Monday, September 24, 2012

"Unless" war is necessary? -- or until?

Like Peter Beinart, I'm mildly heartened by evidence that "Obama's backbone vis Bibi [is] proving infectious" on Capitol Hill.  Yet  I'm troubled by a perhaps random note in Barney Frank's otherwise forceful message to Bibi to back off (as reported by the Hill's Julian Pecquet):

''Maybe Netanyahu's for (Republican candidate Mitt) Romney. And he's making a mistake if he is,'' Frank told The Hill when asked why he thought Israel had leaked the news of a perceived ''snub'' to the Reuters wire service.

''I think it was unwise for him to do as much,'' he said. ''I think they've pulled back a little bit.''

''I think Obama played it right,'' Frank added. ''The Israelis have to consider American public opinion; America's not ready to go to war until it's absolutely necessary.
 "Until" it's absolutely necessary, Barney -- not "unless"?  While Netanyahu has failed in his maximalist goal of making Obama move up his "red lines" for Iran, from producing a nuclear weapon to some ill-defined earlier stage of breakout capacity, the net result of the pressure has been to further harden Obama's commitment to strike at Iran if it does go nuclear -- in other words, to take containment off the table (which admittedly, Obama already had done).  And whatever modicum of "backbone" a few in Congress may be showing with regard to optics, the Senate, jumping about as high as Bib demands, just passed on a 90-1 vote a resolution stating “it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability” -- capability, not a weapon per se, which the hawkish Jerusalem Post regards as in accordance with Bibi's red lines demand. The resolution also explictly rules out containment as an option.

Until, indeed.

No comments:

Post a Comment