It seemed it would be wrong to let 9/11 go by without taking the world’s temperature. The top stories:
- Israeli Leader Sharpens Call on U.S. to Set Limits on Iran (NYT) — Meanwhile, we’re told that the Obama administration has rejected a request to meet with Bibi when he visits the United States this month to attend the UN General Assembly. Whether this is real, or some sort of disinformation campaign designed to give the U.S. plausible deniability when Israel acts on Iran, it’s ominous.
- Protests at U.S. Embassy in Egypt (WashPost) — As is so often the case with most vehement protests in this region, it’s about some film that most Americans have never heard of. In fact, the Post reported, “It was not immediately clear what film they were referring to.”
- Obama marks 11th 9/11 anniversary (BBC) — Meanwhile, according to the WSJ, Romney talked of beefing up the military.
- Union chief: ‘Lunacy’ to think teachers strike will be settled today (ChiTrib) — Yeah, well, speaking of lunacy..
- Romney win would sink US reputation in Europe – poll (Guardian) — Meanwhile, Obama’s not all that popular in Pakistan (surprise!)
- The Mysterious Case Of China’s Disappearing Heir Apparent (NPR) — This will continue to bear watching. I wonder if we’ll ever actually learn what’s up with the guy. This is so retro, so Cold War. It’s one thing when North Korea hides what should be basic information. China is, you know, more of a biggish country. I wonder when it will start acting like it knows what century this is.
If I allowed seven stories on a front, which I don’t, the next story to make it would have been this: U.S. Missile Defense Strategy Is Flawed, Expert Panel Finds. It interested me mainly because I just happened to read today what I wrote right after the 9/11 attacks about our faith in Star Wars: “IF YOU HAD MENTIONED the words ‘missile defense shield’ to the terrorists who took over those planes last Tuesday, they would have laughed so hard they might have missed their targets.”
Related Posts
4 days ago, you asked: “Phillip, do you actually, truly believe that: a) The Israelis, for whom this is an existential issue, would actually time their attack to influence the U.S. election? b) That the Israelis would want Mitt Romney, who has shown no aptitude at all for foreign relations, at the helm?”
So I found it interesting that the article you cited above said “Mr. Netanyahu is willing to use the pressure of the presidential election to try to force Mr. Obama to commit to attack Iran under certain conditions” and that “the Netanyahu comments play right to the Republican nominee’s critique of Mr. Obama.” So again, my answer to your questions are basically yes and yes. Moreover, Netanyahu’s “no moral right to stop Israel” comment seems to be laying the groundwork, because Sec’y Clinton did not specifically say that the US would or could stop Israel from doing what it sees fit, whether or not we think it is advisable, so what is he really talking about, other than announcing his own moral justification for an attack?
I do, however, agree with another comment you made that an actual Israeli attack on Iran might not necessarily work to Romney’s benefit. This all may be more in the realm of trying to ratchet up the pressure on Obama to do what Bibi would like. But I think Netanyahu overestimates the American appetite for another war just now.
Those are VERY different things. I can fully believe Bibi would use the election to apply pressure on POTUS to get him to do what he wants. But a democracy doesn’t time a WAR to influence another democracy’s election. The stakes are too vast to commence hostilities other than at the optimal moment likely to lead to success on the battlefield.
This isn’t some small military gesture — say, a punitive symbolic sortie (such as when we’d occasionally flip a cruise missile at Saddam during the 12-year pause in active hostilities between 1991 and 2003). It’s going to be an attack with a strategic goal for which failure, in Israel’s view, is existential. The political, diplomatic cost for Israel will be immense. Israel has to be sure it will succeed, on the first try.
There was much speculation in the late 2000s that many, if not most, of the weapons used in Iraq by the insurgents originated in Iran. That speculation largely proved to be false. There were a handful of weapons that did originate in Iran but were most likely obtained on the open market. There is also a great deal made out of the blusterous comments that Iran wants Israel to “cease to exist”. While there may be some sentiment in the more militant circles of Iran it seems there is little reason to believe the majority of the people in Iran or even among it’s clergy leaders really have much interest in pursuing a pro-active policy to eradicate Israel.
As for the Iranian nuclear program it is a scary proposition that yet another country should obtain these dangerous weapons. Yet I don’t regard Iran any more of a nuclear threat than Pakistan or even Israel. Aside from the Nuke program Iran’s military budget is tiny and certainly constitutes no threat. Afterall the score for invading countries since the turn of the century is USA – 2, Iran 0. Why all the fuss over a nation that seems pretty much a non-threat?
Given the ongoing volatile nature of the region, in large part brought about by Israel’s illegal occupation of the west bank (a defacto policy of making the Palestinian state “cease to exist”) it behooves the Americans to treat the region with balance. The Obama administration seems to understand that but is forced by political pressure from the right to treat Israel with far more respect than it deserves. I would suggest the administration put strong pressure on Israel to desist from this beligerant war talk. This could easily be accomplished by withdrawing military aid. Won’t happen but that would shake things up a bit and bring some common sense to a region that has long lacked any semblance of that.
True, Brad, the primary motivation would have to be military in Israel’s view. But Israel sounds like it’s ready to go, so “the optimal moment” from their standpoint might be mid-late October if they feel Romney is headed to defeat. As I pointed out, they may feel that waiting later would not help them militarily nor in swaying 2nd-term Obama (if they’re convinced he won’t join in), so if they’re ready to attack anyway, why not ALSO see if it might shake things up in the US election? Conversely, if they feel Romney is headed for victory, then militarily the “optimal moment” could wait for US support after January 20. So from Israel’s standpoint, their “optimal moment” is highly dependent on their take on the US election.
Israel can’t achieve success with one try against Iran. Or even by going it alone period. So they have refocused on saber rattling and political intimation – against the US.
On the other hand, maybe some century down the road the Muslim population will gain an understanding how self-destructive the radical strain of Islam has become. The Muslim middle east, in particular, allows itself to be chained by these “radicals” who continue to pine for a tribal (in all the worst senses of that word) solcial order.