"Netanyahu is preparing Israeli public opinion for a war on Iran" By Aluf Ben in Haaretz

"Netanyahu is hinting that in his Washington visit, he received Obama's tacit approval for an Israeli attack against Iran – under the guise of opposition. Obama will speak out against it but act for it, just as the past U.S. administrations speak against the settlements in the territories but allow their expansion. And in this manner Netanyahu summarized the visit: "I presented before my hosts the examples that I just noted before you, and I believe that the first objective that I presented – to fortify the recognition of Israel's right to defend itself – I think that objective has been achieved."

This morning, the editor-in-chief of the Israel Hayom newspaper, Amos Regev, published on his front page an enthusiastic op-ed in support of a war against Iran. Regev writes what Netanyahu cannot say in his speeches: that we cannot rely on Obama – who wasn't even a mechanic in the armored corps - but only on ourselves. "Difficult, daring, but possible," Regev promised. We need not be alarmed by the Iranian response: the arrow would take down the Shahab missiles, and Hezbollah and Hamas would hesitate about entering a war. The damage would be reminiscent of the Iraqi scuds in the 1991 Gulf War - unpleasant, but definitely not too bad. The analysts are weak, but the soldiers and the residents of the Home Front have motivation. So onward, to battle!"  Aluf Ben in Haaretz

----------------------------------

 There seem to be two views of this post Bibi in Washington situation.

- On the one hand the prevailing view (which I support) is that Bibi left Washington with nothing but vague promises and an overweening case of spiritual pride, firm in the belief that the American untermenschen can be pushed into compliance with anything he wants to do.

- On the other hand, a rumor level rumor has reached me that the Israelis are pushing a story that the US is presently engaged in transferring to Israel equipment needed for the coming death ride of the flying supermen.  (Catch the reference? )

Which is it?  Does anyone actually know anything abot this?  pl

 

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-is-preparing-israeli-public-opinion-for-a-war-on-iran-1.418869

Comments

[Cold War Zoomie]

Yes, never ignore the RUMINT!

I got nothin'.

[toto]

There is a precedent for a gung-ho leader mistaking polite mumbles from US authorities for a green light to a miliary assault and an implicit promise of support: the Georgian president in 2008.

[SEH]

We really need to avoid all this nonsense with all our effort. To encourage this is to say "hell with America, only Israel counts." If this is so then we all need to find a new home.

[CTuttle]

Wtf, Over...? Panetta: US will 'take action' if Israel hits Iran

...March 16, 2012 8:04pm 1 Comment
Panetta: US will 'take action' if Israel hits Iran
byJoel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer
Follow on Twitter:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that the United States would intervene if Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities, although he did not indicate the extent of the possible military involvement.

"Obviously Israel is an independent country, and they'll make whatever decisions they make on their own based on what they think is in their national interests," Panetta told Al Hurra, an Arabic news outlet, today. "If they should make that decision, then obviously the United States will -- would take action to protect our facilities in this area and protect our interests in this area." Panetta had been asked specifically if the United States would "intervene with Israel" in the event of an attack.

"We think we have the room and the space to try to conduct diplomacy," Panetta also said. "Military action should always be a last resort."

[greg0]

Maybe the Israeli public can be persuaded to strike Iran. I don't believe the American people will be as compliant.
What will Iran do to forestall an attack? What will Russia and China do?
Maybe a few weeks of aerial attacks will give Israel everything it wants. I think it will be an evolving conflict spiraling out of control for an extraordinary period of time. Regardless of US involvement.

[Jake]

Can we really be this Foxtrotting stupid?

[earl]

also, avril glaspie in 1990

[The Beaver]

Is Bibi considering the 25,000 + Jewish Iranians living in Iran and their relatives living in Israel?
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4203531,00.html

[William R. Cumming]

The USA and Israel better know what the rest of world thinks about any Israel attack on Iran because both may be quite surprised that the years since 1948 have led to a far far different world than that year.

Again who exactly controls the airspace of Iraq and several other critical nation-states that might be flown over by Iranian's enemies?

[Jane]

President Obama's very reasonableness will tell against him here with both sides: neither will be certain where the real lines in the sand are until they hit them.

In part this is a matter of tone rather than content: President Obama is often very explicit about content. Candidate Obama explicitly stated that he would violate Pakistani sovereignty in order to get Osama. No one had any doubt that any American President would act in that fashion but by stating so openly an avoidable affront to Pakistan's dignity was incurred and helped make the United States unpopular with the Pakistanis.

All actors in this situation should be extremely slow to dismiss what President Obama has stated about not bluffing in the international arena. What he says is a much better indication of what he will do rather than attempting to judge if he is angry when he says it.

President Obama's preferred outcome is that enough pressure is applied that Iran realizes that its best option is to cease its flirtation with developing the capacity for nuclear weaponry and do whatever it has to do to demonstrate this to the world. How long he will wait and how much enrichment and/or appearance of secret programs he will tolerate is to my mind an open question.

Indications are that President Obama has not committed the US to help Israel should it initiate an attack. If he had, we could expect to see either of two things -- an immediate joint attack or a cessation of attack threats by Israel resting on the promise of future US help attacking Iran if they proceed with a nuclear military program.

So the real question is what would President Obama do if Israel attacked alone. Here Netanyahu is probably anticipating a lot of help from Iran. There is a real probability that if Iran -- correctly or incorrectly viewing Israel as our proxy -- attacks any US assets -- that the current Congress would pass a Declaration of War whether or not President Obama asks for one in that situation.

Iran publicly blames the assassination of Iranian scientists on the US in conjunction with the Israelis. There is a another possibility. The Sunnis in Saudi Arabia cannot be happy with the prospect of a Shia nuclear capacity and there is a lot of covert talent currently available for hire.

[LJ]

CTuttle: That sounds like a green light to me.

The delicate fingers of THE ONE who gave the green light are busy playing multidimensional geopolitical chess, whose vision is far beyond any mortal.

pl: Are the odds still only at 80%.

[Jose]

"The analysts are weak, but the soldiers and the residents of the Home Front have motivation. So onward, to battle!"

Translation, we really do not have a clue what is going to happen, but Bibi has gone all in on a bluff.

[William R. Cumming]

So far the USA has never attacked a fully nuclear weapon capable state! Is this implicit in US policy towards Iran--attack before proliferation occurs or is something else a driver?

Has Pakistan ever stated its policy on use of nuclear weapons outside of self-defense?

[Anna-Marina]

A good historical overview of the modern state of Israel. A spade is called a spade:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/16/the-enigma-of-israel/
Bibi, similar to other self-aggrandizing empty souls like baby Bush and Blair, firmly believes that whatever mess he creates there are always some domestics to clean it up. In his particular situation, the domestics are the US taxpayers and men and women in the military

[turcopolier]

WRC

I guess you missed the concept that Israeli hegemonism in the ME is driving this situation and us. Israeli is a bully settler state. They have what is equivalent to the Monroe Doctrine in the history of the US. They dominate the ME militarily and intend to do whatever they can to continue doing that.

"Policy" is a much over valued word. It can change in a moment's anger. pl

[turcopolier]

jose

"The analysts are weak," In other words Barak and Bibi, the two b-----ds, can't find professionals in the IC or the IDF to agree with them.

Good! Let them fight! But without us! pl

[mo]

"America is something that can be easily moved. Moved to the right direction.They won’t get in our way" - Netenyahu 2001

[confusedponderer]

Beaver,
if they are to be displaced from Iran they'll be welcomed with open arms in Israel - after all their influx supposedly will strengthen Israel's population base. Except, of course they choose to emigrate to countries that didn't bomb them to make this joyful reunion a necessity or option in the first place.

[Jake]

These polls are very frustrating!

"A majority (54%) of Americans say they are more concerned that the U.S. will take too long to act in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program, while 35% are concerned that it will act too quickly. This is similar to public opinion in 2006 and 2007."

http://www.people-press.org/2012/03/15/little-support-for-u-s-intervention-in-syrian-conflict/

[confusedponderer]

... not "are to be" but "should they be". Meh.

[Morocco Bama]

Well, I've stated it before, and I'll state it again. It's a foregone conclusion, and everything we're seeing is customary semantics. When and what are the questions. When will the attack take place? I believe it will be in the next 1-3 months, and it will seal Obama's reelection. You don't change horses in the middle of the battle. What refers to what will be the implications of an attack. I'm less clear about that because there are many permutations that are plausible. One thing I'm certain of, though, is that China and Russia will not react emotionally to it. They will strategically weigh their options and find a way to capitalize on the aftermath. I know this irks the anti-americans in the audience because they would like nothing more than to see americans incinerated at any cost, but that's not how it's going to play out. I have news for you anti-americans. China and Russia don't give a shit about you either, nor does Iran.

[Marcus]

Possibly a rabble rousing effort in the US by Bibi. The gross ignorance of American public on this issue sets us up for such a campaign (read the polling reports on how much Americans "read or heard" about the issue) http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm

[The beaver]

It was more to the fact that some of them may face deaths during the Israeli bombing and the repercussions afterwards. Nonetheless, the Hasbara gang will find ways to blame their deaths on the Iranian leadership

[The beaver]

Colonel

Can we envision Russia or China pulling a bluff à la Khrushchev (circa 1956 Suez War) either on Israel or the US- realise the cold war is over? or is China using its proxy North Korea to keep the US and its friends busy at the UNSC?

[Neil Richardson]

"or is China using its proxy North Korea to keep the US and its friends busy at the UNSC?"

The DPRK is nobody's proxy.