Netanyahu's gamble
Primary tabs
President Obama sent Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu home with a warning that Israel cannot count on U.S. support if it unilaterally bombs Iran. Top neocons are fuming and Netanyahu must weigh the risk of defying Obama on Iran and trying to deny him reelection, writes Robert Parry.
Let us suppose that Netanyahu decides to strike unilaterally. First of all, it is not impossible that Iran could shoot down at least some of Israels planes. That would create problems for Netanyahu at home.
Let us suppose that oil prices spike. Then what? I am guessing that if the American public sees that Israel was responsible for high oil prices Israel's popularity would go down. A lot. A whole lot.
Israel may have a death grip on Versailles, but out in the country it isn't nearly as popular as it was before its war with Lebanon. They just are not seen as poor little Israel anymore.
I think there is at least a possibility that American opinion would rally around Obama and it would reelect him. All of Versailles has chosen to forget that Obama was elected as the anti-war candidate. Refusing to go along with Israel's military aggression would probably be very popular.
- DCblogger's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
That's way Israel is backing down
To attack Iran from Israel, their aircrews must fly over either Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Turkey. NONE of those countries has a friendly relationship with Israel. THEN, when and if they make it over those countries without someone on the ground shooting them down or at least notifying Iran, they must execute a tricky bombing run. The Iranians will probably be waiting for them with Sukhois—arguably the finest fighters money can buy these days. And IF they make it through all that, they still have a long flight home—again over unfriendly territory. Chance of success—about 1 in 500.
Now do you understand why Israel wants US to do the bombing for them? Considering they screwed up their last invasion of Lebanon, they probably are not keen to try something several orders of magnitude more difficult. Iran has been accumulating weapons with an oil income for quite a while now. They probably have enough to defend themslves from a suicide mission.
See also:
Which model Sukhoi?
Good argument on the airspace, though surely we must own some of the Iraqis still?
I have read 30s and 35s
If 30s, there is a chance something gets through—if 35s, no chance at all.
I'd rather bomb Syria
I never thought that war with Iran was really going to happen and still don't. If Israelis want to do it, let them do it on their own dime. Despite the blustering, Iran isn't going to nuke Israel. The international response would reduce Iran to a smoking cinder and they know it. They just trot this crap out to give Iranians a sense of national purpose. That's better than riots at home.
But Syria? Yep, I think there's some work to do there.
why bomb anyone
and how would bombing Syria make anything better? Seems to me it would just make a bad situation worse.
I would like to think...
...that we could make a difference in Syria. The massacres that are happening there turn my stomach and make me angry. The last time they had an uprising in Syria, it was unsuccessful. If I thought I could shorten the duration of the pain by airstrikes, I'd do it.
Watching children die from the army shelling their houses does not inspire coldblooded complacency in me. Yeah, it's a rotten shame we blew our credibility on Afghanistan and Iraq, especially Iraq (which I opposed from the beginning). But that doesn't mean we should sit by and watch innocents die and not do anything to help them.
Iran doesn't trouble me in the least. Pakistan is a far more dangerous country. But Syria is bad and to hear the activists cry out for assistance and know there is a segment of our own citizens who wouldn't do it because of some leftover indignation about Iraq makes me feel embarrassed about our priorities.
I think we could aid Syria without resorting to bombs.
Even if the conflict there is violent, I'd prefer the US military did not get involved. I want no furthering of any American ruler's imperialist ambitions.
That said, I do feel for the Syrians, just as I felt for the Libyans- as I still feel for the people of Libya, despite the oil-grabbing clusterfuck their struggle became. Amid the gamesmanship and the realpolitik there are men and women in both countries, and across the Middle East, and across the world, that yearn to be free of tyranny.
I wish the United States could be counted on as a true ally of liberty, not just a server of our own supposed best interests. Right now, I certainly don't trust us to do the right thing with Syria, so we're better off staying far away.
I think the administration is militarizing Arab conflict...
... because it would prefer to see endless draining civil wars and factional conflicts (Iraq; Libya) than any genuine reform from civil society (Egypt). Hence, I see no reason to bomb Syria (which is also a sideshow in the drive to a war with Iran).