"Tension between Israel and the United States over how to deal with Iran's nuclear program resurfaced Monday, as Washington rebuffed calls to set "red lines" for action. Both say they are determined to stop Iran developing nuclear arms but Tehran continues to defy international pressure and there are increasing signs of disagreement over tactics and timetables. US President Barack Obama has made preventing weapons proliferation the centerpiece of his foreign policy and has pledged that the United States will prevent Iran joining the nuclear club. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who regards the alleged Iranian bomb program as an existential threat to his country, fears Tehran may be on the brink of nuclear "break-out capacity."" The Australian
----------------------------------
I hear that Ehud Barak has changed his mind about Iran, and that is no longer "on board" with Bibi over the issue of whether or not to "go it alone" in an attack on Iran. Bibi in his arrogance has believed that "America can be pushed." It developed that BHO cannot be "pushed" on this and it looks like Obamna will be narrowly re-elected. Martin Dempsey et all have been good at delivering that message while BHO denies the firmness of his true position. Barak is a practical man. He will adapt to the notion that the Iranians ARE rational enough for deterrence to work, deterrence backed by a conttinuing ability to transform Iran into a parking lot if a real threat develops against the US and its interests, The existence of Israel is a self-assigned interest of the US. Bibi or the next Israeli PM will have to live with that. Israel's "red lines" mean little. Israel lacks the capability to do sufficient damage to Iran's facilities to make a difference for the future of the ME. pl
"Peace in our time", eh?
Posted by: TWV | 11 September 2012 at 09:43 AM
Israel, of course, does have the capacity to destroy the Iranian nuclear program.
60 or 70 nukes, properly placed, should end Iran as a functioning country.
However, it turns out the threat to Israel is not grave enough to risk being turned out of the community of nations.
Posted by: charlie | 11 September 2012 at 10:31 AM
charlie
Yes, but as you say they don't have the b---s for that. That's why I left it out of my statment. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 11 September 2012 at 10:44 AM
I am very pleasantly surprised by this development.
Posted by: Dongo | 11 September 2012 at 10:45 AM
TRW
Oh you of many names here. To compare NazI Germany to Iran is so egregious that I will simply leave it to others here to deal with you. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 11 September 2012 at 10:45 AM
Trust me, they have balls.
They want us to do their dirty work. That is balls.
But in terms of their own national interest -- they won't pull the trigger.
(Honestly, I think the only long term answer for the country is annexation to the US. The new purple dream)
Posted by: charlie | 11 September 2012 at 11:13 AM
charlie
The new Israelis seem to have more "heart" for killing kids than for fighting. They lost their a-s when they tried to fight Hizbullah in Lebanon in 2006. A lot of their problem was that their heroes did not want to go toe to toe with the enemy. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 11 September 2012 at 11:19 AM
They do not have that many weapons.
Bruce Riedel has put their number closer to 16.
But, a single use of a nuclear weapon will be the last act of the State of Israel.
And they know it.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 11 September 2012 at 11:47 AM
I have stated this elsewhere; Israelis do not like America; they would not want to be part of US.
They might seriously consider joining Germany though; they like her.
The best answer is the Hudan Offer of HAMAS; if it is still on the table.
If American leaders were smart; they would have taken that in a heart-beat.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 11 September 2012 at 11:49 AM
TWV - Remember peace in Jerusalem lies via Baghdad, then Theran, then Damascus, then Beirut, then Cairo, then Riyadh, then....
Let's be pragmatic about about the reality of "peace in our times."
Posted by: Jose | 11 September 2012 at 12:20 PM
I wonder if it is possible that America would stop Israel if it tried to attack Iran? As for an Israeli nuclear attack, does Israel want to see Jews hanging from lamp posts around the world? Ask the Neturi karta rabbis.
Posted by: Walrus | 11 September 2012 at 01:25 PM
I'm not sure what the point would be. Mr. Vincent has many times proven impervious to information contrary to his biases.
Posted by: Medicine Man | 11 September 2012 at 01:32 PM
walrus
We don't have any way to stop them. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 11 September 2012 at 01:46 PM
Your act is getting old. Do you have some actual insights to provide?
Posted by: Fred | 11 September 2012 at 03:29 PM
My severely uninformed guess is that Ehud Barak still has political ambitions. Abandoning Bibi is a smart political move if one thinks that BHO is very likely to be reelected. Barak could become BHO's "friend" in the Israeli government.
Posted by: E L | 11 September 2012 at 04:19 PM
Looks like Obama says 'no'. I wonder when the temper tantrum will erupt?:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/11/us-israel-iran-netanyahu-idUSBRE88A10B20120911
Posted by: Fred | 11 September 2012 at 04:25 PM
Just in. BHO stiffs Bibi: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/11/us-israel-iran-netanyahu-idUSBRE88A10B20120911
Posted by: E L | 11 September 2012 at 04:41 PM
At the risk of offending whoever let me say F the Israelis. I am tired of that pissant flea on the elephants ass sucking all the sense out of US ME FP.
It 'appears' Obama has called their bluff...I say appears.
If so, and we are not having to pay them off under the table with more US billions and concessions, then good.
Alliance with Israel...stupid,stupid,stupid...If I wanted to control and influence my neighborhood for some purpose would I chose as a ally and partner in my venture the one person most hated by everyone in the neighborhood. No I wouldn't.
Posted by: Cal | 11 September 2012 at 05:15 PM
"(Honestly, I think the only long term answer for the country is annexation to the US. The new purple dream)"
God forbid...don't even think it...the US is enough already unofficially Israel anyway.
Posted by: Cal | 11 September 2012 at 05:17 PM
Netanyahu: Those that refuse to set red lines for Iran can't give Israel red light, HAAREZT, Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Does Bibi know something we don't or he is just an idiot.
Posted by: Tony | 11 September 2012 at 05:45 PM
EL - Thanks for the catch of the day. Interesting article.
Tony - Clinton couldn't stand Yahoo, either.
Posted by: Jackie | 11 September 2012 at 06:38 PM
Why would Israel want to be annexed? They would probably get less from us than they are getting now and may be asked to pay taxes?
Posted by: Phil Cattar | 12 September 2012 at 08:23 PM
Definitely think this is true.This is not your father,s Israel.I remember the 1967 war.It was only 21 years after the end of WW2 and there were fresh memories of that for most Israelis.Many had gone through the Holocaust or were aware of it.Israel is full of secular Jews who just want to live a comfortable life.The zeal and true believers are now living in southern Lebanon,Hizbullah.This is the impression I get from many conversations with many people of the Fertile Crescent who are always going there and coming back.My sister visited Israel last year and gave me antidotal informaton.I think that antidotal information is better than generally thought of by most people.............Kind of like Gladwell's book "Blink".
Posted by: Phil Cattar | 12 September 2012 at 08:48 PM