In Israel this week, people are lining up for gas masks, a new Homeland Defense has been set to work to deal with the task of readying the country for the possibility of attacks from Iran, Lebanon and Gaza, and pundits are working overtime trying to figure out whether the nation’s political leadership is serious about launching a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities sometime this fall. Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, is doing his best to convince Americans that the saber-rattling coming out Jerusalem is not a bluff aimed at forcing the West to toughen sanctions on Iran or start making their own credible threats about using force. In interviews with journalists and an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last week, Oren has made a powerful case about the existential threat that a nuclear Iran presents to Israel, but Washington may be listening more closely to those figures inside the Jewish state who are claiming that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are begging to be talked out of an attack.
As the New York Times reported yesterday, Uzi Dayan, a former general who was asked to serve as Homeland Defense Minister, says his conversations with both Netanyahu and Barak led him to believe that the window of diplomacy with Iran that the Obama administration keeps talking about is still open. There are good reasons to believe the Israeli government would like nothing better than to have the war talk do what an earlier wave of speculation about a strike accomplished when Washington belatedly adopted a tougher sanctions policy. Jerusalem understands that even a successful strike on Iran will exact a terrible price in casualties and damage from counter-attacks from the Islamist regime and its terrorist allies. But those who assert that Netanyahu is just bluffing forget that Israeli anxiety is rooted as much in its lack of confidence in Washington as it is in knowledge of Iran’s genocidal ambitions.
With even the Americans now finally willing to agree in the form of a new National Intelligence Estimate that Iran is building a bomb, the feeling in Jerusalem is that they cannot sit back, wait and hope for the best as their allies seem to be telling them. The latest round of threats from Tehran as they prepare to celebrate al Quds (Jerusalem) Day started with a comment from an Iranian general “that there is no other way but to stand firm and resist until Israel is destroyed.” That was followed by a prediction in a speech by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s Supreme Leader, that Israel would disappear.
But Israel’s problem isn’t so much their certainty that if Iran is allowed to keep on refining uranium that they will have a bomb before long. It is their utter lack of faith in the Obama administration’s willingness to do something about the problem.
Netanyahu’s domestic critics are not off base when they chide his government for painting the Iranian threat as being primarily a problem for Israel rather than the region or the West. It is also obviously true that if Israel acted on its own, the impact of such a strike would not be nearly as devastating or conclusive as one led by the United States armed forces. But who can blame Netanyahu and Barak for having come to the conclusion that President Obama will continue pretending that his policy of ineffective diplomacy and loosely enforced sanctions can deal with the situation until it really is too late.
It could be that fear of an Israeli strike in the middle of a presidential election will prompt Obama to improve upon his current feckless stand. But in the absence of any sign of such a switch and with the prospect that a re-elected Obama will find the “flexibility” to abandon his promise to stop Iran, Netanyahu may have no choice but to contemplate a unilateral strike. Rather than worrying about Israel bluffing, the administration needs to recognize that if they wish to avert a war this fall, the president must start acting like he means what he says about stopping Iran.
Sometimes,after crying wolf for long enough,you have to fight the wolf on your own.
Especially if there really has been a wolf there all along, and people who should no better decided out of ignorance, malice or irresponsbility that the threat was not there, or was exaggerated, or could be ignored.
The wolf LOL is not an American problem at this time. If it becomes one,it will be taken care of.
Yeah, right. Iran has nothing but good will for the US, and has certainly never attacked the US. Unless of course you count the seizure of our embassy in 1979 and holding its staff hostage. Or commiting terrorist attacks, and funding others, that have killed Americans. Or furnishing arms and training to anti-US insurgents in Iraq who killed American troops. Or planning missiles that can carry a nuclear payload or EMP to the US. Nothing to see here, just move along. nTraitor. Iran-firster.
this is about as dim a non-sequitur as could be pronounced absent a complete lapsing into pig-latin. Young man, the whole topic concerns Israel's predicament given Obama's own implicit (if fatally naive) distinction between a theoretical threat to the United States and the more immediate, open, and publicly proclaimed threat to wipe out the Jewish state. But, you might ask yourself what happens if Israel does finally decide that Obama has as much contempt for his supposed good friend Israel as you have. Israel is not without military means of its own should it finally (not yet, finally) decide the red lines have been crossed–however, as follows, some observers believe that it is the loss of Israel's pre-emptive window of capability per se & not a comparative evaluation of what American President would be left to pick up the pieces that is decisive.
what? is this a coherent thought in any possible context? n nI know! sometimes if you oppose kicking the can down the road you have to get a can opener! n nsometimes if you have no bakset ball you have to ball your baskets!
Of course, if you are merely 'crying wolf', there is no wolf to begin with. And if the wolf was there (as it is with Iran), you are not 'crying wolf' when you point out the actual threat. Then again, consider the source. Rexfod is among those who like to cry wolf about Israel and its supporteres pushing the US into needless war.
Whenever the subject of an Israeli strike comes up, there's an implication that this means either: n n1. An Israeli-solo strike, or n2. A U.S.A. strike n nPerhaps there's another option: An Israeli strike, if that's what Israel deems necessary, and if that is not completely effective, there could be an American strike later. If this sort of one-two punch approach is feasible, it would allow Israel to defend herself now, when she has to. And, if there is more needed later, well, the U.S. under a President Romney, could take the action. n nThis approach would cause greater harm to Israel in the near term because Israel cannot remove the collateral threats from Iran as well as the U.S. would, so Israel would suffer more from Iranian counter-strikes. (The Hezbollah and Hamas threats are present no matter who strikes. )But, Israel could defend herself for now and then, when we have a president with the courage to act, he could do so. n nIt seems that the discussion is limited to a strike now (by Israel or the U.S.) or nothing. I think multiple strikes may be an option as well. If not, why not?
So, President Obama, how's that daylight between the US and Israel working as a way of bringing about peace and preventing war?
"Netanyahu’s domestic critics are not off base when they chide his government for painting the Iranian threat as being primarily a problem for Israel rather than the region or the West." n nThey're "off base" and so are you, Tobin. Netanyahu has been saying for years a nuclear Iran is a danger to the world, but with good reason, he's concluded the world isn't listening. Now it's time for BB to take care of his own.
I think Israel will have to stike Iran, and be very thorough, too. israel will most likely go it alone. In my opinion, the danger to israel of an all out rocket attack from Southern Lebanon is absolute, too. I ask the peanut gallery: When Israel strikes Iran, where will the most damaging retaliation originate from? That is, from Iran proper, or it's surrogates, or…?
Israel probably plans to attack the soft target, the Royal Guard, so that the people can rise up and revolt. Of course Israel will not say this, but hint at hitting the nuclear sites.
Israel will attack Iran before X-mas 2011, before the US elections, within one year, soon, in January, [an Israeli attack] could come in the near future, within 6 months, between Christmas and New Year, during the summer, very soon, after the US elections. This time we mean it, in May, we will attack Iran before it is too late, in September, very, very soon, before the window of opportunity for an attack will close, all the options are on the table, If I was an Iranian, Israel should attack Iran alone if necessary,I would be very fearful of the next 12 weeks, in 2013, in February, after New Year, Israel will intervene militarily, during the fall, Israel feels like it cannot afford to wait, a timetable of weeks, rather than months, in the middle of the night, Netanyahu and Barak want to attack in the coming weeks, before the zone of immunity, we'll strike in 2012. We are very serious, the Israeli clock on military action on Iran’s nuclear program “is ticking faster, attack is imminent, in March, preparations are underway, within 3 months, Israel is on high alert. The deadline is December 2013, before November…
The ideal solution is for Israel to totally destroy via advanced drone attack or some kind of special forces mission Iran's GHQ when Ahmadinijad and his mad mullah backers are in there praying to their moon god and bloodily flagellating themselves.
The nub of the argument is that Bibi and Barak, virtually alone in the Israeli establishment can and will act on their conviction that Israel cannot afford to delay until only the United States and the United States only has the military capacity to challenge Iranian nuclear weapons facilities—but that neither Obama nor Romney are likely to take action until the window for Israeli unilateral action has passed–the argument does not rely upon a negative evaluation of Obama versus Romney: n n"Editor’s Note: An unnamed top Israeli official, dubbed the “Decision Maker,” and universally believed to be Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, said in a widely noted interview with Haaretz’s Ari Shavit August 11: “Ostensibly the Americans could…say clearly that if by next spring the Iranians still have a nuclear program, they will destroy it. But the Americans are not making this simple statement because countries don’t make these kinds of statements to each other. In statesmanship there are no future contracts. The American president cannot commit now to a decision that he will or will not make six months from now. So the expectation of such a binding American assurance now is not serious. There is no such thing. Not to mention that President Obama doesn’t even know if he’ll still be sitting in the Oval Office come spring. And if Mitt Romney is elected, history shows that presidents do not undertake dramatic operations in their first year in office unless forced to. …"
"Kahl: Barak really believes that, by the end of this year, important elements of Iran's nuclear program will be out of reach for conventional Israeli capabilities (what Barak calls the "zone of immunity"). So, that means they either have to strike this year, or sub-contract out the strike to Washington in 2013-2014. (The US can wait longer because we have bigger bunker-busting bombs and the ability to sustain a lengthy military campaign, as opposed to a one-off Israeli strike)…Despite Obama's existing promises to use all means, including military action, to prevent an Iranian bomb, I think Netanyahu and Barak have convinced themselves that they cannot sub-contract out their security on this issue to any US president. … At the end of the day, the Israeli leadership is building the case that they can trust no one but themselves on this issue."
While Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu has been champing at the bit to attack Iran, the US and its allies have been demanding that sanctions and diplomacy be given a chance to work before any decision is taken to attack Iran to halt its so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’. n n nOr, at least, that’s the impression that Israel and the US want to present to the world. The reality, however, is vastly different. n n nAll that Israel and the US are waiting for now is, not for the sanctions to work, but for the 6 November Presidential elections to be over and done with. Until then, both Israel and the US need to continue the façade of ‘waiting for the sanctions to work’. n
Part 2 nThe recent spate of visits by powerful US figureheads, the Republican candidate Mitt Romney and US defence Secretary Leon Panetta, have been to perpetuate the illusion that it is the US that are holding back Israel from launching a ‘unilateral’ attack against Iran’s ‘nuclear weapons program’. While Romney has said that, if he becomes president, he will support an Israeli ‘unilateral’ attack, Panetta is continuing with the administrations stance of insisting that ‘sanctions’ be given a chance to work. But it’s not the sanctions Obama and Romney are interested in seeing work; it’s the care both are taking not to commit the US people to yet another war that is clearly for Israel that bothers them most. n
Part 3 nNo matter who wins the election, the final confrontation against Iran will begin. And, to continue the façade of Israel finally not being able to restrain itself any longer, it will launch the initial strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities ‘unilaterally’ and then immediately withdraw leaving the US to bomb the Iranians into regime change while the Israelis take on Hezbollah and Hamas closer to home in an effort to finish them off once and for all and providing them with an excuse to occupy the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and south Lebanon with a view ultimately of annexing these places to form what will become Greater Israel. n n nIt should be made perfectly clear; when Israel strikes Iran, there will be absolutely nothing ‘unilateral’ about.
Not to put a too fine point on it, but from where I sit – deep within the firing range – I understand that there is NO other option, but for Bibi to strike, as long as Barack Hussein Obama abdicates his role as leader of the free world. n nAnti-western bastard. n nNow, my comments surely should resonate. NOT only is my life on the line, but my 2 sons are IDF Reservists, both having completed recent reserve duty !! Moreover, I understand very well the price that will be paid if Bibi pre-empts. But I also know what the ultimate price will be if he doesn't ,and the Iranian Hitler and his masters get their way! n nWith this in mind, the IDF has been preparing, for the soon to be conflagration, for years. Too bad the leadership waited so long to act – allowing Washington to twist its arms- but no matter. It is what it is. They too will be held to account in Jewish/Israeli history books. n nIF we do not protect ourselves, the rest of the world will be memorializing another 6 million Jewish corpses…weeping… as if they cared ! n nSach ha'kol, at the end of it all, since the Islamist-in-Chief hasn't manned up, it looks like Bibi will have to do so. n nGO IDF !! From strength to strength !! n nPray for us !! nAdina Kutnicki, Israel – go to my blog via google…..commentaries on this very subject!
But this argument may not line up with the actual coalition and legal norms governing Inner Cabinet decisions–Barak and Bibi by other accounts can't pull the trigger on this by themselves….
Today’s Wall Street Journal (Friday 17 August; online Thursday 16 August) includes a devastating critique of the Obama administration’s foreign policy re Iran: an op-ed, “What Obama Isn’t Saying About Iran,” By David Feith. (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444772404577587013388800428.html)
The first two paragraphs are only a sample:
“The United States doesn’t want Israel taking military action against Iran’s nuclear program, and top officials have been traveling to Jerusalem this summer to make their case in person. Any attack would be dangerous and premature, they say, because Iran is suffering under crippling sanctions, the world is united against Tehran as never before, and all options remain on the table.
“The problem is that every one of these points is false or misleading.”
Feith then goes on to detail his views of each of these points. And as I write this, there are 131 comments.