Is Obama engendering a World War by over-prioritizing his own re-election campaign?

Conventional wisdom dictates that were Israel to attack Iranian nuclear weapons facilities, Iran would mine the Sea of Hormouz to interfere with Gulf oil passage, thereby temporarily (until the US clears the sea mines) increasing the price of oil. The ripple-effect would increase prices across the world, and slow the economy during the time leading up to the US presidential election.

Israel feels that the US has stalled striking Iran (or blocking Israel) for too long and Iran is now "5 minutes to midnight" close to nuclear weaponizing- and waiting 'til after November would be disastrous.  Obama tells Netanyahu that if Israel waits 'til after the election, if he wins, he will stop blocking them and back them in the aftermath. But should Netanyahu trust Obama, who has arguable the worst administration regarding Israel in memory?  Iran would surely like Obama (whom they perceive as weak) to win another term, because they doubt his mettle to strike directly or support Israel if it does. And if the apocalyptic ayatollah regime manages to develop nuclear weapons within the next 7 months, it will be too late for Israel. The regime is known to be so messianic that they are willing to endure an Israeli counterstrike- if it would mean eradicating Jewish control over the Holy Land.  But Obama will not act, nor permit Israel to act to avert this potential nuclear armageddon against Israel (and perhaps the US) to ensure his re-election.

Iran Lists War Aims Against Israel  
Michael Rubin in Commentary 04.01.2012
"In his Alef (Magazine) article, Ali Reza Forqani, an ally of Iran’s Supreme Leader, goes further. After justifying a war against Israel, Ali Reza Forqani delves into how Iran should conduct its war. Lest anyone misread Iran’s intent, in a section subtitled “People of Israel must be Annihilated,” Forqani outlines how to conduct genocide:
The residents of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa can be targeted even by Shahab-3 missiles. These three areas which are located very close to each other are very densely populated and the population there accounts for about 60 percent of Israel’s entire population. Therefore, it is possible to use Sajjil missiles to target the infrastructures in this area including power plants, fuel and energy installations, water and sewage treatment facilities, transportation and communication infrastructures; and in the next stage Shahab-3, Ghadr and Ashura missiles can be used to target and strike residential areas in the cities until the final annihilation of the people of Israel.
He then outlines Iran’s missile capability, explaining how Iran could best exploit each missile in its arsenal and bragging that used properly, “Iran Could Destroy Israel in Less Than Nine Minutes.” That the Iranians might soon be able to fit the Sajjil with nuclear warheads should only heighten concern.
Iran may be lots of things; deterrable does not appear to be one of them."

Is Israel a strategic asset or liability to the West?  Middle-east analyst, Mark Langfan demonstrates what steps would follow a potential conquest of Israel by Islamist forces, either through ceding the West Bank for an Iranian sought state of Palestine, or through an Iranian axis (Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Hamas, and potentially Egypt) missile and land war. 

Mr. Langfan shows that by Israel, by militarily restricting Islamist Iran and her allies, and (potentially Islamist) Egypt from laying siege to the coveted Saudi and Gulf oil fields, Israel is the lynchpin which maintains Middle East stability. Iran's true motivation behind its "World without Zionism" crusade may not be "Palestinian nationalism" but to gain control of more of the world's petroleum resources.  An Iranian/Egyptian war against Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, would draw the involvement of the US to defend Saudi Arabia against Russia and China, allied with Iran. Iran has already warned of its intention to strike inside the US homeland, with its allied bases in Latin America and sleeper Hezbollah cells marbled thoughout North America.

This World War could catapult the price of petroleum to the $500-$1,000 per barrel range, thrusting world's economy into a global depression.  It is therefore in the world's best interest, Mr. Langfan shows, to support Israel against Iran in maintaining Middle-Eastern political and global economic stability

WASHINGTON — Israel has been alarmed by what officials determined were leaks by the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama of purported Israeli preparations to attack Iran.

A leading U.S. analyst who returned from talks with the Israeli leadership reported that the Obama administration was accused of staging a campaign to undermine Israel. The analyst, Robert Satloff, said Washington was also blaming Israel for the rise in global crude oil prices, deemed as harming the U.S. economy.

“I cannot underscore how deep and visceral the [Israeli] comments of the leaking that came out of Washington were,” Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said.
In late March, several reports were published by leading American newspapers and journals [including Foreign Policy: Israel-Azerbaijan ties could expedite Iran strike] that questioned Israel’s military capability.

One report asserted that Israel was developing a strategic relationship with Azerbaijan to pave the way for air strikes on Iran. On March 31, a U.S. official told the Israeli news web site, Ynet, that the administration was not responsible for the story on Azerbaijan.

“The United States is leaking information to the media in order to avert an Israeli strike in Iran,” Israeli military analyst Ron Ben-Yishai said.

“It is blatantly clear that reports in the past week alone have caused Israel substantive diplomatic damage, and possibly even military and operational damage.”

For his part, Satloff, who met “virtually everybody in the Iran debate,” said the Israeli leadership also saw the administration as blaming Israel for the sharp rise in U.S. gasoline prices. He said Washington attributed
the higher prices to “Israel’s posturing” on Iran.

“They (the Israelis) think the Iranians should be held responsible for the higher gasoline prices,” Satloff said.

In an address to the Institute on March 27, Satloff referred to Obama’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in early March. During the Netanyahu visit to Washington, Obama asserted that Israel was justified in taking decisions to ensure its defense in face of Iran’s nuclear threat.

“Real deep [Israeli] consternation at the highest level at what they saw after the prime minister’s visit to Washington as leaks that came out of the capital designed to undercut the President’s commitment to the right of Israeli independent sovereign action,” Satloff said.

Why Did the Administration Leak the Israel-Azerbaijan Story? @tobincommentary4.03.2012

Rather than breaking our heads on the question of just how far the Azeris are prepared to go in defying Iran for the sake of their friendship with Israel (the answer to which is as much a mystery to Yaari as it is to me), we would all do better to consider why it was so important for the State Department and the White House that this friendship be placed in jeopardy. Those pondering what a second term for President Obama would mean to Israel need to think more about the leakers’ motives than those of Perry or the editors at Foreign Policy.

John Bolton writes in the Christian Science Monitor

Israel is not the threat, Mr. Obama.  Iran is!

The Obama administration appears to be conducting a campaign of leaks to the media to stop Israel from attacking Tehran's nuclear program. It seems Obama fears an Israeli military strike more than he fears Iran achieving nuclear-weapons capability.
The Obama administration appears to be conducting an organized campaign of public pressure to stop Israel from attacking Iran’s well-developed nuclear-weapons program. So intense is this effort, and so determined is President Obama to succeed, that administration officials are now leaking highly sensitive information about Israel’s intentions and capabilities into the news media.
The president’s unwillingness to take preemptive military action against Tehran’s nuclear efforts has long been evident, notwithstanding his ritual incantation that “all options are on the table.” Equally evident is his fixation to ensure that Israel does not act unilaterally against Iran, a principal reason why Washington’s relations with Jerusalem are at their lowest ebb since Israel’s 1948 founding.
Indeed, the only conclusion to be drawn from Mr. Obama’s actions and rhetoric is that he fears an Israeli military strike more than he fears Iran achieving nuclear-weapons capability. . . .
One can assume with some confidence that Iran was not focused on the risk of Israeli bases in Azerbaijan, so hearing about it from US administration sources is a gift almost beyond measure. And one can also confidently assume that if that leak is not enough to make Israel bend its knee, more public revelations directed by the White House are only a matter of time.
Even now, Obama advisers could be revealing additional information to other governments behind closed doors. Perhaps we could ask Dmitri MedvedevNot only is this not the way to treat a close ally facing an existential challenge, it is directly contrary to America’s national interests. Israel is not the threat, Mr. President: Iran is.

No comments:

Post a Comment