An Israeli attack by November to stop a nuclear Iran? Or to stop Obama’s re-election? If an attack does occur by November, it would clear that what drove Netanyahu was not any technical advancement in the Iranian nuclear program, but the American political calendar.

   An Israeli attack by November to stop a nuclear Iran? Or to stop Obama’s re-election?

16 August 2012
Trita Parsi
Palestine and Israel

If an attack does occur by November, it would clear that what drove Netanyahu was not any technical advancement in the Iranian nuclear program, but the American political calendar.

By Trita Parsi
The Daily Beast
15 August 2012

The Benjamin Netanyahu government in Israel appears to be directly involving itself in the US presidential campaign. But even in this context, Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon explosive call for an international declaration that diplomacy with Iran has failed is bold.

In fact, it’s astonishing. Declaring diplomacy dead bring the entire American Dual Track policy (the idea that a mix of sanctions and talks will bring about a change in Iran’s nuclear calculus) to collapse. By extension, declaring diplomacy dead also implies that the sanctions track has failed (a case Israel makes separately), leaving military action as the only remaining option.

The rift between Obama and Israel over Iran diplomacy dates back to the moment Obama decided to embark on diplomacy. Only 24 hours after Obama’s historic presidential victory in November 2008, then-Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni made Israel’s opposition to talks abundantly clear:

“We live in a neighborhood in which sometimes dialogue…is liable to be interpreted as weakness,” Livni said in an interview with Israeli Radio. Asked specifically if she supported discussions between the U.S. and Iran, she left no room for interpretation, she declared: “The answer is no.

Within diplomacy, the main sticking point has been the issue of enrichment. The question boils down to this: Can Iran retain some level of enrichment under strict inspections after negotiations, or is the Western red line a complete end to all enrichment activities. The Obama administration has maintained an ambiguous position on this issue. The Israelis, however, have preferred a zero-enrichment policy, similar to that of the Bush administration. Ayalon himself told me in in October 2010 that zero-enrichment is an unbending Israeli red line. “Enrichment in Iran is certainly unacceptable,” he told me in a phone interview.

Ayalon’s latest statement should be seen both in the context of the US presidential elections (in which the Netanyahu has a clear favorite) and in the context of the larger struggle over Obama’s Iran policy. For the latter, Obama has scored only a handful of major points, due in large part to his need to avoid looking like he’s scoring points against Netanyahu. The domestic political repercussions of an open rift with the Israeli government would be unpleasant. So Netanyahu’s “up the ante” strategy carries few negative consequences for the current Israeli government.

Where does all this leave us? Well, if the United States continues to water down its diplomacy and beef up its sanctions policy on Iran, Washington will walk deeper into a conflict dynamic with Iran, and prospects for a diplomatic solution would decrease and probability of war would increase. Netanyahu would see all this as beneficial.

But, if Obama pushes back and gets entangled in a public spat with the Israeli government, it would accentuate Obama’s tense ties to Netanyahu and provide Romney with further opportunities to portray himself as a better friend of Israel. Obama strategists believe this would hurt them in the elections, particularly in key states such as Florida. Netanyahu strategists appear to agree.

Romney has already gone the extra mile to position himself below Netanyahu in the murky pecking order of US-Israeli relations. In December, Romney declared that when it came to sensitive issues facing Israel, Romney would follow Netanyahu’s lead. “I’d get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say: ‘Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?” he said.

During his recent visit to Israel, even the Israeli press was surprised by Romney’s deference to Netanyahu. A Haaretz headline read: In Jerusalem speech, it was Romney’s voice but Netanyahu’s words. “The speech itself sounded as if it could have been written by Netanyahu’s bureau,” Haaretz’s Barak Ravid wrote.

Still, I remain skeptical of the idea that the risk of war has increased significantly. There is a cry-wolf element here and both the markets and the general audience are starting to become numb to the frenzy about the imminence of an Israeli attack, created not by the media, but by the Israeli cabinet itself.

If an attack does occur by November, it would be even clearer that what drove the Netanyahu government’s strategy and ultimate decision was not any technical advancement in the Iranian nuclear program, but the American political calendar.

Netanyahu would arguably be trying to preempt—not an Iranian nuclear attack—but the reelection of Barack Obama.


About ottwf

The capitalistic and imperialistic system and its systematic aims: profit and power over others, still dominates our world and not the aims of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as 1948 agreed! After the world-economic-crisis after 1929 and the following World-War the world hat decided with agreeing the Universal Declaration of Human rights, to create a new world order; conflicts should be solved with peaceful means, not nations and their power, but the dignity of human beings around the world should be the aim of the policies and the economy, of every state and the community of states. But soon after the end of the war, when the victims and destruction were forgotten, all continued as before, with all risks, we had seen before. The split in rich an poor is getting bigger and bigger. We also overuse our global environment already, even if the big majority of mankind still lives in poverty! We are not victims, this world is men-made and be changed from men and women! It will be possible, if those, who do not want or serve (because of system-pressure) profits first, but want for themselves and everybody a life in human dignity unite and develop in a global base-democratic movement a common vision for our world, and learn, how to make this vision real. We need for it a big empowerment of many, many common men and women and their activities. Our chances are because of new communication technologies, of common languages, of the level of education and the mixture of people from different backgrounds better then ever. The occupy-movement is a good start for such a global movement. We support it and try to contribute to its success! We choose news and make comments and so try to unite people for an Occupy-Think-Tank: Its tasks: creating a news-network, self-education, working on global-reform programs and learning to organize projects for those, who are suffering. Join us, so that we can build teams for these aims for all subjects and countries as a base for the unification. We have Wan(n)Fried(en) in our name, because it means When peace and it is a modification of the name of the town our base is, in Wanfried, a small town in the middle of Germany, where we can use a former factory for our activities. Our telefon: 0049-5655-924981, mobil: 0171-9132149, email:
This entry was posted in occupy America, occupy democracy for the 99 percent, Occupy Iran by the Iranians for the Iranians, Occupy Middle east and North Africa, Occupy peace and justice between Israel and Palestine. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s