Mr. President - Tell Bibi No! - Publicly

- Panetta thinks the Israelis are likely to act against Iran soon.

- The US IC still believes that the Iranians no longer have a nuclear weapons program.

-  The Israel first crowd are not going to support BHO for president again.

- They prefer Romney or gingrich or anyone else except Paul..

- The Evangelicals are not going to support BHO.

- The cretin element in the population is not going to support BHO.  I  have talked to numerous Gentile retirees in their ghettoized communities in the warmer regions.  Many of them slaver for Iranian blood, fed in their dotage a steady diet of propaganda by Rush and faux news.  They are not going to support BHO either.

- The majority of Americans do not want another war, especially one patently boosted for and on behalf of a foreign country mired in its own delusions.  Republican support of war against Iran will cost them the election.

-BHO, Panetta and the CJCS have all told the Israeli government that we will not join in a pre-emption against them nor "bail them out" in a pre-emption against Iran.

Soooo    

Tell the world that:

If the USIC decides that Iran has a nuclear weapons program that is proceeding with weaponization, we will destroy it.  We will not welcome Israel's "help" in this.  This should generally be our policy.  The present nuclear powers are to some extent "grandfathered," but only from necessity.

An Israeli first strike on Iran has nothing to do with us and WILL have nothing to do with us.

pl

 

Comments

[turcopolier]

graywolf

The IDF GS intelligence and the Mossad get 80% of all their "facts" from the US IC. From that they spin a web of self and world deception that is the product of theit terror of annihilation. pl

[turcopolier]

Morocco Bama

You will have to organize your thoughts more clearly before I can answer them. Cheney's statements then or now are tghe product of his own opnion, not the work of the IC. Should the executives ewho did not attempt to penetrate AQ before 9/11 been fired? Yes. Incompentence? No. An excess of ambition. As TTG explains, in a position like the ones they held, one must live as though already dead. pl

[turcopolier]

Walrus and Graywolf

Before 9/11 there was a lot of general indication that AQ or friends intended to something bad and serious. what was missing were the specifics. They were missing because jihadi COMSEC was good and there was no clandestine HUMINT penetration of these organizations. There has been a lot of drivel written about the analysts having failed to "connect the dots." This is incorrect. Failure of warning for 9/11 esd s fsilure of collection, not analysis. There were not enough dots. pl

[r whitman]

This is the same IC that missed the fall of the USSR and the "Arab Spring". It seems that they miss many of the big ones.Of course, excuses abound. I have long thought that the IC has it wrong on the Iranians. If you examine their behavior without passion, you will come to the conclusion that they already have some sort of nuclear weapon, probably stolen fom the US or the USSR.

[The Twisted Genius]

There's a New York Times opinion piece by William Luers and Thomas Pickering that echoes PL's post. Although not mentioned in the op-ed, we would find willing partners in China, Russia, India and others in finding a way forward other than war with Iran. The only regime wanting such a war is Israel as far as I know.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/opinion/envisioning-a-deal-with-iran.html?_r=1&hp

[Allen Thomson]

The Washington Post has an interestingly worded poll question on this today:

"If Israel attacks Iran, should the United States come to Israel's defense?"

[Russ]

graywolf wrote "Israeli intelligence?
They appear (thru the media) to have almost superhuman capabilities."

Remember the little surprise they got in October of 73?
The Israelis were the victims of group think. At its basic level they were convinced that the Arabs would not attack as long they had no chance of winning. Since they "could not win" in 73, therefore there would be no war...
The few in the IDF/DMI who foresaw an attack were ignored.

[turcopolier]

RW

I attribute ypour lack of belief in the IC's opinion to a lack of comprehension of Middle Eastern behavior. 1 - They hate to be dictated to by a western power or powers. 2- Like Saddam Hussein they are prone to exageration and posturing when it suits their purposes. pl

[sglover]

Clarifying genuine American interests and intentions would be a welcome step. But I don't understand why we should threaten to attack Iran if they do pursue nuclear weapon development. Worries about what Iran in particular might do with a nuclear arsenal have always been overblown, a kind of hysteria. Broader concerns about non-proliferation in general got mooted when Pakistan got the bomb.

[Bruce]

NO USraeli Pearl Hormuz sneak attack, TOJObama and Bibihito!

[jonst]

I wonder what the "population centers" remark is meant to imply? You know Ignatius is the dummy here for some ventriloquist. So is that a slip up by Ignatius? A purposeful remark? And slight of hand? Not implying it is the world's greatest mystery right now. But I must admit to being curious it's origins in the article.

[Doug Tunnell]

If Israel attacks Iran, should the United States come to Israel's defense?

Yes, the U.S. has a commitment to Israel. - 23%

Only if Iran attacks Israeli territory. - 31%

No, it is not America's fight. - 46%

Total Votes: 3,717
Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding
This is a non-scientific user poll. Results are not statistically valid and cannot be assumed to reflect the views of Washington Post users as a group or the general population.

[turcopolier]

jonst

I think it is a very old euphemism for "kill Israeli Jews." pl

[confusedponderer]

1 - They hate to be dictated to by a western power or powers. 2- Like Saddam Hussein they are prone to exaggeration and posturing when it suits their purposes. pl

I think one can apply to Israel as well.

[Neil Richardson]

"Superhuman capabilities?" Where were those in 1973? They were nearly overrun. "The concept" was nothing more than arrogance-based assumption.

[Matthew]

No.

[steve]

@Mordor

"The fact that the US is slowly starting to look like the Soviet Union of 1920’s is no accident."

While I understand the connection you make between the bolshevists and neo-cons, I think the US more closely resembles the Soviet Union of the 1970's than of the 1920's.

[Rob Waddell]

Harden-up all ye.
In 2004, detecting an unusual accent, a New Zealand Internal Affairs officer (a desk worker) busted two Mossad attempting to illegally obtain NZ passports.

They must have thought Kiwi's were easy pickings or they they really are low rate spies. Or both.

Some more facts about this case here: (btw; the sayanim escaped)

[Charles I]

At Asia Times Gareth Porter opines that the Lobby, esp those in Congress, will bend the executive to an attack with electoral hounding.

. . the Israeli government remains defiant about maintaining its freedom of action to make war on Iran, and it is counting on the influence of right-wing extremist views in US politics to bring pressure to bear on Obama to fall into line with a possible Israeli attack during the election campaign this autumn."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB03Ak02.html

There's nothing else but that statement to that effect. Nor an expansive definition of "fall into line".

Lets take Dempsey at his reported word. US won't attack. Certainly will not interfere in an attack. I remember us discussing shooting at them with Iraqi anti-air.

If Iranian ordnance hits Israel, you'll have to attack just to shut the mob up so you can think, whole other ball game.

But if Israel really does attack on its own, surely business as usual, cash & arms, (aside from extra urgent resupply of everything expended), would suffice as a definition of "fall into line". Works for the peace process. No outrage ever dissuades congress.

Its pathetic. Your only win is not being involved in an attack, and you are going to be anyway.

[Basilisk]

To be fair about 9/11, The president was briefed specifically about the likelihood of an al-Qa'ida strike, and specifically that the strike might involve the use of hijacked airliners. The failures seem to have been on the receive end, not the transmit end. As I recall, Mr. Graywolf really wasn't there.

[turcopolier]

Basilisk

So, George was stupid. We all know that. We also know that it is a vastly different thing to say what you did at the briefing on the one hand and to tell him when and where on the other. pl

[brenda]

great post, Colonel. This is exactly the kind of calculation that goes through my head all the time. Obama has nothing to lose and everything to gain. So why doesn't he just do it. Just tell the Israelis to take a hike and I'll bet the sky doesn't fall in.

[brenda]

yessss...

[phil cattar]

Bingo! You hit it.There is almost no chance that Israel will not be able to pull the US into a war with Iran if Israel wants to.When Obama was running for president and after he was elected, some of the Obama friendly web sites touted his ability to play 3D Chess.I always smiled (and wrote on their sites)wait until he meets MR Netanyahu and Avidor Liberman.Poor Obama does not have a chance.The Israelis will out maneuver him big time.Just when he and Hillary think they know what to do the Israelis will zig instead of zag.Bet on it!

[Mark Logan]

I've been trying to find a report of exactly what the Israelis are demanding of Iran, but haven't been able to find one. Seems odd to me that nobody in the press is asking about that. Complete cessation of all nuclear activities? Would compliance to all conditions of the NPT do it? Have they stated that?

If anybody knows where I can find