The Obama administration has been sending mixed signals – offering engagement but also still talking about force remaining “on the table.” Contrary to the NIE, administration spokesmen and the President continue to claim that the Iranians are pursuing a nuclear weapons capability (rather than the admitted and permitted nuclear power effort.)
While we try to parse the positions of the new administration, we also need to keep an eye on the new Israeli administration. For quite a while, the editorials in the Israeli press have often included pieces saying that if the US won’t take out Iran, Israel will (often with a shovelful of machismo tossed in).
Now we have Netanyahu saying the same:
"Israel is not like other countries," Netanyahu told his Likud faction in a meeting which came one week after his meeting with President Barack Obama at the White House. "We are faced with security challenges that no other country faces, and our need to provide a response to these is critical, and we are answering the call."
"These are not regular times. The danger is hurtling toward us?The real danger in underestimating the threat," Netanyahu said, addressing the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. "My job is first and foremost to ensure the future of the state of Israel … the leadership’s job is to eliminate the danger. Who will eliminate it? It is us or no one."
Haaretz goes on to report that “Netanyahu added that he reached understandings Obama, among them that the most important goal for both countries is preventing Iran from attaining a nuclear military capability. Netanyahu told Likud members that Israel received a number of key pieces of defense aid from the Americans.”
We don’t know what that “defense aid” includes though we do know that last Fall the US sold Israel the bunker buster bombs expected to be the weapon of choice for any attack on Iran.
Aluf Benn writes in Haaretz that Netanyahu’s speech last Monday is “preparing the general public” that a war with Iran “may break out.”
And this preparation comes just a week before everyone in Israel participates in Turning Point 3 – a country wide 5 day drill to prepare for conditions expected “in the next outbreak of war.”
One of the objections raised whenever we talk about a potential Israeli attack on Iran is that Israel does not have the military capacity for such an attack yet just a year ago, Israel’s Air Force practised flights of the correct distance and the required in air refueling that would be needed. And last week saw a fascinating article run in Ashark Al-Awsat denying reports that officials in Kurdistan would allow an Israeli overflight – remember that Israel needs to fly over someone’s territory to reach Iran. The Kurdish response to these rumous is interesting – and not very reassuring. (h/t Dubhaltach)
The official Peshmerga spokesman began by denying “there is any kind of relationship between the region and Israel.” An interesting claim given the historic relations of Kurdistan and Israel – and the more recent connections reported by the BBC in 2006. He then went on at length to describe precisely how Kurdistan would be completely incapable of blocking such an overflight – a statement that reads closer to an invitation than a denial:
Major General Jabbar Yawir, the Peshmerga Affairs Ministry’s undersecretary and official spokesman of the region’s protection forces, told Asharq Al-Awsat that "the federal authorities in Iraq are in charge of protecting the safety of all of Iraq’s air space, including that of the region, under the Iraqi constitution. Moreover, Iraq has a strategic security agreement with the United States under which it undertakes to protect Iraqi airspace." He added that the "region’s government does not have the technical resources for protecting the region’s air space, such as antiaircraft weapons or radars that detect the identity of aircraft crossing its air space. Therefore the above report’s contents are invalid and baseless."
Does Major General Jabbar Yawir protest too much?
Video: 2006 BBC report on Israelis training Kurdish forces.
Related posts:
- Biden on Iran: ‘Some Real Doubt’ About The Electoral Outcome
- Israel Defiant – Words or Deeds Mr. President?
- Negotiation Works? Iran Nears Agreement on Nuclear Deal
- Second Iranian Nuclear Facility Discovered; Obama, Brown, Sarkozy Pledge Sanctions Unless IAEA is Allowed to Investigate
- Iran: Don’t Lead, Don’t Follow, and Instead Get Out of the Way
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Thanks for covering this in your special way, siun.
Is not the U.S. the Iraqi air force now (including kurdistan)? it seems to me if israel did this, any denial of agreeing to it on our part should be met with disbelief.
However, in the game of neo chess.. I can’t help but wonder if the Obama D’s wouldn’t appreciate further obfuscation / justification for staying at war in the entire Af Pak Iraq region… U.S. quest for control of natural resources.
I wish I could believe that Israel was simply playing bad cop to the U.S. good cop in order to pressure Iran to deal. It would be unrealistic, though. Given Israel’s bellicose record, an attack is probably inevitable, though nothing good can possibly result.
I think that while war on Iran may have been delayed, that it is inevitable.
I keep trying to figure out what the reaction in this country would be/will be it Israel attacks Iran but I can’t. Any opinions?
yah…9/11 changed everything
burn the constitutions,change all the rules from Geneva
by all means do whatever it takes
Most people in this country will support Israel as they always do.
But will they be willing to send troops when Israel is completely overrun by enraged Arabs?
Most won’t even notice unless it effects the price of gas.
Boxturtle (Sad, but true)
What troops? The US has no troops to send, anywhere.
I’ve been watching the Israeli press and the heat is definitely increasing around Iran. Without a clear NO from Obama – and the actions to back it up, I am concerned that Bibi will go ahead.
Teddy, 21 mega bases and a bunch of troops and contractors on one side of Iran, in Iraq. bases and more troops on the other side, in Afghanistan. Probably a whole bunch of new drones at the ready with remote operators in Virginia too.
I don’t see us attempting to send troops into Iran – and the reaction to an attack – whether by us or sanctioned by us or even assumed to be sanctioned by us – will lead to such a conflagration in Iraq and elsewhere, I suspect US troops would be very busy indeed.
Perhaps THE question for president Obama would be something along the lines of…
If it is against the U.S. wishes that Israel attack Iran’s supposed nuclear facilities, would the U.S. be willing to shoot down an Israeli fighter if it violated iraq airspace in an apparent route to Iran?
What a horror this is. There just doesn’t seem to be any way to stop Bibi now. He’s apparently completely in charge. What a silly, terrified, paranoid little man he is.
He really is scary – and sadly seems to be able to appeal to too many in Israel as well.
Of course, we know what that is like here …
I’m sort of confused about why Israel is getting ready to attack an Iranian nuclear weapons program if there isn’t one.
Thanks, Siun. You don’t always make me comfortable but I always learn something.
Iran is not an Arab nation. Most of the other countries in the region would like to see Iran’s power and influence reduced. They (and most other nations in the world) would undoubtedly condemn any attack by Israel but won’t rush to Iran’s defense.
Probably because you haven’t been paying attention. Israel has an extremist government that has a high likelihood of acting irrationally and to the detriment of our own position in the region, in the Moslem world, and without regard to our seriously damaged economy.
As some of you may know, I spent quite some time worrying about a US attack on Iran.
My conclusion about the practice flights mentioned above, and Israeli actions in general, was that they were for an audience of one: George W. Bush.
A full-scale, US week-long aerial bombardment of every known site connected with the Iranian nuclear program would likely yield a delay of a few years–as even proponents admit. (These are the same proponents who thought that the multi-year delay of DPRK’s program by Clinton’s Agreed Framework was worthless.) Israel’s A-team might have the capability to strike Iranian targets, but that A-team is nowhere near large enough to do the kind of damage that a sustained American campaign would. Think setbacks measured in weeks or months, not years.
Even with a program that looks like an “existential threat”, I think it’s very hard to see how a setback of a few weeks or months is a very valuable option to the Israelis.
I know that Iran is not an Arab nation but don’t you think that is self-defense the Arab countries in the region would be ready to fight? I do and it would be awful.
Hugh, I’m perfectly capable of understanding that the Israeli government would bomb an Iranian nuclear weapons program, but have a hard time thinking that they would be likely to bomb an imaginary one.
I think that there is little chance that the Arab nations, despite there dislike for and distrust of Iran would be willing to fight them directly.
I actually think that a lot of the “the Arab nations are afraid of Iran” is at least partially hype – and promoted to attempt to justify an attack. I’m not saying there are not tensions over the balance of power between several ME countries but I would not want to weigh that against the general anger over the treatment of Palestinians – and the reactions of Shia to such an attack.
Do you think that it’s likely that Iran is developing nuclear weapons?
Don’t underestimate the enmity between Sunnis and Shiites. The Sunni countries might hold Israel in lower regard than Iran but only slightly.
Any attack will heighten tensions throughout the region though, increasing the possibility of a larger war.
I would disagree … and suggest that any attack on an Islamic country will lead to a major backlash. The leadership in come countries may not be enthusiastic about Iran, but they will need to respond.
Geez, that’s what we really need – a religious war going on over the entire ME.
I don’t have a crystal ball, but the way anything negative about Israel has been blocked out for years here, I think the public would be fed a massive dose of how our “special friend” had some info (manufactured) that made it *necessary* to pre-emptively attack. Americans, not knowing much about the ME, would take the candied spoon and blame Iran. JMO
..much like the Iraq attack…
Yes, paranoid idiots would never miscalculate, would they? They would never take military action against another’s country’s WMD programs unless those programs actually existed. Inconceivable.
I’m confident the Arab states don’t want Israel to attack ANY country for a number of reasons. Clearly it will create many problems and solve absolutely none.
Another thing to consider, like many I am not convinced Iran currently seeks nuclear weapons (the capability, perhaps). I would not be at all surprised if they sought a nuclear deterrent FOLLOWING in attack on their country, however.
My understanding is there is concern about Iran in the Gulf. But this has to be put in perspective. While they may have concerns about Iran, they are scared shitless of what a war would mean for them.
Which paranoid idiots, Hugh? I don’t think that Siun is wrong to think that Israel would attack Iran’s nuclear sites, but they aren’t going to do so unless the Israeli government and the IDF and the US government all have very explicit information.
The current US government isn’t the same set of idiots that the last one was.
And any discussion of paranoid idiots as far from complete unless it includes the Iranian government.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05…..-Iran.html
The names may be different but the foreign policy idiocy appears to be much the same. Plus we still have Gates.
The current US government isn’t the same set of idiots that the last one was.
To many are. Military leadership to name the big example. And the war occupation strategy with the new folks is as bad or worse.
It seems like the presumption that Iran would use WMD against Israel if they could tends to go unchallenged. Ahmadinejad’s inflammatory rhetoric appears calculated for domestic political objectives. I see no evidence that Iran’s leadership is suicidal and since a WMD attack on Israel would undoubtedly result in their own destruction it strikes me as highly improbable.
I think not. This government isn’t going to hand the Israelis a blank check the way the last one did.
The last government left this one with little flexibility in how we can comfortably get the hell out of Iraq.
Obama’s public posturing might differ from his predecessors but Congress controls the purse and sadly, Israel controls Congress.
As we have done in the past, we should enumerate what the downside of an attack by Israel and viewed as supported by the US would mean.
1. The odds are that it would be ineffective and push Iran into developing a weapons program as quickly as possible.
2. It would put American troops at increased risk in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Gulf.
3. It could cause a spike on top of the current spike in oil prices that would effectively sink the world economy.
4. Shia populations in the Gulf and Lebanon could destabilize governments throughout the region.
5. It would alienate the Moslem world precisely at a time where there are signs of a rapprochement.
6. It would increase terrorism against US and Western interests.
7. It would damage our relationships with the Europeans, the Russians, and the Chinese.
I just checked and Israel has a population of 7.4 million (5.5 million are Jewish) and Iran has a population of 70 million. If Israel attacks it’s not going to go well for them.
Yes, we have a new bunch of idiots. The Israelis on the other hand have got the same bunch of crazies they have always had. And your point was?
There’s still plenty of enthusiasm for Israel’s propaganda in Congress, but it’s lessened, is still lessening and it’ll be way less effective as long as people keep spotlighting AIPAC’s bullspit.
Iran is too big to invade, even for the U.S., even if we weren’t already tied down. Compared to Iran, Israel has superior air power and weaponry.
Any attack will have disastrous consequences regardless of how it is carried out.
This is just fundamentally untrue. Obama had plenty of flexibility to follow through on his campaign’s already generous 16 month timetable. The inflexibility stems only from the fact that once elected he chose to march in lockstep with Bush appointed generals and their Bush dictated course of staying in Iraq indefinitely.
Militarily it would appear that a strike by Israel would be low risk and politically high gain in the US. Iran has no air force to speak of and what they have is not up to going against modern Israeli fighters. Israel might lose some aircraft to surface-to-air missiles but Israel would probably accept those loses as reasonable and expected. Iran is not going invade Israel in response. The UN would raise a ruckus and sanctions against Israel will be imposed, barring a US veto which is likely, which everybody but the Arabs will ignore. Private funds from the US would pour into Israel. AIPAC would be riding high, beyond their wildest expectations. Politicians not drinking the pro-Israel Kool-Aid will go down to defeat. Israel will become the de facto 51st state. What’s Bibi got to lose?
My point was, and is, that the current US government would agree with the points you made in -41- and they aren’t going to allow an Israeli attack against imaginary weapons sites.
You may not like the current set of people in the US government but I would think that you would have some difficulty in showing them to all be idiots.
Any air attack on Iran by Israel is going to cause many, many rockets and bombs to be aimed at Israel and the settlements. That might give Netanyahu something to lose.
Let us not forget either the essential hypocrisy of this. Israel a country with 200+ nuclear weapons and a history of repeated attacks on its neighbors wants to attack yet another country, one that our intelligence agencies say abandoned its weapons program 5 years ago and which has not initiated an armed conflict with any of its neighbors for something like 200 years.
I don’t know.
If you put me in the Iranian geopolitical shoes, I’d say they’d be crazy if they weren’t, at a minimum, doing everything legal they could while staying just barely within the confines of the NPT. Whether they actually are doing that, or whether they are doing more or less, I have no more information than anyone else. At the end of the day, for the Iranians that’s a political decision, not a technical one.
Giving Bibi a great excuse to just flatten the West Bank, Gaza and Arab Jerusalem. Bibi holds all the cards here. I don’t think for a moment that Bibi and the hard right wingnuts wouldn’t accept any casualties from rockets/bombs as the cost of the ultimate goal, Eretz Israel.
So?
/Cheney
It is important to keep in mind what Obama is saying and what he could be saying. He could say that the US does not support an attack against Iran by anyone. Instead Obama has chosen a course that would allow Israel to preempt US policy.
Now this may all be posturing on Israel’s part, and attempt to use this issue to extract concessions and support from the US in other areas. But I can not emphasize enough that Netanyahu is an extremist. And it would be ludicrously naive to trust any deal he made with the US or Obama.
What Bibi has to lose is American divisions in Iraq and supertanker lanes in the Gulf.
I wouldn’t be so sure of the Congressional dynamics once high American casualties and $200/bbl oil follow.
The Israeli right doesn’t accept casualties any differently than the American left does. They’re all for having everybody else be mowed down, but they won’t go for years of Iranian-directed revenge attacks unless there’s serious info that Iran is going for nukes.
Hugh, Obama could indeed be saying that he doesn’t support an attack against Iran. If there wasn’t any good evidence that Iran is developing nukes, why the hell isn’t he saying it?
Didn’t seem to bother them at 4900+ KIA, plus tens of thousands wounded, and oil at $120 a barrel. An ideological Congress has a tendency to ignore such figures when a noble ideological goal presents itself. The present Congress doesn’t seem concerned about possible losses in Afghanistan nor the cost of the adventure.
In this, Iran would be following in the steps of other countries that have the physical facilities and the technical know how to build a weapon but have chosen not to. Development of traditional types of nuclear power are inherently dual use. There are types out there that pose far fewer nuclear weapons issues but JMO have not been adequately pushed by us.
Just to belabor the point–you wouldn’t want Israel to act as the World War I Austria-Hungary to our Germany, and Obama ought to be going all-out to make sure that doesn’t happen. And publicly at least, he doesn’t seem to be.
Yes, they’ll bemoan the loss of life. It’s the politically correct thing to do. We do it too. In the background, however, it’s the cost of doing business, so to speak. It used to be that armies were cannon fodder. Now everything is cannon fodder. The ultimate goal is what counts.
I’m sorry but this is ridiculous. If Obama has evidence that Iran has a weapons program, he should make this known at once. However, I should point out that it is doubtful such evidence exists because he would have had to have gotten it from our intelligence agencies. And they in their consensus NIE on Iran said there essentially wasn’t any.
I’m guessing we’ll see a false flag where Iran is falsely blamed as the aggressor, and Obama can wash his hands of responsibility for allowing Israel to “retaliate.”
Even the 6 Day War was a sophisticated provocation which allowed Israel to appear as a victim, rally indifferent Jews across the world into becoming Zionists, and occupy Palestine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YorwoqFGCn4
Obama hasn’t even stopped the dirty war to destabilize Iran.
While I agree with much of what you said, I think the dynamic changes when a lot of badness happens all at once, and everyone can clearly point a finger and say just whose fault it was (and that someone is not an American.)
Which is to say, there’s a big difference between slow, diffuse badness and sharp, pinpointable badness, and people tend to react a lot more quickly and decisively to the latter.
I hope it doesn’t get to that point but I won’t put anything past Bibi.
Time to climb into my tree.
Be good to yourselves, and all other living things.
Namaste
What? You have a problem with destabilizing the Iranian government?
Did you have a problem with destabilizing the Soviet government?
Are you joking? It would actually appear that the world would be a safer place if Israel had a nuclear threat and stop it from pursuing complete regional hegemony, which is what the desired strike on Iran is all about.
Israel doesn’t want a just peace, it wants more land, water, and long term demographic security, so it can’t be viewed as apartheid.
Eliminating Iraq and Iran give Israel the freedom to take what it wants, which is what PNAC and Richard Perle’s “A Clean Break” paper for Bibi in the late 90’s were all about.
http://www.informationclearing…..le1438.htm
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that the Israelis want to keep expanding all the way from the Mediterranean to the Hebraic Gulf.
He doesn’t have to do anything publicly at this point, and is probably well-advised not to. It is easy enough for him to message Hetayahu to the effect that any aircraft flyhing from Israel towards Iran will be shot down in the interest of American National Security. I wouldn’t want to be the Israeli PM who tested that bluff.
Why the U.S. acts as if Israel is a major world player is beyond me. If Israel wants to defy the United States, that’s their business. It is our business then to cease giving them countless billions, special access to intelligence, and military hardware. And, for good measure, we can stop giving audience to groups like AIPAC, or put them at the end of the line.
Israel is a piss-ant state; it is only really valuable in a theological sense. So, yeah, protect Israel from being overtaken because that is the right thing to do.
But, if they want to be aggressive and cop an attitude, screw em.
Who is the bigger threat to the U.S. Iran or North Korea?
Take a quick poll here at Progress not Congress
http://www.progressnotcongress.org