Israel very likely to attack Iran in the next few months

[Zostrianos]

This doesn't look good:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16937613

Israel's foreign minister is in Washington. There's a lot to talk about.
Politicians and diplomats can be surprisingly coy about asking direct questions, even in private. So, "are you going to plunge us into a war in an election year?" may remain unspoken.
The drumbeat of war has grown louder in the past few days.
The Washington Post reported that US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta believes Israel could attack Iran as early as this spring.
Mr Panetta did not deny the story.
This was reinforced by a fascinating and incredibly detailed article by the Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman.
"After speaking with many senior Israeli leaders and chiefs of the military and the intelligence, I have come to believe that Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012," Mr Bergman concludes.
This is the argument: there is less than a year to stop Iran moving into "the immunity zone".
After that, it will have passed the critical point when an attack would seriously set back its nuclear programme.
'Extreme anxiety' This puts President Barack Obama on the spot, particularly in an election year.
Cliff Kupchan of the Eurasia group, which assesses international risks, has been in Israel recently and thinks the mood has changed, particularly because the left no longer opposes an attack.
"I worked in the Clinton administration - if I was inside this White House I would be viewing this with extreme anxiety," Mr Kupchan says.

"The Israelis, as they told me, are not going to give the US administration guarantees that they will give the US prior knowledge before they make an attack.
"Now if I was making policy and I knew that vital US interests might get sucked in, I would be losing some sleep."
He goes on that the US would be sucked into any war, but Mr Obama could not show outright opposition to an Israeli strike, even if he felt it.
"Politically, I don't think he can do that," Mr Kupchan says. "He can say we did not participate, we did not have knowledge beforehand, we did not approve, but I think he would have to at least go along with it, possibly provide rhetorical support.
"He would be in a very difficult political situation, given where Congress is, and during an election year Obama needs the Jewish vote, needs to appear hardline. It would be very hard for him to do anything but implicitly condone the attack."
President Obama has gone out of his way to say that Israel has not made a decision and he is working in lockstep with them. But there are also reports he's privately urged them not to attack.
Saying no to Israel? The Republican presidential candidates have attacked him for not being close enough to Israel.
On the Republican right it is a given that America should be Israel's closest and strongest ally. To not give the country full support is seen as akin to being un-patriotic and un-American.
Michael Scheuer, the former senior CIA agent in charge of the Bin Laden tracking unit, is a maverick in Washington's foreign policy establishment. He doesn't think the close relationship with Israel is in America's best interests.
But in an election year, he says, it would be a very courageous president who would dare to distance himself from Israel.
"I think it is very difficult for an American president, of either party, to say no to Israel, Mr Scheuer says. "He's a political animal and will probably go along with Israel."
And at the end of the day it doesn't make any difference, he says.

You would get all the downside risk in terms of spikes in oil prices and Iranian retaliation”
Matt Kroenig Georgetown University


"Because in the Persian world, the Muslim world, in the Arab world, if Israel attacks, unless we respond with a declaration of neutrality or a condemnation and a freezing of relations with Israel, they will assume America gave Israel the green flag."
Some think that logic means the White House may have to accept the inevitable and take action. Professor Matt Kroenig, who worked on the Middle East and nuclear issues in the Department of Defense, says there are only a number of ways the Iranian nuclear issue is going to play out.
"In some ways the Israel military option is the worst," Mr Kroenig says. "They don't have the same capabilities, they wouldn't inflict the same kind of lasting damage on Iran's programme as if the US took action."
"But you would get all the downside risk in terms of spikes in oil prices and Iranian retaliation, so I think the White House is doing its best to restrain Israel.
"We should pursue diplomacy, pursue sanctions, try to get a deal. But, in the end, faced with a choice between living with a nuclear-armed Iran and a strike, a US military strike would be the least bad option. A bad option, but the least bad."
Not everyone thinks that noise we are hearing is the drum beat of war. Some think it is a very precise, very calculated sabre rattling.
Cliff Kupchan told me Israel knows how to play American politics like a violin and this is all about sanctions. Perhaps it is no coincidence that President Obama has just signed more sanctions, although they look to me more symbolic than regime-threatening.
Some think it is to force Iran to the negotiating table. Others argue the talk of war is to make those countries who are reluctant to impose sanctions take a long hard look at the alternatives.
But only a minority take this view now.
What is not in any doubt is that a war around Easter would change the dynamic of the presidential election and face Mr Obama with some very unpalatable choices.

[ВАЛТЕР]

They wont get far without US military support. If they do attack, it will most likely cause a hell of a crisis in the entire region. The Russians and Chinese have shown their support for Iran, what are the chances of them being pulled into this? Although to be fair the Russians and Chinese are not as tied to Iran as the US is to Israel.

[blake 3:17]

The most realistic theory I've heard of late is that Israel will use the US elections to pull some major operation off. Maybe a very targeted bombing campaign or broader dirty tricks.

A US ground invasion is off the table at present, but... Things change fast.

[Zostrianos]

They probably think they can do whatever they want without repercussions, because daddy Amurica will have their back, and if Iran retaliates the US will come to the rescue and invade. I think that's Israel's plan: start a war, forcing the US to get involved, and thereby get rid of a regime they don't like. And Obama will have to get involved (because his reelection will depend on it - conservatives love Israel and they love war, and to get their votes he'll have to deliver)

[Yehuda Stern]

I doubt very much that Israel is actually going to attack Iran anytime soon. Israel and the US's threat are probably intended more for internal consumption at the moment. The US can't afford to attack Iran right now (which might be the reason why it's trying to pull forces out of Afghanistan, even at the price of handing power back to the Taliban), and Israel can't go it alone.

[Zostrianos]

It looks like it's building up though, not only in the threats but also those mysterious assassinations of Iranian scientists (very likely by the Mossad). What's even scarier (and very sad) is that according to the article Israel's Left no longer opposes an attack.

[Yehuda Stern]

Is that news to you? Israel's "left" is racist and reactionary through and through, and has never seriously opposed any military action by the Zionist state.

[Zostrianos]

Is that news to you? Israel's "left" is racist and reactionary through and through, and has never seriously opposed any military action by the Zionist state.

Yeah, I didn't know that. I'd always seen various news reports with moderates talking to Palestinians and pushing for justice for them. I didn't know they were such a minority.

[blake 3:17]

What's even scarier (and very sad) is that according to the article Israel's Left no longer opposes an attack.

Zionist colonialism was built by the Left & Labour.

From the Electronic Intafada:
Less well known is the fact that Histadrut, an organization of the settler Jewish working class, was the key Zionist organization responsible for the formation of the Israeli state. As former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir remarked: “Then [1928] I was put on the Histadrut Executive Committee at a time when this big labor union wasn’t just a trade union organization. It was a great colonizing agency.” [1] Pinhas Lavon, as secretary-general of Histadrut, went so far as to describe it in 1960 as “a general organization to its core. It is not a trade union …” [2] Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, held that without Histadrut, “I doubt whether we would have had a state.” [3]

Source: http://electronicintifada.net/content/histadrut-israels-racist-trade-union/8121

[Zostrianos]

What about Israeli communists? They can't be anti-Palestinian too, are they?:(

[blake 3:17]

I'd always seen various news reports with moderates talking to Palestinians and pushing for justice for them. I didn't know they were such a minority.

Some moderate Zionists do seem to wish for peace while maintaining all the best land and wealth. Amos Oz for example.

There is a very very small movement within Israel which supports BDS.

This is a very thoughtful piece from the liberal Haaretz paper: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israel-s-never-ending-holocaust-1.409942

I've posted it here before but it is very much worth reading rereading.

[blake 3:17]

Gotta go to sleep! Google it!

[Mather]

The Weekly Worker have an interesting article on this: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004712

Apart from the more obvious reasons for Israel wanting to attack Iran, the article highlights some of the the other reasons for Binyamin Netanyahu's desire for war with Iran. The point is made (both by the article and Netanyahu) that a war with Iran would give Israel the perfect cover to ethnically cleanse itself of it's Palestinian Arab population.

[Yehuda Stern]

What about Israeli communists? They can't be anti-Palestinian too, are they?:(
No. But Israeli "communists" can be, and are.

[Bostana]

This pisses me off for two reasons

1) The last thing we need is war at this date and time.

2) If Israel declares War, America declares war and when America declares war all hell breaks loose.

[Rafiq]

No. But Israeli "communists" can be, and are.

That's a lie.

[Rafiq]

Anyway, don't we hear this shit like every year?

[Yehuda Stern]

Not really. Historically, there were Zionist "communists" who supported Israel in every war. Never mind the fact that the Israeli CP (which is supposed to be anti-Zionist, mind you) actively participated in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1947-8, and to this day considers itself an "Israeli patriotic party". It supports the continued existence of Israel and vacillates on the question of the right of return.

[Rafiq]

Not really. Historically, there were Zionist "communists" who supported Israel in every war. Never mind the fact that the Israeli CP (which is supposed to be anti-Zionist, mind you) actively participated in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1947-8, and to this day considers itself an "Israeli patriotic party". It supports the continued existence of Israel and vacillates on the question of the right of return.

Your buddy Trotsky also supported the creation of Israel.

Are you suggesting any other nation has more of a right to exist than Israel?

[Yehuda Stern]

I wasn't really around when Trotsky lived, so I wouldn't call him a "buddy". But no, he didn't support the creation of Israel. That's absurd.

Given that Israel is a colonialist settler state which was created through the expropriation, expulsion and mass murder of the Palestinians, and prevents the remaining Palestinians from returning to their land today, I'd very much doubt the socialist credentials of anyone who supports its existence.

[Ocean Seal]

Your buddy Trotsky also supported the creation of Israel.
Died 21 August 1940



Are you suggesting any other nation has more of a right to exist than Israel?
Yes many of us do suggest that a nation which isn't bent on ethnic cleansing has more of a right to exist than one which is. A nation which horribly oppresses the native population, a nation which repeatedly declares war on neighboring countries and serves as the watchdog of the United States. Yes, I am suggesting that, a nation whose very existence is an act of imperialism should be fought against with even greater fury than that of your average capitalist nation.

[KrasnayaRossiya]

I can't wait actually.
let them attack,then...
URAAAAAAAAAA IRAN,smash israel with 5000 rockets!

israel will be a sea of blood and fire

[Bronco]

I can't wait actually.
let them attack,then...
URAAAAAAAAAA IRAN,smash israel with 5000 rockets!

israel will be a sea of blood and fire

Yeah, really looking forward to that

[KrasnayaRossiya]

no you don't understand
its not just about destroying iran,it's about a flood of liberation that will sweep over the middle east and destroy all western puppets like s.arabia etc too
midle east will be free

[bricolage]

no you don't understand
its not just about destroying iran,it's about a flood of liberation that will sweep over the middle east and destroy all western puppets like s.arabia etc too
midle east will be free
middle east will be a bloodbath of inter-state conflict, noone will be free but you'll have some rockets to wank over so I suppose that's ok.

[Bronco]

no you don't understand
its not just about destroying iran,it's about a flood of liberation that will sweep over the middle east and destroy all western puppets like s.arabia etc too
midle east will be free

I think I do understand, you're saying you "can't wait" for a full-scale conflict in which you are hoping for the deaths of millions, and for what? What do you think the end result will be? Do you honestly think a war will be beneficial to the workers, despite the fact it will be them who will be dying in their droves at the orders of various conflicting bourgeois factions?

[KrasnayaRossiya]

no war is beneficial to the workers but it will be a good hting to liberate the m.east from american-western imperialism.
war is never nice,but you have to see the bigger picture
so it will be beneficial IN THE END

[Rafiq]

Died 21 August 1940


Yes many of us do suggest that a nation which isn't bent on ethnic cleansing has more of a right to exist than one which is. A nation which horribly oppresses the native population, a nation which repeatedly declares war on neighboring countries and serves as the watchdog of the United States. Yes, I am suggesting that, a nation whose very existence is an act of imperialism should be fought against with even greater fury than that of your average capitalist nation.

Israel is just a puppet of the United States.

Marx and friends supported the creation of the U.S.

Are American communists now evil too?

[Rafiq]

I can't wait actually.
let them attack,then...
URAAAAAAAAAA IRAN,smash israel with 5000 rockets!

israel will be a sea of blood and fire

You scumbag, isn't it against forum rules to advocate mass murder?

[Bostana]

You scumbag, isn't it against forum rules to advocate mass murder?
Yes I do think it is, but I don't think he met it.

[Yehuda Stern]

Rafiq: Marx could hardly have supported the creation of the United States, as he was yet to be born at that point in history. He supported the North in the American Civil War, because he saw the emancipation of the slaves as a historically progressive act. How was the establishment of Israel progressive in any way?

(I always disagree on Israel being a puppet of the US; I think it is an imperialist power in its right, and from time to time its needs clash with those of the US. But that is probably a discussion best saved for another time.)

[blake 3:17]

Israel is just a puppet of the United States.

Nope.

[Comrade Samuel]

"it's the end of the world as we know it!"

[Rafiq]

Nope.

Are you suggesting Israel doesn't depend on the U.S. For aid?

And if it does, why does the U.S. Support Israel so heavily, if Israel isn't just carrying out the Interests of the U.S. ?

[blake 3:17]

Israel receives a lot of US aid, but it is not a military outpost of the US nor is it at all dependent on it economically.

[Prometeo liberado]

This sounds like a lot of Israeli disinformation for the sole purpose of pushing Obama and the region into a corner. The last thing the regional states need is to go to war if Israel attacks Iran. Domestic unrest is at an all time high. They would be pushed to show force, visible force, against Israel. If they do nothing other than voice displeasure then they risk fanning the flames of the Arab spring. They are forced to pressure Iran into capitulation. Obama has to act now or look to be "soft" as far as dealing with Iran. And that should scare the hell out of any country. This is an election year and perception is everything with these people. And at the end of the day Israel has accomplished, by manipulation and implied ultimatums, what would have cost them soldiers and many dollars otherwise.

[Rafiq]

Israel receives a lot of US aid, but it is not a military outpost of the US nor is it at all dependent on it economically.

You fail to address my question.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Israel receives a lot of US aid, but it is not a military outpost of the US nor is it at all dependent on it economically.

I fear that this is heading into the "Jews control Washington" zone.

Edit: BTW I'm not accusing you of antisemitism. Just observing.

[Seth]

From similar threads, when Obama was obscure and Bieber fever had yet to hit:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/israel-plans-attack-t30349/index.html

30 May 2005

[Prometeo liberado]

Israel receives a lot of US aid, but it is not a military outpost of the US nor is it at all dependent on it economically.

In the case of Israel and financial aid the real question is who controls who. The tail definitely wags the dog here. When in the history of the world has one nation been both the benefactor and at the beck and call of its client state? The dynamic is such that to even question it invites calls of antisemitism. And not from Jews but from the evangelical right!

[freepalestine]

Your buddy Trotsky also supported the creation of Israel.

Are you suggesting any other nation has more of a right to exist than Israel?
have you any evidence rafiq,of trotskys support of the creation of isreal?

[gorillafuck]

Your buddy Trotsky also supported the creation of Israel.

Are you suggesting any other nation has more of a right to exist than Israel?Trotsky was dead in 1940. 7 years before there was an official plan to divide up Palestine.

[Rafiq]

I'm pretty sure Trotsky declared himself a Zionist and supported Jewish emigration to Israel in his early years. I'll dig it up somewhere in his diary or whatever when I gtfo of tapatalk.

[blake 3:17]

I'm pretty sure Trotsky declared himself a Zionist and supported Jewish emigration to Israel in his early years. I'll dig it up somewhere in his diary or whatever when I gtfo of tapatalk.

Good luck on that one.

I do think it likely that Israel will exploit current political uncertainties for militaristic gains.

Edited to add: It is clear that Trotsky opposed Zionism. In certain writings of his it might appear that that he could support a Communist Zionism (or something like that) but only when misquoted.

[Yehuda Stern]

Rafiq: You're "pretty sure"? Are you also "pretty sure" that Lenin supported reformism? Seriously. Trotsky was vocal about his anti-Zionism, and while at the time of intense, murderous anti-Semitic persecution in Europe, he raised the possibility of creating a state for Jews, he made it quite clear that such a state could not be created under capitalism, and he certainly opposed creating it at the expense of the Palestinians. More information here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/xx/jewish.htm) (On the Jewish Question, 1940). Some relevant quotes:


...the Jews of different countries have created their press and developed the Yiddish language as an instrument adapted to modern-culture. One must therefore reckon with the fact that the Jewish nation will maintain itself for an entire epoch to come. Now the nation cannot normally exist without a common territory. Zionism springs from this very idea. But the facts of every passing day demonstrate to us that Zionism is incapable of resolving the Jewish question. The conflict between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine acquires a more and more tragic and more and more menacing character. I do not at all believe that the Jewish question can be resolved within the framework of rotting capitalism and under the control of British imperialism.


...not a single progressive thinking individual will object to the USSR designating a special territory for those of its citizens who feel themselves to be Jews, who use the Jewish language in preference to all others, and who wish to live as a compact mass.


The very same methods of solving the Jewish question which under decaying capitalism will have a utopian and reactionary character (Zionism) will, under the regime of a socialist federation take on real and salutary meaning.


The attempt to solve the Jewish question through the migration of Jews to Palestine can now be seen for what it is, a tragic mockery of the Jewish people. Interested in winning the sympathies of the Arabs who are more numerous than the Jews, the British government has sharply altered its policy toward the Jews, and has actually renounced its promise to help them found their “own home” in a foreign land. The future development of military events may well transform Palestine into a bloody trap for several hundred thousand Jews. Never was it so clear as it is today that the salvation of the Jewish people is bound up inseparably with the overthrow of the capitalist system.

[Yehuda Stern]

I fear that this is heading into the "Jews control Washington" zone.

Not necessarily. Some on the left have taken such anti-Semitic positions, but there are also people who understand that Israel, while very dependent on the US, also has its own interests, which sometimes clash with those of the US. Now, the US is certainly the senior partner of this unholy alliance, but Israel still gets its way from time to time.

[Rafiq]

Towards the end of Trotsky's life, he believed Jewish immigration to Israel was of a necessity. In the 30's, he opposed the colonization of Palestine. That's probably what you're referring to, but it doesn't reflect the man's final thoughts on the issue.

http://archive.workersliberty.org/publications/readings/swpschool2000/jews.pdf

You can find a lot more shit on the matter, if you dig deep enough. I didn't know it was largely unknown to people here that Trotsky indeed, at the end of his life, had supported Zionism. Most serious Leftists during the late 30's, the 40's and early 50's supported Israel and Zionism. It saddens me this was forgotten.

[Rafiq]

Rafiq: You're "pretty sure"? Are you also "pretty sure" that Lenin supported reformism?

Oh, stop with your god damn opportunism.


Seriously. Trotsky was vocal about his anti-Zionism, and while at the time of intense, murderous anti-Semitic persecution in Europe, he raised the possibility of creating a state for Jews, he made it quite clear that such a state could not be created under capitalism, and he certainly opposed creating it at the expense of the Palestinians. More information here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/xx/jewish.htm) (On the Jewish Question, 1940). Some relevant quotes:


But none the less supported Jewish emigration to Israel. You, were the one who said Israeli communists were oppressive or whatever. Trotsky, you're buddy, would disagree.

[Yehuda Stern]

Rafiq: Obviously you do not understand sarcasm. I'll try to tone it down for you (just to be clear, the joke was that Trotsky supporting Zionism makes as much sense as Lenin supporting reformism. Get it? Huh? Huh?) Also, your insistence on referring to Trotsky as my "buddy" is somewhat disturbing.

I do not know how to make this any clearer: Trotsky could not have supported Jewish migration to Israel, because Trotsky was murdered by Stalin (supposedly, your "buddy") 8 years before Israel was created. I have brought an article from 1940 (which, I understand, was after the 1930s) which shows that Trotsky opposed Zionism. You brought an article from some Zionist groups which apparently has the power to read Trotsky's mind from beyond the grave and conclude, contrary to all known evidence, that he would've supported Israel. I think it's pretty clear which piece of evidence is more reliable.

[blake 3:17]

@Rafiq -- Do not trust anything from the Alliance for Workers Liberty. I don't know who's funding it -- but it is thoroughly pro-imperialist and has nothing to do with socialism.

[blake 3:17]

Please excuse double post.


Most serious Leftists during the late 30's, the 40's and early 50's supported Israel and Zionism. It saddens me this was forgotten.

This is largely true. For Jews with Jewish nationalist longings this make sense, for anti-Semites it makes sense, for many socialists the kibbutz made sense, for modernizers in general it made sense.

The ideology of Zionism is very very close to the ideology of English North America -- a new land free of people in our way and we can choose freedom and decide how we want to live. Colonalization is expensive.