The Passionate Attachment

America's entanglement with Israel

Peace is War: How Israel Induces America into War with Iran

with 15 comments

By Maidhc Ó Cathail
The Passionate Attachment
August 24, 2012

On August 17, America’s two leading newspapers featured strikingly similar opinion pieces, providing further evidence of a coordinated effort by Israel and its American partisans to induce the United States into waging another disastrous Middle East war. In the Washington Post, former chief of Israeli military intelligence Amos Yadlin helpfully suggested “5 steps Obama can take to avert a strike on Iran”; while President Obama’s former top Middle East advisor Dennis Ross advised readers of the New York Times “How America Can Slow Israel’s March to War.” Perhaps the most notable difference between the two op-eds was that the latter proposed a mere four steps Washington supposedly needs to take in order to appease the allegedly trigger-happy Israelis.

Yadlin and Ross both begin by citing recent Israeli statements such as Benjamin Netanyahu’s warning that “Time to resolve this issue peacefully is running out,” conveying the impression that Tel Aviv’s patience with diplomacy is wearing thin, and that, as a consequence, this autumn, as Yadlin put it, “all the boxes will be checked for an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.” Three months ago, Ross admitted during a panel discussion with Yadlin on “U.S.-Israel Relations in a Changing Middle East” at a conference held by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, where he is now a counselor, that such alarmist public pronouncements by Israeli officials should be understood not as an indication of the Jewish state’s likelihood to strike the Islamic Republic but as a ploy “to motivate the rest of the world to act.” Now, however, he confidently asserts: “The words of Israeli leaders are signaling not just increasing impatience with the pace of diplomacy but also Israel’s growing readiness to act militarily on its own against Iranian nuclear facilities.”

Both op-ed contributors also make it a point to stress that the United States shares Israel’s strategic goal of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability, while noting that they only differ over, in the words of Yadlin, “the timeline for possible military action against Iran.” Like the former Israeli intelligence chief, Ross touts Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s “zone of immunity” argument that Israel must act while Iran’s nuclear facilities are still vulnerable to an Israeli military strike.

Framing their arguments as attempts to prevent, or at least postpone, an Israeli attack, Yadlin and Ross offer, respectively, their five- and four-point plans for “peace.” Yadlin, currently director of Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies, urges the Obama administration to take “five immediate steps to convince allies and adversaries alike that military action is real, imminent and doable,” which he assures are “key to making it less likely”:

First, Obama should notify the U.S. Congress in writing that he reserves the right to use military force to prevent Iran’s acquisition of a military nuclear capability. This would show the president’s resolve, and congressional support for such a measure is likely to be strong. Forty-four senators signed a bipartisan letter to Obama in June, urging him to “reevaluate the utility of further talks at this time” and focus instead on sanctions and “making clear that a credible military option exists.”

Second, Washington should signal its intentions via a heightened U.S. military presence in the gulf, military exercises with Middle East allies and missile defense deployment in the region. Media coverage of these actions should be encouraged.

Third, Washington should provide advanced military technology and intelligence to strengthen Israel’s military capabilities and extend the window in which Israel can mortally wound Iran’s program. This support would be contingent on Israeli pledges to give sanctions and diplomacy more time to work.

Fourth, U.S. officials should speak publicly about the dangers of possible Iranian nuclear reconstitution in the wake of a military strike. Perhaps the most cogent argument against a unilateral Israeli strike is that it would quickly lead to the disintegration of Western sanctions. Without the inhibitions of a sanctions regime, Iran could quickly reconstitute its nuclear program — this time bunkered entirely underground to protect against aerial strikes. If Iran sees military action by Israel or the West as an absolute end to its nuclear ambitions, it will be more reluctant to risk things.

Fifth, Obama should publicly commit to the security of U.S. allies in the gulf. This would reassure jittery friends in the region and credibly anchor the U.S. last-resort military option to three powerful interests: U.S. national security, Israeli security and the security of allied states.

Living up to his reputation as a reliable “advocate” for Israel, Ross presents his remarkably similar four-step plan which he claims is necessary in order “to extend the clock from an Israeli standpoint” as well as “to synchronize the American and Israeli clocks so that we really can exhaust diplomacy and sanctions before resorting to force”:

First, the United States must put an endgame proposal on the table that would allow Iran to have civil nuclear power but with restrictions that would preclude it from having a breakout nuclear capability — the ability to weaponize its nuclear program rapidly at a time of Tehran’s choosing. Making such a proposal would clarify whether a genuine deal was possible and would convey to Israel that the American approach to negotiations was not open-ended.

Second, America should begin discussions with the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany (the so-called P5+1) about a “day after” strategy in the event that diplomacy fails and force is used. This would signal to both Israel and Iran that we mean what we say about all options being on the table.

Third, senior American officials should ask Israeli leaders if there are military capabilities we could provide them with — like additional bunker-busting bombs, tankers for refueling aircraft and targeting information — that would extend the clock for them.

And finally, the White House should ask Mr. Netanyahu what sort of support he would need from the United States if he chose to use force — for example, resupply of weapons, munitions, spare parts, military and diplomatic backing, and help in terms of dealing with unexpected contingencies. The United States should be prepared to make firm commitments in all these areas now in return for Israel’s agreement to postpone any attack until next year — a delay that could be used to exhaust diplomatic options and lay the groundwork for military action if diplomacy failed.

While noting that these proposals may be seen as making war more likely next year, Ross claims “they are almost certainly needed now in order to give Israel’s leaders a reason to wait.” Similarly, Yadlin argues that “if the United States wants Israel to give sanctions and diplomacy more time, Israelis must know that they will not be left high and dry if these options fail.”

“A long-standing principle of Israeli defense doctrine,” Yadlin asserts, “is that it will never ask the United States to fight for it.” While it may be technically true that Tel Aviv never directly asks Washington to dispose of regional rivals on its behalf, these two op-eds attest that the Jewish state has more subtle ways of inducing America to do its dirty work for it.

Written by Maidhc Ó Cathail

August 24, 2012 at 5:25 am

Posted in Uncategorized

15 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. […] article was originally carried by the writer at his site:… Rate this:Share this:EmailFacebookTwitterPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. By […]

  2. Israelis and Americans are free to talk as much as they like about attacking Iran. But, frankly, I constantly fail to see how they can achieve success in doing so.

    Iran’s nuclear program is widely spread. Nuclear installations are also very well hidden and protected. No amount of bombing could even scratch the surface of Iran’s nuclear program, especially if Tehran ever decides to quickly relocate its nuclear enrichment activities under any of those huge mountains that run north-south-east-west for thousands of kilometers including the Zagros or Alborz ranges. The latter range alone is more than a dozen times larger than Israel own land area.

    The following is a comment made by Andrey Volodin, the head of the Centre for Oriental Research of the Diplomatic Academy at the Russian Foreign Ministry, on RT: “A military operation against Iran would be sheer lunacy. The US would have to use at least a million soldiers and over 2,000 aircraft, which is beyond its means. Any other assault rather than a ground operation would not have any effect. A limited campaign would only speed up the appearance of nuclear weapons in Iran. So far, at least, there has been no political decision about its production.”

    However, just in case that an actual war really breaks out, we shouldn’t be too surprised to see some Iranian troops rolling southward right to the gates of Tel-Aviv within two-three days.



    August 24, 2012 at 7:12 am

  3. Corrected: The extended quote was from Andrey Volodin the head of the Centre for Oriental Research of the Diplomatic Academy at the Russian Foreign Ministry, in an article titled Israel: expert in having its own way on Voice of Russia.


    August 24, 2012 at 7:44 am

  4. […]… Posted in Zionist Threat « Barak’s Blunder […]

  5. […]… Posted in Zionist Threat « Barak’s Blunder […]

  6. I’m sure that Iran will be attacked regardless of anything being said. Fact of the matter Iran has no chance in hell to win. None of the Arab countries have an army that can take on the Israel or the USA. They know it too. Two interesting example are the reaction of Saddam Hussein and Assad when Israel bombed their nuclear facilities. Neither did anything, even after being attack. It’s because they know that they can’t.

    As for Lebanon it looks like it’s spiraling into civil war. CNN claims that they believe Assad sympathizers are behind it. It’s the sectarian thing, the Alawis vs. Sunnis problem. Just like Oded Yinon predicted.

    For those who know that this a fake revolution and instigated civil war, ask yourselves one question concerning all those stories about Syria/Iran/Hizbullshit network of terrorists. Where the hell are they? Why aren’t the 3 parties using them against the Soros Revolutions?

    Saur Ben Zvi

    August 24, 2012 at 4:22 pm

  7. Israeli-born war veteran and author Gilad Atzmon once wrote: “Israelis found out long ago that it’s cheaper to buy America’s entire political system than buying a modern tank”.

    And believe or not – it has worked for the last six decades.

    The campaign to re-elect Barack Hussein Obama is becoming more ‘Jewish’ every passing day. Obama’s campaign office has just released a list which shows that nearly 600 Rabbis support Obama for re-election in November 2012. Ten of them happens to be among the Newsweek’s ’2012 America’s top top 50 Rabbis’ list.


    August 24, 2012 at 4:50 pm

  8. Saur Ben Zvi – it seems you;re living in your self denial. Gen. Dempsey told Netanyahu-Barak in January that Israel cannot defeat Iran without the active participation of the US Armed Forces – but he added, “we think it’s not appropriate time yet”.

    The ‘anti-Semite’ Pat. Buchanan wrote on April 17, 2012: “Israel cannot do to Iran what Bibi wants done to Iran. Only Obama can. If there is no US attack on Iran by November, and Obama wins, there may never be a US attack on Iran. No wonder Bibi is frustrated”.

    After realizing that Israel cannot win a war with Iran alone, the Zionist regime has come up with a new ‘face-saving’ excuse. Israeli business information group BDI-Coface has projected that Israeli attack against Iran could cost Israel over 167 billion shekels ($42 billion), not to mention thousands of Jews killed and billions of dollars damage to Israeli infrastructure.

    However, the real reason behind Netanyahu-Barak reluctance to attack Iran is based on Israeli military hierarchy being afraid about the prospect of going it alone without full US backing.


    August 24, 2012 at 8:34 pm

  9. To Zvi and Rehmat,
    Of course Israel can attack Iran. Why not? then US and other western countries get involved, right? We won’t talk about what Russia or China would do. But I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that Iran alone does have the necessary stamina to drag the ensuing war for many years (not 30 days) which would give it enough time to assemble whatever it wants with ease — if needed. The megalomaniac politicians like Bibi serving the global banking system, cannot change the course of history. They are all too corrupt to continue this business and need to be replaced. Sorry to say it but post WWI and WWII love affair between the Ashkenazi of Europe (not the original Jewish people of the Middle East) who happen to play chess very well and the Anglo-Saxon will come to an abrupt end because the Americans and the British are basically opportunists, therefore they will avoid getting themselves into some sort of total global annihilation if they can get their oil by purchasing it like everybody else (India, Japan, Germany S. Korea…).


    August 24, 2012 at 9:45 pm

  10. First of all, it does not matter what generals or Buchanan say. People like that have no credibility due to 9/11.
    Secondly, the argument you’re bringing forward that Iran’s a threat and has great military capabilities is nothing more than what Israel wants people to believe. They need it to milk the US.

    Thirdly, let’s look at what Israel done to Iran and Iran’s reaction:
    -Failed revolution in 2008-2009 ( Known as the “Green Revolution”, Soros likes colors)
    -Formed the terrorist group Jundallah, with the mandate of committing acts of sabotage in Iran
    -Cyber attacks: Stuxnet, Duqu, Flame…
    -Summoned US official to remove the MEK as a terrorist group, with the probable intent of regime change and the usual sabotage.
    -Assassinating Iranian scientist

    This is nothing less than an act of war. What did Iran, the country with a vast state sponsored network of terrorist, do? Nothing, it’s because they can’t, they are weaker.

    Saur Ben Zvi

    August 24, 2012 at 10:38 pm

  11. Saur Ben Zvi – to answer your rant: “What did Iran, the country with a vast state sponsored network of terrorist, do? Nothing, it’s because they can’t, they are weaker.”

    Iran (Persia) is a 5,000 year-old civiization – while Israel was created by European Zionist Jewish terrorist groups in league with European leaders to solve Europe’s centuries-old “Jewish Problem” 64 years ago.

    Iran has not responded to Israeli terrorism – because Iranians believe in the Holy Qur’an which teaches tolerance toward Jews and Christians – while Israeli Jews follow the Talmud, which Israeli professor Israel Shahak described as: “The most hateful religious literature in the world”.

    There are dozens of myths created by European Judeo-Christian Zionists to legitimize their colonial outpost in the heart of the Muslim world. It’s impossible to address all of them in a short article, except the following, which are propagated the most …….


    August 25, 2012 at 2:53 am

  12. To Zvi,
    Precisely the reason Bibi can keep bilking the US using the Iran excuse whether the latter has a great military or not is because there’s that global banking structure somehow still functioning. But let the current game with Iran become more exciting and we’ll see how the entire global system falls apart. Again the opportunistic Anglo-Saxon won’t go all the way sacrificing themselves for the sake of the Eاuropean Ashkenazi, given that they are not receiving any more benefits from the existing global banking structure. They would immediately switch sides, purchase their needed oil like normal customer and leave Israel all on its own for decades. Bibi knows this.


    August 25, 2012 at 7:55 am

  13. continued
    …by the way that’s the so-called existential threat to Israel and not an Iran with a nuclear bomb.


    August 25, 2012 at 8:07 am

  14. Saur Ben Zvi – Buchanan did not lose his credibility after 9/11 – it’s the Zionist Jews and Israel which lost credibility after 9/11. Even the Canadian-Israel super-Zionist author, Barry Chamish, has admitted recently in an interview with Salem-News that Zionist Labour Jews were behind the 9/11.


    August 25, 2012 at 1:22 pm

  15. […] evils” that ensue from America’s (and some other countries’) passionate attachment to Israel.Go to Original – thepassionateattachment.comClick to share this article: facebook | twitter | email. Click here to download this article as a […]

Leave a Reply