"Netanyahu is set to meet the president — in Washington, rather than as previously thought at the UN General Assembly in New York — between September 28 and October 1. The prime minister, Channel 10 News reported Monday, could not possibly order an Israeli strike on Iran prior to that meeting, where the Iranian threat would presumably be the main subject of discussion. Neither could he order an attack before his tentatively scheduled address to the General Assembly a few days earlier, on September 27 — his last appeal to the international community for firmer action to thwart Iran, according to Channel 10.
The timeframe for an Israeli attack, the report suggested, would thus be sometime between October 2 and the presidential elections on November 6. Immediately after the US elections, Israel could presumably not defy a newly elected president. And fairly soon after that, it might be too late for Israel to stop Iran because of the Iranians’ progress and the limitations of Israel’s military capacity." Times of Israel
I see that Amnon Shahak, a former chief of staff of the IDF, has declared himself oppposed to an Israeli unilateral attack on Iran this autumn. IMO he wa the best and most capable of all the chiefs of staff of the IDF.
After all the years of waiting for Israel to make up its mind about its intentions in regard to Iran, I am as weary as the rest of you concerning the possibility.
Nevertheless, it looks like this might really be the time if not yet the hour.
Natanyahu and Barak (the odd couple of Israeli politics) seem to believe that they must act before the US presidential election or loose their (and Israel's) freedom of action perhaps forever. They reason, as does this article, that both presidential candidates will be compelled by some magic force lurking in the water supply to be the first to urge or order the US armed forces into action essentially under Israeli operational control. What else can you call it when the Israelis would dictate the time, place and nature of a war in which US forces would participate.
What would be the limits of US participation in such an air and naval war? Are combined plans being written? If they are not, then what would follow an Israeli attack would be a chaos of rushed actions against a substantial target set in a large country. Israel's air and missile assets would soon have "shot their bolt' through combat casualties, mechanical attrition, exhaustion of air crews, etc. The Iranian nuclear complex is not completely known to US intelligence. If it is not known to us, it is certainly not known to the Israelis. They derive much of their knowledge from US intelligence. Israel's ability to generate sorties over Iran would decline rapidly after the first strikes. Where would their emergency recovery airfields be? The Caucasus? This is a fantasy. The Gulf? Another fantasy. Iraq would not allow the US to use its airfields for such a campaign. All this would quickly leave the US in the situation of having to wage alone a protracted air war against Iran. the US economy is still a mess. We are still engaged in Afghanistan and bleeding money there.
If BHO finds himself faced with this menace by Bibi, he would be wise to refuse to accept Bibi's demands and if necessary leave the ensuing war to be fought by a Romney administration. They and their AIPAC/neocon controllers relish the idea. Let them enjoy it. pl