The President’s strategic priority here is that Westerners, and especially white Westerners, no longer be in the position of Middle Eastern dynasts, namely, statutory rulers of non-Westerners (Muslims for the most part) dwelling with and among the Jews in this case. Furthermore, the scenario that I’m suggesting is entertained by Obama (and key foreign-policy advisors) has two prongs.  In the first, Iran acquires nuclear weapons and the ability to loft them Jerusalem-wards.  Israel, put on notice by the US, does little or nothing about it.  For reasons that I feel no obligation to flesh out here, such an outcome must before long lead to the extinction of the Zionist enterprise known as the State of Israel.

The second prong, obviously, is that Israel will strike Iran to prevent its acquisition of nuclear weapons over the near term.  All the terrible things that have been forecast should Israel attack Iran very probably will occur.  In that case, the Administration will sever all ties to the country, or will at least attempt to do so, and Israel will be abandoned to its fate.  Needless to say, that outcome will not be the end of Israel but the end of American support for Zionism.

Like all leftists, Barack Obama is a leveler.  He will bow enthusiastically to the Emperor of Japan because he is both non-white and non-Western.  He will bow obsequiously to the King of Saudi Arabia because he is non-Western.  On the other hand, he will merely nod to the Queen of England because she is echt white and Western.  Elizabeth II is the literal embodiment of the historical dominance of non-whites and non-Westerners by white, Western “imperialists.”  The Chinese, naturally enough, must be accorded supreme deference in this hierarchical scheme.  In Copenhagen, for example, Obama wasted no time with the Europeans, whom, I suspect, he despises, but went hat in hand to the President of China for approbation.  George Bush and Bill Clinton’s toleration of the political deformity that is present-day “Communist” China was largely pragmatic.  Obama’s is viscerally ideological.  It is a thoroughly depraved ideology, true, but an ideology nonetheless.

To resume, the Iranians, who are white but fanatically anti-Western, currently have a well-wisher in the Oval Office.  Let them get the bomb, and let the Jews, the white, Western canaries in the geopolitical coal mine, tremble.  What more might an anti-Western bigot, whom the West in a spirit of deracinated anti-bigotry nominated as its spokesman, desire?

The basis of his proposal is for the U.S., France, Britain, and Israel to agree together to stop Iran, and to view the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis as a model for the initial phase:

Applying pressure on the Iranians by interdicting any imports or exports to and from Iran by sea and by air would send a message that would undoubtedly be perceived as demonstrative by Tehran. Additionally, reinforcing the Western naval presence inside or immediately outside the Gulf would make it clear to the Iranians, without infringing on their territorial waters, that they (and all states dealing with them) are entering a danger zone. In parallel to this slow strangulation, measures should be taken to deter Gulf states (such as Dubai) from engaging in any trade or financial transactions with Iran and to encourage them to freeze Iranian assets in their banks. This should not be too difficult, as the threat of disconnecting any renegade from the Swift system would be sufficiently persuasive in the current circumstances, in which Dubai sorely needs international financial assistance.

It might be necessary to go beyond that and actually resort to force to prevent the Iranians from achieving nuclear military capabilities. Planning for a massive air and missile attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities (known and suspected) should be considered seriously, and this planning made public (at least partially) to convince Iran that the West can not only talk the talk, but also walk the walk. Such planning should also, to the extent possible, involve NATO, against the territory of which there is little doubt that the majority of Iranian missiles and nuclear weapons would be targeted (if only because they cannot yet reach the U.S.). The U.S., U.K., French and Israeli intelligence services should better co-ordinate what they know, and contributions from others should also be welcome, as well as any information that could be provided by internal opposition movements in Iran.

A recent column by Caroline Glick observes Debouzy’s arguments, and asks whether Netanyahu can wait much longer for Obama to act. She wonders whether America is necessary for the operation, and whether a determined Israel might not find itself with allies regardless of America’s stance – leading her to suggest a different historical parallel:

While Debouzy invoked the Cuban Missile Crisis, given the Obama administration’s position on Iran, a more apt analogy is the 1956 Suez Crisis. Whereas in 1962 the US acted alone against the threatened Soviet deployment of nuclear missiles in Cuba, in 1956, France, Israel and Britain acted against Egypt without US permission to limit the harm that then-Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser could cause to their separate strategic interests.

Today, the Obama administration’s treatment of US allies and enemies alike bears far more resemblance to the Eisenhower administration’s policies than to those of the Kennedy administration. And in turn, the administration’s behavior presents allied governments with options reminiscent to those they faced in 1956.

She believes in the end it will come down to whether Netanyahu can measure up to Ben-Gurion:

There can be little doubt that if Ben-Gurion and Eisenhower were in charge today, Ben-Gurion wouldn’t hesitate to again defy Eisenhower and attack Iran – with or without France and Britain. Certainly, Netanyahu cannot justify placing Israel’s fate in Obama’s hands.

She believes, in short, that if Netanyahu shows leadership, he may find himself with allies. From the American perspective, however, I think we may have to consider that action without us will tend to confirm a tremendous setback for U.S. influence in the region and beyond, even if the subsequent complications involve us directly.