"Israeli commentators speculated yesterday that the country's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is preparing the public for war against Iran after he delivered his most decisive speech yet on the nuclear threat posed by its arch foe.
Just over a week after returning apparently empty-handed from Washington, where he tried to enlist US support for a pre-emptive strike, Mr Netanyahu appeared to hint that he might strike Iran's nuclear facilities even without backing from the US, potentially signalling a decision to attack within weeks or months." The Independent
------------------------------------
I keep hearing that Bibi has interpreted a polite refusal of agreement at the WH as something equivalent to permission. Psychologically, this would be like thinking that because a woman did not slap you when she said no, that means that she really wants you.
If Natanyahu is going to take Israel to war against Iran, he is likely to do it before the US election. An Obama re-election will deprive Israel of most of its leverage against the president. A Republican win would mean that Natanyahu could wait until after the US inauguration because the Republicans will do Israel's bidding whenever they are told to do so.
Isn't this typical of Israeli politicians? I recall reading that Olmert boasted of having Bush do his bidding.
Tough to read but it's hard to believe that Obama is troubled by any of the Republican candidates. Seems he's holding all the aces here - why promise Israel anything?
Posted by: jr786 | 16 March 2012 at 10:04 AM
If this is going to happen unilaterally, let's hope the President begins removing our military assets from the Gulf or doesn't de-conflict our forces. The USA has no obligation to defend a "friend" who initiates hostilities.
Posted by: Matthew | 16 March 2012 at 10:13 AM
This brings to mind a quote written in James Scott's book, 'The Attack on the Liberty'. It appears at the head of chapter 7 and is cited as being from an unnamed constituent to President Johnson: "You can come out of your hole now. Israel has saved you from decisive action."
Will a "pre-emptive" attack on Iran be Déjà Vu all over again? I have serious doubts.
Posted by: Ken Halliwell | 16 March 2012 at 10:38 AM
Wouldn't a war with Iran guarantee a FoolBama defeat and end any chance of peace with the Palestinians?
From Bibi's point of view, this is a double victory.
Posted by: Jose | 16 March 2012 at 10:44 AM
Bibi and his cabal have no choice but to keep the war drums at fever pitch - that is their strategery for keeping the Palestinians under wraps and out of the news, and for ignoring the simmering resentment in Israeli society, which has its own 1% problem, among many issues. There is no end game, just keep dancing and paying the band to play faster, faster.
Posted by: Roy G. | 16 March 2012 at 10:59 AM
Seems Bibi is like a screw one keeps turning until it breaks - & he's the one torquing himself.
Posted by: ked | 16 March 2012 at 01:00 PM
Even if Bibi does it I don't think it is guaranteed to have the effect on the US elections that he hopes. Subjecting Israel's manipulation to a public referendum could be interesting. Whether Obama caves or not is an entirely different question.
I haven't decided yet if he's a weak president or not, but I'm now seeing the danger of being perceived that way.
Posted by: Medicine Man | 16 March 2012 at 01:53 PM
Well then there is the price of gasoline. Higher gas prices means few Obama votes. War or rumor of war with Iran means higher gas prices. Bibi then has his lever around Nov. Bibi's best plan may be his current plan, talking up a good scare, but not delivering on it.
Posted by: bth | 16 March 2012 at 03:17 PM
Christian Amanpour on abcnews is reporting on a possible Iranian proposal of a grand bargain with the West. This would be the last thing Bibi wants. Watch us sabotage it.
Posted by: Walrus | 16 March 2012 at 03:58 PM
Oil rising + dollar falling = vultures feast (speculators)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/16/us-markets-oil-idUSBRE82B04920120316
Posted by: Jose | 16 March 2012 at 05:49 PM
If Israel attacks Iran, I cannot imagine the US assisting in any way. It's the one thing that would bring me out into the streets protesting, because I think U.S assistance would plunge the entire region into chaos. Who's to say that Russia and China wouldn't support Iran to counter us, out of Cold War habit and/or simply because the US supporting the regional bully would be intolerable to them.
An Israeli attack on Iran could have three results, IMO: (1) an asymmetric "jihadist" response by the Muslim world against the Jewish State that would make the place un-livable; (2) a major regional war that would also plunge the world into a major economic depression due to unavailability of oil, or (3) a "limited" nuclear world war if China and Russia felt that they could not let US assistance to Israel go unanswered, and decided to back Iran up with military aid.
And don't forget that the Pakistan has nukes as well. Who's to say they wouldn't be smuggled out of Pak. by "terrorists." What's Israel going to do, nuke Iran back to the Stone Age?
I would rather see Israel destroy itself in such an attack and the resultant conflict than try and run interference for such aggression. The message that I think needs to be sent to Bibi is. "If you attack, don't come looking to 'US' for help." Period.
Posted by: Redhand | 16 March 2012 at 10:33 PM