If the deal flies then I am all for it, but, it sounds to be too good to be true. Also I doubt that Obama will agree to its terms without amendment. Why would Obama not want Israel to attack in October. Most analysts I have read think that he could cinch his election by supporting Israel’s attack. So if he is prepared to do it in the spring, why not now? Ted Belman
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report August 18, 2012,
The White House this week scrambled to reconnect with Jerusalem after the Obama administration was persuaded that Israel was serious about conducting a fall military operation against Iran’s nuclear program before the Nov. 6 US presidential election – notwithstanding the heavy opposition guns firing against it at home and from Washington. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, assisted by their newly-appointed Home Front Defense Minister, were seen deep in practical preparations for this operation and its repercussions, as well an outbreak of hostilities with Syria and Hizballah.
The White House accordingly got in touch with Netanyahu’s office to find out what America must do to convince Israel to back off.
Wednesday, Aug.15, DEBKAfile revealed exclusively that the Obama and Netanyahu were discussing a one-on-one encounter on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session opening in New York on Sept. 18 in order to resume their military and strategic dialog on the Iranian issue broken off by their polar differences.
DEBKAfile now learns that those discussions have moved forward. Handled by National Security Adviser Tom Donilon for the US president and senior adviser Ron Dermer for the prime minister, they focus essentially on a four-point plan embodying Israel’s requirements for delaying an attack.
1. President Obama will formally inform the two houses of congress in writing that he plans to use military force to prevent Iran from arming itself with a nuclear weapon. He will request their endorsement. Aside from this step’s powerful deterrent weight for persuading Iran’s leaders to give up their pursuit of a nuclear bomb, it would also give the US president the freedom to go to war with Iran when he sees fit, without have to seek congressional endorsement.
2. To underscore his commitment, President Obama would pay a visit to Israel in the weeks leading up to election-day and deliver a speech to the Knesset solemnly pledging to use American military force against the Islamic Republic if Tehran still refuses to give up its nuclear weapon program. He will repeat that pledge before various other public forums.
3, In the coming months up until Spring 2013, the United States will upgrade Israel’s military, intelligence and technological capabilities so that if President Obama (whether he is reelected or replaced by Mitt Romney) decides to back out of this commitment, Israel will by then be in command of the resources necessary for inflicting mortal damage on Iran’s nuclear program with a unilateral strike.
DEBKAfile’s military sources note that an influx of these top-grade US military resources would bridge the gap between American and Israeli ticking clocks for an attack on Iran, and dispel the fear in Jerusalem that delay would give Iran time to bury its key facilities in “zones of immunity” – outside Israel’s reach for serious damage with its present capabilities.
4. If points 1-3 can be covered – and Netanyahu and Barak are convinced the US really means to strike Iran next spring – our Washington and Jerusalem sources report that Jerusalem may be coming around to agreeing to hold back a lone Israeli attack this autumn.
Those sources report that President Obama has not rejected the plan.
Donilon was told to keep on talking to Netanyahu and Barak.
First, everybody, this is Debkafile we’ve got here. They are notoriously unreliable.
For a time, I had an e-mail pal in Israel who claimed to know the guy personally who heads up Debkafile. She said that half the time, he just makes stuff up.
I wouldn’t believe any of this, coming from DF. If it is confirmed by other, more credible sources, I might believe it.
Even if it is true, I wouldn’t take it seriously. I can’t believe that Netanyahu would believe any promises or commitments made by NCHO. If he does, he’s a far bigger fool than I ever imagined.
I don’t know why Bill Narvey won’t offer some sort of opinion. Bill, no one is going to sue you if you turn out to be wrong.
Ted, are you sure the posts by “H.A. Kissinger” and “Andrew Morris” are legit? I received e-mails saying EXACTLY the same things, direct to my inbox, from people I don’t even know (an “A. Glick” in one case).
Still, I don’t entirely blame Bill Narvey for beating around the bush. I’ve got “prediction fatigue” myself on this issue. I’ve been wrong on this so many time so far – I was 90% sure of an Israeli strike in 2008, 2010, 2011, and this past spring – that I’m no longer sure anything is going to happen.
Right now, my gut intuition is that I’m 60% sure of an Israeli and/or U.S. strike sometime in the next year. If it doesn’t happen by September of 2013, it ain’t gonna happen.
One can make a plausible argument for an Israeli strike VERY soon (in the next few weeks), October, November (right after the election), or next summer. In November or next summer, one might also be able to include the U.S., but if Obama is really sinking in the polls, it could happen before the election. I don’t see him doing it, though, no matter what. If he is re-elected, forget it. The only way the U.S. gets involved is if Romney wins and even then I wouldn’t count on it.
Only a few people know if Israel really does have the ability to carry out an effective strike, or if this is all a big bluff. I think this capability exists, but I won’t elaborate on how I think this will be done on a public venue such as this.
My own opinion is this:
If Iran is getting close to building a nuke and hardening her defenses to the point where either of these efforts or both are such that waiting past a certain point will make an Israeli strike untenable – whether that is tomorrow morning or a year from now – then Israel will strike before that point is reached. This is completely independent of U.S. electoral politics.
Obviously, Israel would prefer not to have to do this while Obama is in office. Israel’s ideal scenario – short of a successful internal revolution in Iran – is to be able to delay the Iranian program by “cloak and dagger” means that have been used thus far, until Obama is out of office. This may not be possible. This will certainly not be possible if Obama is re-elected.
Since Obama’s hands will be tied in terms of “punishing” Israel for her “defiance” by the fact of re-eletion politics prior to November, and since Israeli leaders cannot know whether or not Obama will be re-elected – or what he’d even do as a lame duck – I believe that if this strike is going to happen, it will have to be sometime before the election.
A strike before the election presents other problems, however. For example, if it really is very successful, and it gives Obama the opportunity to “piggy back” on this success for electoral benefits, then a strike may have the perverse effect of helping to get Obama re-elected, an outcome Netanyahu surely must not want. Also, the likely economic shock – even if only short term – caused by a strike could serve to distract the U.S. voting public away from Obama’s culpability in the crappy U.S. economy; he can now blame an even crappier economy on Israel’s “reckless” behavior.
All the same, the weight of all the relevant circumstances, of what is publicly known, leads me to expect a strike before the election. But I’d hardly take that to the bank, given my lousy predictive track record thus far on this issue.
Israel must not trust the Obama administration. Israel should bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before the US elections. It should only hold back if it receives ordnance and refueling tankers before november. No statement or promise that Obama makes is worth the a pinch of the proverbial and less if he gets reelected. At this stage he has not committed himself and made no promises. The safety of the Jewish state – and not merely incidentally millions of Israelis Jews and non-Jews alike – must not rest on a man’s with a record of incompetence and hostility to Israel showing “interest” in the proposed conditions for a delay in attack. He could be playing Israel for a sucker when Iran is stronger and the US has more time to prepare to stop Israel’s attack.
@ H. A. Kissinger:
Dear Henry,
Just because we hear the refrain in the US of “In G-d We Trust”, does that mean Israel should put its trust in America? No Siree!
Israel really does put its trust in the Alm-ghty.
Now I have just one question. Are you a Jew first or an American first?
If it is the latter, I think we can disregard your esteemed advice.
If it is the former, how can you be so sure that Obama “has Israel’s back”?
@ andrew morris:What’s your alternative, wait for another holocaust, wait for the world to rescue the jews, wait for more dead jews?
@ andrew morris:
What makes you think they don’t want Obama re-elected?
Apparently you are one of those anti-war fools. All wars for any reason are iffy and seldom if not never go according to pre-planning and expectations. Yet a case even better than yours can be made for initiating a war against Iran by Israel that is much stronger than yours.
Which boil down to Us or Them, therefore we have NO CHOICE!!!!
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that wars do not always end in the fashion that those who launch them expect.
The leaders of Israel and the United States urgently need to factor this historical reality into their plans on whether to risk war over Tehran’s suspected nuclear weapons program.
The war drums are sounding louder.
Examples of military miscalculation are all too numerous. Hitler was so sure the Nazis would take Leningrad that he had invitations printed up for a victory banquet at a hotel there. Recall, too, the promised light at the end of the tunnel for the American victory in Vietnam.
And consider the Soviets’ shock at seeing their entire country collapse three years after they pulled out of Afghanistan – a costly humiliation that greatly contributed to the demise of the USSR.
Opportunities for miscalculation in an Iranian conflict are huge, including the risk that the US or Israel might fail to erase a nuclear program because it’s so well hidden. Sabotage, cyber war, and conflict could easily spread from Iran to the region and to US and Israeli installations around the world.
Tehran has the least room to maneuver, which may explain its audacity, with bluster substituting for action. Its anxiety after a steep fall in its currency value only makes Iran’s situation more desperate and perhaps dangerous.
Iran’s warnings to a US Navy nuclear aircraft carrier not to return to the Gulf are foolish. The US is not cowed, and for a period of time – extendable if desired – the US will have three aircraft carriers in the Fifth Fleet area near Iran. Surely the Iranians know this is an election year and, were they to provoke the president to military action, that might do much to assure President Obama’s reelection.
Wars are so very easy to get into and so very difficult to terminate. So very expensive to execute and so unpredictable that caution must be exercised. That has been the supreme lesson of the last decade.
yamit82 Said:
Ask Joe Biden, I’ll bet he knows.
@ Bill Narvey:
Narvey we don’t need your always recapitulation of what is written by others but what you personally think….
What DO YOU THINK? Do you think Israel should attack? WHAT IS YOUR OPINION SPECIFICALLY, BASED ON WHAT YOU KNOW AND ANY INTUITION YOU MAY POSSESS.
WILL ISRAEL ATTACK IRAN? your learned opinion is as good or bad as anyone else, Not sure BB or Barak know for sure either.
Alon Ben-Meir
Senior Fellow, NYU’s Center for Global Affairs
Israel’s Posturing: Behind Netanyahu and Barak’s Threats to Attack Iran
The direct threat against Iran is based on Netanyahu and Barak’s calculation that although public discussion about the potential attack on Iran provides Tehran more time to prepare for the worst, it will provide Israel with certain advantages. Fear of an imminent Israeli attack will force the Iranian authorities to take additional security measures to protect their nuclear facilities, which will reveal Iran’s preparedness and capabilities, and expose its weaknesses and how much of its boastings of a damaging counter-attack against Israel are in fact accurate. Importantly, Israel will also be in a position to better assess the Iranian public’s reaction and whether the rumors of an imminent attack will precipitate panic, which may reveal how the Iranian authorities react and pacify the public. More than anything, Israel wants Iran to take its threats seriously, which explains why Netanyahu and Barak openly stated that when it comes to Israel’s national security, Israel must, in the final analysis, rely only on itself.
Netanyahu’s and Barak’s exposé is also intended to warn all those who might think of coming to Iran’s aid by engaging Israel on another front (in particular with groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas) that they should think twice before they dare to provoke Israel. By openly discussing their intentions, Netanyahu and Barak want these groups or states to assume that Israel would not have discussed such a sensitive national security matter had it not taken into full consideration their potential involvements. The message to Hezbollah is clear: there will not be a repeat of the 2006 war, Israel will break its back and that this time around no one will come to its aid considering Syria is in shambles and Iran is under intense economic pressure and too busy to deal with the potentially catastrophic effects of an Israeli attack.
The other target of Israel’s open discourse on attacking Iran is to test the Sunni Arabs, especially the Gulf States led by Saudi Arabia. There have been ongoing tacit discussions between Israel and the Gulf States about the potential Israeli strike and how that might affect both their public reactions and their private interests and concerns. There is no doubt that all Sunni Arab states would prefer to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons peacefully. But after failing to do so by diplomatic means, they would support an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, whether the attack is carried out by Israel, the U.S. or through a joint effort. Saudi Arabia in particular sees the conflict between Shiites verses Sunnis in terms of regional domination with a focus on the Gulf, and views Iran with nuclear weapons as a nightmarish scenario that must be prevented at all costs.
Finally, Netanyahu’s and Barak’s message was intended for the Israeli public not only to prepare them for a potential Iranian counter-attack but to begin psychological and logistical preparations ( including the distributions of gas masks, stocking underground shelters with food and water) to avoid public panic and rally the nation around the government’s prospective actions.
Yamit, as I touched on a number of the facets of the issues regarding the Debka report, I do not know what specific opinion are you seeking from me.
@ Bill Narvey:
I don’t want to challenge you and anyway there is nothing to challenge. Narvey, I think you have enough information to form some opinion. Nobody has all the information even the active players. I asked what is your personal opinion based on what you do know.
@ Yamit – What opinion are you seeking from me? I already stated my views which only go so far as the facts allow. My point is that responsible opinion should be based on fact and on this specific issue, not sufficient verifiable facts are known.
As to whether or not Obama would before the election order an American strike against Iran or give complete support for Israel alone to undertake a pre-emptive strike, I laid out the possibilities based on what facts are known and some common sense surmises.
My opinion was thus not definitive, but sounded in reasonable possibilities.
If you want to challenge my opinion, Yamit, do so specifically and I will respond to that.
@ Bill Narvey:
What is your opinion Narvey? Recapitulating already published opinions is for most of us redundant. What’s your opinion will Israel or Obama attack Iran before or after the elections and if at all?
@ H. A. Kissinger:
Well Kissinger 🙂 Even if you are 100% correct in your analysis Israel should still wipe Iran off the map, start with Tehran. If we have no respect for ourselves how can we expect others to respect us?
A dirty bomb or bombs on every known nuke and military site will make them useless for a long time and certainly beyond your life span which I figure has about run it’s course.
How fitting would be a Jewish Attack in Chodesh Elul , on the Bastion of Islamic Holy Warriors who pray to their Islamic god to be able to kill all the Jews, and are actively perusing the ability to act on their prayers to their Islamic deity.
Habah l’hargecha hashkem l’hargo — “If someone is coming to kill you, rise against him and kill him first.
However, it should never be done with glee.” 🙁
Seeing is believing. While the U.S.might be able to covertly upgrade Israel’s intelligence and technological capabilities between now and the spring of 2013, it would be difficult to hide substantially upgrading Israel’s military resources and capabilities.
Debka might have the inside track on secret discussions in this regard, but that is possible, but far from certain.
The U.S. might just as easily be engaging in talks brimming with sincerity that only masks the U.S.’s possibly true intention being to con Israel into believing that these talks of having Israel’s back are sincere and that in return for Israel not attacking Iran, Israel will derive all the benefits these talks promise if and when the moment comes that Israel must attack after the U.S. election.
As some seemingly expert pundits, as well as some Israpundit contributors have opined, doubt is cast on Israel’s ability to carry out an attack on Iran that will bear any significant results and which might ignite not only an Iranian counter attack, but an attack by Iranian proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah as well as some Arab nations, be it their directly involving themselves in an attack on Israel or aiding those on the front lines attacking Israel.
Some have also opined that the Israeli threat to likely attack Iran before the U.S. election, was put out in as credible fashion as possible, in order to worry the Obama administration sufficiently so as to induce them to make committments, such as reported by the Debka file.
A U.S. attack on Iran is a 2 edged sword for Obama.
On the one hand, the American people are sick and tired of U.S. military intervention on foreign soil and for Obama to order such an attack before November, could spell disaster for his re-election chances.
On the other hand, if Obama sees his re-election chances dimming, declaring a U.S. war against Iran might be just the ticket to rally Americans behind him and assure him of re-election.
Obama could sell such a war to the American people on the basis that Iran, universally seen as not only the world’s leading terrorist sponsor that has by its proxies, attacked Americans and U.S. interests, but also Iran is the preeminent extant force that could ignite a Mid East war existentially threatening not just Israel, but more importantly, key U.S. Arab allies and critical American interests.
What is clear is that there is so much hidden and murky going on behind the scenes, that it gives pundits and Israel watchers a great deal to talk about, but nothing in the way of their being able to clear the fog away from what is actually going down.
As I said at the outset, seeing is believing. Truths, will as usual, only emerge in dribbles, unless of course there are sudden dramatic turn of events undeniable facts that emerge into the light.
Broken promises made to the infidel are encouraged in Islam. You do something for me now and I pay you later: this arrangement requires trust which is missing from the relationship. He can promise anything for after Nov as he may not even be there, plus, he can promise them anything but give them nothing. This is what liars do.
The Iranian Air Force is state of the art for about 1978 or so….It managed to perform fairly well against the Iraqis, but they have since been hamstrung by a lack of spare parts as well as limitations on flight time for the pilots. The best air defense systems they have are no better than the ones that Israel went through like a hot knife through butter in Syria.
The Syrians did not even know there were planes in their airspace.
Air Bases? hey a runway and some hangers plus a cruise missile is a big hole in the ground. Radars? HARM missiles from 50 miles out. MANPADS and FLAK won’t even come into it (if they have any)since strikes will more than likely be ‘Stand Off’ GPMs
Seriously, unless they play possum big time, the Iranian Air force and Air defense systems will be dead or crippled within the first 24 hours.
An Israeli attack on Iran would be a farce. The IDF can’t attack Iran’s weapons activities until it has destroyed its air defenses, air force and air bases. This cannot be done by the IDF from 1000 miles away with no regional air bases. There could be one or two quick sorties, but that would have no military significance. To take out Iran’s nuclear facilities would require a major regional buildup along the lines of the two Gulf Wars. It will require bases in the neighborhood, and it will require the neutralization of Iran’s defenses, followed by a massive and sustained bombing campaign using the very latest ordnance. It may be that Israel believes that if it attacks Iran, the US will have no choice but to go all-in. This is incorrect, since Israel’s existence can’t be threatened by Iran. The best that Iran could hope to do would be to shoot off however many poison-gas Shahab-3 MRBMs they have, and pray that they fall on Israel and not Damascus, Amman or Mecca.