If you have "no place to go," come here!

Netanyahu Entraps Election-Bound Obama re War with Iran

According to Philip Giraldi, at the end of July Defense Secretary Leon Panetta traveled to Israel to get a commitment from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to attack Iran BEFORE AMERICA’S ELECTIONS. He did not get it.

Some intelligence analysts in Washington believe Netanyahu will attack Iran in October. The weather will be suitable and Obama will be “squeezed” due to the election and his need for Jewish support to support the Israelis in their attack.

Giraldi believes an equal number of analysts believe he is bluffing.

Creepy 50/50 odds.

Some analysts believe Israeli leaders are encouraged by Romney’s full out support of Israel but at the same time are wary of Romney’s capacity to politically spout what is most opportunistically useful at the moment and later renege.

Philip Weiss is convinced that if Israel does attack Iran the US media and Congress will take its side. He agrees with Zaki Shalom, a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, Tel Aviv University, who sees a desperate Obama administration trying to keep Israel from attacking Iran BEFORE THE ELECTION. [my caps thruout] Shalom asserts:

It would probably be no exaggeration to say that the prime minister is going around with the feeling that the political future of President Obama is to some extent, perhaps even a large extent, in the Prime Minister’s hands. An Israeli action at the present time would almost certainly expose the president to serious criticism for his fecklessness, which forced Israel, a close ally of the United States, to act alone. Various segments in the US administration, especially the Congress, will make demands to support Israel.

All this, when the consequences of an Israeli action for the stagnant US economy are liable to be serious. Under these circumstances, it is not inconceivable that the Prime Minister believes that currently, he can “squeeze” from the president far-reaching commitments in Israel’s favor in exchange for Israeli restraint on Iran.

This compensation will presumably be mainly in the areas of defense and the economy. Israel, the prime minister can argue, is prepared to take a strategic risk on the Iranian issue, if it knows that the US administration will support it and will be prepared to give it aid that under normal circumstances, it would not be prepared to give...

According to Shalom if Israel attacks Iran PRIOR TO THE NOVEMBER 2012 ELECTION, Obama will be very reluctant to criticize Israel openly because members of Congress, the media, Jewish leaders and Republican leaders will demand that the Obama administration support Israel.

Shalom stresses, “The Obama administration cannot ignore such expressions of support IN THE PERIOD LEADING UP TO THE ELECTIONS.”

Bruce Wolman writes:

It's a win-win for Netanyahu. If he is not serious about attacking Iran, he still gets the max from the USA with his blackmailing. If he is serious, he puts Obama in a box such that he has to rescue the IDF. Netanyahu doesn't even have to decide between the two until the day of the election. He can just keep us all guessing....

Wolman believes that Obama is not in a box, or doesn’t have to be, and could take on Netanyahu and AIPAC and win. The military would support him. Along with millions of American citizens. Remember many of the 80 million who elected him predominately for his "end the wars" platform?

Wolman continues:

... But Obama is not such a risk taker. He is a campaign machine, nothing more. If he has an ideology, it is moderate Republican economic values. If he faced Netanyahu head on, a lot of non-Jewish Americans would support him. There is war fatigue in this country and in the military. But the longer he waits, the more trapped Netanyahu has him.

If Obama had led on this issue, he could have used it to his political advantage. Obama could easily parry the statements of Republican leaders, and he is not going to get the Christian Zionists to vote for him anyhow. Even many Jews do not want us to go to war with Iran. But Obama won't take this risk, because he doesn't want to upset his Jewish donors.

So what can someone such as Obama -- uber POLITICAL gamesman, never statesman -- do? According to Wolman he will keep on validating Israel’s Iran war-mongering talking points in an effort to appease the Israeli government and the Israel-Firsters. Tragically, from that slippery slope Obama will have trouble taking an anti-war stance and a strong belated stance with Israel when and if it comes to an actual attack of Israel on Iran during this fast-upcoming precious and troublesome PRE-ELECTION WINDOW. Obama is that run by ambition and the appeasement of those said American Jewish donors.

How sad that political opportunism to win an election is so weighty in the decision for the US to endorse and probably join in with one more illegitimate war and against a country that is so strongly allied with Russia and China. War addiction and election ambition come together for a perfect storm, yet again. Basic human welfare so not a priority.

So fasten your seat belts in case WAR WITH IRAN is a cruel and insane upcoming PRE-ELECTION motivated October surprise.

No votes yet


malagodi's picture
Submitted by malagodi on

Yes, I must agree entirely with your post. I've been watching this unfold for a while now and fear that it is certain to expand beyond the Iran/nuclear issue, which I see as one segment of the geopolitical movements in the area. Even without the election timing, the strategic positioning of the industrial powers has been increasingly dangerous. It will be a showdown that will determine energy dominance for the next 50 years. The question at this point is only before or after the election.

I have been warning my environmental/climate change/energy policy friends for nearly a year of this coming crisis and urging, to no avail what-so-ever, that we would have only one real opportunity to challenge this before the fact: at the Democratic Convention. Should wide-scale conflict break out in the Mid-East, all concern about climate change and global warming will be completely subsumed. We may have to be more concerned with nuclear fallout than GHGs. No use.

In Charlotte, there was some signage, I think from the local Greenpeace group that read "No War, No Warming". But I was mistaken in thinking that some actual connection had been made. On questioning several people carrying this slogan, it became apparent that these were two different demands, each an abstraction.

One lonely soul, a 74 year-old peacenik, bore a shirt that read "No Iran War." "It's all about oil" he finally told me, after a long recap of post-Mosadek history.

Meanwhile, this week in New York, Chris Hedges is debating last years 'diversity of tactics' argument of the expired Occupy movement.

Will there be any moral high-ground to claim at this point next year?

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Obama has given him the kiss off, a US attack on Iran is not going to happen before the election, and apparently won't happen after the election if Obama is in office. This is the only reason I know of to vote for Obama: 2% less war is worth it.

Opinion polls suggest a majority of Israelis do not want their military to strike Iran without U.S. support.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak seemed to criticize Netanyahu's assault on the Jewish state's biggest ally.

"Despite the differences and importance of maintaining Israel's independence of action, we must remember the importance of partnership with the United States and try as much as possible not to hurt that," a statement from his office said.

Previously, Barak had been allied with Netanyahu's stance on war with Iran. He is now moonwalking that back.

Netanyahu, as usual, is blowing smoke out his ass. Short of using their nuclear weapons, Israel is powerless to effectively destroy Iran's nuclear program without US help and he isn't going to get it. He doesn't have the balls to go nuclear, therefore, they will do nothing. Except stump for Romney I mean.