Skip to main content

Israel calling the shots?

Who is leading whom here?   If news reports are correct Israel is goading the USA into supporting an attack on Iran.   It is also obvious that Israel is levering off the politics of the US presidential election.    Needless to say this is all a dangerous game with huge implications beyond just Israel and Iran.

"Two recent interviews apparently given by Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak provide evidence that the new wave of reports in the Israeli press about a possible Israeli attack on Iran is a means by which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Barak hope to leverage a U.S. shift toward Israel’s red lines on Iran’s nuclear programme.

An interview given by a “senior official in Jerusalem” to Ynet News Wednesday Israeli time makes the first explicit linkage between the unilateral Israeli option and the objective of securing the agreement of President Barack Obama to the Israeli position that Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapons “capability”.

In the Ynet News interview, the unnamed official is reported as explicitly offering a deal to the Obama administration: if Obama were to “toughten its stance” with regard to the Iranian nuclear programme, Israel “may rule out a unilateral attack”.

Ynet News reporter Ron Ben Yishai writes that Obama “must repeat publicly (at the U.N. General Assembly, for instance), that the U.S. will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons and that Israel has a right to defend itself, independently.”

And then there is this from Mondoweiss:

"After last week's fearfest over Iran fell flat, the danger duo of Netanyahu/Barak are up to their tricks again, revving up the pressure tactics for an Iran attack.

Didi Remez translates the latest bombshell from Israel via the Hebrew press. If Obama doesn't get on board by Yom Kippur there will be hell to pay during the last month of his campaign for re election. According to Maariv journalist Eli Bardenstein:

"Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak expect US President Barack Obama to say clearly that the United States will take military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program either at the UN General Assembly on September 25, which is the eve of Yom Kippur, or on some other public platform by that date."

Officials in the Prime Minister’s Bureau refused to respond [formally] to questions on this issue, but sources in Jerusalem said that officials in the Foreign Ministry and the Prime Minister’s Bureau have already begun to make preliminary efforts to coordinate this issue with the White House and with US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who has very close ties to Obama.

The UN General Assembly meeting will begin on the eve of Yom Kippur. One of the first speakers will be President Obama. Despite the fact that that speech is still a month and a half away, officials in Jerusalem have already begun to take action. One high-ranking source in Jerusalem said that if Obama does make the statements that Israel expects of him to make, that will serve as a decisive contribution to Israel’s sense of confidence that the United States will indeed take military action to stop Iran, and it will also dispel fears that Israel might attack before the American presidential elections on November 6.

For Israel, time is pressing for a statement of that sort because of the tight timetable for an attack on Iran, which some people have assessed is likely to be carried out in the next two and a half months. That said, officials in the Prime Minister’s Bureau and the Defense Minister’s Bureau are aware of the fact that if Obama does decide to make a statement of that kind, he will make it only in closer proximity to the election, and not at present.

Israel has been pressing for an Iran attack for a few decades. We shouldn't be surprised the new deadline is November 6th. Is Obama going to cave to Netanyahu's scheduling?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Israel/America = Master Blaster...who runs barter town!

Popular posts from this blog

Reading the Chilcot Inquiry Report more closely

Most commentary on the Chilcot Inquiry Report of and associated with the Iraq War, has been "lifted" from the Executive Summary.   The Intercept has actually gone and dug into the Report, with these revelations : "THE CHILCOT REPORT, the U.K.’s official inquiry into its participation in the Iraq War, has finally been released after seven years of investigation. Its executive summary certainly makes former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who led the British push for war, look terrible. According to the report, Blair made statements about Iraq’s nonexistent chemical, biological, and nuclear programs based on “what Mr. Blair believed” rather than the intelligence he had been given. The U.K. went to war despite the fact that “diplomatic options had not been exhausted.” Blair was warned by British intelligence that terrorism would “increase in the event of war, reflecting intensified anti-US/anti-Western sentiment in the Muslim world, including among Muslim communities in the

Robert Fisk's predictions for the Middle East in 2013

There is no gain-saying that Robert Fisk, fiercely independent and feisty to boot, is the veteran journalist and author covering the Middle East. Who doesn't he know or hasn't he met over the years in reporting from Beirut - where he lives?  In his latest op-ed piece for The Independent he lays out his predictions for the Middle East for 2013. Read the piece in full, here - well worthwhile - but an extract... "Never make predictions in the Middle East. My crystal ball broke long ago. But predicting the region has an honourable pedigree. “An Arab movement, newly-risen, is looming in the distance,” a French traveller to the Gulf and Baghdad wrote in 1883, “and a race hitherto downtrodden will presently claim its due place in the destinies of Islam.” A year earlier, a British diplomat in Jeddah confided that “it is within my knowledge... that the idea of freedom does at present agitate some minds even in Mecca...” So let’s say this for 2013: the “Arab Awakening” (the t

An unpalatable truth!

Quinoa has for the last years been the "new" food on the block for foodies. Known for its health properties, foodies the world over have taken to it. Many restaurants have added it to their menu. But, as this piece " Can vegans stomach the unpalatable truth about quinoa? " from The Guardian so clearly details, the cost to Bolivians and Peruvians - from where quinoa hails - has been substantial. "Not long ago, quinoa was just an obscure Peruvian grain you could only buy in wholefood shops. We struggled to pronounce it (it's keen-wa, not qui-no-a), yet it was feted by food lovers as a novel addition to the familiar ranks of couscous and rice. Dieticians clucked over quinoa approvingly because it ticked the low-fat box and fitted in with government healthy eating advice to "base your meals on starchy foods". Adventurous eaters liked its slightly bitter taste and the little white curls that formed around the grains. Vegans embraced quinoa as