1 Boring Old Man

PMO: U.S., Israel see need for ‘tangible action’ on Iran nukes
Haaretz Correspondents and Haaretz Service

… as a former Knesset speaker, MK Reuven Rivlin, put it Thursday, "I wish our leaders would make speeches like this." Rivlin described Bush as "manifesting the Zionist vision."

… Hendel issued a statement calling on Olmert "to learn from the president of the United States what Zionism is."

ANALYSIS: Who wants to stop Iran?

… Bush did not waver Thursday from the policies that have guided his administration since September 11, 2001. His position on Iran is longstanding. But on Thursday, when he again spoke of the naivete of those who believe dialogue can block Iran’s nuclear program, it blipped on America’s political radar. Barack Obama’s campaign was quick to respond, calling it "extraordinary politicization of foreign policy." If those who want to talk to Iran are like those who wanted to talk to Hitler – then Obama is Neville Chamberlain or Senator Borah.

But Bush should be measured by the same yardstick. Meetings will not stop Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but neither will speeches in Knesset. Bush may not be as naive as Obama, but U.S. foreign policy under his leadership has failed time after time on the Iranian issue. International sanctions are too skimpy to mount any real pressure against Iran’s uranium enrichment program, and Tehran is gaining.

… And here is what he said Thursday: For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And he added: "America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions." Bush’s declarations could be seen as a calming expression of support: The U.S. president clearly does not favor a nuclear Iran. But one can also wonder about the wording he chose in this speech. Does relying on what the "world" does – or standing with Israel, which might take action itself – mean that America does not plan to be the one to stop Iran?