Joe Biden has a big mouth. But that is actually a good thing, in this age of almost universal lying by politicians. When you have a mouth that big, something of the truth is likely to fall out of it once in a while – purely by accident, of course, but informative nonetheless. An example was his statement a few days ago that Israel was perfectly free to attack Iran's nuclear sites, and the U.S. would not object. This statement was, of course, given the same treatment as other “Bidenisms” -- first, the State Department issued a “clarification”. Now, for those of you who weren't here last semester, a “clarification” is another way of saying that what was said in the first place is perfectly true, but the person wasn't supposed to be saying it – at least not in public. So the “clarification” is merely a way of weasel-wording the original statement – after the fact -- to make it less offensive, even though the cat is out of the bag... and it's amazing that people keep falling for this scan.
Secondly, the statement and the clarification immediately became non-stories, and nought was heard about either one again. Crisis over... nothing more to see here, folks... you can go back to your homes. It's instances like this that provide conclusive evidence that the mainstream press is nothing more than a willing mouthpiece for the Regime, as (currently) represented by the Obama administration and its loudmouth vice president.
So let's say that JB was telling the truth in the first place – a rare occurrence among politicians of our time, as I said. But what was it he actually said? Did he say that we _wanted_ Israel to attack Iran? Not in so many words. But hey, Israel is “a sovereign country” -- like, what else is new? -- and they have a right to defend themselves, even against an alleged nuclear threat that is not likely to even remotely approach any danger level in less than a decade. I mean – I guess we could attack Botswana on the grounds that they might, someday, conceivably, have nukes that were capable of striking Birmingham, Alabama (and that would be bad how??) -- but there have to be better things to spend our time worrying about. So in any case, an attack by Israel on Iran would be perfectly understandable and the U.S. would not stand in the way – like, again, what else is new? Has anyone ever, at any point, gotten the impression that Israel could not do whatever it damned pleased? I sure haven't. Well, of course, they will often get us to sign up ahead to time to whatever their plans are – as Biden inadvertently revealed – but they'll do what they want whether we care for it or not. And as to their being a “sovereign nation” -- there is no doubt about that either. The question should be, are _we_ a sovereign nation? -- and when it comes to foreign affairs vis-a-vis Israel, the answer is clearly no. We are their servants – militarily, economically, politically, and diplomatically – and our politicians apparently see absolutely no problem with that (nor, unfortunately, do the voters).
So let's take a look at more of Joe Uncool's exquisite nuances. Israel can “determine for itself what's in their interest... whether we agree or not.” But as already indicated, our agreement is pretty much foreordained... and any minor quibbles can be resolved by a phone call from AIPAC. And as to the U.S. “standing in the way” of an Israeli strike on Iran, my question is how this could be done even if we wanted to. I guess we could erect a 100-mile-high wall all across Iraq, from Turkey to Kuwait... but I doubt if that would even do any good. (It would be a boffo no-bid contract for Halliburton though, you must admit!)
Now, in the interests of fairness, we should not neglect the military side. Every once in a while one of our courageous four-stars mumbles something about an attack on Iran being “destabilizing” -- by which they generally mean that a third war to add to those in Afghanistan and Iraq, and still another justification for Islamic militancy, would be less than desirable. But wait – you'll say – we're not talking about a third war, just a clean, surgically-precise attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities – which, by the way, number in the dozens, and many are, predictably, close to “population centers”, which is a fancy way of saying “people”. But again, is there anyone on earth still so naïve as to believe that Iran would not take an attack by Israel as an attack by the U.S.? The Islamic world rightly sees us as one and the same entity. So the chess game – or at least the next few moves – goes as follows: Israel attacks Iran, Iran declares war on not only Israel but also the U.S. They send more “insurgents” into Iraq to fight our forces (who are still there, notice – despite Obama's alleged distaste), and, for all we know, mount an attack across the border with uniformed troops (because Iraq is now our "ally"), while lobbing whatever missiles they have every which way. They get enthusiastic support from China – not only of the military sort but also, just maybe, of the economic sort, which is that China cashes in all of their U.S. notes and effectively trashes our economy (even more) – not that this would necessarily get us out of Iran (remember my comments about the Roman Empire), but it would be pretty good payback. With an economy in the dumpster, and funny money for currency, we turn into a kind of overweight, wheelchair-bound, brain-damaged invalid on the international scene, kept around to maintain appearances, but no longer exerting any real power or influence on world affairs. Eventually the American Empire crumbles, in a manner not unlike the Soviet Union – and including Israel, which is “America's Cuba”, at least militarily and economically.
So by attacking Iran at this point, Israel virtually assures its own eventual demise. But will this stop them? Of course not. And it won't stop the likes of Joe Biden from waving the Israeli flag at every opportunity. So keep talkin', Joe – it's nice to see a glimmer of truth once in a while, in an otherwise fog-bound administration.