A Bloomberg editorial lays it on the line: Israel is threatening to attack Iran because it has the upper hand on the US government during the election season, because of Jewish “donors,” among other factors, and can therefore compel American complicity in such a disastrous move.
Israeli officials are warning they might have to launch an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, perhaps even before the U.S. presidential election in November. …
What is the sudden urgency?… If Israel is about to attack Iran (and this time the threats are backed up by distribution of gas masks and other civil defense preparations), then using the campaign season to pull in the U.S. makes tactical sense. Neither President Barack Obama nor Republican candidate Mitt Romney would want to alienate Jewish or evangelical Christian voters and donors by failing to support Israel. But it would also damage Israel’s most important strategic partnership. Nobody likes getting blackmailed.
The threats could, of course, be another bluff, designed to pressure the U.S. and Europe into quickly putting in place tougher sanctions. If so, that seems unwise, too. After so many unfulfilled warnings of an imminent attack on Iran, Israel’s credibility is eroding, not to mention the destabilizing effect on oil and other global markets.
Isabel Kershner at the New York Times certainly knows about blackmail. She writes that Israel wants to strike before November, “while Israel’s limited military capabilities might still have an impact.”
The president [Shimon Peres's anti-war] comments came amid a wave of speculation in Israel and abroad that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister, Ehud Barak, might be weighing the option of a unilateral strike even before the American presidential elections in November, while Israel’s limited military capabilities might still have an impact.
But what does this mean? Why would Israeli threat of a strike have “impact” before the election season? Well, because the Israel lobby has a lot of sway over Obama now, and a lot less come November. But the Times can’t go where Bloomberg goes.
Note that even John Hannah, a neoconservative at Foreign Policy, can talk about the power of the Israel lobby to pave the way in the election season for a strike:
Could [a strike] come before November’s elections in the U.S.? The Israelis I asked were strident in emphasizing that a move of such national importance would be based entirely on Israeli security interests and the state of Iran’s nuclear program, not America’s electoral calendar. But when pushed, a few reluctantly acknowledged that securing maximum U.S. support for Israeli military action would be an important variable. And there’s no doubt that many further believe that, all else being equal, securing the full-throated backing of the Obama administration is far more likely before an overwhelmingly pro-Israel American electorate goes to the polls than afterwards.
As if the American electorate is dying for another war! But the Times can’t address the real forces at work here. It has an editorial called, In Thrall to Sheldon Adelson, that essentially deceives a reader about Adelson’s real interest. It says that Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney are going to be beholden to Adelson’s gambling interests in Macao.
Does anyone really believe this is Adelson’s game? Adelson is pro-choice. Do you think that matters to Paul Ryan?
The Times is less honest about the Israel lobby than Newt Gingrich, Adelson’s last pony.
“He knows I’m very pro-Israel, and that’s the central value of his life,” Gingrich told NBC News back in January. “He’s very worried that Israel is going to not survive.”
Reminder: we’re talking about war. We’re talking about something that could devastate hundreds of thousands of people. And our political system can’t be honest about what’s going on? Writes a friend: If there’s an attack between now and the elections it will be incontrovertible proof of a dysfunctional political system here and in Israel. The question then will be whether Americans will do anything about it. I’d like to think so but rather doubt it with most of our news media mindlessly and “patriotically” stoking the hysteria. I do think a greater percentage of Americans will see the problem than ever.
Lost in all of this is the slow destruction of Iranian society taking place Right Now. Just because the bombs haven’t started dropping doesn’t mean there isn’t already a war being waged against Iran. Phil, Obama has already signed onto killing Iranians, and not just nuclear scientists – he’s signed onto killing innocent people. You think Obama opposes the Israeli’s threatening Iran? This couldn’t work out better for him – its outsourced psychological warfare. The dog is definitely on the leash.
“pro-abortion”? come on phil.
Thx Dan, fixed the abortion reference. P
We must be politically correct at all times. We must not utter the word “abortion,” lest our mind wanders, and we think of the innocent child in the womb, and not the “choice” of the woman.
It can’t, just can’t, be about innocent life; we must keep the sexual revolution immune from criticism always, even when it resorts to killing children in the womb. All euphemisms all the time.
All you pro-abortion liberals on this site who shake your heads and wonder at how immoral and tone-deaf neoconservatives can be when it comes to innocent life, know this: on the abortion issue the other side is doing exactly the same thing to you.
And they are right.
This site should stick to what it’s good at, Middle East politics.
Phil originally said Adelson was “pro-abortion” as if to say he thinks its a great thing. I don’t anyone who “likes” abortion, the idea of it, it’s practical application and so on. The point is, regardless of how I or anyone else feel about the matter, it’s none of our fucking business. phil, to his credit realized he was saying something he didnt mean and corrected himself, thats all.
Your comparison to the neocons is telling – you have no problem equating those who lead from behind, cavalierly volunteering others to die for their cause with a individual woman making a choice to end a pregnancy- yeah, thats reasonable. Have you ever talked to a woman who has had an abortion? You think they sit back and laugh about it, like Bill Kristol and his cohorts surely do at their country clubs? Fah-Q dude, seriously, you should be ashamed of yourself.
The neocon argument is not that war is really great and cool, they just argue that it is sometimes necessary. Exactly like the pro-abortion side does.
Women who have abortions are the second victim of a violent procedure. No laughing matter, you are correct.
There is nothing to be ashamed of in a consistent life ethic. There is something to be ashamed of in your profanity towards me, and your puerile insistence on politically correct euphemisms on this site.
Imagine this: there is a blog on law or economics or environmental issues — any topic totally apart from Mideast politics — that you find very insightful. Every now and then the authors throw in some derogatory remark about the Palestinians and some praise for Israel’s policies regarding them. Would this turn you off? Would you doubt their judgment as a result? Yes, you couldn’t help doing that, even if it didn’t necessarily fatally detract from their judgment on other matters.
There is no reason why the pro-abortion position has to be featured on this site, even marginally. It only turns people off; it’s all loss and no gain.
I’m highly interested in this site having the widest possible audience. You are interested in shouting down with foul language anyone who disagrees with you on totally unrelated issues. I’m telling you, that is a big turnoff for a large contingent of the American public. You’re doing this site no favors.
Oops, meant to say that “preemptive war is sometimes necessary”.
As a pro-choicer, I won’t force you to have one, whatever the circumstances of your pregnancy, gc.
You would presumably not want the choice available to anyone, of course. And your quote marks belong around “child in the womb”, not choice.
Phil: Thanks for finding the cracks in the otherwise solid phalanx. Blackmail? Who’d a thot it? Kinda anti-Semitic to say so out loud when you think about it, ain’t it? Urrr whuuut?
I think this is a pretty important article. Bloomberg is not the Pocatello, ID Daily News. It would seem like some pretty important folks in the Jewish community (and perhaps so some non-Jewish supporters of Israel) are quite concerned about the Iran attack scenario. I hope some brave White House reporter asks for comment on this. This is the kind of open debate we’ve hoped for and worked for!
Because they are so much more powerful than any other foreign lobby in all of US history, I think it is more accurate to call it Israel’s Fifth Column in the US with the linchpin being our big media which acts as its lever to move both politicians and public opinion.
When Bloomberg addresses Temple Emanuel and mentions specifically Adelson, Moscowitz, Saban,etc then he’s done something bold. Until then, he or his news agency for that matter should get no praise.
great article phil
“…But the Times can’t address the real forces at work here. It has an editorial called, In Thrall to Sheldon Adelson, that essentially deceives a reader about Adelson’s real interest. It says that Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney are going to be beholden to Adelson’s gambling interests in Macao…”
This is to some extent secondary. As I noted a while back, the Times may be reluctant to criticize Israel. It does, however, feel entirely free to criticize Romney — and in particular, criticize him for the support he is receiving from Sheldon Adelson.
It’s all good. Getting Israel firmly linked to Sheldon Adelson, and Sheldon Adelson to Romney, and Romney beaten in November plays back with Israel losing ground. It’s like proving Netanyahu is a child molester. That may not be why you want people to wind up opposing Israel — but it’ll work.
“The question then will be whether Americans will do anything about it. I’d like to think so but rather doubt it with most of our news media mindlessly and “patriotically” stoking the hysteria. I do think a greater percentage of Americans will see the problem than ever.”..Phil
I think you’re right.
I get criticized for saying this (seeming to recommend it) but unless or until Americans are really hurt bad in a way that can “only” be connected to Israel and there’s a media fail on covering for Israel on it, US zionism will continue.
“overwhelming pro-Israel American electorate”
Is he being serious? Does he really think that American voters care less about their economic well-being than they do about fighting Israel’s wars?
@ YoungMassJew:
Criticize Bloomberg all you want, but this is one of the very few articles that has dared to mention the hazard of releasing dangerous levels of radioactivity upon millions of innocent civilians. I totally agree with Phil that the NYT is little more than a gutless mouthpiece for Israel uber alles.
RE: “Bloomberg says Israel lobby is ‘blackmail’-ing US gov’t to support Iran strike, but Times is clueless” ~ Weiss
MY COMMENT: Personally, I consider it to be more of an “extortion racket”. (Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups.) And I, for one, have had enough of it. No more battered
spousevoter syndrome for me!• Jill Stein for President (Stein/Honkala 2012) - link to jillstein.org
[Contributions of up to a total of $250 are matched by federal matching funds.]
Dear Sirs,
this might possibly of interest to you: link to wipokuli.wordpress.com
Regards
Andreas Schlüter
Sociologist
Berlin
Thanks for the reminder Phil, and does the US need reminding.
Our soldiers have no interest in seeing us manipulated into another ME war.
How to get the message out further is the problem?
If one ponders over the fact that Israel seems to be able pushing the US arround in a way no other country is able to do a suspicion comes up: does Israel have intelligence insight into what really happened on Nine Eleven? That would possibly be a potential for blackmail of gigantic dimensions. Mind this: link to wipokuli.wordpress.com
Andreas Schlüter
Sociologist
Berlin