Jeff Blankfort writes:
This column in the Washington Post seems to be the most convincing piece yet that Israel will attack Iran
on its schedule unless Obama publicly says he has told Israel not to.
Should Israel launch an attack on Iran, it will further the global delegitimation of the state of Israel, bea disaster for the region, and may also endanger Jewish institutions around the world that have
publicly identified themselves with Israel without thinking seriously
about the consequences. You know that new Israeli soldiers are
taken to Masada and told the story and this mindset permeates Israeli
and much of post-Israel diaspora Jewish society. It's potentially self-fulfilling. Obama could stop the whole thing by talking tough to Netanyahu
and saying that an attack on Iran is against America's interests and
that the US will respond harshly both diplomatically and economically
if Iran is attacked. If he doesn't it, which is likely, I am afraid
all hell will break loose. And that's my intro to yesterday's Jim Hoagland column:
There is also a widespread belief that not even the hawkish
Netanyahu would risk the rupture with the United States and the fury of
the Arab street that an Israeli attack on Islamic Iran could bring…
The nightmare scenario for Obama is that Israel launches an attack
on Iranian nuclear facilities that is largely unsuccessful but that
provokes an Iranian missile retaliation against Israel and all-out
guerrilla campaigns by Hamas and Hezbollah. Could any U.S. president,
however angry, turn his back on Israel in that situation? What would
happen to the U.S. mediation efforts Obama promised King Abdullah II of
Jordan in their White House meeting last week?
