Of Mussed Hair and Legacies

Buck1You want us to attack WHO?!”

Barring something completely unforeseen (otherwise known as “a miracle”) the Iran deal will most certainly be approved by Congress, as the cynic in me has always believed it to be predestined, thanks to Corker-Menendez. For Iran, this means a green light to accelerate its nuclear program (if it doesn’t already have a nuke), essentially unmolested by the United States and Europe as well as its friends in Russia and China.

For Israel, it’s a catastrophe. They are alone, except perhaps with the help of the GCC nations and Saudi Arabia, lacking the military capability for a sustained conventional air campaign against an adversary that has leaned the lessons of Osirak. But most shocking and egregious is that their one-time staunch ally and guarantor of her security for almost 70 years – the United States of America – is now treaty-bound to defend Iran from Israeli attack and sabotage. We are indeed through the looking glass.

According to John Bosma, a former senior adviser to the Reagan administration on arms control, Israel now has no choice but to launch a preemptive strike against Iran – a preemptive nuclear strike.

Following the US’s betrayal of Israel and its de facto detente with Iran, we cannot expect Israel to copy longstanding US doctrines of no-first-nuclear-use and preferences for conventional-weapons-only war plans. After all, both were premised (especially after the USSR’s 1991 collapse) on decades of US nuclear and conventional supremacy. If there ever were an unassailable case for a small, frighteningly vulnerable nation to pre-emptively use nuclear weapons to shock, economically paralyze, and decapitate am enemy sworn to its destruction, Israel has arrived at that circumstance.

The article (hat tip American Thinker) is a very detailed analysis of the political and military situation, and rationale for an Israeli strike.  But Mr. Bosma ends with an absolutely chilling statement:

For the US, however, this no-warning nuclear war would land like a thunderbolt on an unprepared White House that would likely panic and lash out as Obama’s loudly touted “legacy” goes up in smoke… Given the psychology of our current president and his emotional investment in his Iran deal, what might follow could challenge the military chain of command with orders that previously were unthinkable.

Assuming this attack occurs some time before January 20th, 2017, how would Obama react? Judging now from almost seven years of his time in office, as well as his personal history since childhood, it is evident that the president has some rather serious personality and/or psychological issues. He’s petulant, egomaniacal,  narcissistic to the extreme and cannot handle any form of criticism. And his vindictiveness knows no bounds. Couple all that with his anti-semitism, anti-Americanism and a weltanschauung that is completely divorced from reality and you have the potential for an explosive situation. Even with a fawning media and dishonest academics ready to pen a whopper of an hagiography, this deal as the cornerstone of his legacy, for what it’s worth (and bending over and surrendering to Cuba), is all important to his psyche.


…When these flimsy attempts to patch a tattered personal mythology fail – the narcissist is injured. Narcissistic injury inevitably leads to narcissistic rage and to a terrifying display of unbridled aggression. The pent-up frustration and hurt translate into devaluation. That which was previously idealized – is now discarded with contempt and hatred.   –Dr. Shmuel “Sam” Vaknin

How might Obama lash out at Israel for destroying his grand illusion? Considering that he has converted the US military into a vast, insane social experiment and purged the officer corps and the JCS of independent leaders and replaced them with sycophants, and that the “treaty” as it were binds us to defend Iran, would he order some sort of reprisal or military attack on Israel? And would junior officers and the grunts in the trenches (assuming they’re not all Obamabots) actually follow those orders? If that happened, would Israel be forced into firing on American positions to protect its strike force?

Just after Obama was elected, my brother and I had dinner together, and his flair for hyperbole led him to state in no uncertain terms that “this guy is going to bring nuclear war on our heads!” Although I was certainly depressed, I chided him for exaggerating. Looks like the old boy may very well have been prescient.



15 comments to “Of Mussed Hair and Legacies”
  1. Then they’ve won and there will be a nuclear war, more than likely on our soil. Assuming that they do strike Iran conventionally, the questions posed still stand.

    In any event, I hope the ghost of Bibi’s brother visits him, and delivers him a pair of big brass ones.

  2. As far as I can tell, there are no parallels in all of America’s history to Obama’s treasonous “agreement” with Iran. We would have to have signed a mutual-defense treaty with Nazi Germany that compelled us to protect them if, say, France had resisted the blitzkreig.

    The real kicker for me is that there are many details of the Obama-Iran hookup that are “secret.” I have tried to read some of the non-classified leaked text, but unless you’re a Diplo-geek, it quickly descends into gibberish, all slanted in Iran’s favor.

    In a sense, the worst part of this whole mess, IMO, is not that Obama pushed for it, but rather that Congress is not only showing signs of agreeing to it but is not removing the perpetrator from office. I find it difficult to see so many elected officials aiding and abetting treason.

    It is a virtual certainty that Israel will suffer from this. As JJ has pointed out, they lose no matter what they do. But we will suffer too: Iran, with which our President feels such brotherly bonds, is as committed to our destruction as it is Israel’s.

    And we have given them the weapons that will destroy us.

  3. I really hope that, should it come down to it, the officer corps, or at least the enlisted, not only refuse such an order, but DO take Obama into custody.

    More and more, though, it sounds more like faint hope and less a real possibility. How can we as a country have fallen so far in so quick a time? I can’t imagine anyone, even rank-and-file Republicans of seven years ago, tolerating equivalent behavior from a GW Bush.

    How did we get here? More importantly, how much pain will we have to endure to get OUT of it?

    A great article, thank you for posting it.

  4. Since the “deal” is not a treaty, Obama is not actually obligated to defend Iran. Just saying.

  5. Would have beaten you to that comment if I hadn’t been on the Trump thread first.

    On this blog with the posts side by side how do we know which one is most recent?

  6. The problem of course is that he would, and he’d use the deal to justify it.
    (Although I agree with you it’s not a treaty in that it doesn’t actually contain anything binding towards the US.)

    I’m not so sure I agree with the assessment of nuclear strikes.
    The next country to use nukes is going to face a shit ton of international ire, that frankly, will undo any strategic benefit of dropping said nukes.
    I just can’t wrap my head around preventative nuclear war as a winning strategy (but maybe I’m not thinking hard enough?)

  7. The strategic benefit to Israel is that they won’t lose 1-2 million people in an Iranian nuclear attack.

    Israel is the size of New Jersey, with more than 7 million people. Iran does not need accuracy, all they need is the means to deliver the nukes, and Israel will be a wasteland.

    I would suggest that an existential threat is one that should be dealt with by any measures available. Nothing should be off the table.

  8. I don’t disagree with your assessment in theory, but other facts on the ground make me cautious.
    Preemptive nuclear strikes would give Obama everything he wants with regards to disowning Israel in public (which you know he very much wants to do.)
    Heck, America is so anti-nuke now, that he might be able to gin up popular support for attacking Israel using it.
    Now granted, Israel could wait for a more friendly president who isn’t overtly hostile towards them (and looking for any excuse to harm them.) but such a president would likely help mitigate the need for such action by being stronger against Iran anyway.

    Putting it differently, even President Hillary! or Biden! is a better deal for Israel than the SCOAMF.

  9. And I forgot to mention that if Iran wants to harm Israel, they don’t need the full nuke capability anyway. Based on where we already know they are, they can do considerable damage at any time. I really do think that anything beyond a conventional attack will give them cover to do so.
    I hate where we stand strategically. But as the old saying goes: When America recedes from the world stage, chaos rises.

  10. After reading the comments from tsrblke and CBD, hafta throw in my two cents’ worth.

    For starters, Obama has made this a lose/lose proposition for Israel, and I hope they are fully aware of it. The terrorist-enabling antisemitic jerk is in a position to do whatever he likes with impunity, and I suspect turning Israel into a wasteland is high on his list. Who would stop him? Nobody, that’s who.

    Second, if Israel chooses to take matters into its own hands — I’ll be cheering if they do — they don’t need to use nukes, at least initially. I’m pretty sure they have the resources and intel to do surgical strikes that will cut off the snake’s head without pushing the rest of the world into a more-or-less permanent hissy fit.

    Finally, if Israel has the resources to make and follow through with a Serious Threat, I would advocate them letting the Mad Mullahs know they, not Obama, are in charge of Israel’s security and messing with them is a at this time a sure way to turn your country into a glowing glass-top coffee table.

    I hope Israel doesn’t go all Gen. Buck Turgidson on Iran. Yet.

  11. The analysis from John Bosma contradicts yours, I’m afraid. Not saying he or you are right or wrong but he seems to have the résumé. That said, if it is lose-lose, then Israel has to do what it has to do to prevent/significantly slow Iran from getting nukes. If it brings down Iran’s government in the process, all the better.

  12. JJ, Bosna indeed has “the resume.” but he strikes me as an academic theoretician (“war-gamer”) and not as someone with a solid grasp of reality. Said “reality” is that a pre-emptive nuke strike might well end Israel’s existence faster than an Iranian warhead aimed at Tel Aviv. The current USA and UN regimes would see to that.

    Can’t argue with either his facts or scenarios — only his conclusions. Perhaps my thinking is being skewed by my abhorrence of the very concept of voluntarily initiating a nuclear war, but I would prefer Israel strike as outlined in my previous comment. Yes, they might “win” if they follow Bosna’s way, but I doubt it. They would become eternal pariahs, and would suffer dire consequences from an enraged President Historic First©.

  13. “They would become eternal pariahs, and would suffer dire consequences from an enraged President Historic First©.”

    When have the Jews ever NOT been eternal pariahs? But, of course. The thought of this is just dreadful.

Comments are closed.