Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
May 17, 2013
In observing political behavior and one is frequently struck by very bizarre behavior, much of which was just not the pattern in the past. Visits of heads of states historically were usually meetings where the results of their official conversations were pre-ordained. They were never a repudiation of an existing understanding or a rejection of the purpose of the visit. Extensive staff work precedes most such meetings and while personal discussions are usually substantive, there are rarely significant surprises. Modern day heads of Government do not hold talks which produce unexpected results. There may be disappointments perhaps, but not slams. It is therefore worth considering the events of the past few days since the behavior pattern was precisely the opposite.
Aside from his earlier embarrassment of President Obama by flip-flopping on accepting Netanyahu’s apology over the Mavi Marmara incident, Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, at a White House press conference yesterday after meeting with the President, reiterated his intention to visit Gaza in June despite the fact that both Secretary Kerry as well as the President had lobbied against this visit. While he obviously has his own domestic audience to whom to answer were he to have reneged on this promised visit, it would seem that he will might have finessed the question until he returned home and not stuff it to the President in his own house.
Similarly and perhaps with far greater potential consequences, Russian President Putin entertained Prime Minister Netanyahu on a visit which he undertook precisely to urge the Russians not to deliver or to cease their delivery of high sophisticated Yakhont long range Russian cruise missiles to the Assad Government. Within two days of Netanyahu’s departure, Putin announced that Russia was proceeding with the sale of all the weapons promised to Syria.
It is likely that Netanyahu knew that his visit would be futile, yet he sought to make the trip, and Putin received him knowing precisely what was on the table. In fact, given that Putin had just agreed to encourage an international summit on Syria, perhaps the U.S. encouraged the Israelis to try to make the effort to stop the transfer of these new missiles to Assad.
Bibi did announce upon his return home that Israel would not tolerate Syria possessing weapons which could reach easily into Israel’s heartland –or out to sea as well--,nor would he permit the IAF to be challenged by the highly sophisticated new Russian radar systems. He was indicating directly to Assad—over Putin’s head—that Israel would attack any new systems that would be arriving before they were operational.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
May 17, 2013
In observing political behavior and one is frequently struck by very bizarre behavior, much of which was just not the pattern in the past. Visits of heads of states historically were usually meetings where the results of their official conversations were pre-ordained. They were never a repudiation of an existing understanding or a rejection of the purpose of the visit. Extensive staff work precedes most such meetings and while personal discussions are usually substantive, there are rarely significant surprises. Modern day heads of Government do not hold talks which produce unexpected results. There may be disappointments perhaps, but not slams. It is therefore worth considering the events of the past few days since the behavior pattern was precisely the opposite.
Aside from his earlier embarrassment of President Obama by flip-flopping on accepting Netanyahu’s apology over the Mavi Marmara incident, Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, at a White House press conference yesterday after meeting with the President, reiterated his intention to visit Gaza in June despite the fact that both Secretary Kerry as well as the President had lobbied against this visit. While he obviously has his own domestic audience to whom to answer were he to have reneged on this promised visit, it would seem that he will might have finessed the question until he returned home and not stuff it to the President in his own house.
Similarly and perhaps with far greater potential consequences, Russian President Putin entertained Prime Minister Netanyahu on a visit which he undertook precisely to urge the Russians not to deliver or to cease their delivery of high sophisticated Yakhont long range Russian cruise missiles to the Assad Government. Within two days of Netanyahu’s departure, Putin announced that Russia was proceeding with the sale of all the weapons promised to Syria.
It is likely that Netanyahu knew that his visit would be futile, yet he sought to make the trip, and Putin received him knowing precisely what was on the table. In fact, given that Putin had just agreed to encourage an international summit on Syria, perhaps the U.S. encouraged the Israelis to try to make the effort to stop the transfer of these new missiles to Assad.
Bibi did announce upon his return home that Israel would not tolerate Syria possessing weapons which could reach easily into Israel’s heartland –or out to sea as well--,nor would he permit the IAF to be challenged by the highly sophisticated new Russian radar systems. He was indicating directly to Assad—over Putin’s head—that Israel would attack any new systems that would be arriving before they were operational.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
May 13, 2013
Until the news emerged at the end of last week about the IRS signaling out the applications of conservative leaning tax-exempt organization for special intense scrutiny, it had felt that indeed the Republican Party was grasping at straws just to make the President and the Democrats scream in angry frustration at the insanity of trying to govern in the era of dominating partisanship that has gripped Washington. It is now entirely likely that the growing revelations about the conduct of the IRS will totally tie Congress into knots undoubtedly for weeks and perhaps months to come. This is one looks like real juicy meat.
Until now most of the ugliness in Washington was pure scandal mongering on the part of many of the Republicans hoping to mobilize the American voters to oppose Obama and help the GOP gain control of the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016. These IRS revelations may well be serious enough to derail the Obama second term agenda and scare his Presidency, although it is a long way to go to 2016—at least.
Just when it appeared that there was a possibility to get Congress refocused on its business, this latest expose will make the Republican fixation on the Benghazi tragedy seem like child’s play. Without even considering any looming foreign policy issues, there are an array of domestic issues which will be put aside or finessed away while Congress makes political hay over IRSgate. Meanwhile, there are three Cabinet appointees whose confirmation processing were already on hold or in jeopardy; there are numerous federal judgeships waiting to be filled; there is a budget reconciliation package which continues to drag along unresolved; there are all the sequestration cuts which will grow more compelling in the months ahead; later this summer there will be a reprise over the debt ceiling fight; and all of this will be on Congress’ plate in before the FY 2014—certainly incomplete—begins on October 1.
Is the President worried? He is so concerned that he created a press conference opportunity to respond immediately to todays’ latest revelations as to the scope of the IRS activities and as the responsibility grew larger and went higher up. Presumably Obama himself had no knowledge (or had plausible deniability), but it appears reasonable that there will be some political operatives, partisan supporters, and Government bureaucrats whose heads will roll out of the investigation of this scandal. Obama also knows where the “buck” will stop and that it will not be pretty.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
May 6, 2013
There are a number observations which emerge out of the events that have occurred in Syria over the past several days in Syria. They are important for all the players; those directly engaged, the regional actors, and the international community as well as those in the East or the West. Beyond the more obvious military and security tensions which have been elevated by the attacks in and around Damascus, these are observations which speak to larger questions concerning the future as well as the present.
At this point it seems clear that few people should have the slightest doubt about the closeness of the U.S.-Israel relationship, especially with respect to the sharing and use of intelligence and weapons. Israel, presumably relying on joint intelligence to destroy the Hezbollah bound weapons, executed its mission, it would appear, flawlessly. What was learned for all interested parties to the conflict was that the vaunted Syrian –or Russian—air defense system was not nearly as formidable as had been advertised. The success of the attack demonstrated the porousness of the Syria’s air defense capability when tested by sophisticated offensive forces. Presumably the U.S. and Israel now can make an larger assessment of whether it was a Syrian, Russian, or Iranian system; who manned it; and what might be its shortcomings.
Second, while the personal relationship between Obama and Netanyahu may remain not cuddly but professional and businesslike, the intelligence and defense communities seem to be cooperating almost hand-in-glove. It now seems also to have moved into one of mutual political cooperation. Israel’s attack—beyond effectively destroying Iranian missiles bound for Hezbollah—enabled Bibi to deflect some of the harsh criticism that Obama was receiving from his critics in the U.S. for the weakness of his response to the apparent confirmed use of sarin gas. While not removing the decision-making mistake that the President made in drawing “red-lines” nor suggesting that a similar marker he has placed before the Iranian nuclear program will go away, but Israel’s actions enable the U.S. to take credit—in part—for showing a tougher side to addressing Assad.
Israel’s attack on the Damascus research facilities and the missiles apparently housed underground sent a message as well to both Assad and to Iran’s Supreme Leader, that Israel will not rest while the Iranians and the Hezbollah and Syrian allies attempt to solidify an offensive arc poised to attack Israel. Clear as well was the President’s unequivocal statement following the Israeli attack(s), affirming Israel’s legitimate right to take whatever measures it deems appropriate to protect itself and its people.
Finally, the Israelis also did not appear to hesitate to launch this attack despite the fact that Netanyahu was about to leave for a five day trip to China and a week before Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s forthcoming trip to the U.S. From Turkey, as well as from the Saudis and Qataris, who have been the major military supporters of the rebels until now-- presumably with the U.S.’s blessing --Israel’s actions did not receive a critical comment.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
May 3, 2013
Knowing the way Netanyahu usually behaves and reacts, events over the past 10 days have raised interesting questions as to what is going on not only between the U.S. and Israel, but also in Government coalition. This pertains to weapons sales as well as new peace initiatives. In both instances something different is happening.
Secretary Hagel’s visit to Israel last week was almost as much of a love feast as was the Obama visit to Israel in March. The dramatic, public announcement of the new weapons sales to Israel of F-35 airplanes and new aerial refueling equipment was received with great enthusiasm; both equipment that Israel might require should it proceed to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. At the same time, very little was made of the fact that Israel did not receive the hard “bunker busters”. Since this is the vital additional component that the U.S. would supply if it too were to attack Iran, why did Israel not receive them as well and/or complain when she did not do so?
At least one of the answers is that Israel has its own versions of “bomb busters” and besides does not have the U.S. equipment needed to launch the American version. The matter of “bomb busters” as suggested even today in the Wall Street Journal and Haaretz was not publicly discussed. Israel did not raise a fuss about the matter because it would rely on itself or U.S. military to support them should they need them. The U.S. also did not want to elevate regional tensions by publicizing discussions of this matter. Should Israel decide—independent of any U.S. strategic decision—to proceed with an attack on Iran, it now possesses the latest in offensive, defensive, and support equipment to believe it can handle the Iranian threat alone.
At the same time, Secretary Kerry responded positively to the new modifications presented this week in the Arab League’s Israel-Palestinian peace proposal. Bibi apparently did not shoot it down on its face but sent Tzipi Livni to the U.S. to consult further on the proposal. The Arab League offer represents a modification, although not a dramatic one. What the action of the League and Secretary Kerry do represent is interest in jump starting talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Politically it may mean even more for Bibi’s Government. It would be reasonable to assume that the leaders of all the major factions in the coalition agreed—even if there are differences—to proceed with the conversations and to task Justice Minister Livni to seek clarifications. Specifically, this suggests that unlike some of the more extreme right wing forces within the membership of Yisrael Beitanu, Bennett and his top advisers are prepared to lead the party in a more compromising, less-hardline direction than was expected; to move ahead with talks.
(It also may confirm something that has been suggested here several times already, that Bennett and Lapid may well be closer on more issues than had been presumed by some when the joined the coalition as a team. It also might be the harbinger of the true next stage of Israeli politics; post Netanyahu.)
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
May 1, 2013
In this morning’s press conference Obama justified his weak-kneed response last week to Congress’ decision to reprogram money for the air-traffic controllers—taking it out of an account for airport construction—so as not to inconvenience the flying public. The President indicated he will sign the bill because:
Frankly, I don't think that if I were to veto, for example, this FAA bill, that that somehow would lead to the broader fix. It just means that there'd be pain now, which they would try to blame on me, as opposed to pain five years from now….
I cannot force Republicans to embrace those common-sense solutions. I can urge them to. I can put pressure on them, I can, you know, rally the American people around those -- you know, those common-sense solutions, but ultimately they themselves are going to have to say, we want to do the right thing.
And I think there are members certainly in the Senate right now and, I suspect, members in the House as well who understand that deep down, but they're worried about their politics. It's tough. Their base thinks that compromise with me is somehow a betrayal. They're worried about primaries. And I understand all that.
Once again the President and his Democratic leaders especially in the Senate should have gone to the barricades with the Republican supporters of the bill and insisted that they would not consider this part of the sequestration discomfort without forcing the Congress to address sequestration comprehensively. The President is as culpable as is the weak Senate leadership who could have forced a filibuster. Obama could have shown the country precisely that he is ready to stand up and take his lumps as they seek to resolve not only the problem of the air traffic controllers’ furloughs, but the entire array of civilian and military cuts that the sequestration bill imposed.
It is not only Obama’s weak leadership and Senator Reid’s spineless actions as Majority Leader, it is that they both very much want to force the Republicans to accept tax increases which such a comprehensive bill would necessitate; but they do not want to force the Democrats to address the need for changes in social security and Medicare accounting. A major filibuster, if managed properly by a Majority Leader like Senator Lyndon Johnson did-- with a strong Obama White House calling the shots-- requires toughness and a willingness to test your own power to lead. As was the case for Johnson, the public enthusiastically supported his willingness to confront the segregationist Senators of the old South from his own party; but it was a very gutsy move. If the next four years are going to be productive ones for the nation, those in positions of leadership need to move into a much more powerful gear.
It is not only in foreign and defense policy that the absence of strong convictions is getting the nation into trouble. The Republicans may well be facing serious electoral challenges even in 2014, but if the President permits a minority of the Senate to continue to intimidate him, there is little chance for any progress to be achieved in Obama’s second term regardless of the internal dissention within the GOP.
Being a nice guy does not work in politics; sometimes being a tough guy does.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
April 29, 2013
Many people who recall the Stanley Kubrick’s brilliant 1964 black comedy Dr. Strangelove starring among other Peter Sellers and George C. Scott, forget the fact that the movie’s full title was Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. The second portion of the title came to mind in considering the events of the past week with respect to the Obama Administration’s response or equivocating non-response to confirmation of Syria’s use of a small amount of sarin gas against its own people. As has been said here and elsewhere the debate over crossing the red line in the use of gas by Syria only elevated the concern over what might be the potential U.S. reaction to Iran’s crossing its red line on nuclear weapons capability within the next several months or so. It seems that the Obama Administration is clearly signaling several things to Iran, to the world, and to Israel.
To Iran the U.S remains vigorously opposed to Iran proceeding with its nuclear material production and will use ever method—short of the military it seems—to stop this movement of Iran becoming a nuclear power. It will also enable Israel to have the capability to stop the Iranian program should it desire to do so; but the Obama Administration at this point believes it can “learn to stop worrying and live with (maybe not love) the bomb.”
To the world the Obama Administration is suggesting that nuclear proliferation may well be unstoppable at this point. Washington understands that if Iran gets the bomb, the U.S. will have to “learn to live” with the Saudis, the Egyptians, and the Turks, thereafter, having a bomb as well. None of these new nuclear forces will present an existential threat to the U.S.
As for Israel, the U.S., as evidenced by Secretary Hagel’s indications last week in Jerusalem, is sending a very strong message that it will continue to protect Israel with defensive weapons and offensive capability. The Administration also is sending Israel an even stronger message. Washington’s signal, based on its behavior toward Syria and now its projected possible response to Iran, is to tell Israel to be very cautious, and careful, in considering whether it too might not be better off-- not learning to stop worrying--but living with an Iran that has the bomb. It may not be pretty, but it may be a much smarter option than enduring the hell storm of a war with Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah, even if Israel were to be victorious.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
April 24, 2013
Sarin gas and nuclear weapons may have a linkage having nothing to do with the specific dangers they represent to citizens. It may well be that the U.S. –implicitly Israel as well--is being watched by Iran as to how it will respond to the consensus that is generally developing that Syria is using chemical weapons against its own people. After France and Britain announced last week that they believed that President Assad had used such material against Syrian rebel soldiers, Israeli sources confirmed yesterday that they too had reached the same conclusion. Up to this point, the Obama Administration has still not given a definitive comment of its own analysis.
The questions which emerge from Washington’s reluctance to affirm what is widely asserted concerning Assad raising the stakes in Syria, involves not only whether Syria is prepared to continue their use; but also what happened to Washington’s “red line” message that it had previously delivered concerning any use of chemical weapons by Syria. Beyond the obvious quandary in which it leaves the Syrians as to what is or is not behind the U.S. “red line” threat, it also raises very important question about “red lines” on Iran’s nuclear program. This in turns challenges Israeli confidence in the U.S. being on the same page as Israel as to how far it is willing to permit the Iranian nuclear program to develop. In other words, what would be the U.S. response if Iran hits their previously agreed upon “red line”.
While one can understand U.S. hesitation not to act quickly in Syria-- despite the continuing humanitarian bloodbath and the fear that military supplies could fall into radical terrorist groups-- it would seem that given the implications to Iran concerning American waffling, the U.S. ought to intensify non-lethal assistance to the rebels. As to the implications for Israel vis-à-vis Iran, it probably elevates the likelihood that Israel may well have to go it alone against Iran. Perhaps, if the Syrian situation implodes soon, Iran will be so drawn in to protect its Syrian, Hezbollah, and radical Shiite allies, that the U.S. and the West, of necessity, will be sucked into the fray; so much for red lines determining actions.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
April 24, 2013
Sarin gas and nuclear weapons may have a linkage having nothing to do with the specific dangers they represent to citizens. It may well be that the U.S. –implicitly Israel as well--is being watched by Iran as to how it will respond to the consensus that is generally developing that Syria is using chemical weapons against its own people. After France and Britain announced last week that they believed that President Assad had used such material against Syrian rebel soldiers, Israeli sources confirmed yesterday that they too had reached the same conclusion. Up to this point, the Obama Administration has still not given a definitive comment of its own analysis.
The questions which emerge from Washington’s reluctance to affirm what is widely asserted concerning Assad raising the stakes in Syria, involves not only whether Syria is prepared to continue their use; but also what happened to Washington’s “red line” message that it had previously delivered concerning any use of chemical weapons by Syria. Beyond the obvious quandary in which it leaves the Syrians as to what is or is not behind the U.S. “red line” threat, it also raises very important question about “red lines” on Iran’s nuclear program. This in turns challenges Israeli confidence in the U.S. being on the same page as Israel as to how far it is willing to permit the Iranian nuclear program to develop. In other words, what would be the U.S. response if Iran hits their previously agreed upon “red line”.
While one can understand U.S. hesitation not to act quickly in Syria-- despite the continuing humanitarian bloodbath and the fear that military supplies could fall into radical terrorist groups-- it would seem that given the implications to Iran concerning American waffling, the U.S. ought to intensify non-lethal assistance to the rebels. As to the implications for Israel vis-à-vis Iran, it probably elevates the likelihood that Israel may well have to go it alone against Iran. Perhaps, if the Syrian situation implodes soon, Iran will be so drawn in to protect its Syrian, Hezbollah, and radical Shiite allies, that the U.S. and the West, of necessity, will be sucked into the fray; so much for red lines determining actions.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
April 22, 2013
There were some specifically poignant thoughts about Israel which kept reoccurring as the events unfolded last week following the Boston Marathon tragedy and its aftermath. One heard or read about various doctors who repeatedly remarked how fortunate it was that their trauma units relatively recently had engaged in intensive briefings and training from their Israeli counterparts. The techniques, procedures, and processing of victims which Israel had developed over years of having to deal with terrorist incidents and suicide bombers became invaluable for the first responders in Boston and the fortunately enhanced hospital staff on duty last Monday. While U.S. military experiences since the Viet-Nam War have changed trauma unit behavior dramatically, the nature of the battlefield, combat, or military emergencies are still significantly different than civilian ones.
Similarly, while American hospitals and medical personnel have made great advances in addressing problems emerging from post-traumatic stress disorders, Israel again has extensive experience dealing with PTSD among civilian populations. In addition, as is the case in medicine generally, sharing of procedures and treatment techniques are standard procedure, the range of Israeli experiences with and development of prosthetic devices is also greatly advanced especially for basically young and healthy victims which so many in Boston were. Finally, watching robotic machines—in lieu of humans--moving around the empty streets of Boston in search of and endeavoring to inspect potential hot spots, it was clearly reminiscent of watching robots in Israel climb over buses and around blown-up clubs, restaurants, etc. in search of unexploded devices.
Somehow Israel’s advanced technologies in all of these fields were sad reminders of the extent to which Israelis have become almost inured to tragedy on the one hand and yet, on the other hand, educative of how to deal with terrorist attacks. The city of Bsoton—like Israel has learned--marched on. Certainly the hockey fans at the Bruins game on Wednesday night understood that as they sang the Star Spangled Banner and as did the Red Sox fans at Fenway Park on Saturday as they sang Sweet Caroline.
« Older Posts
BACK TO TOP
Follow NJJN
E-Newsletter Signup