Obama is extremely indecisive and open to influence. He has been influenced by forces as disparate as an anti-Semitic black preacher and Jew Rahm Emanuel, ultra-leftist Samantha Power and cynical Hillary Clinton. Despite his rhetoric of change, Obama brought the old guys and gals to the White House, and so succumbed to their influence that Nancy Pelosi wrote his trademark economic stimulus bill. The democratic establishment propped up Obama as a front man, a smoke screen for the traditional political corruption. He lacks bureaucratic expertise, which is indispensable for standing up against the establishment, and the establishment manipulates him. Obama’s political ineptitude creates a situation in which uncontrollable special interests, from corporate lobbyists to ultra-leftists, creep in. He’s cosmopolitan, and thus lacks firm values and is basically spineless. If Jews act strong, Obama may side with us.

Obama’s Muslim roots might possibly work for us. He’s similar to the Jewish cosmopolites who turn against the Jewish values that taunt their identity. Obama easily abandons his relatives: he clearly didn’t know of his aunt was staying in the US illegally (for he could have easily adjusted her status) and did not bring his Kenyan brother to America. He doesn’t even care enough about his Kenyan fatherland to use his newly acquired power to help it.

How should Israel deal with Obama administration

The ultra-left anti-Semites Obama brought it on his team will probably go soon, evicted by the career bureaucrats he also brought along. Arabs will reject his overtures: Iran has already refused to put any brakes on its nuclear program, Syria continues its support for terrorists unabated, Turkey and Iraq are turning increasingly anti-American, and Pakistan is becoming overtly Islamist. Faced with real-world threats and non-conformism, Obama may become militant, as leftists usually do when their attempts at changing the world fail. When Roman democracy failed and became replaced with monarchy (like the Bushes and Clintons) and eventually accepted foreigners as emperors, hysterical aggression was the norm.

Israel should exploit Obama’s weakness of nicety by flatly refusing to make concessions. It took James Baker to tell an Israeli PM that a refusal to accept American terms would have consequences. With pro-Israeli democrats firmly in control of the Senate, Obama cannot scale down American support for Israel no matter what we do. Obama cannot push like Baker did; unable to push Israel, he might as well go along with us.

Netanyahu is well suited to convince Obama to strike Iran; they share the culture of top US universities and speak the same language. Barak’s overpowering personality is also an asset against weak Obama. Obama’s acquiescence to an Israeli strike on Iran might be coming, as the mullahs insult his Harvard classroom mentality by rejecting debates. Even if he disagrees, Israel can make do on her own.

IAF has some refueling aircraft, which should suffice to return the most expensive planes home. Other planes can be landed with some risk in Kurdistan and perhaps Azerbaijan and Turkey. Under onslaught from the Islamist government, the Turkish military might show defiance and allow IAF to use their landing strips. In the worst-case scenario, the planes can be abandoned: sacrificing a hundred jets at $3 billion is not a prohibitive cost to end Iran’s nuclear program. The Jew-dominated US senate would rush to replenish Israeli stocks as the world applauded the daring operation.

An attack by Tomahawk-type missiles is another option. Israel can launch her Popeye missiles with a 900-mile range from submarines, or longer-range missiles directly from the land bases. Given the necessary quantity of several hundred missiles, a mid-range air or submarine strike is a viable option. Israel has to retain a limited quantity of long-range missiles for a possible retaliatory strike on Iran in case of counter-attack, or at least to threaten such retaliation in order to prevent an Iranian counter-attack. A missile attack would make US approval for overflight of Iraq unnecessary.

Nor are the bunker-buster bombs essential for the operation. Though the United States refused to supply them, Israel can use a large number of conventional missiles or tactical nukes against Iranian targets. In any case, some radiological contamination will occur, as Israel has to bomb the plutonium-producing Bushehr reactor: its eighty-two tons of enriched uranium will be pulverized. Tactical nukes would produce comparable contamination. But why do we even care to discuss such irrelevant consequences?