that is the truth served up as a lie.

The White House tells us that these words, “Death to America,” were meant for a domestic political audience. Meaning, it’s just politics. Meaningless politics. No one should read anything into these words. It’s just to placate the Iranian people, the Ayatollah’s constituency.

But no. That’s not what it means. What it means is exactly what it is, a powerful figure on the verge of getting everything he wants, which is:


Of course Khamenei says that internally. Of course he says that to his domestic political audience. Because it’s what they want and because it’s what HE, the Ayatollah Khamenei wants.

And they really don’t care if the Americans know.

ayatollah khamenei

At any rate, here is the White House, whitewashing those words clean for our consumption or clean enough at any rate: “the Ayatollah said that for a domestic audience.”

That’s why he said it in PERSIAN.

Yes. That’s what he did. He did say that to a domestic political audience.

Did any of us not know that? Does this somehow serve to excuse the words themselves or at least their intent?

Don’t Worry, Be Happy

And yet, darned if the Obama neophytes won’t accept that official White House description as a reason not to worry about Iran and the bomb. Because Obama has got it all under control.

(((((Our hero)))))

Yes, say the rest of us. Those of us who can still employ our critical thinking skills. Of course, the Ayatollah meant those words for domestic consumption. He thought that as per usual, the mainstream media would collude to hide the English meaning of his words so that the regular American Joe on the street would never become aware of them. Khameini thought that only his own people would hear him say those words, which is why he showed no fear in speaking to them from the heart.

And in his heart is the wish that America would DIE from sea to shining sea.

Alternatively, maybe he just doesn’t care who knows the truth, who knows what he thinks and wants. In the end, it all boils down to the same thing.

Death to America.

That is the great hope of the Ayatollah, and the reason he is struggling with all his might for his country to develop nuclear weapons, which he will then use on his enemies: Israel, the Little Satan, and America.

The BIG Satan.

]]> 15
Matt Lee To State Department: “Are You Sending Flowers As Well?” Sun, 22 Mar 2015 06:32:31 +0000 Yesterday I posted about the US State Department’s over-the-top reaction to the death of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s mother.

The AP’s Matt Lee noticed as well, and asked the State Department about it in the way only Matt Lee can.

With the way Matt gets in those jabs, we may need to call him Bruce.

]]> 2