Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Will Israel Attack Iran? Not Before the U.S. Presidential Election
Last week the New York Times reported on an interesting telephone conversation in January between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. According to the report, Obama tried to convince Netanyahu, with some success, that the time was not right for military action against Iran.
The Times report noted that “Senior Israeli officials, including the foreign minister and leader of the Mossad, have traveled to Washington in recent weeks to make the case” that Iran would very soon reach the point where bombing could no longer disrupt its nuclear program. The argument is that once Iran moves enough of its equipment and materials to impregnable underground facilities, these could no longer be destroyed with even the biggest bombs. So Israel must strike soon, perhaps as early as a few months from now, these officials argued.
For Brazilians or Americans who do not follow this issue closely, a process of mass brainwashing is taking place through the major media. Iran, which even the U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has acknowledged is not pursuing a nuclear weapon, is portrayed as hell-bent on getting one. And why? So they can nuke Israel and become the first nation on Earth to commit mass suicide, since Israel has enough nuclear weapons to kill every Iranian several times over. It all makes sense, if you assume that mass suicide is Iran’s deepest national aspiration.
However, most experts believe that Iran is seeking not nuclear weapons, but the capacity to produce them. This is a capacity shared by Brazil, Argentina, Japan, and other countries with civilian nuclear reactors – who could produce nuclear weapons within a matter of months. Iran, like these other countries – and unlike Israel – is in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and will remain so even if it develops such a capacity.
Back to the U.S.: The good news is that Israel will not attack Iran before the U.S. presidential election. Many people see Obama as a pushover – he got rolled by his generals in Afghanistan, by Wall Street on financial reform, etc. But woe unto him who tries to mess with Obama’s re-election. He will crush them. And a war with Iran – no matter who starts it -- is much too risky for an election year. It’s a safe bet that Obama reminded the Israelis who is boss, and who gives billions of dollars annually to whom.
To drive the message home, last week two unnamed Obama administration officials told the press that Israel was funding and training Iranian terrorists to kill nuclear scientists, including five murdered since 2007. This “leak” was another way of showing the Israelis that Obama is serious, and perhaps also that he doesn’t want assassinations at this time, which could increase the chances of escalation and war.
The bad news is that the Obama administration, with help from the major media, is still preparing the groundwork for a possible war with Iran in the future – just as President Bill Clinton paved the way for his successor to invade Iraq. Members of Congress, pushed strongly by the lobby-group AIPAC and neo-conservatives, are also attempting to make war inevitable by making diplomacy impossible. And that is a war that the world needs to prevent.
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...
37 Comments so far
Show AllOne thing that may stop a war with Iran is for the inside job of 911 to be exposed. It has been taken completely off of the MSM radar screen. Some claim that Israel was behind the murders of 3,000 of our fellow citizens on 911, and if found and documentated as true, that would pretty much put an end to Israel and if it decided to attack Iran, it would probably have to go it alone.
Susan Lindauer, in her latest book; Extreme Prejudice http:// Extremeprejudiceusa.wordpress.com. States that she was put in prison because she was a CIA asset, that like Bradley Manning, was a whistelblower, only about 911, and who was under indictment and muzzled for many years after 911. Susan claims she offered her story to Amy Goodman and it was rejected by Democracy Now! Whether true or not her book is interesting reading. Some very powerful people, maybe Israel who knows, behind the 911 cover-up. But whoever they are, they have gotten away with the murders and deaths of thousands of our fellow citizens and that my friends, is a fact for anyone who cares to spend the time to research the official 911 myth.
More than all of that, attacking Iran is an exercise of futility. Iran is NOT a threat to Israel and even more infinitely a threat to the U.S. The CIA and every military hierarchy in the U.S. have affirmed this. Listen to Israel or listen to our "Intelligence Gathering Machine"? Duh...You choose.
You could have a video of Netanyahu, Cheney, Bush and Blair sitting around a table laughing about how they pulled off 9/11 and the sheeple STILL wouldn't believe it was an inside job.
No doubt!
Paul R.
Good point. It should also not be forgotten what happened to April Gallop. She was the person whom the FBI pressured to change her story when she said that, contrary to the government's claim, a plane did not hit the Pentagon on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. The FBI actually went to the hospital where she was staying after she had been injured inside that building when something [?] hit the Pentagon on that day in order to get her to change her story. But she remained adamant that, despite the pressure exerted upon her from the FBI, she never witnessed a plane hitting the side of that building. The last that I had read about this, Ms. Gallop had filed a lawsuit against the FBI because of the treatment that she had received from that organization.
I have to agree with you that Israel and certain factions of our government were responsible for 911. What better way to get the American people to get behind the war in Iraq and now Iran. What better way to get the hate going for Muslims, in general. And it worked. The only problem is to get the average dumb as a rock
American to realize this. People in this country are only interested in fake reality shows and "God Bless America" bumper stickers. What a rude awakening they are in for. And, sadly, those of us who are trying to spread the truth will ultimately go up in smoke with them.
" And sadly, those of us who are trying to spread the truth will ultimatley go up in smoke with them". That is exactly what happenend in Nazi Germany during the second world war. The Hindu religion calls it mass karma. If true, one wonders what Americas mass karma will be!
Cant agree more with you on 911 was being an inside job!!! If it wasn't, than why are they so afraid to allow a new independent investigation?! And yes, Obama would not only become a national but an international hero if he were to allow the exposure of this truth. Grab the opportunity, Mr. President!!!
More than all of that, attacking Iran is an exercise of futility. Iran is NOT a threat to Israel and even more infinitely a threat to the U.S. The CIA and every military hierarchy in the U.S. have affirmed this. Listen to Israel or listen to our "Intelligence Gathering Machine"? Duh...You choose.
No attacks before BO's election! But right after he's sworn in, duck and cover!
The idea that Israel can drag the USA into wars makes me sick. Israel has hundreds of nukes and the notion that Iran would attack them once Iran has a couple of nukes is ludicrous. I hope the Pres. is smart enough and strong enough to avoid sucked into another unnecessary war.
The idea that Israel can drag the USA into wars makes me sick. Israel has hundreds of nukes and the notion that Iran would attack them once Iran has a couple of nukes is ludicrous. I hope the Pres. is smart enough and strong enough to avoid being sucked into another unnecessary war.
The continuing saga of unending war, now with Iran, has absolutely nothing to do with possession or development of nukes and everything to do with resource dominance, aka, money. Why people are going to still fall for this obvious lie is the biggest mystery to me. Remember the Weapons of Mass Destruction that were going to destroy us all unless we invaded Iraq? Also why it is so easy to freak people out over the possibility of a country we don't like getting a nuke or which somehow will destroy us when we faced many decades of an actual country/empire with thousands of nukes aimed at us (and those nukes are still there and aimed at us) without too much pearl-clutching, is another mystery. Not to mention we are the only country in history to actually use those nukes on another country...
Orwell goes some of the way to explain these mysteries. He was a propagandist before he wrote his most famous book. He had inside knowledge.
It depends what Netanyahu's game (or games) is/are. He would presumably like nothing better than for a Republican to defeat Obama in November, and a raid on Iran that sent oil prices through the roof and sent the US economy over a cliff would be a dandy way of achieving this. (In fact, given that none of the Republican candidates seems to have two functioning brain cells capable of firing simultaneously, it may be the only way of achieving it.)
Of course you have to set against this the fact that the Israelis don't have the military capability to mount a raid at all - never mind a successful raid - unless they use a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead, which even Netanyahu may baulk at (not so sure if Avigdor Lieberman would do so if he were in charge).
Much of what is going on right now seems to be designed to provoke Iran into doing something stupid that would force the US to do that which Israel cannot.
"He would presumably like nothing better than for a Republican to defeat Obama in November, and a raid on Iran that sent oil prices through the roof and sent the US economy over a cliff would be a dandy way of achieving this."
Good point ...
Not if Ron Paul wins.
Pepe Escobar has been saying similar things for quite some time now. Most likely, Syria will experience "regime change" first. Already we have evidence that UK special forces are on the ground in Syria (just like Libya) aiding and advising the Syrian anti-govt. forces. (and likely CIA, Mossad and MI6 as well)
Also very likely is that the NYT propaganda rag helps to create the perception that Obama is trying to moderate the Israelis. This is good cop, bad cop hogwash. In this case the US is calling the shots and Israel is being used as a convenient foil. The nuclear red-herring is a diversion.
As the article points out, the US has had plans to attack Iran for years and for several reasons. A friendly puppet regime (like the old Shah) is desired. Iran is now selling more oil not priced in US dollars. The sanctions have hastened bilateral agreements with India, China etc. to trade in other currencies or gold. This is another blow for the "petrodollar". When the rest of the world refuses to finance the US military, the US Empire will no longer be solvent. The Fed cannot continue to monetize the debt by buying T-bonds forever. Foreign countries are not buying the bonds as in years past. What would happen if they bought gold and not T-bonds with their excess dollars? (rhetorical question)
This and of course the fact that Iran is sitting on oceans of natural gas and has some of the largest reserves of light sweet crude (not that tar sands crap) makes it a very desireable target. Also, Iran's geo-strategic position has made it a target of western imperial powers for centuries. (now vis a vis China)
Interesting to note that both Al Qaeda and the USG/NATO want to overthrow the Syrian President Assad. Time to invoke the Abrahamic proverb that" the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and Al Q and the USG/NATO will be friends.
Interesting to note that both Al Qaeda and the USG/NATO want to overthrow the Syrian President Assad. Time to invoke the Abrahamic proverb that" the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and Al Q and the USG/NATO will be friends.
"The good news is that Israel will not attack Iran before the US presidential election. Many people see Obama as a pushover - he got rolled by his generals in Afghanistan, by Wall Street on financial reform, etc. But woe unto him who tries to mess with Obama's reelection. He will crush them. And a war with Iran - no matter who starts it - is much too risky for an election year." -Mark Weisbrot
Interesting take by Weisbrot. The consensus conventional wisdom I've been reading and hearing elsewhere in the mainstream media is the exact reverse: precisely because Barack Obama has a tough reelection campaign looming on the horizon this fall, the next several months are the window of opportunity when the White House is most vulnerable to Netanyahu's leverage, and therefore most likely to be stampeded into involvement in an insane and very risky war.
With AIPAC and the neocon hawk Republicans (other than Ron Paul) rabidly yelping in unison like a Greek chorus about Obama supposedly being wimpy soft in his support for Israel, the Likudniks recklessly believe they're in a win-win situation. Either the Democrat Nobel laureate President keeps marching in lockstep towards Tehran, or else his Republican successor will. That is what's passing for logic, at least.
I hope Weisbrot is right, and the alternative conventional wisdom proves wrong. The problem is that everyone with a stake in the matter is hostage to ominous events beyond their immediate control.
Bill from Saginaw
Thanks for your post, Bill. The article is simply not complete without it.
As I wrote before many times, there will be no big attack on Iran before the election, so I’ll go even further and write what the media won’t.
The problem Israel/US have is a hot war threatening world war will hurt them more than Iran and they know it. If anything would push Iran into making or buying Nukes it is a hot war, and If the Saudi’s can buy them so can Iran.
Israel still needs to threaten Iran as an excuse to keep apartheid on Palestine.
It is a Bluff to give the War Biz hope and Obama needs the pro Israel vote and money to get reelected.
Israel has another habitual bluff called the Samson Option and it is a crime against Humanity. Putting everything on the table but peace is another one.
I’ll settle for bluff over war any day because if Israel was really worried that their "window of opportunity" was running out they would have jumped out of their window already.
Very interesting and very plausible. Nice to see someone who doesn't always believe the cover stories we get from the media and the administration.
Well, that makes sense to me, Jim Glover.
Not including nuclear weapons apparently, Israel has about the 4th or 5th largest military in the world equipped with all the high-tech weapons and systems the USA has - for obvious reasons of course. So the only countries Israel could not reasonably attack alone would be - Russia, China, the USA -- that's it.
So why does Israel need the USA's help to 'take out' Iran? It does not obviously - it would just need permission if that were the case but it's my hunch the USA will use Israel as the excuse to attack Iran when the time comes -- this is all a bunch of BS - the USA, Israel - one and the same and all this speculation about the right hand not knowing what the left hand will do is nonsense.
It is BS, so when is the right time for Israel if time is running out. What is Israel waiting for, a Republican?
Dare I say the obvious possibility?
Watch Senator Joe Lieberman start pounding his Israeli war drum.
"Will Israel Attack Iran? Not Before the U.S. Presidential Election"
And not before sanctions have entirely crippled the country and starved to death a few thousand children. Only then will it be possible for Amerika to celebrate another "Mission Accomplished."
I'll go a step further than Mr. Glover, and say that the only reason Iran isn't being invaded right now is the response of Russia and China. When the rubber meets the road, our obeisance to Israeli interests may take a back seat to some terrifying realities.
What Russia and China have done in the past, time and time again, is made noises, but sat on the fence. Russia has failed to deliver weapons that Iran has already paid for, because of "Israeli objections". They are fickle friends indeed. Being backed by the USA would be infinitely preferable.
The difference now is proximity. As well as what is seen as the last oil supplier not under the American thumb. South American oil has quite a trip to reach China. The Russians, not to make excuses for them, have their kleptocracy to deal with.
No, we will think twice before answering to Israel's "fetch".
The nuclear threat accusations against Iran are the same as the WMD accusations against Iraq.
They have nothing to do with reality, but they are one of the ways Washington can stir people up and the accusations can be used to get a better assessment (through the UN) of what the real situation is in Iran so that when the attack begins, the US can crush the Iranians quicker.
Money is the reason for all policies in the United States of Global Corporate Domination.
Washington attacked Iraq BECAUSE the UN proved that Iraq was not a threat.
As far as Obama and Co. not wanting an attack before the election, that is almost ridiculous. Being a "wartime president" is one of the best guarantees of re-election in this warmongering nation. Whatever Obama says is hardly proof of anything and is usually the opposite of his real intentions.
I have to wonder what kinds of back-room bargains are being explored with Russia and China so that Obama can have his war.
But...a war started by 'the other side' attacking American interests would be a great flag waving reason to attack and put the sheeple's minds on another 'terrorist' county and off of the rape and pillaging by their own bankster government. It would make the high gas prices, inflation, dwindling jobs and all become unimportant in the news and possibly make his reelection sure.
No, I would NOT bet that we will not attack Iran until after the elections, although, I think it is a sure thing next year when he (Obama) will not be campaigning and will pull the stops out to finish off the American Police State Plan. No? Wait and see.
If Obama's popularity starts to drop and it looks like he could lose the elections, its off to war we go. You can take that to the bank.
"If Obama's popularity STARTS to drop??.........Did'nt that already start to happen the same day the Dear Leader put the Wall Street Foxes in Charge of the National Henhouse?