How scary is Baker to Israel??

82CardsGrad · November 29th, 2006, 07:35 AM

BAKER'S SELLOUT PLAN
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

November 29, 2006 -- Can Iran help us bail out of Iraq? Maybe - but we'd better take a hard look at the price.
The idea has reportedly been floated via a draft report to the Iraq Study Group (headed by former Secretary of State James Baker), which calls for a "dialogue" with Iran as well as Syria. Along the same lines, British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently said Iran could be a "partner" with the West if it did not develop a bomb.
Presumably, we'd ask Iran to help stabilize the situation in Iraq, curb the Shiite militias and encourage the Iraqi government to make sufficient concessions to the Sunnis to end or at least reduce the violence.
Would it work? It could. Iran certainly has sought to arm and enflame the Shiites in Iraq. Maybe the mullahs can rein in their proxies, and let us withdraw in dignity - not holding onto the skids of the helicopter as it lifts off our embassy this time.
But why would they play ball with Washington at the same time that Bush is threatening sanctions explicitly and a military strike implicitly if Iran proceeds to develop nuclear weapons? No chance.
So this proposal amounts to the de facto abandonment of any military or economic actions that could deter Iran from going nuclear.
Of course, Baker may seek and Iran may offer public assurances that it won't develop nuclear weapons - the same worthless assurances it now passes out to the entire world. What will have changed is that America and Britain will be so engaged with Iran that they can't and won't bomb or even impose tough sanctions.
In short, we can only get Iran's help on Iraq if we let Tehran get the bomb.
Yet, with nukes, Iran gains the leverage to force Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and all the region's oil producers to move in its orbit. The Middle East will become an Iranian sphere of influence.
Such an under-the-table deal would amount to a total sellout of Israel and Saudi Arabia and America's other Arab allies.
The Jewish state would be left with no alternative but to take whatever military action it could to stop Iran from completing its nuclear program. American capitulation will have left it with no alternative.
Would Jim Baker cut such a deal? In a heartbeat. Never a friend of Israel, he wouldn't flinch at a realpolitik solution giving Iran power throughout the region.
But why would Bush go along? It would be "peace in our time" - Munich, 1938 - all over again.

RedStorm · November 29th, 2006, 07:49 AM

I have been wondering what real benefit is there to talk with Syria and Iran? If they are a big cause to the fighting in Iraq (one of the purposes IMO would be because of their hatred of us) then why should we give concessions? What does talking do if it amounts to nothing changing?

Would you or I sit down and talk with someone who is robbing our home? "Hey, please stop taking my stuff. Pretty please??".

I just don't see the benefit of talking with those whom are fueling the fire that we are trying to put out.

PortlandCardFan · November 29th, 2006, 08:18 AM

Short term success for long term disaster!!!

AZZenny · November 29th, 2006, 08:32 AM

Baker has Israel very scared, because the other part of the equation is that Syria will not cooperate unless the US agrees to pressure Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the Golan Heights, which would be madness on Israel's part. (Syria will also demand US hands-off Lebanon, which Baker wouldn't blink at, which means hands off Hizbullah. Iran and Syria will surely demand loosening of financial restrictions, which means US 'charitable' funding of Hizbullah resumes and money-laundering controls get eviscerated.)

If Israel withdraws from the Golan, it would require a large buffer of DMZ (which was close to being negotiated with Assad's father when he died) and that can only be done in the context of truly negotiated peace treaty with Syria, not a forced political process.

The Golan runs for 30-40 miles along the border and rises a thousand to 3000 feet directly over Israel's primary breadbasket farm region and along a rapidly growing High-tech and industrial corridor, and is one of the most strategically vital areas in the ME for that reason. (The fact that Syria lost it TWICE after attacking Israel ought to count for something.) Israelis are nevertheless 60-40% for talking with Syria, but not under US pressure.

If Baker's ONLY interest is how to get us out of Iraq now without losing too much face, then of course he'll sacrifice the future -- theirs and ours. A couple Dem friends recently said, "For once, I hope Bush is stubborn and blows off Baker's advice" -- this would be giving Hizbullah, far and away a more dangerous long-term enemy than AQ, free rein.

Those of you who put all of Iran's madness on Pres. Stinky (theirs) remember that Argentina has charged former 'moderate' president Rafsanjani and Ayatollah Khameini in the two major bombings of Jewish and Israeli centers several years ago. Stinky is only the most blatant and vocal one, but the policy has been hostile and violent for twenty years.