Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Can Obama Avert War with Iran?
WASHINGTON, DC - President Barack Obama has finally begun in recent months to signal to Israel that the United States would not get involved in a war started by Binyamin Netanyahu without US approval. If it is pursued firmly and consistently through 2012, the approach stands a very good chance of averting war altogether. If Obama falters, however, the temptation for Netanyahu to launch an attack on Iran, indulging in what one close Israeli observer calls his "messianism" toward the issue of Iran. 
Obama has been hesitant to publicly warn the Israeli prime minister against attacking Iran. (Gallo/Getty)
Netanyahu, like every previous Israeli prime minister, understands that an Israeli strike against Iran depends not only on US tolerance, but direct involvement against Iran, at least after the initial attack. In May 2008, his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, had requested the approval of George W Bush for an air attack on Iran, only to be refused by Bush.
Netanyahu apparently feels, however, that he can manipulate right-wing Israeli influence on American politics to make it impossible for Obama to stay out of an Israeli war on Iran. He has defied the Obama administration by refusing to assure Washington that he would consult them before making any decision on war with Iran.
The Obama administration's warning signal on the danger of an Israeli attack began flashing red after Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta came back empty-handed from a trip to Israel in September.
US officials then came up with a new strategy for pulling Israel back from the precipice of war by letting Netanyahu know that, if the US were denied a full role in coordinating military policy toward Iran, it would not come to Israel's aid in such a war.
The first step in the strategy came when Panetta was answering questions after a talk at the Saban Center of Brookings Institution on December 2. He not only expressed clear disapproval of an Israeli attack as counter-productive - something the administration had avoided in 2009 and 2010 - but went on to indicate that the US was concerned that it "could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, striking our ships, striking our military bases".
Initial hint by the US
Without saying so directly, that remark hinted that the US would take steps to avoid that situation, if necessary. It was evidently aimed at planting the seed of doubt in Netanyahu's mind that Obama would be willing to respond to Iranian retaliation against Israel in the event of an Israeli strike.
The next move came five weeks later, when Panetta, on CBS news "Face the Nation", made the initial hint even clearer. Panetta was then asked what the US would do if Israel were to strike Iran, despite the refusal to consult the US in advance. Panetta said, "If the Israelis made that decision, we would have to be prepared to protect our forces in that situation. And that's what we'd be concerned about."
The Israelis could easily discern that Panetta really saying the US would not retaliate against Iran unless its own bases or ships in the region were hit by Iran. Given Panetta's statement a month earlier suggesting concern that Iran might retaliate against US forces, that answer could also be regarded as a signal to Iran that the US was prepared to decouple from an Israeli war with Iran.
Although publicly there was studied silence from Jerusalem, that Panetta hint elicited a formal diplomatic protestfrom Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren. And Israel still showed no sign of softening its defiant policy of unilateralism on Iran.
Then Obama approved an explicit expression of the same message to the Israelis. According to the account circulating among senior officers close the Joint Chiefs, on January 20 the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, told Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak that the US would not defend Israel if it launched an attack on Iran that had been coordinated with the US.
But Netanyahu had already put into effect his own counter-strategy, which is to use the influence of the Israeli lobby in Congress help the Republicans against Obama in the presidential election and to maximize the pressure on Obama to support an Israeli attack on Iran.
Last December, Netanyahu's supporters in the US lobbied the US Congress to pass economic sanctions against Iran focused squarely on Iran's crude oil exports and Central Bank. The Obama administration strongly opposed the legislation. Obama's Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner wrote a letter to the Senate warning that the proposed sanctions would cause a spike in world oil prices, thus risking further deterioration of the global economy. In the end, the Obama administration was forced by Congressional action to adopt the sanctions.
But the sanctions on Iran's crude oil sector would only go into effect six months later, as would the EU cutoff of its imports of Iranian oil adopted in January. So the Obama administration had a six-month window for negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program.
How could it maximize the pressure on the Iranians to reach an agreement within six months? The obvious answer was to bring back an old theme in Obama policy - using the threat of an Israeli attack to gain diplomatic leverage on Tehran. In order to maximize that leverage, the Obama administration sought to portray Israel as poised to attack sometime between April and end of June.
'Zone of immunity'
That time frame for an Israeli attack was created entirely by the Obama administration. Ehud Barak had not suggested that the attack would come before the end of June. On the contrary, discussing in a CNN interviewlast November when Iran would reach a "zone of immunity" - the point at which it would have so much of its uranium enrichment program protected in well-protected facilities that it couldn't be destroyed by an attack - he had said, "It's true that it wouldn't take three years… probably three-quarters, before no one can do anything practically about it…"
A story leaked by Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius last week said Panetta believing there was a "strong likelihood" that Israel would attack sometime between April and the end of June. What appeared on the surface to be an expression of US alarm about a strike coming so soon was actually an effort to put pressure on Tehran to make new concessions on its nuclear program before the sanctions take effect.
Instead of characterizing Netanyahu's posture as irrational and reckless, Ignatius chose to depict the official view of a short and relatively painless war with Iran without the slightest hint that it is rejected out of hand by Israeli intelligence and military leaders. Ignatius was presumably prompted by Panetta to characterize it in a way that would make the Israeli threat more credible to Iran.
What really gave away Panetta's intention to pressure Iran, however, was the fact that he used Ignatius to warn Iran that, if it retaliated against Israeli population centers, the US "could feel obligated to come to Israel's defence".
That warning clearly undercut the painstaking efforts the Obama administration had made over the previous two months to signal to Netanyahu that Israel would be on its own if it attacked Iran without prior US agreement. The sudden reversal in Obama's policy dramatically illuminated the deep contradictions built into its policy.
On one hand, Obama has been pursuing a course aimed at avoiding being drawn into an Israeli war with Iran, which both Obama and the military leadership consider as against vital US interests. On the other hand, Obama believes he needs a deal with Iran to demonstrate both to Israel and to the US public that he is succeeding in inducing Iran to retreat from its present stance on its nuclear program.
The belief was supported by the conventional wisdom in the US national security state that Iran can only be brought to the table with an acceptable position through pressure. It is also in line with bit of conventional wisdom: that no Democratic President can afford to openly decouple the US from Israeli security - especially in relation to Iran.
The contradiction between the two elements of Obama's policy toward Iran went unnoticed in the US. But the real meaning of the leak was certainly understood in Iran as well as in Israel.
There is still time for Obama to repair the damage and to return to the policy he had begun developing in December. But unless Obama warns Netanyahu publicly that an attack against US wishes would indeed mean he is on his own, the chances of deterring him and avoiding war with Iran will be sharply reduced.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
103 Comments so far
Show AllGREAT post, SiouxRose! And I'd just add that people are also tired and beaten down by long work-hours with fewer vacation days and holidays than anywhere else in the developed world, along with none of the government benefits-for-all that all other developed nations have. OOps! Strike that "other" in front of "developed" . . . And turning OUR airwaves over to the corporations and right-wing plutocrats makes if difficult to see how things could be any different.
I would, as an aside, like to put in a word of thanks to sites like CD. I was never much of a TV viewer, not having grown up with one and not later finding it nearly as entertaining as reading was, and I tossed the TV years ago. I probably spend too much time reading books and online, but I can tell you it's time spent a damn sight more profitably and enjoyably than anything I've seen on TV.
Thank you, Rain. I get tired of people confusing cause with effect, victim with perpetrator. I hope others see through this inversion of truth, as it happens too often on this site. I almost never watch TV now. It's not hooked up in my home; however, it seems so few manage to live without it. And when you enter a home where it's turned on, having had the cold turkey, you're so much more sensitive to the nature of its programming. At least I am.
So what you're saying is that society in the United States is not at all militaristic?
elmysterio...Good comment. The USA is the most militaristic nation in the history of the planet. Thanks for bringing up that point. Also it follows that the USA is therefore lacking in empathy and love for others. Proof is in the fact that we continue to kill innocent children and other civilians every day with drones and other weapon systems. We need to show empathy for all of the victims around the world. We need to face the reality of historical facts, such as the USA is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons to kill civilians. We have lost any moral authority as a nation... and now we want to dicitate Iran's nuclear policy.
I receive criticism from one or two here because I speak out on behalf of the victims of USA policy. Attack me if it makes you feel better, but that will not change the facts. I will never be silenced when I advocate for the innocent children being slaughtered. I have seen the Fisk War Photos of children with their heads blown off by US bombs. Where is the love and empathy for those kids?
Sr, what is your take on the flag, the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and the National Anthem being idol worship. The UK and the commonwealth nations at least have the Royal family, real people, rather than idols. The Pledge of Allegiance was required by law until about 1943 when the 7th Day Adventists, whom were jailed because they claimed Pledging Allegiance to the Flag violated their religious Freedom. The SCOTUS agreed and reciting the idol worship agreed with the Adventists and that idol worship should not be a legal requirement.
Sadly, our nation is no more "democratic" than Syria. What the people want has seldom been even considered. I'm reminded of Dick Cheney's reaction when told of Americans declining support for the Iraq war. He famously responded "So what?"
It's a poor master that doesn't know his own dog!
I'm not sure if you're quoting someone else, but this is a disastrous sentence:
It is in others hand's as to it's escalation or if it becomes a "hot" war.
3rd grade reading lesson for those in the forum who missed it:
It is in others' hands as to its escalation (or if it becomes a "hot" war).
It's means IT IS. It is a contraction.
If the dog has a bone, then the bone is its bone.
Why would someone put the apostrophe on hand's/hands? That's a simple plural noun.
Because the item in question belongs to others, we use the apostrophe to demarcate its possession, as in others' hands.
It is the boys' ball.
Not:
It is the boys ball's.
I realize there are some who take issue with these sorts of mistakes being pointed out, but it's generally true that those who read books, learn how to structure sentences. And those who don't demonstrate a grade school child's understanding of basic grammar and composition, are very unlikely to hold opinions worth taking seriously.
My daughter offered the insight that people who can't spell often have issues with truth; that is, they lie a lot.
Good God, SR, I used to think I was Pedant's Corner! You go for it!
Or perhaps our friend here, whom you so impatiently scold on grammer, is ESL. Assumptions Siouxrose, assumptions.
Quality control, Myst, quality control!
Someone's proficiency with the english language should not be a barrier to discussion within the forum. What really matters is the point they are trying to communicate, not the manner in which they communicate it.
There are those who post in excellent prose, flowery language, sometimes beautiful language... and then there's those that post in somewhat clumsy or blunt language. Both are attempts at communicating a point of view. Both are valid. It's frankly snobby to praise one and bash the other.
Are we here to discuss the articles in question or to write poetry to show how smart we are?
Sr, boy I'm glad and lucky you weren't[?} my English 1A professor as I'd still be taking !A which is necessary to pass with a C grade. I got a C--------------------------------------------------------------x[E=MC squared] and she told me she was being generous.
Gareth Porter writes..." So the Obama administration had a six-month window for negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program." Again another writer buying into the fallacy that all of this posturing is to prevent Iran from getting the 'bomb'. What nonsense. In the meantime war is not inevitable. Too many rich and powerful interests in D.C. are demanding that Obama doesn't allow the U.S. to be dragged into a war with Iran. Of course other rich and powerful interests (usually the ones who have purchased corporate Republicans instead of corporate Democrats) would love another little war to boost the MIC and Big Oil profits a bit higher, but they don't represent the ONLY influence in Washington. Having said all this, it is still possible that Israel launches a 'surgical strike' on Iran to improve their PR at home and to satisfy some of the more hawkish elements of the Knesset. It is in precisely such a scenario the U.S. could inadvertently get drawn into the conflict and yet another war could begin.
The election is simply about which corporate interests will dominate Washington for the next four years. While the elite can agree on certain principles like ignoring public opinion, promoting consumerism, starving public programs and promoting the transfer of taxpayer funds into their pockets, they don't always agree on other issues such as the methods for expanding the imperialist reach of the U.S. or whom to demonize next in the MSM. In the meantime the 99% will be relegated to the sidelines debating, predicting and criticizing their representatives in government.
Lots of wisdom and perspective in this post, Space Cadet. Unlike the UNIform thinkers in this forum, you recognize that no event comes about that doesn't involve numerous contributing factors.
I believe the US has been trying to go to war with Iran since GW Bush took office. It's a keep the military and military contractors in business, thing. I also believe that this article is only propaganda to make us think Obama doesn't actually want war, and to make it look like it wouldn't be for financial reasons. War is the most lucrative business in the world.
Of course this article has one other objective - to make Israel look evil which unfortunately is a very Muslim thing to do. And, no I don't agree with what Israel does.
Notice the article cites that we would attack and have a definite timeline because their Uranium is getting enriched? Yep, establish the sell the war ploy - which is fear. B.S. It will be carpet bombs on the people with incredible amounts of US made bombs and bullets used that we need to pay for and no bid contracts for the same profiteers of the Iraq war.
Though I agree with what you say mostly, you are painting "Muslims" as all alike and wanting to make Israel look evil. There are extremist Muslims to be sure but no more so than our own extremist "Christians" who spend a lot of time making anybody they don't agree with look evil. The extremists in any religion are not representative of the religion as a whole. They just make a lot more noise.
"make Israel look evil which unfortunately is a very Muslim"
And making Muslims look evil is very Jewish.
Add to that the fact that Israel commits MUCH evil in their brutal occupation, they don't need any help looking evil... they do that just fine on their own.
I don't disagree with that.
I however have very close Muslims friends at work her in the US who are as brainwashed as the right wing with what they believe about Jews. It's really quite astounding. There's a reason Muslims don't believe the extermination camps really happened - they have been brainwashed by propaganda. I'm just saying that many Muslims are no less brainwashed than the the climate deniers. If you don't believe me, I supposed I could get my good friend Mohammed - His real name - on here to explain how cartoons are actually Jewish subliminal messages to make children watch shapes that are like phallases and vaginas to corrupt them so they go against God. It's a big Jewish plot to send the children to damination. Not all Muslims are brainwashed but a whole heck of a lot are. They should have reason to hate Israel without insane conspiracy theorys.
This article on Al Jazzera will appeal to those nuts. And it's probably there to do just that. I, in no way support Israel either. I also support no war. And, my friend Mohammed is an incredibly good friend, gentle person, and excellent DBA.
" Not all Muslims are brainwashed but a whole heck of a lot are"
I'm sure. There's also a LOT of brainwashed Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc.... Basically the vast majority of the world population is kind of stupid.
The real existential threat to Israel- and to the United States- is the Likud government and Netanyahu, himself. He has not only sabotaged serious peace efforts, but he has also insulted our leaders, interfered in our domestic politics through AIPAC and its affiliated network of lobbying groups, and done so, not only to influence our nation's policies, but also obstruct the President's reelection efforts and ensure his defeat. All of these groups should be made subject to the foreign agent registration laws and required to make full disclosure, so that they may be transparent. The American people should know what these organizations really are, who belongs to them, how they are tied to the Likud, how they have been able to influence the mainstream media to so often misreport what is happening, and how they have bullied Congress into maintaining a failed war policy and so much else that has been detrimental to the U. S. national security interest.
While there is some vital truth in the portrait you paint, Skeptic, never forget that were there not also those also BENT on war playing active roles in the MIC machine which has seldom turned away from any war's promise (or possibility) in decades, added to deep pocket oil interests, added to tangential war profiteers, Iran would not be on the radar. When you make the matter mostly about AIPAC or Israel's Likud party, you conveniently take other culpable parties off the hook.
It's also worth noting that a HUGE demographic has been told that Holy War is part and parcel to End Times; and that Jerusalem is the scene where God will finally make clear which religion is the winning team. You and I may realize that this is nonsense, but that doesn't mean MILLIONS see through the webs of deceit so carefully woven.
When you make the matter primarily about ONE guilty party, you reinforce the age-old tendency of selecting a target demographic to serve as sacrificial lamb. To point this out is not an indication that I agree with the policies of Israel's hard-liners. Quite to the contrary. I'd prefer not to see that nation engender a suicidal mission, nor would I wish to see a single Iranian citizen harmed.
There can be no war unless people believe in enemies. When intelligent people tag atrocities to ONE scapegoat group, rather than recognize the conjunction of forces all set upon war, they inadvertently reinforce the base idea of enemies. The very belief is atavistic and must be expiated from the collective consciousness.
AIPAC is not tied to the Likud party specifically. When the Kadima party was in power, AIPAC was just as involved. Seems to me, it doesn't much matter which party is in power in Israel, be it Likud, Kadima, Labour, etc, AIPAC manipulates US policy in favour of Israel.
Your concluding statement is true. What I take issue with are those who see no other cause (or factor) BUT Israel in the complex calculus that factors into foreign policy and its large scale determinations.
Doublepost... oops.
"who see no other cause (or factor) BUT Israel in the complex calculus that factors into foreign policy and its large scale determinations."
I take issue to that as well. I know full well that Zionism isn't the SOLE cause of everything that's wrong in the world. I know of those who do and I often correct them. In this particular case though (which is the subject matter of the article), Israel and their lobby does factor strongly in shaping the discussion and acceptable parameters of thinking. Is it wrong to point out the undue influence of the Israeli Lobby in US policy? I think not. Frankly Siouxrose, what I think you take exception to is me personally. lol
It's worth clicking on the link to the David Ignatius piece in the Washington Post that Gareth Porter discusses in this article. Panetta's "leak" to WaPo is important and worth speculating about, but what I find chilling are the references to the Israelis' belief that a "surgical" strike on Iran could be kept small bore, and not instead escalate into a major regional conflagration in the Persian Gulf.
The Obama White House appears to be trying to signify that the US military will not become directly involved unless (a) American "assets" were attacked by Iran in response to an Israeli bombing campaign or (b) Israeli cities, rather than just Israeli military targets, were attacked by the Iranians in reprisal. I do not think fine, nuanced distinctions like this will hold up in the real world.
If Netanyahu launches any sort of an attack upon Iran in the upcoming months (as all these insider hawk pundits predict), things will spiral out of control very quickly. In my opinion, it's a pipedream fantasy to believe that a limited war would remain limited.
Bill from Saginaw
"references to the Israelis' belief that a "surgical" strike on Iran could be kept small bore, and not instead escalate into a major regional conflagration in the Persian Gulf"
That is because the Israelis are used to acting with impunity. There has very rarely been any serious consequences to them for their unilateral agression in the region, besides the fiasco of the so-called 2nd Lebanon War. When they attacked Iraq's research reactor, there was no real consequence. When they pound the hell out of Gaza, there's no consequence... USS Liberty, no consequence... the list goes on and on.
Can you think of another nation whose use of violence AS foreign policy makes Israel look like Amateur Hour?
Hint: Look in the mirror
Again Siouxrose, assumptions. Do you think I'm an American? Well I'm not.
But is the United States the biggest purveyor of Violence in the world? Hell Yeah! Does that fact excuse Israel from their evil deeds? Nope.
Is the elite agenda going to be a distraction upon The People's Agenda?
Or is The People's Agenda going to be a distraction upon the elite agenda?
Has any commentator here really stopped to think what a real live hot war against Iran would actually entail? First and foremost, a very large percentage of the planet's oil exports would be halted throwing the global economy into depression. And if Iran were physically invaded, a very large percentage of global oil capacity would be destroyed, with the only possibilty of rebuilding it would be to totally conquer Iran and occupy it forever, likely an impossibility. Currently, ANY attack made against Iran would be considered a massive act of Terrorism that USreal has no chance of politically justifying regardless of the Propaganda System's efforts. Iran quite simply is not Iraq. Another way to look at the equation is to ask what does the US Empire gain from attacking--not invading--Iran. It's easy to see the answer is nothing whatsoever. And thus the question is begged: Why all the war drums and Niagra Falls of lies?
Thanks for your reply, kathy2. I humbly suggest reading the following reports by Pepe Escobar for info and analysis not provided by US media, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA19Ak04.html
An excerpt related to your comment:
"Follow the money
That Iranian isolation theme only gets weaker when one learns that the country is dumping the dollar in its trade with Russia for rials and rubles - a similar move to ones already made in its trade with China and Japan. As for India, an economic powerhouse in the neighborhood, its leaders also refuse to stop buying Iranian oil, a trade that, in the long run, is similarly unlikely to be conducted in dollars.
"India is already using the yuan with China, as Russia and China have been trading in rubles and yuan for more than a year, as Japan and China are promoting direct trading in yen and yuan. As for Iran and China, all new trade and joint investments will be settled in yuan and rial.
"Translation, if any was needed: in the near future, with the Europeans out of the mix, virtually none of Iran's oil will be traded in dollars.
"Moreover, three BRICS members (Russia, India and China) allied with Iran are major holders (and producers) of gold. Their complex trade ties won't be affected by the whims of a US Congress. In fact, when the developing world looks at the profound crisis in the Atlanticist West, what they see is massive US debt, the Fed printing money as if there's no tomorrow, lots of "quantitative easing", and of course the Eurozone shaking to its very foundations.
"Follow the money. Leave aside, for the moment, the new sanctions on Iran's central bank that will go into effect months from now, ignore Iranian threats to close the Strait of Hormuz (especially unlikely given that it's the main way Iran gets its own oil to market), and perhaps one key reason the crisis in the Persian Gulf is mounting involves this move to torpedo the petrodollar as the all-purpose currency of exchange.
"It's been spearheaded by Iran and it's bound to translate into an anxious Washington, facing down not only a regional power, but its major strategic competitors China and Russia. No wonder all those carriers are heading for the Persian Gulf right now, though it's the strangest of showdowns a case of military power being deployed against economic power."
An archive of Pepe's reportage is here, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/Escobar.html
"Translation, if any was needed: in the near future, with the Europeans out of the mix, virtually none of Iran's oil will be traded in dollars."
This did not have to come about. This is the effect of unnecessary and ongoing hostility.
Yep, the USA could have lived up to its propaganda and actually become the planet's first Benevolent Empire, but the lust for power and greed was too much to overcome and the US Empire is just another Barbarian and is finally being treated as one.
I believe that at least some in the government plan to act against Iran with ethnic mischief. There was an FBI guy on John Stewart. All he talked about is where Turks and other ethnic groups lived within Iran, and about the various ethnic groups in nearby countries. The tenor of his talk was that these groups are natural, historic enemies.
So I said to myself... aaah, so that's the playbook. Find some tribal or group leader who will take money to talk about autonomy, oppression, separatism. Use that to create chaos and instability in a country. Use that opportunity to install someone who will give away the store to US corporations and military interests.
That is usually more effective than outright attacks. And the victim gets the blame. Perfect.
Siouxrose: "And those who don't demonstrate a grade school child's understanding of basic grammar and composition, are very unlikely to hold opinions worth taking seriously".
I have worked with a great many people who are completely illiterate, who have never been to school but can speak 3 or 4 languages and who certainly can hold sensible and logical opinions that are well worth taking seriously. Your arrogance, once again, is on display.
I really have to question what it is with some people in their juvenile and arrogant defense of lousy spelling. How many writers would be taken seriously if their manuscripts were full of these types of errors? The ones that a B-student would have learned to adopt in grade school. The fact remains, someone's post revealed a sloppy use of language, and I thought it deserved to be called out. I have enemies in this forum, and they frequently jump on anything they can to try to make me look bad. How sad that you have to resort to making light of basic standards in such an effort. Do you think I care about the opinion of another slanderer?
Libertarians love to find one exception, and then they attempt to use it to break the rule. I suppose there may be a handful of persons who fit your description. Are you suggesting society would benefit from a breakdown in spelling and rejection of basic standards of writing and communication?
Porter seems to think that Obama has the yes/no decision making power regarding war with Iran. Doesn't the constitution state that only congress has that power? (time out for laughter). Considering the influence of AIPAC and the christian right on congress, that is even scarier.
Oh, yeah, without a doubt, o can avert a war with Iran, but that will be for 2008 like promises and if reelected, the day after elections Iran will be slammed, even if he isn't reelected whomever is will make sure Iran is invaded.
Another opportunity to "know thyself" better.
The imperial thugocracy is merely trying to steal press, with this latest warmongering shrieking and moaning at Iran.
Everybody should know Merka and Isreel can't touch Iran, without getting their fingers chopped off. Any Merkan invasion of Iran will meet death head-on. They know this.
You shouldn't let them distract your attention. You know that Netanyahoo sees you as nothing but an object to manipulate.
They are trying to divert your attention from the real news today, which is that the wheels are turning in the people's minds, crunching out old defunct propaganda, replacing it with ideas of our own. It's like a freight train, coming at the elites from the rear end, and it won't stop.
Obama has no intention of averting any war. He glories in war. He just wants to set the timing of this one to meet his own agenda. First things first. He needs to be reelected. Simply a formality I know. And Netanyahu needs to continue to rattle the swords and threats. That makes him look strong. After the election he'll be more than willing to accomodate the Jews.
"Can Obama Avert War with Iran?"
Short Answer: No
Long Answer: No - and nor does he want to. Like Iraq and like Libya, Iran is hiding Uncle Sam's oil under its sand. This cannot be allowed!
Barack Obama is a capitalist politician, bought and paid for by his masters - he does their bidding, whether on resources, healthcare or gay marriage.