"... Don’t rely on us to finish the job in Iran" Baloney!

"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

 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-message-to-israel-dont-rely-on-us-to-finish-the-job-in-iran/

Comments

[TWV]

You get your wish:
No attacks on Iran.
Result:
Iran has a nuclear weapon capability.
What is good about that?

[turcopolier]

TWV

No! No! Let the Israelis attack Iran, but without us. The Israelis are trapped in a paranoid fantasy in which Iran cannot be deterred. Let them act out their nightmare. Think of me as Pilate. The idea will comfort you. pl

[eakens]

The same thing that is good about India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea having a nuclear weapon capability.

The reality is that we moved from knives, to guns, to cannons, to conventional bombs, to nuclear bombs, and now to electronic and economic weaponry.

The nuclear bomb has had a very short half-life.

[The beaver]

Colonel

Don't know if you've seen this one:
http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/10/bibi_to_ban_mr_secretary_general_your_place_is_not_in_tehran

Whilst bullying the US through AIPAC, now Bibi is telling the UNSec what to do. I guess he is gettign the blessing of Bahrain, Qatar and KSA. The US-born Israeli Ambassador was invited at the WH for Iftar with the usual suspects

[Fred]

USA, 10,000 nuclear weapons. Iran, 1, 10, 100? Do you really think they will attack us?

[oofda]

Colonel,
A bit off topic, but any thoughts on Fareed Zakaria's situation. He has now been suspended from CNN. Time and his Washington Post op-ed gig for plagarism.

[Matthew]

It would be good. It would end forever the ability fo Gun Zionism to keep threatening its neighbors.

[Harry]

Col. I am not well briefed on this subject, but given my limited understand you are absolutely right. This is not a war for self preservation, but a war to maintain hegemony. It is hard to see it in Americas interests.

[b]

@TWV Result:
Iran has a nuclear weapon capability.
What is good about that?
---

Iran already has nuclear weapon "capability". Such have those 40 non-nuclear weapon states that can enrich uranium or reprocess nuclear fuel. That capability simply comes with the business of running a civil nuclear fuel cycle.

Iran having a capability does not mean anything.

The question is if it will use that capability to make nuclear weapons.

For now the U.S. intelligence agencies and its Israeli counterpart are saying that Iran does not have a program to make nuclear weapons.

Attacking someone because of an eventual "capability" is lunatic.

[turcopolier]

The Beaver

Oren was invited to a WH Iftar? That shows you how intimidated BHO really is by AIPAC. Who else? pl

[turcopolier]

oofda

My giess is that the plagiarism charge is a screen behind which to punish an uppity Muslim who was not always deferential enough to Israel. In my experience "they" never go after you on the basis of what they really are after. pl

[E L]

Just a couple of big guesses: If Romney starts pushing hard for US involvement in a potential Israeli attack on Iran, I think Bibi may have given his old buddy a heads-up about what's coming. In addition, the Ryan pick was made to give a floundering campaign a boost. If there is no sustained bounce from Ryan, Romney will be scrambling around for anther way to turn the election around. He may make some promises to Bibi. It could be an "interesting" October, eh?

[The beaver]

The menu:
http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/obamas-iftar-dinner-menu/

List from the WH:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/10/expected-attendees-white-house-iftar-dinner

MIA: The Ambassador from Tunisia, Syria, Morocco and Bharain( well she is Jewish)
http://www.ejpress.org/article/60969

[steve]

Seems more than just a little politically risky for Bibi.

Let's say he starts his war in October, and despite the "magic force lurking in the water supply", Obama refuses to intervene and is then re-elected.

If anything, I think Obama's refusal to intervene could be a political plus. Let Romney rave on all he wants about another Mideast war, but I don't think the public is buying.

So, you have a re-elected Obama, an Israel going it alone with Iran, and 4 years of a US president who is unbeholden to Israel.

I think it goes beyond saying that Bibi is mighty sure of himself in all things, but this is a great gamble.

[E L]

A little more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57493156-503544/ryan-to-meet-with-sheldon-adelson-in-las-vegas/

[stanleyhenning]

We should definitely not be part of, or support, a preemptive strike against Iran!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tony]

IMO if Israel attacks Iran, it would be the greatest favor to the current Iranian regime and keep them in power for perhaps another 10-20 years.

[Matthew]

Zakaria was sloppy, but plagiarism of a paragraph is not equivalent to plagiarism of a work.

In my business, I deal with many people with 50-75 page resumes. They are chock full of papers and presentations. And you know many of those presentations and papers are ghost-written for the "authors."

[Matthew]

Tony: I am always confused by people like Romney who talk about American Exceptionalism while delegating American policy to another country. My sense is people conflate American patriotism with American power. Some of us would love America just as much even if we had half the power.

[Jim Ticehurst]

Pat...You background the question of an Israel/Iran preemptive strike sometime soon with your Previous article called "Hillary Clinton's War.." There are many clear indicators that something may be happening soon..and that Israel may strike Iran before the U.S. Elections..

Along with the Reasons Ray McGovern point out in his Article today over at "Business Insider" ..Called "The Real Reason Israel Wants to Strike Iran before US Elections." there are all the rapid changing activitys going on inside Israel..that I would imagine indicate a Preperation for War..as McGovern points out.. I have no doubt that Joint Attack Plans have been made..the most direct route being Over Iraq airspace..other Indicators would be any buildup of the 7th Fleet ..and support..

I have seen suggestions that a "False Flag "Operation could even be conducted against The US Fleet in the Gulf if Necessary..

Today..Benjamin Netanyahu Placed Avi Dichter in Charge of Civil defense..as a cabinet Minister...and sent the former Minister to China as Ambassador..

Its Interesting that Netanyahu after address's the UN General Assembly on Sept 27th..he has immediately rescheduled a Meeting at the White House with President Obama for sometime between Sept 28th and Oct 1st..so that raises the Question..What will Netanyahu tell the UN and President Obama about Israels Intention..
I dont know if those Invited to the WH After are further Indicators..

As far as leaving any attack plans up to a Romney Administration..if necessary..and thier AIPAC- neocon controllers..it seems to me like AIPAC has Controllers inside both Political Partys..including Executive.. Administration..and many Agencys and Departments..

Since we Americans elect Presidents who are mostly Governors or members of Congress with little Foreign Policy Experience..(like Obama and Romney) and since all policy is made in the White House...The Real foreign Policy Powers that direct the Presidents decisions.....are in the Hands of the Secretary of State..along with the Presidents Foreign Policy Advisors..
Denis McDonough a Ltin America Specialist..and former Sr. Fellow from the Center for American Progress..(Partially funded by George Soros..)and who was Head of the NSC'S "Strategic Communication" before his current appointment as Deputy national Security Advisor..

Obamas other security advisor..is the the Well known..(former Clinton Administrations Secretary of States Chief of Staff..) Thomas E. Donilon..who replaced General James Jones..as Obamas lead National Security Advisor..It is said that Robert Gates was very upset about that..Donilons brother Michael..is Chief of Staff to Jill Biden..

These Two...along with Hillary Clinton and a few others, probably have more influence over Prsident Obama than even the NSC..Also..why wouldn't the Israeli's and IPAC believe that Obama supports a Israeli Unilateral Attack on Iran..? They have always believed that(including the Israeli Press) since His Speechs to IPAC..Right from His first one when he was a Presidential candidate ..which was Co-Authored by his Advisor Anthony Lake..right to his Current speech's to IPAC..

Obama..brought nothing to the White House..except His Chicago Enablers..and his Appointments of his Reactionary Friends to various "Czar" positions..and a Desire to "Fundamentally Change America"...His "Domestic Policy"

He had to Rely on the Former Clinton Administration and thier Orginazion for every thing else..Including Foreign Policy..
Its Obvious that 2013 will be a Pivitol Point in History for the Middle east...Europe..The European Union..and the United States..How the UN..Russian and China react...are in Question...and I would look for all those Indicators too...

[jdledell]

My guess is that if Israel attacks before the election or without Obama's okay, then Israel will be on it's own. I think Obama would lose more votes than he would gain by joining the war to help Israel after its unilateral attack. The evangelical Christians who would support the attack would not vote for Obama anyway. The Neocon lovers would not vote for Obama.

Based on my Jewish friends and synagogue attendees, I don't think Obama will lose a significant number of Jewish votes. This will be dependent on Obama going to the UN and getting the Iranian retaliation to stop after the initial salvo. I think the UN, Europe, China, Japan etc could put a lot of pressure on both parties to stop before oil prices go through the roof and crater economies. I cannot see the American people voting for someone who gets us involved in another Mideast war.

[turcopolier]

Jim Ticehurst

"Combined" is the word, not "joint." I do not agree that combined plans have been made. Such plans are a kind of commitment. i do not think that commitment has been made.. If i thought it had been made i would no longer be talking about the prospect. pl

[Jim Ticehurst]

Pat..I agree with that Point..thanks for the Correction...I also want to correct another comment I made..It is Michael Donilons Wife..who is Jill Bidens Chief of Staff..and not Michael..

[mbrenner]

Here is a somewhat different take on Israeli bellicosity. I'll state it in bullet points.

* The Netanyahu government is well aware that the technical requirements for an effective assault do not exist.

* Therefore, they must succeed in catalyzing American participation for it to succeed

* The cost of alienating the United States is beyond calculation and the odds on that happening are low enough to still any impulse in Jerusalem toward precipitous.

* Therefore, the Iranian nuclear threat would have to be seen as both vital and urgent for Israel to run that risk.

* The nuclear threat is not so vital and urgent. The graver threat is Iran's challenge to Israeli military/security domination in the region overall - unwritten by the United States and in tacit concert with the three key Sunni states of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan

* That coalition has defended a status quo that serves all parties' national interests

*It is now threatened from three directions: the Arab Spring, the rise of Islamist parties some of whom are not fully controlled by Gulf money, and Shi'ite Iran

*The danger, so conceived, is far more likely to be aggravated than relieved by a strike against Iran without full confidence in an American role - and perhaps even with American participation.

*Therefore, Israel is simply continuing a strategy of heigthening tension by reckless statements and orchestrated lobbying so as to ensure the maximum pressure from a US led Western world strategy which weakens Iran across the board

*Even an Obama reelection permits that strategy to continue successfully

*Romney would expand the options to perhaps include military action - but that is not crucial

*Romney, therefore is preferred but in the meantime Israel leaders have the opportunity to squeeze even more out of the very squeezable Obama. It's win-win for them.

*Therefore, no Israeli attack

[fanto]

Colonel,
I think that the US military would not go for that and the result of a serious preparation for another unnecessary war would lead to many high level resignations; this would be a political weather vane sign even for the most diehard Israel-firsters in the right wings of the repubdemos among the politicians and in the general electorate. I doubt that if the civilian command orders - troops will click heels and march, some would do but how many would not?