Interesting e-mails. It seems like they are wondering what is going on, much the way we do. Neal, did you glean any new information from this?

Well they did have a source that was factoring into certain parts of it. There's certainly new information, at least in terms of this thread, but it's not exactly a pile of facts. Super interesting to read.

Redscape should become a paid think tank.

There has been an interesting exchange of ideas between Jeffrey Goldberg and Jim Fallows in the Atlantic. Here's the latest:

http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... -2/255005/

So, here's what I'm thinking about. Israel is starting to rev up the rhetoric on taking action against Iranian attempts to secure a nuclear weapon. There's no sign that Iran will back down, even with intensive sanctions. I think that we are set on a collission course on the assumption that Israel will not allow Iran to become nuclear.

Obama will not join the Israelis on a pre-emptive strike. He has offered and provided Israel with more advanced weapons so that the Israelis do not do anything just yet. Although the Israelis would prefer to see Romney win, and striking Iran now may in fact cause that to happen if oil prices go upwards, I don't think that is a good strategy for the Israelis. Long term, it would be a loser for US support.

So, I think that the Israelis will strike after the election. If Obama wins, they will do so between Nov and Jan. If Romney wins, they will wait a bit to see whether they can get the US to join them in a preemptive strike.

Ray, there is a dynamic in the Midlle East that over rides some your reasoning. There are reports that Iran is stepping up its support of the Assad regime, including sending in para military troops...
If thats true, then Iran risks confronting all nations in the middle east with majority Sunni populations... Especially those that are in the process, or potentially in the process, of democratizing. It also means that Israel would be tempted to wait to see what happens when/if Assad falls....Why risk provoking the entire Middle East, if political change from within can achieve some of want Israel requires?

Iran does have an opposition to the hardliners within the country. If the Iranian hardliners are worried about Assad falling, the question is why? Do they sense the potential for change to creep into Iran? Nothing unifies a country around its leadership more than attack from an enemy.

Isn't it also true that the idea of a preemptive stike doesn't have poltical or popular support within Israel.? And that such a strike, conducted without the blessing of leaders representing a majority in the Knesset, might cause a major political crisis in Israel?

Ray Jay wrote:So, I think that the Israelis will strike after the election. If Obama wins, they will do so between Nov and Jan. If Romney wins, they will wait a bit to see whether they can get the US to join them in a preemptive strike.

I have to suspect that part of this is a dog and pony show related to the Nov election. There's also a related high stakes game being played out in Syria. And Israel is already engaged in a cold war with Iran, so it's not like they have been sitting on their hands.

Are they literally now already committed to a conventional air strike? I have to doubt that at this point. Romney's not winning so any realistic plan has to assume Obama.

rickyp wrote:Ray, there is a dynamic in the Midlle East that over rides some your reasoning. There are reports that Iran is stepping up its support of the Assad regime, including sending in para military troops...
If thats true, then Iran risks confronting all nations in the middle east with majority Sunni populations... Especially those that are in the process, or potentially in the process, of democratizing. It also means that Israel would be tempted to wait to see what happens when/if Assad falls....Why risk provoking the entire Middle East, if political change from within can achieve some of want Israel requires?

Iran does have an opposition to the hardliners within the country. If the Iranian hardliners are worried about Assad falling, the question is why? Do they sense the potential for change to creep into Iran? Nothing unifies a country around its leadership more than attack from an enemy.

Isn't it also true that the idea of a preemptive stike doesn't have poltical or popular support within Israel.? And that such a strike, conducted without the blessing of leaders representing a majority in the Knesset, might cause a major political crisis in Israel?

Re Syria, sure, it's very important and may have a domino effect on Iran. The Israelis may want to see how that plays out, but my guess is that it plays out more slowly than the Iranian progress on nuclear weapons. I appreciate your optimism; I hope that I'm wrong.

Re the internal Israeli political situation, I don't think it is dominating their thinking. The reality is that if your mindset is that your country has an existential threat, then you shouldn't be thinking about the next election. Also, the attack on Iran may be successful so there is no guarantee that a preemptive strike is a loser.

Re NA's question on whether Israel is committed to a conventional air strike, I think only 1 or 2 people in the world really know. The Isareli government has been telling their population to prepare by suggesting gas masks, warning systems, and a new head of Homeland Security.

Read this, by the way.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/david ... bomb-iran/

and read this, although I think you have to subscribe to be able to.

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine ... -1.457158#

ray

The reality is that if your mindset is that your country has an existential threat, then you shouldn't be thinking about the next election

Well, there is often scepticism these days about the reality of threats.... recent history not confirming threats that have been hyped to convince a public to go along with war.... ...
Perhaps this is part why the public in Israel isn't solidly behind the idea.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/majority-o ... test-poll/

I tend to agree with Ricky on Iran. I have a friend that has a PhD in International Affairs with a concentration in Persia/Iran. He goes to Iran as a subject matter expert for tours about 4-5 times a year. It is his opinion there will be a "Persian Spring" within the next 5 years.

Archduke Russell John wrote:I tend to agree with Ricky on Iran. I have a friend that has a PhD in International Affairs with a concentration in Persia/Iran. He goes to Iran as a subject matter expert for tours about 4-5 times a year. It is his opinion there will be a "Persian Spring" within the next 5 years.

You may well be right on Iran, but I don't think the Israelis are going to wait 5 years to find out. By then Iran is probably a nuclear power. There's always the danger that the nukes fall into the hand of non-state actors, or Hamas or Hezbollah.

If by Israel you mean Benjamin Netanyahu ...
If the move is unpopular, and he can't sell it ..... And thats whats going on, a sales campaign.

do you suppose he'll go ahead? In a country like Israel, if there was significant loss of life, or anything other than a surgical strike with 100% success, the consequences could be severe . Both for Likud and for Netanyahu.
for the Middle East, any strike could alter the whole move towards democratization as people rally to their various despots who band together against an act of aggression....
The risk is very great.

Should a strike take place, you'd set back the time table for modernization in Iran many decades. Should an Iranian spring take
place, its likely that the beligerent tone of Iran would reverse itself in a short while...

besides; The principle of mutual destruction has kept all the nations of the world that currently have nuclear weapons from using them. And there are some rather shaky customers in there. Pakistan?
I wonder why that there wouldn't be just as effective against Iran? I'm sure they've taken notice of the threats from Clinton on that course of action....

Did you read my links?

yes. The first part of the article in the telegraph reminded me of Judith Millers jouranlism on Iraq.Only more colorfully and dramatically written.
But I thought this part was interesting.....

Let me emphasise a few notes of caution. First, I’ve written in the past about the possibility that Israel lacks the military capability to strike decisively against Iran’s nuclear plants. Israel may simply be unable to do the job, however much its decision-makers might be convinced of the need for action.
Second, whenever Israel talks up the possibility of war, America toughens its own rhetoric against Iran and more sanctions are imposed. This gives Israeli "decision-makers" a direct interest in upping the ante and making verbal threats.
Finally, if the Israelis really were about to go into action – assuming they have the capability – they would not tell us beforehand. No tub-thumping belligerence would precede a war; on the contrary, it would come as a bolt from the blue.
Nonetheless, this interview provides an extraordinary insight into Israeli thinking. Here’s what I find most striking: the whole tenor of the subject’s comments suggests that the key decision has already been taken: Israel will go to war if America does not take action itself. All that remains to be settled is the timing. If that’s a bluff, it is an extremely dangerous one

Ricky:

yes. The first part of the article in the telegraph reminded me of Judith Millers jouranlism on Iraq.Only more colorfully and dramatically written.

Right, but the US did invade Iraq, so you are not building your case.

Neither you nor I can prove that Israel will or will not act preemptively. We can only guess based on our own intutions. I stand by my view that Netanyahu will act preemptively when he believes he has too, and I think that may less than a year away. I think he is a skilled enough politician that he will convince enough people in his cabinet. Whether that is the right move or not is also open to debate.