Will the US act as Israel’s proxy against Iran?

Obama Net
These two leaders are to meet March 5

Benjamin Netanyahu is coming to meet Barack Obama on Monday March 5, during the AIPAC conference. And it is a good question which leader feels he has more power in the encounter. It’s an election year. Netanyahu will feel emboldened by all the Jewish “voters” he meets at AIPAC the day before.

“Netanyahu will ask Obama to threaten Iran strike,” Barak Ravid reports in Haaretz.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to publicly harden his line against Iran during a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington on March 5, according to a senior Israeli official.

Israel wants Obama to make further-reaching declarations than the vague assertion that “all options are on the table,” the official said. In particular, Netanyahu wants Obama to state unequivocally that the United States is preparing for a military operation in the event that Iran crosses certain “red lines,” said the official; Israel feels this will increase pressure on Iran by making clear that there exists a real U.S. threat.

Jerry Haber says this thinking is nuts, and that he’d rather live with a bomb than have anyone pursue such aggression:

Iran is an enemy of the State of Israel, but it is not an existential threat to Israel, nor has it threatened Israel with nuclear destruction. But even it had, that would not be a legal or moral justification for an act of aggression against Iran – unless the possibility of an Iranian attack was imminent, and other non-violent diplomatic options had run their course. By diplomatic options, I do not mean sanctions, I mean negotiations, including multilateral negotiations that include Israel and Iranian pledges not to build nuclear weapons or to eliminate current stockpiles. 

….[Iran] is doing what many other countries have done in the past – develop[ing] nuclear energy, and even a nuclear weapon capability. Why should there be one law for North Korea and Pakistan, and another for Iran? Why should Israel reserve the right to prevent any Arab country from going nuclear, or from joining a nuclear-free zone?

The Jews I know seem to be divided between those who support sanctions and those who support military action. Maybe I hang out with the wrong crowd. I support neither. The drums of war have started again, and the madness should be stopped now. If either Israel (or its proxy, the US) attacks Iran, it will be difficult for any moral person to defend the right of such a rogue state to exist.

98 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

wants Obama to state unequivocally that the United States is preparing for a military operation in the event that Iran crosses certain “red lines,”

the whole focus of the aipac conference this year will be the new red line: A proposed Senate resolution. from the forward:

A proposed Senate resolution, supported by the pro-Israel lobby, would shift America’s red line in dealing with Iran from preventing the Islamic Republic’s acquisition of nuclear weapons to stopping it before it achieves “nuclear capabilities.”

The resolution, now gaining signatures in the Senate, will be the legislative centerpiece of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as it convenes for its annual Washington conference, to take place in early March.

“This Senate resolution is essentially shrinking the space available for the administration to conduct diplomacy,” said Joel Rubin, policy and government director at the Ploughshares Fund, an organization focusing on nuclear nonproliferation. According to Rubin, if the administration adopts the policy suggested by the Senate, it will likely have to turn to a military option.

Israel had urged the United States to view achieving nuclear capabilities as a red line. In a meeting of the American-Israeli strategic dialogue teams in late 2011, a joint statement used for the first time the term “nuclear capability.” The term, however, has not yet been adopted by the administration as an official policy.

“centerpiece” is to shift the red line. no doubt all the senate members will jump on board to please their….

Anyone think this announcement that we got North Korea to stand down their nuclear weapons without going to war might have something to do with countering AIPAC and Netanyahu and their push for war? I do.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/29/north-korea-suspend-nuclear-tests-us

The situation is growing ripe for a false-flag attack by Israel.

If there’s war, let us not be naive.

The Haaretz article provides evidence that Netanyahu has brain damage to the “Irony Centers” deep in his frontal cerebral cortex, since Netanyahu is reportedly quite upset about “U.S. interference in internal Israeli affairs.”

Right, cannot have a threat of a threat. Next year — may we all live to see it — Israel will be demanding a new shift in the “red line” so as to avoid the threat of a threat of a threat. Alice in Wonderland.

It is all part of a noxious practice, of the USA and Israel — the two lights unto the world, mind — each in its own sphere, to rework the laws of war so that an aggressive attack will be legitimized (under the law as so revised) if there is a hint of a breath of a threat (whereas a defensive war is supposed to be allowed only if there is an attack or maybe a threat of an attack.) Arming of itself cannot be a threat of an attack, because all the world is armed, more or less. Israel itself, rumor has it, is armed. And with WMD no less. A threat to all the world and a justification of endless war? I think not. Nor has Iran threatened or attacked Israel.

Jerry Haber has it right.